[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 40 (Tuesday, March 1, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 11421-11422]
[FR Doc No: 2022-04250]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 1971-134]

Idaho Power Company; Notice of Intent To Prepare an Environmental
Assessment

    On October 8, 2021, Idaho Power Company filed an application to
amend the license for the Hells Canyon Hydroelectric Project No. 1971
(FERC No. 1971). The Hells Canyon Project is located on the Snake River
in Adams and Washington counties, Idaho and in Wallowa, Malheur, and
Baker counties, Oregon. The project occupies federal lands administered
by the U.S. Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management (Payette
and Wallowa Whitman National Forests and Hells Canyon National
Recreational Area).
    In accordance with the Commission's regulations, on November 4,
2021, Commission staff issued a notice that the application was
accepted for filing and soliticed comments, motions to intervene and
protests. Based on the information in the record, including comments
filed on the notice, staff does not anticipate that amending the
project would constitute a major federal action significantly affecting
the quality of the human environment. Therefore, staff intends to
prepare an Environmental Assessment (EA) on the application to amend
the Hells Canyon Project.
    The EA will be issued and circulated for review by all interested
parties.
    Any questions regarding this notice may be directed to Jennifer
Polardino at<PHONE_NUMBER> or [email protected].

    Dated: February 23, 2022.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-04250 Filed 2-28-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 89 (Wednesday, May 10, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 21708-21711]
[FR Doc No: 2017-09382]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R05-OAR-2016-0707; FRL-9962-09-Region 5]

Air Plan Approval; Indiana; Commissioner's Order for Carmeuse
Lime, Inc.

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving, as a
revision to the Indiana State Implementation Plan (SIP), a submittal
from the Indiana Department of Environmental Management (IDEM) to EPA,
dated December 22, 2016. The submittal consists of an order issued by
the Commissioner of IDEM that establishes permanent and enforceable
sulfur dioxide (SO2) emission limits for Carmeuse Lime, Inc.
(Carmeuse), applicable to its Gary, Indiana lime manufacturing plant.
IDEM submitted this order so the area near Carmeuse can be designated
``attainment'' of the 2010 primary SO2 National Ambient Air
Quality Standards (NAAQS), a matter that will be addressed in a
separate future rulemaking. EPA's approval of this order would make
these SO2 emission limits and applicable reporting,
recordkeeping, and compliance demonstration requirements part of the
federally enforceable Indiana SIP.

DATES: This direct final rule will be effective July 10, 2017, unless
EPA receives adverse comments by June 9, 2017. If adverse comments are
received, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of the direct final rule
in the Federal Register informing the public that the rule will not
take effect.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Nos. EPA-R05-
OAR-2016-0707 at http://www.regulations.gov or via email to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For comments submitted at Regulations.gov,
follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted,
comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. For either
manner of submission, EPA may publish any comment received to its
public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you
consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written
comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and
should include discussion of all points you wish to make. EPA will
generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of
the primary submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or other file sharing
system). For additional submission methods, please contact the person
identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. For the full
EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia
submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please
visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joseph Ko, Environmental Engineer,
Attainment Planning and Maintenance Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-
18J), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson
Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA. This supplementary information
section is arranged as follows:

I. Why did IDEM issue this commissioner's order?
II. What are the SO2 limits in this commissioner's order?
III. By what criterion is EPA reviewing this SIP revision?
IV. What action is EPA taking?
V. Incorporation by Reference
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Why did IDEM issue this commissioner's orders?

    On December 22, 2016, IDEM submitted for approval, as a revision to
the Indiana SIP, an order issued by IDEM's Commissioner that
establishes SO2 emission limits for Carmeuse. SO2
emission limits for Carmeuse previously did not exist in the Indiana
SIP. IDEM established these emission limits so the area near Carmeuse
can qualify in the future for being designated ``attainment'' of the
2010 primary SO2 NAAQS. The history of the 2010
SO2 NAAQS and the applicable Data Requirements Rule (DRR) is
explained below in order to provide a more detailed explanation of the
context for IDEM's request.
    On June 3, 2010, pursuant to section 109 of the Clean Air Act
(CAA), EPA revised the primary (health-based) SO2 NAAQS by
establishing a new one-hour standard codified at title 40 Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) section 51.17 (75 FR 35520). Pursuant to
section 107(d) of the CAA, EPA must designate areas as either
``unclassifiable,'' ``attainment,'' or ``nonattainment'' for the 2010
one-hour SO2 primary NAAQS. Under Section 107(d) of the CAA,
a nonattainment area is any area that does not meet the NAAQS or that
contributes to a violation in a nearby area. An attainment area is any
area, other than a nonattainment area, that meets the NAAQS.
Unclassifiable areas are those that cannot be classified on the basis
of available information as meeting or not meeting the NAAQS.
    On August 5, 2013, EPA published a final rule designating 29 areas
in the United States as nonattainment for the 2010 SO2
NAAQS, based on recorded air quality monitoring data from 2009-2011
that showed violations of the NAAQS (78 FR 47191). In that rulemaking,
EPA committed to address, in separate future actions, the designations
for all other areas for which EPA was not yet prepared to issue
designations.
    Following the initial August 5, 2013, designations, three lawsuits
were filed against EPA in different U.S. District Courts, alleging that
EPA had failed to perform a nondiscretionary duty under

the CAA by not designating all portions of the country by June 2013,
three years after the promulgation of the revised SO2 NAAQS,
as required by Section 107(d) of the CAA. In an effort intended to
resolve the litigation in one of those cases, plaintiffs Sierra Club
and the Natural Resources Defense Council and EPA filed a proposed
consent decree with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California. On March 2, 2015, the Court entered the consent decree
and issued an enforceable order for EPA to complete the area
designations according to the Court-ordered schedule.\1\ The consent
decree required EPA to complete the designations in three additional
rounds following EPA's original designations (Round 1): Round 2 by July
2, 2016, Round 3 by December 31, 2017, and Round 4 by December 31,
2020. This action falls within Round 3 of the designation process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Sierra Club et al. v. EPA, No. 3:13-cv-3953-SI (N.D.Cal.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under the DRR (80 FR 51052), each state air agency was required to
submit a list to the EPA by January 15, 2016, that identified all
sources within the state that had SO2 emissions exceeding
2,000 tons per year (tpy) during the most recent year for which
emissions data for those sources were available, plus any additional
sources and their associated areas identified by the air agency or by
the EPA as also warranting air quality characterization due to their
potential to contribute to an SO2 NAAQS violation.
    Carmeuse's lime manufacturing plant was not identified by IDEM as
one of the sources covered by the DRR since the SO2
emissions from the facility did not exceed 2,000 tpy; but IDEM
determined that emissions from the plant could adversely impact overall
SO2 air quality for Lake County. Based on modeling conducted
by Indiana in accordance with EPA's Draft SO2 NAAQS
Designations Modeling Technical Assistance Document,\2\ these emission
limits in the Commissioner's Order will ensure modeled attainment of
the 2010 SO2 NAAQS. IDEM conducted air dispersion modeling
using the American Meteorological Society/Environmental Protection
Agency Regulatory Model (AERMOD) version 15181 in accordance with
appendix W of 40 CFR part 51 to determine SO2 emission
limits for Carmeuse that will ensure modeled attainment of the 2010
SO2 NAAQS in the area near this facility.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Draft SO2 NAAQS Designations Modeling Technical Assistance
Document. December 2013. http://www3.epa.gov/airquality/sulfurdioxide/pdfs/SO2ModelingTAD.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    IDEM has requested that EPA approve Commissioner's Order 2016-04
for Carmeuse as part of the Indiana's SIP. If EPA approves the
SO2 emission limits contained in these orders, they will
become federally enforceable. Once these SO2 emission limits
have become federally enforceable, IDEM intends to use them to
demonstrate modeled attainment for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS for
the area near Carmeuse. To be clear, the purpose of this rulemaking is
to take action on IDEM's request to approve these SO2
emission limits into the Indiana SIP and thereby make them federally
enforceable. The purpose of this rulemaking is not to take action on
whether these SO2 emission limits are adequate for EPA to
designate attainment of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS for the area near
Carmeuse. EPA intends to complete 2010 SO2 NAAQS
designations for areas under the Federal consent decree deadlines,
including the area near Carmeuse, in separate rulemakings.

