Comment Info: =================

General Comment:Dear Mr. Zeller,

I am writing as an individual consumer to request an extension of the public comment period for the Food and Drug Administration’s Proposed Rule Deeming Tobacco Products to be Subject to the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetics Act, as amended by the Family Smoking and Prevention and Tobacco Control Act (the “Proposed Rule”) published at 79 Fed. Reg. 23,142 and Federal Register No. 2014-09491.  On behalf of myself, I am requesting that the comment period for the Proposed Rule be extended by the FDA for an additional 105 days, from its current 75-day comment period, to 180 days.

The Proposed Rule raises a number of significant issues and questions that are important and relevant to me, as a consumer of some of the products that are proposed for regulation under the Proposed Rule.  The Proposed Rule asks about a hundred different questions I might want to respond to, I want to be able to give my thoughts and comments on many of the issues raised, but my time to devote to researching and providing thoughtful comments on these questions is limited.  I have already spent time researching and dissecting these issues, but they take time.  I know that the FDA took many years to even come up with the Proposed Rule, so I do not think it to be unreasonable to allow the public six months to comment on it.  As a consumer, this is the only opportunity that we have to provide our feedback on the Proposed Rule.

I feel very strongly about e-cigarrettes as an alternative to combustible, traditional cigarettes.  I was 28 years old whenever I took up “vaping.” I wish to provide you with my personal experiences as well as provide any science and evidence-based responses to your questions so that you can take my comment on the Rule into account.  I would ask that you use the authority under 21 C.F.R. §10.40 to extend this time-frame, as the FDA has done so on numerous occasions in the past.  By extending the period for comment, all stakeholders will have the opportunity to provide their comments on this proposed regulation.

My understanding of the industry is that e-cigarettes have been around since before 2007, consisting of a cartomizer and a small battery.  Most of these e-cigarettes were produced by tobacco giants such as R.J. Reynolds and other producers of the traditional combustible cigarettes.  Today, while the original e-cigarettes are still available at smoke-shops and drug stores throughout, the varieties of devices and products available have vastly increased, with personal vaporizers, mods, gourmet e-liquids, etc. being available to the consuming public.

Of particular concern is the effect of the Proposed Rule on the small and medium sized producers of the “e-liquid,” which would be crippled by the costs of complying with the Proposed Rule requiring that all producers of such liquids receive approval through the FDA.  My understanding of the process, like other regulatory processes, is that approval would result in prohibitive expenditures of funds that many producers do not have and thousands of hours for each application, which would be required for all of its products.  I feel that this requirement is unnecessary for providing the consuming public the necessary information about the products and to ensure that the products that they are consuming are relatively safe.

The shops that I have frequented, all of which produce the liquids in-house, have been forthcoming to me about the contents of the liquids that they sell to the public, and I have been able to ask them about what ingredients are being used and have been able to do my own research about their relative safety of each of the liquid blends. I have no problem with requiring that “e-juice” producers provide a list of ingredients that are used in the liquids, as such information is necessary for consumers to make informed purchases, and most retailers are compliant with my requests for such information.

I appreciate your consideration of my request and would be happy to further comment and discuss this issue with you further.  You or your staff may contact me about this matter, wherein I can discuss specific questions that you might have by email.  My personal email is<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

Sincerely,

Tyler C. Johnson


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 177 (Wednesday, September 12, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 46098-46101]
[FR Doc No: 2018-19753]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 25

[Docket No. FAA-2016-5909; Special Conditions No. 25-626A-SC]

Special Conditions: The Boeing Company (Boeing), Model 787-8,
787-9, and 787-10 Series Airplanes; Dynamic Test Requirements for
Single-Occupant, Oblique (Side-Facing) Seats With or Without Airbag
Devices or 3-Point Restraints

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Amended final special conditions; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: These amended special conditions are issued for the Boeing
Model 787-8, 787-9, and 787-10 series airplanes. This amendment states
that the Boeing Model 787-8, 787-9, and 787-10 series airplanes oblique
(side-facing) seats may be installed at an angle of 18 to 45 degrees to
the airplane centerline and may include a 3-point or airbag restraint
system, or both, for occupant restraint and injury protection. This
airplane will have novel or unusual design features when compared to
the state of technology envisioned in the airworthiness standards for
transport category airplanes. These design features are oblique (side-
facing) single-occupant seats equipped with airbag devices or 3-point
restraints. The applicable airworthiness regulations do not contain
adequate or appropriate safety standards for these design features.
These special conditions contain the additional safety standards the
Administrator considers necessary to establish a level of safety
equivalent to that established by the existing airworthiness standards.

DATES: This action is effective on Boeing on September 12, 2018. Send
comments on or before October 29, 2018.

ADDRESSES: Send comments identified by Docket No. FAA-2016-5909 using
any of the following methods:
     Federal eRegulations Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov/ and follow the online instructions for sending
your comments electronically.
     Mail: Send comments to Docket Operations, M-30, U.S.
Department of Transportation (DOT), 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Room
W12-140, West Building Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: Take comments to Docket
Operations in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Fax: Fax comments to Docket Operations at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Privacy: The FAA will post all comments it receives, without
change, to http://www.regulations.gov/, including any personal
information the commenter provides. Using the search function of the
docket website, anyone can find and read the electronic form of all
comments received into any FAA docket, including the name of the
individual sending the comment (or signing the comment for an
association, business, labor union, etc.). DOT's complete Privacy Act
Statement can be

found in the Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-
19478).
    Docket: Background documents or comments received may be read at
http://www.regulations.gov/ at any time. Follow the online instructions
for accessing the docket or go to Docket Operations in Room W12-140 of
the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Shelden, Airframe and Cabin
Safety Section, AIR-675, Transport Standards Branch, Policy and
Innovation Division, Aircraft Certification Service, Federal Aviation
Administration, 2200 South 216th Street, Des Moines, Washington 98198;
telephone and fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; email [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The substance of these special conditions
has been published in the Federal Register for public comment in
several prior instances with no substantive comments received. The FAA,
therefore, finds it unnecessary to delay the effective date and finds
that good cause exists for making these special conditions effective
upon publication in the Federal Register.

