[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 211 (Thursday, October 31, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 65208-65209]
[FR Doc No: 2013-25853]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2012-1174; Airspace Docket No. 12-AAL-12]

Modification of Class D and E Airspace; Kenai, AK

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action modifies Class D and E airspace at Kenai Municipal
Airport, Kenai, AK. Controlled airspace is necessary to accommodate
aircraft using the new Area Navigation (RNAV) Global Positioning System
(GPS) standard instrument approach procedures at the airport. A minor
adjustment is made to the geographic coordinates of the airport.
Additionally, language establishing dates and times of use of the
procedures was inadvertently omitted from the description for the Class
E airspace designated as an extension, and is included in this rule.
This action, initiated by the biennial review of the Kenai airspace
area, enhances the safety and management of aircraft operations at the
airport.

DATES: Effective date, 0901 UTC, February 6, 2014. The Director of the
Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under
1 CFR Part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.9 and
publication of conforming amendments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Richard Roberts, Federal Aviation
Administration, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center, 1601
Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

History

    On June 10, 2013, the FAA published in the Federal Register a
notice of

proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to modify controlled airspace at Kenai
Municipal Airport, Kenai, AK (78 FR 34609). Interested parties were
invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written
comments on the proposal to the FAA. No comments were received.
Subsequent to publication, the FAA found that the text regarding
operating hours established by NOTAM was omitted from Class E airspace
designated as an extension to a Class D surface area. This action
includes the NOTAM information.
    Class D and Class E airspace designations are published in
paragraph 5000, 6002 and 6004, respectively, of FAA Order 7400.9X dated
August 7, 2013, and effective September 15, 2013, which is incorporated
by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class D and Class E airspace
designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in
this Order.

The Rule

    This action amends Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR)
Part 71 by modifying Class D airspace, Class E surface airspace and
Class E airspace designated as an extension to Class D surface area, at
Kenai Municipal Airport, Kenai, AK. Also, the geographic coordinates of
the airport are updated to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical
database. The FAAs biennial review found modification of the airspace
necessary for the safety and management of aircraft departing and
arriving under IFR operations at the airport. The Class D airspace and
Class E surface area airspace excluded below 1100 feet MSL beyond 4
miles from the airport is decreased, and the segment of the Class E
airspace designated as an extension extending to 10.2 miles northeast
of the airport is adjusted to coincide with the dimensions of the
cutout. Also, this action adds the text specifying the operating hours
established in advance by NOTAM in the airspace description for Class E
airspace designated as an extension to Class D or E surface area.
    The FAA has determined this regulation only involves an established
body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments
are necessary to keep them operationally current. Therefore, this
regulation: (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
only affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified
this rule, when promulgated, does 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 U.S. Code.
Subtitle 1, Section 106 discusses the authority of the FAA
Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more
detail the scope of the agency's authority. This 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
regulation is within the scope of that authority as it amends
controlled airspace at the Kenai Municipal Airport, Kenai, AK.

Environmental Review

    The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical
exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance
with FAA Order 1050.1E, ``Environmental Impacts: Policies and
Procedures,'' paragraph 311a. This airspace action is not expected to
cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no
extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an
environmental assessment.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air)

Adoption of the Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration amends 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

0
1. The authority citation for 14 CFR 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]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of the Federal
Aviation Administration Order 7400.9X, Airspace Designations and
Reporting Points, dated August 7, 2013, and effective September 15,
2013 is amended as follows:

Paragraph 5000 Class D Airspace

* * * * *

AAL AK D Kenai, AK [Amended]

Kenai Municipal Airport, AK
    (Lat. 60[deg]34'24'' N., long. 151[deg]14'41'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from the surface to and including
2,600 feet MSL within a 5.2-mile radius of Kenai Municipal Airport,
excluding the airspace below 1,100 feet MSL beyond 4 miles from the
airport extending from the 310[deg] bearing clockwise to the
346[deg] bearing of the airport. This Class D airspace area 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 6002 Class E airspace designated as surface areas.

* * * * *

AAL AK E2 Kenai, AK [Amended]

Kenai Municipal Airport, AK
    (Lat. 60[deg]34'24'' N., long. 151[deg]14'41'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from the surface to and including
2600 feet MSL within a 5.2-mile radius of Kenai Municipal Airport,
excluding the airspace below 1,100 feet MSL beyond 4 miles from the
airport extending from the 310[deg] bearing clockwise to the
346[deg] bearing of the airport; and that airspace extending upward
from the surface beginning at lat. 60[deg]39'25'' N., long.
151[deg]17'17'' W.; to lat. 60[deg]45'01'' N., long. 151[deg]10'27''
W.; to lat. 60[deg]41'12'' N., long. 150[deg]57'33'' W.; to lat.
60[deg]35'34'' N., long. 151[deg] 04'25'' W., thence
counterclockwise along the 5.2-mile radius of the airport to the
point of beginning. This Class E airspace area 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 6004 Class E airspace areas designated as an extension to
Class D or Class E surface area.

* * * * *

AAL AK E4 Kenai, AK [Amended]

Kenai Municipal Airport, AK
    (Lat. 60[deg]34'24'' N., long. 151[deg]14'41'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from the surface beginning at
lat. 60[deg]39'25'' N., long. 151[deg]17'17'' W.; to lat.
60[deg]45'01'' N., long. 151[deg]10'27'' W.; to lat. 60[deg]41'12''
N., long. 150[deg]57'33'' W.; to lat. 60[deg]35'34'' N., long.
151[deg] 04'25'' W., thence counterclockwise along the 5.2-mile
radius of the airport to the point of beginning. This Class E
airspace area 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.

    Issued in Seattle, Washington, on October 23, 2013.
Clark Desing,
Manager, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2013-25853 Filed 10-30-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 146 (Monday, July 30, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 36584-36585]
[FR Doc No: 2018-16233]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP18-26-000]

Notice of Availability of the Environmental Assessment for the
Proposed Texas Eastern Transmission, LP, Lambertville East Expansion
Project

    The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or
Commission) has prepared an environmental assessment (EA) for the
Lambertville East Expansion Project, proposed by Texas Eastern
Transmission, LP (Texas Eastern) in the above-referenced docket. Texas
Eastern requests authorization to replace two existing natural gas-
fired turbine compressor engines and appurtenant facilities at their
existing Lambertville Compressor Station in Hunterdon County, New
Jersey.
    The EA assesses the potential environmental effects of the
construction and operation of the Lambertville East Expansion Project
in accordance with the requirements of the National Environmental
Policy Act. The FERC staff concludes that approval of the proposed
project, with appropriate mitigating measures, would not constitute a
major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human
environment.
    The proposed Lambertville East Expansion Project includes
abandonment by removal of the following facilities at Texas Eastern's
existing Lambertville Compressor Station:
     Two 5,100 horsepower Clark DC-990 natural gas-fired
turbine compressor units and associated building, coolers, and
auxiliary piping and equipment;
     four retired reciprocating compressor units \1\ and
associated building, coolers, and auxiliary piping and equipment;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The four existing reciprocating compressor units were
retired in 2011 as part of Texas Eastern's Advanced Notification
filing in Docket No. CP11-143-000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     an existing warehouse; and
     auxiliary and control buildings.
    Additionally, the proposed project includes construction and
operation of the following new facilities at the Lambertville
Compressor Station:
     A new compressor building to house two new Solar Taurus 70
natural gas-fired turbine compressor units rated at 8,600 horsepower
each and associated piping and equipment;
     electrical control and auxiliary buildings, replacement
warehouse buildings, and an electrical generator building;
     appurtenant facilities;
     yard piping modifications; and
     new plant roads and reconfiguration of existing plant
roads.
    The FERC staff mailed copies of the EA to federal, state, and local
government representatives and agencies; elected officials; Native
American tribes; potentially affected landowners; and other interested
individuals, groups, and commenters. In addition, the EA is available
for public viewing on the FERC's website (www.ferc.gov) using the
eLibrary link. A limited number of copies of the EA are available for
distribution and public inspection at: Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, Public Reference Room, 888 First Street NE, Room 2A,
Washington, DC 20426,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Any person wishing to comment on the EA may do so. Your comments
should focus on the EA's disclosure and discussion of potential
environmental effects, reasonable alternatives, and measures to avoid
or lessen environmental impacts. The more specific your comments, the
more useful they will be. To ensure that the Commission has the
opportunity to consider your comments prior to making its decision on
this project, it is important that we receive your comments in
Washington, DC on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on August 23, 2018.
    For your convenience, there are three methods you can use to file
your comments with the Commission. In all instances please reference
the project docket number (CP18-26-000) with your submission. The
Commission encourages electronic filing of comments and has staff
available to assist you at<PHONE_NUMBER> or
[email protected].
    (1) You can file your comments electronically using the eComment
feature located on the Commission's website (www.ferc.gov) under the
link to Documents and Filings. This is an easy method for submitting
brief, text-only comments on a project;
    (2) You can also file your comments electronically using the
eFiling feature on the Commission's website (www.ferc.gov) under the
link to Documents and Filings. With eFiling, you can provide comments
in a variety of formats by attaching them as a file with your
submission. New eFiling users must first create an account by clicking
on ``eRegister.'' You must select the type of filing you are making. If
you are filing a comment on a particular project, please select
``Comment on a Filing''; or
    (3) You can file a paper copy of your comments by mailing them to
the following address: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Room 1A, Washington, DC
20426.
    Any person seeking to become a party to the proceeding must file a
motion to intervene pursuant to Rule 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedures (18 CFR 385.214). Only intervenors have the
right to seek rehearing or judicial review of the Commission's
decision. The Commission may grant affected landowners and others with
environmental concerns intervenor status upon showing good cause by
stating that they have a clear and direct interest in this proceeding
which no other party can adequately represent. Simply filing
environmental comments will not give you intervenor status, but you do
not need intervenor status to have your comments considered.
    Additional information about the project is available from the
Commission's Office of External Affairs, at (866) 208-FERC, or on the
FERC website (www.ferc.gov) using the eLibrary link. Click on the
eLibrary link, click on ``General Search,'' and enter the docket number
in the ``Docket Number'' field, excluding the last three digits (i.e.,
CP18-26). Be sure you have selected an appropriate date range. For
assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
[email protected] or toll free at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or for TTY,
contact<PHONE_NUMBER>. The eLibrary link also provides access to the
texts of all formal documents issued by the Commission, such as orders,
notices, and rulemakings.

