[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 21 (Tuesday, February 1, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 5510-5518]
[FR Doc No: 2011-2164]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 139

[Docket No. FAA-2010-0247; Notice No. 11-01]
RIN 2120-AJ70

Safety Enhancements Part 139, Certification of Airports

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to amend the airport certification standards
in part 139. This action would establish minimum standards for training
of personnel who access the airport non-movement area (ramp and apron)
to help prevent accidents and incidents in that area. A certificate
holder would be required to conduct pavement surface evaluations to
ensure reliability of runway surfaces in wet weather conditions. This
action would also require a Surface Movement Guidance Control System
(SMGCS) plan if the certificate holder conducts low visibility
operations. The plan would facilitate the safe movement of aircraft and
vehicles in low visibility conditions. Finally, this action would
clarify the applicability of part 139 and explicitly prohibit
fraudulent or intentionally false statements in a certificate
application or record required to be maintained.

DATES: Send your comments on or before April 4, 2011.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments identified by Docket Number FAA-2010-
0247 using any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and follow the online instructions for sending your
comments electronically.
     Mail: Send comments to Docket Operations, M-30, U.S.
Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West
Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery: Take comments to Docket Operations in Room
W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey Avenue,
SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.
     Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
    For more information on the rulemaking process, see the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.
    Privacy: We will post all comments received, without change, to
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you
provide. Using the search function of our docket Web site, anyone can
find and read the comments received into any of our dockets, including
the name of the individual sending the comment (or signing the comment
for an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's
complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on
April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78) or you may visit http://DocketsInfo.dot.gov.
    Docket: To read background documents or comments received, go to
http://www.regulations.gov at any time and follow the online
instructions for accessing the docket or go to Docket Operations in
Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey
Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical questions concerning
this proposed rule, contact Kenneth Langert, Federal Aviation
Administration, Office of Airports Safety and Standards, Airport Safety
and Operations Division (AAS-300), 800 Independence Avenue, SW.,
Washington, DC 20591; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-
mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For legal questions concerning this
rule, contact Robert Hawks, Office of the Chief Counsel, Regulations
Division, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue,
SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax (202) 267-
7971; e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:  Later in this preamble under the Additional
Information section, we discuss how you can comment on this proposal
and how we will handle your comments. Included in this discussion is
related information about the docket, privacy, and the handling of
proprietary or confidential business information. We also discuss how
you can get a copy of this proposal and related rulemaking documents.

Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety is found in
Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, section 106 describes
the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation
Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority.
    The FAA is issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
subtitle VII, part A, subpart III, section 44706, ``Airport operating
certificates.'' 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, including issuing airport
operating certificates that contain terms the Administrator finds
necessary to ensure safety in air transportation. This proposed rule is
within the scope of that authority because it would enhance safety in
airport operations by requiring training of personnel accessing the
non-

movement area, periodic friction testing, and plans for low visibility
operations.

Background

    The FAA issues airport operating certificates (AOCs) under part 139
to certain airports serving commercial passenger-carrying operations
based on the type of commercial operations and size of aircraft served.
Currently, 556 of the four classes of airports (I, II, III, IV) defined
in part 139 hold FAA-issued airport operating certificates. Part 139
prescribes the minimum standards for maintaining and operating the
physical airport environment.

Non-Movement Area Safety Training

    Currently, part 139 requires periodic training for all personnel
who access movement (runways and taxiways) and safety areas. Airlines
and airports provide primary safety oversight in non-movement areas
(ramps and aprons). Some airports voluntarily implement training for
personnel accessing the non-movement area. FAA Advisory Circular (AC)
150/5210-20, Ground Vehicle Operations on Airports \1\ provides
guidance to airport operators developing training programs for safe
ground vehicle operations and pedestrian control. This guidance applies
to all personnel accessing the movement and non-movement areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ AC issued June 21, 2002, with a change issued March 31,
2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Airport ramps typically are confined, congested areas in which
departing and arriving aircraft are serviced by ramp workers, including
baggage, catering, and fueling personnel. Additional personnel on ramps
include airport police, FAA officials, and other airport, airline, and
vendor staff. The presence of large numbers of people using equipment
in a relatively small area, often under significant time pressure,
creates an environment for injuries and aircraft damage. Errors occur
because of carelessness, distractions, confusion, inadequate training,
lack of supervision, and time pressure.
    The Government Accountability Office (GAO) issued a report in 2007
stating a lack of complete accident data and standards for ground
handling hindered efforts to improve airport ramp safety.\2\ The GAO
found that the FAA, National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), and
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) investigated 29
fatal ramp accidents from 2001 through 2006.\3\ Most fatal accidents
involve ramp workers, but pilots and passengers have died in ramp
accidents. The GAO report concluded that there are no Federal or
industry-wide standards for ramp operations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See GAO Report 08-29 (November 2007).
    \3\ See GAO Report 08-29 (November 2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    According to a 2007 Flight Safety Foundation article, turnover
among personnel typically is high, training can be spotty, and standard
operating procedures may be nonexistent or ignored.\4\ The Flight
Safety Foundation article also found that ramp accidents occur
frequently and cause airlines to incur significant costs often not
covered by insurance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Flight Safety Foundation ``Defusing the Ramp'' (May
2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Furthermore, activities in the non-movement area affect the safety
of crewmembers and passengers after the aircraft leaves the ramp area.
Undetected aircraft damage from ramp activities can cause in-flight
emergencies. In December 2005, an Alaska Airlines MD-80 departing from
Seattle, WA, to Burbank, CA, experienced a sudden cabin
depressurization. The aircraft returned to Seattle and landed without
injuries. The investigation revealed that a ramp vehicle had punctured
the aircraft fuselage, but no one had reported the incident.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See NTSB Report SEA06LA033 (December 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Runway Pavement Surface Evaluation

    Braking performance is critical for all aircraft especially on wet
runway surfaces. Under certain conditions, hydroplaning or unacceptable
loss of traction (tire/pavement contact) results in poor braking
performance and possible loss of directional control. Standing water,
runway contaminants (e.g., fuel and rubber), and smoothing or
``polishing'' of surface aggregates reduce friction.
    Research shows that a higher level of friction is achieved by
forming or cutting closely spaced transverse grooves on the runway
surface, which allows rain water to escape from beneath tires of
landing aircraft.\6\ Pavement grooving was the first major step in
achieving safer pavement surfaces for aircraft operations in wet
weather conditions. Studies conducted in the U.S. and United Kingdom
determined that an open graded, thin hot-mix asphalt (HMA) surface
course called ``porous friction course'' (PFC) also could achieve good
results. This surface permits rain water to permeate through the course
and drain off transversely to the side of the runway, preventing water
buildup on the surface and creating a relatively dry pavement condition
during rainfall. An FAA Technical Center study demonstrated that a high
level of friction was maintained on PFC overlays for the entire runway
length.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Advisory Circular 150/5320-12, Measurement,
Construction, and Maintenance of Skid-Resistant Airport Pavement
Surfaces Sec. Sec.  1-3. 2-15 (March 18, 1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Today, most airports in the United States use these methods and
materials. Consequently, the frequency of accidents and incidents
caused by loss of directional control and inadequate stopping
capability has been greatly reduced. However, the skid resistance of
these surfaces deteriorates over time.
    The FAA provides guidance and procedures in Advisory Circular 150/
5320-12C, Measurement, Construction, and Maintenance of Skid Resistant
Airport Pavement Surfaces. However, there is no FAA requirement for
airports to regularly inspect and record runway friction levels or to
ensure runways are maintained in a manner that provides adequate
friction levels. Neither is there a requirement to perform tests using
continuous friction measuring equipment (CFME) or to evaluate the
drainage capabilities of runway surface grooving and transverse slopes.
    The FAA has determined that visual evaluations of pavement friction
are not sufficient. CFME provides quantitative results that can be used
to determine whether friction values meet acceptable standards. A list
of approved CFME can be found in AC 150/5320-12C. While some U.S.
airports use CFME, others may use less effective methods to monitor
build-up of rubber deposits and deterioration of friction
characteristics.

