[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 31 (Wednesday, February 14, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 6470-6472]
[FR Doc No: 2018-02892]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R06-OAR-2017-0435; FRL-9973- 23--Region 6]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Arkansas; Infrastructure State Implementation Plan Requirements for the
National Ambient Air Quality Standards

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Federal Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act), the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving State Implementation
Plan (SIP) revisions submitted by the State of Arkansas to address the
requirements of sections 110(a)(1) and (2) of the Clean Air Act (CAA or
Act) for the 2006 and 2012 fine particulate matter (PM2.5)
National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), 2008 lead (Pb) NAAQS,
2008 ozone (O3) NAAQS, 2010 nitrogen dioxide
(NO2) NAAQS, and the 2010 sulfur dioxide (SO2)
NAAQS. Under CAA sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2), each state is
required to submit a SIP that provides for the implementation,
maintenance, and enforcement of a revised primary or secondary NAAQS.
CAA sections 110(a)(1) and (2) require each state to make a new SIP
submission within three years after EPA promulgates a new or revised
NAAQS for approval into the existing federally-approved SIP to assure
that the SIP meets the applicable requirements for such new and revised
NAAQS. This type of SIP submission is commonly referred to as an
``infrastructure SIP or ``i-SIP.''

DATES: This final rule is effective on March 16, 2018.

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under
Docket ID No. EPA-R06-OAR-2017-0435. All documents in the docket are
listed on the http://www.regulations.gov website. Although listed in
the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g.,
Confidential Business Information or other information whose disclosure
is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted
material, is not placed on the internet and will be publicly available
only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are
available either electronically through http://www.regulations.gov or
in hard copy at the EPA Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas,
Texas 75202-2733.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nevine Salem,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
[email protected]. To inspect the hard copy materials, please
schedule an appointment with her or Bill Deese at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document ``we,'' ``us,'' and
``our'' means the EPA.

I. Background

    The background for this action is discussed in detail in our
November 20, 2017 proposal (82 FR 55065). In that action, we proposed
to approve the Arkansas i-SIP submittal dated March 24, 2017 to address
the requirements of sections 110(a)(1) and (2) of the Act for the 2006
and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS, 2008 lead (Pb) NAAQS, 2008 ozone
(O3) NAAQS, 2010 nitrogen dioxide (NO2) NAAQS,
and the 2010 sulfur dioxide (SO2) NAAQS. Under CAA sections
110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2), each state is required to submit a SIP that
provides for the implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of a
revised primary or secondary NAAQS. CAA sections 110(a)(1) and (2)
require each state to make a new SIP submission within three years
after EPA promulgates a new or revised NAAQS for approval into the
existing federally-approved SIP to assure that the SIP meets the
applicable requirements for such new and revised NAAQS.
    We received an anonymous public comment on December 18, 2017 on the
proposed rulemaking action. The comment is posted to the docket (EPA-
R06-OAR-2017-0435). The commenter raised concerns about the accuracy of
agricultural and wild fires emissions inventory. Such comment is
irrelevant and is outside the scope of this specific rule making
action.

II. Final Action

    As detailed in the proposal action, EPA is approving the majority
of the March 24, 2017, Arkansas i-SIP submittal, which addresses the
requirements of CAA sections 110(a)(1) and (2) as applicable to the
2006 PM2.5, 2008 Pb, 2008 O3, 2010
SO2, 2010 NO2, and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.
Table 1 outlines the specific actions \1\ we are approving in this
final rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Note that regarding CAA 110(D)(i)(II) Visibility
Protection--(``prong 4'') for the 2006 PM2.5, EPA
previously proposed disapproval at 80 FR 38419 (July 6, 2015) for an
earlier SIP submittal dated September 21, 2009. However, in the
State's March 24, 2017 submittal, Arkansas submitted revisions to
address CAA 110(D)(i)(II) (``prong 4'') for the 2006
PM2.5 that supersede the September 21, 2009 submittal. In
Table 1 below, we are making an administrative correction to the
table as was originally proposed. We are making an administrative
correction to note a minor change from ``No submittal'' to ``No
action'' for the 2006 PM2.5 (``prong 4''). We will
address the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQs 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)(``prong
4'') element in a future rule making.

              Table 1--Final Actions on the Arkansas Infrastructure SIP Submittal for Various NAAQS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                               2006 PM2.5                                                            2012 PM2.5
           Element                             2008 Pb     2008 Ozone     2010 NO2      2010 SO2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(A): Emission limits and               A*             A             A             A             A             A
 other control measures.....
(B): Ambient air quality               A*             A             A             A             A             A
 monitoring and data system.
(C)(i): Enforcement of SIP             A*             A             A             A             A             A
 measures...................
(C)(ii): PSD program for               A*             A             A             A             A             A
 major sources and major
 modifications..............
(C)(iii): Permitting program           A*             A             A             A             A             A
 for minor sources and minor
 modifications..............