    In addition, the Commission 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 www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp.

    Dated: July 24, 2018.
Kimberly D. Bose
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-16233 Filed 7-27-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 170 (Thursday, September 1, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 54526-54527]
[FR Doc No: 2011-22460]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

26th Meeting: RTCA Special Committee 206: Aeronautical
Information and Meteorological Data Link

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of RTCA Special Committee 206: Aeronautical Information
and Meteorological Data Link Services meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is issuing this notice to advise the public of a
meeting of RTCA Special Committee 206: Aeronautical Information and
Meteorological Data Link Services.

DATES: The meeting will be held September 19-23, 2011 from 9 a.m. to 5
p.m.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at Harris Corporation, Capitol
Gallery Building, 600 Maryland Ave., SW., Suite 850 East, Washington,
DC 20024. For further information regarding this meeting contact AvMet
Applications, Inc., at<PHONE_NUMBER> or<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: RTCA Secretariat, 1150 18th Street,
NW., Suite 910, Washington, DC 20036; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax
(202) 833-9434; Web site http://www.rtca.org.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal
Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 5 U.S.C., Appendix 2), notice
is hereby given for a RTCA Special Committee 206: EUROCAE WG 76
Plenary: AIS and MET Data Link Services meeting. The agenda will
include:

September 19-Monday

9 a.m.

     Opening Plenary.
     Chairmen's remarks and Host's comments.
     Introductions.
     Approval of previous meeting minutes.
     Review and approve meeting agenda.
     Schedule for this week.
     Action Item Review.
     Sub Group 1, Work Plan--SG1 Chairmen.
     Sub Group 2 Work Plan--SG2 Chairmen.
     Sub Group 3 Work Plan--SG3 Chairmen.
     Discuss readiness for release of DO-267A Revision for FRAC
process.
     Discuss readiness for release of OSED document for FRAC
process.

     Discuss status of Deliverables in TOR and potential
changes.
     Discuss the certification and liability issues surrounding
the use of MET information on the flight deck (all SG's).
     OGC Sensor Modeling Language Presentation (SG2 and SG3).

September 20--Tuesday

9 a.m.

     SG1, SG2, and SG3 Meetings.

September 21--Wednesday

9 a.m.

     SG1, SG2, and SG3 Meetings.

September 22--Thursday

9 a.m.

     SG1, SG2, and SG3 Meetings.
2 p.m.
     Plenary Session.
     Sub Group 1 Reports.
     Sub Group 2 Reports.
     Sub Group 3 Reports.
     Action Item Review.
     Meeting Plans and Dates.
     Discuss Status of Deliverables in TOR and potential
changes.
     Decision to release DO-267A Revision Document for FRAC
Process.
     Other Business.

September 23--Friday

9 a.m.

     SG1, SG2, and SG3 Meetings.

2 p.m.

     Adjourn.

    Attendance is open to the interested public but limited to space
availability. With the approval of the chairmen, members of the public
may present oral statements at the meeting. Persons wishing to present
statements or obtain information should contact the person listed in
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. Members of the public may
present a written statement to the committee at any time.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on August 26, 2011.
Robert L. Bostiga,
RTCA Advisory Committee.
[FR Doc. 2011-22460 Filed 8-31-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


1 IMPLEMENTATION OF THE 8 HOUR OZONE NATIONAL AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARD

PHASE 1: RECONSIDERATION PUBLIC HEARING 18 FEBRUARY 2005 BEFORE: Tom Helms, U. S. EPA John Silvasi, U. S. EPA Held at: U. S. EPA  Research Triangle Park Room C114 Research Triangle Park, North Carolina February 18, 2005 Reported by: Susanne M. Newman,

Court Reporter 2 I N D E X SPEAKER PAGE NO. DOCUMENT NO.

Howard J. Feldman 6 1 American Petroleum Institute Ted Michaels 11 2 Integrated Waste Services Association 3 1 P R O C E E D I N G S 2 MR. HELMS: Good morning. Welcome to the 3 public hearing on the reconsideration of the Phase 1 4 ozone implementation. I'm Tom Helms. We welcome all 5 of you to the hearing. I have with me today John 6 Silvasi, who will assist on the hearing panel. John 7 and I will be conducting the hearing.

8 We have a contractor managing logistics from 9 E. H. Pechan. The staff present are Barbara Bauer and 10 Kara Syversten. Susanne Newman is our court reporter.

11 She will be taking a verbatim transcript of our session 12 today. The transcript will be placed in the Docket 13 No. OAR 2003 0079.

14 Let me give you some background today on the 15 topics that we'll be discussing, the topics that you 16 will be discussing. Back on April 30 of 2004, EPA 17 published the final Phase 1 portion, the first part, if 18 you will, of our 8 hour implementation rule. We 19 received three petitions to reconsider several of these 20 Phase 1 issues.

21 Then in September of last year, 2004, EPA 22 granted reconsideration of three issues of the many 23 that were in the Phase 1 rule. Two are the subject of 24 this public hearing today. Then in January of 2005, 25 EPA granted an additional reconsideration of the 4 1 additional issue but that is not the subject of this 2 public hearing today.

3 Let's review what Phase 1 of the 8 hour ozone 4 implementation rule covered. In the way of background,

5 there are four items I'd like to mention.

6 Classifications for the 8 hour standard designations,

7 that's the first topic. The second dealt with the 8 revocation of the old 1 hour national ambient air 9 quality standard for ozone and the associated 10 anti backsliding provisions of our rule. The third 11 item dealt with attainment dates and attainment date 12 extensions. And the fourth item dealt with the timing 13 of emission reductions needed for attainment of this 14 8 hour ozone national ambient air quality standard.

15 Our reconsideration proposal, what we'll be 16 talking about today, was published on February 3 of 17 this year. We have a public comment period open until 18 March 21 of this year. And we will not, we do not plan 19 on extending the public comment period or responding to 20 all the comments on the issues that were not addressed 21 in this proposal. We plan to take action on these 22 issues today on or before May 20, 2005.

23 Again, let me remind you, the purpose of this 24 public hearing is to take comments on four issues. Two 25 of the issues were raised by the environmental group 5 1 Earthjustice in their petition for reconsideration. At 2 EPA, we are also proposing to revise the Phase 1 3 implementation rule in two respects.

4 First, we proposed in our Phase 1 rule that the 5 Section 185 fee provisions would not be triggered for 6 the 1 hour, old 1 hour ozone standard once that 7 standard is revoked, and the schedule for revocation is 8 June of this year. The EPA also proposed to change the 9 timing for determining what is an applicable 10 requirement for the purposes of anti backsliding from 11 April 15 of 2004 or June 15, 2004. That's what we're 12 taking comments on, because applicable requirements 13 will derive or spin off that date.

