[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 137 (Thursday, July 17, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 41699-41700]
[FR Doc No: 2014-16820]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2011-N-0021]

AbbVie Inc., et al.; Withdrawal of Approval of Abbreviated New
Drug Applications for Prescription Pain Medications Containing More
Than 325 Milligrams of Acetaminophen

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is withdrawing approval
of 7 abbreviated new drug applications (ANDAs) for prescription drug
products containing more than 325 milligrams (mg) of acetaminophen. The
holders of these ANDAs have waived their opportunity for a hearing.

DATES: Effective July 17, 2014.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rachel Turow, Center for Drug
Evaluation and Research (CDER), Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New
Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 51, Rm. 6236, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-
796-5094.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the Federal Register of January 14, 2011
(76 FR 2691), FDA announced its plans to reduce the maximum dosage unit
strength of acetaminophen in prescription drug products. The notice
announced FDA's conclusion that, based on a reevaluation of the
relative risks and benefits of prescription acetaminophen products,
fixed-combination prescription drugs containing more than 325 mg of
acetaminophen per dosage unit (tablet, capsule, or liquid) do not
provide a sufficient margin of safety to protect the public against the
serious risk of acetaminophen-induced liver injury. Accordingly, we
asked product sponsors to limit the maximum amount of acetaminophen per
dosage unit to 325 mg and, for those products containing more than 325
mg of acetaminophen per dosage unit, to submit requests that FDA
withdraw approval of their applications under Sec.  314.150(d) (21 CFR
314.150(d)). FDA asked that all such requests be made before January
14, 2014, after which date the Agency planned to initiate proceedings
under section 505(e) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the
FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 355(e)) to withdraw approval of any prescription
drug products containing more than 325 mg of acetaminophen per dosage
unit that remained on the market.
    FDA did not receive a request for withdrawal of approval of an
application containing more than 325 mg of acetaminophen per dosage
unit from one sponsor. In addition, FDA received requests for
withdrawal of approval of five applications for products containing
more than 325 mg of acetaminophen per dosage unit for which sponsors
either submitted requests under Sec.  314.150(c) or failed to cite a
relevant regulatory provision. FDA contacted all of these sponsors on
multiple occasions to ask that they submit a request that FDA withdraw
approval of their applications under Sec.  314.150(d), but they failed
to respond.
    With respect to the application for which FDA received no request
for withdrawal, FDA initiated proceedings under Sec.  314.150(a) and
(b) to withdraw approval. With respect to the requests for withdrawal
of approval submitted under Sec.  314.150(c), the Agency notes that
because FDA has made a determination under Sec.  314.150(a) that
approval of these applications should be withdrawn for reasons of
safety, application holders may not withdraw their applications under
Sec.  314.150(c). The text of Sec.  314.150(c) expressly precludes
withdrawal of an application under the subsection if FDA has made a
safety determination under Sec.  314.150(a). Similarly, when a request
for withdrawal is made without a citation to any regulation, FDA does
not consider it to be appropriately notified that an application holder
has voluntarily waived the opportunity for a hearing. Accordingly, FDA
decided to proceed with withdrawal of approval of applications for
which sponsors either submitted requests under Sec.  314.150(c) or
failed to cite a relevant regulatory provision under the withdrawal
procedures outlined in Sec.  314.150 (a) and (b).
    Thus, in a notice published in the Federal Register on March 27,
2014 (79 FR 17156), the Director of CDER offered an opportunity for a
hearing on a proposal to issue an order, under section 505(e) of the
FD&C Act and 21 CFR 314.150(a), withdrawing approval of 6 ANDAs for
products containing more than 325 mg of acetaminophen for which the
ANDA holders did not voluntarily request to withdraw their applications
under Sec.  314.150(d). The ANDA holders were provided an opportunity
to request a hearing to show why approval of their ANDAs should not be
withdrawn. None of the ANDA holders requested a hearing in response to
the notice.
    The ANDAs listed in table 1, other than ANDA 040148, were the
subject of the March 27, 2014, Federal Register notice. Because the
holders of these ANDAs failed to request a hearing by April 28, 2014,
they are considered to have waived their opportunity for a hearing
under Sec.  314.200(a)(2) and FDA is now withdrawing approval of their
applications.
    In addition, table 1 includes ANDA 040148 for which the ANDA holder
submitted a timely voluntary request for withdrawal under 314.150(d)
and waived its opportunity for a hearing. However, ANDA 040148 was
erroneously omitted from the March 27, 2014, Federal Register notice
(79 FR 17163) announcing withdrawal of approval of 108 ANDAs. FDA is
now withdrawing approval of ANDA 040148 as well.

          Table 1--ANDAs for Which FDA Is Withdrawing Approval
------------------------------------------------------------------------
       Application No.           Drug product(s)     Applicant or holder
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ANDA 40117..................  Vicodin HP            AbbVie Inc., 1 N.
                               (Acetaminophen and    Waukegan Rd., North
                               Hydrocodone           Chicago, IL 60064.
                               Bitartrate
                               Tablets), 660 mg/10
                               mg.
ANDA 88058..................  Vicodin               AbbVie Inc.
                               (Acetaminophen and
                               Hydrocodone
                               Bitartrate
                               Tablets), 500 mg/5
                               mg.
ANDA 89736..................  Vicodin ES            AbbVie Inc.
                               (Acetaminophen and
                               Hydrocodone
                               Bitartrate
                               Tablets), 750 mg/
                               7.5 mg.
ANDA 89166..................  SYNALGOS-DC-A         Leitner
                               (Acetaminophen,       Pharmaceuticals
                               Caffeine, and         LLC, 340 Edgemont
                               Dihydrocodeine        Ave., Bristol, TN
                               Bitartrate            37620.
                               Capsules), 356.4 mg/
                               30 mg/16 mg.
ANDA 40366..................  Acetaminophen and     Nesher
                               Hydrocodone           Pharmaceuticals USA
                               Bitartrate Oral       LLC, 13910 St.
                               Solution, 500 mg/15   Charles Rock Rd.,
                               milliliters (mL);     Bridgeton, MO
                               7.5 mg/15 mL.         63044.
ANDA 040148.................  Acetaminophen and     Watson Laboratories,
                               Hydrocodone           311 Bonnie Circle,
                               Bitartrate Tablets,   Corona, CA 92880.
                               500 mg/10 mg.
ANDA 040637.................  Acetaminophen,        West-Ward
                               Caffeine, and         Pharmaceutical
                               Dihydrocodeine        Corp., 435
                               Bitartrate Tablets,   Industrial Way
                               712.8 mg/60 mg/32     West, Eatontown, NJ
                               mg.                   07724.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to the ANDAs listed in table 1 (with the exception of
ANDA 040148), for the reasons discussed in the January 14, 2011, and
March 27, 2014, notices, the Director of CDER, under section 505(e)(2)
of the FD&C Act and under authority delegated to her by the
Commissioner of Food and Drugs (the Commissioner), finds that new
evidence of clinical experience, not contained in the applications
listed in table 1 and not available at the time the applications were
approved, shows that prescription drugs containing more than 325 mg of
acetaminophen per dosage unit are not safe for use under the conditions
of use that formed the basis upon which the applications were approved
(21 U.S.C. 355(e)(2)). Therefore, approval of the applications for the
drug products listed in table 1 of this document (with the exception of
ANDA 040148), and all amendments and supplements thereto, is withdrawn
(see DATES). Distribution of these products in interstate commerce
without an approved application is illegal and subject to regulatory
action (see sections 505(a) and 301(d) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C.
355(a) and 331(d)).
    With respect to ANDA 040148 listed in table 1, under Sec.
314.150(d), and under authority delegated to the Director of CDER by
the Commissioner, approval of ANDA 040148 and all amendments and
supplements thereto, is withdrawn (see DATES).
    The safety issue discussed in this document and the March 27, 2014,
and January 14, 2011, Federal Register notices is limited to products
containing more than 325 mg of acetaminophen per dosage unit. Thus, the
withdrawal of approval of products containing more than 325 mg of
acetaminophen per dosage unit listed in table 1 does not change the
approval status of any products with 325 mg or less of acetaminophen
per dosage unit that were approved under the same application. In
addition, the withdrawal of approval of products containing more than
325 mg of acetaminophen per dosage unit does not change the approval
status of products with 325 mg or less of acetaminophen per dosage unit
that refer to or rely on the withdrawn products. For example, this
withdrawal action will not affect the approval status of an ANDA for a
product that contains 325 mg or less per dosage unit that references a
product listed in table 1, but for which FDA approved a suitability
petition for a lower strength under section 505(j)(2)(C) of the FD&C
Act and Sec.  314.93 (21 CFR 314.93)).