(D)(i)(I): Contribute to               A*             A           *No             A     No action     No action
 nonattainment/interfere                                    submittal
 with maintenance of NAAQS
 (prongs 1 and 2)...........
(D)(i)(II): PSD (requirement           A*             A             A             A             A             A
 3).........................
(D)(i)(II): Visibility          No action             A     No action     No action     No action     No action
 Protection (requirement 4).
(D)(ii): Interstate and                 A             A             A             A             A             A
 International Pollution
 Abatement..................
(E)(i): Adequate resources..           A*             A             A             A             A             A
(E)(ii): State boards.......           A*             A             A             A             A             A
(E)(iii): Necessary                    A*             A             A             A             A             A
 assurances with respect to
 local agencies.............
(F): Stationary source                 A*             A             A             A             A             A
 monitoring system..........
(G): Emergency power........           A*             A             A             A             A             A
(H): Future SIP revisions...           A*             A             A             A             A             A
(I): Nonattainment area plan            +             +             +             +             +             +
 or plan revisions under
 part D.....................
(J)(i): Consultation with              A*             A             A             A             A             A
 government officials.......
(J)(ii): Public notification           A*             A             A             A             A             A
(J)(iii): PSD...............           A*             A             A             A             A             A
(J)(iv): Visibility                     +             +             +             +             +             +
 protection.................
(K): Air quality modeling              A*             A             A             A             A             A
 and data...................
(L): Permitting fees........           A*             A             A             A             A             A
(M): Consultation and                  A*             A             A             A             A             A
 participation by affected
 local entities.............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Key to Table 1: Final actions on AR infrastructure SIP submittals for various NAAQS.
A--Approve.
A*--Previously approved for an earlier submittal.
+--Not germane to infrastructure SIPs.
No action--EPA is taking no action on these infrastructure requirements in this rulemaking. EPA may address in
  separate future rulemaking action(s).
*--No submittal *FIP in place.

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, the 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 Orders
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21,
2011);
     Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2,
2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under
Executive Order 12866;
     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, 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 CAA; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has
demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian
country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose
substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
    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).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by April 16, 2018. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of
judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for
judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness
of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in
proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Interstate transport of
pollution, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides.

    Dated: February 7, 2018.
Anne Idsal,
Regional Administrator, Region 6.

    40 CFR part 52 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 E--Arkansas

0
2. In Sec.  52.170, in paragraph (e), the third table titled ``EPA-
Approved Nonregulatory Provisions and Quasi-Regulatory Measures in the
Arkansas SIP'' is amended by adding the following entries at the end:

Sec.  52.170  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *

             EPA Approved Nonregulatory Provisions and Quasi-Regulatory Measures in the Arkansas SIP
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Applicable           State
     Name of SIP provision          geographic or       submittal/     EPA approval date        Explanation
                                  nonattainment area  effective date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
Infrastructure for the 2006      Statewide..........       3/24/2017  2/14/2018, [Insert  Approval for
 PM2.5 NAAQS.                                                          Federal Register    110(a)(2)(D)(ii).
                                                                       citation].
Infrastructure for the 2008 Pb   Statewide..........       3/24/2017  2/14/2018, [Insert  Approval for
 NAAQS.                                                                Federal Register    110(a)(2)(A), (B),
                                                                       citation].          (C), (D), (E), (F),
                                                                                (G), (H), (J), (K),
                                                                                (L) and (M).
Infrastructure for the 2008 O3   Statewide..........       3/24/2017  2/14/2018, [Insert  Approval for
 NAAQS.                                                                Federal Register    110(a)(2)(A), (B),
                                                                       citation].          (C), (D)(i) (portions
                                                                                pertaining and PSD),
                                                                                (D)(ii), (E), (F),
                                                                                (G), (H), (J), (K),
                                                                                (L) and (M).
Infrastructure for the 2010 NO2  Statewide..........       3/24/2017  2/14/2018, [Insert  Approval for
 NAAQS.                                                                Federal Register    110(a)(2)(A), (B),
                                                                       citation].          (C), (D)(i)(portion
                                                                                pertaining to
                                                                                nonattainment
                                                                                interference with
                                                                                maintenance and PSD),
                                                                                (D)(ii), (E), (F),
                                                                                (G), (H), (J), (K),
                                                                                (L) and (M).
Infrastructure for the 2010 SO2  Statewide..........       3/24/2017  2/14/2018, [Insert  Approval for
 NAAQS.                                                                Federal Register    110(a)(2)(A), (B),
                                                                       citation].          (C), (D)(i)(portion
                                                                                pertaining to PSD),
                                                                                (D)(ii), (E), (F),
                                                                                (G), (H), (J), (K),
                                                                                (L) and (M).
Infrastructure for the 2012      Statewide..........       3/24/2017  2/14/2018, [Insert  Approval for
 PM2.5 NAAQS.                                                          Federal Register    110(a)(2)(A), (B),
                                                                       citation].          (C), (D)(i) (portion
                                                                                pertaining to PSD),
                                                                                (D)(ii), (E), (F),
                                                                                (G), (H), (J), (K),
                                                                                (L) and (M).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2018-02892 Filed 2-13-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 42 (Tuesday, March 4, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 12082-12084]
[FR Doc No: 2014-04324]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R02-OAR-2013-0734, FRL-9907-02-Region-2]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; New York State
Ozone Implementation Plan Revision