14 Two items, additional items, now of the four,

15 the last two items, we propose that the contingency 16 measures for failure to make reasonable further 17 progress or attain by the applicable attainment date 18 for this old 1 hour standard are no longer required.

19 You do not have to do them once the 8 hour standard is 20 revoked. Finally, we propose to revise the definition 21 of applicable requirement to include 1 hour attainment 22 demonstration.

23 This overhead right here contains a detailed 24 listing from our rule of the applicable requirements. 25 I will not go through that other than to note there are 6 1 many of them. The record will have a list of them, if 2 you follow up on it. These are the applicable 3 requirements that stand today.

4 Are there any questions? If there are no 5 questions, we'll move to the first speaker. And we'll 6 go off the record.

7 ( A recess was held from 9: 20 a. m. until 8 9: 33 a. m.)

9 MR. HELMS: Our first speaker is Howard 10 Feldman representing the American Petroleum Institute.

11 Howard, the floor is yours.

12 MR. FELDMAN: Thank you very much,

13 Mr. Helms. Thank you for the opportunity to speak here 14 today. My name is Howard J. Feldman. I'm here on 15 behalf of the American Petroleum Institute. API is a 16 national trade association representing all aspects of 17 the oil and natural gas industry, including exploration 18 and production, refining, marketing, pipeline, marine,

19 and the associated industries. API members have 20 invested a significant amount of money, billions of 21 dollars, since the passage of the Clean Air Act of 1990 22 to install and operate air emissions controls and to 23 modify refineries to produce cleaner fuels.

24 API will be submitting written comments on each 25 of the issues discussed in the February 3 Federal 7 1 Register notice. In my remarks today, I will address 2 two of those issues: The applicability of the 3 Section 185 penalty provisions on the former 1 hour 4 standard in nonattainment areas  on former 1 hour 5 nonattainment areas after that standard is revoked and 6 secondly, contingency measures in SIPs for the 1 hour 7 standard. On both issues, API supports EPA's 8 positions.

9 As noted in our comments on the proposed 8 hour 10 NAAQS implementation rule, API believes that 11 Section 185 penalties should no longer apply to 12 attainment of the 1 hour standard after that standard 13 is revoked. At that point, states will be focusing 14 their finite resources on attainment of the 8 hour 15 standard. It makes no sense to carry over penalty 16 provisions applicable to attainment of a standard that 17 has been revoked and superceded by a more stringent 18 standard.

19 The 8 hour ozone NAAQS has been upheld by the 20 courts. It is time now to focus on the attainment of 21 the standard. EPA promulgated the 8 hour standard 22 because it believes it to be more productive  more 23 protective of human health and the environment than the 24 1 hour standard. EPA's 8 hour implementation rule 25 carefully continues to keep in place those 1 hour 8 1 standard provisions that will help areas attain and 2 maintain the 8 hour NAAQS while eliminating those that 3 do not serve that purpose. The 8 hour implementation 4 rule requires areas to submit new SIPs and demonstrate 5 attainment with 8 hour NAAQS. Once the 1 hour standard 6 is revoked in June of this year, EPA no longer will 7 make findings of failure to attain the 1 hour standard 8 or reclassify those areas to a higher nonattainment 9 classification. Thus, it is appropriate that the 185 10 no longer  Section 185 no longer apply with regard to 11 the 1 hour standard.

12 Further, as API indicated in its comments,

13 effective strategies to attain the 1 hour standard may 14 not be effective to  as strategies to attain the 15 8 hour standard. Areas need to be able to develop 16 effective attainment strategies for meeting the 8 hour 17 standard without having to consider whether these 18 strategies may impede their ability to meet a revoked,

19 less protective standard and result in penalties being 20 assessed against major sources in their areas.

21 As API pointed out in its written comments on 22 the proposed 8 hour implementation rule, attainability 23 analyses done by API indicate that an effective 24 strategy to attain the 1 hour standard may not be the 25 most effective for attaining the 8 hour standard. For 9 1 example, in the San Joaquin Valley, either reduction 2 VOCs or Nox or a combination of the two could 3 theoretically bring Fresno into attainment for the 4 1 hour standard. However, modeling indicates that for 5 the 8 hour standard, the minimal benefits of VOC 6 reductions are overwhelmed by the major benefits of NOx 7 reductions. Thus, devoting resources to reducing VOCs 8 in this case would be an effort that would not be 9 productive and it would be  and it would be, really,

10 an effort to attain the 1 hour superseded standard.

11 And it would be a misallocation of resources that would 12 be better focused on expeditious attainment of the 13 8 hour standard. This one hour or eight hour dichotomy 14 is not unique for the San Joaquin Valley. It was 15 observed in modeling for the eastern U. S. for some 16 places, as well.

17 Finally, Section 185 would impose millions of 18 dollars in penalties on the very same refineries and 19 other major stationary sources that invested the most 20 resources on the installation of control technology 21 responsible for a significant part of the tremendous 22 improvement in air quality nationwide since the passage 23 of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990. Refineries 24 not only have spent billions of dollars since 1990 to 25 reduce their own emissions in an effort to attain the 10 1 1 hour standard, they will spend more than 17 billion 2 by 2012 to modify refinery processes to produce 3 cleaner, lower sulfur fuels for use by cars, trucks,

4 and nonroad engines in an effort to attain the 8 hour 5 standard.

6 Regarding contingency measures, API agrees with 7 EPA's proposed approach. Consistent with moving 8 forward to implement the more stringent 8 hour NAAQS 9 and eliminate provisions that are not directed as 10 timely at  not directed at timely attainment of the 11 standard, contingency measures that were developed as 12 part of the effort to attain and maintain the 1 hour 13 standard should no longer be required once that 14 standard has been revoked, as they will have been 15 replaced by contingency measures designed to attain and 16 maintain the more protective 8 hour NAAQS. And since 17 EPA will no longer make findings that an area has 18 failed to attain or maintain the superceded 1 hour 19 standard, there's no reason to keep in place provisions 20 that will be triggered only when such findings were 21 made.

22 Thank you for this opportunity to testify on 23 EPA's reconsideration of these important provisions of 24 the 8 hour ozone implementation rule. 25 MR. HELMS: You will be sending, you will 11 1 be sending additional comments in for the record?

2 MR. FELDMAN: Yes.

3 MR. HELMS: On all the issues or

4 MR. FELDMAN: On all four.

5 MR. HELMS: All four, okay. We'll wait 6 for those. Thank you, Howard. John, do you have any 7 questions?

8 MR. SILVASI: No questions.

9 MR. HELMS: Thank you, Howard. We'll go 10 off the record now.

11 ( A recess was held from 9: 39 a. m. until 12 10: 45 a. m.)

13 MR. HELMS: Our next speaker is Ted 14 Michaels representing Integrated Waste Services 15 Association. Ted, it's yours.

16 MR. MICHAELS: Good morning. Thank you 17 for the opportunity to be here. My name is Ted 18 Michaels, and I serve as president of Integrated Waste 19 Services Association. IWSA is the national trade 20 association representing the waste to energy industry.

21 The waste to energy industry is made up of 89 22 waste to energy facilities in 27 states that generate 23 approximately 2800 megawatts of power, renewable 24 energy, through combustion of nearly 30 million tons of 25 municipal solid waste annually. This represents 12 1 15 percent of the disposal capacity of municipal solid 2 waste in the United States.

3 The municipalities and companies that comprise 4 our association are proud of waste to energy's 5 environmental track record. Through investments 6 totaling $ 1 billion, the waste to energy industry 7 retrofitted its facilities to comply with the maximum 8 achievable control technology standards for municipal 9 waste combustors. The results achieved by these 10 investments have been well documented and highly 11 praised.

12 I appreciate the opportunity to provide 13 comments today on the reconsideration of the final rule 14 to implement the 8 hour ozone national ambient air 15 quality standard Phase 1. IWSA is concerned about the 16 potential imposition of fees under Section 185 of the 17 Clean Air Act. If not for the provisions of this rule,

18 17 municipal waste combustors potentially would be 19 subject to Section 185 fees for  excuse me  because 20 they are located in nonattainment areas currently 21 classified as severe or extreme under the 1 hour NAAQ 22 standards.

23 In today's dollars, the municipalities and 24 owners of these facilities, these 17 facilities, have a 25 potential exposure of approximately $ 25 million per 13 1 year in Section 185 fees. The potential imposition of 2 these fees has already had a chilling effect on plans 3 to expand capacity of facilities. An example of this 4 effect is Covanta Energy's Babylon facility on 5 Long Island in New York. Long Island has severe waste 6 disposal challenges and waste to energy plays a 7 critical role. Despite its four waste to energy 8 facilities, Long Island still sends fleets of garbage 9 trucks onto already crowded highways every day for 10 disposal at faraway sites.