Surface Movement Guidance Control System (SMGCS)

    A Surface Movement Guidance Control System (SMGCS) is a system of
lighting, signs, and markings that allows an aircraft to operate to and
from the runway in very low visibility in a controlled and safe manner.
This system provides guidance to and control of aircraft, ground
vehicles, and personnel on the movement area of an airport. Guidance
relates to facilities, information, and advice necessary for pilots of
aircraft or drivers of ground vehicles to navigate the movement area
and to keep aircraft or vehicles on the surfaces or within the areas
intended for their use. Control means the measures necessary to prevent
collisions and ensure traffic flows smoothly and freely.
    The FAA guidance on SMGCS is available in AC 120-57A, Surface
Movement Guidance and Control System. Low-visibility operations exist
when Runway Visual Range (RVR) reports on any active runway drop below
1,200 feet RVR. AC 120-57A provides recommendations for

improved safety procedures to accommodate low-visibility ground
operations. Some airports voluntarily adopted AC 120-57A SMGCS
practices. Some U.S. airports were approved to conduct low-visibility
operations, but have not adopted all of the AC 120-57A SMGCS practices.
Moreover, no FAA requirement ensures airports implement these
recommendations (including optimum ground equipment, lighting, and
signage) where air carriers conduct low-visibility operations.
    The potential significance of a ground movement error by a vehicle
or aircraft during low-visibility operations is an increasing concern
as more airline operations and multiple runway configurations are
planned for the National Airspace System (NAS). Additionally,
technology advances such as heads-up displays (HUD) and enhanced flight
vision systems (EFV) increase low-visibility operating capability. The
FAA and ICAO consider the recommended low-visibility practices in AC
120-57A, and specific enhanced ground equipment and guidance, necessary
to ensure safety during low-visibility ground movement operations.
Additionally, the FAA now requires Surface Movement Guidance and
Control System (SMGCS) for commissioning new runways under the FAA's
Operations Evolution Plan (OEP).

General Discussion of the Proposal

    The FAA proposes to amend Sec.  139.303 to require periodic
training for all personnel authorized to access the non-movement area.
The proposal also would add the definition of ``non-movement area'' to
Sec.  139.5. Second, the proposal would amend Sec.  139.305 to require
a certificate holder to evaluate the surface characteristics of
runways. Third, the proposal would require a certificate holder that
allows operations below 1,200 feet RVR to implement a SMGCS plan in its
airport certification manual (ACM). Fourth, the FAA proposes to amend
Sec.  139.1 to clarify the applicability of this part based on only the
passenger seats in an aircraft used for passenger-carrying operations.
Finally, the FAA proposes a new Sec.  139.115 that would prohibit
fraudulent or intentionally false statements on an application for a
certificate or other record required to be kept.

Non-Movement Area Safety Training

    The FAA has concluded non-movement area safety can be improved with
increased training. Airport workers must be knowledgeable and aware of
the various activities that take place in the non-movement area. This
knowledge and awareness reduces confusion and carelessness by
individuals accessing the non-movement area. Accordingly, the FAA
proposes to require training for all persons authorized to access the
non-movement area. This training would complement the existing training
for persons accessing the movement and safety areas, and could be
combined with the training for persons accessing both the movement and
non-movement areas. The FAA proposes the following exceptions for this
training requirement:
     Airman exercising the privileges of an applicable airman
certificate;
     Persons escorted by a trained individual; and
     Other persons identified in the certificate holder's ACM.
    A person would complete this training prior to accessing the non-
movement area, and at least yearly thereafter. The FAA intends to make
this requirement effective one year after publication of the final rule
to allow certificate holders time to develop a training program and
complete training for all personnel accessing the non-movement area.
After the effective date of this proposal, if adopted, all persons
would complete the training prior to accessing the non-movement area,
unless escorted by a trained individual.
    The certificate holder would provide recurrent training as often as
necessary to enable the person to maintain a satisfactory level of
proficiency. Appropriate schedules for recurrent training may vary
widely among certificate holders and individuals because of the
specific needs of each certificate holder and individual. However, this
recurrent training would occur at least yearly. Certificate holders may
consider requiring recurrent training when a vehicle operator renews an
expired airport identification badge or when a tenant renews a lease
agreement.
    All training curricula would include, at a minimum, airport
familiarization with airport markings, signs, and lighting, procedures
for operating in the non-movement area, and duties required by the ACM
or regulations. Although AC 150/5210-20 provides detailed guidance on
developing training curricula, a certificate holder could determine its
optimal method for completing this training. In addition to providing
training on these minimum components, the FAA recommends on-the-job
training for personnel prior to unescorted access to the airside of the
airport.
    The curricula would address procedures for access to, and operation
in, ramp and apron areas. Inadvertent entry by vehicles onto movement
and non-movement areas of an airport poses a danger to both the vehicle
operator and aircraft attempting to land, take off, or maneuver on the
airport.
    Methods for controlling access to the airside depend on the type
and location of the airport. The training would discuss the methods for
controlling access and how a person can ensure those methods are
effective. The Airport Layout Plan is a useful tool for identifying
access points and general layout of the airfield.
    The curricula also would include procedures for operating in the
non-movement area including wearing personal protective equipment and
high visibility clothing, cautious driving and speed awareness, and
backing up and spotting obstructions. The training would stress that
aircraft always have the right-of-way over vehicles when maneuvering on
non-movement areas.
    Other duties that a person might encounter and require training for
include fire prevention, hazardous weather, foreign object damage (FOD)
prevention, reporting accidents/incidents, safety around propeller and
jet engine intakes, approaching an arriving aircraft, safely
positioning ground servicing equipment, and other safety topics workers
may encounter specific to the airport. A certificate holder would
retain records of this training for 24 months as required by existing
Sec.  139.301(b)(1).
    Additionally, the FAA proposes to clarify the training requirement
for persons accessing the movement and safety areas by substituting all
``persons'' for all ``personnel'' in Sec.  139.303(c). The FAA has
interpreted personnel to be broader than airport employees, but this
proposed clarification would avoid confusion in interpreting the rule.