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving a
revision to the New York State Implementation Plan (SIP) for ozone
concerning the control of volatile organic compounds. The SIP revision
consists of amendments to Part 228, ``Surface Coating Processes,
Commercial and Industrial Adhesives, Sealants and Primers.'' The
intended effect of this action is to approve control techniques,
required by the Clean Air Act, which will result in emission reductions
that will help attain and maintain the national ambient air quality
standards for ozone.

DATES: This rule will be effective on April 3, 2014.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under the
Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) which replaces the Regional
Materials in EDOCKET (RME) docket system. The new FDMS is located at
www.regulations.gov and the docket ID for this action is EPA-R02-OAR-
2013-0734. All documents in the docket are listed in the FDMS index.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
in FDMS or in hard copy at the Environmental Protection Agency, Region
2 Office, Air Programs Branch, 290 Broadway, 25th Floor, New York, New
York 10007-1866. Copies of the documents relevant to this action are
also available for public inspection during normal business hours, by
appointment at the Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center,
Environmental Protection Agency, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue
NW., Washington, DC; and the New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation, Division of Air Resources, 625 Broadway, Albany, New York
12233.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kirk J. Wieber, Air Programs Branch,
Environmental Protection Agency, 290 Broadway, 25th Floor, New York,
New York 10007-1866,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. What was included in New York's submittals?

    On July 15, 2013, the New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation (NYSDEC), submitted to EPA revisions to the State
Implementation Plan (SIP), which included State adopted revisions to
Title 6 of the New York Code of Rules and Regulations (6 NYCRR) Part
228, ``Surface Coating Processes, Commercial and Industrial Adhesives,
Sealants and Primers,'' with an effective date June 5, 2013. These
revisions are applicable statewide and will therefore provide volatile
organic compound (VOC) emission reductions statewide and will help in
achieving attainment of the ozone standards in the New York portion of
the New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT nonattainment
area and in meeting the reasonably available control technology (RACT)
requirements. The revisions to Part 228 are also intended to satisfy
certain control technique guideline (CTG) documents issued by EPA
pursuant to section 182(b)(2)(A) of the Clean Air Act (CAA).
    New York also included a negative declaration in its July 15, 2013

submittal. New York has certified, based on a review of operating
permits and emissions inventory, no facilities exist in the State to
which the Fiberglass Boat Manufacturing Materials CTG or the Industrial
Cleaning Solvents CTG apply.

II. What is EPA's evaluation of Part 228, ``Surface Coating Processes,
Commercial and Industrial Adhesives, Sealants and Primers?''

    Part 228 contains the required elements for a federally enforceable
rule: emission limitations, compliance procedures and test methods,
compliance dates and recordkeeping provisions.
    Part 228 includes provisions that prohibit the selling, supplying,
offering for sale, soliciting, using, specifying or requiring the use
of a non-compliant coating on a part or product at a facility in New
York, unless allowed by other provisions of Part 228. Part 228 also
includes provisions for handling, storage and disposal of VOCs.
Facilities also have compliance options including the option of using
add-on control equipment provided it achieves 90 percent control.
    EPA has evaluated New York's submittal for consistency with the
CAA, EPA regulations, and EPA policy and guideline documents. EPA has
determined that Part 228 is as effective in regulating the source
categories as the following CTGs:
    (1) Wood Furniture Manufacturing Operations [EPA 453/R-96-007
(April 1996); 61 FR 25223 (May 20, 1996)];
    (2) Flat Wood Paneling Coatings [EPA 453/R-06-004 (September 2006);
71 FR 58745 (Oct. 5, 2006)];
    (3) Metal Furniture Coatings [EPA 453/R-07-005 (September 2007); 72
FR 57215 (Oct. 9, 2007)];
    (4) Large Appliance Coatings [EPA 453/R-07-004 (September 2007); 72
FR 57215 (Oct. 9, 2007)];
    (5) Paper, Film and Foil Coatings [EPA 453/R-07-003 (September
2007); 72 FR 57215 (Oct. 9, 2007)];
    (6) Automobile and Light-Duty Truck Assembly Coatings [EPA-453/R-
08-006 (September 2008); 73 FR 58481 (Oct. 7, 2008)]; and
    (7) Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Parts Coatings [EPA-453/R-08-
003 (September, 2008); 73 FR 58481 (Oct. 7, 2008)].
    EPA has determined that the VOC content limits associated with the
various surface coating processes included in the revised Part 228 are
consistent with the VOC content limits recommended in the applicable
surface coating CTGs, as are all of the other recommended control
options (i.e., add-on controls efficiency, work practices for coating-
related activities and work practices for cleaning materials) and
applicability thresholds. Therefore, EPA is approving it as part of the
SIP and as meeting the requirement to adopt a RACT rule for the CTG
categories listed above.
    With regard to New York's negative declaration for Fiberglass Boat
Manufacturing Materials and Industrial Cleaning Solvents, EPA agrees
with New York's evaluation that no facilities exist in the State to
which the Fiberglass Boat Manufacturing Materials CTG apply. However,
at this time, EPA is not taking action on the negative declaration as
it applies to the Industrial Cleaning Solvents CTG because further EPA
evaluation and discussions with the State are necessary to adequately
assess the applicability of the Industrial Cleaning Solvents CTG to
potentially affected facilities that may be operating in New York
State.

