used in the assessment. If we were to lower emission rates based on
more accurate data, we expect lower risk estimates. Because the EPA has
determined that the risk is acceptable, and that the existing standards
provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health in
accordance with CAA section 112, making the data corrections suggested
by commenters would potentially reduce risk further but would not
change the determinations under the risk review. Accordingly, we
conclude that it is reasonable not to update the risk assessment
following the proposal, and we have finalized the risk document and re-
submitted it to the docket for this action as the Residual Risk
Assessment for the Coal- and Oil-Fired EGU Source Category in Support
of the 2019 Risk and Technology Review Final Rule.
4. What is the rationale for our final approach and final decisions for
the residual risk review?
    We evaluated all of the comments on the EPA's proposed residual
risk review and determined that no changes to the review are needed.
For the reasons explained in the proposed rule, we determined that the
risks from the Coal- and Oil-Fired EGU source category are acceptable,
and that the current standards provide an ample margin of safety to
protect public health and prevent an adverse environmental effect.
Therefore, pursuant to CAA section 112(f)(2), we are finalizing our
residual risk review as proposed.

B. Technology Review for the Coal- and Oil-Fired EGU Source Category

1. What did we propose pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6) for the Coal-
and Oil-Fired EGU source category?
    Pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6), the EPA conducted a technology
review, which focused on identifying and evaluating developments in
practices, processes, and control technologies for the emission sources
in the source category. After conducting the CAA section 112(d)(6)
technology review of the NESHAP for Coal- and Oil-Fired EGUs, we
proposed that revisions to the standards are not necessary because we
identified no cost-effective developments in practices, processes, or
control technologies. More information concerning our technology review
is in the memorandum titled Technology Review for the Coal- and Oil-
Fired EGU Source Category, available in the docket for this action, and
in the February 7, 2019, proposed rule. 84 FR 2700.
2. How did the technology review change for the Coal- and Oil-Fired EGU
source category?
    Since proposal (84 FR 2670, February 7, 2019), the technology
review has not changed.
3. What key comments did we receive on the technology review, and what
are our responses?
    The EPA received comments in support of and against the proposed
technology review and our determination that no revisions were
warranted under CAA section 112(d)(6) for the Coal- and Oil-Fired EGU
source category.
    The comments that agreed with the EPA's proposed determination that
no revisions to the MATS rule are warranted based on results of the
technology review also asserted that the reductions required by MATS
were not cost-effective at the time they were adopted and forced
widespread and unprecedented coal-fired EGU retirements, that the
general costs of emission control technologies have not significantly
been reduced and have increased in some instances, and that the beyond-
the-floor analyses conducted by the EPA in support of the 2012 MATS
Final Rule are still valid. Commenters also asserted that the EPA
cannot adopt more stringent standards under CAA section 112(d)(6) where
there is no appreciable HAP-related benefit from doing so and pointed
to the results of the risk assessment for the Coal- and Oil-Fired EGU
source category.
    The comments that were not supportive of the proposed determination
from the technology review generally claimed that the review failed to
assess whether control technologies deployed for compliance with the
2012 MATS Final Rule were less expensive and more effective than
projected and whether technologies deemed economically infeasible in
2012 have since become cheaper.
    The EPA disagrees with the comments opposing the proposed
determination that no revisions were warranted under CAA section
112(d)(6). As explained in section VI.C of the proposed rule (84 FR
2670, February 7, 2019), control technologies typically used to
minimize emissions of pollutants that have numeric emission limits
under the MATS rule include electrostatic precipitators and fabric
filters for control of PM and non-mercury HAP metals; wet scrubbers and
dry scrubbers for control of acid gases (SO2, HCl, and HF);
and activated carbon injection for control of mercury. These existing
air pollution control technologies that are currently in use are well-
established and provide the capture efficiencies necessary for
compliance with the MATS emission limits. Organic HAP, including
emissions of dioxins and furans, are regulated by a work practice
standard that requires periodic burner tune-ups to ensure good
combustion. This work practice continues to be a practical approach to
ensuring that combustion equipment is maintained and optimized to run
to reduce formation and emissions of organic HAP and continues to be
expected to be more effective than establishing a numeric standard for
emissions that, due to current detection levels, cannot reliably be
measured or continuously monitored. We received no comments that
included specific information on costs or performance for control
technologies deployed to comply with the 2012 MATS Final Rule or for
other control technology, work practices, operational

procedures, process changes, or pollution prevention approaches that
reduce HAP emissions. Since proposal, no information has been presented
to cause us to change the proposed determination that no developments
in practices, processes, or control technologies, nor any new
technologies or practices were identified for the control of non-
mercury HAP metals, acid gas HAP, or mercury, and that no developments
in work practices nor any new work practices or operational procedures
have been identified for the control of organic HAP.
4. What is the rationale for our final approach for the technology
review?
    We evaluated all of the comments on the EPA's technology review and
determined that no changes to the review are needed. For the reasons
explained in the proposed rule, we determined that no cost-effective
developments in practices, processes, or control technologies were
identified in our technology review to warrant revisions to the
standards. Therefore, pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6), we are
finalizing our technology review as proposed.

VI. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and Economic Impacts and Additional
Analyses Conducted

A. What are the affected facilities?

    The EPA estimates that there are 713 existing coal- and oil-fired
EGUs located at 323 facilities that are subject to the MATS rule and
will be affected by this final action.

B. What are the air quality impacts?

    Because the EPA is not promulgating any amendments to the MATS
rule, there will be no air quality impacts as a result of this final
action.

C. What are the cost impacts?

    Because the EPA is not promulgating any amendments to the MATS
rule, there will be no cost impacts as a result of this final action.

D. What are the economic impacts?

    Because the EPA is not promulgating any amendments to the MATS
rule, there will be no economic impacts as a result of this final
action.

E. What are the benefits?

    Because the EPA is not promulgating any amendments to the MATS
rule, there will be no benefits as a result of this final action.

F. What analysis of environmental justice did we conduct?

    Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) establishes
federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision
directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and
permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission
by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high
and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs,
policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income
populations in the U.S.
    As discussed in section VI.A of the proposed rule (84 FR 2670,
February 7, 2019), to examine the potential for any environmental
justice issues that might be associated with the source category, we
performed a demographic analysis, which is an assessment of risk to
individual demographic groups of the populations living within 5 km and
within 50 km of the facilities.\61\ In the analysis, we evaluated the
distribution of HAP-related cancer and noncancer risks from the Coal-
and Oil-Fired EGU source category across different demographic groups
within the populations living near facilities. The results of the Coal-
and Oil-Fired EGU source category demographic analysis indicate that
emissions from the source category expose approximately 193,000 people
to a cancer risk at or above 1-in-1 million and no people to a chronic
noncancer TOSHI greater than 1. There are only four facilities in the
source category with cancer risk at or above 1-in-1 million, and all of
them are located in Puerto Rico. Consequently, all of the percentages
of the at-risk population in each demographic group associated with the
Puerto Rican population are much higher than their respective
nationwide percentages, and those not associated with Puerto Rico are
much lower than their respective nationwide percentages. The
methodology and the results of the demographic analysis are presented
in the technical report titled Risk and Technology Review--Analysis of
Demographic Factors for Populations Living Near Coal- and Oil-Fired
EGUs Regulated Under the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS),
available in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0794.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \61\ See technical report titled Risk and Technology Review--
Analysis of Demographic Factors for Populations Living Near Coal-
and Oil-Fired EGUs Regulated Under the Mercury and Air Toxics
Standards (MATS). May 23, 2018; Docket ID Item No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-
0794-0012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

G. What analysis of children's environmental health did we conduct?

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is
not economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866, and
because the EPA does not believe the environmental health or safety
risks addressed by this action present a disproportionate risk to
children. This action's health and risk assessments are summarized in
section V.A of this preamble and are further documented in sections V
and VI of the proposed rule (84 FR 2670, February 7, 2019), and the
risk document for the final rule,\62\ available in the docket for this
action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \62\ See document titled Residual Risk Assessment for the Coal-
and Oil-Fired EGU Source Category in Support of the 2019 Risk and
Technology Review Final Rule, available in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2018-0794.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders
can be found at https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders.

