[Federal Register: September 18, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 180)]
[Notices]
[Page 54647-54649]
[DOCID:fr18se06-62]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP06-433-000]

Northern Natural Gas Company; Notice of Intent to Prepare an
Environmental Assessment for the Proposed Palmyra North Expansion
Project and Request for Comments on Environmental Issues

September 12, 2006.
    The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or
Commission) will prepare an environmental assessment (EA) that will
discuss the environmental impacts of the Palmyra North Expansion
Project involving construction and operation of facilities by Northern
Natural Gas Company (Northern) in Clay County, Kansas; Saunders,
Washington, and Otoe Counties, Nebraska; Lincoln County, South Dakota;
and Cherokee and Dickinson Counties, Iowa.\1\ These facilities would
consist of modifications to existing facilities and installation of new
facilities. This EA will be used by the Commission in its decision-
making process to determine whether the project is in the public
convenience and necessity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ On August 29, 2006, Northern filed its application with the
Commission under section 7 of the Natural Gas Act and Part 157 of
the Commission's regulations. The Commission filed its notice of
application on September 6, 2006.

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

    If you are a landowner receiving this notice, you may be contacted
by a pipeline company representative about the acquisition of an
easement to construct, operate, and maintain the proposed facilities.
The pipeline company would seek to negotiate a mutually acceptable
agreement. However, if the project is approved by the Commission, that
approval conveys with it the right of eminent domain. Therefore, if
easement negotiations fail to produce an agreement, the pipeline
company could initiate condemnation proceedings in accordance with
state law.
    A fact sheet prepared by the FERC entitled ``An Interstate Natural
Gas Facility On My Land? What Do I Need To Know?'' was attached to the
project notice Northern provided to landowners. This fact sheet
addresses a number of typically asked questions, including the use of
eminent domain and how to participate in the Commission's proceedings.
It is available for viewing on the FERC Internet Web site (http://www.ferc.gov
).

Summary of the Proposed Project

    Northern proposes to expand the capacity of its Palmyra North
Facilities in Nebraska, Iowa, Kansas, and South Dakota to transport
approximately 32,100 dekatherms per day of natural gas in order to meet
agricultural and ethanol customer demand and to increase incremental
winter peak day service. Northern seeks authority to:
     Add a new Solar Centaur 40S-T4700 simple cycle turbine to
a gas-fired-turbine compressor and relocate the compressor and all
associated facilities from Clifton Compressor Station in Clay County,
Kansas to Palmyra Compressor Station in Otoe County, Nebraska;
     Install a dual-run-regulator station with associated
piping around an existing block valve at mile post (MP) 47.6 in
Saunders County, Nebraska;
     Install a flow-limiting-control-valve to its existing
Cargill Town Border Station at MP 16.9 in Washington County, Nebraska;
     Install a new meter station to an existing Northern line
at MP 65.2 in Lincoln County, South Dakota;
     Install a new 9,240-foot-long, 6-inch-diameter branch line
to existing pipelines and the Town Border Station to an existing
Northern mainline and install a new 6-inch-diameter branch line in
Dickinson County, Iowa; and
     Connect a 200-foot-long, 4-inch-diameter pipeline to an
existing Town Border Station with a new 4-inch-diameter branch line and
take-off valve in Cherokee County, Iowa.
    Northern has proposed several nonjurisdictional facilities to be
associated with the Palmyra North Expansion Project that include two
new ethanol plants, one ethanol plant expansion, an expansion of an
integrated corn processing plant, and a 20-mile-long, 6-inch-diameter
pipeline to their Millennium Plant.
    The general location of the project facilities is shown in Appendix
1.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The appendices referenced in this notice are not being
printed in the Federal Register. Copies of all appendices, other
than Appendix 1 (maps), are available on the Commission's Web site
at the ``eLibrary'' link or from the Commission's Public Reference
Room, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, or call (202)
502-8371. For instructions on connecting to eLibrary, refer to the
last page of this notice. Copies of the appendices were sent to all
those receiving this notice in the mail.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Land Requirements for Construction

    Project activities will occur on property owned by Northern, with
the majority of the project activities occurring within Northern's
existing facilities. Construction of the proposed facilities would
impact about 85.0 acres of land. Following construction, approximately
0.5 acres of new land would be maintained for operation. The remaining
84.5 acres of land would be restored and allowed to revert to its
former use.

The EA Process

    The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires the
Commission to take into account the environmental impacts that could
result from an action whenever it considers the issuance of a
Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity. NEPA also requires us
to discover and address concerns the public may have about proposals.
This process is referred to as ``scoping.'' The main goal of the
scoping process is to focus the analysis in the EA on the important
environmental issues. By this Notice of Intent, the Commission staff
requests public comments on the scope of the issues to address in the
EA. All comments received are considered during the preparation of the
EA. State and local government representatives are encouraged to notify
their constituents of this proposed action and encourage them to
comment on their areas of concern.
    In the EA, we \3\ will discuss impacts that could occur as a result
of the construction and operation of the proposed project under these
general headings:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ ``We'', ``us'', and ``our'' refer to the environmental staff
of the Office of Energy Projects (OEP).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

 Geology and Soils
 Land Use
 Water Resources and Wetlands
 Cultural Resources
 Vegetation and Wildlife
 Air Quality and Noise
 Threatened and Endangered Species
 Public Safety

    We will also evaluate possible alternatives to the proposed project
or portions of the project, and make recommendations on how to lessen
or avoid impacts on the various resource areas.
    Our independent analysis of the issues will be in the EA. Depending
on the comments received during the scoping process, the EA may be
published and mailed to Federal, state, and local agencies, public
interest groups, interested individuals, affected landowners,
newspapers, libraries, and the Commission's official service list for
this proceeding. A comment period will be allotted for review if the EA
is published. We will consider all comments on the EA before we make
our recommendations to the Commission.
    To ensure your comments are considered, please carefully follow the
instructions in the public participation section below.

Currently Identified Environmental Issues

    We have already identified several issues that we think deserve
attention based on a preliminary review of the proposed facilities and
the environmental information provided by Northern. This preliminary
list of issues may be changed based on your comments and our analysis.
     A total of 0.5 acre of agricultural land would convert to
industrial use.
     Air and noise quality may be affected by added facilities.
    Also, we have made a preliminary decision to not address the
impacts of the nonjurisdictional facilities. We will briefly describe
their location and summarize the status of state and local
environmental reviews in the EA.

Public Participation

    You can make a difference by providing us with your specific
comments or concerns about the project. By becoming a commentor, your
concerns will be addressed in the EA and considered by the Commission.
You should focus on the potential environmental effects of the
proposal, alternatives to the proposal (including alternative
locations), and measures to avoid or lessen environmental impact. The
more specific your comments, the more useful they will be. Please
carefully follow these instructions to

ensure that your comments are received in time and properly recorded:
     Send an original and two copies of your letter to: Magalie
R. Salas, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First
St., NE., Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426.
     Label one copy of the comments for the attention of OEP/
DG2E, Gas Branch 3.
     Reference Docket No. CP06-433-000.
     Mail your comments so that they will be received in
Washington, DC on or before October 14, 2006.
    Please note that we are continuing to experience delays in mail
deliveries from the U.S. Postal Service. As a result, we will include
all comments that we receive within a reasonable time frame in our
environmental analysis of this project. However, the Commission
strongly encourages electronic filing of any comments or interventions
or protests to this proceeding. See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the
instructions on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov under

the ``e-Filing'' link and the link to the User's Guide. Before you can
file comments you will need to create a free account which can be
created online.
    We may mail the EA for comment. If you are interested in receiving
it, please return the Information Request (Appendix 3). If you do not
return the Information Request, you will be taken off the mailing list.

Becoming an Intervenor

    In addition to involvement in the EA scoping process, you may want
to become an official party to the proceeding, or ``intervenor''. To
become an intervenor you must file a motion to intervene according to
Rule 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR
385.214). Intervenors have the right to seek rehearing of the
Commission's decision. Motions to Intervene should be electronically
submitted using the Commission's eFiling system at http://www.ferc.gov.

Persons without Internet access should send an original and 14 copies
of their motion to the Secretary of the Commission at the address
indicated previously. Persons filing Motions to Intervene on or before
the comment deadline indicated above must send a copy of the motion to
the Applicant. All filings, including late interventions, submitted
after the comment deadline must be served on the Applicant and all
other intervenors identified on the Commission's service list for this
proceeding. Persons on the service list with e-mail addresses may be
served electronically; others must be served a hard copy of the filing.
    Affected landowners and parties with environmental concerns may be
granted intervenor status upon showing good cause by stating that they
have a clear and direct interest in this proceeding which would not be
adequately represented by any other parties. You do not need intervenor
status to have your environmental comments considered.

