[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 94 (Tuesday, May 15, 2018)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 22420-22422]
[FR Doc No: 2018-10213]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2018-0409; Product Identifier 2017-NM-120-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to supersede Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2017-16-
05, which applies to certain The Boeing Company Model 737-600, -700, -
700C, -800, -900, and -900ER series airplanes. AD 2017-16-05 requires a
one-time detailed visual inspection for discrepancies in the Krueger
flap bullnose attachment hardware, and related investigative and
corrective actions if necessary. Since we issued AD 2017-16-05, we
received a report of a missing no. 2 Krueger flap bullnose hinge bolt
from an airplane that was not included in the applicability of AD 2017-
16-05. This proposed AD would add airplanes and an additional
inspection to determine if any Krueger flap no. 1, 2, 3, or 4 has been
replaced, and related investigative and corrective actions. Since this
is a rotable parts issue, the applicability of this AD has been
expanded beyond the airplanes listed in the related service bulletin to
include all airplanes on which a Krueger flap bullnose may be
installed. We are proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition on
these products.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by June 29, 2018.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR
11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail address above between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this NPRM, contact Boeing
Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data Services (C&DS),
2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110-SK57, Seal Beach, CA 90740-5600;
telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; internet: https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You
may view this service information at the FAA, Transport Standards
Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the
availability of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. It is also
available on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching
for and locating Docket No. FAA-2018-0409.

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-2018-
0409; or in person at Docket Operations between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains
this NPRM, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other
information. The street address for Docket Operations (phone: 800-647-
5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD
docket shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Alan Pohl, Aerospace Engineer,
Airframe Section, FAA, Seattle ACO Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des
Moines, WA 98198; phone and fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed
under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2018-0409;
Product Identifier 2017-NM-120-AD'' at the beginning of your comments.
We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic,
environmental, and energy aspects of this NPRM. We will consider all
comments received by the closing date and may amend this NPRM because
of those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this proposed AD.

Discussion

    We issued AD 2017-16-05, Amendment 39-18982 (82 FR 39344, August
18, 2017) (``AD 2017-16-05''), for certain The Boeing Company Model
737-600, -700, -700C, -800, -900, and -900ER series airplanes. AD 2017-
16-05 requires a one-time detailed visual inspection for discrepancies
in the Krueger flap bullnose attachment hardware, and related
investigative and corrective actions, if necessary. AD 2017-16-05
resulted from a report of a Krueger flap bullnose departing an airplane
during taxi, which caused damage to the wing structure and thrust
reverser. We issued AD 2017-16-05 to detect and correct missing Krueger
flap bullnose hardware. Such missing hardware could result in the
Krueger flap bullnose departing the airplane during flight, which could
damage empennage structure and lead to the inability to maintain
continued safe flight and landing.

Actions Since AD 2017-16-05 Was Issued

    Since we issued AD 2017-16-05, we have received a report of a
missing no. 2 Krueger flap bullnose hinge bolt from an airplane that
was not included in the applicability of AD 2017-16-05.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    We reviewed Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-57A1327, Revision 2,
dated July 25, 2017 (``BASB 737-57A1327, R2''). This service
information describes procedures for a one-time detailed visual
inspection for discrepancies in the Krueger flap bullnose attachment
hardware, and related investigative and corrective actions; and an
inspection to determine if any Krueger flap no. 1, 2, 3, or 4 has been
replaced, and related investigative and corrective actions.
    This service information is reasonably available because the
interested parties have access to it through their normal course of
business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

FAA's Determination

    We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all the relevant
information and determined the unsafe condition

described previously is likely to exist or develop in other products of
the same type design.

Proposed AD Requirements

    Although this proposed AD does not explicitly restate the
requirements of AD 2017-16-05, this proposed AD would retain certain
requirements of AD 2017-16-05. Those requirements are referenced in the
service information identified previously, which, in turn, is
referenced in paragraph (g) of this proposed AD. This proposed AD would
add airplanes and an additional inspection to determine if any Krueger
flap no. 1, 2, 3, or 4 has been replaced, and applicable related
investigative and corrective actions. This proposed AD would also
require accomplishment of the actions identified as ``RC'' (required
for compliance) in the Accomplishment Instructions of BASB 737-57A1327,
R2, described previously, except as discussed under ``Differences
Between this Proposed AD and the Service Information.''
    For information on the procedures and compliance times, see this
service information at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and
locating Docket No. FAA-2018-0409.

Differences Between This Proposed AD and the Service Information

    Because the affected parts identified in this NPRM are rotable
parts, we have determined that these parts could later be installed on
airplanes that were initially delivered with acceptable parts, thereby
subjecting those airplanes to the unsafe condition. Therefore, while
the effectivity of BASB 737-57A1327, R2 is limited to line numbers 1
through 6465 inclusive, the applicability of this proposed AD includes
all The Boeing Company Model 737-600, -700, -700C, -800, -900, and -
900ER series airplanes. This difference has been coordinated with
Boeing.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 1,814 airplanes of U.S.
registry. We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed
AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per      Cost on U.S.
                Action                         Labor cost           Parts cost        product        operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inspection of the Krueger flap          3 work-hours x $85 per                $0            $255        $381,225
 bullnose hardware (1,495 airplanes)     hour = $255.
 (retained actions from AD 2017-16-05).
Inspection to determine if any Krueger  3 work-hours x $85 per                 0             255         462,570
 flap no. 1, 2, 3, or 4 has been         hour = $255.
 replaced (1,814 airplanes) (new
 proposed action).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide
cost estimates for the on-condition actions specified in this proposed
AD.
    According to the manufacturer, some of the costs of this proposed
AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on
affected individuals. We do not control warranty coverage for affected
individuals. As a result, we have included all available costs in our
cost estimate.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Proposed Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13   [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by removing Airworthiness Directive (AD)
2017-16-05, Amendment 39-18982 (82 FR 39344, August 18, 2017), and
adding the following new AD:

The Boeing Company: Docket No. FAA-2018-0409; Product Identifier
2017-NM-120-AD.

(a) Comments Due Date

    The FAA must receive comments on this AD action by June 29,
2018.

(b) Affected ADs

    This AD replaces AD 2017-16-05, Amendment 39-18982 (82 FR 39344,
August 18, 2017) (``AD 2017-16-05'').

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to all The Boeing Company Model 737-600, -700, -
700C, -800, -900, and -900ER series airplanes, certificated in any
category, as specified in paragraphs (c)(1) through (c)(3) of this
AD.
    (1) Airplanes in Groups 1 and 2 as identified in Boeing Alert
Service Bulletin 737-57A1327, Revision 2, dated July 25, 2017
(``BASB 737-57A1327, R2'').
    (2) Airplanes in Group 3, as identified in BASB 737-57A1327, R2,
except where this service bulletin specifies the groups as line
numbers 6422 through 6465 inclusive, this AD specifies those groups
as line number 6422 through any line number airplane with an
original Certificate of Airworthiness or an original Export
Certificate of Airworthiness dated on or before the effective date
of this AD.
    (3) All Model 737-600, -700, -700C, -800, -900 and -900ER series
airplanes with an original Certificate of Airworthiness or an
original Export Certificate of Airworthiness dated after the
effective date of this AD.

(d) Subject

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

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by a report of a Krueger flap bullnose
departing an airplane during taxi, which caused damage to the wing
structure and thrust reverser, and a report of a missing no. 2
Krueger flap bullnose hinge bolt from an airplane that was not
included in the effectivity of AD 2017-16-05. We are issuing this AD
to address missing Krueger flap bullnose hardware. Such missing
hardware could result in the Krueger flap bullnose departing the
airplane during flight, which could damage empennage structure and
lead to the inability to maintain continued safe flight and landing.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Required Actions

    For airplanes identified in paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) of this
AD: Except as required by paragraph (h) of this AD, at the
applicable times specified in paragraph 1.E., ``Compliance,'' of
BASB 737-57A1327, R2, do all applicable actions identified as ``RC''
(required for compliance) in, and in accordance with, the
Accomplishment Instructions of BASB 737-57A1327, R2.

(h) Exceptions to Service Information Specifications

    (1) For purposes of determining compliance with the requirements
of this AD: Where BASB 737-57A1327, R2 uses the phrase ``the
original issue date of this service bulletin,'' this AD requires
using September 22, 2017 (the effective date of AD 2017-16-05).
    (2) For purposes of determining compliance with the requirements
of this AD: Where BASB 737-57A1327, R2 uses the phrase ``the
Revision 2 date of this service bulletin,'' this AD requires using
``the effective date of this AD.''

