[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 165 (Friday, August 24, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 42771-42774]
[FR Doc No: 2018-18373]

========================================================================
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.

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

Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 165 / Friday, August 24, 2018 / Rules
and Regulations

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2017-1107; Product Identifier 2016-NE-22-AD; Amendment
39-19330; AD 2018-14-10]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Pratt & Whitney Division Turbofan

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are superseding Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2017-12-03 for
certain Pratt & Whitney Division (PW) PW2037, PW2037M, and PW2040
turbofan engines. AD 2017-12-03 required installing a software standard
eligible for installation and precludes the use of electronic engine
control (EEC) software standards earlier than SCN 5B/I. This AD
requires installing a software standard eligible for installation and
preclude the use of EEC software standards earlier than SCN 5B/I or SCN
27A. This AD was prompted by an unrecoverable engine in-flight shutdown
(IFSD) after an ice crystal icing event. We are issuing this AD to
address the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: This AD is effective September 28, 2018.

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this final rule,
contact Pratt & Whitney Division, 400 Main St., East Hartford, CT,
06118; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>. You may view this
service information at the FAA, Engine and Propeller Standards Branch,
1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA, 01803. 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-2017-1107.

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-2017-
1107; 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 final rule, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and
other information. The address for Docket Operations (phone: 800-647-
5527) is Document Operations, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC, 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kevin M. Clark, Aerospace Engineer,
ECO Branch, FAA, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA, 01803; phone:
781-238-7088; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 to supersede AD 2017-12-03, Amendment 39-18918 (82 FR 27411,
June 15, 2017), (``AD 2017-12-03''). AD 2017-12-03 applied to certain
PW PW2037, PW2037M, and PW2040 turbofan engines. The NPRM published in
the Federal Register on December 15, 2017 (82 FR 59557). The NPRM was
prompted by an unrecoverable engine IFSD after an ice crystal icing
event. The NPRM proposed to require installation of EEC software
standards that became available since issuing AD 2017-12-03 for
additional EEC models and preclude the use of EEC software standards
earlier than SCN 5B/I or SCN 27A. We are issuing this AD to address the
unsafe condition on these products.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD. The following presents the comments received on the NPRM and
the FAA's response to each comment.

Request To Clarify Installation Prohibition

    PW, Delta Air Lines (Delta), FedEx Express (FedEx), and United
Airlines requested clarification to paragraph (h)(2), Installation
Prohibition. FedEx reasoned that paragraph (h)(2) would prohibit
installation of software standard earlier than SCN 27A in all EEC
models, which includes models with 24K of memory.
    We agree. The intent of this AD is not to prohibit installation of
software standard earlier than SCN 27A into EEC models with 24K memory.
We clarified paragraph (h)(2) of this AD to identify the EECs by part
number (P/N) that are prohibited from installation with software
earlier than SCN 27A.

Request To Change Shop Visit

    Delta and FedEx requested that we change the compliance criteria
from engine shop visit to EEC shop visit in paragraphs (g)(1), (2), and
(3).
    We disagree. Using engine shop visit as compliance criteria
provides a rate of incorporation of the improved software standard that
meets the safety objectives of this AD while not putting additional
burden on the operators. We did not change this AD.

Request To Revise the Costs of Compliance

    PW requested that we modify the Costs of Compliance for engines
affected by this AD from an estimated 587 engines to 344 engines
installed on airplanes of U.S. registry.
    We agree. We updated the Costs of Compliance to reflect that this
AD affects an estimated 344 engines installed on airplanes of U.S.
registry.
    Delta and FedEx requested that we modify the Costs of Compliance to
include the labor costs for removing the EEC from the airplane and
reprogramming the EEC software. FedEx reasoned that the Costs of
Compliance underestimated the labor costs for reprogramming the EEC
software.
    We partially agree. We agree that we underestimated the time to
upgrade the EEC software as older hardware requires additional steps.
We disagree with including the estimated time of removing the EEC from
the engine because the upgrade is occurring at an already scheduled
shop visit. The Costs of Compliance includes the cost of teardown and
reprogramming the EEC software. We updated the Costs of Compliance to
reflect more accurately the labor cost for these actions.