II. What are the SO2 limits in this commissioner's orders?

    Indiana issued Commissioner's Order 2016-04 on November 15, 2016,
with an effective date of 18 days after issuance. This order
established SO2 emission limits for five kilns (with six
stacks per kiln) at the Carmeuse facility. Modeling for the
Commissioner's Order showed that an emission limit of 12.0 pounds per
hour of SO2 for each kiln, or 2.0 pounds per hour for each
stack, would ensure attainment of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS.
Indiana calculated a rolling 720-operating-hour average limit of 9.48
pounds per hour for each kiln, based on a flat averaging ratio of 0.79
recommended in EPA's Guidance for 1-hour SO2 Nonattainment Area SIP
Submission. This limit has a comparable stringency to an hourly
emission limit. The Commissioner's Order requires that Carmeuse comply
with this rolling 720-operating-hour average limit of 9.48 pound per
hour per kiln, beginning seven days from the issuance of the permit
modification required to allow the use of natural gas within the
affected kilns.

III. By what criterion is EPA reviewing this SIP revision?

    EPA has evaluated this revision on the basis of whether it
strengthens Indiana's SIP. Prior to Commissioner's Order 2016-04, there
were no specific SO2 emission limitations in the SIP
applicable to Carmeuse, nor were there any applicable SO2
limits identified in its part 70 Operating Permit. The SO2
emission limits in Commissioner's Order 2016-04 for Carmeuse establish
permanent and federally enforceable limits, and should, therefore,
strengthen Indiana's SIP.
    The adequacy of these limits for providing for attainment is not a
prerequisite for approval of these limits. Nevertheless, the purpose of
these limits is ultimately to provide for attainment, and EPA is
working with Indiana to assure a proper analysis of the adequacy of
these limits for this purpose.

IV. What action is EPA taking?

    EPA is approving Commissioner's Order 2016-04 as part of the
Indiana SIP. Incorporating the order's SO2 emission limits
and related requirements for Carmeuse as part of the SIP strengthens
Indiana's SIP, which did not have any specific SO2 emission
limits for Carmeuse previously. By approving the Commissioner's Order
into the Indiana SIP, these SO2 emission limits and
applicable reporting, recordkeeping, and compliance demonstration
requirements contained in the order would become federally enforceable,
and strengthen the Indiana SIP.
    We are publishing this action without prior proposal because we
view this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipate no adverse
comments. However, in the proposed rules section of this Federal
Register publication, we are publishing a separate document that will
serve as the proposal to approve the state plan if relevant adverse
written comments are filed. This rule will be effective July 10, 2017
without further notice unless we receive relevant adverse written
comments by June 9, 2017. If we receive such comments, we will withdraw
this action before the effective date by publishing a subsequent
document that will withdraw the final action. All public comments
received will then be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on the
proposed action. EPA will not institute a second comment period. Any
parties interested in commenting on this action should do so at this
time. Please note that if EPA receives adverse comment on an amendment,
paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision may be severed
from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those provisions
of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment. If we do
not receive any comments, this action will be effective July 10, 2017.

V. Incorporation by Reference

    In this rule, EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes

incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR
51.5, EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of the Indiana
Commissioner's Order described in the amendments to 40 CFR part 52 set
forth below. Therefore, these materials have been approved by EPA for
inclusion in the State implementation plan, have been incorporated by
reference by EPA into that plan, are fully federally enforceable under
sections 110 and 113 of the CAA as of the effective date of the final
rulemaking of EPA's approval, and will be incorporated by reference by
the Director of the Federal Register in the next update to the SIP
compilation.\3\ EPA has made, and will continue to make, these
documents generally available through www.regulations.gov, and/or at
the EPA Region 5 Office (please contact the person identified in the
``For Further Information Contact'' section of this preamble for more
information).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 62 FR 27968 (May 22, 1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and
does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state
law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has
demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian
country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose
substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by July 10, 2017. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor
does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may
be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or
action. Parties with objections to this direct final rule are
encouraged to file a comment in response to the parallel notice of
proposed rulemaking for this action published in the proposed rules
section of today's Federal Register, rather than file an immediate
petition for judicial review of this direct final rule, so that EPA can
withdraw this direct final rule and address the comment in the proposed
rulemaking. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur oxides.

    Dated: April 27, 2017.
Robert A. Kaplan,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5.

    40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

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

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

0
2. In Sec.  52.770 the table in paragraph (d) is amended by adding a
new entry for ``Carmeuse Lime Inc.'' to read as follows:

Sec.  52.770  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (d) * * *

                                 EPA-Approved Indiana Source-Specific Provisions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
         CO date                 Title                 SIP rule              EPA approval         Explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
11/16/2016..............  Carmeuse Lime Inc..  N.A.....................  5/10/2017, [Insert   Limitation
                                                                          Federal Register     intended to
                                                                          citation].           support
                                                                                attainment
                                                                                designation.

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

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2017-09382 Filed 5-9-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 131 (Wednesday, July 8, 2020)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 40958-40959]
[FR Doc No: 2020-14586]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 300

[EPA-HQ-SFUND-1990-0010; FRL-10011-60-Region 5]

National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan;
National Priorities List: Deletion of the DuPage County Landfill/
Blackwell Forest Superfund Site

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule; notification of intent.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 5 is issuing
a Notice of Intent to Delete the DuPage County Landfill/Blackwell
Forest Superfund Site (DuPage County Landfill Site) located in
Warrenville, Illinois, from the National Priorities List (NPL) and
requests public comments on this proposed action. The NPL, promulgated
pursuant to Section 105 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980, as amended, is an
appendix of the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution
Contingency Plan (NCP). The EPA and the State of Illinois, through the
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA), have determined that
all appropriate response actions under CERCLA, other than operation and
maintenance, monitoring and five-year reviews, have been completed at
the DuPage County Landfill Site. However, this deletion does not
preclude future actions under Superfund.