    Dated: July 14, 2014.
Peter Lurie,
Associate Commissioner for Policy and Planning.
[FR Doc. 2014-16820 Filed 7-16-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register: April 4, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 64)]
[Notices]
[Page 16342]
[DOCID:fr04ap07-48]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP07-363-000]

Columbia Gas Transmission Corporation; Notice of Tariff Filing
and Non-Conforming Service Agreements

March 29, 2007.
    Take notice that on March 26, 2007 Columbia Gas Transmission
Corporation (Columbia) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas
Tariff, Second Revised Volume No. 1, Eighteenth Revised Sheet No. 500B,
with a proposed effective date of May 1, 2007.
    Columbia also tendered for filing the following Service Agreements
for consideration and approval:

FTS Service Agreement No. 91804, between Columbia Gas Transmission
Corporation and Chesapeake Appalachia, LLC, dated February 7, 2007.
FTS Service Agreement No. 91805, between Columbia Gas Transmission
Corporation and Chesapeake Appalachia, LLC, dated February 7, 2007.

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed in accordance with the provisions of
Section 154.210 of the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210).
Anyone filing an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on
or before the intervention or protest date need not serve motions to
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov.
 Persons unable to file electronically should submit an

original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the

``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For

TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Philis J. Posey,
Acting Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E7-6211 Filed 4-3-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 204 (Wednesday, October 22, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 63154-63155]
[FR Doc No: 2014-25074]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4191-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2014-0003]

Guam; Major Disaster and Related Determinations

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This is a notice of the Presidential declaration of a major
disaster for the Territory of Guam (FEMA-4191-DR), dated September 10,
2014, and related determinations.

DATES: Effective Date: September 10, 2014.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dean Webster, Office of Response and
Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW.,
Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that, in a letter
dated September 10, 2014, the President issued a major disaster
declaration under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster
Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq. (the
``Stafford Act''), as follows:

    I have determined that the damage in certain areas of the
Territory of Guam resulting from Tropical Storm Halong during the
period of July 28-31, 2014, is of sufficient severity and magnitude
to warrant a major disaster declaration under the Robert T. Stafford
Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq.
(the ``Stafford Act''). Therefore, I declare that such a major
disaster exists in the Territory of Guam.
    In order to provide Federal assistance, you are hereby
authorized to allocate from funds available for these purposes such
amounts as you find necessary for Federal disaster assistance and
administrative expenses.
    You are authorized to provide Public Assistance in the
designated areas and Hazard Mitigation throughout the Territory of
Guam. Consistent with the requirement that Federal assistance be
supplemental, any Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for
Hazard Mitigation will be limited to 75 percent of the total
eligible costs. Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for
Public Assistance also will be limited to 75 percent of the total
eligible costs, with the exception of projects that meet the
eligibility criteria for a higher Federal cost-sharing percentage
under the Public Assistance Alternative Procedures Pilot Program for
Debris Removal implemented pursuant to section 428 of the Stafford
Act.
    Further, you are authorized to make changes to this declaration
for the approved assistance to the extent allowable under the
Stafford Act.

    The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice
that pursuant to the authority vested in the Administrator, under
Executive Order 12148, as amended, Kenneth K. Suiso, of FEMA is
appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this major
disaster.
    The following areas have been designated as adversely affected by
this major disaster:

    The Territory of Guam for Public Assistance.
    All areas within the Territory of Guam are eligible for
assistance under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.
    The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers
(CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030,
Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis
Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster
Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance
Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and
Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049,
Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing
Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially
Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other
Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially
Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

W. Craig Fugate,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2014-25074 Filed 10-21-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


From:
"Dolby, Abigail"<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Sent:
Tue, 27 Sep 2022 13:06:54
To:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>Subject:
ABC COKE- Coke Ovens Section 114 Request Enclosure 1
Good afternoon,

See attached for the excel sheet for Enclosure 1 of the 114 request for ABC Coke. The email allowed me to attach the zip folders for part D and C, but not allowing me to attach part A, B and E as they are too large.  I believe I will need a file transfer link for those parts.

Regards,
Abby Dolby
Environmental Coordinator

T:<PHONE_NUMBER>  C:<PHONE_NUMBER>

<<Copy of ANSWER-Coke-Enc1-Questionnaire ICR-20162022-DrummondCompany.zip>>
<<C- 303.zip>>
<<D- Opacity Data.zip>>


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 149 (Friday, August 2, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 47050-47051]
[FR Doc No: 2013-18577]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2012-0109; Notice 2]

Cooper Tire & Rubber Company, Grant of Petition for Decision of
Inconsequential Noncompliance

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Grant of petition.

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

SUMMARY: Cooper Tire & Rubber Company (Cooper) \1\ has determined that
certain Cooper brand replacement tires manufactured between May 20,
2012 and June 16, 2012, do not fully comply with paragraph S5.5 of
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 139, New Pneumatic
Radial Tires for Light Vehicles. Cooper has filed an appropriate report
dated July 5, 2012, pursuant to 49 CFR Part 573, Defect and
Noncompliance Responsibility and Reports.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Cooper Tire & Rubber Company is a manufacturer of
replacement equipment and is registered under the laws of the state
of Delaware.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h) and the rule
implementing those provisions at 49 CFR Part 556, Cooper has petitioned
for an exemption from the notification and remedy requirements of 49
U.S.C. Chapter 301 on the basis that this noncompliance is
inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. Notice of receipt of the
petition was published, with a 30-day public comment period, on
February 11, 2013 in the Federal Register (78 FR 9775.) No comments
were received. To view the petition and all supporting documents log
onto the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) Web site at: http://www.regulations.gov/. Then follow the online search instructions to
locate docket number ``NHTSA-2012-0109.''

Contact Information: For further information on this decision contact
Mr. Abraham Diaz, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), telephone (202) 366-
5310, facsimile<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Equipment Involved: Affected are approximately 1,080 size P225/
70R14 El Dorado Legend GT brand standard load replacement tires
manufactured in Mexico by Cooper's affiliate, Corporaci[oacute]n de
Occidente S.A. de C.V., between May 20, 2012, and June 16, 2012.
    Rule Text: Section S5.5 of FMVSS No. 139 specifically states:

    S5.5 Tire markings. Except as specified in paragraphs (a)
through (i) of S5.5, each tire must be marked on each sidewall with
the information specified in S5.5(a) through (d) and on one sidewall
with the information specified in S5.5(e) through (i) according to
the phase-in schedule specified in S7 of this standard. The markings
must be placed between the maximum section width and the bead on at
least one sidewall, unless the maximum section width of the tire is
located in an area that is not more than one-fourth of the distance
from the bead to the shoulder of the tire. If the maximum section
width falls within that area, those markings must appear between the
bead and a point one-half the distance from the bead to the shoulder
of the tire, on at least one sidewall. The markings must be in
letters and numerals not less than 0.078 inches high and raised
above or sunk below the tire surface not less than 0.015 inches.
    (e) The generic name of each cord material used in the plies
(both sidewall and tread area) of the tire;
    (f) The actual number of plies in the sidewall, and the actual
number of plies in the tread area, if different; . . .