Comments Invited

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

Background

    On November 22, 2017, Boeing applied for a change to Type
Certificate No. T00021SE for the installation of oblique (side-facing)
passenger seats with or without airbag devices or 3-point restraints in
the Boeing Model 787-8, 787-9, and 787-10 series airplanes. The Boeing
Model 787-8, 787-9, and 787-10 series airplanes are twin-engine,
transport category airplanes with a maximum certified passenger
capacity of up to 440, and a maximum takeoff weight of approximately
476,000 lbs.

Type Certification Basis

    Under the provisions of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14
CFR) 21.101, Boeing must show that the Model 787-8, 787-9, and 787-10
series airplanes, as changed, continue to meet the applicable
provisions of the regulations listed in Type Certificate No. T00021SE
or the applicable regulations in effect on the date of application for
the change, except for earlier amendments as agreed upon by the FAA.
    If the Administrator finds that the applicable airworthiness
regulations (i.e., 14 CFR part 25) do not contain adequate or
appropriate safety standards for the Boeing Model 787-8, 787-9, and
787-10 series airplanes because of novel or unusual design features,
special conditions are prescribed under the provisions of Sec.  21.16.
    Special conditions are initially applicable to the model for which
they are issued. Should the type certificate for that model be amended
later to include any other model that incorporates the same novel or
unusual design feature, or should any other model already included on
the same type certificate be modified to incorporate the same novel or
unusual design feature, these special conditions would also apply to
the other model under Sec.  21.101.
    In addition to the applicable airworthiness regulations and special
conditions, the Boeing Model 787-8, 787-9, and 787-10 series airplanes
must comply with the fuel vent and exhaust emission requirements of 14
CFR part 34 and the noise certification requirements of 14 CFR part 36.
    The FAA issues special conditions, as defined in 14 CFR 11.19, in
accordance with Sec.  11.38, and they become part of the type
certification basis under Sec.  21.101.

Novel or Unusual Design Features

    The business-class seating configuration Boeing proposes is novel
or unusual due to the seat installation at 30 degrees to the airplane
centerline, the airbag-system installation, and the seat/occupant
interface with the surrounding furniture that introduces occupant
alignment and loading concerns. The proposed business-class seating
configuration is also beyond the limits of current acceptable
equivalent-level-of-safety findings. These oblique (side-facing) seats
may be installed at an angle of 18 to 45 degrees to the airplane
centerline and may include a 3-point or airbag restraint system, or
both, for occupant restraint and injury protection.
    The existing regulations do not provide adequate or appropriate
safety standards for occupants of oblique-angled seats with airbag
systems. To provide a level of safety that is equivalent to that
afforded occupants of forward- and aft-facing seats, additional
airworthiness standards, in the form of special conditions, are
necessary. These special conditions supplement part 25 and, more
specifically, supplement Sec. Sec.  25.562 and 25.785.
    The requirements contained in these special conditions consist of
both test conditions and injury pass/fail criteria.

Discussion

    The FAA has been conducting and sponsoring research on appropriate
injury criteria for oblique (side-facing) seat installations. However,
the FAA research program is not complete and we may update these
criteria as we obtain further research results. To reflect current
research findings, the FAA issued policy statement PS-ANM-25-03-R1 to
update injury criteria for fully side-facing seats, and policy
statement PS-AIR-25-27, to define injury criteria for oblique (side-
facing) seats.
    The proposed Boeing Model 787-8, 787-9, and 787-10 series airplanes
business-class seat installation is novel such that the current Boeing
Model 787-8, 787-9, and 787-10 series airplanes certification basis
does not adequately address protection of the occupant's neck and spine
for seat configurations that are positioned at an angle greater than 18
degrees from the airplane centerline. The FAA issued special conditions
No. 25-580-SC for Model 787-9 airplanes on April 14, 2015, and special
conditions No. 25-626-SC for certain Model 787-9 airplanes on July 27,
2016. These special conditions contained injury criteria for oblique
seats based on the best knowledge the FAA had at the time. These
special conditions for oblique seat installations do not adequately
address oblique seats, reflecting the current research results, with or
without 3-point or airbag restraint systems. Therefore, Boeing's
proposed configuration will require amended special conditions.
    The installation of passenger seats at angles of 18 to 45 degrees
to the airplane centerline are unique due to the seat/occupant
interface with the surrounding furniture that introduces occupant
alignment/loading concerns with or without the installation of a 3-
point or airbag restraint system, or both. On-going research has
invalidated previously released special conditions for oblique (side-
facing) seat installations. These updated special conditions further
address potential injuries to the occupant's neck and spine. As a
result, these special conditions replace special conditions 25-580-SC
and 25-626-SC.
    FAA-sponsored research has found that an un-restrained flailing of
the upper torso, even when the pelvis and