Environmental Mailing List

    An effort is being made to send this notice to all individuals,
organizations, and government entities interested in and/or potentially
affected by the proposed project. This includes all landowners who are
potential right-of-way grantors, whose property may be used temporarily
for project purposes, or who own homes within distances defined in the
Commission's regulations of certain aboveground facilities. By this
notice we are also asking governmental agencies, especially those in
Appendix 2, to express their interest in becoming cooperating agencies
for the preparation of the EA.

Additional Information

    Additional information about the project is available from the
Commission's Office of External Affairs, at 1-866-208-FERC or on the
FERC Internet Web site (http://www.ferc.gov) using the eLibrary link. Click on

the eLibrary link, click on ``General Search'' and enter the docket
number excluding the last three digits in the Docket Number field. Be
sure you have selected an appropriate date range. For assistance,
please contact FERC Online Support at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or
toll free at 1-866-208-3676, or for TTY, contact<PHONE_NUMBER>. The
eLibrary link also provides access to the texts of formal documents
issued by the Commission, such as orders, notices, and rulemakings.
    In addition, the Commission now offers a free service called
eSubscription which allows you to keep track of all formal issuances
and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time
you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with
notification of these filings, document summaries and direct links to
the documents. Go to http://www.ferc.gov/esubscribenow.htm.

    Finally, public meetings or site visits will be posted on the
Commission's calendar located at http://www.ferc.gov/EventCalendar/EventsList.aspx
 along with other related information.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E6-15430 Filed 9-15-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 134 (Thursday, July 12, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 41045-41047]
[FR Doc No: 2012-15893]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2012-0104; Directorate Identifier 2011-NM-279-AD;
Amendment 39-17107; AD 2012-13-05]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain
The Boeing Company Model 777-200, -200LR, -300, -300ER, and 777F series
airplanes. This AD was prompted by a report indicating that a fire
originated near the first officer's area, which caused extensive damage
to the flight deck. This AD requires replacing the low-pressure oxygen
hoses with non-conductive low-pressure oxygen hoses in the flight
compartment. We are issuing this AD to prevent electrical current from
passing through the low-pressure oxygen hose internal anti-collapse
spring, which can cause the low-pressure oxygen hose to melt or burn,
and a consequent oxygen-fed fire in the flight compartment.

DATES: This AD is effective August 16, 2012.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of certain publications listed in the AD as of August 16,
2012.

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this AD, contact
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management,
P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, Washington 98124-2207; telephone 206-
544-5000, extension 1; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You may review copies of the referenced service
information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind
Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356. 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 AD, the regulatory evaluation,
any comments received, and other information. The address for the
Docket Office (phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>) is Document Management Facility,
U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West
Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Susan Monroe, Aerospace Engineer,
Cabin Safety and Environmental Systems Branch, ANM-150S, FAA, Seattle
Aircraft Certification Office, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-
3356; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 to include an AD that would apply to the specified products.
That NPRM published in the Federal Register on February 8, 2012 (77 FR
6518). That NPRM proposed to require replacing the low-pressure oxygen
hoses with non-conductive low-pressure oxygen hoses in the flight
compartment.

Relevant Service Information

    Since we issued the NPRM (77 FR 6518, February 8, 2012), Boeing has
issued Alert Service Bulletin 777-35A0027, Revision 1, dated April 19,
2012. This service information was issued to remove airplanes from the
effectivity that have had certain changes incorporated in production,
update warranty information, and material price information. No
additional work is necessary for airplanes changed in accordance with
Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 777-35A0027, dated December 15, 2011. We
have changed the final rule to reference Boeing Alert Service Bulletin
777-35A0027, Revision 1, dated April 19, 2012. Additionally, we have
updated the Costs of Compliance section of the final rule regarding the
parts cost and warranty information.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD. The following presents the comments received on the proposal
(77 FR 6518, February 8, 2012) and the FAA's response to each comment.

Support for the NPRM (77 FR 6518, February 8, 2012)

    The Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA) stated it supports the NPRM
(77 FR 6518, February 8, 2012).

Request To Shorten Compliance Time

    The ALPA requested we shorten the compliance time for the
replacement of the oxygen hoses from 18 months to 12 months. The
commenter based this request on the impact that an oxygen fed fire on
the flight deck would have on flight safety.
    We disagree. In developing the proposed compliance time, we
considered the safety implications, parts availability, and normal
maintenance schedules for the timely accomplishment of replacement of
the oxygen hoses. Further, the proposed compliance time is in keeping
with the manufacturers' recommended compliance time. In consideration
of all these factors, operators are always permitted to accomplish the
requirements of an AD at a time earlier than the specified compliance
time. If additional data are presented that would justify a shorter
compliance time, we may consider further rulemaking on this issue. We
have not changed the AD in this regard.

Request To Increase Compliance Time

    United Airlines requested we increase the compliance time for the
replacement of the oxygen hoses from 18 months to 24 months. The
commenter stated that based on parts availability and its normal
maintenance schedule, it believes that 24 months would be an
appropriate interval for the timely accomplishment of the actions while
maintaining an adequate level of safety.
    We disagree with increasing the compliance time. As stated
previously, in developing the proposed compliance time, we considered
the safety implications, parts availability, and normal maintenance
schedules for a timely accomplishment of replacement of the oxygen
hoses. Further, the proposed compliance time is in keeping with the
manufacturers' recommended compliance time. However, under the
provisions of paragraph (i) of the final rule, we may approve requests
for adjustments to the compliance time if data are submitted to
substantiate that such an adjustment would provide an acceptable level
of safety. We have not changed the AD in this regard.

Request To Add Applicability Language

    Boeing requested that we add language to paragraph (h) of the NPRM
(77 FR 6518, February 8, 2012), stating that this paragraph applies
only to any airplane ``affected by this AD.''
    We do not agree with the commenter's request. The applicability
statement in all AD actions lists all airplanes affected by that AD.
All of the requirements stated in an AD are applicable only to the
airplanes listed in the applicability. We find no justification for
making the requested change. We have not changed the AD in this regard.

Request for Clarification of Parts Installation Requirement

    American Airlines (American) requested clarification of the
requirement in paragraph (h) of the NPRM (77 FR 6518, February 8, 2012)
that prohibits installing certain oxygen hoses after the effective date
of the AD. American stated that the compliance time of paragraph (h) of
the NPRM is prior to the compliance date of the low-pressure oxygen
hose removal, and if a maintenance procedure is accomplished which
would require the removal of the low-pressure oxygen hose, the same
low-pressure oxygen hose cannot be re-installed.
    We agree to clarify the requirement. Once we have determined that
an unsafe condition exists, we generally specify not to allow that
condition to be introduced into the fleet. Although the word
``install'' is generally considered to be broader than the word
``replace,'' for this AD operators can interpret it as meaning
``replace'' while remaining within the intent of the ``Parts
Installation'' paragraph (paragraph (h) of this AD). By simply
reinstalling a part removed during maintenance, the operator is not
``installing'' a different part. Therefore, removing a part to gain
access and then reinstalling that same part for other maintenance
activities not associated with the AD is acceptable. We have not
changed the AD in this regard.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received,
and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting
the AD with the changes described previously.
    We also determined that these changes will not increase the
economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of the AD.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 169 airplanes of U.S. registry.
    We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per       Cost on U.S.
               Action                        Labor cost           Parts cost        product         operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Replacement.........................  18 work-hours x $85 per          $1,066           $2,596         $438,724
                                       hour = $1,530.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

     According to the manufacturer, some of the costs of this AD may be
covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on affected
individuals. We do not control warranty coverage for affected
individuals. As a result, we have included all costs in our cost
estimate.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

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

2012-13-05 The Boeing Company: Amendment 39-17107; Docket No. FAA-
2012-0104; Directorate Identifier 2011-NM-279-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective August 16, 2012.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to The Boeing Company Model 777-200, -200LR, -
300, -300ER, and 777F series airplanes; certificated in any
category; as identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 777-
35A0027, Revision 1, dated April 19, 2012.