    Summary of Cooper's Analyses: Cooper explains that the
noncompliance is that due to a mold labeling error the sidewall marking
on the tires incorrectly describes the actual number of plies in the
tread area of the tires as required by paragraph S5.5(f).
    Specifically, the tires in question were inadvertently manufactured
with ``TREAD 2 PLY STEEL + 2 PLY POLYESTER; SIDEWALL 2 PLY POLYESTER.''
The labeling should have been ``TREAD 1 PLY NYLON + 2 PLY STEEL + 2 PLY
POLYESTER; SIDEWALL 2 PLY POLYESTER.''
    Cooper believes that while the noncompliant tires are mislabeled,
the subject tires in fact have more tread plies than indicated and meet
or exceed all performance requirements as required in part by FMVSS No.
139.
    In addition, Cooper states that it has corrected the problem that
caused the

noncompliance so that it will not reoccur in future production.
    In summation, Cooper believes that the described noncompliance of
the subject tires is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety, and that
its petition, to exempt Cooper from providing recall notification of
noncompliance as required by 49 U.S.C. 30118 and remedying the recall
noncompliance as required by 49 U.S.C. 30120 should be granted.
    NHTSA Decision: The agency agrees with Cooper that the
noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. The agency
believes that the true measure of inconsequentiality to motor vehicle
safety in this case is that there is no effect of the noncompliance on
the operational safety of vehicles on which these tires are mounted.
The safety of people working in the tire retread, repair, and recycling
industries must also be considered.
    Although tire construction affects the strength and durability,
neither the agency nor the tire industry provides information relating
tire strength and durability to the number of plies and types of ply
cord material in the tread and sidewall. Therefore, tire dealers and
customers should consider the tire construction information along with
other information such as the load capacity, maximum inflation
pressure, and tread wear, temperature, and traction ratings to assess
performance capabilities of various tires. In the agency's judgment,
the incorrect labeling of the tire construction information will have
an inconsequential effect on motor vehicle safety because most
consumers do not base tire purchases or vehicle operation parameters on
the number of plies in a tire.
    The agency also believes the noncompliance will have no measurable
effect on the safety of the tire retread, repair, and recycling
industries. The use of steel cord construction in the sidewall and
tread is the primary safety concern of these industries. In this case,
since the tires are marked correctly with respect to steel ply content,
this potential safety concern does not exist.
    In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA has decided that Cooper
has met its burden of persuasion that the FMVSS No. 139 noncompliance
in the tires identified in Cooper's Noncompliance Information Report is
inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. Accordingly, Cooper's petition
is granted and the petitioner is exempted from the obligation of
providing notification of, and a remedy for, that noncompliance under
49 U.S.C. 30118 and 30120.
    NHTSA notes that the statutory provisions (49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and
30120(h)) that permit manufacturers to file petitions for a
determination of inconsequentiality allow NHTSA to exempt manufacturers
only from the duties found in sections 30118 and 30120, respectively,
to notify owners, purchasers, and dealers of a defect or noncompliance
and to remedy the defect or noncompliance. Therefore, this decision
only applies to approximately 1,080 tires that Cooper no longer
controlled at the time that it determined that a noncompliance existed
in the subject tires. However, the granting of this petition does not
relieve tire distributors and dealers of the prohibitions on the sale,
offer for sale, or introduction or delivery for introduction into
interstate commerce of the noncompliant tires under their control after
Cooper notified them that the subject noncompliance existed.

    Authority: (49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120: delegations of authority at
49 CFR 1.95 and 501.8)

    Issued on: July 25, 2013.
Claude H. Harris,
Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2013-18577 Filed 8-1-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 156 (Monday, August 13, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 39879-39880]
[FR Doc No: 2018-17234]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[Docket No. USCG-2018-0091]

Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Petaluma River, Haystack Landing
(Petaluma), CA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of temporary deviation from regulations; request for
comments.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard has issued a temporary deviation from the
operating schedule that governs the Northwestern Pacific (SMART)
railroad bridge across the Petaluma River, mile 12.4, at Haystack
Landing (Petaluma), CA. This deviation will be a second test of a
change to the drawbridge operation schedule to determine whether a
permanent change to the schedule is appropriate. This test deviation
will modify the existing regulation to add an advance notification
requirement for obtaining bridge openings.

DATES: This deviation is effective from 6 a.m. on August 20, 2018 to 6
a.m. on October 18, 2018.
    Comments and related materials must reach the Coast Guard on or
before November 1, 2018.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-
2018-0091 using Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov.
    See the ``Public Participation and Request for Comments'' portion
of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below for instructions on
submitting comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this test
deviation, call or email Carl T. Hausner, Chief, Bridge Section,
Eleventh Coast Guard District; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background, Purpose and Legal Basis

    On March 2, 2018, the Coast Guard published a Test Deviation
entitled Petaluma River, Haystack Landing (Petaluma), CA in the Federal
Register (83 FR 8936). We received five comments on this rule. Four of
the five comments submitted, concerning the test deviation, addressed
the 2-hour advance notification. The commenters stated that the lengthy
advance notification would be a burden on waterway users. The fifth
comment was directed at the structural deficiency of a number of dams
in the United States; this comment is not pertinent to this deviation.
    Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit (SMART) owns the Northwestern
Pacific railroad bridge across the Petaluma River, mile 12.4, at
Haystack Landing (Petaluma), CA. The bridge has a vertical clearance of
3.6 feet above mean high water in the closed-to-navigation position and
unlimited vertical clearance in the open-to-navigation position, and
currently operates under 33 CFR 117.187(a).
    The duration of this initial test deviation was 90 days. During
this initial test, according to drawtender logs, 96 vessels requested
openings and passed through the bridge. At no time was a 2-hour notice
given to the

drawtender and in only one instance was a one-hour advance notice
given. In all other instances, a notification of 30 minutes or less was
given to the drawtender and the bridge opened for the passage of those
vessels. The Coast Guard received five comments, via the Federal
eRulemaking Portal, related to the initial test deviation. Four of the
five comments indicated the 2-hour notice would be a burden on waterway
users.
    In order to meet the reasonable needs of navigation, while
benefiting rail transportation, the Coast Guard is publishing this
alternate temporary deviation to the proposed schedule change to
determine whether a permanent change to the schedule is appropriate to
better balance the needs of marine and rail traffic.
    Under this temporary deviation, in effect from 6 a.m. on August 20,
2018 to 6 a.m. on October 18, 2018, the bridge shall open on signal
from 3 a.m. to 11 p.m. if at least 30 minutes notice is given to the
drawtender. At all other times, the draw shall be maintained in the
fully open position, except for the passage of trains or for
maintenance. To request an opening, mariners can contact the drawtender
via marine radio VHF-FM channel 16/9 or by telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
Vessels able to pass through the bridge in the closed position may do
so at any time. The bridge will be required to open as soon as
practicable for vessels engaged in emergency response. SMART will log
dates and times of vessels requesting openings. There are no alternate
routes for vessels transiting upstream of the bridge on the Petaluma
River.
    The Coast Guard will also inform the users of the waterways through
our Local and Broadcast Notices to Mariners and through direct outreach
to local harbors, marinas, and water-based business of the temporary
change in the operating schedule for the bridge so that 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.

II. Public Participation and Request for Comments

    We view public participation as essential to effective rulemaking,
and will consider all comments and materials received during the
comment period. Your comments can help shape the outcome of this
rulemaking. If you submit a comment, please include the docket number
for this rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to
which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or
recommendation.
    We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking
Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. If your material cannot be
submitted using http://www.regulations.gov, contact the person in the
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document for alternate
instructions.
    We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted
without change to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any
personal information you have provided. For more about privacy and the
docket, visit http://www.regulations.gov/privacynotice.
    Documents mentioned in this notice as being available in this
docket and all public comments, will be in our online docket at http://www.regulations.gov and can be viewed by following that website's
instructions. Additionally, if you go to the online docket and sign up
for email alerts, you will be notified when comments are posted or a
final rule is published.

    Dated: August 7, 2018.
Carl T. Hausner,
District Bridge Chief, Eleventh Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2018-17234 Filed 8-10-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 31 (Wednesday, February 17, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 7967-7971]
[FR Doc No: 2016-02232]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2015-0249; Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-174-AD;
Amendment 39-18393; AD 2016-03-06]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are superseding Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2012-18-05 for
The Boeing Company Model DC-9-10, DC-9-20, DC-9-30, DC-9-40, and DC-9-
50 series airplanes; and Model DC-9-81 (MD-81), DC-9-82 (MD-82), DC-9-
83 (MD-83), DC-9-87 (MD-87), MD-88, and MD-90-30 airplanes; equipped
with a center wing fuel tank and Boeing original equipment
manufacturer-installed auxiliary fuel tanks. AD 2012-18-05 required
adding design features to detect electrical faults and to detect a pump
running in an empty fuel tank. Since we issued AD 2012-18-05, we have
determined that it is necessary to clarify the actions for airplanes on
which the auxiliary fuel tanks are removed. This new AD allows certain
actions as optional methods of compliance. This AD was prompted by our
determination that it is necessary to clarify the actions for airplanes
on which the auxiliary fuel tanks are removed. We are issuing this AD
to reduce the potential of ignition sources inside fuel tanks, which,
in combination with flammable fuel vapors, could result in fuel tank
explosions and consequent loss of the airplane.

DATES: This AD is effective March 23, 2016.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of March 23,
2016.