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

    This action is a significant regulatory action that was submitted
to OMB for review because it is likely to raise novel legal or policy
issues. Any changes made in response to OMB recommendations have been
documented in the docket. The EPA does not project any potential costs
or benefits associated with this action.

B. Executive Order 13771: Reducing Regulations and Controlling
Regulatory Costs

    This action is not considered an Executive Order 13771 regulatory
action. There are no quantified cost estimates for this final rule
because it will not result in any changes in costs.

C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    This action does not impose any new information collection burden
under the PRA. OMB has previously approved the information collection
activities contained in the existing regulations and has assigned OMB
control number 2060-0567. This action does not impose an information
collection burden because the EPA is not making any changes to the
information collection requirements.

D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    I certify that this action will not have a significant economic
impact on a

substantial number of small entities under the RFA. This action will
not impose any requirements on small entities. The EPA does not project
any potential costs or benefits associated with this action.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    This action does not contain any unfunded mandate as described in
UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect
small governments. The action imposes no enforceable duty on any state,
local, or tribal governments or the private sector.

F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have
substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between
the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

G. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments

    This action does not have tribal implications as specified in
Executive Order 13175. It would neither impose substantial direct
compliance costs on tribal governments, nor preempt Tribal law. Thus,
Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.
    Consistent with the EPA Policy on Consultation and Coordination
with Indian Tribes, the EPA consulted with tribal officials during the
development of this action. A summary of the consultations follows.
    On April 2, 2019, the EPA held a consultation with the Blue Lake
Rancheria. The tribe indicated that they did not support the 2019
Proposal for several reasons. The tribe expressed concern that the
EPA's proposed finding that it is not appropriate and necessary to
regulate HAP emissions from coal- and oil-fired EGUs under section 112
of the CAA would remove the legal foundation for the MATS rule. The
tribe added that the EPA has neither the authority nor the obligation
to remove coal- and oil-fired EGUs from the CAA section 112(c) source
category list or to rescind MATS. The tribe noted that the costs of
compliance for EGUs subject to MATS have already been incurred, and
that those investments could be in vain if MATS is rescinded. In
addition, the proposed finding will likely lead to litigation which
would be a waste of taxpayer dollars, according to the tribe. The Blue
Lake Rancheria stated that the EPA's cost-benefit analysis should not
exclude co-benefits, and that the analysis should include healthcare
costs and environmental remediation costs. The tribe discussed the
health effects of exposure to mercury and noted that the RTR shows that
the risks are acceptable with MATS in place; that margin of safety
would be eliminated if the rule is rescinded. The tribe also expressed
concern that eliminating the MATS rule will prolong the use of coal-
fired power plants, which would lead to increased greenhouse gas
emissions.
    The EPA held a consultation with the Fond du Lac Band of Lake
Superior Chippewa on April 3, 2019. The tribe also did not support the
proposed finding that regulation of HAP emissions from coal- and oil-
fired EGUs is not appropriate and necessary. The tribe stated that
studies have shown that mercury is harmful and should be controlled,
and that the EPA does not have the authority to delist EGUs from
regulation under CAA section 112. According to the tribe, co-benefits
from reductions of non-HAP pollutants should be considered equally with
benefits from reductions of HAP. The tribe asked whether the EPA had
considered factors specific to their tribe in the EPA's analysis, such
as their higher consumption of fish due to cultural and subsistence
reasons and the prevalence of wetlands and ditches on the reservation,
which are mercury sinks. The tribe also questioned whether impacts to
wildlife such as otters, loons, and eagles were considered.
    Responses to these comments and others received are available in
the RTC document,\63\ available in the docket for this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \63\ See document titled Final Supplemental Finding and Risk and
Technology Review for the NESHAP for Coal- and Oil-Fired EGUs
Response to Public Comments on February 7, 2019 Proposal, available
in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0794.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

H. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is
not economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866, and
because the EPA does not believe the environmental health or safety
risks addressed by this action present a disproportionate risk to
children. This action's health and risk assessments are contained in
sections V and VI of the proposed rule (84 FR 2670, February 7, 2019),
and the risk document for the final rule, available in the docket for
this action (see document titled Residual Risk Assessment for the Coal-
and Oil-Fired EGU Source Category in Support of the 2019 Risk and
Technology Review Final Rule, available in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2018-0794).

I. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use

    This action is not a ``significant energy action'' because it is
not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply,
distribution, or use of energy. This action is not anticipated to have
impacts on energy supply decisions for the affected electric utility
industry.

J. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)

    This action does not involve technical standards.

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

    The EPA believes that this action does not have disproportionately
high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority
populations, low-income populations, and/or indigenous peoples, as
specified in Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). The
documentation for this decision is contained in section VI.F of this
preamble, section VI.A of the proposed rule (84 FR 2670, February 7,
2019), and the technical report, Risk and Technology Review--Analysis
of Demographic Factors for Populations Living Near Coal- and Oil-Fired
EGUs Regulated Under the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS),
available in the docket for this action (see Docket ID Item No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2018-0794-0012).

L. Congressional Review Act (CRA)

    This action is subject to the CRA, and the EPA will submit a rule
report to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of
the United States. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5
U.S.C. 804(2).

    Dated: April 16, 2020.
Andrew Wheeler,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2020-08607 Filed 5-21-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 127 (Friday, July 1, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 38584-38585]
[FR Doc No: 2011-16663]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2011-0243; Airspace Docket No. 11-ANE-12]

Proposed Amendment of Class E Airspace; Burlington, VT

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: This action proposes to amend Class E Airspace at Burlington,
VT, to accommodate the additional airspace needed for the Standard
Instrument Approach Procedures developed for Burlington International
Airport. This action shall enhance the safety and airspace management
of Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) operations at the airport. This action
also shall make a minor adjustment to the geographic coordinates of the
airport.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before August 15, 2011.

ADDRESSES: Send comments on this rule to: U. S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE.,
Washington, DC 20590-0001; Telephone: 1-800-647-5527; Fax: 202-493-
2251. You must identify the Docket Number FAA- 2011-0243; Airspace
Docket No. 11-ANE-12, at the beginning of your comments. You may also
submit and review received comments through the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Fornito, Operations Support
Group, Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, P.O.
Box 20636, Atlanta, Georgia 30320; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    Interested persons are invited to comment on this rule by
submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as they may desire.
Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and
suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned
regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited
on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and
energy-related aspects of the proposal.
    Communications should identify both docket numbers (FAA Docket No.
FAA-2011-0243; Airspace Docket No. 11-ANE-12) and be submitted in
triplicate to the Docket Management System (see ADDRESSES section for
address and phone number). You may also submit comments through the
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov.
    Annotators wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments
on this action must submit with those comments a self-addressed stamped
postcard on which the following statement is made: ``Comments to Docket
No. FAA-2011-0243; Airspace Docket No. 11-ANE-12.'' The postcard will
be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.
    All communications received before the specified closing date for
comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule.
The proposal contained in this notice may be changed in light of the
comments received. A report summarizing each substantive public contact
with FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the
docket.