11 To accommodate the local trash needs, Covanta 12 has proposed to construct an additional unit at their 13 Babylon facility, which would double the available 14 disposal capacity annually. In order to generate 15 enough offsets to expand this facility, Babylon will 16 aggressively reduce emissions at existing units.

17 Because Long Island is in severe nonattainment under 18 the 1 hour ozone standard, this facility would have to 19 reduce emissions by 20 percent from baseline under 20 Section 185. The Babylon facility simply cannot reduce 21 emissions another 20 percent beyond the reductions made 22 to comply with MACT and beyond the reductions being 23 proposed to offset the expansion of the facility. The 24 risk and uncertainty associated with the provisions of 25 Section 185 has forced Covanta to withhold its 14 1 application to add the new unit.

2 IWSA was relieved when EPA promulgated the 3 Phase 1 rule that terminated the Section 185 fees in 4 conjunction with the revocation of the 1 hour NAAQS.

5 We support EPA's conclusion that Section 185 fees for 6 failure to attain the 1 hour NAAQS cannot be imposed 7 once the 1 hour NAAQS have been revoked. EPA's 8 position is consistent with a statutory trigger for the 9 imposition of Section 185 fees as set forth in the 10 Clean Air Act, Section 181( b)( 4) and Section 185( a).

11 If a NAAQS has been revoked, it follows that there 12 cannot be failure to attain that NAAQS unless the 13 deadline for attainment was prior to the date of 14 revocation of the standards. Since attainment dates 15 for severe 15, severe 17, and extreme nonattainment 16 areas all occur after the date of revocation of the 17 1 hour standard, it is logical that no fees can be 18 imposed.

19 Opponents criticize EPA for tying the 20 imposition of Section 185 fees to EPA's finding of 21 nonattainment. Although Sections 185 and 181 do not 22 use the term " finding," attainment designations are not 23 self effectuating. Congress expressly required that 24 EPA determine whether an area has failed to attain a 25 standard using a specific process. EPA's role in 15 1 assessing failures to attain a standard is consistent 2 with the Act's overall approach to nonattainment 3 designations and classifications. Ultimately, EPA 4 cannot make a finding of nonattainment for failure to 5 meet a standard that has been revoked. Furthermore, if 6 EPA is unable to make a determination of nonattainment,

7 EPA is also unable to impose fees based on such 8 nonattainment.

9 In addition, we believe that opponents are 10 wrong when they contend that EPA's Section 185 11 conclusion is inconsistent with requiring states to 12 meet current 1 hour nonattainment obligations, such as 13 submitting attainment designations. There is no 14 inconsistency in EPA's position. In contrast to a 15 state's existing obligation to submit a 1 hour 16 attainment demonstration, states currently are under no 17 obligation to impose Section 185 fees for failure to 18 attain the 1 hour NAAQS, nor will they ever be 19 obligated to do so because the NAAQS will be revoked 20 before that obligation could ever be triggered.

21 The waste to energy industry is not a 22 significant contributor to NOx emissions, as illustrated 23 by EPA's estimate that our industry will emit less than 24 0.7 percent of total NOx emissions in the CAIR region by 25 2010. EPA recognized in the 1988  I'm sorry, 1998 NOx 16 1 SIP call that municipal waste combustors should not be 2 required to reduce emissions beyond levels already 3 required by NAAQS  by MACT for NOx.

4 If, following the reconsideration, EPA 5 determines that states must impose Section 185 fees 6 based on the 1 hour standard, IWSA believes that the 7 baseline used to determine reductions must take into 8 consideration the fact that municipal waste combustors 9 have already implemented and are in compliance with 10 MACT standards. We believe that it would be unfair to 11 establish baseline emissions for the industry after it 12 has implemented the maximum achievable control 13 technologies. The result would be a decrease in the 14 volume of waste being processed through our facilities 15 at a time when our environmentally friendly disposal 16 services and our clean renewable energy are desperately 17 needed.

18 For the reasons outlined in these comments, we 19 respectfully urge EPA to finalize the 8 hour ozone 20 national ambient air quality standard Phase 1 rule 21 without the imposition of the Section 185 fees. Thank 22 you very much.

23 MR. HELMS: John, do you have any 24 questions? 25 MR. SILVASI: No. No questions. 17 1 MR. HELMS: I have no questions for you,

2 either. Thank you for coming.

3 MR. MICHAELS: Thank you very much for 4 your time.

5 MR. HELMS: We will now recess the hearing 6 until additional speakers arrive.

7 ( A recess was held from 10: 52 a. m. until 8 2: 02 p. m.)

9 MR. HELMS: Thank you, everyone, for 10 attending. I want to remind you that there will be a 11 public hearing transcript. Our court reporter will 12 complete it. We will post it in the docket at Docket 13 No. OAR 2003 0079. Are there any other questions?

14 Hearing none, this concludes our public hearing. Thank 15 you.

16 ( The hearing concluded at 2: 03 p. m.)

17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 18 STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA COUNTY OF DURHAM C E R T I F I C A T E I, Susanne M. Newman, Notary Public/

Court Reporter, before whom the foregoing public hearing was conducted, do hereby certify that the witnesses' unsworn testimony which appears in the foregoing public hearing was taken down by me to the best of my ability and thereafter transcribed under my supervision and that I am neither counsel for nor employed by the agency conducting this hearing.

Susanne M. Newman, Notary Public My commission expires: September 24, 2005


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 91 (Friday, May 12, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 22069-22070]
[FR Doc No: 2017-09662]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2016-9494; Airspace Docket No. 16-ASW-19]

Amendment of Class E Airspace for Haskell, TX

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action modifies Class E airspace extending upward from
700 feet above the surface at Haskell Municipal Airport, Haskell, TX.
The decommissioning of the Haskell radio beacon (RBN) and cancellation
of RBN approach makes it necessary to implement new area navigation
(RNAV) procedures for the safety and management of instrument flight
rules (IFR) operations at the airport. This action also updates the
geographic coordinates of the airport.

DATES: Effective 0901 UTC, September 14, 2017. The Director of the
Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under
Title 1, Code of Federal Regulations, part 51, subject to the annual
revision of FAA Order 7400.11 and publication of conforming amendments.

ADDRESSES: FAA Order 7400.11A, Airspace Designations and Reporting

Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. For further information, you can
contact the Airspace Policy Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-
8783. The Order is also available for inspection at the National
Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the
availability of FAA Order 7400.11A at NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go
to http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal-regulations/ibr_locations.html.
    FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is
published yearly and effective on September 15.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ron Laster, Federal Aviation
Administration, Contract Support, Operations Support Group, Central
Service Center, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone
(817) 222-5879.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority for This Rulemaking

    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 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 regulation is within the scope of that authority
as it modifies Class E airspace at Haskell Municipal Airport, Haskell,
TX to ensure the safety of aircraft within the National Airspace
System.

History

    The FAA published in the Federal Register (82 FR 11856, February
27, 2017) Docket No. FAA-2016-9494 a notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM) to modify Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above
the surface at Haskell Municipal Airport, Haskell, TX. Interested
parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by
submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. No comments
were received.
    Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005 of
FAA Order 7400.11A, dated August 3, 2016, and effective September 15,
2016, 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.

Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

    This document amends FAA Order 7400.11A, Airspace Designations and
Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2016, and effective September 15,
2016. FAA Order 7400.11A is publicly available as listed in the
ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order 7400.11A lists Class A,
B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and
reporting points.

The Rule

    This amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR)
part 71 modifies Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above
the surface within a 6.3-mile radius of Haskell Municipal Airport,
Haskell, TX, by removing the area 8 miles east and 4 miles west of the
015[deg] bearing from the Haskell RBN extending from the airport to 16
miles northeast of the RBN. This action also updates the geographic
coordinates of the airport to be in concert with the FAA's aeronautical
database.
    Airspace reconfiguration is necessary due to the decommissioning of
the RBN and cancellation of the RBN approach and implementation of RNAV
procedures for the safety and management of the standard instrument
approach procedures for IFR operations at the airport.

Regulatory Notices and Analyses

    The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current, is
non-controversial and unlikely to result in adverse or negative
comments. 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 only affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified that this rule, when promulgated, does not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the
criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Environmental Review

    The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical
exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance
with FAA Order 1050.1F, ``Environmental Impacts: Policies and
Procedures,'' paragraph 5-6.5.a. This airspace action is not expected
to cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no
extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an
environmental assessment.