(d) Subject

    Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC)/Air Transport Association
(ATA) of America Code 35, Oxygen.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by a report indicating that a fire
originated near the first officer's area, which caused extensive
damage to the flight deck. We are issuing this AD to prevent
electrical current from passing through the low-pressure oxygen hose
internal anti-collapse spring, which can cause the low-pressure
oxygen hose to melt or burn, and a consequent oxygen-fed fire in the
flight compartment.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Replacement

    Within 18 months after the effective date of this AD: Replace
the low-pressure oxygen hoses with non-conductive low-pressure
oxygen hoses in the flight compartment, in accordance with the
Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 777-
35A0027, dated December 15, 2011, or Boeing Alert Service Bulletin
777-35A0027, Revision 1, dated April 19, 2012.

(h) Parts Installation Prohibition

    As of the effective date of this AD, no person may install in
the airplane flight compartment oxygen system on any airplane, a
low-pressure oxygen hose having part number 57034-81220, 57034-
81320, or 57034-91100.

(i) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (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. In accordance with 14
CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local
Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending
information directly to the manager of the ACO, send it to the
attention of the person identified in the Related Information
section of this AD. Information may be emailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate
principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager
of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding
district office.

(j) Related Information

    For more information about this AD, contact Susan Monroe,
Aerospace Engineer, Cabin Safety and Environmental Systems Branch,
ANM-150S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, 1601 Lind
Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax: (425)
917-6590; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
(k) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) You must use the following service information to do the
actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise. The
Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference (IBR) of the following service information under 5 U.S.C.
552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (i) Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 777-35A0027, dated December
15, 2011.
    (ii) Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 777-35A0027, Revision 1,
dated April 19, 2012.
    (2) For service information identified in this AD, 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>; Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com.
    (3) You may review copies of the referenced service information
at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW.,
Renton, WA 98057-3356. 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/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on June 21, 2012.
John Piccola,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2012-15893 Filed 7-11-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


17221 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 68 / Tuesday, April 9, 2002 / Proposed Rules institutional, heating, and/ or cooling purposes at one or more host facilities. Cooling water means water used for contact or noncontact cooling, including water used for equipment cooling, evaporative cooling tower makeup, and dilution of effluent heat content. The intended use of the cooling water is to absorb waste heat rejected from the process or processes used, or from auxiliary operations on the facility's premises. Cooling water that is used in a manufacturing process either before or after it is used for cooling is considered process water for the purposes of calculating the percentage of a facility's intake flow that is used for cooling purposes in § 125.91( c). Diel means sample variation in organismal abundance and density over a 24 hour period due to the influence of water movement and changes in light intensity. Director means the same as defined in 40 CFR 122.2. Existing facility means any facility that commenced construction before January 17, 2002; and ( 1) Any modification of such a facility; ( 2) Any addition of a unit at such a facility for purposes of the same industrial operation; ( 3) Any addition of a unit at such a facility for purposes of a different industrial operation, if the additional unit uses an existing cooling water intake structure and the design capacity of the intake structure is not increased; or ( 4) Any facility constructed in place of such a facility, if the newly constructed facility uses an existing cooling water intake structure whose design intake flow is not increased to accommodate the intake of additional cooling water. Once through cooling water system means a system designed to withdraw water from a natural or other water source, use it at the facility to support contact and/ or noncontact cooling uses, and then discharge it to a water body without recirculation. Once through cooling systems sometimes employ canals/ channels, ponds, or nonrecirculating cooling towers to dissipate waste heat from the water before it is discharged. Phase II existing facility means any existing facility that meets the criteria specified in § 125.91.

§ 125.94 How will requirements reflecting best technology available for minimizing adverse environmental impact be established for my Phase II existing facility?

( a) You may choose one of the following three alternatives for establishing best technology available for minimizing adverse environmental impact at your site: ( 1) You may demonstrate to the Director that your existing design and construction technologies, operational measures, and/ or restoration measures meet the performance standards specified in paragraph ( b) of this section; ( 2) You may demonstrate to the Director that you have selected design and construction technologies, operational measures, and/ or restoration measures that will, in combination with any existing design and construction technologies, operational measures, and/ or restoration measures, meet the performance standards specified in paragraph ( b) of this section; or ( 3) You may demonstrate to the Director that a site specific determination of best technology available for minimizing adverse environmental impact is appropriate for your site in accordance with paragraph ( c) of this section. ( b) Performance Standards. If you choose the alternative in paragraphs ( a)( 1) or ( a)( 2) of this section, you must meet the following performance standards: ( 1) You must reduce your intake capacity to a level commensurate with the use of a closed cycle, recirculating cooling system; or ( 2) You must reduce impingement mortality of all life stages of fish and shellfish by 80 to 95 percent from the calculation baseline if your facility has a capacity utilization rate less than 15 percent, or your facility's design intake flow is 5 percent or less of the mean annual flow from a freshwater river or stream; or ( 3) You must reduce impingement mortality of all life stages of fish and shellfish by 80 to 95 percent from the calculation baseline, and you must reduce entrainment of all life stages of fish and shellfish by 60 to 90 percent from the calculation baseline if your facility has a capacity utilization rate of 15 percent or greater and withdraws cooling water from a tidal river or estuary, from an ocean, from one of the Great Lakes, or your facility's design intake flow is greater than 5 percent of the mean annual flow of a freshwater river or stream; or ( 4) If your facility withdraws cooling water from a lake ( other than one of the Great Lakes) or reservoir: ( i) You must reduce impingement mortality of all life stages of fish and shellfish by 80 to 95 percent from the calculation baseline; and ( ii) If you propose to increase your facility's design intake flow, your increased flow must not disrupt the natural thermal stratification or turnover pattern ( where present) of the source water, except in cases where the disruption is determined by any Federal, State or Tribal fish or wildlife management agency( ies) to be beneficial to the management of fisheries. ( c)( 1) Site Specific Determination of Best Technology Available. If you choose the alternative in paragraph ( a)( 3) of this section, you must demonstrate to the Director that your costs of compliance with the applicable performance standards in paragraph ( b) of this section would be significantly greater than the costs considered by the Administrator when establishing such performance standards, or that your costs would be significantly greater than the benefits of complying with such performance standards at your site. ( 2) If data specific to your facility indicate that your costs would be significantly greater than those considered by the Administrator in establishing the applicable performance standards, the Director shall make a sitespecific determination of best technology available for minimizing adverse environmental impact that is based on less costly design and construction technologies, operational measures, and/ or restoration measures to the extent justified by the significantly greater cost. The Director's site specific determination may conclude that design and construction technologies, operational measures, and/ or restoration measures in addition to those already in place are not justified because of significantly greater costs. ( 3) If data specific to your facility indicate that your costs would be significantly greater than the benefits of complying with such performance standards at your facility, the Director shall make a site specific determination of best technology available for minimizing adverse environmental impact that is based on less costly design and construction technologies, operational measures, and/ or restoration measures to the extent justified by the significantly greater costs. The Director's site specific determination may conclude that design and construction technologies, operational measures, and/ or restoration measures in addition to those already in place are not justified because the costs would be significantly greater than the benefits at your facility. ( d) Restoration Measures. In lieu of, or in combination with, reducing impingement mortality and entrainment VerDate 11< MAY> 2000 20: 32 Apr 08, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00101 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 09APP2. SGM pfrm01 PsN: 09APP2 17222 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 68 / Tuesday, April 9, 2002 / Proposed Rules by implementing design and construction technologies or operational measures to comply with the performance standards specified in paragraph ( b) of this section or the Director's determination pursuant to paragraph ( c) of this section, you may, with the Director's approval, employ restoration measures that will result in increases in fish and shellfish in the watershed. You must demonstrate to the Director that you are maintaining the fish and shellfish within the waterbody, including community structure and function, to a level comparable to those that would result if you were to employ design and construction technologies or operational measures to meet that portion of the requirements of paragraphs ( b) or ( c) of this section that you are meeting through restoration. Your demonstration must address species that the Director, in consultation with Federal, State, and Tribal fish and wildlife management agencies with responsibility for fisheries and wildlife potentially affected by your cooling water intake structure, identifies as species of concern. ( e) More Stringent Standards. The Director may establish more stringent requirements as best technology available for minimizing adverse environmental impact if the Director determines that your compliance with the applicable requirements of paragraphs ( b) and ( c) of this section would not meet the requirements of other applicable Federal, State, or Tribal law. ( f) If the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has determined that your compliance with this subpart would result in a conflict with a safety requirement established by the Commission, the Director shall make a site specific determination of best technology available for minimizing adverse environmental impact that is less stringent than the requirements of this subpart to the extent necessary for you to comply with the Commission's safety requirement. ( g) You must submit the application information required in § 125.95, implement the monitoring requirements specified in § 125.96, and implement the record keeping requirements specified at § 125.97.