(i) Parts Installation Limitation

    As of the effective date of this AD, no person may install a
Krueger flap or Krueger flap bullnose on any airplane, unless the
actions required by paragraph (g) of this AD have been accomplished
on the Krueger flap bullnose.

(j) Credit for Previous Actions

    (1) This paragraph provides credit for the actions specified in
paragraph (g) of this AD, if those actions were performed before
September 22, 2017 (the effective date of AD 2017-16-05), using
Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-57A1327, dated May 20, 2016.
    (2) This paragraph provides credit for the actions specified in
paragraph (g) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the
effective date of this AD, using Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-
57A1327, Revision 1, dated September 28, 2016.

(k) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Seattle ACO Branch, FAA, has the authority to
approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found
in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request
to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District
Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the
manager of the certification office, send it to the attention of the
person identified in paragraph (l)(1) of this AD. Information may be
emailed 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.
    (3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be
used for any repair, modification, or alteration required by this AD
if it is approved by the Boeing Commercial Airplanes Organization
Designation Authorization (ODA) that has been authorized by the
Manager, Seattle ACO Branch, to make those findings. To be approved,
the repair method, modification deviation, or alteration deviation
must meet the certification basis of the airplane, and the approval
must specifically refer to this AD.
    (4) AMOCs approved previously for AD 2017-16-05 are approved as
AMOCs for the corresponding provisions of BASB 737-57A1327, R2 that
are required by paragraph (g) of this AD.
    (5) For service information that contains steps that are labeled
as RC, the provisions of paragraphs (k)(5)(i) and (k)(5)(ii) of this
AD apply.
    (i) The steps labeled as RC, including substeps under an RC step
and any figures identified in an RC step, must be done to comply
with the AD. If a step or substep is labeled ``RC Exempt,'' then the
RC requirement is removed from that step or substep. An AMOC is
required for any deviations to RC steps, including substeps and
identified figures.
    (ii) Operators may deviate from steps not labeled as RC by using
accepted methods in accordance with the operator's maintenance or
inspection program without obtaining approval of an AMOC, provided
the RC steps, including substeps and identified figures, can still
be done as specified, and the airplane can be put back in an
airworthy condition.

(l) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact Alan Pohl,
Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Section, FAA, Seattle ACO Branch, 2200
South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; phone and fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email: [email protected].
    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data Services
(C&DS), 2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110-SK57, Seal Beach, CA 90740-
5600; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; internet: https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You may view this referenced service
information at the FAA, Transport Standards Branch, 2200 South 216th
St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this
material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Issued in Des Moines, Washington, on May 7, 2018.
Michael Kaszycki,
Acting Director, System Oversight Division, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2018-10213 Filed 5-14-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


EPA earlier than the usual June 30 deadline.  This early submittal
deadline will be approximately 45 days prior to the 90-day effective
date of publication of the final 24-hour PM2.5 designations.  If EPA
agrees that a change of designation status is appropriate based on
2006-2008 air quality data, EPA would withdraw the nonattainment
designation prior to the 90-day effective date of final 24-hour PM2.5
designations and the area would be designated as in attainment. Please
see section 2.3 above for EPA’s response regarding the submission of
2008 data.

Comment:

One commenter (0118) supports EPA recommendations for Mahoning and
Trumbull counties in Ohio.  The commenter cites negative health impacts
from PM2.5 and its contribution to regional haze.

EPA Response:

EPA acknowledges this comment and has made the final determination that
Mahoning and Trumbull counties in Ohio should be included in the
boundary for the Youngstown, OH nonattainment area.  Please refer to the
TSD which explains EPA’s decisions.

3.58.  Yuba City-Marysville, CA

See section 2.2 for comments regarding this particular nonattainment
area.

4.0.  Comments Specific To Region

4.1.  Region IV

4.1.1.  Georgia

Comment:

One commenter (0101) disagrees with EPA’s recommended designation for
Georgia. The commenter recommends that EPA adopted the original
recommendation dated December 18, 2007, from the Georgia Environmental
Protection Division.  The commenter believes that all of the Atlanta
area counties and partial counties stated in the December 18, 2007,
letter should be designated nonattainment for the 2006 24-hour NAAQS.
The commenter believes that’s emissions from Georgia Power Plant
Scherer in Monroe County should be reanalyzed in the Atlanta area. The
commenter disagrees with EPA's review of exceptional events for several
areas in Georgia and feels that Atlanta and partial counties stated by
Georgia Environmental Protection Division on the December 18, 2007,
letter should be designated as nonattainment.

The commenter believes that there was no quantification of contribution
and states although there was a forest fire it does not eliminate the
possibility of an excession due to local emissions that was inflated by
the forest fire contribution.  The commenter believes that the most
accurate way of assigning the quantification of concentrations is
through modeling.  The commenter recommends that the SE U.S. be modeled
during this May 2007 period using VISTAS emission inventory with the
forest fire emissions and CMAQ/WRF modeling system to apportion these
concentrations.  The commenter also thinks the modeling protocol for
this project should be open for public comment.  The commenter states
that the 2005-2007 design values (DV) be used only to expand the areas
of nonattainment based on the original 2004-2006 DV submittal and not to
expand the areas of attainment because the commenter does not know the
true quantity of the excession.

The commenter believes that because the exceptional events were
eliminated the 2005-2007 design values show attainment.  The commenter
states that the previous 5 design values show the Atlanta Area as
nonattainment.  The commenter believes that it is illogical that Atlanta
be nonattainment for the annual standard and attainment for the 24-hr
standard when the short term standard is harder to meet.

μg/m3, which was 3 and 4 times less than all the other monitors
operating on that date.

EPA Response:

Attached to the August 19th letter from EPA to Governor Perdue (
HYPERLINK
"http://www.epa.gov/pmdesignations/2006standards/rec/letters/04_GA_EPAMO
D.pdf"
http://www.epa.gov/pmdesignations/2006standards/rec/letters/04_GA_EPAMOD
.pdf ) is a very detailed analysis of the 112.7 μg/m3 reading at the
Albany site. (See pages 19-21). Included in this analysis is an
assessment of the estimated concentration that would have occurred
“but-for” the impact of the fire as required by EPA’s Exceptional
Events rule.  This analysis utilized several sources of information
including modeled trajectories, PM2.5 concentrations at nearby locations
and historical PM2.5 values. EPA determined that these sources of
information were sufficient to judge the event to be exceptional and
additional modeling such as the one suggested by the commenter was not
required.  This investigation concluded that that the 24-hour average
PM2.5 concentration observed on May 27 (112.7 μg/m3) was 87.7 μg/m3
greater than the 95th percentile concentration observed at the site
during the month of May in 2004-2006. This indicates that PM2.5
concentrations in the Albany area far exceeded the normally expected
range of concentrations.

μg/m3 value was eliminated, it would not have any effect on the
computation of the design value for the South DeKalb monitor. Only the
highest 2 percent of measured concentrations contribute to the 24-hour
design value. While EPA agrees that the value appears to be unusually
low, it occurred during a time of the year when the highest
concentrations do not typically occur.  Furthermore, for the
investigation of nonattainment with the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, the
2005-2007 data was used for the computed design value.

The designations promulgated today are for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5.

 NAAQS.  Although designations for the 1997 annual PM2.5 (70 FR 944)
under 107(d) of the CAA are currently in Georgia, today’s rule is only
for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.

EPA believes that nonattainment designations should be based on the most
recent air quality monitoring data available.   EPA identifies
violations of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS on the basis of three years
of complete, quality-assured ambient air quality monitoring data from an
eligible air quality monitor.  At the time of Georgia’s initial
recommendation in December 2007, the state based its recommendation on
monitoring data from 2004-2006.  For 2004-2006, there was a violation of
the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.  However in 2008, EPA based designations, on
2005-2007 which is the most recent quality-assured ambient air quality
monitoring data.  For 2005-2007, monitoring data showed no violations of
the standard in the Georgia. Further, in establishing nonattainment area
boundaries, the agency is required to identify the area that does not
meet the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS and any nearby area that is
contributing to the area that does not meet that standard.  Based on
2005-2007 monitoring data, all areas in Georgia meet the 24-hour PM2.5
NAAQS.  EPA is not required under CAA section 107(d) to seek public
comment during the designation process.