torso are nearly aligned, can produce serious spinal and torso
injuries. At lower impact severities, even with significant
misalignment between the torso and pelvis, these injuries did not
occur. Tests with an FAA H-III anthropomorphic test device (ATD) have
identified a level of lumbar spinal tension corresponding to the no-
injury impact severity. This level of tension is included as a limit in
the special conditions. The spine tension limit selected is
conservative with respect to other aviation injury criteria since it
corresponds to a no-injury loading condition.
    As noted in the special conditions for each airbag restraint
system, because an airbag restraint system is essentially a single use
device, there is the potential that it could deploy under crash
conditions that are not sufficiently severe as to require head injury
protection from the airbag restraint system. Since an actual crash is
frequently composed of a series of impacts before the airplane comes to
rest, this could render the airbag restraint system useless if a larger
impact follows the initial impact. This situation does not exist with
energy absorbing pads or upper torso restraints, which tend to provide
protection according to the severity of the impact. Therefore, the
installation of the airbag restraint system should be such that the
airbag restraint system will provide protection when it is required,
and will not expend its protection when it is not needed.
    Because these airbag restraint systems may or may not activate
during various crash conditions, the injury criteria listed in these
special conditions and in Sec.  25.562 must be met in an event that is
slightly below the activation level of the airbag restraint system. If
an airbag restraint system is included with the oblique seats, the
system must meet the requirements in one of the airbag (inflatable
restraint) special conditions applicable to the Boeing Model 787-8,
787-9, and 787-10 series airplanes.
    These amended special conditions will provide head injury criteria,
neck injury criteria, spine injury criteria, and body-to-wall contact
criteria. They contain the additional safety standards that the
Administrator considers necessary to establish a level of safety
equivalent to that established by the existing airworthiness standards.

Applicability

    As discussed above, these special conditions are applicable to the
Boeing Model 787-8, 787-9, and 787-10 series airplanes. Should Boeing
apply at a later date for a change to the type certificate to include
another model incorporating the same novel or unusual design feature,
these special conditions would apply to that model as well.

Conclusion

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 25

    Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.

Authority Citation

    The authority citation for these special conditions is as follows:

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

The Special Conditions

    Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the following special conditions are issued as part of
the type certification basis for Boeing Boeing Model 787-8, 787-9, and
787-10 series airplanes.

Side-Facing Seats Special Conditions

    In addition to the requirements of Sec.  25.562:

1. Head Injury Criteria

    Compliance with Sec.  25.562(c)(5) is required, except that, if the
ATD has no apparent contact with the seat/structure but has contact
with an airbag, a head-injury criterion (HIC) unlimited score in excess
of 1000 is acceptable, provided the HIC15 score (calculated in
accordance with 49 CFR 571.208) for that contact is less than 700.

2. Body-to-Wall/Furnishing Contact

    If a seat is installed aft of structure (e.g., an interior wall or
furnishing) that does not provide a homogenous contact surface for the
expected range of occupants and yaw angles, then additional analysis
and/or test(s) may be required to demonstrate that the injury criteria
are met for the area that an occupant could contact. For example, if
different yaw angles could result in different airbag performance, then
additional analysis or separate test(s) may be necessary to evaluate
performance.

3. Neck Injury Criteria

    The seating system must protect the occupant from experiencing
serious neck injury. The assessment of neck injury must be conducted
with the airbag device activated, unless there is reason to also
consider that the neck-injury potential would be higher for impacts
below the airbag-device deployment threshold.
    a. The Nij (calculated in accordance with 49 CFR
571.208) must be below 1.0, where Nij = Fz/
Fzc + My/Myc, and Nij
critical values are:

i. Fzc = 1,530 lb for tension
ii. Fzc = 1,385 lb for compression
iii. Myc = 229 lb-ft in flexion
iv. Myc = 100 lb-ft in extension

    b. In addition, peak Fz must be below 937 lb in tension
and 899 lb in compression.
    c. Rotation of the head about its vertical axis, relative to the
torso, is limited to 105 degrees in either direction from forward-
facing.
    d. The neck must not impact any surface that would produce
concentrated loading on the neck.

4. Spine and Torso Injury Criteria

    a. The lumbar spine tension (Fz) cannot exceed 1,200 lb.
    b. Significant concentrated loading on the occupant's spine, in the
area between the pelvis and shoulders during impact, including rebound,
is not acceptable. During this type of contact, the interval for any
rearward (X direction) acceleration exceeding 20g must be less than 3
milliseconds as measured by the thoracic instrumentation specified in
49 CFR part 572, subpart E filtered in accordance with SAE
International (SAE) recommended practice J211/1, ``Instrumentation for
Impact Test--Part 1-Electronic Instrumentation.''
    c. The occupant must not interact with the armrest or other seat
components in any manner significantly different than would be expected
for a forward-facing seat installation.

5. Pelvis Criteria

    Any part of the load-bearing portion of the bottom of the ATD
pelvis must not translate beyond the edges of the seat bottom seat-
cushion supporting structure.

6. Femur Criteria

    Axial rotation of the upper leg (about the z-axis of the femur per
SAE Recommended Practice J211/1) must be limited to 35 degrees from the
nominal seated position. Evaluation during rebound does not need to be
considered.

7. ATD and Test Conditions

    Longitudinal tests conducted to measure the injury criteria above
must be performed with the FAA Hybrid III ATD, as described in SAE
1999-01-1609, ``A Lumbar Spine Modification to the Hybrid III ATD for
Aircraft Seat Tests.'' The tests must be conducted with an undeformed
floor, at the most-critical yaw cases for injury, and with all lateral
structural supports (e.g. armrests or walls) installed.

    Note:  Boeing must demonstrate that the installation of seats
via plinths or pallets meets all applicable requirements. Compliance
with the guidance contained in policy memorandum PS-ANM-100-2000-
00123, ``Guidance for Demonstrating Compliance with Seat Dynamic
Testing for Plinths and Pallets,'' dated February 2, 2000, is
acceptable to the FAA.