DATES: Comments must be received by August 7, 2020.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
SFUND-1990-0010, by one of the following methods:
    https://www.regulations.gov (our preferred method). Follow the
instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot
be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. EPA may publish any comment
received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any
information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a
written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment
and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. EPA will
generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of
the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing
system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment
policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general
guidance on making effective comments, please visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.
    Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Phone: Public comment by phone may be made by calling (312) 353-
6288 and following the directions provided for public comment.
    Written comments submitted by mail are temporarily suspended and no
hand deliveries will be accepted. We encourage the public to submit
comments via email or at https://www.regulations.gov.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-SFUND-
1990-0010. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through https://www.regulations.gov or email. The https://www.regulations.gov website
is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send an email comment directly to EPA without
going through https://www.regulations.gov, your email address will be
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the public docket and made available on the internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of
any defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the https://www.regulations.gov index, Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-SFUND-1990-0010.
Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly
available, e.g., CBI or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted
material, will be publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly
available docket materials are available electronically at https://www.regulations.gov, Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-SFUND-1990-0010 and at
https://www.epa.gov/superfund/dupage-county-landfill or you may contact
the person in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section for
additional availability information.
    The EPA is temporarily suspending its Docket Center and Regional
Records Centers for public visitors to reduce the risk of transmitting
COVID-19. In addition, many site information repositories are closed
and information in these repositories, including the deletion docket,
has not been updated with hardcopy or electronic media. For further
information and updates on EPA Docket Center services, please visit us
online at https://www.epa.gov/dockets.
    The EPA continues to carefully and continuously monitor information
from

the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), local area health
departments, and our Federal partners so that we can respond rapidly as
conditions change regarding COVID-19.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Karen Cibulskis, NPL Deletion
Coordinator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 5 at (312)
886-1843 or via email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the ``Rules and Regulations'' Section of
this Federal Register, we are publishing a direct final Notice of
Deletion of the DuPage County Landfill Site without prior Notice of
Intent to Delete because EPA views this as a noncontroversial revision
and anticipate no adverse comment. We have explained our reasons for
this deletion in the preamble to the direct final Notice of Deletion,
and those reasons are incorporated herein. If we receive no adverse
comment(s) on this deletion action, we will not take further action on
this Notice of Intent to Delete. If we receive adverse comment(s), we
will withdraw the direct final Notice of Deletion, and it will not take
effect. We will, as appropriate, address all public comments in a
subsequent final Notice of Deletion based on this Notice of Intent to
Delete. We will not institute a second comment period on this Notice of
Intent to Delete. Any parties interested in commenting must do so at
this time.
    For additional information, see the direct final Notice of Deletion
which is located in the Rules section of this Federal Register.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 300

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Chemicals,
Hazardous substances, Hazardous waste, Intergovernmental relations,
Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Superfund, Water
pollution control, Water supply.

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.; 42 U.S.C. 9601-9657; E.O.
13626, 77 FR 56749, 3 CFR, 2013 Comp., p. 306; E.O. 12777, 56 FR
54757, 3 CFR, 1991 Comp., p. 351; E.O. 12580, 52 FR 2923, 3 CFR,
1987 Comp., p. 193.

    Dated: June 30, 2020.
Kurt Thiede,
Regional Administrator, Region 5.
[FR Doc. 2020-14586 Filed 7-7-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 143 (Thursday, July 25, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 45001-45003]
[FR Doc No: 2013-17839]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-70007; File No. SR-MIAX-2013-21]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Miami International Securities
Exchange LLC; Order Approving Proposed Rule Change To Modify the
Allocation of Directed Orders in Specific Limited Situations

July 19, 2013.

I. Introduction

    On May 22, 2013, Miami International Securities Exchange LLC (the
``Exchange'' or ``MIAX'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act''),\2\ and Rule 19b-4
thereunder,\3\ a proposed rule change to modify its practice of
allocating Directed Orders. The proposed rule change was published for
comment in

the Federal Register on June 7, 2013.\4\ The Commission did not receive
any comments on the proposal. This order approves the proposed rule
change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 15 U.S.C. 78a.
    \3\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 69682 (June 3,
2013), 78 FR 34417 (``Notice'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposal

    The Exchange's proposal amends MIAX Rule 514 to modify the
allocation of Directed Orders \5\ to provide that a Directed Lead
Market Maker (``DLMM'') will always receive a minimum participation
allocation of at least one (1) contract. Specifically, the proposal
ensures that the DLMM will be allocated a minimum of one contract in
situations where, due to the Exchange's allocation calculation
methodology and the fact that the Exchange system rounds down any
fractional contract size allocations, the DLMM participation
entitlement allocation would otherwise have resulted in the DLMM being
allocated zero contracts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ A ``Directed Order'' is an order entered into the System by
an Electronic Exchange Member with a designation for a Lead Market
Maker (referred to as a ``Directed Lead Market Maker''). See
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 69507 (May 3, 2013), 78 FR 27269
(May 9, 2013) (SR-MIAX-2013-20).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Currently, MIAX Rule 514(h)(1) provides the formula used to
calculate the DLMM participation entitlement. The Rule provides that
the DLMM participation entitlement is equal to the greater of: (i) The
proportion of the total size at the best price represented by the size
of its quote; (ii) sixty percent (60%) of the contracts to be allocated
if there is only one (1) other Market Maker quotation at the NBBO; or
(iii) forty percent (40%) if there are two (2) or more other Market
Maker quotes at the NBBO. According to MIAX, the DLMM participation
entitlement algorithm works well when applied to Directed Orders of a
contract size of three (3) or more. However, as MIAX explained in the
Notice,\6\ for Directed Orders of a contract size of two (2) or fewer,
the DLMM participation entitlement allocation may result in an
allocation of zero due to the fact that the Exchange system rounds down
any fractional contract size allocations.\7\ MIAX provided several
examples in the Notice to illustrate how, in such instances, a Lead
Market Maker to whom the order was specifically directed does not
receive a contract allocation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Notice, supra note 4.
    \7\ MIAX expressed its belief in the Notice that other competing
exchanges may instead round up in certain situations where there is
a fractional contract size allocation. See Notice, supra note 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The MIAX proposal amends Rule 514(h)(1) to add a provision to
ensure that DLMMs receive at least one contract of an incoming Directed
Order. Thus, under the proposed rule change, a DLMM will be entitled to
the greatest of: (i) The pro-rata share; (ii) 40% or 60% of the
incoming Directed Order (depending on the number of other Market Makers
quoting along with the DLMM, as described above); or (iii) one (1)
contract. Accordingly, MIAX's proposal will allow the Exchange to
ensure that the Electronic Exchange Member's (``EEM'') Directed Order
would trade a minimum of one contract with the quote of the DLMM, when
the DLMM participation entitlement applies.