Request To Change Compliance Requirements

    Delta requested that the software standard upgrades, as required in
paragraph (g)(1) of this AD, be established as part of the extended
operations (ETOPS) configuration requirements. Delta reasoned that this
would be more effective than the proposed AD applicability in targeting
aircraft that are operating in the Asia-Pacific region where weather
conditions are most prevalent for ice crystal icing. Delta also
requested that the list of engine serial numbers (ESNs) referenced in
paragraph (g)(1) of this AD, which defines the engines with the reduced
compliance deadline, be updated to reflect the current list of engines
operating in the Asia-Pacific region.
    We disagree. Removing the reference to specific ESNs and making the
requirements of paragraph (g)(1) of this AD as part of the ETOPS
configuration requirements would make this AD applicable to all ETOPS
engines. Operators that operate ETOPS flights outside the Asia-Pacific
region would be mandated to the earlier compliance time unnecessarily.
In addition, revising the ESN list to include additional engines would
cause difficulties for operators in meeting the compliance times. We
will review any Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOC) requests
submitted to cover the regional risk to any operator's specific fleet.
We did not change this AD.

Request To Clarify Software Update and Older EECs Models

    Delta requested that we modify the ``Actions Since AD 2017-12-03
Was Issued'' and ``Proposed AD Requirements'' paragraphs to clarify
that the software upgrades this AD requires apply to older EEC models
but not to older engine models. These software upgrades were not
available when AD 2017-12-03 was issued.
    We disagree. We did not modify the ``Actions Since AD 2017-12-03
Was Issued'' and ``Proposed AD Requirements'' paragraphs because these
paragraphs are not included in this final rule. We acknowledge in the
Discussion paragraph that the software upgrades in this AD apply to
older EEC models. We did not change this AD.

Request To Change EEC P/N Nomenclature

    Delta requested that we replace the PW P/N in paragraphs (c)(2) and
(g)(2) of this AD with the Hamilton Sundstrand (UTC Aerospace Systems)
P/Ns. The Hamilton Sundstrand P/Ns are identified on the EEC data plate
and are used in maintenance instructions.
    We disagree. This AD applies to certain PW2037, PW2037M, and PW2040
turbofan engines and it is appropriate to use the design approval
holders P/Ns for components installed on those engines. We did not
change this AD.

Request To Change Engine S/Ns to EEC S/Ns

    FedEx requested that we modify the reference in Figure 1 to
paragraph (g) of this AD from ESN to EEC S/Ns. FedEx reasoned that EECs
are LRUs that can be rotated between engines. Tracking by EEC S/N would
enhance engine operating reliability by ensuring that only compliant
units are installed on engines operated in regions of interest.
    We disagree. Since we are aware of ESNs subject to the unsafe
conditions described by this AD action, we find that linking compliance
to ESNs satisfies the safety objective of this AD. In addition,
changing from ESNs to EEC S/Ns would cause difficulties for operators
in meeting the compliance times. We did not change this AD.

Request To Extend the Compliance End Date

    FedEx requested that we extend the compliance end date, of July 1,
2024, to allow additional time to comply with the AD requirements and
to be consistent with the seven-year compliance time set in AD 2017-12-
03.
    We disagree. The requirements in this AD are intended to address an
unsafe condition on these engines and are based on several
considerations including a risk analysis. The compliance times in this
AD are necessary to meet the safety objectives of this AD. We did not
change this AD.

Support for the AD

    The Air Line Pilots Association expressed support for the NPRM as
written.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received,
and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting
this AD with the changes described previously except for minor
editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:
     Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the
NPRM for addressing the unsafe condition; and
     Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was
already proposed in the NPRM.
    We also determined that these changes will not increase the
economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of this AD.