8. Inflatable Airbag Restraint Systems Special Conditions

    If inflatable airbag restraint systems are installed, the airbag
systems must meet the requirements in one of the airbag (inflatable
restraint) special conditions applicable to the Boeing Model 787-8,
787-9 and 787-10 series airplanes.

    Issued in Des Moines, Washington, on September 5, 2018.
Victor Wicklund,
Manager, Transport Standards Branch, Policy and Innovation Division,
Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2018-19753 Filed 9-11-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: October 18, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 201)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 58993]
[DOCID:fr18oc07-1]

========================================================================
Rules and Regulations
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains regulatory documents
having general applicability and legal effect, most of which are keyed
to and codified in the Code of Federal Regulations, which is published
under 50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.

The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by the Superintendent of Documents.
Prices of new books are listed in the first FEDERAL REGISTER issue of each
week.

========================================================================

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket FAA No. FAA-2006-26364; Airspace Docket No. 06-ANM-12]

Establishment of Class E Airspace; Beaver, UT

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule; correction.

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

SUMMARY: This action corrects a final rule published in the Federal
Register August 10, 2007 (72 FR 44955), Airspace Docket No. 06-ANM-12,
FAA Docket No. FAA-2006-26364. In that rule, an error was made in the
legal description for Beaver, UT. Specifically, the longitude
referencing V-293 stated ``* * * long. 133[deg]00'00'' W.'' instead of
``* * * long.113[deg]30'00'' W.'' This action corrects that error.

DATES: Effective Date: 0901 UTC, October 25, 2007. 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: Eldon Taylor, Federal Aviation
Administration, System Support Group, Western Service Area, 1601 Lind
Avenue, SW., Renton, WA 98057; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

History

    On August 10, 2007, a final rule for Airspace Docket No. 06-ANM-12,
FAA Docket No. FAA-2006-26364 was published in the Federal Register (72
FR 44955), establishing Class E airspace in Beaver, UT. The longitude
referencing V-293 was incorrect in that the longitude stated ``* * *
long. 133[deg]00'00'' W.'' instead of ``* * * long.113[deg]30'00'' W.''
This action corrects that error.

Correction to Final Rule

0
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, the legal
description as published in the Federal Register on August 10, 2007 (72
FR 44955), Airspace Docket No. 06-ANM-12, FAA Docket No. FAA-2006-
26364, and incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1, is corrected as
follows:

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

0
On page 44956, correct the legal description for Beaver, UT, to read as
follows:

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

ANM UT E5 Beaver, UT [Corrected]

    Beaver Municipal Airport, UT (lat. 38[deg]13'51'' N., long.
112[deg]40'31'' W.)
    Bryce Canyon VORTAC (lat. 37[deg]41'21'' N., long.
112[deg]18'14'' W.)
    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 5.0-mile radius of Beaver Municipal Airport and within 3
miles each side of the 261[deg] bearing from the Airport extending
from the 5.0-mile radius to 14.0 miles west of the Airport, and that
airspace extending upward from 1,200 feet above the surface
beginning at lat. 38[deg]19'24'' N., long. 113[deg]30'00'' W.;
thence east on V-244 to lat. 38[deg]22'22'' N., long.
112[deg]37'47'' W.; thence south on V-257 to BRYCE CANYON VORTAC;
thence west on V-293 to lat. 37[deg]56'30'' N., long.
113[deg]30'00'' W.; to point of beginning.
* * * * *

    Issued in Seattle, Washington, on October 5, 2007.
Clark Desing,
Manager, System Support Group, Western Service Center.
[FR Doc. E7-20389 Filed 10-17-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 188 (Monday, September 29, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 58263-58266]
[FR Doc No: 2014-23003]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2014-0538; FRL-9915-51-Region 9]

Revision of Air Quality Implementation Plan; California; Placer
County Air Pollution Control District; Stationary Source Permits

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking direct
final action to approve a revision to the Placer County Air Pollution
Control District (PCAPCD) portion of the California State
Implementation Plan (SIP). This revision concerns a permitting rule
that regulates construction and modification of major stationary
sources of air pollution. These revisions correct deficiencies in
PCAPCD Rule 502, New Source Review, previously identified by EPA in a
final rule dated September 24, 2013. We are approving revisions that
correct the identified deficiencies.

DATES: This rule is effective on November 28, 2014 without further
notice, unless EPA receives adverse comments by October 29, 2014. If we
receive such comments, we will publish a timely withdrawal in the
Federal Register to notify the public that this direct final rule will
not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, identified by docket number EPA-R09-OAR-
2014-0538, by one of the following methods:
    1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow
the on-line instructions.
    2. Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. Mail or deliver: Gerardo Rios (Air-3), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA
94105-3901.
    Instructions: All comments will be included in the public docket
without change and may be made available online at http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,
unless the comment includes Confidential Business Information (CBI) or
other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Information that you consider CBI or otherwise protected should be
clearly identified as such and should not be submitted through http://www.regulations.gov or email. http://www.regulations.gov is an
``anonymous access'' system, and EPA will not know your identity or
contact information unless you provide it in the body of

your comment. If you send email directly to EPA, your email address
will be automatically captured and included as part of the public
comment. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties
and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to
consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special
characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or
viruses.
    Docket: EPA has established a docket for this action under EPA-R09-
OAR-2014-0538. Generally, documents in the docket for this action are
available electronically at http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy
at EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California. While
all documents are listed at http://www.regulations.gov, some
information may be publicly available only at the hard copy location
(e.g., copyrighted material, large maps, multi-volume reports), and
some may not be publicly available in either location (e.g., CBI). To
inspect the hard copy materials, please schedule an appointment during
normal business hours with the contact listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: La weeda Ward, EPA Region IX, (213)
244-1812<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us'' and
``our'' refer to EPA.