III. Discussion and Commission Findings

    The Commission has carefully reviewed the proposed rule change and
finds that it consistent with the requirements of the Act.\8\
Specifically, the Commission believes it is consistent with Section
6(b)(5) of the Act,\9\ which requires, among other things, that the
rules of a national securities exchange be designed to prevent
fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and
equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation and coordination
with persons engaged in regulating, clearing, settling, processing
information with respect to, and facilitating transactions in
securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a
free and open market and a national market system, and, in general, to
protect investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f. In approving this proposed rule change, the
Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency,
competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission notes that a Directed Order is an order that an EEM
enters into the MIAX system and directs to a particular Lead Market
Maker. As such, EEMs have a reasonable expectation that, in most
situations when the DLMM participation entitlement applies, the EEM's
Directed Order will interact and execute at least partially with the
quote of the DLMM.\10\ However, under MIAX's current rules, solely
because of MIAX's practice of rounding down factional contract sizes
\11\ and its current allocation formula, Directed Orders with a
contract size of two or less may result in the DLMM being allocated
zero contracts. The Commission believes that it is appropriate to allow
MIAX to revise its rules to account for this limited situation and
ensure that DLMMs will receive at least one contract of any order that
is directed to them when the DLMM's participation entitlement
applies.\12\ The Commission believes that this change will allow the
rule to operate as anticipated by EEMs, providing greater certainty of
execution with regard to Directed Orders. Further, the proposed rule
change allows MIAX to effectuate one of the purposes of the Directed
Order participation entitlement; namely, to reward DLMMs for attracting
order flow to the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ The Commission notes, however, that there may be other
situations where the DLMM may not have the opportunity to interact
with the Directed Order. For example, the DLMM participation
entitlement applies only to any remaining balance after Priority
Customer orders have been satisfied. See MIAX Rule 514(g). MIAX Rule
100 defines ``Priority Customer'' as ``a person or entity that (i)
is not a broker or dealer in securities, and (ii) does not place
more than 390 orders in listed options per day on average during a
calendar month for its own beneficial account(s).''
    \11\ MIAX noted that other exchanges may not have the same issue
with Directed Orders because their systems round up instead of down
where there are fractional contract size allocations. See supra note
7.
    \12\ See supra note 10 (concerning the possibility that a
Priority Customer may have priority).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission notes that this rule change will not impact the
application of other participation entitlements. For instance, MIAX
Rule 514(i)(1) provides that a PLMM may receive either the PLMM
entitlement or, if applicable, the DLMM entitlement, but not both. As
such, although this proposal will change the allocation for Directed
Orders of two or fewer contacts, it will not, in any way, affect the
small order participation guarantee for PLMMs in MIAX Rule 514(g)(2) or
allow DLMMs to receive both the small order participation entitlement
in that rule and the Directed Order participation entitlement in Rule
514(h). Additionally, under MIAX Rule 514(h)(4), the PLMM and DLMM
participation entitlements never allow for an allocation that is
greater than the quantity of contracts quoted by the PLMM or DLMM.
Furthermore, the Commission notes that the proposed change will not
affect Priority Customers because DLMM participation entitlements may
take effect only after all Priority Customer orders are satisfied.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See MIAX Rule 514(h).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the foregoing reasons, the Commission believes that the
proposed rule change is consistent with the Act.

IV. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act
\14\ that the proposed rule change (SR-MIAX-2013-21), is approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(2).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

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

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-17839 Filed 7-24-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 154 (Thursday, August 9, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 39500-39504]
[FR Doc No: 2018-17060]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

National Hazardous Materials Route Registry

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

ACTION: Notice; revisions to the listing of designated and restricted
routes for hazardous materials.

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

SUMMARY: This notice provides revisions to the National Hazardous
Materials Route Registry (NHMRR) reported to the FMCSA as of March 31,
2018. The NHMRR is a listing, as reported by States and Tribal
governments, of all designated and restricted roads and preferred
highway routes for transportation of highway route controlled
quantities (HRCQ) of Class 7 radioactive materials (RAM) (HRCQ/RAM) and
non-radioactive hazardous materials (NRHMs).

DATES: Applicable date: August 9, 2018.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Vincent Babich<PHONE_NUMBER>, or
[email protected], Hazardous Materials Division, Office of
Enforcement and Compliance, Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration, 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE, Washington, DC 20590. Office
hours are from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., ET., Monday through Friday, except for
Federal holidays.

Legal Basis and Background

    Under 49 United States Code (U.S.C.) 5112, sections (a)(2) and (b),
States and Tribal governments are permitted to designate and limit
highway routes over which hazardous materials (HM) may be transported,
provided the State or Tribal government complies with standards
prescribed by the Secretary of Transportation (the Secretary) and meets
publication requirements in section 5112(c). To establish standards
under section (b), the Secretary must consult with the States, and,
under section (c), coordinate with the States to ``update and publish
periodically'' a list of currently effective HM highway routing
designations and restrictions. The requirements that States and Tribal
governments must follow to establish, maintain, or enforce routing
designations for the transport of placardable quantities of NRHMs are
set forth in title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part
397, subpart C. Subpart D of part 397 sets forth the requirements for
designating preferred routes for HRCQ/RAM shipments as an alternative,
or in addition, to Interstate System highways. For HRCQ/RAM shipments,
section 397.101(b)(1) defines a preferred route as an Interstate
Highway for which no alternative route is designated by the State, a
route specifically designated by the State, or both. (See section
397.65 for the definition of ``NRHM'' and ``routing designations.'')
    Under a delegation from the Secretary,\1\ FMCSA has authority to
implement 49 U.S.C. 5112.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 49 CFR 1.87(d)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Currently, 49 CFR 397.73 establishes public information and
reporting requirements for NRHM. States or Tribal governments are
required to furnish information regarding any new or changed routes to
FMCSA within 60 days after establishment. Under 49 CFR 397.103, a State
routing designation for HRCQ/RAM routes (preferred routes) as an
alternative, or in addition, to an Interstate System highway, is
effective when the authorized routing agency provides FMCSA with
written notification, FMCSA acknowledges receipt in writing, and the
route is published in FMCSA's National Hazardous Material Route
Registry. The Office of Management and Budget has approved these
collections of information under control number 2126-0014,
Transportation of Hazardous Materials, Highway Routing.
    In this notice, FMCSA is merely performing the ministerial function
of updating and publishing the NHMRR

based on input from its State and Tribal partners under 49 U.S.C.
5112(c)(1). Accordingly, this notice serves only to provide the most
recent revisions to the NHMRR; it does not establish any new public
information and reporting requirements.

Updates to the NHMRR

    FMCSA published the full NHMRR in a Federal Register Notice on
April 29, 2015 (80 FR 23859). Since publication of the 2015 notice,
FMCSA published one update to the NHMRR in a Federal Register Notice on
August 8, 2016 (81 FR 52518).
    This notice provides revisions to the NHMRR, reported to the FMCSA
from August 8, 2016 through March 31, 2018. The revisions to the NHMRR
listings in this notice supersede and replace corresponding NHMRR
listings published in the April 29, 2015 notice and corresponding
revisions to the NHMRR listings published in the August 8, 2016 notice.
Continue to refer to the April 29, 2015 notice for additional
background on the NHMRR and the August 8, 2016 notice for the
procedures for State and Tribal government routing agencies to update
their Route Registry listings and contact information.
    The full current NHMRR for each state is posted on the FMCSA's
internet website at: https://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/regulations/hazardous-materials/national-hazardous-materials-route-registry.