Availability of NPRMs

    An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded from and
comments submitted through http://www.regulations.gov. Recently
published rulemaking documents can also be accessed through the FAA's
Web page at http://www.faa.gov/airports_airtraffic/air_traffic/publications/airspace_amendments/.
    You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any
comments received and any final disposition in person in the Dockets
Office (see the ADDRESSES section for address and phone number) between
9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays. An
informal docket may also be examined during normal business hours at
the office of the Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation
Administration, room 210, 1701 Columbia Avenue, College Park, Georgia
30337.
    Persons interested in being placed on a mailing list for future
NPRMs should contact the FAA's Office of Rulemaking,<PHONE_NUMBER>, to
request a copy of Advisory Circular No. 11-2A, Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking distribution System, which describes the application
procedure.

The Proposal

    The FAA is considering an amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal
Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 to amend Class E airspace at Burlington,
VT to provide additional controlled airspace required to support
standard instrument approach procedures at Burlington International
Airport. The existing Class E surface area airspace and Class E
airspace designated as an extension would be amended for the safety and
management of IFR operations at the airport. The geographic coordinates
for Burlington International Airport in all Class E airspace areas also
would be adjusted to be in concert with the FAAs aeronautical database.
    Class E airspace designations are published in Paragraph 6002,
6003, and 6005, respectively, of FAA Order 7400.9U, dated August 18,
2010, and effective September 15, 2010, which is incorporated by
reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designations listed in
this document will be published subsequently in the Order.
    The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves
an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
It, therefore, (1) is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979);
and (3) does not warrant preparation of a Regulatory Evaluation as the
anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that
will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified that this proposed rule, when promulgated, would not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. 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. This proposed rulemaking is promulgated under the authority
described in Subtitle VII, Part, A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under
that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign
the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the
efficient use of airspace. This proposed regulation is within the scope
of that authority as it would amend Class E airspace at

Burlington International Airport, Burlington, VT.

Lists of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

The Proposed Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

PART 71--DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR
TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS

    1. The authority citation for part 71 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24
FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

    2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of Federal
Aviation Administration Order 7400.9U, Airspace Designations and
Reporting Points, dated August 18, 2010, and effective September 15,
2010, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 6002 Class E airspace designated as surface areas.

* * * * *

ANE VT E2 Burlington, VT [Amended]

Burlington International Airport, VT
    (Lat. 44[deg]28'19'' N., long. 73[deg]09'12'' W.)
    Burlington, VORTAC
    (Lat. 44[deg]23'50'' N., long. 73[deg]10'57'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from the surface within a 5-mile
radius of Burlington International Airport, and within 2.4 miles
each side of the Burlington VORTAC 201[deg] radial extending from
the 5-mile radius of the airport to 7 miles southwest of the
Burlington VORTAC, and within 1.8 miles each side of the Burlington
International Airport 302[deg] bearing extending from the 5-mile
radius of the airport to 5.4 miles northwest of the airport, and
within 4 miles each side of the Burlington International Airport
131[deg] bearing extending from the 5-mile radius to 16 miles
southeast of the airport. This Class E airspace is effective during
the specific dates and times established in advance by a Notice to
Airmen. The effective date and time will thereafter be continuously
published in the Airport/Facility Directory.
* * * * *

Paragraph 6003 Class E airspace areas designated as an extension.

* * * * *

ANE VT E3 Burlington, VT [Amended]

Burlington International Airport, VT
    (Lat. 44[deg]28'19'' N., long. 73[deg]09'12'' W.)
Burlington, VORTAC
    (Lat. 44[deg]23'50'' N., long. 73[deg]10'57'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from the surface within 2.4 miles
on each side of the Burlington VORTAC 201[deg] radial extending from
a 5-mile radius of the airport to 7 miles southwest of the
Burlington VORTAC, and within 1.8 miles each side of the Burlington
International Airport 302[deg] bearing extending from the 5-mile
radius of the airport to 5.4 miles northwest of the airport and
within 4 miles each side of the Burlington International Airport
131[deg] bearing extending from the 5-mile radius of the airport to
16 miles southeast of the airport.
* * * * *

Paragraph 6005 Class E airspace areas extending upward from 700
feet or more above the surface of the earth.

* * * * *

ANE VT E5 Burlington, VT [Amended]

Burlington International Airport, VT
    (Lat. 44[deg]28'19'' N., long. 73[deg]09'12'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 23-mile radius of Burlington International Airport;
excluding that airspace within the Plattsburgh, NY, Class E airspace
area.

    Issued in College Park, Georgia, on June 23, 2011.
Mark D. Ward,
Manager, Operations Support Group, Eastern Service Center, Air Traffic
Organization.
[FR Doc. 2011-16663 Filed 6-30-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 101 (Thursday, May 24, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 24156-24157]
[FR Doc No: 2018-11079]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

[Docket Number FRA-1999-6254]

Petition for Waiver of Compliance

    Under part 211 of Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), this
document provides the public notice that on May 10, 2018, the Santa
Clara Valley Transportation Authority (SCVTA) petitioned the Federal
Railroad Administration (FRA) for a waiver of compliance from certain
provisions of the Federal railroad safety regulations. FRA assigned the
petition docket number FRA-1999-6254.
    In its petition, SCVTA seeks to extend the terms and conditions of
its Shared Use waiver regarding operations in its Vasona Corridor,
originally granted by FRA's Railroad Safety Board (Board) on September
26, 2005; modified in 2008; and extended in 2011 and 2013.
Specifically, this Shared Use waiver is for the continued operation of
the SCVTA rail fixed guideway transit system in the Vasona Corridor.
SCVTA shares this corridor with Union Pacific Railroad (UP) running
parallel for 5 miles of the existing 15-mile long UP Vasona Industrial
Lead and serves the cities of southwest San Jose, CA, and Campbell, CA.
SCVTA and the parallel UP line share grade crossings and the corridor,
but have no other connection. Because SCVTA owns this 5-mile-long
portion of the shared corridor, SCVTA and UP have executed an
Operations and Maintenance Agreement, which includes an exclusive
operating easement, allowing UP to fulfill its obligations as a common
carrier of freight by continuing its existing freight operations within
the purchased corridor. This agreement requires SCVTA to inspect,
maintain, and repair all tracks, signal systems and automatic warning
devices along the freight track within that portion of the corridor
shared with SCVTA tracks.
    SCVTA continues to seek partial relief from 49 CFR part 220,
Railroad Communications, for SCVTA employees, except its dispatchers;
and from 49 CFR part 225, Railroad Accidents/Incident Reports, to waive
employee injury reporting requirements only. SCVTA continues to seek
full relief from some parts of the regulations (e.g., 49 CFR parts 217,
219, 221, 229, 238, and 239) as well.
    A copy of the petition, as well as any written communications
concerning the petition, is available for review online at
www.regulations.gov and in person at the U.S. Department of
Transportation's (DOT) Docket Operations Facility, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE, W12-140, Washington, DC 20590. The Docket Operations
Facility is open from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except
Federal Holidays.
    Interested parties are invited to participate in these proceedings
by submitting written views, data, or comments. FRA does not anticipate
scheduling a public hearing in connection with these proceedings since
the facts do not appear to warrant a hearing. If any interested parties
desire an opportunity for oral comment and a public hearing, they
should notify FRA, in writing, before the end of the comment period and
specify the basis for their request.
    All communications concerning these proceedings should identify the
appropriate docket number and may be submitted by any of the following
methods:
     Website: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Docket Operations Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, W12-140, Washington, DC
20590.
     Hand Delivery: 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Room W12-140,
Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal Holidays.
    Communications received by July 9, 2018 will be considered by FRA
before

final action is taken. Comments received after that date will be
considered if practicable.
    Anyone can search the electronic form of any written communications
and comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the
individual submitting the comment (or signing the document, if
submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.).
Under 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the public to better
inform its processes. DOT posts these comments, without edit, including
any personal information the commenter provides, to
www.regulations.gov, as described in the system of records notice (DOT/
ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at https://www.transportation.gov/privacy. See also https://www.regulations.gov/privacyNotice for the
privacy notice of regulations.gov.