Runway Pavement Surface Evaluation

    In an effort to improve safety, the FAA proposes a requirement to
evaluate the surface characteristics of runways. This proposed
requirement adopts existing guidance specified in Advisory Circular
150-5320-12C, Measurement, Construction, and Maintenance of Skid
Resistant Airport Pavement Surfaces.
    Because runway friction characteristics change over time, periodic
runway friction measurements are needed not only to identify
unacceptable runway friction levels but also to identify trends in
changing runway conditions. Airport operators need to locate and
restore areas on the pavement surface where friction has deteriorated
below acceptable levels for aircraft braking performance.
    The FAA proposes amending Sec.  139.305 to require airports to
establish

and implement a runway friction testing program for each runway used by
jet aircraft. A certificate holder with jet aircraft traffic should
schedule periodic friction evaluations of each runway that accommodates
jet aircraft. Components of the program would include a testing
frequency that takes into consideration the volume and type of traffic
as well as friction readings from CFMEs operated by trained personnel.
Corrective action would be required, as needed. The airport operator
also should locate potential hydroplaning areas as well as measure the
depth and width of a runway's grooves to check for wear and damage.
    Airports would establish and implement a program for testing
performance of grooves and transverse slopes. Components of the program
would include, at a minimum, instructions and procedures for conducting
visual inspection of runway surfaces, taking the runway surface
material and volume of traffic into consideration. On randomly-selected
trafficked portions of the runway, the airport operator would have to
measure the width and depth of grooves, inspect transverse slopes for
desired performance, and take corrective action if testing reveals
deterioration below established levels.

Surface Movement Guidance Control System (SMGCS)

    Each certificate holder with FAA-approved takeoff or landing
operations below 1,200 feet RVR must provide appropriate low-visibility
surface enhancements and ground movement procedures. The basis for the
approval of low-visibility operations for each runway would be
incorporated in the certificate holder's SMGCS plan. The plan would
identify the responsibilities of all parties involved in low-visibility
operations (e.g., airport operator, ATC, airport rescue and fire
fighting (ARFF), air carriers, pedestrians, and ground vehicle
operators). The plan should identify how and when these
responsibilities will be carried out (e.g., the plan may identify
different requirements for operations between 1,200 feet RVR and 600
feet RVR, and those operations below 600 feet RVR). Accordingly, the
FAA proposes to amend Sec.  139.203 to require the ACM contain a SMGCS
plan for airports approved for operations below 1,200 feet RVR. The
specific responsibilities are addressed in the proposed amendments to
Sec.  139.303 (personnel/training requirements), Sec.  139.311
(marking, signs, and lighting), Sec.  139.327 (self-inspection
program), Sec.  139.319 (aircraft rescue and firefighting (ARFF):
Operational requirements), and Sec.  139.329 (pedestrians and ground
vehicles).
    A SMGCS plan would facilitate the safe movement of aircraft and
vehicles on the airport by establishing more rigorous control
procedures and requiring enhanced visual aids. Additionally, the
ability to conduct low visibility operations allows a certificate
holder to stay open during poor weather conditions, thus reducing
flight delays and cancellations.
    Only certificate holders that conduct low-visibility operations
would be required to develop and implement a SMGCS plan. These plans
would vary among airports because of local conditions, and would be
subject to FAA approval.

Applicability of Part 139

    Currently, Sec.  139.1(a)(1) states that an airport must be
certificated under part 139 to host scheduled passenger-carrying
operations of an air carrier operating aircraft designed for more than
nine passenger seats, as determined by the aircraft type certificate
issued by a competent civil aviation authority.
    The current wording has created confusion regarding operation of a
particular aircraft type, a Cessna 208B Caravan, because it is
certificated as a single-pilot aircraft, but has two pilot seats. In
non-revenue service, the second pilot seat may be occupied by a
passenger. However, in scheduled passenger-carrying operations the
operating rule, Sec.  135.113, prohibits passengers from occupying the
second pilot seat, which means there are not more than nine passenger
seats during those operations.
    This proposal would clarify that the applicability of part 139 is
based only on passenger seats in passenger-carrying operations as
determined by either the regulations under which the operation is
conducted or the aircraft type certificate.

Certification and Falsification

    To ensure the reliability of records maintained by a certificate
holder and reviewed by the FAA, this proposal would prohibit
intentionally false or fraudulent statements concerning an AOC.
Specifically, the FAA proposes a new Sec.  139.155 that prohibits the
making of any fraudulent or intentionally false statement on an
application for a certificate; the making of any fraudulent or
intentionally false statement on any record or report required by the
FAA; and the reproduction or alteration, for a fraudulent purpose, of
any FAA certificate or approval. The FAA proposes to suspend or revoke
an AOC for violation of any of these prohibitions by an owner,
operator, or other person acting on behalf of the certificate holder.
The FAA also proposes to suspend or revoke any other FAA certificate
issued to the person committing the act. The requirement is similar to
falsification prohibitions in 14 CFR parts 43, 61, 65, and 67.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    This proposal contains an extension of a currently approved
collection OMB-2120-0675 subject to review by the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C.
3507(d)). The title, description, and number of respondents, frequency
of the collection, and estimate of the annual total reporting and
recordkeeping burden are shown below.
    Title: Safety Enhancements to 14 CFR part 139, Certification of
Airports
    Summary: If adopted, Sec.  139.303(g) will require training for all
personnel authorized to access the non-movement area as designated in
the Airport Certification Manual, regardless of their duties or
duration of access.
    Affected Public: A total of 256,000 people would need to have their
training records added to the airport's records.
    Frequency: Once a year.
    Estimated average burden per employee: 0.1 hour per employee.
    Estimated Annual Burden Hours: 256,000 x .05 = 12,800.
    Estimated Annual Burden Costs: 12,800 x $15.00 = $192,000.
    The agency is soliciting comments to--
    (1) Evaluate whether the proposed information requirement is
necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency,
including whether the information will have practical utility;
    (2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden;
    (3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to
be collected; and
    (4) Minimize the burden of collecting information on those who are
to respond, including by using appropriate automated, electronic,
mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms
of information technology.

International Compatibility

    In keeping with the U.S. obligations under the Convention on
International Civil Aviation, it is FAA policy to conform to
International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Standards and
Recommended Practices to the

maximum extent practicable. The FAA has reviewed the corresponding ICAO
Standards and Recommended Practices and has identified no differences
with these proposed regulations.