Revisions to the NHMRR in This Notice

    In accordance with the requirements of 49 CFR 397.73 and 397.103,
the NHMRR is being revised as follows:
    The FMCSA Division field office contact information for each state
is no longer listed in the NHMRR. This information is available on the
internet at the FMCSA's website at: https://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/mission/field-offices. In addition, the contact information for each State and
Tribal Government routing agency is no longer listed in the NHMRR. This
information is also available on the internet at the FMCSA's website
at: https://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/regulations/hazardous-materials/national-hazardous-materials-route-registry-state. The removal of this
information from the NHMRR eliminates the presentation of redundant
information and will streamline the future maintenance and update of
the NHMRR.
Table 2--California--Designated HRCQ/RAM routes
    Route Order Designator ``A'' is revised. The FMCSA Quality
Assurance (QA) Comment is removed.
    Route Order Designator ``B1'' is revised. The FMCSA QA Comment is
removed.
    Route Order Designator ``B3'' is revised to correct an editorial
error.
    Route Order Designator ``B5'' is revised.
    Route Order Designator ``B5B'' is added and assigned a ``P''
designation.
    Route Order Designator ``B5B-1.0'' is added and assigned a ``P''
designation.
    Route Order Designator ``B5B-2.0'' is added and assigned a ``P''
designation.
Table 3.--California--Designated NRHM routes
    Route Order Designator ``A1'' is revised.
    Route Order Designator ``A2'' (Designation ``B'') is revised.
    Route Order Designator ``A2A'' is revised.
    Route Order Designator ``A4B-1.0'' is revised.
    Route Order Designator ``A4B-2.0'' is added and assigned a ``B''
designation.
    Route Order Designator ``A4B-3.0'' is added and assigned a ``B''
designation.
    Route Order Designator ``A4B-4.0'' is added and assigned a ``B''
designation.
    Route Order Designator ``A11P-2.0-I'' is revised.
    Route Order Designator ``A11P-2.0-M'' is revised.
    Route Order Designator ``A12P-2.0-J1'' is revised to correct an
editorial error.
    Route Order Designator ``A12P-2.0-M1'' is removed.
    Route Order Designator ``A12P-2.0-M2'' is removed.
    Route Order Designator ``A13P-2.0-M1'' is removed.
    Route Order Designator ``A13P-2.0-M2'' is removed.
    Route Order Designator ``A14P-2.0-M1'' is removed.
    Route Order Designator ``B'' is removed.
    Route Order Designator ``C1'' is removed.
    Route Order Designator ``C2'' is removed.
    Route Order Designator ``C3'' is removed.
    Route Order Designator ``D'' is removed.
Table 4.--Pennsylvania--Restricted HM Routes
    Route Order Designators ``E'', ``F'', ``G'', and ``P'' are revised
to provide the current internet address for the Pennsylvania Turnpike
website.
Table 5.--Virginia--Restricted HM routes
    Route Order Designators ``D'', ``E'', ``F'', ``G'', and ``H''. The
referenced internet addresses are updated.
Table 6.--Wyoming--Restricted HM Routes
    Route Order Designator ``A'' is revised to remove obsolete
references to the CFR.

Route Order Key

    Each listing in the NHMRR includes codes to identify each route
designation and each route restriction reported by the State
Designation codes identify the routes along which a driver may or must
transport specified HM. Among the designation codes is one for
``preferred routes,'' which is defined in Sec.  397.101(b)(1) \2\ and
applies to transporting ``a highway route controlled quantity of Class
7 (radioactive) materials.'' Restriction codes identify the routes
along which a driver may not transport specified HM shipments. Table 1
presents information on each restriction and designation code.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ 49 CFR 397.101(b)(1) defines ``preferred route'' as, ``an
Interstate System highway for which an alternative route is not
designated by a State routing agency; a State-designated route
selected by a State routing agency pursuant to Sec.  397.103; or
both.''

                  Table 1--Restriction/Designation Key
------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Restrictions                         Designations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
0--ALL Hazardous Materials.............  A--ALL NRHM Hazardous
                                          Materials.
1--Class 1--Explosives.................  B--Class 1--Explosives.
2--Class 2--Gas........................  I--Poisonous Inhalation Hazard
                                          (PIH).
3--Class 3--Flammable..................  P--*Preferred Route* Class 7--
                                          Radioactive.
4--Class 4--Flammable Solid/Combustible
5--Class 5--Organic....................
6--Class 6--Poison.....................
7--Class 7--Radioactive................

8--Class 8--Corrosives.................
9--Class 9--Dangerous (Other)..........
i--Poisonous Inhalation Hazard (PIH)...
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Revisions to the National Hazardous Materials Route Registry (March 31,
2018)