Related Service Information

    We reviewed PW Alert Service Bulletin (ASB) PW2000 A73-170, dated
July 14, 2016, and PW ASB PW2000 A73-171, dated March 24, 2017. The
ASBs describe procedures for modifying or replacing the EEC.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 344 engines installed on airplanes
of U.S. registry.
    We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per      Cost on U.S.
                Action                         Labor cost           Parts cost        product        operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EEC software installation.............  4 work-hours x $85 per                 0            $340        $116,960
                                         hour = $340.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.
    This AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the
Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by
FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order, issuance of ADs is
normally a function of the Compliance and Airworthiness Division, but
during this transition period, the Executive Director has delegated the
authority to issue ADs applicable to engines, propellers, and
associated appliances to the Manager, Engine and Propeller Standards
Branch, Policy and Innovation Division.

Regulatory Findings

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13   [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by removing Airworthiness Directive (AD)
2017-12-03, Amendment 39-18918 (82 FR 27411), and adding the following
new AD:

2018-14-10 Pratt & Whitney Division: Amendment 39-19330; Docket No.
FAA-2017-1107; Product Identifier 2016-NE-22-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective September 28, 2018.

(b) Affected ADs

    This AD replaces AD 2017-12-03, Amendment 39-18918 (82 FR 27411,
June 15, 2017).

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to:
    (1) All Pratt & Whitney Division (PW) PW2037, PW2037M, and
PW2040 turbofan engines with electronic engine control (EEC), model
number EEC104-40 or EEC104-60, installed, with an EEC software
standard earlier than SCN 5B/I; and
    (2) All PW PW2037, PW2037M, and PW2040 turbofan engines with
EEC, model number EEC104-1, with part numbers (P/Ns) 1B7484, 1B7486,
1B7984, or 1B7985, installed, with an EEC software standard earlier
than SCN 27A.

(d) Subject

    Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC) Code 7321, Fuel Control
Turbine Engines.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by an unrecoverable engine in-flight
shutdown after an ice crystal icing event. We are issuing this AD to
prevent failure of the high-pressure turbine and rotor seizure. The
unsafe condition, if not corrected, could result in failure of one
or more engines, loss of thrust control, and loss of the airplane.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Required Actions

    (1) For an engine with an EEC model number EEC104-40 or EEC104-
60 and a serial number (S/N) listed in Figure 1 to paragraph (g) of
this AD, upgrade any EEC software standards earlier than SCN 5B/I or
replace the EEC with a part eligible for installation at the next
engine shop visit, or before December 1, 2018, whichever occurs
first.
    (2) For an engine with an EEC model number EEC104-40 or EEC104-
60 and an S/N not listed in Figure 1 to paragraph (g) of this AD,
upgrade any EEC software standards earlier than SCN 5B/I or replace
the EEC with a part eligible for installation at the next engine
shop visit, or before July 1, 2024, whichever occurs first.
    (3) For an engine with an EEC model number EEC104-1 with P/N
1B7484, 1B7486, 1B7984, or 1B7985, upgrade any EEC software
standards earlier than SCN 27A or replace the EEC with a part
eligible for installation at the next engine shop visit, or before
July 1, 2024, whichever occurs first.

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR24AU18.400

(h) Installation Prohibition

    After the effective date of this AD, do not install any software
standard earlier than:
    (1) SCN 5B/I into any EEC model number EEC104-40 or EEC104-60;
or
    (2) SCN 27A into any EEC model number EEC104-1 with P/N 1B7484,
1B7486, 1B7984, or 1B7985.

(i) Definition

    For the purpose of this AD, an ``engine shop visit'' is the
induction of an engine into the shop for maintenance involving the
separation of pairs of major mating engine flanges, except that the
separation of engine flanges solely for the purposes of
transportation of the engine without subsequent engine maintenance
does not constitute an engine shop visit.

(j) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, ECO 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 the attention of the person
identified in paragraph (k)(1) of this AD. You may email your
request to: [email protected].
    (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.

(k) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact Kevin M. Clark,
Aerospace Engineer, ECO Branch, FAA, 1200 District Avenue,
Burlington, MA, 01803; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email: [email protected].
    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact Pratt
& Whitney Division, 400 Main St., East Hartford, CT, 06118; phone:
800-565-0140; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>. You may view this referenced
service information at the FAA, Engine & Propeller Standards Branch,
1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA, 01803. For information on the
availability of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

(l) Material Incorporated by Reference

    None.

    Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on August 21, 2018.
Karen M. Grant,
Acting Manager, Engine and Propeller Standards Branch, Aircraft
Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2018-18373 Filed 8-23-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: June 25, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 121)]
[Notices]
[Page 30316-30317]
[DOCID:fr25jn09-59]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

U.S. Coast Guard

[Docket No. USCG-2000-7833]

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for Vessel and
Facility Response Plans for Oil: 2003 Removal Equipment Requirements
and Alternative Technology Revisions

AGENCY: U.S. Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of availability and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard announces the availability of the Final
Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (FPEIS) for the rulemaking
entitled Vessel and Facility Response Plans for Oil: 2003 Removal
Equipment Requirements and Alternative Technology Revisions (Docket No.
USCG-2001-8661). The FPEIS assesses the potential environmental impacts
from an increase of oil removal capability requirements for tank
vessels and marine transportation-related (MTR) facilities. We request
your comments on the FPEIS.

DATES: Comments and related material must either be submitted to our
online docket via http://www.regulations.gov on or before July 27, 2009
or reach the Docket Management Facility by that date.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by Coast Guard docket
number USCG-2000-7833 using any of the following methods:
    (1) Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
    (2) Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (3) 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.
    (4) 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>.
    To avoid duplication, please use only one of these four methods.
See the ``Public Participation and Request for Comments'' portion of
the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below for instructions on
submitting comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this notice,
call or e-mail Gregory Kirkbride, U.S. Coast Guard, telephone 202-372-
1479, e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have questions on
viewing or submitting material to the docket, call Renee V. Wright,
Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Public Participation and Request for Comments

    We encourage you to submit comments and related material on the
FPEIS. All comments received will be posted, without change, to http://
www.regulations.gov and will include any personal information you have
provided.
    Submitting comments: If you submit a comment, please include the
docket number (USCG-2000-7833) for this notice and provide a reason for
each suggestion or recommendation. You may submit your comments and
material online, or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only
one of these means. We recommend that you include your name and a
mailing address, an e-mail address, or a phone number in the body of
your document so that we can contact you if we have questions regarding
your submission.
    To submit your comment online, go to http://www.regulations.gov,
select the Advance Docket Search option on the right side of the
screen, insert ``USCG-2000-7833'' in the Docket ID box, press Enter,
and then click on the balloon shape in the Actions column. If you
submit your comments by mail or hand delivery, submit them in an
unbound format, no larger than 8\1/2\ by 11 inches, suitable for
copying and electronic filing. If you submit them by mail and would
like to know that they reached the Facility, please enclose a stamped,
self-addressed postcard or envelope. We will consider all comments and
material received during the comment period.
    Viewing the comments and the FPEIS: To view the comments and the
FPEIS, go to http://www.regulations.gov, select the Advanced Docket
Search option on the right side of the screen, insert ``USCG-2000-
7833'' in the Docket ID box, press Enter, and then click on the item in
the Docket ID column. If you do not have access to the Internet, you
may view the docket online by visiting the Docket Management Facility
in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the Department of Transportation
West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590,
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. We have an agreement with the Department of Transportation to
use the Docket Management Facility.
    Privacy Act: Anyone can search the electronic form of comments
received into any of our dockets using the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf
of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review a
Privacy Act system of records notice regarding our public dockets in
the January 17, 2008, issue of the Federal Register (73 FR 3316).

Background and Purpose

    We have prepared a Final Programmatic Environmental Impact
Statement (FPEIS) for the rulemaking entitled Vessel and Facility
Response Plans for Oil: 2003 Removal Equipment Requirements and
Alternative Technology Revisions (1625-AA26). See ``Viewing the
comments and the FPEIS'' above. The FPEIS examines the reasonable
alternatives and potential environmental impacts from an increase of
oil removal capability requirements for tank vessels and marine
transportation-related (MTR) facilities. The FPEIS recommends
Alternative 5 as the preferred alternative for increasing oil removal
capability. Alternative 5 would require spill removal plan holders to
maintain on-water mechanical recovery capability at current levels,
establish a dispersant application capability, and establish aerial
tracking capability. We are requesting your comments on environmental
concerns that you may have related to the FPEIS.
    The Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA 90) (Pub. L. 101-380) and
Executive