EPA conducted a thorough analysis of exceptional events requests
submitted by Georgia.  More detail on EPA’s analysis for exceptional
events for Georgia can be found at:

http://www.epa.gov/pmdesignations/2006standards/rec/letters/04_GA_EPAMOD
.pdf.  Based on the monitoring data available to EPA and the State of
Georgia, no monitors in or nearby to Georgia areas are in violation of
the 24-hour PM2.5 standard and thus no areas of Georgia are being
designated nonattainment.  The analysis of emission sources in Monroe
County would potentially be considered as part of EPA’s analysis if
there are violating monitors for the 24-hour standard in or around that
county but EPA’s and the state’s monitoring data indicates that
monitors in or nearby to Monroe County are meeting the 24-hour standard.

Although not related to today’s action, it is important to note that
Georgia Power Plant Scherer in Monroe County is included in the Macon
PM2.5 nonattainment and 8-hour ozone maintenance areas for the 1997
standards so the State of Georgia through the SIP process is already
considering emissions from this plant and other sources in Monroe County
for air quality planning related to particulate matter and 8-hour ozone.

4.1.2.  Kentucky

Comment:

One commenter (0114) requests that EPA deny the request for concurrence
of exceptional event flags from Kentucky Division of Air Quality on
PM2.5 data, citing negative health impacts from PM2.5.  The commenter
requests that EPA designate Bell, Fayette, Hardin and the other counties
that exceed or contribute to violations of the NAAQS as nonattainment.

Draft EPA Response:

Attached to the August 19th letter from EPA to Governor Beshear (
HYPERLINK
"http://www.epa.gov/pmdesignations/2006standards/rec/letters/04_KY_EPAMO
D.pdf"
http://www.epa.gov/pmdesignations/2006standards/rec/letters/04_KY_EPAMOD
.pdf ) is a very detailed analysis of all the Kentucky requests for EPA
to approve flagged data as exceptional events.  These assessments are
provided in enclosure 3, for claimed event days for the Louisville and
Paducah areas.  All of the included analyses were performed in
accordance with the requirements of EPA’s exceptional events rule.
EPA did not concur on the claim that the Louisville area was impacted by
smoke from Kansas/Northwestern wildfires , Arkansas, Mississippi and
Texas wildfires, Kansas wildfires, Kentucky and surrounding States’
wildfires, Southeast Georgia and Northeast Florida wildfires, Canadian
and Northwestern wildfires or Idaho, Montana and Central U.S.
wildfires.  Similarly, for the Paducah area monitoring sites, EPA did
not concur with the claims about western Kentucky fires,
Arkansas/Mississippi wildfires or Arkansas/Mississippi wildfires.
However, EPA did concur with the claimed impact on May 24, 2007 from the
extreme Southeast Georgia/Florida wildfires.

Comment:

μg/m3.  The commenter believes that the surrounding counties are
contributing and/or in the MSA with Fayette

Draft EPA Response:

The computed 2005-07 design value for Fayette County is 33 μg/m3.  See
  HYPERLINK "http://www.epa.gov/air/airtrends/values.html"
http://www.epa.gov/air/airtrends/values.html   Kentucky requested
concurrence for exclusion of data influenced by the Southeast Wildfires
that burned in Georgia and Florida in 2007.  These wildfires had
widespread impact throughout the Southeast.  Multiple requests were
submitted from States thought-out the region for exclusion of data
impacted on June 2, 2007 by these Georgia/Florida “Roundabout”
wildfires.  EPA granted concurrence for several flagged values that met
the requirements as found in §50.14(c)(3)(iii) of which the Lexington
Primary (AQS # 21-067-0012) and U.K Lexington (AQS # 21-067-0014) were
included.  Nevertheless, exclusion of the June 2 exceptional event only
changed the Lexington Primary design value from 34 μg/m3 to 33 μg/m3.
Bell, Fayette and Hardin counties in Kentucky are not being designated
nonattainment for the 2006 PM2.5 standard because neither of these
counties has a violating monitor or has been found to contribute to an
area with a violating monitor

4.2.  Region VIII

4.2.1.  Montana

Comment:

One commenter (0123) believes that the EPA proposal to designate
Missoula, MT as attainment rejects the State recommendation.  The
commenter believes the use of exceptional events for 2005-2007 design
value is arbitrary.  The commenter states that the county had 24-hour
design values of 39 μg/m3 and 41 μg/m3 in 2003-2005 and 2004-2006,
respectively, well over the NAAQS.  The commenter states that there are
significant sources in the county.

EPA Response:

The most recent 3 years of complete, certified, quality assured data are
used in designations in order to make designations reflective of current
air quality conditions.  The data for Missoula, Montana for 2007 were
certified complete and accurate in June, 2008, so the 2005-2007 data set
are the most recent data available at the time of the designations for
2008.  The data shows attainment for the area.  Since this data was not
available for the State to use in its recommendation, EPA’s final
designation is different from the State’s recommendation.

Regarding exceptional event flags on wildfire influence on PM2.5 data
from 2007 in Missoula, 40 CFR Section 50.14(b)(1) states that “EPA
shall exclude data from use in determinations of exceedances and NAAQS
violations where a State demonstrates to EPA's satisfaction that an
exceptional event caused a specific air pollution concentration in
excess of one or more national ambient air quality standards at a
particular air quality monitoring location and otherwise satisfies the
requirements of this section.” This is in accordance with Appendix N
to 40 CFR 50. The State of Montana submitted a demonstration that PM2.5
exceedances from the summer of 2007 met the definition of an exceptional
event and the other requirements of 40 CFR Section 50.14, and EPA
concurred that these data were exceptional events.  In accordance with
the CFR, EPA has excluded those impacted data from a determination of
violation in Missoula.

g/m3) was not greater than the level of the 24-hour NAAQS, the
Missoula area is not judged to be in violation with the standard.

For additional information on the exceptional events please see,
“Letter dated December 14, 2007 to Callie Videtich, Director Air and
Radiation Program EPA Region VIII, from Charles Homer, Air Resources
Management Bureau of the Montana Department of Environmental Quality,
providing exceptional events data and demonstrations impacting Montana's
air monitoring data for designating areas attaining and not attaining
the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS" submitted to the docket
(EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0562: available online at   HYPERLINK
"http://www.regulations.gov"  www.regulations.gov ).

4.2.2.  Utah

Comment::

Two commenters (0129) request that EPA expand the nonattainment area
designations.  The commenter believes that EPA should designate Uintah
and Duchesne counties in Utah as nonattainment.  The commenters state
the Vernal monitor was offline for two years and believes that available
data indicates that monitors in both counties are exceeding or
contributing to exceedences of NAAQS for PM2.5.  The commenters believe
that failing to designate these counties as nonattainment would reward
Utah for not monitoring in areas where monitoring is most essential.

EPA Response:

The Utah DAQ has not provided EPA with the information necessary to
allow EPA to assess the siting and operation of the Vernal PM2.5 monitor
in Uintah County.  EPA knows of no PM2.5 monitoring data from Duchesne
County.  EPA’s understanding is that the monitor in Vernal was a PM2.5
Federal Reference Method monitor.  Utah DAQ has not submitted the raw
data and associated QA data from the Vernal monitor to the EPA AQS
database, and has not provided siting and other information to EPA to
allow EPA to assess whether the operation of the monitor met all
necessary 40 CFR Part 58 requirements to allow comparison to the NAAQS.

Base on the data at   HYPERLINK
"http://www.airmonitoring.utah.gov/dataarchive/archpm25.htm"
http://www.airmonitoring.utah.gov/dataarchive/archpm25.htm , the Vernal
PM2.5 monitor operated from December 10, 2006 to December 14, 2007.  The
2006 monitoring rule, effective December 18, 2006, provided the
following provision for monitors designated by states as Special Purpose
Monitors (SPM) and which subsequently receive approval from EPA Regional
Administrators as monitors of that monitoring type:

§ 58.20   Special purpose monitors (SPM).

(c) All data from an SPM using an FRM, FEM, or ARM which has operated
for more than 24 months is eligible for comparison to the relevant
NAAQS, subject to the conditions of §58.30, unless the air monitoring
agency demonstrates that the data came from a particular period during
which the requirements of appendix A, appendix C, or appendix E to this
part were not met in practice.

(d) If an SPM using an FRM, FEM, or ARM is discontinued within 24 months
of start-up, the Administrator will not base a NAAQS violation
determination for the PM2.5 or ozone NAAQS solely on data from the SPM.