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this final rule,
contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services
Management, 3855 Lakewood Boulevard, MC D800-0019, Long Beach, CA
90846-0001; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, extension 2; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>;
Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You may view this referenced
service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601
Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of
this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. It is also available on
the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and
locating Docket No. FAA-2015-0249.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-
0249; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and
5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket
contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and
other information. The address for the Docket Office (phone: 800-647-
5527) is Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation,
Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: S[eacute]rj Harutunian, Aerospace
Engineer, Propulsion Branch, ANM-140L, FAA, Los Angeles Aircraft
Certification Office (ACO), 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, CA
90712-4137; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR

part 39 to supersede AD 2012-18-05, Amendment 39-17181 (77 FR 54793,
September 6, 2012). AD 2012-18-05 applied to The Boeing Company Model
DC-9-10, DC-9-20, DC-9-30, DC-9-40, and DC-9-50 series airplanes; and
Model DC-9-81 (MD-81), DC-9-82 (MD-82), DC-9-83 (MD-83), DC-9-87 (MD-
87), MD-88, and MD-90-30 airplanes; equipped with a center wing fuel
tank and Boeing original equipment manufacturer-installed auxiliary
fuel tanks. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on March 26,
2015 (80 FR 15947). The NPRM was prompted by our determination that it
is necessary to clarify the actions for airplanes on which the
auxiliary fuel tanks are removed. The NPRM proposed to allow certain
actions as optional methods of compliance. We are issuing this AD to
correct the unsafe condition on these products.

Explanation of Revised Service Information

    The NPRM (80 FR 15947, March 26, 2015) specified Boeing Service
Bulletin MD80-28-228, dated September 27, 2013; and Boeing Service
Bulletin MD90-28-013, dated September 27, 2013; as the appropriate
sources of service information for the required actions. Since the NPRM
was published, both service bulletins have been revised and this AD now
specifies Boeing Service Bulletin MD80-28-228, Revision 1, dated August
27, 2015; and Boeing Service Bulletin MD90-28-013, Revision 1, dated
August 27, 2015, as the source of appropriate service information for
the required actions. Boeing Service Bulletin MD80-28-228, Revision 1,
dated August 27, 2015; and Boeing Service Bulletin MD90-28-013,
Revision 1, dated August 27, 2015; both clarify the required actions
and require enlarging holes and identifying a bracket.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD. The following presents the comments received on the NPRM (80
FR 15947, March 26, 2015) and the FAA's response to each comment.

Support for the Comment

    Delta Air Lines supported the comments made by Boeing, which are
discussed in the following paragraphs.

Request To Revise the Applicability

    Boeing requested that we revise paragraph (c) of the proposed AD
(80 FR 15947, March 26, 2015). Boeing explained that the proposed AD
should apply to the airplanes identified in paragraphs (c)(6) through
(c)(8) of the proposed AD if they are equipped with center wing fuel
tanks, and to airplanes identified in paragraphs (c)(1) through (c)(8)
of the proposed AD if they are equipped with original equipment
manufacturer-installed auxiliary fuel tanks. Boeing reasoned that DC-9
center wing fuel tanks are not affected by the proposed AD, and that
the ``fuel system reviews conducted by the manufacturer'' (i.e.,
Boeing's SFAR 88 system safety assessments (SSA)) cited in paragraph
(e) of the proposed AD concluded that center wing fuel tanks on Model
DC-9 airplanes identified as paragraphs (c)(1) through (c)(5) of the
proposed AD do not require the corrective actions cited in the NPRM.
For airplanes with a CWT identified in paragraphs (c)(1) through (c)(5)
of the proposed AD, the existing design features offer adequate
protection relative to a pump running in an empty fuel tank and new
design features added to the center tank fuel boost pump container
address types of electrical faults cited in the NPRM.
    Boeing expressed that the FAA had previously concurred with the
related Boeing SSA findings and approved Boeing Service Bulletin DC9-
28-216, dated March 18, 2008, mandated by FAA AD 2009-03-03, Amendment
39-15804 (74 FR 8150, February 24, 2009), as corrective action for the
electrical arc burn-through.
    We agree to revise the applicability of this AD for the reasons
stated by the commenter. We have revised paragraph (c) of this AD
accordingly.

Request To Clarify Certain Optional Requirements

    Boeing requested that we revise paragraph (h)(1)(i) of the proposed
AD (80 FR 15947, March 26, 2015) by adding the phrase, ``and change
fuel pump system wiring'' after ``install ground fault interrupter
(GFI) relays.'' Boeing reasoned that in addition to providing
procedures for installing GFI relays, Boeing Service Bulletin MD80-28-
228, dated September 27, 2013, also incorporates wiring changes to
accommodate the GFI's operation and revises low pressure indication
system wiring for center wing and auxiliary fuel tank fuel pumps. The
low pressure indication system wiring changes are required to address
the potential of fuel pumps running for prolonged periods in empty
tanks.
    Boeing also requested that we revise paragraph (h)(2) of the
proposed AD (80 FR 15947, March 26, 2015) by removing the phrase,
``install brackets and mod block rails, and'' and adding the phrase,
``and change fuel pump system wiring.'' Boeing reasoned that while
Boeing Service Bulletin MD90-28-013, dated September 27, 2013, does
specify installation of brackets and rails, as does Boeing Service
Bulletin MD80-28-228, dated September 27, 2013, the primary changes
that will address the unsafe condition are the GFI relay and wiring
changes defined in Boeing Service Bulletin MD90-28-013, dated September
27, 2013. Boeing expressed that the brackets and rails can be omitted
from the text of the NPRM, as they are referenced in the service
information. Also, in addition to providing procedures for installing
GFI relays, Boeing Service Bulletin MD90-28-013, dated September 27,
2013, also incorporates wiring changes to accommodate the GFI's
operation and revises low pressure indication system wiring for center
wing and auxiliary fuel tank fuel pumps. Boeing stated that the low
pressure indication system wiring changes are required to address the
potential of fuel pumps running for prolonged periods in empty tanks.
    For the reasons stated by the commenter, we agree to revise
paragraphs (h)(1)(i) and (h)(2) of this AD by incorporating the
requested changes. As stated earlier, since the NPRM was published,
both service bulletins have been revised and this AD now specifies
Boeing Service Bulletin MD80-28-228, Revision 1, dated August 27, 2015;
and Boeing Service Bulletin MD90-28-013, Revision 1, dated August 27,
2015, as the appropriate sources of service information for the
required actions.

Request To Revise to the Latest Service Information

    Delta requested that we revise paragraph (h)(3) of the proposed AD
(80 FR 15947, March 26, 2015) to include the latest service
information. Delta noted that the proposed AD would require the
incorporation of ``Critical Design Configuration Control Limitations
(CDCCLs), Airworthiness Limitations Instructions (ALIs), and short-term
extensions specified in Appendixes B, C, and D of Boeing Special
Compliance Item Report MDC-92K9145, Revision M'' into the maintenance
and inspection program. Delta noted, however, that the referenced
report has been revised to Revision N, dated June 13, 2014, and it
recommends that the restriction to Revision M be removed from the final
rule.
    For the reasons stated by the commenter, we have revised this AD to
refer to the latest service information.