Lists of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

Adoption of the Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration amends 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

0
1. The authority citation for part 71 continues to read as follows:

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

Sec.  71.1   [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.11A,
Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2016, and
effective September 15, 2016, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas Extending Upward From 700
Feet or More Above the Surface of the Earth.

* * * * *

ASW TX E5 Haskell, TX [Amended]

Haskell Municipal Airport, TX
    (Lat. 33[deg]11'29'' N., long. 99[deg]43'04'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 6.3-mile radius of Haskell Municipal Airport.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on May 4, 2017.
Walter Tweedy,
Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, ATO Central Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2017-09662 Filed 5-11-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 119 (Friday, June 20, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 35369-35370]
[FR Doc No: 2014-14440]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

[Docket No. USCG-2014-0098]

Chemical Transportation Advisory Committee

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS

ACTION: Notice of Federal Advisory Committee Meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The Chemical Transportation Advisory Committee (CTAC) and its
subcommittees will meet on August 19, 20, and 21, 2014, in Arlington,
VA, to discuss the safe and secure marine transportation of hazardous
materials. The meetings will be open to the public.

DATES: Subcommittees will meet on Tuesday, August 19, 2014, from 8:30
a.m. to 5 p.m. and on Wednesday, August 20, 2014, from 8:30 a.m. to 5
p.m. The full committee will meet on Thursday, August 21, 2014, from
8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. Please note that the meetings may close early if
the Committee has completed its business.
    Please submit written materials and comments to the docket using
any one of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES section below. Any
written material submitted by the public will be distributed to the
committee and become part of the public record.

ADDRESSES: The meetings will be held at the U.S. Coast Marine Safety
Center, Suite 400, 4200 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 20598.
Attendees will be required to pre-register no later than 5:00 p.m. on
August 11, 2014, to be admitted to the meeting. To pre-register contact
Lieutenant Cristina Nelson<PHONE_NUMBER>) or
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>and provide your name, company and
telephone number. Attendees will be required to provide a government-
issued picture identification card in order to gain admittance to the
building.
    For information on facilities or services for individuals with
disabilities or to request special assistance at the meeting, contact
the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT as soon as
possible.
    To facilitate public participation, we are inviting public comment
on the issues to be considered by the Committee as listed in the
``Agenda'' section below. In order to be considered at the meetings,
comments must be submitted in writing no later than August 11, 2014.
Comments may be submitted by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments. (This is the preferred
method to avoid delays in processing.)
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>
     Mail: Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S. Department
of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand delivery: Same as mail address above, between 9 a.m.
and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The
telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the words
``Department of Homeland Security'' and the docket number for this
action. Comments

received will be posted without alteration at http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided. You
may review a Privacy Act notice regarding our public dockets in the
January 17, 2008, issue of the Federal Register (73 FR 3316).
    Docket: For access to the docket to read documents or comments
related to this notice, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-
2014-0098 in the Search box, press Enter, and then click on the item
you wish to view.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Patrick Keffler, Alternate
Designated Federal Official (ADFO) of the CTAC, 2703 Martin Luther King
Jr. Ave. SE., Stop 7509, Washington, DC 20593-7509, telephone 202-372-
1424, fax<PHONE_NUMBER>. If you have any questions on viewing or
submitting material to the docket, call Cheryl Collins, Program
Manager, Docket Operations, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER> or 1-800-647-5527.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice of this meeting is given under the
Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), 5 U.S.C. App., Public Law 92-
463, 86 Stat. 770, as amended.
    CTAC is an advisory Committee authorized under section 871 of the
Homeland Security Act of 2002, 6 U.S.C. 451, and is chartered under the
provisions of the FACA. The committee acts solely in an advisory
capacity to the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS)
through the Commandant of the Coast Guard and the Deputy Commandant for
Operations on matters relating to safe and secure marine transportation
of hazardous materials activities insofar as they relate to matters
within the United States Coast Guard's (USCG) jurisdiction. The
committee advises, consults with, and makes recommendations reflecting
its independent judgment to the Secretary.

Agendas of Meetings

    Subcommittee Meetings on August 19 and 20, 2014.
    The subcommittees on biofuels, liquefied gases, outreach, Ship to
Ship Transfer of Hazardous Material Outside of the Baseline, and the
International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships
(MARPOL) will meet to continue to address the task statements listed in
paragraph (3) of the agenda for the August 21 meeting and the tasks
given at the last CTAC meeting. The task statements from the last CTAC
meeting are located at Homeport at the following address: https://homeport.uscg.mil. Go to: Missions > Ports and Waterways > Safety
Advisory Committees > CTAC Subcommittees and Working Groups.
    The agenda for each subcommittee will include the following:
    1. Review task statements, which are listed in paragraph (3) of the
agenda for the August 21 meeting.
    2. Work on tasks assigned in task statements mentioned above.
    3. Public comment period.
    4. Discuss and prepare proposed recommendations for the CTAC
meeting on August 21 on tasks assigned in detailed task statements
mentioned above.
    Committee Meeting on August 21.
    The agenda for the CTAC meeting on August 21 is as follows:
    1. Introductions and opening remarks.
    2. Public comment period.
    3. Committee will meet to review, discuss, and formulate
recommendations on the following items of interest:
    a. Harmonization of Response and Carriage Requirements for Biofuels
and Biofuel Blends.
    b. Recommendations on Safety Standards for the Design of Vessels
Carrying Natural Gas or Using Natural Gas as Fuel.
    c. Recommendations for Safety Standards for Ship to Ship Transfer
of Hazardous Material Outside of the Baseline.
    d. Recommendations for Guidance on the Implementation of Revisions
to MARPOL Annex II and the International Code for the Construction and
Equipment of Ships Carrying Dangerous Chemicals in Bulk (commonly known
as the IBC Code).
    e. Requirements for Third-Party Surveyors of MARPOL Annex II
Prewash Operations.
    f. Improving Implementation of and Education about MARPOL Discharge
Requirements Under MARPOL Annex II and V.
    4. USCG presentations on the following items of interest:
    a. Update on International Maritime Organization activities as they
relate to the marine transportation of hazardous materials.
    b. Update on U.S. regulations as they relate to the marine
transportation of hazardous materials.
    c. Update on Bulk Chemical Data Guide (Blue Book).
    d. Update on vessel to vessel transfer of hazardous materials in
bulk.
    5. Set next meeting date and location.
    6. Set Subcommittee Meeting schedule.
    A public comment period will be held during each Subcommittee and
the full committee meeting concerning matters being discussed. Public
comments will be limited to 3 minutes per speaker. Please note that the
public comment period may end before the time indicated, following the
last call for comments. Please contact Mr. Patrick Keffler, listed in
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to register as a speaker.

    Dated: June 17, 2014.
F.J. Sturm,
Acting Director of Commercial Regulations and Standards.
[FR Doc. 2014-14440 Filed 6-19-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 127 (Thursday, July 2, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 38038-38041]
[FR Doc No: 2015-16154]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2015-2455; Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-180-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to supersede Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2008-26-
07, which applies to all McDonnell Douglas Model DC-8-11, DC-8-12, DC-
8-21, DC-8-31, DC-8-32, DC-8-33, DC-8-41, DC-8-42, and DC-8-43
airplanes; Model DC-8-50 series airplanes; Model DC-8F-54 and DC-8F-55
airplanes; Model DC-8-60 series airplanes; Model DC-8-60F series
airplanes; Model DC-8-70 series airplanes; and Model DC-8-70F series
airplanes. AD 2008-26-07 currently requires repetitive inspections of
the lower skin and stringers at certain stations, and corrective
actions if necessary. This proposed AD is intended to complete certain
mandated programs intended to support the airplane reaching its limit
of validity (LOV) of the engineering data that support the established
structural maintenance program. This proposed AD would also require an
eddy current high frequency (ETHF) inspection for cracks of the
fastener open holes common to the lower skins, stringers, and splice
fittings at a certain station; installation of external doublers and
fasteners and repetitive eddy current low frequency (ETLF) inspections
around the fasteners for any crack; and corrective actions if
necessary. We are proposing this AD to detect and correct cracks in the
lower skins, stringers, and fastener holes of the splice fittings,
which could result in the loss of structural integrity of the airplane.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by August 17, 2015.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR
11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail address above between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management,
3855 Lakewood Boulevard, MC D800-0019, Long Beach, CA 90846-0001;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, extension 2; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.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-2015-2455.