Robert C. Lauby,
Associate Administrator for Railroad Safety, Chief Safety Officer.
[FR Doc. 2018-11079 Filed 5-23-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-06-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 101 (Tuesday, May 27, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 30134-30135]
[FR Doc No: 2014-12170]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-9911-43-Region-1; EPA-R01-OW-2014-0202]

Massachusetts Marine Sanitation Device Standard--Notice of
Determination

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of determination.

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

SUMMARY: The Regional Administrator of the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA)--New England Region, has determined that adequate
facilities for the safe and sanitary removal and treatment of sewage
from all vessels are reasonably available for the remaining state
coastal waters of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

ADDRESSES: Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available electronically in
www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ann Rodney, U. S. Environmental
Protection Agency--New England Region, Office of Ecosystem Protection,
Oceans and Coastal Protection Unit, Five Post Office Square, Suite 100,
OEP06-1, Boston, MA 02109-3912. Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>. Fax number:
(617) 918-0538. Email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On March 28, 2014, EPA published a notice
that the Commonwealth of Massachusetts had petitioned the Regional
Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency, to determine that
adequate facilities for the safe and sanitary removal and treatment of
sewage from all vessels are reasonably available for the remaining
coastal waters of Massachusetts. The petition was filed pursuant to
Section 312 (f) (3) of Public Law 92-500, as amended by Public Laws 95-
217 and 100-4, for the purpose of declaring these waters a No Discharge
Area (NDA).
    Section 312 (f) (3) states: After the effective date of the initial
standards and regulations promulgated under this section, if any State
determines that the protection and enhancement of the quality of some
or all of the waters within such State require greater environmental
protection, such State may completely prohibit the discharge from all
vessels of any sewage, whether treated or not, into such waters, except
that no such prohibition shall apply until the Administrator determines
that adequate facilities for the safe and sanitary removal and
treatment of sewage from all vessels are reasonably available for such
water to which such prohibition would apply.
    This determination covers three areas: A strip near the state-
federal boundary

spanning from Manchester-By-The-Sea to Marshfield, a corridor in
Vineyard Sound, and a corridor in Nantucket Sound. The state wide NDA
will seamlessly integrate the 20 smaller NDAs that have been designated
in Massachusetts since 1991. The boundaries for this statewide NDA
encompass all Commonwealth of Massachusetts coastal waters: from mean
low water along the coast of Massachusetts, seaward to the state-
federal boundary, north to the border with New Hampshire, and south to
the border with Rhode Island: http://www.mass.gov/eea/agencies/czm/program-areas/coastal-water-quality/ndas/.
    Massachusetts has certified that there are a total of 132 pumpout
facilities in coastal Massachusetts: http://www.mass.gov/eea/agencies/czm/program-areas/coastal-water-quality/clean-boating/pumpout-list.html.
    Based on the examination of the petition and its supporting
documentation, and information from site visits conducted by EPA New
England staff, EPA has determined that adequate facilities for the safe
and sanitary removal and treatment of sewage from all vessels are
reasonably available for the area covered under this determination.
This determination is made pursuant to Section 312 (f) (3) of Public
Law 92-500, as amended by Public Laws 95-217 and 100-4.

    Dated: May 14, 2014.
H. Curtis Spalding,
Regional Administrator, New England Region.
[FR Doc. 2014-12170 Filed 5-23-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 161 (Friday, August 19, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 55358-55362]
[FR Doc No: 2016-19486]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2016-4226; Directorate Identifier 2015-NM-095-AD;
Amendment 39-18616; AD 2016-17-03]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Airplanes

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are superseding Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2003-25-07 for
certain Airbus Model A319 and A320 series airplanes, and AD 2005-13-39
for certain Airbus Model A321 series airplanes. AD 2003-25-07 required
a revision to the airplane flight manual (AFM) and replacement of both
elevator aileron computers (ELACs) having L80 standards with new ELACs
having L81 standards. AD 2005-13-39 required a revision to the AFM,
replacement of existing ELACs with ELACs having L83 or L91 standards,
as applicable; and a concurrent action. Since we issued AD 2003-25-07
and AD 2005-13-39, we have determined that new ELAC standards must be
incorporated. The ELAC standards have been upgraded to version L97+,
which implements enhanced angle-of-attack (AOA) monitoring to better
detect AOA blockage, including multiple AOA blockages. This AD requires
replacing existing ELACs with new ELACs having L97+ standards or
revising the software in an existing ELAC to the L97+ standards, as
applicable, which terminates the requirements of AD 2003-25-07 and AD
2005-13-39. This AD also expands the applicability to include all
Airbus Model A318, A319, A320, and A321 series airplanes. We are
issuing this AD to prevent inadvertent activation of the AOA
protections. Inadvertent activation of the AOA protections could result
in a continuous nose-down pitch rate that could result in reduced
controllability of the airplane.

DATES: This AD is effective September 23, 2016.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of September 23,
2016.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of August 9,
2005 (70 FR 38580, July 5, 2005).
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain other publication listed in this AD as of
January 22, 2004 (68 FR 70431, December 18, 2003).

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this final rule,
contact Airbus, Airworthiness Office--EIAS, 1 Rond Point Maurice
Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax
+33 5 61 93 44 51; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet
http://www.airbus.com. You may view this referenced service information
at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW.,
Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the
FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. It is also available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-
4226.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-
4226; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and
5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket
contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and
other information. The address for the Docket Office (telephone 800-
647-5527) is Docket 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: Sanjay Ralhan, Aerospace Engineer,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA,
1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>;
fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 to supersede AD 2003-25-07, Amendment 39-13390 (68 FR 70431,
December 18, 2003) (``AD 2003-25-07''); and AD 2005-13-39, Amendment

39-14176 (70 FR 38580, July 5, 2005) (``AD 2005-13-39'').
    AD 2003-25-07 applied to certain Airbus Model A319 and A320 series
airplanes, and AD 2005-13-39 applied to certain Airbus Model A321
series airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on March
17, 2016 (81 FR 14404). The NPRM was prompted by a determination that
new ELAC standards must be incorporated. The ELAC standards have been
upgraded to version L97+, which implements enhanced AOA monitoring to
better detect AOA blockage, including multiple AOA blockages.
    The NPRM proposed to require replacing existing ELACs with new
ELACs having L97+ standards or revising the software in an existing
ELAC to the L97+ standards, as applicable, which would terminate the
requirements of AD 2003-25-07 and AD 2005-13-39. We are issuing this AD
to prevent inadvertent activation of the AOA protections. Inadvertent
activation of the AOA protections could result in a continuous nose-
down pitch rate that could result in reduced controllability of the
airplane.
    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical
Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA
Airworthiness Directive 2015-0088R1, including Appendix 01, dated June
2, 2015 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing
Airworthiness Information, or ``the MCAI''), to correct an unsafe
condition for all Airbus Model A318, A319, A320, and A321 series
airplanes. The MCAI states:

    The latest elevator aileron computer (ELAC) standard, L97+,
implements enhanced Angle of Attack (AOA) monitoring in order to
better detect cases of AOA blockage, including multiple AOA
blockage.
    Two ELAC L97+ versions are currently available, Part Number (P/
N)<PHONE_NUMBER> with data loading capability, and P/N<PHONE_NUMBER>
without the data loading capability. Three existing [EASA] ADs
requiring installation of earlier ELAC (software) have been
identified and taken into account for cancellation by this new
[EASA] AD.
    For the reasons described above, EASA issued AD 2015-0088,
cancelling DGAC [Direction G[eacute]n[eacute]rale de l'Aviation
Civile] France AD 95-203-072 (no requirements retained) [which
corresponds to FAA AD 98-09-18, Amendment 39-10499 (63 FR 23374,
April 29, 1998)], and partially retaining the requirements of DGAC
France AD 2001-508 [which corresponds to FAA AD 2003-25-07], and
[DGAC France] AD F-2004-147 (EASA approval ref. 2004-8601) [which
corresponds to FAA AD 2005-13-39], which were superseded, and to
require replacement of all ELAC with ELAC L97+ standard.
    Since that [EASA] AD was issued, some errors were detected in
Appendix 1 of the [EASA] AD, and one P/N ELAC was inadvertently
omitted. This [EASA] AD revises EASA AD 2015-0088 to correct these
errors and to add clarification to paragraph (7) [of the EASA AD].

    The required actions include either replacing existing ELACs with
new ELACs having L97+ standards uploaded, or revising the software in
the existing ELACs to L97+ standards. This AD also expands the
applicability to include all Airbus Model A318, A319, A320, and A321
series airplanes. You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating
Docket No. FAA-2016-4226.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD. We considered the comment received. The commenter supported
the NPRM.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the available data, including the comment received, and
determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting
this AD as proposed except for minor editorial changes. We have
determined that these minor changes:
     Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the
NPRM for correcting the unsafe condition; and
     Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was
already proposed in the NPRM.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    Airbus has issued Service Bulletin A320-27-1243, including Appendix
01, dated March 17, 2015. This service information describes procedures
for replacing the existing ELACs with new ELACs having L97+ standards,
and modifying existing ELACs into units with L97+ standards.
    Airbus has also issued Service Bulletin A320-27-1244, dated March
5, 2015. This service information describes procedures for modification
of an airplane by replacing any existing ELAC unit with an ELAC 97+
unit having P/N<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    This service information is reasonably available because the
interested parties have access to it through their normal course of
business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 940 airplanes of U.S. registry.
    The actions required by AD 2003-25-07 and retained in this AD take
about 1 work-hour per product, at an average labor rate of $85 per
work-hour. Based on these figures, the estimated cost of the actions
that were required by AD 2003-25-07 is $85 per product.
    The actions required by AD 2005-13-39 and retained in this AD take
about 1 work-hour per product, at an average labor rate of $85 per
work-hour. Based on these figures, the estimated cost of the actions
that were required by AD 2005-13-39 is $85 per product.
    We also estimate that it will take about 3 work-hours per product
to comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor
rate is $85 per work-hour. Required parts will cost about $7,230 per
product. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD on
U.S. operators to be $7,035,900, or $7,485 per product.
    According to the parts 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

    We determined that this AD will not have federalism implications
under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct
effect on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
    1. Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order
12866;

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by:
0
a. Removing Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2003-25-07, Amendment 39-13390
(68 FR 70431, December 18, 2003); and AD 2005-13-39, Amendment 39-14176
(70 FR 38580, July 5, 2005); and
0
b. Adding the following new AD:

2016-17-03 Airbus: Docket No. FAA-2016-4226; Directorate Identifier
2015-NM-095-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective September 23, 2016.

(b) Affected ADs

    This AD replaces the ADs identified in paragraphs (b)(1) and
(b)(2) of this AD.
    (1) AD 2003-25-07, Amendment 39-13390 (68 FR 70431, December 18,
2003) (``AD 2003-25-07'').
    (2) AD 2005-13-39, Amendment 39-14176 (70 FR 38580, July 5,
2005) (``AD 2005-13-39'').

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to the airplanes identified in paragraphs (c)(1)
through (c)(4) of this AD, certificated in any category, all
manufacturer serial numbers.
    (1) Airbus Model A318-111, -112, -121, and -122 airplanes.
    (2) Airbus Model A319-111, -112, -113, -114, -115, -131, -132,
and -133 airplanes.
    (3) Airbus Model A320-211, -212, -214, -231, -232, and -233
airplanes.
    (4) Airbus Model A321-111, -112, -131, -211, -212, -213, -231,
and -232 airplanes.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 27, Flight
Controls.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by a determination that new elevator
aileron computer (ELAC) standards must be incorporated. The ELAC
standards have been upgraded to version L97+, which implements
enhanced angle-of-attack (AOA) monitoring to better detect AOA
blockage, including multiple AOA blockages. We are issuing this AD
to prevent inadvertent activation of the AOA protections.
Inadvertent activation of the AOA protections could result in a
continuous nose-down pitch rate that could result in reduced
controllability of the airplane.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Retained Replacement of ELAC L80 Units With L81 Units, With No
Changes

    For Model A319 and A320 series airplanes, equipped with ELAC L80
standards having part numbers listed in Airbus Service Bulletin
A320-27-1135, dated June 29, 2001: This paragraph restates the
requirements of paragraph (b) of AD 2003-25-07, with no changes.
Within 1 year after January 22, 2004 (the effective date of AD 2003-
25-07): Replace both ELACs having L80 standards with new ELACs
having L81 standards, by doing all the actions per paragraphs A.,
B., C., and D. of the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service
Bulletin A320-27-1135, dated June 29, 2001.

(h) Retained Installation of ELAC L83 or L91 Software, With No Changes

    For Model A321-111, -112, -131, -211, and -231 airplanes, except
those with Airbus Modification 34043 installed in production: This
paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (g) of AD 2005-13-
39, with no changes. Within 16 months after August 9, 2005 (the
effective date of AD 2005-13-39): Replace existing ELACs with ELACs
having L83 standards, by accomplishing all of the actions specified
in the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-
27-1151, dated March 9, 2004, including Appendix 01, dated March 9,
2004; or with ELACs having L91 standards, by accomplishing all of
the actions specified in the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus
Service Bulletin A320-27-1152, dated June 4, 2004, including
Appendix 01, dated June 4, 2004; as applicable.

(i) New Requirement of This AD: ELAC Replacement or Modification

    At the applicable times specified in table 1 to paragraphs (i)
and (m)(3)(ii) of this AD: Replace each ELAC unit with an ELAC L97+
unit having part number (P/N)<PHONE_NUMBER> and software having P/N
3945129109, or modify existing ELAC units into ELAC L97+ units
having P/N<PHONE_NUMBER> with L97+ operational software P/N<PHONE_NUMBER>
loaded, as applicable, in accordance with the Accomplishment
Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-27-1243, including
Appendix 01, dated March 17, 2015. Accomplishing this replacement
terminates the actions required by paragraphs (g) and (h) of this
AD.