Regulatory Evaluation, Regulatory Flexibility Determination,
International Trade Impact Assessment, and Unfunded Mandates Assessment

    Changes to Federal regulations must undergo several economic
analyses. First, Executive Order 12866 directs that each Federal agency
shall propose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned determination
that the benefits of the intended regulation justify its costs. Second,
the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-354) requires
agencies to analyze the economic impact of regulatory changes on small
entities. Third, the Trade Agreements Act (Pub. L. 96-39) prohibits
agencies from setting standards that create unnecessary obstacles to
the foreign commerce of the United States. In developing U.S.
standards, this Trade Act requires agencies to consider international
standards and, where appropriate, that they be the basis of U.S.
standards. Fourth, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L.
104-4) requires agencies to prepare a written assessment of the costs,
benefits, and other effects of proposed or final rules that include a
Federal mandate likely to result in the expenditure by State, local, or
tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100
million or more annually (adjusted for inflation with base year of
1995). This portion of the preamble summarizes the FAA's analysis of
the economic impacts of this proposed rule. Readers seeking greater
detail should read the full regulatory evaluation, a copy of which is
in the docket for this rulemaking.
    In conducting these analyses, the FAA has determined that this
proposed rule: (1) Has benefits that justify its costs, (2) is not an
economically ``significant regulatory action'' as defined in section
3(f) of Executive Order 12866, (3) is not ``significant'' as defined in
DOT's Regulatory Policies and Procedures; (4) would have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities; (5) would
not create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United
States; and (6) would not impose an unfunded mandate on state, local,
or tribal governments, or on the private sector by exceeding the
threshold identified above. These analyses are summarized below.

Total Benefits and Costs of This Rule

    The estimated cost of this proposed rule is $32.3 million in
present value terms. The estimated potential benefits of adding safety
enhancements to part 139 are $47.0 million in present value terms.

Who is Potentially Affected by this Rule?
    Owners and operators of part 139 airports
    Tenants and tenant employees at part 139 airports
    Users of part 139 airports
Assumptions:
Discount rate--7%
Period of analysis--11 years because this provides a time period
sufficient to determine an accurate estimate of benefits and costs
Value of a fatality avoided--$6.0 million

Benefits of This Rule

    The benefits of this proposed rule consist of safety enhancements
to part 139. These enhancements include providing additional training
for people with access to the non-movement areas at airports which
should reduce the number and severity of non-movement area accidents;
adding a regulatory requirement for Runway Surface Evaluation Benefits,
which should ensure reliability of runway surfaces in wet weather; and
the development and integration of approved SMGCS plans into an ACM,
which should reduce the number of diversions in bad weather. Over the
11-year period of analysis, the potential present value benefits of the
proposed rule would be $47.0 million.

Costs of This Rule

    This proposed rule's present value costs consist of $31.6 million
for training and $0.7 million for the development and integration of
approved SMGCS plans into airport ACMs. The total present value cost of
this rule is about $32.3 million.

Regulatory Flexibility Determination

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-354) (RFA)
establishes ``as a principle of regulatory issuance that agencies shall
endeavor, consistent with the objectives of the rule and of applicable
statutes, to fit regulatory and informational requirements to the scale
of the businesses, organizations, and governmental jurisdictions
subject to regulation. To achieve this principle, agencies are required
to solicit and consider flexible regulatory proposals and to explain
the rationale for their actions to assure that such proposals are given
serious consideration.'' The RFA covers a wide-range of small entities,
including small businesses, not-for-profit organizations, and small
governmental jurisdictions.
    Agencies must perform a review to determine whether a rule will
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. If the agency determines that it will, the agency must
prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis as described in the RFA.
    However, if an agency determines that a rule is not expected to
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities, section 605(b) of the RFA provides that the head of the
agency may so certify and a regulatory flexibility analysis is not
required. The certification must include a statement providing the
factual basis for this determination, and the reasoning should be
clear.
    The proposed rule has two costs, a cost for training in the non-
movement area and a cost for the development and inclusion of a SMGCS
plan in the ACM.
    Training costs apply to all airports, regardless of size. For the
training costs, the FAA estimates that approximately 20% or 111 of the
total 556 certificated airports are small entities. This is a
substantial number of small entities. The FAA believes that there would
be a significant economic impact on these small entities. However, the
FAA proposes to mitigate the costs of the rule to small entities
through one or more of the following items:

[cir] The minimum training curricula required by the proposed rule
consists of airport familiarization, procedures for operating in the
non-movement area, and duties required by the ACM or regulations. The
FAA would provide guidance through Advisory Circulars (ACs) and/or
other publications and consultations.
[cir] The training materials can come from a number of sources,
including the following:
    [rtarr8] AC No: 150/5210-21, Date: 9/23/03, Subject: Announcement
of Availability: Airport Safety Training Programs for Mechanics and
Ramp Personnel This AC provides information on how to obtain two
interactive CD-ROMs that inform mechanics and ramp personnel about
important practices for preventing runway incursions, ramp safety
practices, proper taxi procedures, and proper tug and tow practices.
The CD-ROMs may be obtained free of charge from the FAA. The two CD-
ROMS are:
    [rtarr8] Taxi 101--This training program covers: Weather; airport
familiarization; runway and

taxiway signs; surface markings and lighting: aircraft preflight;
flight procedures; and air traffic control procedures.
    [rtarr8] Tug & Tow 101--This training program covers personal
safety; ramp operations and safety; aircraft and engine hazards;
communications; push back; aircraft towing; airport signs, surface and
markings; weather; and air traffic control procedures.
    [rtarr8] AC No.: 150/5210-20: Change 1: Date: March 31, 2008:
Subject: Ground Vehicle Operations On Airports. This AC and its
attached appendices is to provide guidance to airport operators in
developing training programs for safe ground vehicle operations and
pedestrian control on the airside of an airport. This includes both
movement and non-movement areas, ramps, and aprons. This AC contains
recommended operating procedures, a sample training curriculum
(Appendix A), and a sample training manual (Appendix B).
    [rtarr8] The American Association of Airport Executives (AAAE)--
provides many training materials at low costs to airports.
    [rtarr8] Private companies also sell many training materials.
    [rtarr8] Training materials can include printed media, computer
media, or any other effective media.

    The Surface Movements Guidance and Control System (SMGCS) costs in
this rule apply only to airports that have chosen to implement a SMCGS
plan. The FAA estimates that there are currently 54 airports with
approved SMCGS plans and 78 airports that are currently seeking to
provide for low visibility operations but do not yet have a SMGCS plan.
The costs of SMGCS plans may be significant. However, the cost of SMGCS
plans has been and will be mitigated by AC guidance on how to prepare a
plan with an example plan.
    AC No.: 150/5320-12C, Date: 8/25/2004, Subject: Surface Movements
Guidance and Control System contains information on how to prepare a
SMGCS plan and an example of a typical SMGCS plan. It should be noted
that this AC has a provision for the performance of a benefit-cost
study before developing a detailed SMGCS plan. Therefore, any small
entity developing a SMGCS plan would likely first determine that it
would be cost-beneficial.
    The actual SMGCS plan for a single runway need not be longer than
15 pages. The FAA will visit each airport to oversee and help with the
SMGCS plans.
    The FAA has considered alternatives to the proposed rule. For the
training portion of the rule the FAA has considered doing nothing.
However, this would not result in any improved safety in the ramp area.
The FAA also considered a much more stringent curriculum for the ramp
safety training. However, this would not allow for the differences
between airports.
    Therefore, the FAA believes the proposed rule is the most effective
to improve ramp safety. In the case of SMGCS, most airports already
have an alternative available to them. They can decide whether or not
they want SMCGS facilities.
    The FAA believes the proposed rule would have a significant
economic impact on a large number of small entities. However the FAA
believes that any adverse economic impacts that would result from the
proposed rule could be substantially reduced by positive mitigations by
the FAA. The FAA solicits comments regarding this determination.