Table of Contents

I. The State's Submittal
    A. What rule did the State submit?
    B. Are there other versions of this rule?
    C. What is the purpose of the submitted rule revision?
II. EPA's Evaluation and Action
    A. How is EPA evaluating the rule?
    B. Does the rule meet the evaluation criteria?
    C. Public Comment and Final Action
III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. The State's Submittal

A. What rule did the State submit?

    Table 1 lists the rule we are approving with the date it was
adopted by the local air agency and submitted to EPA by the California
Air Resources Board (CARB).

                                             Table 1--Submitted Rule
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         Rule               Rule title              Amended        Submitted
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PCAPCD.................................          502  New Source Review.........          8/8/13         5/13/14
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On July 18 2014, EPA determined that the submittal for PCAPCD Rule
502 met the completeness criteria in 40 CFR part 51, appendix V,
including evidence of public adoption of this regulation, which must be
met before formal EPA review.

B. Are there other versions of this rule?

    EPA approved a previous version of Rule 502, into the SIP on
September 24, 2013 (78 FR 58460).

C. What is the purpose of the submitted rule revision?

    Section 110(a)(2) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) requires that each SIP
include, among other things, a preconstruction permit program to
provide for regulation of the construction and modification of
stationary sources within the areas covered by the plan as necessary to
assure that the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) are
achieved, including a permit program as required in parts C and D of
title I of the CAA. For areas designated as nonattainment for one or
more NAAQS, the SIP must include preconstruction permit requirements
for new or modified major stationary sources of such nonattainment
pollutant(s), commonly referred to as ``Nonattainment New Source
Review'' or ``NNSR.'' CAA 172(c)(5).
    The portion of Placer County that lies within the Sacramento Metro
air basin is currently designated severe nonattainment for both the
1997 and 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS and moderate nonattainment for the
2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. See 40 CFR 81.305. Therefore,
California is required under part D of title I of the Act to adopt and
implement a SIP-approved NNSR program for the nonattainment portions of
Placer County that applies, at a minimum, to new or modified major
stationary sources of the following pollutants: volatile organic
compounds (VOCs), nitrogen oxides (NOX), particular matter
of 2.5 microns or less (PM2.5) and sulfur oxides
(SOx).\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ VOCs and NOX are subject to NNSR as ozone
precursors, and NOX and SOx are subject to
NNSR as PM2.5 precursors. See 40 CFR
51.165(a)(1)(xxxvii)(C).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Rule 502, New Source Review, implements the NNSR requirements under
part D of title I of the CAA for new or modified major stationary
sources of nonattainment pollutants. The PCAPCD amended Rule 502 to
correct minor program deficiencies identified by EPA on September 24,
2013 (78 FR 58460).

II. EPA's Evaluation and Action

A. How is EPA evaluating the rule?

    EPA has reviewed the submitted permitting rule for compliance with
the CAA's general requirements for SIPs in CAA section 110(a)(2), EPA's
regulations for nonattainment stationary source permit programs in 40
CFR 51.165, and the CAA requirements for SIP revisions in CAA section
110(l).\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Section 110(l) of the CAA require that SIP revisions undergo
reasonable notice and public hearing prior to adoption and submittal
by states to EPA and prohibits EPA from approving any SIP revision
that would interfere with any applicable requirement concerning
attainment and reasonable further progress or any other applicable
requirement of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Does the rule meet the evaluation criteria?

    With respect to procedures, CAA sections 110(a) and 110(l) require
that revisions to a SIP be adopted by the State after reasonable notice
and public hearing. EPA has promulgated specific procedural
requirements for SIP revisions in 40 CFR part 51, subpart F. These
requirements include publication of notices, by prominent advertisement
in the relevant geographic area, a public comment period of at least 30
days, and an opportunity for a public hearing.
    Based on our review of the public process documentation included in
CARB's May 13, 2014 submittal, we find that the State has provided
sufficient evidence of public notice and opportunity for comment and
public hearing prior to adoption and submittal of this rule to EPA.
    With respect to substantive requirements, EPA has reviewed the
submitted rule in accordance with the CAA and regulatory requirements
that apply to NNSR permit programs under part D of title I of the Act.
Based on our evaluation of this rule, as summarized in the Public
Comment and Final Action section of this document, we find that the
rule meets the CAA and regulatory requirements for NNSR permit programs
in part D of title I of the Act and EPA's NNSR implementing regulations
in 40 CFR section 51.165 for new or modified major stationary sources
proposing to locate within the District. Final

approval of Rule 502 would correct all deficiencies in PCAPCD's permit
program identified in our September 24, 2013 final rule. 78 FR 58460.