痏

矢

硘

;

ž

õ

Z

Ã

4

5

6

8

9

:

;

<

=

Y

Z

[

\

{

|

}

—

˜

™

›

œ

ž

Ÿ

¼

½

¾

¿

Ò

Ó

Ô

î

ï

ð

ò

ó

ô

õ

ö

÷

!

"

#

7

8

9

S

T

U

W

X

Y

Z

[

\

x

y

z

{

¡

¢

¼

j¸

j;

¼

½

¾

À

Á

Â

Ã

Ä

Å

á

â

ã

ä

ó

ô

õ

j¬

j/

j

 h /

h~

h~

h~

	㜀$␸䠀$摧烃

 hÃp

hÃp

hÃp

 hÃp

h

hÃp

 hÃp

☊଀ᭆ㜀$␸䠀$摧烃

 hÃp

&@

&@

&@

&@

&@

&@

&@

&@

&@

&@

&@

&@

&@

&@

&@

&@

&@

&@

&@

&@

&@

&@

&@

&@

&@

&@

&@

&@

&@

&@

&@

&@

&@

&@

&@

&@

&@

&@

&@

&@

&@

&@

&@

&@

&@

&@

&@

&@

&@

&@

&@

&@

&@

&@

&@

&@

&@

&@

&@

&@

&@

&@

&@

&@

&@

&@

&@

&@

&@

&@

&@

&@

&@

&@

&@

&@

&@

&@

&@

&@

&@

&@

&@

&@

&@

&@

&@

&@

&@

&@

&@

&@

&@

&@

&@

&@

&@

&@

&@

&@

&@

&@

&@

&@

&@

&@

&@

&@

&@

&@

&@

&@

&@

&@

&@

&@

&@

&@

&@

&@

&@

&@

&@

&@

&@

&@

&@

&@

&@

&@

&@

&@

&@

&@

&@

&@

&@

&@

&@

&@

&@

&@

&@

&@

&@

&@

&@

&@

&@

&@

&@

&@

&@

&@

&@

ༀ킄ጂ碤᐀碤㜀$␸䠀$葞ː摧匒¿

 hÃp

 hÃp

h]E

h]E

萏ː葞ː摧ੁØ

ༀ킄㜂$␸䠀$葞ː摧䕝

hÓ

 hÃp

h]E

6

7

-

J7

ༀ梄㜁$␸䠀$葞Ũ摧林Ö

ༀ킄㜂$␸䠀$葞ː摧䕝

 hÃp

萏ː葞ː摧丏9

 hÖ

옍

옍

1

萏ː葞ː摧任½

摧任½ጀ1

5

•

™

Ñ

ø

萏ː葞ː摧⠋

hsu

h

(

h

摧䍴+ࠀ.萏֠葞֠摧㢜A

㜀$␸䠀$摧ᒶÝ

☊଀ⵆഀ߆栁āː༆킄㜂$␸䠀$葞ː摧ⴅþ

摧䍴+	㜀$␸䠀$摧ᒶÝ

h

摧㸘ëЀ摧๽ç

h

h

 h

 h

 h

 h

摧䰅m

옍

hS

hža

옍

hS

hS

hža

hža

摧߰ñЀ摧絇o

 h

h

h

h

 h

h

h

 h

 h

 h

:

D

ƒ

†

Å

Ë

摧䶺m

@

༂킄㜂$␸䠀$葞ː摧Ꮱn"̤̀옍)

摧ᐿ9

萏ː葞ː摧䜡c

hC

hC

hC

hC

hC

h‰

᐀

h‰

 h

h

 h

 h

h

h

 h

hß

฀킄༂ꂄ㜅$␸䠀$葝ː葞֠摧疄û

hß

;

>

/

2

®

»

¼

÷

ú

®

¼

R

R

R

h

☊଀⡆ഀ߆栁āː༆킄㜂$␸䠀$葞ː摧ⴅþ

摧爴H

ༀ킄㜂$␸䠀$葞ː摧㶯v

摧爴H

	㜀$␸䠀$摧窮

摧爴H

hx

 hx

hx

Ѐ摧⨴°

ༀ킄㜂$␸䠀$葞ː摧⋕O

ༀ킄㜂$␸䠀$葞ː摧൸¬

؀Ĥ摧❟

ༀ킄㜂$␸䠀$葞ː摧磝

萏ː葞ː摧੪µ

 h

h

h

h

ༀꂄ㜅$␸䠀$葞֠摧ൿº

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

	㜀$␸䠀$摧⽂(

摧扃äЀ摧絇o

¤

¥

-

-

£

¤

¥

©

´

µ

Ü

"¥

µ

hV

hC

hC

hC

hC

	㜀$␸䠀$摧䗛þ

hC

hC

hC

hC

hC

hC

hC

萏ː葞ː摧Ⴣ$Ⰺༀ킄㄂Ĥ葞ː摧Ⴣ$Ⰶ㄀Ĥ摧䗛þ

摧䗛þ

hC

hC

hC

 h

萑ː葠ː摧㿥´	㜀$␸䠀$摧㿥´

萏ː葞ː摧恮

摧疠ÅЀ摧絇o

 h

hn`

 hn`

hn`

hn`

਀&䘋

萏ː葞ː摧恮

hn`

 hn`

hn`

 h

+

P

R

U

f

©

È

+

摧犙

	㜀$␸䠀$摧犙

摧Ꮞ

h™r

 h

h™r

h™r

 h

摧犙

 h

hC

ༀ킄㜂$␸䠀$葞ː摧஬â

਀&䘋

摧䰅m

ༀ킄㜂$␸䠀$葞ː摧僖

h¬

hÁ

hC

 hÁ

h¬

 h

h¬

h¬

h¬

h¬

摧⃢

 hJ4

 h

 h

摧㝠ú

Ѐ摧絇o

 h

摧◠

摧敶D

摧៾!

ༀ梄㜁$␸䠀$葞Ũ摧៾!

Q

R

«

S

V

W

Ý

û

v

z

{

萏ː葞ː摧〜U

摧ᣭ¾

萏ː葞ː摧彏

h7,

h7,

hO_

hO_

hO_

	㜀$␸䠀$摧敤c

ༀ킄㜂$␸䠀$葞ː摧ⰷ

萏ː葞ː摧ⰷ

萏ː葞ː摧ⰷ

萏ː葞ː摧彏

h7,

h7,

h7,

h7,

h7,

h7,

h7,

萏ː葞ː摧ⰷ

萏ː葞ː摧ⰷ

h7,

h7,

h7,

h7,

萏ː葞ː摧ⰷ

摧ⰷ

萏ː葞ː摧ⰷ

h7,

h7,

h7,

摧䡅^Ѐ摧絇o

萑ː葠ː摧岄 	㜀$␸䠀$摧岄

☊ଁⱆഀ߆蔁Ăː༆킄ᄂ预㟾$␸䠀$葞ː葠ﺘ摧ⴅþ
㜀$␸䠀$摧⼃q

옍#

਀&䘋"옍#

hÈ

hÈ

hÈ

摧◠Ѐ摧絇o

ༀ킄㜂$␸䠀$葞ː摧⪮ð

 h

 h

摧䚎tЀ摧絇o

옍

摧哺ß

”

˜

 hÃp

摧瀵GЀ摧瀵G

摧秞Ñ

 h£

 h£

 h£

h£

摧ঢ়³

 h£

h£

 hE

 h£

h£

䢝

䢞

䰪

䰫

䱺

䱻

伴

伵

傩

傪

傳

勗

勘

勦

坃

坄

垀

嬄

嬅

gd£

䠀

䠂

䣦

䣩

䤝

䤟

䤾

䥁

䨀

䨂

䨈

䨊

䨨

䨬

䪊

䪎

䫂

䫄

䫊

䫌

䫪

䫮

䰞

䰡

䱞

䱡

䲍

䲐

䳽

䳾

䴣

䵕

䷧

伵

体

俎

俩

俾

倁

傩

傪

傳

僂

僆

僪

h£

DAQ did not request that EPA approve the monitor as an SPM, the above
restriction on the use of the first 24 months of data from the monitor
does not apply.

g/m3 in 2006 (the 1st maximum, recorded December 22, 2006), and a
98th percentile value of 51.8 g/m3 in 2007 (the 3rd maximum value
recorded on February 8, 2007).  40 CFR Part 50, Appendix N, section
4.2(a) provides the data requirements in order to show a violation of
the 24-hour PM2.5  NAAQS:

40 CFR Part 50, Appendix N, Section 4.2  24-Hour PM2.5 NAAQS (emphasis
added).

(a) The 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS is met when the 24-hour standard design
value at each monitoring site is less than or equal to 35 µg/m3.  This
comparison shall be based on 3 consecutive, complete years of air
quality data.  A year meets data completeness requirements when at least
75 percent of the scheduled sampling days for each quarter have valid
data.  However, years shall be considered valid, notwithstanding
quarters with less than complete data (even quarters with less than 11
samples), if the resulting annual 98th percentile value or resulting
24-hour standard design value (rounded according to the conventions of
section 4.3 of this appendix) is greater than the level of the standard.