§ 125.95 As an owner or operator of a Phase II existing facility, what must I collect and submit when I apply for my reissued NPDES permit? ( a) You must submit to the Director the application information required by 40 CFR 122.21( r)( 2), ( 3) and ( 5) and the Comprehensive Demonstration required by paragraph ( b) of this section at least 180 days before your existing permit expires, in accordance with § 122.21( d)( 2). ( b) Comprehensive Demonstration Study. All facilities except those deemed to have met the performance standards in accordance with § 125.94( b)( 1), must submit a Comprehensive Demonstration Study ( Study). This information is required to characterize impingement mortality and entrainment, the operation of your cooling water intake structures, and to confirm that the technology( ies), operational measures, and/ or restoration measures you have selected and/ or implemented at your cooling water intake structure meet the applicable requirements of § 125.94. The Comprehensive Demonstration Study must include: ( 1) Proposal For Information Collection. You must submit to the Director for review and approval a description of the information you will use to support your Study. The proposal must include: ( i) A description of the proposed and/ or implemented technology( ies), operational measures, and/ or restoration measures to be evaluated in the Study; ( ii) A list and description of any historical studies characterizing impingement and entrainment and/ or the physical and biological conditions in the vicinity of the cooling water intake structures and their relevance to this proposed Study. If you propose to use existing data, you must demonstrate the extent to which the data are representative of current conditions and that the data were collected using appropriate quality assurance/ quality control procedures; ( iii) A summary of any past, ongoing, or voluntary consultation with appropriate Federal, State, and Tribal fish and wildlife agencies that is relevant to this Study and a copy of written comments received as a result of such consultation; and ( iv) A sampling plan for any new field studies you propose to conduct in order to ensure that you have sufficient data to develop a scientifically valid estimate of impingement and entrainment at your site. The sampling plan must document all methods and quality assurance/ quality control procedures for sampling and data analysis. The sampling and data analysis methods you propose must be appropriate for a quantitative survey and include consideration of the methods used in other studies performed in the source waterbody. The sampling plan must include a description of the study area ( including the area of influence of the cooling water intake structure), and provide a taxonomic identification of the sampled or evaluated biological assemblages ( including all life stages of fish and shellfish). ( 2) Source Waterbody Flow Information. You must submit to the Director the following source waterbody flow information: ( i) If your cooling water intake structure is located in a freshwater river or stream, you must provide the annual mean flow of the waterbody and any supporting documentation and engineering calculations to support your analysis of which requirements specified in § 125.94( b)( 2) or ( 3) would apply to your facility based on its water intake flow in proportion to the mean annual flow of the river or steam; and ( ii) If your cooling water intake structure is located in a lake ( other than one of the Great Lakes) or reservoir and you propose to increase your facility's design intake flow, you must provide a narrative description of the thermal stratification in the water body, and any supporting documentation and engineering calculations to show that the natural thermal stratification and turnover pattern will not be disrupted by the increased flow in a way that adversely impacts water quality or fisheries. ( 3) Impingement Mortality and Entrainment Characterization Study. You must submit to the Director an Impingement Mortality and Entrainment Characterization Study whose purpose is to provide information to support the development of a calculation baseline for evaluating impingement mortality and entrainment and to characterize current impingement mortality and entrainment. The Impingement Mortality and Entrainment Characterization Study must include: ( i) Taxonomic identifications of those species of fish and shellfish and their life stages that are in the vicinity of the cooling water intake structure and are most susceptible to impingement and entrainment; ( ii) A characterization of those species of fish and shellfish and life stages pursuant to paragraph ( b)( 3)( i) of this section, including a description of the abundance and temporal/ spatial characteristics in the vicinity of the cooling water intake structure, based on the collection of a sufficient number of years of data to characterize annual, seasonal, and diel variations in impingement mortality and entrainment ( e. g., related to climate/ weather differences, spawning, feeding and water column migration); ( iii) Documentation of the current impingement mortality and entrainment of all life stages of fish and shellfish at VerDate 11< MAY> 2000 20: 32 Apr 08, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00102 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 09APP2. SGM pfrm01 PsN: 09APP2 17223 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 68 / Tuesday, April 9, 2002 / Proposed Rules your facility and an estimate of impingement mortality and entrainment under the calculation baseline. The documentation may include historical data that are representative of the current operation of your facility and of biological conditions at the site. Impingement mortality and entrainment samples to support the calculations required in paragraph ( b)( 4)( iii) and ( b)( 5)( ii) of this section must be collected during periods of representative operational flows for the cooling water intake structure and the flows associated with the samples must be documented; ( iv) An identification of species that are protected under Federal, State, or Tribal law ( including threatened or endangered species) that might be susceptible to impingement and entrainment by the cooling water intake structure( s). ( 4) Design and Construction Technology Plan. If you choose to use design and construction technologies or operational measures in whole or in part to meet the requirements of § 125.94, you must submit a Design and Construction Technology Plan to the Director for review and approval. In the plan you must provide the capacity utilization rate for your facility and provide supporting data ( including the average annual net generation of the facility ( in Mwh) measured over a five year period ( if available) of representative operating conditions and the total net capacity of the facility ( in MW)) and calculations. The plan must explain the technologies and operational measures you have in place or have selected to meet the requirements in § 125.94. ( Examples of potentially appropriate technologies may include, but are not limited to, wedgewire screens, fine mesh screens, fish handling and return systems, barrier nets, aquatic filter barrier systems, and enlargement of the cooling water intake structure opening to reduce velocity. Examples of potentially appropriate operational measures may include, but are not limited to, seasonal shutdowns or reductions in flow, and continuous operations of screens.) The plan must contain the following information: ( i) A narrative description of the design and operation of all design and construction technologies or operational measures ( existing and proposed), including fish handling and return systems, that you have in place or will use to meet the requirements to reduce impingement mortality of those species expected to be most susceptible to impingement, and information that demonstrates the efficacy of the technology for those species; ( ii) A narrative description of the design and operation of all design and construction technologies or operational measures ( existing and proposed) that you have in place or will use to meet the requirements to reduce entrainment of those species expected to be the most susceptible to entrainment, if applicable, and information that demonstrates the efficacy of the technology for those species; ( iii) Calculations of the reduction in impingement mortality and entrainment of all life stages of fish and shellfish that would be achieved by the technologies and operational measures you have selected based on the Impingement Mortality and Entrainment Characterization Study in paragraph ( b)( 3) of this section. In determining compliance with any requirements to reduce impingement mortality or entrainment, you must assess the total reduction in impingement mortality and entrainment against the calculations baseline determined in paragraph ( b)( 3) of this section. Reductions in impingement mortality and entrainment from this calculation baseline as a result of any design and construction technologies and operational measures already implemented at your facility should be added to the reductions expected to be achieved by any additional design and construction technologies and operational measures that will be implemented, and any increases in fish and shellfish within the waterbody attributable to your restoration measures. Facilities that recirculate a portion of their flow may take into account the reduction in impingement mortality and entrainment associated with the reduction in flow when determining the net reduction associated with existing technology and operational measures. This estimate must include a site specific evaluation of the suitability of the technology( ies) based on the species that are found at the site, and/ or operational measures and may be determined based on representative studies ( i. e., studies that have been conducted at cooling water intake structures located in the same waterbody type with similar biological characteristics) and/ or site specific technology prototype studies; ( iv) Documentation which demonstrates that the location, design, construction, and capacity of the cooling water intake structure technologies you have selected reflect best technology available for meeting the applicable requirements in § 125.94; ( v) Design calculations, drawings, and estimates to support the descriptions required by paragraphs ( b)( 4)( ii) and ( iii) of this section. ( 5) Information to Support Proposed Restoration Measures. If you propose to use restoration measures to meet the performance standards in § 125.94, you must submit the following information with your application for review and approval by the Director: ( i) A list and narrative description of the restoration measures you have selected and propose to implement; ( ii) A quantification of the combined benefits from implementing design and construction technologies, operational measures and/ or restoration measures and the proportion of the benefits that can be attributed to each. This quantification must include: the percent reduction in impingement mortality and entrainment that would be achieved through the use of any design and construction technologies or operational measures that you have selected ( i. e., the benefits you would achieve through impingement and entrainment reduction); a demonstration of the benefits that could be attributed to the restoration measures you have selected; and a demonstration that the combined benefits of the design and construction technology( ies), operational measures, and/ or restoration measures will maintain fish and shellfish at a level comparable to that which would be achieved under § 125.94. If it is not possible to demonstrate quantitatively that restoration measures such as creation of new habitats to serve as spawning or nursery areas or establishment of riparian buffers will achieve comparable performance, you may make a qualitative demonstration that such measures will maintain fish and shellfish in the waterbody at a level substantially similar to that which would be achieved under § 125.94; ( iii) A plan for implementing and maintaining the efficacy of the restoration measures you have selected and supporting documentation to show that the restoration measures, or the restoration measures in combination with design and construction technology( ies) and operational measures, will maintain the fish and shellfish in the waterbody, including the community structure and function, to a level comparable or substantially similar to that which would be achieved through § 125.94( b) or ( c); ( iv) A summary of any past, ongoing, or voluntary consultation with appropriate Federal, State, and Tribal fish and wildlife agencies regarding the proposed restoration measures that is relevant to this Study and a copy of any written comments received as a result of such consultation; and VerDate 11< MAY> 2000 20: 32 Apr 08, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00103 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 09APP2. SGM pfrm01 PsN: 09APP2 17224 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 68 / Tuesday, April 9, 2002 / Proposed Rules ( v) Design and engineering calculations, drawings, and maps documenting that your proposed restoration measures will meet the restoration performance standard at § 125.94( d). ( 6) Information to Support Sitespecific Determination of Best Technology Available for Minimizing Adverse Environmental Impact. If you have chosen to request a site specific determination of best technology available for minimizing adverse environmental impact pursuant to § 125.94( c) because of costs significantly greater than those EPA considered in establishing the requirements at issue, or because costs are significantly greater than the benefits of complying with the otherwise applicable requirements of § 125.94( b) and ( e) at your site, you must provide the following additional information with your application for review by the Director: ( i) Comprehensive Cost Evaluation Study. You must perform and submit the results of a Comprehensive Cost Evaluation Study. This information is required to document the costs of implementing your Design and Construction Plan under § 125.95( b)( 4) above and the costs of the alternative technologies and operational measures you propose to implement at your site. You must submit detailed engineering cost estimates to document the costs of implementing the technologies or operational measures in your Design and Construction Plan. ( ii) Valuation of the Monetized Benefits of Reducing Impingement and Entrainment. If you are seeking a sitespecific determination of best technology available for minimizing adverse environmental impact because of costs significantly greater than the benefits of complying with the otherwise applicable requirements of § 125.94( b) and ( e) at your site, you must use a comprehensive methodology to fully value the impacts of impingement mortality and entrainment at your site and the benefits achievable by compliance with the applicable requirements of § 125.94. The benefit study must include a description of the methodology used, the basis for any assumptions and quantitative estimates, and an analysis of the effects of significant sources of uncertainty on the results of the study. ( iii) Site Specific Technology Plan. Based on the results of the Comprehensive Cost Evaluation Study and the valuation of the monetized benefits of reducing impingement and entrainment required by paragraphs ( b)( 7))( i) and ( ii) of this section, you must submit a Site Specific Technology Plan to the Director for review and approval. The plan must contain the following information: ( A) A narrative description of the design and operation of all design and construction technologies and operational measures, and restoration measures ( existing and proposed) that you have selected in accordance with § 125.94( d), and information that demonstrates the efficacy of the technology for those species; ( B) An engineering estimate of the efficacy of the proposed and/ or implemented technologies or operational measures for reducing impingement mortality and entrainment of all life stages of fish and shellfish. This estimate must include a sitespecific evaluation of the suitability of the technologies or operational measures for reducing impingement mortality and entrainment based on representative studies ( e. g., studies that have been conducted at cooling water intake structures located in the same waterbody type with similar biological characteristics) and/ or site specific technology prototype studies; ( C) Documentation which demonstrates that the technologies, operational measures, or restoration measures selected would reduce impingement mortality and entrainment to the extent necessary to satisfy the requirements of § 125.94; and ( D) Design calculations, drawings, and estimates to support the descriptions required by paragraphs ( b)( 6)( iii)( A) and ( B) of this section. ( 7) Verification Monitoring Plan. You must include in the Study a plan to conduct, at a minimum, two years of monitoring to verify the full scale performance of the proposed or implemented technologies, operational measures, or restoration measures. The verification study must begin once the technologies, operational measures, and restoration measures are implemented and continue for a period of time that is sufficient to demonstrate that the facility is reducing the level of impingement and entrainment to the levels documented pursuant to paragraphs ( b)( 4)( iii), ( b)( 5)( ii), and/ or ( b)( 6)( iii)( B) of this section. The plan must describe the frequency of monitoring and the parameters to be monitored and the basis for determining the parameters and the frequency and duration for monitoring. The plan must also describe the information to be included in a yearly status report to the Director. The Director will use the verification monitoring to confirm that you are meeting the applicable requirements of § 125.94. § 125.96 As an owner or operator of a Phase II existing facility, what monitoring must I perform? As an owner or operator of a Phase II existing facility, you must perform monitoring as specified by the Director to demonstrate compliance with the applicable requirements of § 125.94.