Request for Credit for Previously Accomplished Installations

    Delta requested that we revise paragraph (k) of the proposed AD (80
FR 15947, March 26, 2015) to permit credit for previously accomplished
installations for paragraph (h)(1)(i) or (h)(2) of the proposed AD.
Delta reasoned that paragraph (h)(1)(i) of the proposed AD provides for
the installation of GFI relays on Model MD-80 series airplanes (Model
DC-9-81 (MD-81), DC-9-82 (MD-82), DC-9-83 (MD-83), DC-9-87 (MD-87), and
Model MD-88 airplanes) using the procedures in Boeing Service Bulletin
MD80-28-228, dated September 27, 2013. And similarly, paragraph (h)(2)
of the proposed AD provides for the installation of GFI relays on MD-
90-30 airplanes in accordance with Boeing Service Bulletin MD9028-013,
dated September 27, 2013. Delta explained that it has completed
installation of GFI relays using the procedures in these two service
bulletins on a portion of its fleet, and noted that there is no
practical way to re-accomplish such modifications after the effective
date of the final rule.
    For the reasons given by the commenter, and the addition of the
latest service information, we have provided credit for the applicable
actions specified in paragraph (k) of this AD.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received,
and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting
this AD with the changes described previously. We have determined that
these minor changes:
     Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the
NPRM (80 FR 15947, March 26, 2015) for correcting the unsafe condition;
and
     Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was
already proposed in the NPRM (80 FR 15947, March 26, 2015).
    We also determined that these changes will not increase the
economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of this AD.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    We reviewed Boeing Service Bulletin MD80-28-228, Revision 1, dated
August 27, 2015; and Boeing Service Bulletin MD90-28-013, Revision 1,
dated August 27, 2015. The service information describes procedures for
installing GFI relays that change fuel pump system wiring, installing a
low fuel pressure indication system, and enlarging holes and
identifying a bracket.
    We have also reviewed Boeing Twinjet Special Compliance Item Report
MDC-92K9145, Revision N, dated June 13, 2014, including Appendices A
through D. This service information details special compliance items
(SCIs), critical design configuration control limitations (CDCCLs),
airworthiness limitation instructions (ALIs), short-term extensions,
and associated compliance intervals.
    Boeing Service Bulletin MD80-28-228, Revision 1, dated August 27,
2015, specifies prior or concurrent accomplishment of the following
service information.
     McDonnell Douglas MD-80 Service Bulletin 28-53, Revision
1, dated April 16, 1992, which describes procedures for installing a
low fuel pressure indication system.
     McDonnell Douglas MD-80 Service Bulletin 28-63, Revision
2, dated April 8, 1992, which describes procedures for installing a low
fuel pressure indication inhibit system.
    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.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 809 airplanes of U.S. registry.
    We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per      Cost on U.S.
                Action                         Labor cost           Parts cost        product        operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Installing design features for          50 work-hours x $85 per          $35,000         $39,250     $10,322,750
 airplanes with center wing and          hour = $4,250.
 auxiliary tanks (263 airplanes),
 using a method approved by the FAA
 [retained actions from AD 2012-18-05,
 Amendment 39-17181 (77 FR 54793,
 September 6, 2012)].
Installing design features for          35 work-hours x $85 per           17,000          19,975      10,906,350
 airplanes with center wing tank (546    hour = $2,975.
 airplanes), using a method approved
 by the FAA [retained actions from AD
 2012-1805, Amendment 39-17181 (77 FR
 54793, September 6, 2012)].
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                      Estimated Costs--New Optional Actions for Installing Design Features
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per
                    Action                                 Labor cost               Parts cost        product
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For airplanes with center wing and auxiliary    250 work-hours x $85 per hour =          $69,000         $90,250
 tanks, using service information specified in   $21,250.
 paragraph (h) of this AD (including revising
 the maintenance/inspection program).
For airplanes with center wing tank, using      110 work-hours x $85 = 9,350....          30,000          39,350
 service information specified in paragraph
 (h) of this AD (including revising the
 maintenance/inspection program).
Installing the supplemental type certificate    35 work-hours x $85 per hour =            17,000          19,975
 (STC) specified in paragraph (i) of this AD.    $2,975.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs,
describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.

    We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, ``General
requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing
regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator
finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within
the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition
that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this
rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by removing Airworthiness Directive (AD)
2012-18-05, Amendment 39-17181 (77 FR 54793, September 6, 2012, and
adding the following new AD:

2016-03-06 The Boeing Company: Amendment 39-18393; Docket No. FAA-
2015-0249; Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-174-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective March 23, 2016.

(b) Affected ADs

    This AD replaces AD 2012-18-05, Amendment 39-17181 (77 FR 54793,
September 6, 2012).

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to The Boeing Company airplanes, certificated in
any category, that are identified in paragraphs (c)(6) through
(c)(8) of this AD and equipped with center wing fuel tanks; and
those identified in paragraphs (c)(1) through (c)(8) of this AD that
are equipped with Boeing original equipment manufacturer-installed
auxiliary fuel tanks. For airplanes on which the auxiliary fuel
tanks are removed, the actions specified for the auxiliary fuel
tanks are not required.
    (1) Model DC-9-11, DC-9-12, DC-9-13, DC-9-14, DC-9-15, and DC-9-
15F airplanes.
    (2) Model DC-9-21 airplanes.
    (3) Model DC-9-31, DC-9-32, DC-9-32 (VC-9C), DC-9-32F, DC-9-33F,
DC-9-34, DC 9 34F, and DC 9 32F (C-9A, C 9B) airplanes.
    (4) Model DC-9-41 airplanes.
    (5) Model DC-9-51 airplanes.
    (6) Model DC-9-81 (MD-81), DC-9-82 (MD-82), DC-9-83 (MD-83), and
DC-9-87 (MD-87) airplanes.
    (7) Model MD-88 airplanes.
    (8) Model MD-90-30 airplanes.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 28, Fuel.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by fuel system reviews conducted by the
manufacturer. We are issuing this AD to reduce the potential of
ignition sources inside fuel tanks, which, in combination with
flammable fuel vapors, could result in fuel tank explosions and
consequent loss of the airplane.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Retained Criteria for Operation, With New Compliance Time

    This paragraph restates the actions required by paragraph (g) of
AD 2012-18-05, Amendment 39-17181 (77 FR 54793, September 6, 2012),
with a new compliance time. Except as provided by paragraphs (h) and
(i) of this AD: As of 42 months after the effective date of this AD,
no person may operate any airplane affected by this AD unless an
amended type certificate or supplemental type certificate that
incorporates the design features and requirements described in
paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(2) of this AD has been approved by the
Manager, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA, and
those design features are installed on the airplane.
    (1) Each electrically powered fuel pump installed in the center
wing tank or auxiliary fuel tank must have a protective device
installed to detect electrical faults that can cause arcing and burn
through the fuel pump housing. The same device must shut off the
pump by automatically removing electrical power from the pump when
such faults are detected. When a fuel pump is shut off as the result
of detection of an electrical fault, the device must stay latched
off until the fault is cleared through maintenance action and
verified that the pump and the electrical power feed are safe for
operation.
    (2) Additional design features must be installed to detect when
any center wing tank or auxiliary fuel tank pump is running in an
empty fuel tank. The prospective pump shutoff system must shut off
each pump no later than 60 seconds after the fuel tank is emptied.
The pump shutoff system design must preclude undetected running of a
fuel pump in an empty tank, after the pump was commanded off
manually or automatically.

(h) New Optional Methods of Compliance

    For Model DC-9-81 (MD-81), DC-9-82 (MD-82), DC-9-83 (MD-83), DC-
9-87 (MD-87), and Model MD-88 airplanes; and Model MD-90-30
airplanes: In lieu of doing the requirements of paragraph (g) of
this AD, do the applicable actions specified in paragraphs (h)(1),
(h)(2), and (h)(3) of this AD.
    (1) For Model DC-9-81 (MD-81), DC-9-82 (MD-82), DC-9-83 (MD-83),
DC-9-87 (MD-87), and Model MD-88 airplanes: Do the applicable
actions specified in paragraphs (h)(1)(i), (h)(1)(ii), and
(h)(1)(iii) of this AD.
    (i) For all airplanes identified in paragraph (h)(1) of this AD:
Within the compliance time specified in paragraph (g) of this AD,
install ground fault interrupter (GFI) relays and change fuel pump
system wiring, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of
Boeing Service Bulletin MD80-28-228, Revision 1, dated August 27,
2015.
    (ii) For airplanes identified in McDonnell Douglas MD-80 Service
Bulletin 28-53, Revision 1, dated April 16, 1992: Prior to or
concurrently with accomplishing the action specified in paragraph
(h)(1)(i) of this AD, install a low fuel pressure indication system,
in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of McDonnell
Douglas MD-80 Service Bulletin 28-53, Revision 1, dated April 16,
1992.
    (iii) For airplanes identified in McDonnell Douglas MD-80
Service Bulletin 28-63, Revision 2, dated April 8, 1992: Prior to or
concurrently with accomplishing the action specified in paragraph
(h)(1)(i) of this AD, install a low fuel pressure indication
inhibition system, in accordance with the Accomplishment
Instructions of McDonnell Douglas MD-80 Service Bulletin 28-63,
Revision 2, dated April 8, 1992.
    (2) For Model MD-90-30 airplanes: Within the compliance time
specified in paragraph (g) of this AD, install GFI relays and change
fuel pump system wiring, in accordance with the Accomplishment
Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin MD90-28-013, Revision 1,
dated August 27, 2015.
    (3) For all airplanes: Within 30 days after accomplishing the
actions required by paragraph (h)(1) or (h)(2) of this AD or within
30 days after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later,
revise the maintenance or inspection program, as

applicable, to incorporate the Critical Design Configuration Control
Limitations (CDCCLs), Airworthiness Limitation Instructions (ALIs),
and Short-Term Extensions specified in Appendices B, C, and D of
Boeing Twinjet Special Compliance Item Report MDC-92K9145, Revision
N, dated June 13, 2014. The initial compliance time for
accomplishing the actions specified in the ALIs is at the later of
the times in paragraphs (h)(3)(i) and (h)(3)(ii) of this AD. Doing
the revision of the maintenance or inspection program, as
applicable, required by this paragraph terminates the requirements
in paragraphs (g) and (h) of AD 2008-11-15, Amendment 3915538 (73 FR
30746, May 29, 2008).
    (i) At the applicable time specified in Appendix C of Boeing
Twinjet Special Compliance Item Report MDC-92K9145, Revision N,
dated June 13, 2014, except as provided by Appendix D of Boeing
Twinjet Special Compliance Item Report MDC-92K9145, Revision N,
dated June 13, 2014.
    (ii) Within 30 days after accomplishing the actions required by
paragraph (h)(1) or (h)(2) of this AD, or within 30 days after the
effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later.