III. What comments did EPA receive in response to its proposal?

    On November 20, 2013 (78 FR 69625), EPA proposed to approve New
York's revised Part 228. For a detailed discussion on the content and
requirements of the revisions to New York's regulation, the reader is
referred to EPA's proposed rulemaking action.
    In response to EPA's November 20, 2013 proposed rulemaking action,
EPA received no comments.

IV. What is EPA's conclusion?

    EPA has evaluated New York's July 15, 2013 SIP revision submittal
for consistency with the CAA, EPA regulations, and EPA policy and
guideline documents. EPA is approving the revisions made to Title 6 of
the New York Code of Rules and Regulations (6 NYCRR) Part 228,
``Surface Coating Processes, Commercial and Industrial Adhesives,
Sealants and Primers,'' with an effective date of June 5, 2013. The
revisions to Part 228 meet the SIP requirements of the CAA and fulfill
the recommended controls identified in the applicable CTGs. EPA is
approving these revisions and is also approving New York's July 15,
2013 negative declaration, which certifies that based on a review of
operating permits and emissions inventory, no facilities exist in the
State to which the Fiberglass Boat Manufacturing Materials CTG apply.
Therefore, New York will not have to incorporate provisions consistent
with the Fiberglass Boat Manufacturing Materials CTG into Part 228 or
any other regulation.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA 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 CAA. 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 (Public Law 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, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable 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).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by May 5, 2014. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor
does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may
be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or
action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hydrocarbons,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Oxides of
nitrogen, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile
organic compounds.

    Dated: February 10, 2014.
Judith A. Enck,
Regional Administrator, Region 2.

    Part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is
amended as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTAION PLANS

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

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

Subpart HH--New York

0
2. In Sec.  52.1670, the table in paragraph (c) is amended by revising
the entry for Title 6, Part 228 to read as follows:

Sec.  52.1670  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *

            EPA--Approved New York State Regulations and Laws
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 State
  New York State regulation    effective      Latest EPA      Comments
                                  date      approval date
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Title 6:

                              * * * * * * *
Part 228, Surface Coating          6/5/13  3/4/14 [FR page
 Processes, Commercial and                  citation].
 Industrial Adhesives,
 Sealants and Primers.

                              * * * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------

0
3. Section 52.1683 is amended, by adding paragraph (b) to read as
follows:

Sec.  52.1683  Control strategy: Ozone.

* * * * *
    (b) The State of New York has certified to the satisfaction of the
EPA that no sources are located in the State which are covered by the
following Control Techniques Guidelines:
    (1) Fiberglass Boat Manufacturing Materials.
    (2) [Reserved]
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2014-04324 Filed 3-3-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 36 (Tuesday, February 24, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 9710-9712]
[FR Doc No: 2015-03648]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. PF14-10-000]

Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company, LLC; Supplemental Notice
of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Assessment for the Planned Dalton
Expansion Project, Request for Comments on Environmental Issues Related
to a New Route Variation Under Consideration, and Notice of Public
Scoping Meeting