C. Public Comment and Final Action.

    As authorized in section 110(k)(3) of the Act, EPA is fully
approving the submitted rule because we believe it fulfills all
relevant requirements. We do not think anyone will object to this
approval, so we are finalizing it without proposing it in advance.
However, in the Proposed Rules section of this Federal Register, we are
simultaneously proposing approval of the same submitted rule. If we
receive adverse comments by October 29, 2014, we will publish a timely
withdrawal in the Federal Register to notify the public that the direct
final approval will not take effect and we will address the comments in
a subsequent final action based on the proposal. If we do not receive
timely adverse comments, the direct final approval will be effective
without further notice on November 28, 2014. This will incorporate the
rule into the federally enforceable SIP.
    Please note that if EPA receives adverse comment on an amendment,
paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision may be severed
from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those provisions
of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment.
    For the reasons given above, under CAA section 110(k)(3) and
301(a), we are approving Rule 502. In the State's May 13, 2014
submittal, PCAPCD corrected certain deficiencies noted in our September
24, 2013 rule (78 FR 58460) that prevented full approval at that time.
The deficiencies for Rule 502 \3\ were: (1) An inadequate definition of
the term ``Regulated NSR Pollutant''; and (2) missing justification for
the stated PM2.5 interpollutant offset ratios. The first
deficiency was corrected by adding the following sentences to the
definitions of PM10 and PM2.5: ``Gaseous
emissions which condense to form PM10 shall also be counted
as PM10.'', and ``Gaseous emissions which condense to form
PM2.5 shall also be counted as PM2.5.'' The
second deficiency was corrected by deleting the following wording in
section 303.6.4 of the rule: ``The interpollutant offset ratios for
PM2.5 shall be: NOX to PM2.5--100:1
and SOX to PM2.5--40:1; and adding the wording
``Interpollutant emission offsets between PM2.5 and
PM2.5 precursors are not allowed unless modeling
demonstrates that PM2.5 interpollutant offset ratios are
appropriate in an approved PM2.5 attainment plan.'' This
language resolves the deficiency by prohibiting the use of
PM2.5 interpollutant offsets until a justification for
specified PM2.5 interpollutant offset ratios is approved
into the SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The submitted rule also corrects an issue with public notice
requirements regarding lead emissions. For a full review of all
revisions, please see the ``Placer County Air Pollution Control
District Staff Report, Rule 502, New Source Review, August 8,
2013'', which can also be found in the docket for this final action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and
applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve State
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this action merely approves State law as meeting Federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by State law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act; and
     does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address disproportionate human health or environmental effects with
practical, appropriate, and legally permissible methods under Executive
Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in
the State, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone,
Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile
organic compounds.

    Authority:  42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Dated: July 31, 2014.
Jared Blumenfeld,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.

    Part 52, Chapter I, Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is
amended as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

Subpart F--California

0
2. Section 52.220 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(441) (i)(B) to
read as follows:

Sec.  52.220  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (441) * * *

    (i) * * *
    (B) Placer County Air Pollution Control District.
    (1) Rule 502, ``New Source Review,'' amended on August 8, 2013.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2014-23003 Filed 9-26-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: December 8, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 236)]
[Notices]
[Page 74560-74562]
[DOCID:fr08de08-108]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2008-0343]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Revision of a
Currently-Approved Information Collection: Inspection, Repair and
Maintenance

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FMCSA
announces its plan to submit the Information Collection Request (ICR)
described below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for its
review and approval and invites public comment on this submission. The
information collection concerns records of inspection, repair, and
maintenance of commercial motor vehicles (CMVs). The FMCSA requests
approval to revise and renew an ICR entitled, ``Inspection, Repair and
Maintenance.'' FMCSA collects this information to ensure that motor
carriers have adequate

documentation of their systematic inspection, repair, and maintenance
programs necessary to reduce the likelihood of CMV crashes.

DATES: We must receive your comments on or before February 6, 2009.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments bearing the Federal Docket
Management System (FDMS) Docket Number FMCSA-2008-0343 using any of the
following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for submitting
comments.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building Ground
Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery: West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140,
1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington DC 20590-0001 between 9 a.m.
and 5 p.m., e.t., Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays.
     Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
    Each submission must include the Agency name and the docket number
for this Notice. Note that DOT posts all comments received without
change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal
information included in a comment. Please see the Privacy Act heading
below.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments, go to http://www.regulations.gov at any time or Room W12-140
on the ground level of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE.,
Washington, DC 20590-0001 between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays. The FDMS is available 24 hours each
day, 365 days each year. If you want acknowledgement that we received
your comments, please include a self-addressed, stamped envelope or
post card or print the acknowledgement page that appears after
submitting your comments on-line.
    Privacy Act: Anyone may search the electronic form of all comments
received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or of the person signing the comment, if
submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.).
You may review the DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal
Register on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19476). This information is also
available at http://docketsinfo.dot.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Deborah M. Freund, Vehicle and
Roadside Operations Division, Department of Transportation, Federal
Motor Carrier Safety Administration, West Building 6th Floor, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001. Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Background: The Secretary of Transportation (Secretary) is
authorized under the provisions of 49 U.S.C. 31502 to prescribe
requirements for the qualifications and maximum hours-of-service of
employees, and safety and equipment standards for motor carriers that
operate CMVs in interstate commerce. Under 49 U.S.C. 31136, the
Secretary also has authority to prescribe regulations to ensure that
CMVs are maintained, equipped, loaded and operated safely; and, under
49 U.S.C. 31143 to establish standards for annual or more frequent
inspections of CMVs under the provisions of U.S.C. 31142. The
Secretary's authority to establish improved standards or methods to
ensure brakes and brake systems of CMVs are inspected by appropriate
employees and maintained properly is provided under 49 U.S.C. 31137(b).
    Motor carriers must maintain, or require maintenance of, records
documenting the inspection, repair and maintenance activities performed
on their owned and leased vehicles. There are no prescribed forms.
Electronic recordkeeping is allowed (see Sec.  390.31(d)) of title 49,
Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). Documents requiring a signature must
be capable of replication (i.e., photocopy, facsimile, etc.) in such
form that will provide an opportunity for signature verification upon
demand. Also, if electronic recordkeeping is used, all of the relevant
data on the original documents must be included in the electronic
transmission for the records to be valid.
    The motor carrier industry has never questioned the need to keep
CMV maintenance records. In fact, most motor carriers would keep some
records without any regulatory requirements to do so. Records of
inspection, repair, and maintenance; roadside inspection reports;
driver vehicle inspection reports; the documentation of periodic
inspections; the evidence of the qualifications of individuals
performing periodic inspections; and the evidence of brake inspectors'
qualifications contain the minimum amount of information necessary to
document that a motor carrier has established a system of inspection,
repair, and maintenance for its equipment which meets the standards in
part 396.
    FMCSA and its representatives use these records to verify motor
carriers' compliance with the inspection, repair, and maintenance
standards in part 396. This ICR supports the Department of
Transportation's strategic goal of safety. The ICR also ensures that
motor carriers have adequate records to document the inspection,
repair, and maintenance of their CMVs, and to ensure that adequate
measures are taken to keep their CMVs in safe and proper operating
condition at all times. Compliance with the inspection, repair, and
maintenance regulations helps to reduce the likelihood of accidents
attributable, in whole or in part, to the mechanical condition of the
CMV.
    The Agency does not intend to revise the contents of this
information collection, the frequency of information collection, or how
it uses the information. This renewal would update the estimated annual
burden and associated costs to reflect changes in the number of drivers
and motor carrier entities subject to the part 396 records requirements
since the current information collection was approved.
    If the recordkeeping were required to be completed less frequently,
it would greatly hinder the ability of FMCSA and State officials and
representatives to ascertain that CMVs are satisfactorily maintained.
The timely documentation of CMV inspection, repair, and maintenance
enables FMCSA and State officials to evaluate the present state of a
motor carrier's CMV maintenance program and to check the current level
of regulatory compliance at any point in a carrier's maintenance
schedule or program.
    The FMCSA has identified duplicative periodic inspection standards.
Periodic inspection programs of 23 States, the District of Columbia,
the Alabama Liquefied Petroleum Gas Board, 10 Canadian Provinces, and
one Canadian Territory were identified as comparable to, or as
effective as, the Federal periodic inspection requirements. The FMCSA
does not require Federal periodic inspections and the related
recordkeeping for motor carriers that comply with these equivalent
periodic inspection programs. In addition, CMVs passing certain
roadside inspections are considered to have met the requirements of a
periodic inspection; thus, there are no periodic inspection or
recordkeeping requirements for these CMVs in most cases. The FMCSA is
not aware of any other duplicative standards or recordkeeping
requirements that apply to motor carriers.
    The FMCSA does not publish this collection of information for
statistical use.
    Title: Inspection, Repair and Maintenance.