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-2015-
2455; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and
5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket
contains this proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments
received, and other information. The street address for the Docket
Office (phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will
be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Chandra Ramdoss, Aerospace Engineer,
Airframe Branch, ANM-120L, FAA, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification
Office (ACO), 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, CA 90712-4137;
telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address
listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2015-2455;
Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-180-AD'' at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposed AD because of those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this proposed AD.

Discussion

    On December 12, 2008, we issued AD 2008-26-07, Amendment 39-15773
(73 FR 78946, December 24, 2008), for all McDonnell Douglas Model DC-8-
11, DC-8-12, DC-8-21, DC-8-31, DC-8-32, DC-8-33, DC-8-41, DC-8-42, and
DC-8-43 airplanes; Model DC-8-50 series airplanes; Model DC-8F-54 and
DC-8F-55 airplanes; Model DC-8-60 series airplanes; Model DC-8-60F
series airplanes; Model DC-8-70 series airplanes; and Model DC-8-70F
series airplanes. AD 2008-26-07 requires repetitive inspections of the
lower skin and stringers at stations Xw=408 and Xw=-408, and corrective
actions if

necessary. AD 2008-26-07 resulted from reports of cracks in the skins
and stringers at the end fasteners common to the stringer end fittings
at stations Xw=408 and Xw=-408 wing splice joints. We issued AD 2008-
26-07 to detect and correct fatigue cracking in the skins and stringers
at the end fasteners common to the stringer end fittings at certain
station and wing splice joints, which could result in wing structure
that might not sustain limit load, and consequent loss of structural
integrity of the wing.

Widespread Fatigue Damage

    As described in FAA Advisory Circular 120-104 (http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/120-104.pdf), several programs
have been developed to support initiatives that will ensure the
continued airworthiness of aging airplane structure. The last element
of those initiatives is the requirement to establish a limit of
validity (LOV) of the engineering data that support the structural
maintenance program under 14 CFR 26.21. This proposed AD is the result
of an assessment of the previously established programs by Boeing
during the process of establishing the LOV for The Boeing Company Model
DC-8-11, DC-8-12, DC-8-21, DC-8-31, DC-8-32, DC-8-33, DC-8-41, DC-8-42,
and DC-8-43 airplanes; Model DC-8-50 series airplanes; Model DC-8F-54
and DC-8F-55 airplanes; Model DC-8-60 series airplanes; Model DC-8-60F
series airplanes; Model DC-8-70 series airplanes; and Model DC-8-70F
series airplanes. The actions specified in this proposed AD are
necessary to complete certain programs to ensure the continued
airworthiness of aging airplane structure and to support an airplane
reaching its LOV.
    We are proposing this AD to detect and correct cracks in the lower
skins, stringers, and fastener holes of the splice fittings, which
could result in the loss of structural integrity of the airplane.

Actions Since AD 2008-26-07, Amendment 39-15773 (73 FR 78946, December
24, 2008) Was Issued

    Since we issued AD 2008-26-07, Amendment 39-15773 (73 FR 78946,
December 24, 2008), we have received new service information to ensure
the continued airworthiness of aging airplane structure and to support
an airplane reaching its LOV. The new inspection and modification of
the left and right lower wing skin, stringers, and splice fittings will
support operation up to the DC-8 LOV.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    We reviewed Boeing Service Bulletin DC8-57-104, dated August 18,
2014. The service information describes procedures for certain
airplanes for an ETHF inspection for cracks of the fastener open holes
common to the lower skins, stringers, and splice fittings at a certain
station; installation of external doublers and fasteners and repetitive
ETLF inspections around the fasteners for any crack; and corrective
actions. 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 of this
NPRM.

FAA's Determination

    We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all the relevant
information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is
likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design.

Proposed AD Requirements

    This proposed AD would retain all requirements of AD 2008-26-07,
Amendment 39-15773 (73 FR 78946, December 24, 2008). This proposed AD
would also require an ETHF inspection for cracks of the fastener open
holes common to the lower skins, stringers, and splice fittings at a
certain station; installation of external doublers and fasteners and
repetitive ETLF inspections around the fasteners for any crack if
necessary; and corrective actions.

Clarification of Actions for Groups 1-3, Configuration 1 Airplanes

    Where the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin
DC8-57-104, dated August 18, 2014, specifies repair, this AD also
requires an inspection and possible other actions.

Change to AD 2008-26-07, Amendment 39-15773 (73 FR 78946, December 24,
2008)

    Since AD 2008-26-07, Amendment 39-15773 (73 FR 78946, December 24,
2008), was issued, the AD format has been revised, and certain
paragraphs have been rearranged with new title headers. As a result,
the corresponding paragraph identifiers have been redesignated in this
proposed AD, as listed in the following table:

                      Revised Paragraph Identifiers
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            Corresponding requirement in
       Requirement in AD 2008-26-07               this proposed AD
------------------------------------------------------------------------
paragraph (e).............................  paragraph (f)
paragraph (f).............................  paragraph (g)
paragraph (g).............................  paragraph (h)
paragraph (h).............................  paragraph (i)
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Explanation of ``RC'' Steps in Service Information

    The FAA worked in conjunction with industry, under the
Airworthiness Directive Implementation Aviation Rulemaking Committee
(ARC), to enhance the AD system. One enhancement was a new process for
annotating which steps in the service information are required for
compliance with an AD. Differentiating these steps from other tasks in
the service information is expected to improve an owner's/operator's
understanding of crucial AD requirements and help provide consistent
judgment in AD compliance. The steps identified as RC (required for
compliance) in any service information identified previously have a
direct effect on detecting, preventing, resolving, or eliminating an
identified unsafe condition.
    For service information that contains steps that are labeled as
Required for Compliance (RC), the following provisions apply: (1) the
steps labeled as RC, including substeps under an RC step and any
figures identified in an RC step, must be done to comply with the AD,
and an AMOC is required for any deviations to RC steps, including
substeps and identified figures; and (2) steps not labeled 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 RC steps, including substeps and identified figures,
can still be done as specified, and the airplane can be put back in an
airworthy condition.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 12 airplanes of U.S.
registry.
    We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost
                 Action                          Labor cost           Parts     per      Cost on U.S. operators
                                                                       cost   product
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inspection [retained actions from AD     6 work-hours x $85 per           $0     $510  $6,120 per inspection
 2008[dash]26[dash]07, Amendment 39-      hour = $510 per                               cycle
 15773 (73 FR 78946, December 24,         inspection cycle.
 2008)].
ETHF Inspection [new proposed action]..  8 work-hours x $85 per           $0     $680  $8,160 per inspection
                                          hour = $680 per                               cycle
                                          inspection cycle.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We estimate the following costs to do any necessary certain follow-
on actions that would be required based on the results of the proposed
inspection. We have no way of determining the number of aircraft that
might need these actions:

                                               On-Condition Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Action                            Labor cost           Parts cost        Cost per product
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Installation of External Doubler.........  5 work-hour x $85 per hour       $20,000  $20,425
                                            = $425.
Repetitive ETLF inspection...............  8 work-hour x $85 per hour            $0  $680 per inspection cycle
                                            = $680 per inspection
                                            cycle.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For all actions and repairs on Groups 1-3, Configuration 1
Airplanes, we have received no definitive data that would enable us to
provide cost estimates for the on-condition actions specified in this
proposed AD.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

    We have determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not
have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship
between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify that the proposed
regulation:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866,
    (2) Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
    (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.

The Proposed Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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 removing Airworthiness Directive (AD)
2008-26-07, Amendment 39-15773 (73 FR 78946, December 24, 2008), and
adding the following new AD:

The Boeing Company: Docket No. FAA-2015-2455; Directorate Identifier
2014-NM-180-AD.

(a) Comments Due Date

    The FAA must receive comments on this AD action by August 17,
2015.

(b) Affected ADs

    This AD replaces AD 2008-26-07, Amendment 39-15773 (73 FR 78946,
December 24, 2008).

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to all The Boeing Company Model DC-8-11, DC-8-
12, DC-8-21, DC-8-31, DC-8-32, DC-8-33, DC-8-41, DC-8-42, DC-8-43,
DC-8-51, DC-8-52, DC-8-53, DC-8-55, DC-8F-54, DC-8F-55, DC-8-61, DC-
8-62, DC-8-63, DC-8-61F, DC-8-62F, DC-8-63F, DC-8-71, DC-8-72, DC-8-
73, DC-8-71F, DC-8-72F, and DC-8-73F airplanes; certificated in any
category.