§ 125.97 As an owner or operator of a Phase II existing facility, what records must I keep and what information must I report? As an owner or operator of a Phase II existing facility you are required to keep records and report information and data to the Director as follows: ( a) You must keep records of all the data used to complete the permit application and show compliance with the requirements of § 125.94, any supplemental information developed under § 125.95, and any compliance monitoring data conducted under § 125.96, for a period of at least three ( 3) years. The Director may require that these records be kept for a longer period. ( b) You must provide annually to the Director a status report that includes appropriate monitoring data as specified by the Director.

§ 125.98 As the Director, what must I do to comply with the requirements of this subpart? ( a) Permit Application. As the Director, you must review materials submitted by the applicant under 40 CFR 122.21( r) and § 125.95 before each permit renewal or reissuance. ( 1) After receiving the permit application from the owner or operator of a Phase II existing facility, the Director must determine which of the standards specified in § 125.94 to apply to the facility. In addition, the Director must review materials to determine compliance with the applicable standards. ( 2) At each permit renewal, the Director must review the application materials and monitoring data to determine whether requirements, or additional requirements, for design and construction technologies or operational measures should be included in the permit. ( b) Permitting Requirements. Section 316( b) requirements are implemented for a facility through an NPDES permit. As the Director, you must consider the information submitted by the Phase II existing facility in its permit application, and determine the appropriate requirements and conditions to include in the permit based on the alternative for establishing best technology available chosen by the facility. The following requirements must be included in each permit:

VerDate 11< MAY> 2000 20: 32 Apr 08, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00104 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 09APP2. SGM pfrm01 PsN: 09APP2 17225 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 68 / Tuesday, April 9, 2002 / Proposed Rules ( 1) Cooling Water Intake Structure Requirements. The permit conditions must include the performance standards that implement the requirements of § 125.94( b)( 2), ( 3), and ( 4); § 125.94( c)( 1) and ( 2); § 125.94( d); § 125.94( e); and § 125.94( f). In determining compliance with the flow requirement in § 125.94( b)( 4)( ii), the Director must consider anthropogenic factors ( those not considered `` natural'') unrelated to the Phase II existing facility's cooling water intake structure that can influence the occurrence and location of a thermocline. These include source water inflows, other water withdrawals, managed water uses, wastewater discharges, and flow/ level management practices ( e. g., some reservoirs release water from deeper bottom layers). The Director must coordinate with appropriate Federal, State, or Tribal fish or wildlife agencies to determine if any disruption is beneficial to the management of fisheries. ( i) You must review the Design and Construction Technology Plan required in § 125.96( b)( 4) to evaluate the suitability and feasibility of the technology or operational measures proposed to meet the requirements of § 125.94. In each reissued permit, you must include a condition requiring the facility to reduce impingement mortality and entrainment commensurate with the implementation of the technologies in the permit. In considering a permit application, the Director must review the performance of the technologies implemented and require additional or different design and construction technologies, if needed, to meet the impingement mortality and entrainment reduction requirements for all life stages of fish and shellfish. In addition, you may consider any chemical, water quality, and other anthropogenic stresses on the source waterbody in order to determine whether more stringent conditions are needed to comply with the requirements of other applicable Federal, State, or Tribal law in accordance with § 125.94( e). ( ii) If you determine that restoration measures are appropriate at the Phase II existing facility, you must review the Information to Support Proposed Restoration Measures required under § 125.95( b)( 5) and determine whether the proposed measures, alone or in combination with design and construction technologies and operational measures, will maintain the fish and shellfish in the waterbody at a comparable level to that which would be achieved under § 125.94. If the application includes a qualitative demonstration for restoration measures that will result in increases in fish and shellfish that are difficult to quantify, you must determine whether the proposed measures will maintain fish and shellfish in the waterbody at a level substantially similar to that which would be achieved under § 125.94. You must also review and approve the proposed Verification Monitoring Plan submitted under § 125.95( b)( 7) and require that the monitoring continue for a sufficient period of time to demonstrate that the restoration measures meet the requirements of § 125.94( d). ( iii) For a facility that requests requirements based on site specific best technology available for minimizing adverse environmental impact, you must review the application materials and any other information you may have that would be relevant to a determination of whether alternative requirements are appropriate for the facility. If you determine that alternative requirements are appropriate, you must make a site specific determination of best technology available for minimizing adverse environmental impact in accordance with § 125.95( c). ( 2) Monitoring Conditions. The permit must require the permittee to perform the monitoring required in § 125.96. In determining applicable monitoring requirements, the Director must consider the facility's verification monitoring plan, as appropriate. You may modify the monitoring program when the permit is reissued and during the term of the permit based on changes in physical or biological conditions in the vicinity of the cooling water intake structure. ( 3) Record Keeping and Reporting. At a minimum, the permit must require the permittee to report and keep records as required by § 125.97.