    In response to concerns raised about the Dalton Expansion Project
planned by the Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company, LLC, (Transco),
a new route variation is being considered. The Georgia Department of
Natural Resources--Wildlife Resources Division, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, and the Nature Conservancy requested a route
variation in northern Paulding County, Georgia. Transco reviewed the
requested variation and incorporated some changes for engineering and
other considerations. The variation, referred to herein as the Raccoon
Creek Watershed Variation (Transco Major Route Alternative H), is being
considered to avoid and minimize potential environmental impacts on the
biologically sensitive Raccoon Creek Watershed.
    This variation, which is described in further detail below, would
affect new landowners; therefore, the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission (FERC or Commission) is issuing this supplemental notice
(Notice) to provide these new landowners and other interested parties
an opportunity to comment on the merits of the route variation.
    The FERC is the lead federal agency responsible for conducting the
environmental review of the Dalton Expansion Project (Project). The
Commission's staff will prepare an environmental assessment (EA) that
discusses the environmental impacts of the Project. This EA will be
used to inform the Commission as it determines whether the Project is
in the public convenience and necessity.
    This Notice announces the opening of an additional scoping period
the Commission will use to gather input from the public and interested
agencies. Specifically, we are requesting comments on the Raccoon Creek
Watershed Variation. Please note that comments on this Notice should be
filed with the Commission by March 16, 2015.
    Comments on the route variation may be submitted in writing as
described in the public participation section of this notice. In lieu
of, or in addition to, submitting written comments, you are invited to
attend a public scoping meeting on March 4, 2015 at the Dallas Civic
Center in Dallas, Georgia.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Date and time                           Location
------------------------------------------------------------------------
March 4, 2015, 7:00 p.m. EST...........  Dallas Civic Center, 121 E
                                          Griffin Street, Dallas, GA
                                          30132,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    You have been identified as a landowner or an interested party that
may be affected by the Raccoon Creek Watershed Variation or by the
corresponding segment of the currently planned route. Information in
this notice was prepared to familiarize you with this new route
variation, the Project as a whole, the Commission's environmental
review process, and instruct you on how to submit comments about the
route variation under consideration. This notice is also being sent to
federal, state, and local government agencies; elected officials;
environmental and public interest groups; Native American tribes; other
interested parties; and local libraries and newspapers. State and local
government representatives should notify their constituents of this
proposed route variation and encourage them to comment on their areas
of concern.
    If you are a landowner receiving this Notice, a pipeline company
representative may have already contacted you or may contact you soon
about surveys associated with the Raccoon Creek Watershed Variation. If
the company ultimately decides to

incorporate this route variation it would contact you again to acquire
an easement to construct, operate, and maintain the pipeline. The
company would seek to negotiate a mutually acceptable agreement.
However, if the Commission approves the Project and the route
variation, that approval conveys with it the right of eminent domain.
Therefore, if easement negotiations fail to produce an agreement, the
pipeline company could initiate condemnation proceedings where
compensation would be determined in accordance with state law.
    To help potentially affected landowners and other interested
parties better understand the Commission and its environmental review
process, the ``For Citizens'' section of the FERC Web site
(www.ferc.gov) provides information about getting involved in FERC
jurisdictional projects. A citizens' guide entitled ``An Interstate
Natural Gas Facility On My Land? What Do I Need to Know?'' is also
available in this section of the Commission's Web site. This guide
addresses a number of frequently asked questions, including the use of
eminent domain and how to participate in the Commission's proceedings.

Dalton Expansion Project

    Transco plans to construct and operate about 111 miles of new
natural gas pipeline and associated facilities in Coweta, Carroll,
Douglas, Paulding, Bartow, Gordon, and Murray Counties, Georgia and a
new compressor station in Carroll County, Georgia. Additionally,
Transco plans to modify existing facilities along its mainline
transmission system in Maryland, Virginia, and North Carolina to
accommodate bidirectional flow. Transco has indicated that the Project
would provide 448,000 dekatherms per day of incremental firm
transportation service to markets in northwest Georgia.

Summary of the Raccoon Creek Watershed Variation

    As stated previously, the Raccoon Creek Watershed Variation was
created to avoid and minimize potential environmental impacts on the
biologically sensitive Raccoon Creek Watershed. The Raccoon Creek
Watershed covers about 35,000 acres, includes several high priority
streams, significant wetlands, and provides habitat for numerous
federally-listed threatened and endangered species. The route variation
would originate at approximately milepost (MP) 44 of the planned route
in northern Paulding County. The variation would extend in a
northeasterly direction for approximately 9.0 miles before joining an
existing utility easement and then extending northwest for another 1.5
miles, rejoining the planned route at approximately MP 53 near the
Paulding and Bartow County line.
    The general location of the Project facilities and the Raccoon
Creek Watershed Variation are shown in appendix 1.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The appendices referenced in this notice will not appear in
the Federal Register. Copies of the appendices were sent to all
those receiving this notice in the mail and are available at
www.ferc.gov using the link called ``eLibrary'' or from the
Commission's Public Reference Room, 888 First Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20426, or call<PHONE_NUMBER>. For instructions on
connecting to eLibrary, refer to the last page of this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The EA Process