International Trade Impact Assessment

    The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (Pub. L. 96-39), as amended by the
Uruguay Round Agreements Act (Pub. L. 103-465), prohibits Federal
agencies from establishing standards or engaging in related activities
that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United
States. Pursuant to these Acts, the establishment of standards is not
considered an unnecessary obstacle to the foreign commerce of the
United States, so long as the standard has a legitimate domestic
objective, such as the protection of safety, and does not operate in a
manner that excludes imports that meet this objective. The statute also
requires consideration of international standards and, where
appropriate, that they be the basis for U.S. standards. The FAA has
assessed the potential effect of this proposed rule and determined that
it would have only a domestic impact and therefore would not create
unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States.

Unfunded Mandates Assessment

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-
4) requires each Federal agency to prepare a written statement
assessing the effects of any Federal mandate in a proposed or final
agency rule that may result in an expenditure of $100 million or more
(in 1995 dollars) in any one year by State, local, and tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector; such a mandate
is deemed to be a ``significant regulatory action.'' The FAA currently
uses an inflation-adjusted value of $143.1 million in lieu of $100
million. This proposed rule does not contain such a mandate; therefore,
the requirements of Title II of the Act do not apply.

Executive Order 13132, Federalism

    The FAA has analyzed the proposal under the principles and criteria
of Executive Order 13132, Federalism. Most airports subject to this
proposal are owned, operated, or regulated by a local government body
(such as a city or county government), which, in turn, is incorporated
by or as part of a State. Some airports are operated directly by a
State. This action would have low costs of compliance compared with the
resources available to airports, and it would not alter the
relationship between certificate holders and the FAA as established by
law.
    Accordingly, the FAA has determined that this action would not have
a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between
the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore,
the FAA has determined that this rulemaking does not have federalism
implications. The FAA will mail a copy of the NPRM to each State
government specifically inviting comment.

Environmental Analysis

    FAA Order 1050.1E identifies FAA actions that are categorically
excluded from preparation of an environmental assessment or
environmental impact statement under the National Environmental Policy
Act (NEPA) in the absence of extraordinary circumstances. The FAA has
determined this proposed rulemaking action qualifies for the
categorical exclusion identified in Chapter 3, paragraph 312d, and
involves no extraordinary circumstances.

Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or
Use

    The FAA has analyzed this NPRM under Executive Order 13211, Actions
Concerning Regulations that Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use (May 18, 2001). The agency has determined that it
is not a ``significant energy action'' under the executive order and it
is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply,
distribution, or use of energy.

Additional Information

Comments Invited

    The FAA invites interested persons to participate in this
rulemaking by submitting written comments, data, or views. The agency
also invites comments relating to the economic, environmental, energy,
or federalism impacts that might result from adopting the proposals in
this document. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion
of the proposal, explain the reason for any recommended change, and
include supporting data. To ensure the docket does not contain
duplicate comments, please send one copy of written comments, or if you
are filing comments electronically, please submit your comments only
one time.
    The FAA will file in the docket all comments received, as well as a
report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel
concerning this proposed rulemaking. Before acting on this proposal,
the FAA will consider all comments we receive on or before the closing
date for comments. The agency will consider comments filed late if it
is possible to do so without incurring expense or delay. This proposal
may change in light of comments we receive.

Proprietary or Confidential Business Information

    Do not file in the docket information that you consider to be
proprietary or confidential business information. Send or deliver this
information directly to the person identified in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document. You must mark the
information that you consider proprietary or confidential. If you send
the information on a disk or CD-ROM, mark the outside of the disk or
CD-ROM and also identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the
specific information that is proprietary or confidential.
    Under 14 CFR 11.35(b), when the agency is aware of proprietary
information filed with a comment, it is not placed in the docket. It is
held in a separate file to which the public does not have access, and
noted in the docket that the agency received it. If the FAA receives a
request to examine or copy this information, it is treated as any other
request under the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552). The agency
processes such a request under the DOT procedures found in 49 CFR part
7.

Availability of Rulemaking Documents

    You can get an electronic copy using the Internet by--
    (1) Searching the Federal eRulemaking Portal (http://www.regulations.gov);
    (2) Visiting the FAA's Regulations and Policies web page at http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/; or
    (3) Accessing the Government Printing Office's web page at http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/search/home.action.
    You can also get a copy by sending a request to the Federal
Aviation Administration, Office of Rulemaking, ARM-1, 800 Independence
Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591, or by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>. Make
sure to identify the docket or notice number of this rulemaking.
    You may access all documents the FAA considered in developing this
proposed rule, including economic analyses and technical reports, from
the internet through the Federal eRulemaking Portal referenced in
paragraph (1).

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 139

    Air carriers, Airports, Aviation safety, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.

The Proposed Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration proposes to amend Chapter I of title 14, Code of Federal
Regulations, as follows:

PART 139--CERTIFICATION OF AIRPORTS

    1. The authority citation for part 139 continues to read as
follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701-44702, 44709, 44719

    2. Amend Sec.  139.1 by revising paragraph (a) to read as follows:

Sec.  139.1  Applicability.

    (a) This part prescribes rules governing the certification and
operation of airports in any State of the United States, the District
of Columbia, or any territory or possession of the United States
serving any--
    (1) Scheduled passenger-carrying operations of an air carrier
operating aircraft configured for more than 9 passenger seats, as
determined by the regulations under which the operation is conducted or
the aircraft type certificate issued by a competent civil aviation
authority; and
    (2) Unscheduled passenger-carrying operations of an air carrier
operating aircraft configured for at least 31 passenger seats, as
determined by the regulations under which the operation is conducted or
the aircraft type certificate issued by a competent civil aviation
authority.
* * * * *
    3. Amend Sec.  139.5 by adding the definition of ``non-movement
area'' in alphabetical order to read as follows:

Sec.  139.5  Definitions.

* * * * *
    Non-movement area means the area, other than that described as the
movement area, used for the loading, unloading, parking, and movement
of aircraft on the airside of the airport (including ramps, apron
areas, and on-airport fuel farms).
* * * * *
    4. Add Sec.  139.115 to subpart B to read as follows:

Sec.  139.115  Falsification, reproduction, or alteration of
applications, certificates, reports, or records.