  Table 1 to Paragraphs (i) and (m)(3)(ii) of This AD--Compliance Times
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Compliance time (after the
        Airbus airplane models             effective date of this AD)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Model A318 series airplanes with UTAS   Within 5 months.
 (formerly Goodrich) AOA P/N 0861ED or
 P/N 0861ED2 installed in all 3
 positions (captain, first officer,
 and standby).
Model A319 series airplanes with UTAS   Within 10 months.
 (formerly Goodrich) AOA P/N 0861ED or
 P/N 0861ED2 installed in all 3
 positions (captain, first officer,
 and standby).
Model A320 series airplanes with UTAS   Within 10 months.
 (formerly Goodrich) AOA P/N 0861ED or
 P/N 0861ED2 installed in all 3
 positions (captain, first officer,
 and standby).
Model A321 series airplanes with UTAS   Within 5 months.
 (formerly Goodrich) AOA P/N 0861ED or
 P/N 0861ED2 installed in all 3
 positions (captain, first officer,
 and standby).
Model A318, A319, A320, and A321        Within 25 months.
 series airplanes that do not have
 UTAS (formerly Goodrich) AOA P/N
 0861ED or P/N 0861ED2 installed in
 all 3 positions (captain, first
 officer, and standby).
------------------------------------------------------------------------

(j) Optional Method of Compliance

    Modification of an airplane by replacing any existing ELAC unit
with an ELAC 97+ unit having P/N<PHONE_NUMBER>, in accordance with the
Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-27-1244,
dated March 5, 2015, is an acceptable method of compliance for the
requirements of paragraph (i) of this AD, for only that modified
airplane. Accomplishing this modification terminates the actions
required by paragraphs (g) and (h) of this AD for that modified
airplane.

    Note 1 to paragraph (j) of this AD:  ELAC unit P/N<PHONE_NUMBER> is
not data-loadable,

but it is fully interchangeable and mixable with data-loadable ELAC
97+ unit P/N<PHONE_NUMBER> with software P/N<PHONE_NUMBER> loaded.

(k) Airplanes Excluded From Requirements of Paragraphs (g), (h), and
(i), and From the Actions in Paragraph (j) of This AD

    Airplanes on which Airbus Modification 156546 (installation of
ELAC L97+ with software P/N<PHONE_NUMBER>) was installed in production
are excluded from the requirements of paragraphs (g), (h), and (i)
of this AD, and from the actions specified in paragraph (j) of this
AD, provided it can be determined that no ELAC having a part number
identified in table 2 to paragraphs (k) and (m) of this AD has been
installed on that airplane since the date of issuance of the
original airworthiness certificate or the date of issuance of the
original export certificate of airworthiness.

   Table 2 to Paragraphs (k) and (m) of This AD--Prohibited ELAC Part
                                 Numbers
------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Part No.                 Designation               FIN
------------------------------------------------------------------------
3945122202..................  ELAC A320-111 Type    2 CE 1/2
                               Def..
3945122203..................  ELAC L50C...........  2 CE 1/2
3945122303..................  ELAC L50C...........  2 CE 1/2
3945122304..................  ELAC L60............  2 CE 1/2
3945122305..................  ELAC L61B...........  2 CE 1/2
3945122306..................  ELAC L61F...........  2 CE 1/2
3945122307..................  ELAC L62C...........  2 CE 1/2
C12370AA01..................  ELAC L68C...........  2 CE 1/2
3945122501..................  ELAC L69............  2 CE 1/2
3945122502..................  ELAC L69J...........  2 CE 1/2
3945122503..................  ELAC L77............  2 CE 1/2
3945122504..................  ELAC L78............  2 CE 1/2
3945122505..................  ELAC A L80..........  2 CE 1/2
3945123505..................  ELAC A' L80.........  2 CE 1/2
3945128101..................  ELAC B L80..........  2 CE 1/2
3945122506..................  ELAC A L81..........  2 CE 1/2
3945123506..................  ELAC A' L81.........  2 CE 1/2
3945128102..................  ELAC B L81..........  2 CE 1/2
3945122507..................  ELAC A L82..........  2 CE 1/2
3945123507..................  ELAC A' L82.........  2 CE 1/2
3945128103..................  ELAC B L82..........  2 CE 1/2
3945122608..................  ELAC A L83..........  2 CE 1/2
3945123608..................  ELAC A' L83.........  2 CE 1/2
3945122609..................  ELAC A L84..........  2 CE 1/2
3945123609..................  ELAC A' L84.........  2 CE 1/2
3945128204..................  ELAC B L90L.........  2 CE 1/2
3945128205..................  ELAC B L90N.........  2 CE 1/2
3945128206..................  ELAC B L91..........  2 CE 1/2
3945129101..................  ELAC B L91 data       2 CE 1/2 SW1
                               loadable.
3945128207..................  ELAC B L92..........  2 CE 1/2
3945128208..................  ELAC B L92L.........  2 CE 1/2
3945128209..................  ELAC B L93..........  2 CE 1/2
3945129103..................  ELAC B L93 data       2 CE 1/2 SW1
                               loadable.
3945128210..................  ELAC B L94..........  2 CE 1/2
3945129104..................  ELAC B L94 data       2 CE 1/2 SW1
                               loadable.
3945128212..................  ELAC B L96..........  2 CE 1/2
3945129106..................  ELAC B L96 data       2 CE 1/2 SW1
                               loadable.
3945129107..................  ELAC B L96 H-A data   2 CE 1/2 SW1
                               loadable.
3945128214..................  ELAC B L97..........  2 CE 1/2
3945129108..................  ELAC B L97 data       2 CE 1/2 SW1
                               loadable.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

(l) Later-Approved Parts

    Installation of an ELAC version (part number) approved after the
effective date of this AD is an approved method of compliance with
the requirements of paragraph (i) of this AD, and the actions
specified in paragraph (j) of this AD, provided the requirements
specified in paragraphs (l)(1) and (l)(2) of this AD are met.
    (1) The version (part number) must be approved by the Manager,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA;
or the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA); or Airbus's EASA
Design Organization Approval (DOA).
    (2) The installation must be done using a method approved by the
Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane
Directorate, FAA; or the EASA; or Airbus's EASA DOA.

(m) Parts Installation Limitation

    As of the applicable time specified in paragraph (m)(1) or
(m)(2) of this AD, do not install on any airplane an ELAC unit
having a part number identified in table 2 to paragraphs (k) and (m)
of this AD, except as specified in paragraph (m)(3) of this AD.
    (1) For an airplane that, as of the effective date of this AD,
has any ELAC unit installed having a part number identified in table
2 to paragraphs (k) and (m) of this AD: After modification of that
airplane as required by paragraph (i) of this AD, or as specified in
paragraph (j) of this AD.
    (2) For an airplane that, as of the effective date of this AD,
does not have any ELAC unit installed having a part number
identified in table 2 to paragraphs (k) and (m) of this AD: As of
the effective date of this AD.
    (3) As of the effective date of this AD, a data-loadable ELAC B
unit having a part number identified in table 2 to paragraphs (k)
and (m) of this AD can be installed on an airplane provided that
L97+ software P/N<PHONE_NUMBER> is uploaded at the applicable time
specified in paragraph (m)(3)(i) or (m)(3)(ii) of this AD.
    (i) For all airplanes except those identified in paragraph
(m)(3)(ii) of this AD: Before further flight after the ELAC B unit
installation.
    (ii) For airplanes that have not been modified as required by
paragraph (i) of this AD: Within the applicable compliance time

specified in table 1 to paragraphs (i) and (m)(3)(ii) of this AD.

(n) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate FAA,
has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using
the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR
39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight
Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information
directly to the International Branch send it to ATTN: Sanjay Ralhan,
Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport
Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-
3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>. Information may be
emailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (i) 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.
    (ii) AMOCs approved previously for AD 2003-25-07 are approved as
AMOCs for the corresponding provisions of paragraph (g) of this AD.
    (iii) AMOCs approved previously for AD 2005-13-39 are approved
as AMOCs for the corresponding provisions of paragraph (h) of this
AD.
    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: As of the effective date of
this AD, for any requirement in this AD to obtain corrective actions
from a manufacturer, the action must be accomplished using a method
approved by the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport
Airplane Directorate, FAA; or the EASA; or Airbus's EASA DOA. If
approved by the DOA, the approval must include the DOA-authorized
signature.
    (3) Required for Compliance (RC): If any service information
contains procedures or tests that are identified as RC, those
procedures and tests must be done to comply with this AD; any
procedures or tests that are not identified as RC are recommended.
Those procedures and tests that are not identified as RC may be
deviated from using accepted methods in accordance with the
operator's maintenance or inspection program without obtaining
approval of an AMOC, provided the procedures and tests identified as
RC can be done and the airplane can be put back in an airworthy
condition. Any substitutions or changes to procedures or tests
identified as RC require approval of an AMOC.