[ FR Doc. 02   5597 Filed 4   8   02; 8: 45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560   50   P VerDate 11< MAY> 2000 20: 32 Apr 08, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00105 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 09APP2. SGM pfrm01 PsN: 09APP2


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 57 (Friday, March 23, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 16910-16914]
[FR Doc No: 2012-6957]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 25

[Docket No. FAA-2012-0311; Special Conditions No. 25-458-SC]

Special Conditions: Boeing Model 787 Series Airplanes; Single-
place Side-facing Seats With Inflatable Lapbelts

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final special conditions; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: These special conditions are issued for the Boeing Model 787
series airplanes. These airplanes have a novel or unusual design
feature associated with single-place side-facing seats with inflatable
lapbelts. The applicable airworthiness regulations do not contain
adequate or appropriate safety standards for this design feature. These
special conditions contain the additional safety standards that the
Administrator considers necessary to establish a level of safety
equivalent to that established by the existing airworthiness standards.

DATES: The effective date of these special conditions is March 12,
2012. We must receive your comments by April 23, 2012.

ADDRESSES: Send comments identified by docket number FAA-2012-0311
using any of the following methods:
     Federal eRegulations Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov/ and follow the online instructions for sending
your comments electronically.
     Mail: Send comments to Docket Operations, M-30, U.S.
Department of Transportation (DOT), 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room
W12-140, West Building Ground Floor, Washington, DC, 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: Take comments to Docket
Operations in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except federal holidays.
     Fax: Fax comments to Docket Operations at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
Privacy: The FAA will post all comments it receives, without change, to
http://www.regulations.gov/, including any personal information the
commenter provides. Using the search function of the docket Web site,
anyone can find and read the electronic form of all comments received
into any FAA docket, including the name of the individual sending the
comment (or signing the comment for an association, business, labor
union, etc.). DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement can be found in the
Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-19478), as
well as at http://DocketsInfo.dot.gov/.
    Docket: Background documents or comments received may be read at
http://www.regulations.gov/ at any time. Follow the online instructions
for accessing the docket or go to the Docket Operations in Room W12-140
of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeff Gardlin, FAA, Airframe and Cabin
Safety Branch, ANM-115, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft
Certification Service, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington 98057-
3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; facsimile<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FAA has determined that notice of, and
opportunity for prior public comment on, these special conditions are
impracticable because these procedures would significantly delay
delivery of the affected aircraft. In addition, the substance of these
special conditions has been subject to the public-comment process in
several prior instances with no substantive comments received. The FAA
therefore finds that good cause exists for making these special
conditions effective upon issuance.

Comments Invited

    We invite interested people to take part in this rulemaking by
sending written comments, data, or views. The most helpful comments
reference a specific portion of the special conditions, explain the
reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data.
    We will consider all comments we receive by the closing date for
comments. We may change these special conditions based on the comments
we receive.

Background

    On March 28, 2003, Boeing Commercial Airplanes applied for an FAA
type certificate for its new Model 787 series airplane (hereafter
referred to as ``787''). The 787 is an all-new, twin-engine jet
transport airplane with a two-aisle cabin which is currently approved
under Type Certificate No. T000215E. The maximum takeoff weight is
476,000 pounds, with a maximum passenger count of 381. These airplanes
have a novel or unusual design feature associated with single-place
side-facing seats with inflatable lapbelts. The inflatable lapbelt is
designed to limit occupant forward excursion in the event of an
accident. This will reduce the potential for head injury, thereby
reducing the Head Injury Criteria (HIC) measurement. The inflatable
lapbelt behaves similarly to an automotive airbag, but in this case the
airbag is integrated into the lapbelt, and inflates away from the
seated occupant. While airbags are now standard in the automotive
industry, the use of an inflatable lapbelt is novel for commercial
aviation.
    Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) 121.311(j) requires
that no person may operate a transport category airplane type
certificated after January 1, 1958, and manufactured on or after
October 27, 2009, in passenger-carrying operations, after October 27,
2009, unless all passenger and flight attendant side-facing seats on an
airplane operated under part 121 rules meet the