Order 12777 authorized the Coast Guard to issue regulations requiring
owners and operators of tank vessels and MTR facilities to prepare and
submit response plans, for approval, to the Coast Guard. OPA 90 also
requires that owners and operators conduct their operations in
accordance with those Coast Guard approved response plans.
    In 1993, the Coast Guard published interim tank vessel and MTR
facility response plan regulations (58 FR 7424, February 5, 1993 and 58
FR 7730 February 5, 1993, respectively). The Coast Guard finalized
those regulations in 1996 (tank vessels, 61 FR 1052, January 12, 1996)
(MTR facilities 61 FR 7890, February 29, 1996). These regulations
contain minimum on-water oil removal equipment requirements that
planholders transporting or transferring petroleum oil are required to
meet when planning for an oil discharge. See 33 CFR part 155, subpart D
for tank vessels; and 33 CFR 154, subpart F for MTR facilities. These
regulations also state that the Coast Guard will periodically review
oil removal equipment requirements to determine if increases in
equipment and additional requirements for new response technologies are
practicable. 33 CFR 154.1045(n) and 155.1050(p).
    On January 27, 1998, the Coast Guard published a notice requesting
comments (63 FR 3861) regarding our intent to conduct a review of
response plan oil removal equipment requirements. In the notice, we
stated that the 1993 removal equipment requirements would remain in
effect pending the results of that review, and that the removal
equipment requirement increases, as originally scheduled, would not be
implemented until the review was complete. On June 24, 1998, the Coast
Guard published a Notice of Meetings (63 FR 34500) that announced three
public workshops. The workshops were set up to solicit comments on
potential changes to removal equipment requirements within the response
plan regulations (33 CFR parts 153, 154 and 155) for mechanical
recovery, dispersants, and other spill removal technologies. Based on
comments in response to the notice of Request for Comments and the
three workshops, the Coast Guard commissioned an in-depth assessment of
advances in oil-spill response equipment since 1993 (USCG-1998-3350,
comments on the notice; and USCG-1998-3350-0048, -0049, and -0050,
summary reports of the public workshops). The Coast Guard completed the
assessment in May 1999 (USCG-1998-3350-0074). Based on the
recommendations contained in the assessment, the Coast Guard published
a Notice of Decision (65 FR 710, January 6, 2000) that implemented a 25
percent increase for on-water mechanical recovery equipment for
response plans of MTR facilities and tank vessels, effective April 6,
2000.
    In 2002, the Coast Guard published the Vessel and Facility Response
Plans for Oil: 2003 Removal Requirements and Alternative Technology
Revisions NPRM to evaluate the potential for additional increases in
mechanical on-water recovery and new requirements for other response
technologies (67 FR 63331, October 11, 2002). The NPRM described five
regulatory alternatives (including a ``no action'' alternative) which
emphasized mechanical and non-mechanical response assets. In addition
to addressing different modes of oil-spill response, the alternatives
included differing capabilities within each response mode. On November
19, 2002, we published a notice of public meeting and extension of the
comment period (67 FR 69697) for the NPRM. The meeting was held on
December 18, 2002, at Coast Guard Headquarters in Washington, DC, and
the comment period closed on April 8, 2003.
    As part of the rulemaking effort, the Coast Guard published a
Notice of Intent to prepare and circulate a Draft Programmatic
Environmental Impact Statement (DPEIS) (65 FR 53335, September 1,
2000). On June 1, 2005, the Coast Guard published the DPEIS (70 FR
31487) to ensure that a broad range of environmental issues were
adequately considered in the rulemaking. Both documents requested input
from the public on environmental concerns related to the alternatives
for increasing spill removal equipment requirements for an oil
discharge. The information obtained from the public, in combination
with Area Committee and Regional Response Team investigations, led to
our determination that mechanical recovery, in-situ burning, and
chemical dispersion met the criterion to increase the response plan
equipment capability requirements, which could potentially reduce the
amount of spilled oil reaching sensitive marine resources.
    The FPEIS describes the reasonable alternatives that were
evaluated, the affected environment, and the environmental impacts
associated with the alternatives on the resources analyzed. As a
programmatic document, the FPEIS covers general issues in a broad,
program-oriented analysis. The information contained in the FPEIS is
required in order to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act.
    This notice is issued under authority of 5 U.S.C. 552(a).