Thus the fact that the Utah DAQ collected monitoring data in Vernal only
in calendar years 2006 and 2007 effectively prevents EPA from using the
data to establish the existence of a violation of the PM2.5 NAAQS, even
though the State did not opt to ask EPA to approve the Vernal monitor as
an SPM and receive the data use protections provide through 40 CFR
Section 58.20.

Comment:

One commenter (0011) believes that Washington and Uintah Counties in
Utah should also be designated as nonattainment.  The commenter claims
data that shows trends and sometimes exceedences of the PM2.5 in these
counties.  The commenter suggested that the monitoring stations at Saint
George and Vernal be restored, that all valid monitoring data be placed
on the State’s and EPA’s national databases, and that EPA use the
Air Monitoring Section for data collection if monitoring stations are
not available or do not provide accurate/adequate data.

EPA Response:

Utah DAQ did operate a PM2.5 Federal Reference Method monitor in Saint
George, Washington County, Utah from July 2, 2004 through Dec. 14, 2007,
and a monitor in Vernal, Uintah County, Utah from December 10, 2006
through December 14, 2007.  The Vernal monitor is addressed in the
response to the preceding comment.  The Utah DAQ has not provided EPA
with the information necessary to allow EPA to assess the siting and
operation of the Saint George PM2.5 monitor.  Utah DAQ has not provided
either the raw data collected or the quality assurance data that would
be necessary to assess the quality of the collected data to the EPA Air
Quality System (AQS) database.  EPA has requested that Utah DAQ provide
this data through AQS; Utah DAQ’s position is that monitors were not
required by Federal regulations contained in 40 CFR Part 58 in Saint
George or in Vernal, and that Utah did not use Federal Funds in
monitoring in Saint George or Vernal.  Utah DAQ concludes that they are
not bound by the data reporting requirements contained in 40 CFR Section
58.16 with respect to the Saint George or Vernal PM2.5 monitors:

40 CFR § 58.16   Data submittal and archiving requirements.

(a) The State, or where appropriate, local agency, shall report to the
Administrator, via AQS all ambient air quality data and associated
quality assurance data for SO2; CO; O3; NO2; NO; NOY; NOX; Pb; PM10 mass
concentration; PM2.5 mass concentration; for filter-based PM2.5 FRM/FEM
the field blank mass, sampler-generated average daily temperature, and
sampler-generated average daily pressure; chemically speciated PM2.5
mass concentration data; PM10–2.5 mass concentration; chemically
speciated PM10–2.5 mass concentration data; meteorological data from
NCore and PAMS sites; and metadata records and information specified by
the AQS Data Coding Manual
(http://www.epa.gov/ttn/airs/airsaqs/manuals/manuals.htm).  Such air
quality data and information must be submitted directly to the AQS via
electronic transmission on the specified quarterly schedule described in
paragraph (b) of this section.

g/m3, collected on July 1, 2006.  Thus, had Utah submitted the data
to EPA along with appropriate quality assurance data, and assuming the
siting and other operational requirements of 40 CFR Part 58 were met,
the available data collected between July 2, 2004 and December 14, 2007
would appear to show a site which attains the PM2.5 NAAQS.  Because the
appropriate data were not submitted to EPA, EPA cannot make a positive
statement that in fact Saint George attains the NAAQS, so instead a
designation of unclassifiable/attainment is appropriate for Washington
County, Utah.

Regarding the comment that EPA should rely on the Air Monitoring Section
of the Utah DAQ for data collection and information, EPA works closely
with all sections of the Utah DAQ, including the Air Monitoring Section,
but respects and supports the management structure implemented by the
State, and will rely upon the management of the DAQ for all formal
information submittals.

4.3.  Region X

4.3.1.  Idaho

Comment:

One commenter (0123) believes that EPA’s proposal to designate Lemhi
County, ID as unclassifiable is unlawful.  The commenter believes that
the most recent complete data (2003-2005) shows a violation.  The
commenter believes that EPA is avoiding a nonattainment designation in
the proposal by stating that the data is incomplete (monitor
malfunctions).  The commenter states the data that is available shows a
98th percentile value of 65.5 μg/m3.

EPA Response:

EPA agrees that 2007 air quality data for Lemhi, ID (from the FRM at
monitoring site# 160590004) show a 98th percentile value of 65.5 ug/m3.

μg/m3.  However, EPA based designations for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5
NAAQS on data for 2005-2007.  In instances where 2005-2007 data were
incomplete, EPA evaluated 2004-2006 data and 2003-2005 data.

Due to the nature of the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, areas may m僪

僫

儧

優

兹

兼

円

冎

冑

刞

刣

勖

勗

勘

勤

勥

勦

勭

勿

匃

吣

听

咨

咫

咽

啽

喝

喥

嗅

噿

嚟

圵

圸

堧

堨

堯

堰

場

堵

堽

堾

塂

塃

塋

塍

塤

塧

墏

墒

墓

夣

夦

奂

奈

奴

奺

娑

娩

 h£

9娩

婈

嬅

嬒

孕

孵

宾

寁

尌

對

導

小

尛

展

屗

屘

屙

岓

岔

峛

峞

帀

市

师

帊

恊

恍

憁

憙

懚

懲

抉

投

押

抽

抿

拀

拃

拌

拎

拏

拑

拔

拚

 hE

  hE

 hE

+嬅

慂

慃

抽

拌

拚

拣

效

敊

敦

時

榎

痎

痏

盘

矡

矢

矤

知

矧

옍

萏ː葞ː摧嗛7ጀ拚

拣

挄

挦

捐

捓

措

掭

撄

撊

擾

攂

收

攸

放

敀

敊

敤

敦

昝

星

晻

晾

栂

栈

栊

桾

梄

槔

槚

樀

琀

甕

甯

甽

畋

疂

痁

痂

症

痎

痏

痐

痗

瘡

瘣

癣

白

盘

盙

盠

眪

眬

睬

瞆

矡

矢

 h£

h£

ove into and out of attainment depending on meteorology and other
factors in a given year.  EPA believes that using data prior to the
2004-2006 data years would be inappropriate, as earlier years of data
would not necessarily accurately reflect an area’s current air
quality.  Section 107(d)(1)(A)(iii) requires that EPA designate as
“unclassifiable” any area that cannot be classified on the basis of
available information as meeting or not meeting” the NAAQS.

 e.g., The Particulate-Related Health Benefits of Reducing Power Plant
Emissions by Abt Associates for the Clean Air Task Force, October 2000;
and Introduction to Visibility by W.C.  Malm, National Park Service
Visibility Program, Colorado State University, 1999.

 e.g., The Particulate-Related Health Benefits of Reducing Power Plant
Emissions by Abt Associates for the Clean Air Task Force, October 2000;
and Introduction to Visibility by W.C.  Malm, National Park Service
Visibility Program, Colorado State University, 1999.

  PAGE   \* MERGEFORMAT  vi

  PAGE   \* MERGEFORMAT  xi

  PAGE   \* MERGEFORMAT  164


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 230 (Wednesday, November 30, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 86296-86297]
[FR Doc No: 2016-28575]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

[Docket No. FAA-2016-9452]

14 CFR Part 21

Airworthiness Criteria: Glider Design Criteria for Stemme AG
Model Stemme S12 Powered Glider

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed design criteria.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces the availability of and requests
comments on the proposed design criteria for the Stemme AG model Stemme
S12 powered glider. The Administrator finds the proposed design
criteria, which make up the certification basis for the Stemme S12,
acceptable.These final design criteria will be published in the Federal
Register.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before December 30, 2016.