    The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires the
Commission to take into account the environmental impacts that could
result from an action whenever it considers the issuance of a
Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity. NEPA also requires us
\2\ to discover and address concerns the public may have about
proposals. This process is referred to as scoping. The main goal of the
scoping process is to focus the analysis in the EA on the important
environmental issues. By this notice, the Commission requests public
comments on the scope of the issues to address in the EA. We will
consider all filed comments during the preparation of the EA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ ``We,'' ``us,'' and ``our'' refer to the environmental staff
of the Commission's Office of Energy Projects.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the EA we will discuss impacts that could occur as a result of
the construction and operation of the Project under these general
headings:
     Geology and soils;
     water resources, fisheries, and wetlands;
     vegetation and wildlife;
     endangered and threatened species;
     land use;
     socioeconomics;
     cultural resources;
     air quality and noise; and
     public safety.
    We will also evaluate possible alternatives to the Project or
portions of the Project, and make recommendations on how to lessen or
avoid impacts on the various resource areas.
    Although no formal application has been filed, we began our NEPA
review under the Commission's pre-filing process on April 25, 2014. The
purpose of the pre-filing process is to encourage the early involvement
of interested stakeholders and to identify and resolve issues before
the FERC receives an application. As part of our pre-filing review, we
contacted federal and state agencies to discuss preparation of the EA.
During the process, the Raccoon Creek Watershed Variation was proposed.
Transco will provide additional environmental data to present the
potential impacts of the variation at a later date.
    The EA will present our independent analysis of the issues. The EA
will be available in the public record through eLibrary. We will also
publish and distribute the EA to the public for an allotted comment
period. We will consider all comments on the EA before we make our
recommendations to the Commission. To ensure we have the opportunity to
consider and address your comments, please carefully follow the
instructions in the Public Participation section of this notice.

Consultations Under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation
Act

    In accordance with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's
implementing regulations for section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act, we are using this notice to initiate consultation
with the applicable State Historic Preservation Office(s), and to
solicit their views and those of other government agencies, interested
Indian tribes, and the public on the Project's potential effects on
historic properties.\3\ We will define the Project-specific Area of
Potential Effects (APE) in consultation with the SHPO as the Project
develops. On natural gas facility projects, the APE at a minimum
encompasses all areas subject to ground disturbance (examples include
construction right-of-way, contractor/pipe storage yards, compressor
stations, and access roads). Our EA for this Project will document our
findings on the impacts on historic properties and summarize the status
of consultations under section 106.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation regulations
are at Title 36, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 800. Those
regulations define historic properties as any prehistoric or
historic district, site, building, structure, or object included in
or eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic
Places.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Public Participation

    You can make a difference by providing us with your specific
comments or concerns about the Project. Your comments should focus on
the potential environmental effects, reasonable alternatives, and
measures to avoid or lessen environmental impacts. The more specific
your comments, the more useful they will be. To ensure that your
comments are timely and properly

recorded, please send your comments so that the Commission receives
them in Washington, DC on or before March 16, 2015.
    For your convenience, there are three methods you can use to submit
your comments to the Commission. In all instances, please reference the
Project docket number (PF14-10-000) with your submission. The
Commission encourages electronic filing of comments and has expert
staff available to assist you at<PHONE_NUMBER> or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (1) You can file your comments electronically using the eComment
feature located on the Commission's Web site (www.ferc.gov) under the
link to Documents and Filings. This is an easy method for interested
persons to submit brief, text-only comments on a project;
    (2) You can file your comments electronically using the eFiling
feature located on the Commission's Web site (www.ferc.gov) under the
link to Documents and Filings. With eFiling, you can provide comments
in a variety of formats by attaching them as a file with your
submission. New eFiling users must first create an account by clicking
on ``eRegister.'' You must select the type of filing you are making. If
you are filing a comment on a particular project, please select
``Comment on a Filing''; or
    (3) You can file a paper copy of your comments by mailing them to
the following address: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Room 1A, Washington, DC
20426.

Environmental Mailing List

    The environmental mailing list includes federal, state, and local
government representatives and agencies; elected officials;
environmental and public interest groups; Native American Tribes; other
interested parties; and local libraries and newspapers. This list also
includes all affected landowners (as defined in the Commission's
regulations) who are potential right-of-way grantors, whose property
may be used temporarily for Project purposes, or who own homes within
certain distances of aboveground facilities, and anyone who submits
comments on the Project. We will update the environmental mailing list
as the analysis proceeds to ensure that we send the information related
to this environmental review to all individuals, organizations, and
government entities interested in and/or potentially affected by the
planned Project.
    Copies of the EA will be sent to the environmental mailing list for
public review and comment. If you would prefer to receive a paper copy
of the document instead of the CD version or would like to remove your
name from the mailing list, please return the attached Information
Request (appendix 2).