(o) Related Information

    Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI)
EASA Airworthiness Directive 2015-0088R1, including Appendix 01,
dated June 2, 2015, for related information. This MCAI may be found
in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by
searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-4226.

(p) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed
in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise.
    (3) The following service information was approved for IBR on
September 23, 2016.
    (i) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-27-1243, including Appendix 01,
dated March 17, 2015.
    (ii) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-27-1244, dated March 5, 2015.
    (4) The following service information was approved for IBR on
August 9, 2005 (70 FR 38580, July 5, 2005).
    (i) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-27-1151, including Appendix 01,
dated March 9, 2004.
    (ii) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-27-1152, including Appendix
01, dated June 4, 2004.
    (5) The following service information was approved for IBR on
January 22, 2004 (68 FR 70431, December 18, 2003).
    (i) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-27-1135, dated June 29, 2001.
    (ii) Reserved.
    (6) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Airbus, Airworthiness Office--EIAS, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte,
31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5
61 93 44 51; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet http://www.airbus.com.
    (7) You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport
Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For
information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call
425-227-1221.
    (8) You may view this service information that is incorporated
by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA). For information on the availability of this material at
NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on August 8, 2016.
Michael Kaszycki,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2016-19486 Filed 8-18-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 50 (Wednesday, March 14, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 11210-11212]
[FR Doc No: 2018-05118]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2018-D-0740]

M7(R1): Assessment and Control of Deoxyribonucleic Acid Reactive
(Mutagenic) Impurities in Pharmaceuticals To Limit Potential
Carcinogenic Risk; Guidance for Industry; Availability

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice of availability.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is announcing
the availability of a guidance entitled ``M7(R1): Assessment and
Control of Deoxyribonucleic Acid (DNA) Reactive (Mutagenic) Impurities
in Pharmaceuticals to Limit Potential Carcinogenic Risk.'' This
guidance updates and replaces the May 2015 guidance for industry ``M7
Assessment and Control of DNA Reactive (Mutagenic) Impurities in
Pharmaceuticals to Limit Potential Carcinogenic Risk.'' This guidance
finalizes the draft guidance ``M7(R1) Addendum to ICH M7: Assessment
and Control of DNA Reactive (Mutagenic) Impurities in Pharmaceuticals
to Limit Potential Carcinogenic Risk,'' issued September 28, 2015 (80
FR 58261).
    The guidance was prepared under the auspices of the International
Council for Harmonisation (ICH), formerly the International Conference
on Harmonisation. This M7(R1) document provides guidance on acceptable
intakes (AIs), or permissible daily exposures (PDEs), derived for some
chemicals that are considered to be mutagens and carcinogens and, are
also commonly used in the synthesis of pharmaceuticals or are, useful
examples to illustrate the principles for deriving compound-specific
intakes described in ICH M7. This document is intended to provide
guidance for new drug substances and new drug products during their
clinical development and subsequent applications for marketing.

DATES: The announcement of the guidance is published in the Federal
Register on March 14, 2018.

ADDRESSES: You may submit either electronic or written comments on
Agency guidances at any time as follows:

Electronic Submissions

    Submit electronic comments in the following way:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the

instructions for submitting comments. Comments submitted
electronically, including attachments, to https://www.regulations.gov
will be posted to the docket unchanged. Because your comment will be
made public, you are solely responsible for ensuring that your comment
does not include any confidential information that you or a third party
may not wish to be posted, such as medical information, your or anyone
else's Social Security number, or confidential business information,
such as a manufacturing process. Please note that if you include your
name, contact information, or other information that identifies you in
the body of your comments, that information will be posted on https://www.regulations.gov.
     If you want to submit a comment with confidential
information that you do not wish to be made available to the public,
submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner
detailed (see ``Written/Paper Submissions'' and ``Instructions'').

Written/Paper Submissions

    Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
     Mail/Hand delivery/Courier (for written/paper
submissions): Dockets Management Staff (HFA-305), Food and Drug
Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.
     For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets
Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any
attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified,
as confidential, if submitted as detailed in ``Instructions.''
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket No.
FDA-2018-D-0740 for ``M7(R1) Assessment and Control of DNA Reactive
(Mutagenic) Impurities in Pharmaceuticals To Limit Potential
Carcinogenic Risk.'' Received comments will be placed in the docket
and, except for those submitted as ``Confidential Submissions,''
publicly viewable at https://www.regulations.gov or at the Dockets
Management Staff office between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through
Friday.
     Confidential Submissions--To submit a comment with
confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly
available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You
should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information
you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states
``THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.'' The Agency will
review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in
its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the
claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be
available for public viewing and posted on https://www.regulations.gov.
Submit both copies to the Dockets Management Staff. If you do not wish
your name and contact information to be made publicly available, you
can provide this information on the cover sheet and not in the body of
your comments and you must identify this information as
``confidential.'' Any information marked as ``confidential'' will not
be disclosed except in accordance with 21 CFR 10.20 and other
applicable disclosure law. For more information about FDA's posting of
comments to public dockets, see 80 FR 56469, September 18, 2015, or
access the information at: https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2015-09-18/pdf/2015-23389.pdf.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
the electronic and written/paper comments received, go to https://www.regulations.gov and insert the docket number, found in brackets in
the heading of this document, into the ``Search'' box and follow the
prompts and/or go to the Dockets Management Staff, 5630 Fishers Lane,
Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.
    Submit written requests for single copies of this guidance to the
Division of Drug Information, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research,
Food and Drug Administration, 10001 New Hampshire Ave., Hillandale
Building, 4th Floor, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, or the Office of
Communication, Outreach and Development, Center for Biologics
Evaluation and Research (CBER), Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New
Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 71, Rm. 3128, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002. Send
one self-addressed adhesive label to assist that office in processing
your requests. The guidance may also be obtained by mail by calling
CBER at 1-800-835-4709 or<PHONE_NUMBER>. See the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section for electronic access to the guidance document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Regarding the guidance: Aisar
Atrakchi, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug
Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 22, Rm. 4118, Silver
Spring, MD 20993-0002,<PHONE_NUMBER>; or Anne Pilaro, Center for
Biologics Evaluation and Research (HFM-17), Food and Drug
Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 71, Rm. 4025, Silver
Spring, MD 20993-0002,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Regarding the ICH: Amanda Roache, Center for Drug Evaluation and
Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg.
51, Rm. 1176, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    In recent years, regulatory authorities and industry associations
from around the world have participated in many important initiatives
to promote international harmonization of regulatory requirements under
the ICH. FDA has participated in several ICH meetings designed to
enhance harmonization and FDA is committed to seeking scientifically
based harmonized technical procedures for pharmaceutical development.
One of the goals of harmonization is to identify and then reduce
differences in technical requirements for drug development among
regulatory agencies.
    ICH was established to provide an opportunity for harmonization
initiatives to be developed with input from both regulatory and
industry representatives. FDA also seeks input from consumer
representatives and others. ICH is concerned with harmonization of
technical requirements for the registration of pharmaceutical products
for human use among regulators around the world. The six founding
members of the ICH are the European Commission; the European Federation
of Pharmaceutical Industries Associations; the FDA; the Japanese
Ministry of Health, Labour, and Welfare; the Japanese Pharmaceutical
Manufacturers Association; and the Pharmaceutical Research and
Manufacturers of America. The Standing Members of the ICH Association
include Health Canada and Swissmedic. Any party eligible as a Member in
accordance with the ICH Articles of Association can apply for
membership in writing to the ICH Secretariat. The ICH Secretariat,
which coordinates the preparation of documentation, operates as an
international nonprofit organization and is funded by the Members of
the ICH Association.
    The ICH Assembly is the overarching body of the Association and
includes representatives from each of the ICH members and observers.
The Assembly is responsible for the endorsement of draft guidelines and
adoption of final guidelines. FDA publishes ICH guidelines as FDA
guidance.
    In the Federal Register of September 28, 2015 (80 FR 58261), FDA
published a notice announcing the availability of a draft guidance
entitled ``M7(R1)