ADDRESSES: Send comments identified by docket number FAA-2016-9452
using any of the following methods:
     Federal eRegulations Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and follow the online instructions for sending your
comments electronically.
     Mail: Send comments to Docket Operations, M-30, U.S.
Department of Transportation (DOT), 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room
W12-140, West Building Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery of Courier: Take comments to Docket
Operations in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m., and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Fax: Fax comments to Docket Operations at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Privacy: The FAA will post all comments it receives, without
change, to http://regulations.gov, including any personal information
the commenter provides. Using the search function of the docket Web
site, anyone can find and read the electronic form of all comments
received into any FAA docket, including the name of the individual
sending the comment (or signing the comment for an association,
business, labor union, etc.). DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement can
be found in the Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR
19477-19478), as well as at http://DocketsInfo.dot.gov.
    Docket: Background documents or comments received may be read at
http://www.regulations.gov at any time. Follow the online instructions
for accessing the docket or go to the Docket Operations in Room W12-140
of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m., and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Jim Rutherford, Federal Aviation
Administration, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, MO 64106, telephone (816)
329-4165, facsimile<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite interested people to take part in this rulemaking by
sending written comments, data, or views. The most helpful comments
reference a specific portion of the design criteria, explain the reason
for any recommended change, and include supporting data. We ask that
you send us two copies of written comments.
    We will consider all comments received on or before the closing
date for comments. We will consider comments filed late if it is
possible to do so without incurring expense or delay. We may change
these airworthiness design criteria based on received comments.

Background

    On January 08, 2016, Stemme AG submitted an application for type
validation of the Stemme S12 in accordance with the Technical
Implementation Procedures for Airworthiness and Environmental
Certification Between the FAA and the European Aviation Safety Agency
(EASA), Revision 5, dated September 15, 2015. The Stemme S12 is a two-
seat, self-launching, powered glider with a liquid cooled, turbocharged
engine mounted in the center fuselage, an indirect drive shaft, and a
fully-foldable, variable-pitch composite propeller in the nose. It is
constructed from glass and carbon fiber reinforced composites, features
a conventional T-type tailplane, and has a retractable main landing
gear. The glider has a maximum weight of 1,984 pounds (900 kilograms)
and may be equipped with an optional dual-axis autopilot system. EASA
type certificated the Stemme S12 under Type Certificate Number (No.)
EASA.A.054 on March 11, 2016. The associated EASA Type Certificate Data
Sheet (TCDS) No. EASA.A.054 defined the certification basis Stemme AG
submitted to the FAA for review and acceptance.
    The applicable requirements for glider certification in the United
States can be

found in FAA Advisory Circular (AC) 21.17-2A, ``Type Certification--
Fixed-Wing Gliders (Sailplanes), Including Powered Gliders,'' dated
February 10, 1993. AC 21.17-2A has been the basis for certification of
gliders and powered gliders in the United States for many years. AC
21.17-2A states that applicants may utilize the Joint Aviation
Requirements (JAR)-22, ``Sailplanes and Powered Sailplanes'', or
another accepted airworthiness criteria, or a combination of both, as
the accepted means for showing compliance for glider type
certification.

Type Certification Basis

    The applicant proposed a Certification Basis based on EASA
Certification Specification (CS)-22, ``Sailplanes and Powered
Sailplanes'', initial issue, dated November 14, 2003. In addition to
CS-22 requirements, the applicant proposed to comply with other
requirements from the certification basis referenced in EASA TCDS No.
EASA.A.054, including special conditions and equivalent safety
findings.

The Proposed Design Criteria

    Applicable Airworthiness Criteria under Sec.  21.17(b).
    Based on the Special Class provisions of Sec.  21.17(b), the
following airworthiness requirements form the FAA Certification Basis
for this design:
    1. 14 CFR part 21, effective February 1, 1965, including amendments
21-1 through 21-93 as applicable.
    2. EASA CS-22, initial issue, dated November 14, 2003.
    3. EASA Special Condition No. SC-A.22.1.01, ``Increase in maximum
mass for sailplanes and powered sailplanes.''
    4. ``Preliminary Standard for the Substantiation of Indirect Drive
Shafts in Power Plants of Powered Sailplanes Certified to JAR-22''
(with a modification for the Stemme AG model Stemme S 10), Luftfahrt-
Bundesamt (LBA) document number (no.) I231-87, issued August 05, 1988.
    5. Installation of a Dual-Axis Autopilot System, including--
     EASA CS-VLA (Very Light Aeroplanes) 1309, ``Equipment,
systems, and installations''; initial issue, dated November 14, 2003;
and
     EASA CS-23.1329, ``Automatic pilot system'', amendment 3,
dated July 20, 2012.
    6. Drop Testing for Retractable Landing Gear (EASA equivalent
safety findings) to include CS-VLA 725, ``Limit drop tests''; CS-VLA
726, ``Ground load dynamic tests''; and CS-VLA 727, ``Reserve energy
absorption''; initial issue dated November 14, 2003.
    7. ``Standards for Structural Substantiation of Sailplane and
Powered Sailplane Parts Consisting of Glass or Carbon Fiber Reinforced
Plastics'', LBA document no. I4-FVK/91, issued July 1991.
    8. ``Guideline for the analysis of the electrical system for
powered sailplanes'', LBA document no. I334-MS 92, issued September 15,
1992.
    9. The following kinds of operation are allowed: VFR-Day.
    10. Date of application for FAA Type Certificate: January 08, 2016.

    Issued in Kansas City, Missouri on November 18, 2016.
Mel Johnson,
Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2016-28575 Filed 11-29-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 97 (Friday, May 19, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 32208-32211]
[FR Doc No: 2023-10739]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP23-214-000]

Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC; Notice of Scoping Period
Requesting Comments on Environmental Issues for the Proposed Greenwood
and North Greenwood Storage Fields Abandonment Project

    The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or
Commission) will prepare an environmental document, that will discuss
the environmental impacts of the Greenwood and North Greenwood Storage
Fields Abandonment Project involving abandonment of facilities by
Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC (Columbia) in Steuben County, New York.
The Commission will use this environmental document in its decision-
making process to determine whether the project is in the public
convenience and necessity.
    This notice announces the opening of the scoping process the
Commission will use to gather input from the public and interested
agencies regarding the project. As part of the National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA) review process, the Commission takes into account
concerns the public may have about proposals and the environmental
impacts that could result from its action whenever it considers the
issuance of a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity. This
gathering of public input is referred to as ``scoping.'' The main goal
of the scoping process is to focus the analysis in the environmental
document on the important environmental issues. Additional information
about the Commission's NEPA process is described below in the NEPA
Process and Environmental Document section of this notice.
    By this notice, the Commission requests public comments on the
scope of issues to address in the environmental document. To ensure
that your comments are timely and properly recorded, please submit your
comments so that the Commission receives them in Washington, DC on or
before 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on June 14, 2023. Comments may be
submitted in written form. Further details on how to submit comments
are provided in the Public Participation section of this notice.
    Your comments should focus on the potential environmental effects,
reasonable alternatives, and measures to avoid or lessen environmental
impacts. Your input will help the Commission staff determine what
issues they need to evaluate in the environmental document. Commission
staff will consider all written comments during the preparation of the
environmental document.
    If you submitted comments on this project to the Commission before
the opening of this docket on April 21, 2023, you will need to file
those comments in Docket No. CP23-214-000 to ensure they are considered
as part of this proceeding.
    This notice is being sent to the Commission's current environmental
mailing list for this project. State and local government
representatives should notify their constituents of this proposed
project and encourage them to comment on their areas of concern.
    Columbia provided landowners with a fact sheet prepared by the FERC
entitled ``An Interstate Natural Gas Facility On My Land? What Do I
Need To Know?'' which addresses typically asked questions, including
the use of eminent domain and how to participate in the Commission's
proceedings. This fact sheet along with other landowner topics of
interest are available for viewing on the FERC website (www.ferc.gov)
under the Natural Gas, Landowner Topics link.

Public Participation

    There are three methods you can use to submit your comments to the
Commission. Please carefully follow these instructions so that your
comments are properly recorded. The Commission encourages electronic
filing of comments and has staff available to assist you at (866) 208-
3676 or [email protected].
    (1) You can file your comments electronically using the eComment
feature, which is located on the Commission's website (www.ferc.gov)
under the link to FERC Online. Using eComment is an easy method for
submitting brief, text-only comments on a project;
    (2) You can file your comments electronically by using the eFiling
feature, which is located on the Commission's website (www.ferc.gov)
under the link to FERC Online. 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 will be asked to select the type of filing you
are making; a comment on a particular project is considered a ``Comment
on a Filing''; or
    (3) You can file a paper copy of your comments by mailing them to
the Commission. Be sure to reference the project docket number (CP23-
214-000) on your letter. Submissions sent via the U.S. Postal Service
must be addressed to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Room 1A, Washington, DC
20426. Submissions sent via any other carrier must be addressed to:
Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,
12225 Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
    Additionally, the Commission offers a free service called
eSubscription which makes it easy to stay informed of all issuances and
submittals regarding the dockets/projects to which you

subscribe. These instant email notifications are the fastest way to
receive notification and provide a link to the document files which can
reduce the amount of time you spend researching proceedings. Go to
https://www.ferc.gov/ferc-online/overview to register for
eSubscription.