Becoming an Intervenor

    Once Transco files its application with the Commission, you may
want to become an ``intervenor'' which is an official party to the
Commission's proceeding. Intervenors play a more formal role in the
process and are able to file briefs, appear at hearings, and be heard
by the courts if they choose to appeal the Commission's final ruling.
An intervenor formally participates in the proceeding by filing a
request to intervene. Instructions for becoming an intervenor are in
the User's Guide under the ``e-filing'' link on the Commission's Web
site. Please note that the Commission will not accept requests for
intervenor status at this time. You must wait until the Commission
receives a formal application for the Project.

Additional Information

    Additional information about the Project is available from the
Commission's Office of External Affairs, at (866) 208-FERC, or on the
FERC Web site (www.ferc.gov) using the eLibrary link. Click on the
eLibrary link, click on ``General Search'' and enter the docket number,
excluding the last three digits in the Docket Number field (i.e., PF14-
10). Be sure you have selected an appropriate date range. For
assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll free at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or for TTY,
contact<PHONE_NUMBER>. The eLibrary link also provides access to the
texts of formal documents issued by the Commission, such as orders,
notices, and rulemakings.
    In addition, the Commission offers a free service called
eSubscription which allows you to keep track of all formal issuances
and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time
you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with
notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to
the documents. Go to www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp.
    Finally, public meetings or site visits will be posted on the
Commission's calendar located at www.ferc.gov/EventCalendar/EventsList.aspx along with other related information.

    Dated: February 13, 2015.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-03648 Filed 2-23-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: November 16, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 221)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 64540-64542]
[DOCID:fr16no07-14]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2007-0177; Directorate Identifier 2007-SW-19-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Bell Helicopter Textron Canada (BHTC)
Model 430 Helicopters

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for
BHTC Model 430 helicopters. This proposed AD results from mandatory
continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) originated by an aviation
authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe
condition on an aviation product. The aviation authority of Canada,
with which we have a bilateral agreement, states in the MCAI:

    It has been determined that the existing rigging procedures for
the tail rotor pitch change mechanism have to be changed due to
possibility of parts interference.

    The cumulative effect of individual part tolerances resulting in
the total assemblage of those parts being out of tolerance could result
in the tail rotor yoke striking another part other than the flapping
stop (parts interference) cited in the MCAI. Also, the misalignment of
the tail rotor counterweight bellcrank may result in higher tail rotor
pedal forces and a higher pilot workload after failure of the
1 hydraulic system. Both parts interference and the misaligned
counterweight bellcrank create an unsafe condition. The proposed AD
would require actions that are intended to address these unsafe
conditions.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by December 17,
2007.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments 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 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov
, or in person at the Docket Operations office

between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the economic
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: Tyrone Millard, Aviation Safety
Engineer, FAA, Rotorcraft Directorate, Rotorcraft Standards Staff, Fort
Worth, Texas 76193-0111, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Streamlined Issuance of AD

    The FAA is implementing a new process for streamlining the issuance
of ADs related to MCAI. This streamlined process will allow us to adopt
MCAI safety requirements in a more efficient manner and will reduce
safety risks to the public. This process continues to follow all FAA AD
issuance processes to meet legal, economic, Administrative Procedure
Act, and Federal Register requirements. We also continue to meet our
technical decision-making responsibilities to identify and correct
unsafe conditions on U.S.-certificated products.
    This proposed AD references the MCAI and related service
information that we considered in forming the engineering basis to
correct the unsafe condition. The proposed AD contains text copied from
the MCAI and for this reason might not follow our plain language
principles.

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-2007-0177;
Directorate Identifier 2007-SW-19-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

    Transport Canada, which is the aviation authority for Canada, has
issued Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-2007-04, dated April 5, 2007
(referred to after this as ``the MCAI''), to correct an unsafe
condition for this Canadian-certificated product. The MCAI states:

    It has been determined that the existing rigging procedures for
the tail rotor pitch change mechanism have to be changed due to
possibility of parts interference.

    Because the cumulative effect of the tolerances on the various
parts may result in the total assemblage outboard of the counterweight
bellcrank being out of tolerance, the tail rotor yoke may contact the
nut, P/N 222-012-731-001, before contacting the flapping stop,
resulting in less tail rotor travel. Additionally, the manufacturer has
indicated that the tail rotor counterweight bellcranks may be
misaligned, resulting in higher tail rotor pedal forces and higher
pilot workload after failure of the 1 hydraulic system. Both
the parts interference and the higher pedal forces constitute unsafe
conditions.
    You may obtain further information by examining the manufacturer's
service bulletin and the MCAI in the AD docket.

Relevant Service Information

    Bell Helicopter Textron has issued Service Bulletin 430-07-39,
dated January 9, 2007. The actions described in the MCAI are intended
to correct the same unsafe condition as that identified in the service
information.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of Canada,
and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our
bilateral agreement with this State of Design Authority, we have been
notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and the service
information. 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 the same type design.