(d) Subject

    Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC) 57, Wings.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by certain mandated programs intended to
support the airplane reaching its limit of validity of the
engineering data that support the established structural maintenance
program. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct cracks in the
lower skins, stringers, and fastener holes of the splice fittings,
which could result in the loss of structural integrity of the
airplane.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Retained Repetitive Inspections

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (f) of AD
2008-26-07, Amendment 39-15773 (73 FR 78946, December 24, 2008). At
the times specified in paragraph 1.E., ``Compliance,'' of Boeing
Alert Service Bulletin DC8-57A102, dated February 12, 2008, except
as provided by paragraph (h) of this AD, do the applicable
inspections for fatigue cracking of the lower skin and stringers at
stations Xw=408 and Xw=-408, and do all applicable corrective
actions, by accomplishing all applicable actions

specified in the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service
Bulletin DC8-57A102, dated February 12, 2008. Do all corrective
actions before further flight. Thereafter, repeat the inspections at
the applicable intervals specified in paragraph 1.E.,
``Compliance,'' of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin DC8-57A102, dated
February 12, 2008, until paragraph (j) of this AD is done.

(h) Retained Exception for Compliance Time

    This paragraph restates the exception specified in paragraph (g)
of AD 2008-26-07, Amendment 39-15773 (73 FR 78946, December 24,
2008). Where Boeing Alert Service Bulletin DC8-57A102, dated
February 12, 2008, specifies a compliance time ``after the date on
this service bulletin,'' this AD requires compliance within the
specified compliance time after January 28, 2009 (the effective date
of AD 2008-26-07).

(i) Retained Exception for Corrective Action

    This paragraph restates the exception specified in paragraph (h)
of AD 2008-26-07, Amendment 39-15773 (73 FR 78946, December 24,
2008): If any cracking is found during any inspection required by
paragraph (g) of this AD, and Boeing Alert Service Bulletin DC8-
57A102, dated February 12, 2008, specifies to contact Boeing for
appropriate action: Before further flight, repair the cracking using
a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in
paragraph (m) of this AD.

(j) New Inspections and Corrective Action

    (1) For Groups 1-3, Configuration 1 Airplanes: At the applicable
time specified in paragraph 1.E., ``Compliance,'' of Boeing Service
Bulletin DC8-57-104, dated August 18, 2014, except as required in
paragraph (l) of this AD, do an inspection for any cracking, and do
all applicable corrective actions using a method approved in
accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (m) of this
AD.
    (2) For Groups 1-3, Configuration 2 Airplanes: At the applicable
time specified in paragraph 1.E., ``Compliance,'' of Boeing Service
Bulletin DC8-57-104, dated August 18, 2014, except as required in
paragraph (l) of this AD, do an eddy current high frequency (ETHF)
inspection for any cracking of the fastener open holes common to the
lower skins, stringers, and splice fittings at station Xw=408 and
Xw=-408 from stringer 51 to stringer 65, in accordance with the
Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin DC8-57-104,
dated August 18, 2014. If any cracking is found, before further
flight, repair the crack using a method approved in accordance with
the procedures specified in paragraph (m) of this AD.

(k) New Doubler and Fastener Installation and Eddy Current Low
Frequency (ETLF) Inspection of the External Doubler and Corrective
Action

    If no crack is found during the inspection required by paragraph
(j)(2) of this AD: At the applicable times specified in paragraph
1.E., ``Compliance,'' of Boeing Service Bulletin DC8-57-104, dated
August 18, 2014, install external doublers and fasteners, and do an
external doubler ETLF inspection around the fasteners for any
cracking. Repeat the external ETLF inspection at the applicable
intervals specified in 1.E., ``Compliance,'' of Boeing Service
Bulletin DC8-57-104, dated August 18, 2014. If any cracking is found
during any ETLF inspection required by this paragraph, before
further flight, repair the crack using a method approved in
accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (m) of this
AD.

(l) Exception to the Compliance Time

    Where Boeing Service Bulletin DC8-57-104, dated August 18, 2014,
specifies a compliance time ``after the original issue date of this
service bulletin,'' this AD requires compliance within the specified
compliance time after the effective date of this AD.

(m) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Los Angeles 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 paragraph (n)(1) 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.
    (3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be
used for any repair required by this AD if it is approved by the
Boeing Commercial Airplanes Organization Designation Authorization
(ODA) that has been authorized by the Manager, Los Angeles ACO, to
make those findings. For a repair method to be approved, the repair
must meet the certification basis of the airplane, and the approval
must specifically refer to this AD.
    (4) AMOCs approved for AD 2008-26-07, Amendment 39-15773 (73 FR
78946, December 24, 2008), are approved as AMOCs for the
corresponding provisions of this AD.
    (5) Except as required by paragraphs (j) and (k) of this AD: For
service information that contains steps that are labeled as Required
for Compliance (RC), the provisions of paragraphs (m)(5)(i) and
(m)(5)(ii) apply.
    (i) The steps labeled as RC, including substeps under an RC step
and any figures identified in an RC step, must be done to comply
with the AD. An AMOC is required for any deviations to RC steps,
including substeps and identified figures.
    (ii) Steps not labeled 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 RC
steps, including substeps and identified figures, can still be done
as specified, and the airplane can be put back in an airworthy
condition.

(n) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact Chandra Ramdoss,
Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM-120L, FAA, Los Angeles ACO,
3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, CA 90712-4137; telephone: 562-
627-5239; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) For service information identified in this AD, Boeing
Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management, 3855
Lakewood Boulevard, MC D800-0019, Long Beach, CA 90846-0001;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, extension 2; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; Internet
https://www.myboeingfleet.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>.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on June 24, 2015.
Dionne Palermo,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2015-16154 Filed 7-1-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON D. C., 20460 OFFICE OF PREVENTION, PESTICIDES AND TOXIC SUBSTANCES February 7, 2006 PC Code 074002 DP Barcode: D318020 MEMORANDUM SUBJECT: EFED s drinking water assessment for sodium cyanide in relation to fumigation of truck trailers and chamber TO: James Doty, Risk Manager Reviewer Robert McNally, Risk Manager Special Review and Reregistration Division ( 7508C)

FROM: Faruque Khan, Environmental Scientist Environmental Risk Branch V Environmental Fate and Effects Division ( 7507C)

APPROVED BY: Jean Holmes, Acting Branch Chief Environmental Risk Branch V Environmental Fate and Effects Division ( 7507C)

This memorandum presents a drinking water assessment of the use of sodium cyanide as a fumigant in truck trailers and enclosed chambers. Sodium cyanide is known as cyanide of sodium, hydrocyanic acid sodium salt. It hydrolyzes readily to gaseous hydrogen cyanide ( HCN) when dissolved in water or in contact with moisture. Gaseous HCN is intended to be used in fumigating chambers, truck trailers and other temporarily enclosed containers for citrus fruits to satisfy State, Federal and International quarantine requirements. An application rate of one ounce of sodium cyanide applied results in six ounces of HCN gas per 1000 ft3.

Environmental Fate and Effects Division ( EFED) does not anticipate significant exposure from sodium cyanide as well as hydrogen cyanide in surface water and ground water, when it is used as a fumigant under controlled delivery system of gaseous HCN into an airtight enclosure as described in the sodium cyanide label ( SLA CA 840006) and accepted by the State of California Department of Pesticide Regulation. Residual HCN will be vented from the treated containers through a exhaust system. In a recent air monitoring study ( MRID # 46648901), eight hour time weighted average concentration of HCN in ambient air after fumigation of citrus truck trailers was zero ppm. Based on the above fumigation operation, and due to the high vapor pressure ( 742 mm Hg @ 25 ° C) and Henry's Law Constant ( 1.33 x 10 4 atm m3/ mole) of HCN, redeposition of volatilized HCN in surface water does not appear to be significant, thus suggesting that contamination of surface waters and ground water by HCN is unlikely.


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 184 (Monday, September 27, 2021)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 53246-53249]
[FR Doc No: 2021-20805]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2021-0832; Project Identifier MCAI-2020-01550-T]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier, Inc., Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD)
for certain Bombardier, Inc., Model BD-700-1A10 and BD-700-1A11
airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by reports of internal
corrosion on the inboard flaps found prior to regularly scheduled
maintenance checks. This proposed AD would require revising the
existing maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to
incorporate a certain aircraft maintenance manual (AMM) task. The FAA
is proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: The FAA must receive comments on this proposed AD by November
12, 2021.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR
11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building, Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail address above between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this NPRM, contact
Bombardier, Inc., Bombardier, Inc., 200 C[ocirc]te-Vertu Road West,
Dorval, Qu[eacute]bec H4S 2A3, Canada; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>internet https://www.bombardier.com. You
may view this service information at the FAA, Airworthiness Products
Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines,
WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA,
call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket at https://www.regulations.gov by
searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2021-0832; or in person at
Docket Operations between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this NPRM, any comments
received, and other information. The street address for Docket
Operations is listed above. Comments will be available in the AD docket
shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Antariksh Shetty, Aerospace Engineer,
Airframe and Propulsion Section, FAA, New York ACO Branch, 1600 Stewart
Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax 516-
794-5531; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    The FAA invites you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed
under ADDRESSES. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2021-0832; Project Identifier
MCAI-2020-01550-T'' at the beginning of your comments. The most helpful
comments reference a specific portion of the proposal, explain the
reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. The FAA
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
the proposal because of those comments.
    Except for Confidential Business Information (CBI) as described in
the following paragraph, and other information as described in 14 CFR
11.35, the FAA will post all comments received, without change, to
https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you
provide. The agency will also post a report summarizing each
substantive verbal contact received about this proposed AD.