                                                     Table 2--California--Designated HRCQ/RAM Routes
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Designation(s)
       Designation date           Route order       Route description          City             County            (A,B,I,P)           FMCSA QA comment
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
10/19/94.....................  A                  SR 905 from Mexican    ................  ...............  P
                                                   Border to Interstate
                                                   805.
10/19/94.....................  B1                 Interstate 805 from    ................  San Diego......  P
                                                   Interstate 5 [north
                                                   of the City of San
                                                   Diego] to State
                                                   Route 905.
10/19/94.....................  B3                 Interstate 5 from      ................  ...............  P
                                                   Interstate 405 [MP
                                                   93--Irvine] to State
                                                   78 [MP 51--Carlsbad].
10/19/94 and 04/01/17........  B5                 Interstate 605 from    ................  Los Angeles....  P
                                                   Interstate 210
                                                   [Duarte] to
                                                   Interstate 105
                                                   [Norwalk].
04/01/17.....................  B5B                Interstate 105 from    ................  ...............  P
                                                   Interstate 605 to
                                                   Interstate 110.
04/01/17.....................  B5B-1.0            Interstate 110 from    ................  ...............  P
                                                   Interstate 105 to
                                                   State Route 47.
04/01/17.....................  B5B-2.0            Interstate 710 from    ................  ...............  P
                                                   Interstate 105 to
                                                   Seaside Freeway.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                       Table 3--California--Designated NRHM Routes
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Designation(s)
       Designation date           Route order       Route description          City             County            (A,B,I,P)           FMCSA QA comment
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
12/07/17.....................  A1                 State Route 905 from   ................  ...............  B,I
                                                   Mexican Border to
                                                   Interstate 5.
10/28/92 and 12/07/17........  A2                 Interstate 805 from    ................  San Diego......  B
                                                   Interstate 5 [Torrey
                                                   Pines] to State
                                                   Route 905.
10/28/92 and 12/07/17........  A2A                Interstate 5 from      San Diego.......  San Diego......  B
                                                   Interstate 805 [MP
                                                   31--Torrey Pines] to
                                                   State Route 905.
10/28/92 and 12/07/17........  A4B-1.0            State Route 125 from   La Mesa.........  San Diego......  B
                                                   State Route 54 to
                                                   State Route 52.
12/07/17.....................  A4B-2.0            State Route 67 from    ................  ...............  B
                                                   Interstate 8 to
                                                   State Route 52.
12/07/17.....................  A4B-3.0            State Route 52 from    ................  ...............  B
                                                   State Route 67 to
                                                   Interstate 805.
12/07/17.....................  A4B-4.0            State Route 54 from    ................  ...............  B
                                                   Interstate 805 to
                                                   State Route 125.
10/28/92 and 07/27/17........  A11P-2.0-I         Interstate 280 from    ................  ...............  B
                                                   Cesar Chavez St.
                                                   [San Francisco] to
                                                   Interstate 680/US
                                                   101 [San Jose].
07/27/17.....................  A11P-2.0-M         Cesar Chavez St. from  ................  ...............  B
                                                   US 101 to Pier 80.
10/28/92.....................  A12P-2.0-J1        Interstate 580 from    ................  ...............  B
                                                   Interstate 238
                                                   [Ashland] to
                                                   Interstate 680
                                                   [Dublin].
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                       Table 4--Pennsylvania--Restricted HM Routes
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Restriction(s)
         Designation date            Route order        Route description              City                 County            (0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,i)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
01/01/40.........................  E                Interstate 70/76           ....................  Somerset...........  1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,i
                                                     [Allegheny Tunnel--
                                                     Somerset County] from
                                                     Exit 110 to Exit 146.
                                                    [Effective July 16, 2000:
                                                     All Table 1 materials
                                                     and Explosives are still
                                                     prohibited. Table 2
                                                     materials (except
                                                     explosives) permitted
                                                     for non-bulk packages
                                                     (those placards that do
                                                     not require four-digit
                                                     codes)].
                                                    For additional
                                                     information, visit the
                                                     Pennsylvania Turnpike
                                                     website: https://www.paturnpike.com/commercial/placarded_loads.aspx.
01/01/40.........................  F                Interstate 76 [Tuscarora   ....................  Franklin and         1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,i
                                                     Tunnel--Franklin/                                Huntingdon.
                                                     Huntingdon Counties]
                                                     from Exit 180 to Exit
                                                     189.
                                                    [Effective July 16, 2000:
                                                     All Table 1 materials
                                                     and Explosives are still
                                                     prohibited. Table 2
                                                     materials (except
                                                     explosives) permitted
                                                     for non-bulk packages
                                                     (those placards that do
                                                     not require four-digit
                                                     codes)].
                                                    For additional
                                                     information, visit the
                                                     Pennsylvania Turnpike
                                                     website: https://www.paturnpike.com/commercial/placarded_loads.aspx.
01/01/40.........................  G                Interstate 76 [Blue        ....................  Franklin...........  1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,i
                                                     Mountain Tunnel and
                                                     Kittatinny Tunnel--
                                                     Franklin County] from
                                                     Exit 189 to Exit 201.
                                                    [Effective July 16, 2000:
                                                     All Table 1 materials
                                                     and Explosives are still
                                                     prohibited. Table 2
                                                     materials (except
                                                     explosives) permitted
                                                     for non-bulk packages
                                                     (those placards that do
                                                     not require four-digit
                                                     codes)].
                                                    For additional
                                                     information, visit the
                                                     Pennsylvania Turnpike
                                                     website: https://www.paturnpike.com/commercial/placarded_loads.aspx.
01/01/65.........................  P                Interstate 476 [Northeast  ....................  Carbon and Lehigh..  1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,i
                                                     Extension of PA Turnpike
                                                     at Lehigh Tunnel] from
                                                     Exit 56 to Exit 74.
                                                    [Effective July 16, 2000:
                                                     All Table 1 materials
                                                     and Explosives are still
                                                     prohibited. Table 2
                                                     materials (except
                                                     explosives) permitted
                                                     for non-bulk packages
                                                     (those placards that do
                                                     not require four-digit
                                                     codes)].
                                                    For additional
                                                     information, visit the
                                                     Pennsylvania Turnpike
                                                     website: https://www.paturnpike.com/commercial/placarded_loads.aspx.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                     Table 5--Virginia--Restricted HM routes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Restriction(s)
       Designation date        Route order              Route description               (0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,i)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
11/15/95.....................  D            Elizabeth River Tunnel [Downtown]--       1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,i
                                             Interstate 264 [Phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>].
                                            Materials in hazard classes 1.1, 1.2,
                                             1.3, 2.3, 4.3, 6.1, 7 (i.e., Highway
                                             Route Controlled Quantities-HRCQ), and
                                             toxic inhalation hazard are not allowed
                                             passage through this tunnel.
                                            Materials in hazard classes 2.1, 3, 5.1,
                                             5.2, and 8, are allowed access to this
                                             tunnel only in ``non-bulk''.
                                            Hazmat shipper MUST abide by rules and
                                             regulations outlined in VDOT's ``Rules
                                             and Regulations Governing the
                                             Transportation of Hazardous Materials
                                             through Bridge-Tunnel Facilities.'' For
                                             additional information, see http://www.virginiadot.org/info/resources/vdothazmat.pdf.

11/15/95.....................  E            Elizabeth River Tunnel [Midtown]--US 58   1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,i
                                             [Phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>].
                                            Materials in hazard classes 1.1, 1.2,
                                             1.3, 2.3, 4.3, 6.1, 7 (Highway Route
                                             Controlled Quantities (HRCQ)), and
                                             toxic inhalation hazard are not allowed
                                             passage through this tunnel.
                                            Materials in hazard classes 2.1, 3, 5.1,
                                             5.2, and 8, are allowed access to this
                                             tunnel only in ``non-bulk''.
                                            Hazmat shipper MUST abide by rules and
                                             regulations outlined in VA DOT's
                                             ``Rules and Regulations Governing the
                                             Transportation of Hazardous Materials
                                             through Bridge-Tunnel Facilities.'' For
                                             additional information, see http://www.virginiadot.org/info/resources/vdothazmat.pdf.
11/15/95.....................  F            Monitor-Merrimac Memorial [Bridge/        1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,i
                                             Tunnel]--Interstate 664 [Phone: (757)
                                             247-2123].
                                            Materials in hazard classes 1.1, 1.2,
                                             1.3, 2.3, 4.3, 6.1,7 (i.e., Highway
                                             Route Controlled Quantities-HRCQ), and
                                             toxic inhalation hazard are not allowed
                                             passage through this tunnel.
                                            Materials in hazard classes 2.1, 3, 5.1,
                                             5.2, and 8, are allowed access to this
                                             tunnel only in non-bulk''.
                                            Hazmat shipper MUST abide by rules and
                                             regulations outlined in VDOT's ``Rules
                                             and Regulations Governing the
                                             Transportation of Hazardous Materials
                                             through Bridge-Tunnel Facilities.'' For
                                             additional information, see http://www.virginiadot.org/info/resources/vdothazmat.pdf.
11/15/95.....................  G            Hampton Roads Bridge-Tunnel [Interstate   1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,i
                                             64] [Phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>].
                                            Materials in hazard classes 1.1, 1.2,
                                             1.3, 2.3, 4.3, 6.1, 7 (i.e., Highway
                                             Route Controlled Quantities-HRCQ), and
                                             toxic inhalation hazard are not allowed
                                             passage through this tunnel.
                                            Materials in hazard classes 2.1, 3, 5.1,
                                             5.2, and 8, are allowed access to this
                                             tunnel only in ``non-bulk''.
                                            Hazmat shipper MUST abide by rules and
                                             regulations outlined in VDOT's ``Rules
                                             and Regulations Governing the
                                             Transportation of Hazardous Materials
                                             through Bridge-Tunnel Facilities.'' For
                                             additional information, see http://www.virginiadot.org/info/resources/vdothazmat.pdf.
11/12/96.....................  H            Chesapeake Bay Bridge--Tunnel [Phone:     1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,i
<PHONE_NUMBER>].
                                            The jurisdiction for this bridge and
                                             tunnel falls under the Chesapeake Bay
                                             Bridge and Tunnel District, which
                                             maintains its own regulations on
                                             hazardous materials.].
                                            Classes 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 2.3, 4.3, and 6.1
                                             (Inhalation Hazard only) are not
                                             allowed passage in any quantity.
                                            Classes 2.1, 2.2, 3, 4.1, 4.2, 5.1, 5.2,
                                             6.1, 7, 8, and 9 are prohibited in
                                             limited circumstances.
                                            For additional information on route
                                             restrictions, see http://www.cbbt.com/hazmat.html.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                         Table 6--Wyoming--Restricted HM Routes
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Restriction(s)
         Designation date             Route order            Route description              City             County           (0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,i)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
04/12/94.........................  A................  City of Cheyenne..............  Cheyenne........  Laramie.........  0
                                                      [City Ordinance: Hazardous
                                                       materials and radioactive
                                                       materials may not be
                                                       transported by motor vehicle
                                                       within the City of Cheyenne
                                                       except for the purpose of
                                                       making pickups and/or
                                                       deliveries within the City,
                                                       unless such routing is
                                                       consistent with 49 CFR Part
                                                       397 or 49 CFR Part 177.
                                                      Motor vehicles carrying
                                                       hazardous and/or radioactive
                                                       materials which are making
                                                       local pickups and/or
                                                       deliveries must be operated
                                                       over the safest and most
                                                       direct route to and from the
                                                       origination and destination
                                                       point. Such routes shall not
                                                       pass through residential
                                                       areas unless there is no
                                                       practical alternative.].
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    End of Revisions to the National Hazardous Materials Route Registry