Differences Between This AD and the MCAI or Service Information

    We have reviewed the MCAI and related service information and, in
general, agree with their substance. But we might have found it
necessary to use different words from those in the MCAI to ensure the
AD is clear for U.S. operators and is enforceable. In making these
changes, we do not intend to differ substantively from the information
provided in the MCAI and related service information.
    We might also have proposed different actions in this AD from those
in the MCAI in order to follow FAA policies. Any such differences are
highlighted in the ``Differences Between the FAA AD and the MCAI''
section in the proposed AD.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD would affect about 58 products of
U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would take about 2 work-hours
per product to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD.
The average labor rate is $80 per work-hour. A replacement yoke would
cost about $21,218, assuming the part is no longer under warranty.
However, because the service information lists this part as covered
under warranty, we have assumed that there will be no charge for this
part, if needed. Therefore, as we do not control warranty coverage for
affected parties, some parties may incur costs higher than estimated
here. Based on these assumptions and figures, we estimate the cost of
the proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $9,280, or $160 per helicopter.

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); and
    3. 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.
    We prepared an economic evaluation of the estimated costs to comply
with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, 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

    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]

    2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new AD:

Bell Helicopter Textron Canada: Docket No. FAA-2007-0177;
Directorate Identifier 2007-SW-19-AD.

Comments Due Date

    (a) We must receive comments by December 17, 2007.

Other Affected ADs

    (b) None.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to Bell Helicopter Textron Canada (BHTC)
Model 430 helicopters with serial numbers 49001 through 49122,
certificated in any category.

Reason

    (d) The mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI)
states:
    It has been determined that the existing rigging procedures for
the tail rotor pitch change mechanism have to be changed due to
possibility of parts interference.
    This ``possibility of parts interference'' occurs because the
cumulative effect of the tolerances on the various parts may result
in the total assemblage outboard of the counterweight bellcrank
being out of tolerance and the tail rotor yoke may contact nut, P/N
222-012-731-001, before contacting the flapping stop. Further, the
manufacturer has indicated that the tail rotor counterweight
bellcranks may be misaligned resulting in higher tail rotor pedal
forces and higher pilot workload after failure of the 1
hydraulic system. Both the parts interference and the higher pedal
forces constitute unsafe conditions.

Actions and Compliance

    (e) Within the next 150 hours time-in-service (TIS) or at the
next annual inspection, whichever occurs first, unless already done,
do the following actions.
    (1) Adjust the rigging of the tail rotor pitch change mechanism
in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions, Paragraphs 1 and
2, in Bell Helicopter Textron Alert Service Bulletin 430-07-39,
dated January 9, 2007 (ASB).
    (2) If either at full left pedal position or full right pedal
position a gap exists between the tail rotor yoke and the flapping
stop, replace the tail rotor yoke with an airworthy tail rotor yoke.
    (3) If no gap exists between the tail rotor yoke and the
flapping stop at either full right or full left pedal position,
measure the gap between the tail rotor yoke and nut, P/N 222-012-
731-001, adjust the tail rotor pitch change mechanism, and adjust
the tail rotor pedal forces in accordance with the Accomplishment
Instruction, Paragraphs 4 through 6 of the ASB.

Differences Between the FAA AD and the MCAI

    (f) This AD requires compliance within the next 150 hours TIS or
at the next annual inspection, whichever occurs first, instead of
``at the next 150 hour or annual inspection but no later than 31
December 2007.''

Subject

    (g) Air Transport Association of America (ATA) Code JASC 6720:
Tail Rotor Control System, Tail Rotor Pitch Change.

Other Information

    (h) The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
Safety Management Group, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for
this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.
Send information to ATTN: Tyrone Millard, Aviation Safety Engineer,
FAA, Rotorcraft Directorate, Rotorcraft Standards Staff, Fort Worth,
Texas 76193-0111, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (2) Airworthy Product: Use only FAA-approved corrective actions.
Corrective actions are considered FAA-approved if they are approved
by the State of Design Authority (or their delegated agent) if the
State of Design has an appropriate bilateral agreement with the
United States. You are required to assure the product is airworthy
before it is returned to service.
    (3) Reporting Requirements: For any reporting requirement in
this AD, under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has approved the information
collection requirements and has assigned OMB Control Number 2120-
0056.

Related Information

    (i) MCAI Transport Canada Airworthiness Directive CF-2007-04,
dated April 5, 2007, and Bell Helicopter Textron Alert Service
Bulletin (ASB) No. 430-07-39, dated January 9, 2007, contain related
information.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on November 2, 2007.
David A. Downey,
Manager, Rotorcraft Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
 [FR Doc. E7-22440 Filed 11-15-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P