(i) New Optional Universal Fault Interrupter (UFI) Installation

    In lieu of doing the requirements of paragraph (g) of this AD,
within the compliance time specified in paragraph (g) of this AD
install a TDG Aerospace Inc. UFI using a method approved in
accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (l) of this
AD.

    Note 1 to paragraph (i) of this AD: TDG Aerospace STC ST02502LA
(http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgstc.nsf/0/
4d132827a425d7de86257cd3004dfc02/$FILE/ST02502LA.pdf) provides
additional guidance for installing the TDG UFI.

(j) No Alternative Actions, Intervals, and CDCCLs

    After the maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, has
been revised as required by paragraph (h)(3) of this AD, no
alternative actions (e.g., inspections), intervals, or CDCCLs may be
used unless the actions, intervals, or CDCCLs are approved as an
alternative method of compliance (AMOC) in accordance with the
procedures specified in paragraph (l) of this AD.

(k) Credit for Previous Actions

    (1) This paragraph provides credit for the actions specified in
paragraphs (h)(1)(ii) and (h)(1)(iii) of this AD, if those actions
were performed before the effective date of this AD using any of the
service information specified in paragraph (k)(1)(i), (k)(1)(ii), or
(k)(1)(iii) of this AD, which are not incorporated by reference in
this AD.
    (i) McDonnell Douglas MD-80 Service Bulletin 28-53, dated April
8, 1991.
    (ii) McDonnell Douglas MD-80 Service Bulletin 28-63, dated, June
14, 1991.
    (iii) McDonnell Douglas MD-80 Service Bulletin 28-63, Revision
1, dated July 19, 1991.
    (2) This paragraph provides credit for the actions specified in
paragraphs (h)(1)(i) and (h)(2) of this AD, if those actions were
performed before the effective date of this AD using Boeing Service
Bulletin MD80-28-228, dated September 27, 2013; or Boeing Service
Bulletin MD90-28-013, dated September 27, 2013, which are not
incorporated by reference in this AD.

(l) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office
(ACO), FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if
requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance
with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or
local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending
information directly to the manager of the ACO, send it to the
attention of the person identified in paragraph (m)(1) of this AD.
Information may be emailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate
principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager
of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding
district office.
    (3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be
used for any repair, 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, Los Angeles ACO, 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 for AD 2012-18-05, Amendment 39-17181 (77 FR
54793, September 6, 2012), are approved as AMOCs for the
corresponding provisions of this AD.

(m) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact S[eacute]rj
Harutunian, Aerospace Engineer, Propulsion Branch, ANM-140L, FAA,
Los Angeles ACO, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, CA 90712-4137;
phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) Service information identified in this AD that is not
incorporated by reference is available at the addresses specified in
paragraphs (n)(3) and (n)(4) of this AD.

(n) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed
in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) Boeing Service Bulletin MD80-28-228, Revision 1, dated
August 27, 2015.
    (ii) Boeing Service Bulletin MD90-28-013, Revision 1, dated
August 27, 2015.
    (iii) Boeing Twinjet Special Compliance Item Report MDC-92K9145,
Revision N, dated June 13, 2014, including Appendices A through D.
    (iv) McDonnell Douglas MD-80 Service Bulletin 28-53, Revision 1,
dated April 16, 1992.
    (v) McDonnell Douglas MD-80 Service Bulletin 28-63, Revision 2,
dated April 8, 1992.
    (3) For Boeing service information identified in this AD,
contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services
Management, 3855 Lakewood Boulevard, MC D800-0019, Long Beach, CA
90846-0001; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, extension 2; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>;
Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com.
    (4) You may view this service information at FAA, Transport
Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For
information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call
425-227-1221.
    (5) You may view this service information that is incorporated
by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA). For information on the availability of this material at
NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on January 25, 2016.
Michael Kaszycki,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2016-02232 Filed 2-16-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 21 (Thursday, January 31, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 702-703]
[FR Doc No: 2019-00462]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RM98-1-000]

Records Governing Off-the-Record Communications; Public Notice

    This constitutes notice, in accordance with 18 CFR 385.2201(b), of
the receipt of prohibited and exempt off-the-record communications.
    Order No. 607 (64 FR 51222, September 22, 1999) requires Commission
decisional employees, who make or receive a prohibited or exempt off-
the-record communication relevant to the merits of a contested
proceeding, to deliver to the Secretary of the Commission, a copy of
the communication, if written, or a summary of the substance of any
oral communication.
    Prohibited communications are included in a public, non-decisional
file associated with, but not a part of, the decisional record of the
proceeding. Unless the Commission determines that the prohibited
communication and any responses thereto should become a part of the
decisional record, the prohibited off-the-record communication will not
be considered by the Commission in reaching its decision. Parties to a
proceeding may seek the opportunity to respond to any facts or
contentions made in a prohibited off-the-record communication, and may
request that the Commission place the prohibited communication and
responses thereto in the decisional record. The Commission will grant
such a request only when it determines that fairness so requires. Any
person identified below as having made a prohibited off-the-record
communication shall serve the document on all parties listed on the
official service list for the applicable proceeding in accordance with
Rule 2010, 18 CFR 385.2010.
    Exempt off-the-record communications are included in the

decisional record of the proceeding, unless the communication was with
a cooperating agency as described by 40 CFR 1501.6, made under 18 CFR
385.2201(e)(1)(v).
    The following is a list of off-the-record communications recently
received by the Secretary of the Commission. The communications listed
are grouped by docket numbers in ascending order. These filings are
available for electronic review at the Commission in the Public
Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's website at http://www.ferc.gov using the eLibrary link. Enter the docket number,
excluding the last three digits, in the docket number field to access
the document. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll free at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or for TTY,
contact<PHONE_NUMBER>.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Docket No.               File date     Presenter or requester
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prohibited:
    1. CP15-554-000, CP15-554-        12-7-2018  Dominion Dental.
     001.
    2. CP15-554-000............      12-14-2018  FERC Staff.\1\
Exempt:
    1. CP16-454-000, CP16-455-       12-11-2018  U.S. Congressman Pete
     000.                                         Olson.
    2. CP17-21-000, CP18-7-000.      12-12-2018  FERC Staff.\2\
    3. CP18-186-000............      12-12-2018  FERC Staff.\3\
    4. CP18-46-000.............      12-13-2018  U.S. Congressman Brian
                                                  Fitzpatrick,
                                                  Pennsylvania State
                                                  Representative Craig
                                                  Staats.
    5. CP18-186-000............      12-17-2018  FERC Staff.\4\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Memo forwarding email dated December 7, 2018 from Shawn Smeallie.
\2\ Call summary for call on November 28, 2018 with PAPL and Merjent.
\3\ Conference Call memo for call on December 11, 2018 with
  Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company, LLC.
\4\ Memo for email on December 17, 2018 with Transcontinental Gas Pipe
  Line Company, LLC.

    Dated: December 26, 2018.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-00462 Filed 1-30-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


	Form for submission of information specified in Annex F of the Stockholm Convention pursuant to Article 8 of the Convention

Chemical name (as used by the POPs Review Committee) Hexabromocyclododecane

Explanatory note:

1.	This chemical is undergoing a risk management evaluation. It has already satisfied the screening criteria set out in paragraph 4 (a) of Article 8 of the Convention. A risk profile has also been completed for this chemical in accordance with paragraph 6 of Article 8 and with Annex E to the Convention.

Introductory information

Name of the submitting Party/observer

Contact details (name, telephone, e-mail) of the submitting Party/observer

Date of submission

Additional Annex E information

(i) Production data, including quantity and location

(ii) Uses

(iii) Releases, such as discharges, losses and emissions

Explanatory note:

2.	This information was requested for preparation of the risk profile in accordance with Annex E of the Convention. Please provide any additional or updated information.