    OMB Control Number: 2126-0003.
    Type of Request: Revision of a currently-approved information
collection.
    Respondents: Motor carriers and commercial motor vehicle drivers.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 732,038.
    Estimated Time per Response: Varies according to the requirements
for specific records.
    Expiration Date: April 30, 2009.
    Frequency of Response: Varies according to requirements for
specific records.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden: 66,267,505 hours [3,991,851 hours
for inspection, repair, and maintenance + 59,094,379 hours for driver
inspection + 590,933 hours for certification of corrective action +
2,265,280 hours for review of driver inspection reports + 251,629 hours
for disposition of roadside inspection reports + 34,798 hours for
periodic inspections + 18,301 hours for records of inspector
qualifications + 20,334 hours for records of brake inspector
qualifications = 66,267,505].
    Public Comments Invited: You are asked to comment on any aspect of
this information collection, including: (1) Whether the proposed
collection is necessary for the performance of FMCSA's functions; (2)
the accuracy of the estimated burden; (3) ways for the FMCSA to enhance
the quality, usefulness, and clarity of the collected information; and
(4) ways that the burden could be minimized without reducing the
quality of the collected information. The agency will summarize or
include your comments in the request for OMB's clearance of this
information collection.

    Issued on: December 2, 2008.
Terry Shelton,
Associate Administrator for Research and Information Technology.
[FR Doc. E8-28945 Filed 12-5-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 162 (Friday, August 21, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 50810-50812]
[FR Doc No: 2015-20586]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2015-3144; Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-110-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Dassault Aviation

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for
certain Dassault Aviation Model FALCON 900EX airplanes and FALCON
2000EX airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by a report of
significant fuel leakage at the middle position of the left outboard
slat. This proposed AD would require modifying the assembly of the slat
extension mechanical stop. We are proposing this AD to prevent failure
of the assembly of the slat extension mechanical stop, which if not
corrected, could lead to a significant fuel leak and result in an
uncontained fire.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by October 5, 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: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact
Dassault Falcon Jet, P.O. Box 2000, South Hackensack, NJ 07606;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; Internet http://www.dassaultfalcon.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>.

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-
3144; 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
Operations office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the ADDRESSES section.
Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tom Rodriguez, Aerospace Engineer,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA,
1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>;
fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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-2015-3144;
Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-110-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 based on 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

    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical
Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA
Airworthiness Directive 2014-0115, dated May 13, 2014 (referred to
after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or
``the MCAI''), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Dassault
Aviation Model FALCON 900EX airplanes and FALCON 2000EX airplanes. The
MCAI states:

    After landing, an aeroplane experienced a significant fuel
leakage at the middle position of the left outboard slat.
Investigations showed that the fuel spillage originated in a
structural cap, which had been punctured by a broken locking pin of
the slat extension mechanical stop.
    A design review revealed that the locking pin could become loose
due to an incorrect installation combined with a non-fault-tolerant
design.
    This condition, if not corrected, may lead to a significant fuel
leak, possibly resulting in an uncontained fire.
    To address this potential unsafe condition, Dassault Aviation
developed a modification of the slat extension mechanical stop
assembly (Mod M3678 for F2000EX aeroplanes and Mod M5870 for F900EX
aeroplanes) with the purpose to increase its robustness with regards
to possible mishandling on production or during maintenance.
Dassault Aviation also published Service Bulletin (SB) F2000EX-344
and SB F900EX-450, for embodiment in service of that modification.
    For the reasons described above, this [EASA AD] requires
modification of the slat extension mechanical stop assembly.