    (a) No person shall make or cause to be made:
    (1) Any fraudulent or intentionally false statement on any
application for a certificate or approval under this part;
    (2) Any fraudulent or intentionally false entry in any record or
report that is required to be made, kept, or used to show compliance
with any requirement under this part;
    (3) Any reproduction, for a fraudulent purpose, of any certificate
or approval issued under this part.
    (4) Any alteration, for a fraudulent purpose, of any certificate or
approval issued under this part.
    (b) The commission by any owner, operator, or other person acting
on behalf of a certificate holder of an act prohibited under paragraph
(a) of this section is a basis for suspending or revoking any
certificate or approval issued under this part and held by that
certificate holder and any other certificate issued under this title
and held by the person committing the act.
    5. Amend Sec.  139.203 by redesignating paragraph (b)(29) as
(b)(30) and adding a new paragraph (b)(29) to read as follows:

Sec.  139.203  Contents of Airport Certification Manual.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Airport certificate class
               Manual elements               -------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Class I          Class II        Class III         Class IV
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
29. For airports approved for low visibility               X                X                X                X
 takeoff or landing operations below 1200
 feet runway visual range, a Surface
 Movement Guidance Control System (SMGCS)
 plan.......................................

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

    6. Amend Sec.  139.303 by revising paragraph (c) introductory text,
redesignating paragraph (c)(5) as (c)(6), and adding a new paragraph
(c)(5) and adding paragraph (g) to read as follows:

Sec.  139.303  Personnel.

* * * * *
    (c) Train all persons who access movement areas and safety areas
and perform duties in compliance with the requirements of the Airport
Certification Manual and the requirements of this part. This training
must be completed prior to the initial performance of such duties and
at least once every 12 consecutive calendar months. The curriculum for
initial and recurrent training must include at least the following
areas:
* * * * *
    (5) When required, duties and procedures for low visibility SMGCS
operations identified in the SMGCS plan.
* * * * *
    (g)(1) Train all persons who are authorized to access the non-
movement area as designated in the Airport Certification Manual,
regardless of their duties or duration of access. The certificate
holder must ensure training is completed prior to a person's access to
the non-movement area and at least once every 12 consecutive calendar
months thereafter.
    (2) The curriculum for initial and recurrent training must include
at least the following areas:
    (i) Airport familiarization, including airport marking, signs, and
lighting.
    (ii) Procedures for access to, and operation in, the non-movement
area.
    (iii) Duties required under the Airport Certification Manual and
the requirements of this part.
    (3) The training requirements in this paragraph (g) do not apply to
airmen exercising the privileges of an applicable airman certificate,
persons being escorted by a trained individual, and other persons
identified in the FAA-approved Airport Certification Manual.
    7. Amend Sec.  139.305 by redesignating the paragraph (c) as (e)
and by adding new paragraphs (c) and (d) to read as follows:

Sec.  139.305  Paved areas.

* * * * *
    (c) Each certificate holder must establish and implement a runway
friction testing program. The program must include, at a minimum,
instructions and procedures for:
    (1) Conducting friction testing on runways used by turbojet
aircraft traffic.
    (2) Maintaining a friction testing frequency that takes into
consideration the volume and type of turbojet aircraft traffic and the
actual friction conditions of the runway pavement that is conducted at
least yearly.
    (3) Conducting friction testing using calibrated continuous
friction measuring equipment with a self-wetting system.
    (4) Ensuring that the friction testing is performed by individuals
qualified to use the equipment.
    (5) Taking corrective action when testing reveals deterioration
below acceptable levels as specified in the certificate holder's
Airport Certification Manual.
    (d) Each certificate holder must establish and implement a program
for testing performance of grooves and transverse slopes. The program
must include, at a minimum, instructions and procedures for:
    (1) Conducting visual inspection of runway surfaces on a frequency
that takes into consideration runway surface materials, volume of
runway traffic, and conditions of runway pavement.
    (2) On randomly-selected portions of the runway, measuring the
width and depth of grooves.
    (3) On randomly-selected portions of the runway, measuring the
transverse slopes.
    (4) Taking corrective action when testing reveals deterioration
below acceptable levels, as specified in the certificate holder's
Airport Certification Manual.
* * * * *
    8. Amend Sec.  139.311 by adding paragraphs (a)(6) and (c)(6) to
read as follows:

Sec.  139.311  Marking, signs, and lighting.

    (a) * * *
    (6) SMGCS markings on low visibility taxi routes identified in the
approved SMGCS plan.
* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (6) SMGCS lighting to support low visibility taxi operations
identified in the approved SMGCS plan.
* * * * *
    9. Amend Sec.  139.319 by adding paragraph (i)(2)(xii) to read as
follows:

Sec.  139.319  Aircraft rescue and fire-fighting: Operational
requirements.

* * * * *
    (i) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (xii) Procedures for low visibility operations as identified in the
approved SMGCS plan.
* * * * *
    10. Amend Sec.  139.327 by adding paragraph (a)(4) to read as
follows:

Sec.  139.327  Self-inspection program.

    (a) * * *
    (4) When required to support low visibility SMGCS operations in
accordance with the approved SMGCS plan.
* * * * *
    11. Amend Sec.  139.329 by redesignating paragraphs (e) and (f) as
(f) and (g), respectively, by adding a new paragraph (e), and by
revising newly redesignated paragraph (f) to read as follows:

Sec.  139.329  Pedestrians and ground vehicles.

* * * * *
    (e) Establish and implement procedures for the safe and orderly
access to and operation in movement areas and safety areas by
pedestrians and ground vehicles during low visibility conditions as
identified in the approved SMGCS plan.
    (f) Ensure that each employee, tenant, or contractor is trained on
procedures required under paragraphs (b) and (e) of this section,
including consequences of noncompliance, prior to moving on foot, or
operating a ground vehicle, in movement areas or safety areas; and
* * * * *

    Issued in Washington, DC, on January 19, 2011.
Michael J. O'Donnell,
Director of Airport Safety and Standards.
[FR Doc. 2011-2164 Filed 1-31-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: December 13, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 238)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 73618-73623]
[DOCID:fr13de05-15]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 420

[Docket Number EPA-OW-2002-0027; FRL-8007-8]
RIN 2040-AE78

Effluent Limitations Guidelines, Pretreatment Standards, and New
Source Performance Standards for the Iron and Steel Manufacturing Point
Source Category

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is amending certain
provisions of the regulations establishing effluent limitations
guidelines, pretreatment standards and new source performance standards
for the Iron and Steel Manufacturing Point Source Category. In 2002,
EPA also promulgated amendments to these regulations. The earlier
regulations authorized for direct discharges of pollutants the
establishment of limitations applicable to the total mass of a
pollutant discharged from more than one outfall--a ``water bubble.''
The effect of such a water bubble was to allow a greater or lesser
quantity of a particular pollutant to be discharged from any single
outfall so long as the total quantity discharged from the combined
outfalls did not exceed the allowed mass limitation. Among the changes
adopted in the 2002 amendments was a provision that prohibited
establishment of a water bubble for oil and grease effluent
limitations. Based on consideration of new information and analysis,
EPA is reinstating the provision authorizing alternative oil and grease
limitations with certain restrictions. Today's final rule also corrects
errors in the effective date of new source performance standards for
direct and indirect discharges of pollutants.