(a) Efficacy and efficiency of possible control measures in meeting risk reduction goals (provide summary information and relevant references):

(i) Describe possible control measures

(ii) Technical feasibility

(iii) Costs, including environmental and health costs

Explanatory note:

3.	“Risk reduction goals” refers to targets or goals to reduce or eliminate releases from intentional production and use, unintentional production, stockpiles and wastes and to reduce or avoid risks associated with long-range environment transport.

4.	Possible control measures could include the following:

(a)	Prohibition or restriction of production, use, import and export;

(b)	Control of discharges or emissions;

(c)	Replacement of the chemical by alternatives;

(d)	Termination of processes which could lead to unintentional release of the chemical;

(e)	Clean-up of contaminated sites;

(f)	Environmentally sound management of obsolete stockpiles;

(g)	Prohibition of reuse and recycling of wastes or stockpiles;

(h)	Establishment of exposure limits in the workplace;

(i)	Establishment of maximum residue limits in water, soil, sediment or food.

	5.	The following factors may influence the efficacy and efficiency of possible control measures:

(a)	Legal, administrative, and enforcement measures in place including adequately trained personnel;

(b)	Monitoring measures in place including of suitable laboratory and monitoring capability;

(c)	Risk communication system and public participation;

(d)	Accessibility of alternative chemicals or processes;

(e)	Accessibility of safe installations and technology to eliminate stockpiles.

6.	Technical feasibility refers to whether a control measure already exists or is expected to be developed in the foreseeable future and possible challenges to its implementation. The following factors may be considered:

(a)	What measures would be needed to effectively prohibit or restrict production and use;

(b)	Chemical or non-chemical alternatives which are already in use or which could be phased-in;

(c)	National standards for best available techniques and best environmental practices (BAT/BEP) and inventory of installations meeting the BAT/BEP standards;

(d)	Projects in progress involving elimination of stockpiles and clean-up of contaminated sites.

7.	If relevant, provide information on uses for which there may be no suitable alternative or for which the analysis of social and economic factors justifies the inclusion of an exemption to any control measure adopted by the Conference of the Parties. Identify critical uses by detailing the negative impact on society that would result if no exemption is permitted. Explain why the exemption is technically or scientifically necessary and why potential alternatives are not technically or scientifically viable. In addition, provide a list of sources taken into account in arriving at the conclusion that no alternatives exist for a particular use.

8.	Where relevant and possible costs should be expressed in United States dollars per year.

(b) Alternatives (products and processes) (provide summary information and relevant references):

(i) Describe alternatives

(ii) Technical feasibility

(iii) Costs, including environmental and health costs

(iv) Efficacy

(v) Risk

(vi) Availability

(vii) Accessibility

Explanatory note:

9.	Alternatives could include chemical and non-chemical alternatives such as a substitute chemical, material, product, system, production process or strategy for a specified end use of the chemical under consideration. Provide a brief description of any alternative product or process and, if appropriate, the sectors, uses or users for which it would be relevant. If several alternatives can be envisaged for the chemical under consideration, including non-chemical alternatives, provide information under this section for each alternative.

10.	Technical feasibility refers to whether an alternative technology exists and is applicable or is expected to be developed in the foreseeable future. Specify for each proposed alternative whether it has actually been implemented, whether it has only reached the trial stage or whether it is just a proposal. If an alternative has not been tried or tested, information on projected impacts may also be useful.

11.	Evaluation of costs should include environmental and health costs.

12.	Evaluation of efficacy should include any information on performance, benefits, costs and limitations of potential alternatives.

13.	Evaluation of risk should include any information on whether a proposed alternative has been thoroughly tested or evaluated in order to avoid inadvertently increasing risks to human health and the environment. It should also include any information on potential risks associated with untested alternatives and any increased risk over the life-cycle of alternatives, including manufacture, distribution, use, maintenance and disposal.

14.	Availability refers to whether an alternative is on the market and ready for immediate use.

15.	Accessibility refers to the extent to which geographic, legal or other limiting factors affect whether an alternative can be used. Information or comments on improving the availability and accessibility of alternatives may also be useful.

16.	Specify if the information provided is connected to the specific needs and circumstances of developing countries.

(c) Positive and/or negative impacts on society of implementing possible control measures  (provide summary information and relevant references):

(i) Health, including public, environmental and occupational health

(ii) Agriculture, including aquaculture and forestry

(iii) Biota (biodiversity)

(iv) Economic aspects

(v) Movement towards sustainable development

(vi) Social costs

Explanatory note:

17.	Social and economic considerations could include:

(a)	Information on the impact, cost and benefits to the local, national and regional economy, including the manufacturing sector and industrial and other users (e.g., capital costs and benefits associated with the transition to the alternatives), and impacts on agriculture and forestry;

(b)	Information on the impact on the wider society associated with the transition to alternatives, including the negative and positive impacts on public, environmental and occupational health. Consideration should also be given to the positive and negative impacts on the natural environment and biodiversity;

(c)	Information on the costs and benefits associated with environmentally sound management of waste and stockpiles of the chemical under consideration and the clean-up of contaminated sites.

18.	Information should be provided on how control measures fit within national sustainable development strategies and plans. Developing countries, countries with economies in transition and small island developing States should describe their need for technical assistance to implement certain control measures.

(d) Waste and disposal implications (in particular, obsolete stocks of pesticides and clean-up of contaminated sites) (provide summary information and relevant references):

(i) Technical feasibility

(ii) Costs

Explanatory note:

19.	The information provided on technical feasibility and costs should take the local context into account. This is particularly important for developing countries, countries with economies in transition, and small island developing States that require technical and financial assistance.

(e) Access to information and public education  (provide summary information and relevant references):

Explanatory note:

20.	Please provide details on access to information and public education with respect to both control measures and alternatives.

(f) Status of control and monitoring capacity (provide summary information and relevant references):

Explanatory note:

21.	With regard to control capacity, the information required is on legislative and institutional frameworks for the chemical under consideration and their enforcement.

22.	With regard to monitoring capacity, the information required is on the technical and institutional infrastructure for the environmental monitoring and bio-monitoring of the chemical under consideration. Please provide information on monitoring work relating to the Convention’s priority matrices (ambient air, maternal milk, human blood) and other health or environmental matrices (water, soil, sediment, food, aquatic and telluric fauna, migratory birds, etc.).

(g) Any national or regional control actions already taken, including information on alternatives, and other relevant risk management information:

Explanatory note:

23.	Actions or measures taken could include prohibitions, phase-outs, restrictions, cleanup of contaminated sites, waste disposal, economic incentives and other non-legally binding initiatives.

24.	Information could include details on whether these control actions have been cost-effective in providing the desired benefits and have had a measurable impact on reducing levels of the chemical in the environment and have contributed to risk reduction.

(h) Other relevant information for the risk management evaluation:

Explanatory note:

25.	Please provide any other relevant information for the risk management evaluation.

I. Other information requested by the POPRC:

Explanatory note:

26.	The Committee may identify specific information required for the process of preparing a risk management evaluation in addition to Annex F information. Please provide any such information that you may have as indicated in the letter from the Secretariat inviting Parties and observers to provide information.

___________________________

Secretariat of the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants page   PAGE  4

	اتفاقية استكهولم بشأن الملوثات العضوية الثابتة ▪ 关于持久性有机污染物的斯德哥尔摩公约 ▪ Convention de Stockholm sur les polluants organiques persistants

&J

U

V

W

X

j

k

#

$

%

&

8

9

&J

&J

J

J

J

䨆

#

$

%

䨆

J

̆

kd#

̆

̆

̆

̆

̆

̆

̆

Ѐ

ਁ氃愀϶ʣԀ

␃愁Ĥ摧ࢳü

CJ

aJ

 the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants


SEVEN  1 Revision 4 August 2002 CHAPTER SEVEN CHARACTERISTICS INTRODUCTION AND REGULATORY DEFINITIONS This chapter addresses procedures for required " method defined parameters," where the analytical result is wholly dependant on the process used to make the measurement. Examples include the use of the toxicity characteristic leaching procedure ( TCLP) to prepare a leachate, and the flash point, pH, paint filter liquids, and corrosivity tests. In these instances, changes to the specific methods may change the end result and incorrectly identify a waste as nonhazardous. Therefore, when the measurement of such method defined parameters is required by regulation, those methods are not subject to the flexibility afforded in other SW 846 methods ( such as described in the Disclaimer and Chapter Two of this manual).