    Dated: June 18, 2009.
J. G. Lantz,
Director of Commercial Regulations and Standards, U.S. Coast Guard.
[FR Doc. E9-14945 Filed 6-24-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-15-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 139 (Friday, July 21, 2017)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 33834-33836]
[FR Doc No: 2017-15275]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2017-0536; Airspace Docket No. 17-ACE-10]

Proposed Amendment of Class E Airspace; Clarinda, IA

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: This action proposes to modify Class E airspace extending
upward from 700 feet above the surface at Schenck Field, Clarinda, IA.
The FAA is proposing this action due to the decommissioning of the
Clarinda non-directional radio beacon (NDB) and the cancellation of the
associated instrument approach procedures. This action would enhance
the safety and management of instrument flight rules (IFR) operations
at this airport.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before September 5, 2017.

ADDRESSES: Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West
Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590; telephone
(202) 366-9826, or 1-800-647-5527. You must identify FAA Docket No.
FAA-2017-0536; Airspace Docket No. 17-ACE-10 at the beginning of your
comments. You may also submit comments through the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. You may review the public docket containing the
proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in
the Dockets Office between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through
Friday, except federal holidays.

    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: Jeffrey Claypool, Federal Aviation
Administration, Operations Support Group, Central Service Center, 10101
Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

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 would amend Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above
the surface at Schenck Field, Clarinda, IA, to support IFR operations
at this airport.

Comments Invited

    Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed
rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as
they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the
views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing
reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are
specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic,
environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.
Communications should identify both docket numbers and be submitted in
triplicate to the address listed above. Commenters wishing the FAA to
acknowledge receipt of their comments on this notice must submit with
those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the
following statement is made: ``Comments to Docket No. FAA-2017-0536/
Airspace Docket No. 17-ACE-10.'' The postcard will be date/time stamped
and returned to the commenter.
    All communications received before the specified closing date for
comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule.
The proposal contained in this notice may be changed in light of the
comments received. A report summarizing each substantive public contact
with FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the
docket.

Availability of NPRMs

    An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking
documents can also be accessed through the FAA's Web page at http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/airspace_amendments/.
    You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any
comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets
Office (see the ADDRESSES section for the address and phone number)
between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except federal
holidays. An informal docket may also be examined during normal
business hours at the Federal Aviation Administration, Air Traffic
Organization, Central Service Center, Operations Support Group, 10101
Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177.

Availability and Summary of Documents Proposed for Incorporation by
Reference

    This document proposes to amend 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 Proposal

    The FAA is proposing an amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal
Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 by modifying the Class E airspace
extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Schenck Field,
Clarinda, IA, by removing the Clarinda NDB from the legal description;
removing the extension south of the airport; and updating the
geographic coordinates of the airport to coincide with the FAA's
aeronautical database.
    Airspace reconfiguration is necessary due to the decommissioning of
the Clarinda NDB, the cancellation of the associated instrument
approach procedures, and to bring the airspace in compliance with FAA
Order JO 7400.2L, Procedures for Handling Airspace Matters. Controlled
airspace is necessary for the safety and management of standard
instrument approach procedures for IFR operations at this airport.
    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.

Regulatory Notices and Analyses

    The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves
an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current, 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 will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified that this proposed rule, when promulgated, would not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Environmental Review

    This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in
accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, ``Environmental Impacts: Policies
and Procedures'' prior to any FAA final regulatory action.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

The Proposed Amendment

    Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, the Federal

Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

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

0
1. The authority citation for 14 CFR 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.