DATES: This final rule is effective on January 12, 2006.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA-OW-2002-0027. All documents in the docket are listed on the
http://www.regulations.gov Web site. 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, is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available either electronically through
http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Water Docket, EPA Docket

Center, EPA West Building, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC, 20460. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m.
to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The
telephone number for the Public Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the
telephone number for the Water Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elwood H. Forsht, Engineering and
Analysis Division, Office of Water, Mail code 4303T, 1200 Pennsylvania
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; and e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does This Action Apply to Me?

    Entities potentially regulated by this action include facilities of
the following types that discharge pollutants directly or indirectly to
waters of the U.S.:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                        Examples of regulated
      Category                 entities                 NAICS codes
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry...........  Discharges from existing     3311, 3312
                      and new facilities engaged
                      in metallurgical
                      cokemaking, sintering,
                      ironmaking, steelmaking,
                      direct reduced ironmaking,
                      briquetting, and forging.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this
action. This table lists the types of entities that EPA is now aware
could potentially be regulated by this action. Other types of entities
not listed in the table could also be regulated. To determine whether
your facility is regulated by this action, you should carefully examine
the definitions and applicability criteria in Sec. Sec.  420.01,

420.10, 420.20, 420.30, 420.40, 420.50, 420.60, 420.70, 420.80, 420.90,
420.100, 420.110, 420.120, and 420.130 of title 40 of the Code of
Federal Regulations. If you have questions about the applicability of
this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed in the
preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

B. How Can I Get Copies of This Document and Other Related Information?

    1. Docket. EPA has established an official public docket for this
action under Docket ID No. EPA-OW-2002-0027. The official public docket
consists of the documents specifically referenced in this action, any
public comments received, and other information related to this action.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
through http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Water Docket in the

EPA Docket Center, (EPA/DC) EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution
Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is
open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding
legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is
(202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the Water Docket is (202)
566-2426. To view these docket materials, please call ahead to schedule
an appointment. Every user is entitled to copy 266 pages per day before
incurring a charge. The Docket may charge 15 cents a page for each page
over the 266-page limit plus an administrative fee of $25.00.
    2. Electronic Access. You may access this Federal Register document
electronically through the EPA Internet under the ``Federal Register''
listings at http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/.

C. What Process Governs Judicial Review for Today's Final Rule?

    In accordance with 40 CFR 23.2, today's rule is considered
promulgated for the purposes of judicial review as of 1 p.m. Eastern
Daylight Time, December 27, 2005. Under section 509(b)(1) of the Clean
Water Act (CWA), judicial review of today's effluent limitations
guidelines and standards may be obtained by filing a petition in the
United States Circuit Court of Appeals for review within 120 days from
the date of promulgation of these guidelines and standards. Under
section 509(b)(2) of the CWA, the requirements of this regulation may
not be challenged later in civil or criminal proceedings brought by EPA
to enforce these requirements.

II. Legal Authority

    The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is promulgating these
regulations under the authorities of sections 301, 304, 306, 308, 402
and 501 of the Clean Water Act (CWA), 33 U.S.C. 1311, 1314, 1316, 1318,
1342 and 1361.

III. Overview of Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the
Iron and Steel Manufacturing Industry

A. Legislative Background

    Congress adopted the Clean Water Act (CWA) to Arestore and maintain
the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation's
waters'' (section 101(a), 33 U.S.C. 1251(a)). To achieve this, the CWA
prohibits the discharge of pollutants into navigable waters except in
compliance with the statute. The CWA confronts the problem of water
pollution on a number of different fronts. It relies primarily,
however, on establishing restrictions on the types and amounts of
pollutants discharged from various industrial, commercial, and public
sources of wastewater.
    Congress recognized that regulating only those sources that
discharge effluent directly into the Nation's waters would not achieve
the CWA's goals. Consequently, the CWA requires EPA to set nationally-
applicable pretreatment standards that restrict pollutant discharges
from those who discharge wastewater into sewers flowing to publicly-
owned treatment works (POTWs) (section 307(b) and (c)). National
pretreatment standards are established for those pollutants in
wastewater from indirect dischargers which may pass through, interfere
with, or are otherwise incompatible with the operation of POTWs.
Generally, pretreatment standards are designed to ensure that
wastewater from direct and indirect industrial dischargers are subject
to similar levels of treatment. The General Pretreatment Regulations,
which set forth the framework for the implementation of national
pretreatment standards, are found at 40 CFR part 403.
    Direct dischargers must comply with effluent limitations in
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits;
indirect dischargers must comply with pretreatment standards. These
limitations and standards are established by regulation for categories
of industrial dischargers and are based on the degree of control that
can be achieved using various levels of pollution control technology.

B. Overview of 1982 Rule and 1984 Amendment

    EPA promulgated effluent limitations guidelines and pretreatment
standards for the Iron and Steel Point Source Category on May 27, 1982
(47 FR 23258), at 40 CFR part 420, and amended these regulations on May
17, 1984 (49 FR 21024). These actions established limitations and
standards for three types of steel-making operations: Cokemaking, hot-
end and finishing operations. Regulations at subpart A of part 420
cover cokemaking operations. Regulations at subpart B (sintering),
subpart C (ironmaking), subpart D (steelmaking), subpart E (vacuum
degassing), subpart F (continuous casting) and subpart G (hot forming)
cover hot-end operations. Subpart H (salt bath descaling), subpart I
(acid pickling), subpart J (cold forming), subpart K (alkaline
cleaning) and subpart L (hot coating) cover finishing operations.
    The 1984 amendment (49 FR 21028; May 17, 1984) also included a
provision that would allow existing direct dischargers to qualify for
``alternative effluent limitations'' for a particular pollutant that
was different from the otherwise applicable effluent limitation. These
``alternative'' limitations represented a mass limitation that would
apply to a combination of outfalls. Thus, a facility with more than one
outfall would be subject to a combined mass limitation for the grouped
outfalls rather than subject to mass limitations for each individual
outfall. This provision allowed for in-plant trading under a ``water
bubble.'' The effect of this provision was to allow a facility to
exceed the otherwise applicable effluent mass limitation for a
particular outfall within a group of outfalls so long as the facility
did not exceed the allowed mass limitations for the grouped outfalls.
The provision prohibited establishing alternative effluent limitations
for cokemaking (subpart A) and cold forming (subpart J) process
wastewaters. See 40 CFR 420.03(b) (2001 ed.). The water bubble is a
regulatory flexibility mechanism that allows trading of identical
pollutants at any existing, direct discharging steel facility with
multiple compliance points.