Summary of the Proposed Project

    Columbia proposes to abandon its Greenwood and North Greenwood
Storage Fields, including all active associated pipelines, facilities,
and appurtenances, in Steuben County, New York. According to Columbia,
the storage fields are no longer needed, and the project would reduce
future integrity risks and eliminate the costs required to maintain the
fields.
    The Greenwood and North Greenwood Storage Fields Abandonment
Project would consist of the following activities:
     abandoning four injection/withdrawal wells by permanently
plugging and abandoning;
     abandoning four observations wells and one disposal well
by permanently plugging and abandoning;
     abandoning approximately 3 miles of associated storage
lines in the Greenwood Fields, consisting of three 8-inch-diameter
laterals, and five 4-inch-diameter laterals. About 0.1 mile would be
abandoned by removal and about 2.9 miles would be abandoned in place;
     abandoning by removal the North Greenwood Compressor
Station, including all below- and above-ground structures;
     abandoning by removal all above-ground appurtenances; and
     abandoning in place the remaining below-ground brine lines
and miscellaneous appurtenances.
    The general location of the project facilities is 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''. For instructions on
connecting to eLibrary, refer to the last page of this notice. At
this time, the Commission has suspended access to the Commission's
Public Reference Room. For assistance, contact FERC
[email protected] or call toll free,<PHONE_NUMBER> or TTY
(202) 502-8659.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Land Requirements for Construction

    Abandonment of the proposed facilities would temporarily disturb
about 25.8 acres of land. This includes about 15.5 acres of existing
easements, 3.8 acres of existing access roads, 3.6 acres of existing
facility space, and 2.8 acres of temporary workspaces. Following the
removal of facilities, Columbia would restore workspaces to their
former uses.

NEPA Process and the Environmental Document

    Any environmental document issued by the Commission will discuss
impacts that could occur as a result of the construction and operation
of the proposed project under the relevant general resource areas:
     geology and soils;
     water resources and wetlands;
     vegetation and wildlife;
     threatened and endangered species;
     cultural resources;
     land use;
     environmental justice;
     air quality and noise; and
     cumulative impacts.
    Commission staff will also evaluate reasonable alternatives to the
proposed project or portions of the project and make recommendations on
how to lessen or avoid impacts on the various resource areas. Your
comments will help Commission staff identify and focus on the issues
that might have an effect on the human environment and potentially
eliminate others from further study and discussion in the environmental
document.
    Following this scoping period, Commission staff will determine
whether to prepare an Environmental Assessment (EA) or an Environmental
Impact Statement (EIS). The EA or the EIS will present Commission
staff's independent analysis of the issues. If Commission staff
prepares an EA, a Notice of Schedule for the Preparation of an
Environmental Assessment will be issued. The EA may be issued for an
allotted public comment period. The Commission would consider timely
comments on the EA before making its decision regarding the proposed
project. If Commission staff prepares an EIS, a Notice of Intent to
Prepare an EIS/Notice of Schedule will be issued, which will open up an
additional comment period. Staff will then prepare a draft EIS which
will be issued for public comment. Commission staff will consider all
timely comments received during the comment period on the draft EIS and
revise the document, as necessary, before issuing a final EIS. Any EA
or draft and final EIS will be available in electronic format in the
public record through eLibrary \2\ and the Commission's natural gas
environmental documents web page (https://www.ferc.gov/industries-data/natural-gas/environment/environmental-documents). If eSubscribed, you
will receive instant email notification when the environmental document
is issued.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ For instructions on connecting to eLibrary, refer to the
last page of this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With this notice, the Commission is asking agencies with
jurisdiction by law and/or special expertise with respect to the
environmental issues of this project to formally cooperate in the
preparation of the environmental document.\3\ Agencies that would like
to request cooperating agency status should follow the instructions for
filing comments provided under the Public Participation section of this
notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The Council on Environmental Quality regulations addressing
cooperating agency responsibilities are at title 40, Code of Federal
Regulations, section 1501.8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Consultation 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, the Commission is 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.\4\ The environmental document for this
project will document findings on the impacts on historic properties
and summarize the status of consultations under section 106.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 and includes a mailing address with their
comments. Commission staff will update the environmental mailing list
as the analysis proceeds to ensure that Commission notices related to
this environmental review are sent to all individuals, organizations,
and government entities interested in and/or

potentially affected by the proposed project.
    If you need to make changes to your name/address, or if you would
like to remove your name from the mailing list, please complete one of
the following steps:
    (1) Send an email to [email protected] stating your
request. You must include the docket number CP23-214-000 in your
request. If you are requesting a change to your address, please be sure
to include your name and the correct address. If you are requesting to
delete your address from the mailing list, please include your name and
address as it appeared on this notice. This email address is unable to
accept comments.
    OR
    (2) Return the attached ``Mailing List Update Form'' (Appendix 2).

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 website at www.ferc.gov using the eLibrary link. Click on the
eLibrary link, click on ``General Search'' and enter the docket number
in the ``Docket Number'' field. Be sure you have selected an
appropriate date range. For assistance, please contact FERC Online
Support at [email protected] or<PHONE_NUMBER>, or for TTY,
contact<PHONE_NUMBER>. The eLibrary link also provides access to the
texts of all formal documents issued by the Commission, such as orders,
notices, and rulemakings.
    Public sessions or site visits will be posted on the Commission's
calendar located at https://www.ferc.gov/news-events/events along with
other related information.

    Dated: May 15, 2023.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.

Appendix 1

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN19MY23.016

Appendix 2
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN19MY23.017

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN19MY23.018

[FR Doc. 2023-10739 Filed 5-18-23; 8:45 a.m.]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-C


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 114 (Tuesday, June 14, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 34737-34738]
[FR Doc No: 2011-14620]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

[USCG-2011-0119]

Collection of Information Under Review by Office of Management
and Budget; OMB Control Numbers: 1625-0020, 1625-0022, 1625-0029 and
1625-0031

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Thirty-day notice requesting comments.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 the
U.S. Coast Guard is forwarding Information Collection Requests (ICRs),
abstracted below, to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Office
of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), requesting approval of a
revision to the following collections of information: 1625-0020,
Security Zones, Regulated Navigation Areas and Safety Zones, 1625-0022,
Application for Tonnage Measurement of Vessels, 1625-0029, Self-
propelled Liquefied Gas Vessels, and 1625-0031, Plan Approval and
Records for Electrical Engineering Regulations--Title 46 CFR Subchapter
J. The sixty-day notice was previously published as an extension. Due
to a new instruction sheet added to this collection, this Notice is
being submitted as a revision.
    Our ICRs describe the information we seek to collect from the
public. Review and comments by OIRA ensure we only impose paperwork
burdens commensurate with our performance of duties.

DATES: Comments must reach the Coast Guard and OIRA on or before July
14, 2011.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by Coast Guard docket
number [USCG-2011-0119] to the Docket Management Facility (DMF) at the
U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) and/or to OIRA. To avoid
duplicate submissions, please use only one of the following means:
    (1) Online: (a) To Coast Guard docket at http://www.regulations.gov. (b) To OIRA by e-mail via<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) Mail: (a) DMF (M-30), DOT, West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001. (b) To
OIRA, 725 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503, attention Desk
Officer for the Coast Guard.
    (3) Hand Delivery: To DMF address above, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The telephone number is
202-366-9329.
    (4) Fax: (a) To DMF,<PHONE_NUMBER>. (b) To OIRA at<PHONE_NUMBER>. To
ensure your comments are received in a timely manner, mark the fax,
attention Desk Officer for the Coast Guard.
    The DMF maintains the public docket for this Notice. Comments and
material received from the public, as well as documents mentioned in
this Notice as being available in the docket, will become part of the
docket and will be available for inspection or copying at room W12-140
on the West Building Ground Floor, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE.,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. You may also find the docket on the Internet
at http://www.regulations.gov.
    Copies of the ICRs are available through the docket on the Internet
at http://www.regulations.gov. Additionally, copies are available from:
Commandant (CG-611), Attn: Paperwork Reduction Act Manager, U.S. Coast
Guard, 2100 2nd St., SW., Stop 7101, Washington, DC 20593-7101.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Kenlinishia Tyler, Office of
Information Management, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER> or fax<PHONE_NUMBER>, for
questions on these documents. Contact Ms. Renee V. Wright, Program
Manager, Docket Operations,<PHONE_NUMBER>, for questions on the docket.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Public Participation and Request for Comments