    You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-
3144.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    We reviewed Dassault Service Bulletin F900EX-450, dated March 10,
2014; and Service Bulletin F2000EX-344, dated March 10, 2014. This
service information describes procedures for modifying the assembly of
the slat extension mechanical stop. 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 and Requirements of This Proposed AD

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another
country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant
to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have
been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service
information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we
evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition
exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of these
same type designs.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 67 airplanes of U.S.
registry.
    We also estimate that it would take about 8 work-hours per product
to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. The average
labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Required parts would cost about $3,510
per product. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this
proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $280,730, or $4,190 per product.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

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

Dassault Aviation: Docket No. FAA-2015-3144; Directorate Identifier
2014-NM-110-AD.

(a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by October 5, 2015.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Dassault Aviation airplanes specified in
paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) of this AD, certificated in any
category.
    (1) Dassault Aviation Model FALCON 900EX airplanes, all serial
numbers on which Dassault Aviation Modification M5281 has

been embodied, except those on which Dassault Aviation Modification
M5870 has been embodied in production.
    (2) Dassault Aviation Model FALCON 2000EX airplanes, all serial
numbers on which Dassault Aviation Modification M2846 has been
embodied, except those on which Dassault Aviation Modification M3678
has been embodied in production.

(d) Subject

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

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by a report of significant fuel leakage at
the middle position of the left outboard slat. We are issuing this
AD to prevent failure of the assembly of the slat extension
mechanical stop, which if not corrected, could lead to a significant
fuel leak and result in an uncontained fire.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Modification

    Within 9 months or 440 flight hours, whichever occurs first
after the effective date of this AD: Modify the assembly of the slat
extension mechanical stop, in accordance with Accomplishment
Instructions of Dassault Service Bulletin F900EX-450, dated March
10, 2014; or Dassault Service Bulletin F2000EX-344, dated March 10,
2014, as applicable.

(h) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA,
has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using
the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR
39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight
Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information
directly to the International Branch, send it to ATTN: Tom
Rodriguez, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116,
Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton,
WA 98057-3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>. Information
may be emailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>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. The
AMOC approval letter must specifically reference this AD.
    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD
to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer, the action must be
accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, International
Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or the
European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA); or Dassault Aviation's EASA
Design Organization Approval (DOA). If approved by the DOA, the
approval must include the DOA-authorized signature.

(i) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information
(MCAI) EASA Airworthiness Directive 2014-0115, dated May 13, 2014,
for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on
the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and
locating Docket No. FAA-2015-3144.
    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Dassault Falcon Jet, P.O. Box 2000, South Hackensack, NJ 07606;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; Internet http://www.dassaultfalcon.com. You
may view this service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane
Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on
the availability of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on August 11, 2015.
Suzanne Masterson,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2015-20586 Filed 8-20-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


Technical Assistant Needs Assessment (TANA) Questionnaire
Submitted with ICR 2470.03 │ OMB 2050-0211 │ Technical Assistance Needs Assessments (TANAs) at Superfund Remedial or Removal Sites

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Purpose for this Questionnaire: This TANA Questionnaire is meant to help identify unaddressed technical assistance needs relating to the remedial/removal activities occurring at a given site.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Instructions:  You may be asked some or all of the questions on this questionnaire. This questionnaire should take no more than one hour to complete.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Burden Statement:  The public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response. Send comments on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, including through the use of automated collection techniques to the Director, Collection Strategies Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2822T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, D.C. 20460. Include the OMB control number in any correspondence. Do not send the completed form to this address.

 How have you been involved with the community during the Superfund cleanup process?

 Does your organization have any current, past, or future responsibilities at the site?

 How would you describe the community's relationship with the EPA and the state (if applicable) during the Superfund cleanup process?

 Has the community been receiving sufficient technical information from EPA? Has this information been clear and easy-to-understand? If not, describe the areas where you believe the community may need assistance understanding and responding to information about the site.

 From the community's perspective, what could prevent the Superfund cleanup process from moving forward? What could EPA potentially do to address this situation?

 What are the issues or areas in which the community may require assistance in order to participate meaningfully in the Superfund decision-making process?

 What type of assistance do you believe would be most helpful?

 Are you aware of the types of technical assistance from EPA that may be available to the community? (If so, please tell me what you understand to be available to the community).

 Has the community previously received technical assistance support or funding from EPA's Superfund remedial program such as Technical Assistance Grants (TAGs), Technical Assistance Services for Communities (TASC), Technical Assistance to Brownfields (TAB) or Technical Assistance Plan (TAP)?
 If so, what community group received the assistance on behalf of the community?
 What were the benefits and limitations of this assistance?

Learn more about EPA's Superfund Remedial Program technical assistance opportunities here: https://www.epa.gov/superfund/superfund-technical-assistance-communities

 What are the existing organizations in the community that are involved in site issues or which tend to be the "go-to" groups for community members interested in site issues or related concerns?
 Are these organizations representative of, or have the ability to reach, all parts of the affected community?
 Are these groups effective in listening to the community and providing a voice to all segments of the community?
 Do these organizations have a robust membership, have a defined strategic plan, request input from the broader community, or have an effective relationship with the local press?
 Are there organizations within the community that have competing interests?
 Are there particular community members or stakeholders affected by the site who may need additional assistance understanding site information? Are these stakeholder groups reached by existing organizations that serve the broader community?

 What other stakeholders would you recommend we speak with in completing this technical assistance needs assessment?

 Is there any other pertinent information you would like to share with us at this time?