* * * * *

ACE IA E5 Clarinda, IA [Amended]

Clarinda, Schenck Field, IA
    (Lat. 40[deg]43'20'' N., long. 95[deg]01'36'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 6.5-mile radius of Schenck Field.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on July 12, 2017.
Walter Tweedy,
Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, ATO Central Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2017-15275 Filed 7-20-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 196 (Thursday, October 14, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 57142-57143]
[FR Doc No: 2021-22305]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2020-0636; FRL--9138-01-OMS]

Information Collection Request Submitted to OMB for Review and
Approval; Comment Request; NESHAP for Primary Lead Smelting (Renewal)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has submitted an
information collection request (ICR), NESHAP for Primary Lead Smelting
(EPA ICR Number 1856.12, OMB Control Number 2060-0414), to the Office
of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance
with the Paperwork Reduction Act. This is a proposed extension of the
ICR, which is currently approved through December 31, 2021. Public
comments were previously requested, via the Federal Register, on
February 8, 2021 during a 60-day comment period. This notice allows for
an additional 30 days for public comments. A fuller description of the
ICR is given below, including its estimated burden and cost to the
public. An agency may neither conduct nor sponsor, and a person is not
required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays
a currently valid OMB control number.

DATES: Additional comments may be submitted on or before November 15,
2021.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-
OAR-2020-0636, online using www.regulations.gov (our preferred method),
or by mail to: EPA Docket Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Mail
Code 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460. EPA's
policy is that all comments received will be included in the public
docket without change including any personal information provided,
unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information claimed to
be Confidential Business Information (CBI), or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute.
    Submit written comments and recommendations to OMB for the proposed
information collection within 30 days of publication of this notice to
www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain. Find this particular information
collection by selecting ``Currently under 30-day Review--Open for
Public Comments'' or by using the search function.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Muntasir Ali, Sector Policies and
Program Division (D243-05), Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle
Park, North Carolina, 27711; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
address: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Supporting documents, which explain in
detail the information that the EPA will be collecting, are available
in the public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at
https://www.regulations.gov or in person at the EPA Docket Center, WJC
West Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC.
The telephone number for the Docket Center is<PHONE_NUMBER>. For
additional information about EPA's public docket, visit: http://www.epa.gov/dockets.
    Abstract: The National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants (NESHAP) for Primary Lead Smelting apply to existing and new
facilities engaged in producing lead metal from ore concentrates. The
category includes, but is not limited to, the following smelting
processes: Sintering, reduction, preliminary treatment, refining and
casting operations, process fugitive sources, and fugitive dust
sources. Owners and operators of primary lead smelting facilities are
required to comply with reporting and record keeping requirements for
the general provisions of 40 CFR part 63, subpart A, as well as the
applicable specific standards in 40 CFR part 63 subpart TTT. In
general, all NESHAP standards require initial notifications,
performance tests, and periodic reports

by the owners/operators of the affected facilities. They are also
required to maintain records of the occurrence and duration of any
startup, shutdown, or malfunction in the operation of an affected
facility, or any period during which the monitoring system is
inoperative. These notifications, reports, and records are essential in
determining compliance with 40 CFR part 63, subpart TTT.
    Form Numbers: None.
    Respondents/affected entities: Primary lead smelters.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 63,
subpart TTT).
    Estimated number of respondents: 1 (total).
    Frequency of response: Quarterly and semiannually.
    Total estimated burden: 6,270 hours (per year). Burden is defined
at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
    Total estimated cost: $912,000 (per year), which includes $169,000
in annualized capital/startup and/or operation & maintenance costs.
    Changes in the Estimates: There is no change in burden from the
most-recently approved ICR as currently identified in the OMB Inventory
of Approved Burdens. This situation is due to two considerations: (1)
The regulations have not changed significantly over the past three
years and are not anticipated to change significantly over the next
three years; and (2) the growth rate for this industry is very low or
non-existent, so there is no significant change in the overall burden.
While there are not currently any primary lead smelters operating in
the U.S. and no new facilities are being planned, this ICR continues to
assume an average of one existing respondent for the purpose of
estimating burden. Since there are no significant changes in the
regulatory requirements and there is no significant industry growth,
there are also no changes in the capital/startup or operation and
maintenance (O&M) costs.

Courtney Kerwin,
Director, Regulatory Support Division.
[FR Doc. 2021-22305 Filed 10-13-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P