    This Notice relies on the authority of the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995; 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended. An ICR is an application to
OIRA seeking the approval, extension, or renewal of a Coast Guard
collection of information (Collection). The ICR contains information
describing the Collection's purpose, the Collection's likely burden on
the affected public, an explanation of the necessity of the Collection,
and other important information describing the Collections. There is
one ICR for each Collection.
    The Coast Guard invites comments on whether these ICRs should be
granted based on the Collections being necessary for the proper
performance of Departmental functions. In particular, the Coast Guard
would appreciate comments addressing: (1) The practical utility of the
Collections; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden of the
Collections; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of
information subject to the Collections; and (4) ways to minimize the
burden of the collections on respondents, including the use of
automated collection techniques or other forms of information
technology. These comments will help OIRA determine whether to approve
the ICRs referred to in this Notice.
    We encourage you to respond to this request by submitting comments
and related materials. Comments to Coast Guard or OIRA must contain the
OMB Control Number of the ICR. They must also contain the docket number
of this request, [USCG-2011-0119], and must be received by July 14,
2011. We will post all comments received, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov. They will include any personal information you
provide. We have an agreement with DOT to use their DMF. Please see the
``Privacy Act'' paragraph below.

Submitting Comments

    If you submit a comment, please include the docket number [USCG-
2011-0119], indicate the specific section of the document to which each
comment applies, providing a reason for each comment. If you submit a
comment online (via http://www.regulations.gov), it will be considered
received by the Coast Guard when you successfully transmit the comment.
If you fax, hand deliver, or mail your comment, it will be considered
as having been received by the Coast Guard when it is received at the
DMF. We recommend you include your name, mailing address, an e-mail
address, or other contact information in the body of your document so
that we can contact you if we have questions regarding your submission.
    You may submit comments and material by electronic means, mail,
fax, or hand delivery to the DMF at the address under ADDRESSES, but
please submit them by only one means. To submit your comment online, go
to http://www.regulations.gov, and type ``USCG-2011-0119'' in the
``Keyword'' box. 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 comments 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
and will address them accordingly.

Viewing Comments and Documents

    To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this Notice as
being available in the docket, go to

http://www.regulations.gov, click on the ``read comments'' box, which
will then become highlighted in blue. In the ``Keyword'' box insert
``USCG-2011-0119'' and click ``Search.'' Click the ``Open Docket
Folder'' in the ``Actions'' column. You may also visit the DMF in Room
W12-140 on the ground floor of the DOT West Building, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    OIRA posts its decisions on ICRs online at http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain after the comment period for each ICR. An OMB Notice
of Action on each ICR will become available via a hyperlink in the OMB
Control Number: USCG-2011-0119.

Privacy Act

    Anyone can search the electronic form of comments received in
dockets by 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 statement
regarding Coast Guard public dockets in the January 17, 2008, issue of
the Federal Register (73 FR 3316).

Previous Request for Comments

    This request provides a 30-day comment period required by OIRA. The
Coast Guard has published the 60-day notice (76 FR 15330, March 21,
2011) required by 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2). That Notice elicited no
comments.

Information Collection Requests

    1. Title: Security Zones, Regulated Navigation Areas, and Safety
Zones.
    OMB Control Number: 1625-0020.
    Type of Request: Revision of a previously approved collection.
    Respondents: Federal, State, and local government agencies, owners
and operators of vessels and facilities.
    Abstract: The Coast Guard collects this information only when
someone seeks a security zone, regulated navigation area, or safety
zone. It uses the information to assess the need to establish one of
these areas.
    Forms: Not applicable.
    Burden Estimate: The estimated burden has decreased from 296 hours
to 272 hours a year.
    2. Title: Application for Tonnage Measurement of Vessels.
    OMB Control Number: 1625-0022.
    Type of Request: Revision of a previously approved collection.
    Respondents: Owners of vessels.
    Abstract: The information is used by the Coast Guard to help
determine a vessel's tonnage. Tonnage in turn helps to determine
licensing, inspection, safety requirements, and operating fees.
    Forms: CG-5397.
    Burden Estimate: The estimated burden has decreased from 33,499
hours to 19,160 hours a year.
    3. Title: Self-propelled Liquefied Gas Vessels.
    OMB Control Number: 1625-0029.
    Type of Request: Revision of a previously approved collection.
    Respondents: Owners and operators of self-propelled vessels
carrying liquefied gas.
    Abstract: We need the information sought in this collection, which
includes forms CG-4355 and CG-5148, to ensure compliance with our rules
for the design and operation of liquefied gas carriers.
    Forms: CG-4355, CG-5148.
    Burden Estimate: The estimated burden has increased from 6,566
hours to 6,754 hours a year.
    4. Title: Plan Approval and Records for Electrical Engineering
Regulations--Title 46 CFR Subchapter J.
    OMB Control Number: 1625-0031.
    Type of Request: Revision of a previously approved collection.
    Respondents: Owners, operators, shipyards, designers, and
manufacturers of vessels.
    Abstract: The information sought here is needed to ensure
compliance with our rules on electrical engineering for the design and
construction of U.S.-flag commercial vessels.
    Forms: None.
    Burden Estimate: The estimated burden has increased from 3,529
hours to 4,754 hours a year.

    Authority:  The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C.
Chapter 35, as amended.

    Dated: June 3, 2011.
C.A. Mathieu,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Acting Assistant Commandant for Command,
Control, Communications, Computers and Information Technology.
[FR Doc. 2011-14620 Filed 6-13-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 210 (Wednesday, November 1, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 50577]
[FR Doc No: 2017-23745]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[Docket No. USCG-2017-0967]

Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway,
Alligator River, Columbia, NC

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of deviation from drawbridge regulation.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard has issued a temporary deviation from the
operating schedule that governs the US 64/Alligator River Bridge which
carries US 64 over the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway (AICW), Alligator
River, mile 84.2, near Columbia, NC. The deviation is necessary to
facilitate bridge maintenance. This deviation allows the bridge to
remain in the closed-to-navigation position.

DATES: The deviation is effective from 7 a.m. on November 6, 2017,
through 7 p.m. on November 17, 2017.

ADDRESSES: The docket for this deviation, USCG-2017-0967 is available
at http://www.regulations.gov. Type the docket number in the ``SEARCH''
box and click ``SEARCH''. Click on Open Docket Folder on the line
associated with this deviation.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this
temporary deviation, call or email Mr. Michael Thorogood, Bridge
Administration Branch Fifth District, Coast Guard, telephone 757-398-
6557, email [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:  The North Carolina Department of
Transportation, owner and operator of the US 64/Alligator River Bridge
that carries US 64 over the AICW, Alligator River, mile 84.2, at near
Columbia, NC, has requested a temporary deviation from the current
operating schedule to facilitate application of an epoxy overlay for
the drawbridge's entire bridge deck. The bridge has a vertical
clearance of 14 feet above mean high water in the closed position and
unlimited feet above mean high water in the open position.
    The current operating schedule is set out in 33 CFR 117.5. Under
this temporary deviation, the bridge will be in the closed-to-
navigation position from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m.; on Monday, November 6, 2017,
through Saturday, November 11, 2017, and Monday, November 13, 2017,
through Friday, November 17, 2017.
    The AICW, Alligator River is used by a variety of vessels
including, small commercial vessels, tug and barge traffic, and
recreational vessels. The Coast Guard has carefully coordinated the
restrictions with waterway users in publishing this temporary
deviation.
    Vessels able to pass through the bridge in the closed-to-navigation
position may do so at any time. The bridge will open on signal during
closure period, if at least 2 hours notice is given. The bridge will be
able to open for emergencies and there is no immediate alternative
route for vessels unable to pass through the bridge in the closed
position. The Coast Guard will also inform the users of the waterway
through our Local Notice and Broadcast Notices to Mariners of the
change in operating schedule for the bridge so vessel operators can
arrange their transits to minimize any impact caused by the temporary
deviation.
    In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridge must return to
its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the effective
period of this temporary deviation. This deviation from the operating
regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.

    Dated: October 27, 2017.
Hal R. Pitts,
Bridge Program Manager, Fifth Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2017-23745 Filed 10-31-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P