requirements of 14 CFR 25.562 in effect on or after June 16, 1988.
    Amendment 25-15 to part 25, dated October 24, 1967, introduced the
subject of side-facing seats and a requirement that each occupant in a
side-facing seat must be protected from head injury by a safety belt
and a cushioned rest that will support the arms, shoulders, head, and
spine.
    Subsequently, Amendment 25-20 to part 25, dated April 23, 1969,
clarified the definition of side-facing seats to require that each
occupant of a seat that makes more than an 18 degree angle with the
vertical plane containing the airplane centerline, must be protected
from head injury by a safety belt and an energy absorbing rest that
will support the arms, shoulders, head, and spine, or by a safety belt
and shoulder harness that will prevent the head from contacting any
injurious object. The FAA concluded that an 18-degree angle would
provide an adequate level of safety based on tests that were performed
at that time and thus adopted that standard.
    Part 25 was amended June 16, 1988, by Amendment 25-64, to revise
the emergency landing conditions that must be considered in the design
of the airplane. Amendment 25-64 revised the static load conditions in
Sec.  25.561, and added a new Sec.  25.562 that required dynamic
testing for all seats approved for occupancy during takeoff and
landing. The intent of Amendment 25-64 is to provide an improved level
of safety for occupants on transport category airplanes. Because most
seating is forward-facing on transport category airplanes, the pass/
fail criteria developed in Amendment 25-64 focused primarily on these
seats. As a result, the FAA issued Policy Memorandums ANM-03-115-30 and
PS-ANM-100-2000-00123 to provide the additional guidance necessary to
demonstrate the level of safety required by the regulations for side-
facing seats.
    The 787, operated under part 121, must meet all of the requirements
of Sec.  25.562 for passenger and flight attendant seats. Therefore it
is in the interest of installers to show full compliance to Sec.
25.562, so that an operator under part 121 may be able to use the
aircraft without having to do additional certification work. It is also
noted that some foreign civil airworthiness authorities have invoked
these same operator requirements in the form of airworthiness
directives.
    Section 25.785 requires that occupants be protected from head
injury by either the elimination of any injurious object within the
striking radius of the head, or by padding. Traditionally, this has
required a set back of 35 inches from any bulkhead or other rigid
interior feature or, where not practical, specified types of padding.
The relative effectiveness of these means of injury protection was not
quantified. With the adoption of Amendment 25-64 to part 25,
specifically Sec.  25.562, a new standard that quantifies required head
injury protection was created.
    Section 25.562 specifies that each seat type design approved for
crew or passenger occupancy during takeoff and landing must
successfully complete dynamic tests or be shown to be compliant by
rational analysis based on dynamic tests of a similar type seat. In
particular, the regulations require that persons not suffer serious
head injury under the conditions specified in the tests, and that
protection must be provided or the seat be designed so that the head
impact does not exceed a HIC of 1000 units. While the test conditions
described for HIC are detailed and specific, it is the intent of the
requirement that an adequate level of head injury protection be
provided for passengers in a severe crash.
    Because Sec. Sec.  25.562 and 25.785 and associated guidance do not
adequately address side-facing seats with inflatable lapbelts, the FAA
recognizes that appropriate pass/fail criteria need to be developed
that do fully address the safety concerns specific to occupants of
these seats. These criteria were to be implemented via special
conditions.
    The inflatable lapbelt has two potential advantages over other
means of head impact protection. First, it can provide significantly
greater protection than would be expected with energy-absorbing pads,
and second, it can provide essentially equivalent protection for
occupants of all stature. These are significant advantages from a
safety standpoint, since such devices will likely provide a level of
safety that exceeds the minimum standards of the CFR. Conversely,
inflatable lapbelts in general are active systems and must be relied
upon to activate properly when needed, as opposed to an energy-
absorbing pad or upper torso restraint that is passive, and always
available. Therefore, the potential advantages must be balanced against
this and other potential disadvantages in order to develop standards
for this design feature.
    The FAA has considered the installation of inflatable lapbelts to
have two primary safety concerns: First, that they perform properly
under foreseeable operating conditions, and second, that they do not
perform in a manner or at such times as would constitute a hazard to
the airplane or occupants. This latter point has the potential to be
the more rigorous of the requirements, owing to the active nature of
the system.
    The inflatable lapbelt will rely on electronic sensors for
signaling and a stored gas canister for inflation. These same devices
could be susceptible to inadvertent activation, causing deployment in a
potentially unsafe manner. The consequences of inadvertent deployment
as well as failure to deploy must be considered in establishing the
reliability of the system. Boeing must substantiate that the effects of
an inadvertent deployment in flight either would not cause injuries to
occupants or that such deployment(s) meet the requirement of Sec.
25.1309(b). The effect of an inadvertent deployment on a passenger or
crewmember that might be positioned close to the inflatable lapbelt
should also be considered. The person could be either standing or
sitting. A minimum reliability level will have to be established for
this case, depending upon the consequences, even if the effect on the
airplane is negligible.
    The potential for an inadvertent deployment could be increased as a
result of conditions in service. The installation must take into
account wear and tear so that the likelihood of an inadvertent
deployment is not increased to an unacceptable level. In this context,
an appropriate inspection interval and self-test capability are
considered necessary. Other outside influences are lightning and high
intensity radiated fields (HIRF). Existing regulations regarding
lightning, Sec.  25.1316, and existing HIRF special condition for the
787 series airplanes, Special conditions No. 25-354A-SC, are
applicable. Finally, the inflatable lapbelt installation should be
protected from the effects of fire, so that an additional hazard is not
created by, for example, a rupture of the pyrotechnic squib.
    In order to be an effective safety system, the inflatable lapbelt
must function properly and must not introduce any additional hazards to
occupants as a result of its functioning. There are several areas where
the inflatable lapbelt differs from traditional occupant protection
systems, and requires special conditions to ensure adequate
performance.
    Because the inflatable lapbelt is essentially a single use device,
there is the potential that it could deploy under crash conditions that
are not sufficiently severe as to require head injury protection from
the inflatable lapbelt. Since an actual crash is frequently composed of
a series of impacts before the airplane comes to rest, this could

render the inflatable lapbelt useless if a larger impact follows the
initial impact. This situation does not exist with energy absorbing
pads or upper torso restraints, which tend to provide continuous
protection regardless of severity or number of impacts in a crash
event. Therefore, the inflatable lapbelt installation should provide
protection when it is required, by not expending its protection during
a less severe impact. Also, it is possible to have several large impact
events during the course of a crash, but there is no requirement for
the inflatable lapbelt to provide protection for multiple impacts.
    Since each occupant's restraint system provides protection for that
occupant only, the installation must address seats that are unoccupied.
It will be necessary to show that the required protection is provided
for each occupant regardless of the number of occupied seats, and
considering that unoccupied seats may have lapbelts that are active.
    The inflatable lapbelt should be effective for a wide range of
occupants. The FAA has historically considered the range from the fifth
percentile female to the ninety-fifth percentile male as the range of
occupants that must be taken into account. In this case, the FAA is
proposing consideration of a broader range of occupants, due to the
nature of the lapbelt installation and its close proximity to the
occupant. In a similar vein, these persons could have assumed the brace
position, for those accidents where an impact is anticipated. Test data
indicate that occupants in the brace position do not require
supplemental protection, and so it would not be necessary to show that
the inflatable lapbelt will enhance the brace position. However, the
inflatable lapbelt must not introduce a hazard in that case when
deploying into the seated, braced occupant.
    Another area of concern is the use of seats, so equipped, by
children whether lap-held, in approved child safety seats, or occupying
the seat directly. Although specifically prohibited by the FAA
operating regulations, the use of the supplementary loop belt (``belly
belt'') may be required by other civil aviation authorities, and should
also be considered with the end goal of meeting those regulations.
Similarly, if the seat is occupied by a pregnant woman, the
installation needs to address such usage, either by demonstrating that
it will function properly, or by adding appropriate limitation on
usage.
    Since the inflatable lapbelt will be electrically powered, there is
the possibility that the system could fail due to a separation in the
fuselage. Since this system is intended as crash/post-crash protection
means, failure to deploy due to fuselage separation is not acceptable.
As with emergency lighting, the system should function properly if such
a separation occurs at any point in the fuselage.
    Since the inflatable lapbelt is likely to have a large volume
displacement, the inflated bag could potentially impede egress of
passengers. Since the bag deflates to absorb energy, it is likely that
an inflatable lapbelt would be deflated at the time that persons would
be trying to leave their seats. Nonetheless, it is considered
appropriate to specify a time interval after which the inflatable
lapbelt may not impede rapid egress. Ten seconds has been chosen as a
reasonable time since this corresponds to the maximum time allowed for
an exit to be openable (Sec.  25.809). In actuality, it is unlikely
that an exit would be prepared by a flight attendant this quickly in an
accident severe enough to warrant deployment of the inflatable lapbelt,
and the inflatable lapbelt is expected to deflate much quicker than ten
seconds.
    In addition, during the development of the inflatable lapbelt, the
manufacturer was unable to develop a fabric that would meet the
inflation requirements for the bag and the flammability requirements of
Part I(a)(1)(ii) of appendix F to part 25. The fabrics that were
developed that meet the flammability requirement did not produce
acceptable deployment characteristics. However, the manufacturer was
able to develop a fabric that meets the less stringent flammability
requirements of Part I(a)(1)(iv) of appendix F to part 25 and has
acceptable deployment characteristics.
    Part I of appendix F to part 25 specifies the flammability
requirements for interior materials and components. There is no
reference to inflatable restraint systems in appendix F, because such
devices did not exist at the time the flammability requirements were
written. The existing requirements are based on both material types, as
well as use, and have been specified in light of the state-of-the-art
of materials available to perform a given function. In the absence of a
specific reference, the default requirement would be for the type of
material used to construct the inflatable restraint, which is a fabric
in this case. However, in writing special conditions, the FAA must also
consider the use of the material, and whether the default requirement
is appropriate. In this case, the specialized function of the
inflatable restraint means that highly specialized materials are
needed. The standard normally applied to fabrics is a 12-second
vertical ignition test. However, materials that meet this standard do
not perform adequately as inflatable restraints. Since the safety
benefit of the inflatable restraint is very significant, the
flammability standard appropriate for these devices should not screen
out suitable materials, thereby effectively eliminating use of
inflatable restraints. The FAA will need to establish a balance between
the safety benefit of the inflatable restraint and its flammability
performance. At this time, the 2.5-inch per minute horizontal test is
considered to provide that balance. As the state-of-the-art in
materials progresses (which is expected), the FAA may change this
standard in subsequent special conditions to account for improved
materials.
    Finally, it should be noted that the special conditions are
applicable to single-place side-facing seats with an inflatable lapbelt
system installed. The special conditions are not an installation
approval. Therefore, while the special conditions relate to each such
system installed, the overall installation approval is a separate
finding, and must consider the combined effects of all such systems
installed.