    Issued on: August 2, 2018.
Cathy F. Gautreaux,
Deputy Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2018-17060 Filed 8-8-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 148 (Monday, August 3, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 45853-45856]
[FR Doc No: 2015-18694]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2014-0348; Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-033-AD;
Amendment 39-18225; AD 2015-15-15]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain
The Boeing Company Model 777-200, 777-200LR, 777-300ER, and 777F series
airplanes. This AD was prompted by a report indicating that sealant
might not have been applied in production to the wing skin panel gaps
above certain underwing fittings. This AD would require an inspection
for missing sealant, and applicable other specified, related
investigative, and corrective actions. We are proposing this AD to
detect and correct missing sealant from the wing skin panel gaps above
the underwing fittings, which could result in corrosion and fatigue
cracking in the wing skin panel, and consequent loss of limit load
capability of the wing skin and potential subsequent structural failure
of the wings.

DATES: This AD is effective September 8, 2015.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of September 8,
2015.

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this AD, contact
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management,
P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, WA 98124-2207; telephone 206-544-
5000, extension 1; 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 2014-
0348.

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-2014-

0348; 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: Haytham Alaidy, Aerospace Engineer,
Airframe Branch, ANM-120S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office
(ACO), 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-6573; phone: 425-917-
6573; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain The Boeing Company
Model 777-200, 777-200LR, 777-300ER, and 777F series airplanes. The
NPRM published in the Federal Register on July 1, 2014 (79 FR 37243).
The NPRM was prompted by a report indicating that sealant might not
have been applied in production to the wing skin panel gaps above
certain underwing fittings. The NPRM proposed to require an inspection
for missing sealant, and applicable other specified, related
investigative and corrective actions. We are issuing this AD to detect
and correct missing sealant from the wing skin panel gaps above the
underwing fittings, which could result in corrosion and fatigue
cracking in the wing skin panel, and consequent loss of limit load
capability of the wing skin and potential subsequent structural failure
of the wings.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD. The following presents the comments received on the NPRM (79
FR 37243, July 1, 2014) and the FAA's response to each comment. Boeing
concurs with the contents of the NPRM.

Request To Accept Approved Repairs Without Need for Alternative Methods
of Compliance (AMOC)

    FedEx requested that any FAA-approved repair be accepted without
the requirement of obtaining an AMOC.
    We do not agree with the request. The FAA does not consider that
any FAA-approved repair will be acceptable to repair this condition. As
the sealant was missing from the airplane at the time of initial
delivery, it may not have been restored in prior repairs. In addition,
repairs may not have detected all corrosion because the repair might
not have included the inspection information contained in Boeing
Service Bulletin 777-57A0097, Revision 1, dated May 4, 2015.
    Repairs for this AD must be approved by the Manager, Seattle ACO,
FAA; or by the Boeing Organization Designation Authorization (ODA)
using FAA Form 8100-9 in accordance with the procedures specified in
paragraph (j)(3) of this AD. We intend to delegate authority to approve
AMOCs to the Boeing ODA for the repair approval process. In addition to
knowledge of the unsafe condition, the Boeing ODA is knowledgeable
about the original airplane design and compliance substantiation. We
have not changed this AD regarding this issue.

Request To Withdraw NPRM (79 FR 37243, July 1, 2014)

    American Airlines (AAL) stated that the Boeing 777 Maintenance
Review Board Report (MRBR) has existing inspections intended to
identify deterioration of sealant, as well as any corrosion or
cracking. These inspections will detect deterioration or damage to the
fillet seal that would lead to moisture ingression to the area of
concern. AAL therefore considers the NPRM (79 FR 37243, July 1, 2014)
to be unwarranted.
    We disagree with the commenter's request to withdraw the NPRM (79
FR 37243, July 1, 2014). Evaluation of the quality escapement revealed
that, under certain environmental conditions, moisture can get trapped
within a cavity directly under the nacelle fittings that are normally
filled with sealant. With the presence of moisture in this cavity, the
existing corrosion protection would degrade within an estimated ten
years of service, and corrosion pitting would form on the stringer
surface. Under flight loading, cracks would initiate and propagate from
the corrosion pits until the stringer would no longer be able to
sustain limit load, and would eventually fail. This corrosion and
cracking would not be detected by the existing maintenance program
prior to stringer failure. We have not changed this AD regarding this
issue.