Addendum to ICH M7; Assessment and Control of DNA Reactive (Mutagenic)
Impurities in Pharmaceuticals to Limit Potential Carcinogenic Risk,''
available at https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2015-09-18/pdf/2015-23389.pdf. The notice gave interested persons an opportunity to submit
comments by November 27, 2015.
    After consideration of the comments received and revisions to the
guideline, a final draft of the guideline was submitted to the ICH
Assembly and endorsed by the regulatory Agencies in June 2017.
    This final guidance provides guidance on acceptable intake limits
derived for some chemicals that are considered to be mutagenic
carcinogens and are also commonly used in the synthesis of
pharmaceuticals or are useful examples to illustrate the principles for
deriving compound-specific intakes described in the ICH M7 guidance.
This guidance is intended to provide guidance for new drug substances
and new drug products during their clinical development and subsequent
applications for marketing. The default method from ICH M7 of linear
extrapolation from the cancer potency estimate, TD50 is used
as the primary method to derive the acceptable intakes for carcinogens
with likely mutagenic mode of action. After consideration of the
comments received, hydroxylamine monograph was deleted from the final
guidance. Relevant editorial changes were also made to improve clarity
and to incorporate the ICH M7(R1) Addendum guidance.
    This guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance
practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The guidance represents the
current thinking of FDA on ``M7: Assessment and Control of DNA Reactive
(Mutagenic) Impurities in Pharmaceuticals to Limit Potential
Carcinogenic Risk.'' It does not establish any rights for any person
and is not binding on FDA or the public. You can use an alternative
approach if it satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes
and regulations. This guidance is not subject to Executive Order 12866.

II. Electronic Access

    Persons with access to the internet may obtain the guidance at
https://www.regulations.gov, https://www.fda.gov/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/default.htm, or
https://www.fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVaccines/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/default.htm.

    Dated: March 8, 2018.
Leslie Kux,
Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2018-05118 Filed 3-13-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


DRAFT AGENDA

Mineral Wool and Wool Fiberglass RTRs

Meeting between OMB and EPA

October 5, 2011

4:00 to 5:00 pm (Eastern Time)

Call-in Number:<PHONE_NUMBER>

Agenda Topics:

1.  Summary of the Industry and the Current MACT Standard

2.  Proposed A敭摮敭瑮⁳఍䴍湩牥污圠潯㤱㤹䴠䍁ൔ܇畃潰慬ܠ硅 獩楴杮匠畯捲獥ܠ⸰〱氠䵐瀠牥琠湯漠敭瑬ܠ܇敎⁷ 潓牵散⁳〇ㄮ‰扬倠⁍数⁲潴景洠汥⁴」ㄮ‰扬䌠⁏ 数⁲潴景洠汥ⱴ漠⁲

Reduce uncontrolled CO emissions ≥ 99%

Curing Oven 	Existing and New Sources 	0.06 lb formaldehyde per ton of melt, or

Reduce uncontrolled formaldehyde emissions ≥ 80%

MINERAL WOOL INDUSTRY OVERVIEW

Mineral Wool is a building insulation serving primarily the industrial, commercial and institutional markets- used for thermal or acoustical insulation, noise attenuation, and fire protection

Mineral wool is a fibrous, glassy substance made from natural rock, blast furnace slag, or other similar materials and consists of silicate fibers typically 4 to 7 micrometers in diameter

6 companies, 7 facilities. 5 of the 6 companies are Small Businesses

SBAR Panel convened June 1, 2011.

All facilities are major sources of HAP emissions

DRAFT 2011 RTR Amendments

112(d)(3) MACT

Proposing to correct deficiencies for pollutants that were not regulated in the 1999 MACT

HF

HCl

COS (Surrogacy removed)

Phenol (Surrogacy removed)

Methanol (Surrogacy removed)

Formaldehyde

Proposing to correct deficiency for the collection process that was not regulated in the 1999 MACT

Collection/curing are being ‘bundled’ together

Subcategorizing according to 3 types of collection/curing

112(f)(2) Risk Review

Risk is acceptable at current levels and within an ample margin of safety; no amendments are proposed based on 112(f)(2)

112(d)(6) Technology Review

No changes proposed based on 112(d)(6)

Other Changes

Startup and Shutdown- emission limits (in lb/hour units) equivalent to production-based emission limits for periods during which no production exists

Malfunction-Affirmative defense language

Clarifying that ‘incinerator’ in rule means ‘thermal oxidizer’ to avoid confusion with 129 rules

Wool Fiberglass 1999 MACT

Glass- Melting Furnaces 	Existing and New Sources 	0.50 lb PM per ton of glass pulled

Rotary Spin (RS) Lines 	Existing  Sources 	1.2 lb formaldehyde per ton of glass pulled

	New Sources	0.8 lb formaldehyde per ton of glass pulled

Flame Attenuation (FA) Lines	New Sources 	Heavy-Density	7.8 lb formaldehyde per ton of glass pulled

	Existing & New

Sources	Pipe Product	lb formaldehyde per ton of glass pulled

WOOL FIBERGLASS INDUSTRY OVERVIEW

Wool fiberglass is a building insulation serving primarily the residential housing market- thermal and acoustical insulation for buildings, automobiles, aircraft, appliances, ductwork, and pipes; other uses include liquid and air filtration.

30 facilities and 80 furnaces use a variety of processes and formulations depending on end use market

Most of industry is phasing out the use of formaldehyde-based binders

Some facilities are using a new technology to extend furnace life that creates high hexavalent chromium emissions

2010 voluntary ICR, including some emissions testing, was conducted by industry.

DRAFT 2011 RTR Amendments

112(d)(3) MACT

Proposing to correct deficiencies for pollutants that were not regulated in the 1999 MACT

HF

HCl

Phenol (Surrogacy removed)

Methanol (Surrogacy removed)

Formaldehyde

112(f)(2) Risk Review

Hexavalent chromium is the primary risk driver, followed by formaldehyde.

We are proposing chrome limits to the rule

112(d)(6) Technology Review

Proposing revised limits based on improved PM control technologies

Proposing to add chrome limits based on new technology to extend furnace life

Other Changes

Fô

V

Fô

X

”

–

ò

`

b

‹

Œ

®

á

â

è

û

ý

Fô

ý

਀&䘋

਀&䘋

਀&䘋

਀&䘋

਀&䘋

摧堆ÐԀStartup and Shutdown- emission limits (in lb/hour units) equivalent to production-based emission limits for periods during which no production exists

Malfunction-Affirmative defense language

Clarifying that ‘incinerator’ in rule means ‘thermal oxidizer’ to avoid confusion with 129 rules