Type Certification Basis

    Under the provisions of 14 CFR 21.17, Boeing Commercial Airplanes
must show that the 787 series airplanes meet the applicable provisions
of part 25, as amended by Amendments 25-1 through 25-120, 25.125, 25-
125, and 25-128 with the following exception: Sec.  25.1309 remains at
Amendment 25-119 for cargo fire protection systems.
    If the Administrator finds that the applicable airworthiness
regulations (i.e., 14 CFR part 25) do not contain adequate or
appropriate safety standards for the 787 series airplanes because of a
novel or unusual design feature, special conditions are prescribed
under the provisions of Sec.  21.16.
    Special conditions are initially applicable to the model for which
they are issued. Should the type certificate for that model be amended
later to include any other model that incorporates the same novel or
unusual design feature, the special conditions would also apply to the
other model.
    In addition to the applicable airworthiness regulations and special
conditions, the 787 series airplanes must comply with the fuel vent and
exhaust emission requirements of 14 CFR part 34 and the noise
certification requirements of 14 CFR part 36; and the FAA must issue a
finding of regulatory

adequacy under Sec.  611 of Public Law 92-574, the ``Noise Control Act
of 1972.''
    The FAA issues special conditions, as defined in 14 CFR 11.19, in
accordance with Sec.  11.38, and they become part of the type-
certification basis under Sec.  21.17(a)(2).

Novel or Unusual Design Features

    The 787 series airplanes incorporate the following novel or unusual
design features: Boeing Commercial Airplanes is installing single-place
side-facing seats with inflatable lapbelts on certain seats of 787
series airplanes, in order to reduce the potential for head and neck
injury in the event of an accident. The inflatable lapbelt works
similar to an automotive airbag, except that the airbag is integrated
with the lapbelt of the restraint system.
    The CFR states the performance criteria for head injury protection
in objective terms. However, none of these criteria are adequate to
address the specific issues raised concerning single-place side-facing
seats with inflatable lapbelts. The FAA has therefore determined that,
in addition to the requirements of part 25, special conditions are
needed to address requirements particular to installation of single-
place side-facing seats with inflatable lapbelts.
    Accordingly, in addition to the passenger injury criteria specified
in Sec.  25.785, these special conditions are adopted for the 787
series airplanes equipped with single-place side-facing seats with
inflatable lapbelts. Other conditions may be developed, as needed,
based on further FAA review and discussions with the manufacturer and
civil aviation authorities.

Discussion

    From the standpoint of a passenger safety system, the inflatable
lapbelt is unique in that it is both an active and entirely autonomous
device. While the automotive industry has good experience with airbags,
the conditions of use and reliance on the inflatable lapbelt as the
sole means of injury protection are quite different. In automobile
installations, the airbag is a supplemental system and works in
conjunction with an upper torso restraint. In addition, the crash event
is more definable and of typically shorter duration, which can simplify
the activation logic. The airplane operating environment is also quite
different from automobiles and includes the potential for greater wear
and tear, and unanticipated abuse conditions (due to galley loading,
passenger baggage, etc.); airplanes also operate where exposure to high
intensity electromagnetic fields could affect the activation system.
    The following special conditions can be characterized as addressing
either the safety performance of the system, or the system's integrity
against inadvertent activation. Because a crash requiring use of the
inflatable lapbelts is a relatively rare event, and because the
consequences of an inadvertent activation are potentially quite severe,
these latter requirements are probably the more rigorous from a design
standpoint.

Applicability

    As discussed above, these special conditions are applicable to the
787 series airplane. Should Boeing Commercial Airplanes apply at a
later date for a change to the type certificate to include another
model incorporating the same novel or unusual design feature, the
special conditions would apply to that model as well.

Conclusion

    This action affects only certain novel or unusual design features
on 787 series of airplanes. It is not a rule of general applicability.
    The substance of these special conditions has been subjected to the
notice and comment period in several prior instances and has been
derived without substantive change from those previously issued. It is
unlikely that prior public comment would result in a significant change
from the substance contained herein. Therefore, because a delay would
significantly affect the certification of the airplane, which is
imminent, the FAA has determined that prior public notice and comment
are unnecessary and impracticable, and good cause exists for adopting
these special conditions upon issuance. The FAA is requesting comments
to allow interested persons to submit views that may not have been
submitted in response to the prior opportunities for comment described
above.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 25

    Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.

    The authority citation for these special conditions is as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701, 44702, 44704.

The Special Conditions

    Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the following special conditions are issued as part of
the type certification basis for Boeing Model 787 series airplanes.
    1. Existing Criteria: All injury protection criteria of Sec.
25.562(c)(1) through (c)(6) apply to the occupant of a side facing
seat. Head Injury Criterion (HIC) assessments are only required for
head contact with the seat and/or adjacent structures.
    2. Body-to-Wall/Furnishing Contact: Under the load condition
defined in Sec.  25.562(b)(2), the seat must be installed aft of a
structure such as an interior wall or furnishing that will support the
pelvis, upper arm, chest, and head of an occupant seated next to the
structure. A conservative representation of the structure and its
stiffness must be included in the tests.
    3. Thoracic Trauma: Under the load condition defined in Sec.
25.562(b)(2), Thoracic Trauma Index (TTI) injury criterion must be
substantiated by dynamic test or by rational analysis based on previous
test(s) of a similar seat installation. Testing must be conducted with
a Side Impact Dummy (SID), as defined by Title 49 Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) part 572, subpart F, or its equivalent. TTI must be
less than 85, as defined in 49 CFR part 572, subpart F. The SID TTI
data must be processed as defined in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety
Standard (FMVSS) Sec.  571.214, section S6.13.5.
    4. Pelvis: Under the load condition defined in Sec.  25.562(b)(2),
pelvic lateral acceleration must be shown by dynamic test or by
rational analysis based on previous test(s) of a similar seat
installation to not exceed 130g. Pelvic acceleration data must be
processed as defined in FMVSS Sec.  571.214, section S6.13.5.
    5. Shoulder Strap Loads: Where upper torso straps (shoulder straps)
are used for occupants, tension loads in individual straps must not
exceed 1,750 pounds. If dual straps are used for restraining the upper
torso, the total strap tension loads must not exceed 2,000 pounds.
    6. Neck Injury Criteria: The seating system must protect the
occupant from experiencing serious neck injury.

General Test Guidelines

    1. One longitudinal test with the SID Anthropomorphic Test Dummy
(ATD), undeformed floor, no yaw, and with all lateral structural
supports (armrests/walls).
    2. Pass/fail injury assessments: TTI and pelvic acceleration. One
longitudinal test with the Hybrid II ATD, deformed floor, with 10
degrees yaw, and with all lateral structural supports (armrests/walls).
Pass/fail injury assessments: HIC, and upper torso restraint load,
restraint system retention and pelvic acceleration.

    3. Vertical (14 G's) test is to be conducted with modified Hybrid
II ATDs with existing pass/fail criteria.

    Note: It must be demonstrated that the installation of seats via
plinths or pallets meets all applicable requirements. Compliance
with the guidance contained in FAA Policy Memorandum PS-ANM-100-
2000-00123, dated February 2, 2000, titled ``Guidance for
Demonstrating Compliance with Seat Dynamic Testing for Plinths and
Pallets'' will be acceptable to the FAA.

Inflatable Lapbelt Conditions

    If inflatable lapbelts are installed on single-place side-facing
seats, the inflatable lapbelt(s) must meet the final inflatable lapbelt
special conditions (Special Conditions No. 25-431-SC (76 FR 35324, June
17, 2011).

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on March 12, 2012.
John Piccola,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service, ANM-100.
[FR Doc. 2012-6957 Filed 3-22-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


Ron Evans/RTP/USEPA/US

11/29/2007 11:28 AM

To

"Johansson, Robert"<EMAIL_ADDRESS> cc

"King, Heidi R."<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Janet Cakir/RTP/USEPA/US@epa, Lydia Wegman, Bryan Hubbell

Subject

need to postpone today's meeting until next week

Rob,  with the crush of other work. other people within EPA have not had sufficient time to review and digest my group's approach to dealing with extrapolated costs as reflected in the briefing document we were going to use today.   I have been asked to defer our discussion with you until the internal reviews are complete.  I think we should be able to try to plan for this discussion on 12/6.

Separately, I would like to follow-up with you on your conversation with Bryan this am.  I am particularly interested in understanding your concept for the presentation of the extrapolated costs and how they would be compared to benefits.  I will call you later today to discuss.

I have a sick child so I am working from home today.  Please feel free to call me at<PHONE_NUMBER> when you are free.

Ron Evans

Leader, Air Benefit & Cost Group

HEID/OAQPS/OAR/EPA

Mail Drop C-439-02

919-541-5488

919-541-0839 fax