Confidential Business Information

    CBI is commercial or financial information that is both customarily
and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of
Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public
disclosure. If your comments responsive to this NPRM contain commercial
or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that
you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to
this NPRM, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted
comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission containing
CBI as ``PROPIN.'' The FAA will treat such marked submissions as
confidential under the FOIA, and they will not be placed in the public
docket of this NPRM. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to
Antariksh Shetty, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe and Propulsion Section,
FAA, New York ACO Branch, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY
11590; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Any commentary that the FAA receives which is not
specifically designated as CBI will be placed in the public docket for
this rulemaking.

Background

    Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the aviation
authority for Canada, has issued TCCA AD CF-2020-49R1, dated May 20,
2021 (TCCA AD CF-2020-49R1) (also referred to after this as the
Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or the MCAI), to
correct an unsafe condition for certain Bombardier, Inc., Model BD-700-
1A10 and BD-700-1A11 airplanes. You may examine the MCAI in the AD
docket at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating
Docket No. FAA-2021-0832.
    This proposed AD was prompted by reports of internal corrosion on
the inboard flaps found prior to regularly scheduled maintenance
checks. The FAA is proposing this AD to address such corrosion, which
could result in reduced structural integrity, detachment of the flap,
and consequent reduced controllability of the airplane.
    See the MCAI for additional background information.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    Bombardier issued the following service information.
     Task 57-51-00-290-801, ``Special Detailed Inspection of
the Inboard-Flap Internal Ribs,'' of Bombardier Global Express Aircraft
Maintenance Manual--Part Two--Publication No. BD-700 AMM, Revision 90,
dated May 19, 2021.
     Task 57-51-00-290-801, ``Special Detailed Inspection of
the Inboard-Flap Internal Ribs,'' of Bombardier Global Express XRS
Aircraft Maintenance Manual--Part Two--Publication No. BD-700 XRS AMM,
Revision 68, dated May 19, 2021.

     Task 57-51-00-290-801, ``Special Detailed Inspection of
the Inboard-Flap Internal Ribs,'' of Bombardier Global 6000 Aircraft
Maintenance Manual--Part Two--Publication No. GL 6000 AMM, Revision 39,
dated May 19, 2021.
     Task 57-51-00-290-801, ``Special Detailed Inspection of
the Inboard-Flap Internal Ribs,'' of Bombardier Global 6500 Aircraft
Maintenance Manual--Part Two--Publication No. GL 6500 AMM, Revision 8,
dated May 19, 2021.
     Task 57-51-00-290-801, ``Special Detailed Inspection of
the Inboard-Flap Internal Ribs,'' of Bombardier Global 5000 Aircraft
Maintenance Manual--Part Two--Publication No. BD-700 AMM, Revision 71,
dated May 19, 2021.
     Task 57-51-00-290-801, ``Special Detailed Inspection of
the Inboard-Flap Internal Ribs,'' of Bombardier Global 5000 Featuring
Global Vision Flight Deck Aircraft Maintenance Manual--Part Two--
Publication No. GL 5000 GVFD AMM, Revision 38, dated May 19, 2021.
     Task 57-51-00-290-801, ``Special Detailed Inspection of
the Inboard-Flap Internal Ribs,'' of Bombardier Global 5500 Aircraft
Maintenance Manual--Part Two--Publication No. GL 5500 AMM, Revision 7,
dated May 19, 2021.
    These documents describe amendments to the AMM to include
inspections of the inboard flap internal ribs for corrosion. These
documents are distinct since they apply to different airplane serial
numbers.
    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.

FAA's Determination

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another
country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant
to the FAA's bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority,
the FAA has been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI
and service information referenced above. The FAA is proposing this AD
because the FAA evaluated all the relevant information and determined
the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop
on other products of the same type design.

Proposed Requirements of This NPRM

    This proposed AD would require revising the existing maintenance or
inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate the information
specified in AMM Task 57-51-00-290-801 and the compliance times for AMM
Task 57-51-00-290-801.
    The AMM task corresponds to Part 3, Task 57-51-00-201, Special
Detailed Inspection of the Inboard-Flap Internal Ribs, of the
applicable Bombardier Time Limits/Maintenance Checks (TLMC), which is
referenced in the MCAI.

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this proposed AD affects 141 airplanes of
U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with
this proposed AD:
    The FAA has determined that revising the maintenance or inspection
program takes an average of 90 work-hours per operator, although the
agency recognizes that this number may vary from operator to operator.
Since operators incorporate maintenance or inspection program changes
for their affected fleet(s), the FAA has determined that a per-operator
estimate is more accurate than a per-airplane estimate. Therefore, the
agency estimates the average total cost per operator to be $7,650 (90
work-hours x $85 per work-hour).

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Proposed Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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:

Bombardier, Inc.: Docket No. FAA-2021-0832; Project Identifier MCAI-
2020-01550-T.

(a) Comments Due Date

    The FAA must receive comments on this airworthiness directive
(AD) by November 12, 2021.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Bombardier, Inc., Model BD-700-1A10 and BD-
700-1A11 airplanes, certificated in any category, serial numbers
9001 through 9879 inclusive, 9998, and 60001 through 60033
inclusive.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 05, Time Limits/
Maintenance Checks.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted was prompted by reports of internal
corrosion on the inboard flaps found prior to regularly scheduled
maintenance checks. The FAA is issuing this AD to address internal
corrosion on the inboard flaps, which could result in reduced
structural integrity, detachment of the flap, and consequent reduced
controllability of the airplane.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Maintenance or Inspection Program Revision

    Within 30 days after the effective date of this AD, revise the
existing maintenance or

inspection program, as applicable, to include the information
specified in Task 57-51-00-290-801, ``Special Detailed Inspection of
the Inboard-Flap Internal Ribs,'' of the applicable Bombardier
Aircraft Maintenance Manual (AMM) identified in figure 1 to
paragraph (g) of this AD and to include the following compliance
times for Task 57-51-00-290-801: Within 60 months after the
effective date of this AD (for the initial compliance time), and
repeat thereafter at intervals not to exceed 60 months.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP27SE21.000

(h) No Alternative Actions or Intervals

    After the existing maintenance or inspection program has been
revised as required by paragraph (g) of this AD, no alternative
actions (e.g., inspections) or intervals, may be used unless the
actions or intervals, are approved as an alternative method of
compliance (AMOC) in accordance with the procedures specified in
paragraph (i)(1) of this AD.

(i) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, New
York ACO Branch, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this
AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In
accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal
inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate.
If sending information directly to the manager of the certification
office, send it to ATTN: Program Manager, Continuing Operational
Safety, FAA, New York ACO Branch, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410,
Westbury, NY 11590; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>. Before
using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal
inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the
local flight standards district office/certificate holding district
office.
    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD
to obtain instructions from a manufacturer, the instructions must be
accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, New York ACO
Branch, FAA; or Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA); or
Bombardier, Inc.'s TCCA Design Approval Organization (DAO). If
approved by the DAO, the approval must include the DAO-authorized
signature.

(j) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information
(MCAI) TCCA AD CF-2020-49R1, dated May 20, 2021, for related
information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-
2021-0832.
    (2) For more information about this AD, contact Antariksh
Shetty, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe and Propulsion Section, FAA,
New York ACO Branch, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY
11590; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Bombardier, Inc., 200 C[ocirc]te-Vertu Road West, Dorval,
Qu[eacute]bec H4S 2A3, Canada; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email

<EMAIL_ADDRESS>internet https://www.bombardier.com. You
may view this service information at the FAA, Airworthiness Products
Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des
Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this material at
the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Issued on September 21, 2021.
Gaetano A. Sciortino,
Deputy Director for Strategic Initiatives, Compliance & Airworthiness
Division, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2021-20805 Filed 9-24-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P