7.1 IGNITABILITY 7.1.1 Introduction This section discusses the hazardous characteristic of ignitability. The regulatory background of this characteristic is summarized, and the regulatory definition of ignitability is presented. The two testing methods associated with this characteristic, Methods 1010 and 1020, can be found in Chapter Eight.

The objective of the ignitability characteristic is to identify wastes that either present fire hazards under routine storage, disposal, and transportation or are capable of severely exacerbating a fire once started.

7.1.2 Regulatory Definition See 40 CFR 261.21 for the regulatory definition of the hazardous waste characteristic of ignitability.

7.2 CORROSIVITY 7.2.1 Introduction The corrosivity characteristic, as defined in 40 CFR 261.22, is designed to identify wastes that might pose a hazard to human health or the environment due to their ability to:

1. Mobilize toxic metals if discharged into a landfill environment;

2. Corrode handling, storage, transportation, and management equipment; or 3. Destroy human or animal tissue in the event of inadvertent contact.

In order to identify such potentially hazardous materials, EPA has selected two properties upon which to base the definition of a corrosive waste. These properties are pH and corrosivity toward Type SAE 1020 steel. SEVEN  2 Revision 4 August 2002 The procedures for measuring pH of aqueous wastes are detailed in Method 9040, Chapter Six. Method 1110, Chapter Eight, describes how to determine whether a waste is corrosive to steel. Use Method 9095, Paint Filter Liquids Test, Chapter Six, to determine free liquid.

7.2.2 Regulatory Definition See 40 CFR 261.22 for the regulatory definition of the hazardous waste characteristic of corrosivity.

7.3 REACTIVITY 7.3.1 Introduction The regulation in 40 CFR 261.23 defines reactive wastes to include wastes that have any of the following properties: ( 1) readily undergo violent chemical change; ( 2) react violently or form potentially explosive mixtures with water; ( 3) generate toxic fumes when mixed with water or, in the case of cyanide or sulfide bearing wastes, when exposed to mild acidic or basic conditions; ( 4) explode when subjected to a strong initiating force; ( 5) explode at normal temperatures and pressures; or ( 6) fit within the Department of Transportation's forbidden explosives, Class A explosives, or Class B explosives classifications.

This definition is intended to identify wastes that, because of their extreme instability and tendency to react violently or explode, pose a problem at all stages of the waste management process. The Agency relies entirely on a descriptive, prose definition of reactivity because available tests for measuring the variegated class of effects embraced by the reactivity definition suffer from a number of deficiencies.

7.3.2 Regulatory Definition See 40 CFR 261.24 for the regulatory definition of the hazardous waste characteristic of reactivity.

7.4 TOXICITY CHARACTERISTIC LEACHING PROCEDURE 7.4.1 Introduction The Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure ( TCLP) is designed to simulate the leaching a waste will undergo if disposed of in a sanitary landfill. This test is designed to simulate leaching that takes place in a sanitary landfill only. The extraction fluid employed is a function of the alkalinity of the solid phase of the waste. A subsample of a waste is extracted with the appropriate buffered acetic acid solution for 18 + 2 hours. The extract obtained from the TCLP ( the " TCLP extract") is then analyzed to determine if any of the thresholds established for the 40 Toxicity Characteristic ( TC) constituents ( listed in Table 7 1) have been exceeded or if the treatment standards established for the constituents listed in 40 CFR 268.40 have been met under the Land Disposal Restrictions ( LDR) regulations. If the TCLP extract contains any one of the TC constituents in an amount equal to or exceeding the concentrations specified in 40 CFR 261.24, the waste possesses the characteristic of toxicity and is a hazardous waste. If the TCLP extract contains constituents in an SEVEN  3 Revision 4 August 2002 amount exceeding the concentrations specified in 40 CFR 268.40, the treatment standard for that waste has not been met, and further treatment is necessary prior to land disposal.

7.4.2 Summary of Procedure The TCLP consists of five steps ( refer to Figure 3):

1. Separation Procedure For liquid wastes ( i. e., those containing less than 0.5% dry solid material), the waste, after filtration through a 0.6 to 0.8 µ m glass fiber filter, is defined as the TCLP extract.

For wastes containing greater than or equal to 0.5% solids, the liquid, if any, is separated from the solid phase and stored for later analysis.

2. Particle Size Reduction Prior to extraction, the solid material must pass through a 9.5 mm ( 0.375 in.) standard sieve, have a surface area per gram of material equal to or greater than 3.1 cm2, or, be smaller than 1 cm in its narrowest dimension. If the surface area is smaller or the particle size larger than described above, the solid portion of the waste is prepared for extraction by crushing, cutting, or grinding the waste to the surface area or particle size described above. ( Special precautions must be taken if the solids are prepared for organic volatiles extraction.)

3. Extraction of Solid Material The solid material from Step 2 is extracted for 18 + 2 hours with an amount of extraction fluid equal to 20 times the weight of the solid phase. The extraction fluid employed is a function of the alkalinity of the solid phase of the waste. A special extractor vessel is used when testing for volatile analytes.

4. Final Separation of the Extraction from the Remaining Solid Following extraction, the liquid extract is separated from the solid phase by filtration through a 0.6 to 0.8 µ m glass fiber filter. If compatible, the initial liquid phase of the waste is added to the liquid extract, and these are analyzed together. If incompatible, the liquids are analyzed separately and the results are mathematically combined to yield a volume weighted average concentration.

5. Testing ( Analysis) of TCLP Extract Inorganic and organic species are identified and quantified using appropriate methods in the 6000, 7000, and 8000 series of methods in this manual or by other appropriate methods.

7.4.3 Regulatory Definition Under the Toxicity Characteristic, a solid waste exhibits the characteristic of toxicity if the TCLP extract from a subsample of the waste contains any of the contaminants listed in Table 7 1 at a concentration greater than or equal to the respective value given in that table. If a waste contains < 0.5% filterable solids, the waste itself, after filtering, is considered to be the extract for the purposes of analysis. SEVEN  4 Revision 4 August 2002 Under the Land Disposal Restrictions regulations, a restricted waste identified in 40 CFR 268.40 cannot be land disposed if a TCLP extract of the waste or a TCLP extract of the treatment residue of the waste does exceeds the values shown in the table of 40 CFR 268.40 for any hazardous constituent listed in the table for that waste. If a waste contains < 0.5% filterable solids, the waste itself, after filtering, is considered to be the extract for the purposes of analysis. SEVEN  5 Revision 4 August 2002 TABLE 7 1. MAXIMUM CONCENTRATION OF CONTAMINANTS FOR TOXICITY CHARACTERISTIC Regulatory Level Contaminant ( mg/ L)

Arsenic 5.0 Barium 100.0 Benzene 0.5 Cadmium 1.0 Carbon tetrachloride 0.5 Chlordane 0.03 Chlorobenzene 100.0 Chloroform 6.0 Chromium 5.0 o Cresol 200.01 m Cresol 200.01 p Cresol 200.01 Cresol 200.01 2,4 D 10.0 1,4 Dichlorobenzene 7.5 1,2 Dichloroethane 0.5 1,1 Dichloroethylene 0.7 2,4 Dinitrotoluene 0.132 Endrin 0.02 Heptachlor ( and its hydroxide) 0.008 Hexachlorobenzene 0.132 Hexachloro 1,3 butadiene 0.5 Hexachloroethane 3.0 Lead 5.0 Lindane 0.4 Mercury 0.2 Methoxychlor 10.0 Methyl ethyl ketone 200.0 Nitrobenzene 2.0 Pentachlorophenol 100.0 Pyridine 5.02 Selenium 1.0 Silver 5.0 Tetrachloroethylene 0.7 Toxaphene 0.5 Trichloroethylene 0.5 2,4,5 Trichlorophenol 400.0 2,4,6 Trichlorophenol 2.0 2,4,5 TP ( Silvex) 1.0 Vinyl chloride 0.2 1If o, m, and p cresol concentrations cannot be differentiated, the total cresol ( D026) concentration is used. The regulatory level of total cresol is 200 mg/ L. 2Quantitation limit is greater than the calculated regulatory level. The quantitation limit therefore becomes the regulatory level. SEVEN  6 Revision 4 August 2002 FIGURE 3.

TOXICITY CHARACTERISTIC LEACHING PROCEDURE FLOWCHART SEVEN  7 Revision 4 August 2002 FIGURE 3 ( continued)