Request for Validated Inspection Procedures

    American Airlines (AAL) stated that accomplishing the actions
specified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 777-57A0097, dated January
10, 2014, could be detrimental to aircraft safety. According to AAL,
any attempt at the sealant removal to do the inspection based upon the
existing instructions in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 777-57A0097,
dated January 10, 2014, could potentially damage or degrade the
protective surface finish of the wing skin or underwing fitting and
lead to future corrosion or fatigue cracking.
    AAL stated that it attempted and failed to accomplish the
inspection in accordance with Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 777-
57A0097, dated January 10, 2014, because access to some of the intended
inspection areas was severely inhibited by hydraulic lines. AAL also
stated that any sealant, if present, would have been applied to the
entire gap, so inspection from only one side should be sufficient. In
addition, AAL used the recommended tooling and alternate tooling as
specified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 777-57A0097, dated January
10, 2014, but experienced multiple problems with the use of this
tooling. In addition, AAL requested that Boeing Alert Service Bulletin
777-57A0097, dated January 10, 2014, be validated with workable tooling
on an in-service airplane prior to any future action.
    We infer that the commenter is requesting that we delay issuance of
the final rule pending validation of the existing procedures. We do not
agree. AAL reported ``multiple problems with the use of this tooling,''
but did not describe any specific problems. However, we understand that
the tools themselves require frequent but inexpensive replacement. We
have determined that use of the appropriate tools and processes to
remove the sealant from underneath the fitting should not damage the
skin or adjacent structures.
    Boeing has performed and validated the procedures in Boeing Alert
Service Bulletin 777-57A0097, dated January 10, 2014, on certain
airplanes that are representative of the fleet on the flight line
before delivery with no damage to the skin or adjacent structures.
However, Boeing has revised Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 777-57A0097,
dated January 10, 2014, to clarify the sealant removal process and
tooling, to ensure that it will not damage the skin. We also discussed
AAL's concerns with Boeing, and Boeing reported that they have provided
AAL with assistance. Boeing is also willing to work with any other
operator that is having difficulty implementing the SB.
    Boeing considers that the revision of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin
777-57A0097, dated January 10, 2014, should address AAL's concerns
about

the tooling and procedures for sealant removal. We have revised
paragraphs (c), (g), (h)(1), and (h)(2) of this AD to refer to Boeing
Service Bulletin 777-57A0097, Revision 1, dated May 4, 2015. We have
added new paragraph (i) to this AD to give credit for actions done
before the effective date of this AD using Boeing Alert Service
Bulletin 777-57A0097, dated January 10, 2014. We have redesignated
subsequent paragraphs accordingly. The FAA will consider approving
alternative procedures if they are shown to be effective.

Request for Additional Time

    AAL requested that, once Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 777-57A0097,
dated January 10, 2014, is validated, sufficient time should be
provided to allow operators to procure such tooling.
    We infer that the commenter is requesting an extension to the
compliance time. We do not agree with the commenter's request to extend
the compliance time. We coordinated with Boeing regarding tool
availability and fabrication. The tools stated in Boeing Service
Bulletin 777-57A0097, dated January 10, 2014; and Revision 1, dated May
4, 2015; are nonmetallic sealant scrapers, which are widely available,
with no lead time to procure these tools. Existing tools may be
modified to match the wing panel gaps by cutting them to the correct
size. However, we do understand that cutting the tools to size may
weaken the tools, which could cause them to fracture and result in more
frequent replacement of the tools. Boeing has stated that there is no
engineering or drawing work required for fabrication. Any certified
aircraft mechanic can fabricate the necessary tools. Boeing stated that
during validation of the Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 777-57A0097,
dated January 10, 2014, the tools were fabricated in a working shift.
We have not changed this AD in this regard.

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 and minor editorial
changes. We have determined that these minor changes:
     Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the
NPRM (79 FR 37243, July 1, 2014) for correcting the unsafe condition;
and
     Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was
already proposed in the NPRM (79 FR 37243, July 1, 2014).
    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 777-57A0097, Revision 1, dated
May 4, 2015. The service information describes procedures for the
inspection and repair of underwing fitting sealant at wing panel gaps.
This service information is reasonably available because the interested
parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by
the means identified in the ADDRESSES section of this AD.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 6 airplanes of U.S. registry.
    We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost on  U.S.
            Action                  Labor cost       Parts cost       Cost per product           operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inspection....................  Up to 104 work-                $0  Up to $8,840            Up to $53,040.
                                 hours x $85 per
                                 hour = $8,840.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We estimate the following costs to do any necessary actions that
would be required based on the results of the inspection. We have no
way of determining the number of aircraft that might need these
actions:

                                               On-Condition Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Action                          Labor cost           Parts cost           Cost per product
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sealant restoration...................  1 work-hour x $85 per                  $0  $85.
                                         hour = $85.
Corrosion inspection..................  2 work-hours x $85 per                 $0  $170 per side.
                                         hour = $170 per side.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide
cost estimates for the on-condition corrosion repair specified in this
AD.
    According to the manufacturer, some of the costs of this 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 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.

Regulatory Findings

    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 adding the following new airworthiness
directive (AD):

2015-15-15 The Boeing Company: Amendment 39-18225; Docket No. FAA-
2014-0348; Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-033-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective September 8, 2015.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to The Boeing Company Model 777-200, 777-200LR,
777-300ER, and 777F series airplanes, certificated in any category,
as identified in Boeing Service Bulletin 777-57A0097, Revision 1,
dated May 4, 2015.

(d) Subject

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

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by a report indicating that sealant might
not have been applied in production to the wing skin panel gaps
above certain underwing fittings. We are issuing this AD to detect
and correct missing sealant from the wing skin panel gaps above the
underwing fittings, which could result in corrosion and fatigue
cracking in the wing skin panel, and consequent loss of limit load
capability of the wing skin and potential subsequent structural
failure of the wings.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Inspection, Related Investigative and Corrective Actions

    At the applicable time specified in paragraph 1.E.,
``Compliance,'' of Boeing Service Bulletin 777-57A0097, Revision 1,
dated May 4, 2015, except as required by paragraph (h)(1) of this
AD: Do a detailed inspection for missing sealant in the wing skin
panel gaps above the underwing fittings, and do all applicable other
specified, related investigative, and corrective actions, in
accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service
Bulletin 777-57A0097, Revision 1, dated May 4, 2015, except as
required by paragraph (h)(2) of this AD. Do all applicable other
specified, related investigative, and corrective actions before
further flight.

(h) Exceptions to Service Information Specifications

    (1) Where Boeing Service Bulletin 777-57A0097, Revision 1, dated
May 4, 2015, specifies a compliance time ``after the original issue
date of this service bulletin,'' this AD requires compliance within
the specified compliance time after the effective date of this AD.
    (2) Where Boeing Service Bulletin 777-57A0097, Revision 1, dated
May 4, 2015, specifies to contact Boeing for appropriate action:
Repair before further flight using a method approved in accordance
with the procedures specified in paragraph (j) of this AD.

(i) Credit for Previous Actions

    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 777-
57A0097, dated January 10, 2014.

(j) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Seattle 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 (k)(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 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 Aircraft
Certification Office (ACO), to make those findings. For a repair
method to be approved, the repair must meet the certification basis
of the airplane, and the approval must specifically refer to this
AD.
    (4) Some steps in the Work Instructions are labeled as Required
for Compliance (RC). If this service bulletin is mandated by an AD,
then 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. An AMOC is required for any deviations to RC steps,
including substeps and identified figures. Steps not labeled as RC
may be deviated from 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.

(k) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact Haytham Alaidy,
Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM-120S, FAA, Seattle ACO,
1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; 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 (l)(3) and (l)(4) of this AD.

(l) 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 777-57A0097, Revision 1, dated May
4, 2015.
    (ii) Reserved.
    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management,
P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, WA 98124-2207; telephone 206-544-
5000, extension 1; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com.
    (4) 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>.
    (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 July 23, 2015.
Victor Wicklund,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2015-18694 Filed 7-31-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P