C. The Water Bubble Provisions in the 2002 Rule

    On October 17, 2002, EPA promulgated amendments to the iron and
steel regulations (67 FR 64216). In that action, EPA revised effluent
limitations guidelines and standards for subpart A (cokemaking),
subpart B

(sintering), subpart C (ironmaking), and subpart D (steelmaking), and
promulgated new effluent limitations guidelines and standards for a new
subpart, subpart M (other operations), that is also considered a hot-
end operation. Subparts E through L remained unchanged.
    At that time, EPA also amended the scope of Sec.  420.03--the water
bubble provision--to allow establishment of alternative mass
limitations for facilities subject to new source standards and for cold
rolling operations. At the same time, EPA excluded oil and grease (O&G)
trading under the water bubble. 40 CFR 420.03(c); 67 FR 64261 (October
17, 2002).
    EPA allowed trades involving cold forming operations (subpart J)
because of process changes since promulgation of the 1984 amendments.
The original prohibition of trades involving cold rolling operations
was primarily based on concerns about discharges of naphthalene and
tetrachloroethylene. Since the 1984 amendments, industry use of
chlorinated solvents for equipment cleaning has virtually been
eliminated and the use of naphthalene-based rolling solutions has been
significantly reduced. (67 FR 64254) Consequently, EPA concluded that
trading involving cold rolling operations could be authorized without
adverse consequences to receiving waters.
    Prior to the 2002 revision, described above, part 420 authorized
the establishment of a single mass effluent limitation for O&G for
multiple outfalls. There were three steel mills that had applied for
and received alternative O&G limitations under Sec.  420.03. In the
2002 rule, EPA explained that it had decided not to allow trades of O&G
pollutant discharges among different outfalls because of differences in
the types of oil and grease used among iron and steel operations. See
67 FR 64261, 64254 (October 17, 2002).
    After publication of the 2002 amendment, representatives of steel
mills affected by this change expressed concern about the prohibition
on establishing alternative O&G effluent limitations under the water
bubble and requested that EPA revise Sec.  420.03 to reinstate O&G
trading. The representatives asserted that EPA did not appropriately
account for compliance costs for those facilities possessing permits
with alternative O&G limitations when the Agency decided to prohibit
oil and grease trading. They also asserted that these costs, due to the
loss of the treatment flexibility provided by the water bubble, would
be substantial. In August 2005, having reviewed the information
provided concerning these facilities, EPA proposed to amend the
regulation to restore the regulatory flexibility related to O&G trading
for direct discharges of pollutants. EPA also proposed to correct
typographical errors in the new source performance standards dates for
direct and indirect discharges of pollutants. (70 FR 46459; August 10,
2005)

IV. Public Comment and Responses

    EPA received four comments in response to the August 10, 2005,
proposal. One trade association and one iron and steel company
supported the proposal to reinstate the provision authorizing
alternative oil and grease limitations with the associated
restrictions. One commenter requested guidance on how the proposed
changes would be implemented in the case of indirect dischargers. EPA
notes that the I&S water bubble applies only to the direct discharge of
process wastewater. Finally, one public interest group objected to the
proposal contending that the proposal would allow excessive oil and
grease discharges from single outfalls, as long as the overall permit
limit was maintained. The commenter suggested the possibility that
polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons could accumulate in river sediment
due to oil and grease loadings.
    EPA disagrees that excessive amounts of oil and grease could be
discharged to surface waters of the United States through the use of
the water bubble. The total discharge of oil and grease from a facility
(i.e., total allowable oil and grease from all outfalls at a facility),
as allowed by 40 CFR part 420, would not change because of this
amendment. This amendment would only authorize facilities to discharge
varying amounts of oil and grease from individual outfalls, on the
condition that the total oil and grease discharged from all of the
outfalls of the facility does not exceed that allowed by 40 CFR part
420. In other words, the provision allows a facility to exceed the
otherwise applicable effluent mass limitation for a particular outfall
within a group of outfalls so long as the facility does not exceed the
allowed mass limitations for the grouped outfalls. This provides
facilities more economic flexibility to achieve compliance with limits,
without increasing the amount of pollutants discharged to the
environment. If there are any site-specific issues or water quality
problems at one or more of these outfalls, the permitting authority
could modify the application of the water bubble as needed to address
the specific situation. Furthermore, the amendment retains the trading
restriction on cokemaking operations which tend to be the source of
polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons in the iron and steel industry. (67
FR 64254; October 17, 2002) The cokemaking restriction in the water
bubble (40 CFR 420.03(f)(1)) allows alternative limitations only if
they are more stringent than the (oil and grease) limitations in the
cokemaking subcategory. In this case, use of the water bubble could
decrease the amount of polynuclear aromatics discharged to the surface
waters of the United States.
    After analysis and review of comments received on the proposed
amendment, EPA has determined that it should adopt the proposed
modifications to the current regulation.

V. Amendment To Restore Oil and Grease to the Water Bubble

    Today, EPA is amending Sec.  420.03 to reinstate O&G as a pollutant
parameter for which alternative effluent limitations may be established
with one exception. The amendment prohibits sintering process O&G
trades unless one condition is met. When establishing alternative O&G
mass limitations for combined outfalls that include outfalls with
sintering process wastewater, the allocation for sintering process
wastewater must be at least as stringent as otherwise required by
subpart B. This restriction addresses the Agency's concern about the
possibility of net increases in discharges of furans and dioxins.
Sinter lines may receive wastes from all over the facility, from other
facilities owned by the same company, and, in some cases, from other
companies. Therefore, the sintering process O&G constituents are
unpredictable and may contain solvents, a likely source material for
furan and dioxin formation.
    EPA anticipates no additional compliance costs for the three steel
mills that have applied for and received alterative O&G limitations for
multiple outfalls in the past. EPA anticipates that today's amendment
presents opportunities for other facilities (through existing plant
configurations or future expansions) to utilize the cost saving,
regulatory flexibility provided by the provisions for establishing
alternative O&G limitations under the water bubble.

VI. Corrections and Edits to 40 CFR Part 420

    EPA is correcting typographical errors contained in the October 17,
2002, final rule (67 FR 64216). The Code of Federal Regulations (2004
ed.) contains an error for the new source performance standards dates
at Sec. Sec.  420.14(a)(1), 420.16(a)(1), 420.24(a), and 420.26(a)(1).
As published, the dates used to

determine whether a facility must comply with new source requirements
do not make sense, because the ``beginning date'' was later than the
``ending date.'' The first sentence in each of these citations is
amended to read as follows: ``Any new source subject to the provisions
of this section that commenced discharging after November 18, 1992 and
before November 18, 2002, must continue to achieve the standards
specified in Sec.  420.14 of title 40 of the Code of Federal
Regulations, revised as of July 1, 2001 * * *'' The November 18, 1992
date was incorrectly published as November 19, 2012.
    In addition, the ``Authority'' citation is revised to conform to
current guidance from the Office of the Federal Register.

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review

    Under Executive Order 12866 [58 FR 51735, (October 4, 1993)], the
Agency must determine whether a regulatory action is ``significant''
and therefore subject to Office of Management and Budget (OMB) review
and the requirements of the Executive Order. The Order defines
``significant regulatory action'' as one that is likely to result in a
rule that may:
    (1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or
adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public
health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or
communities;
    (2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an
action taken or planned by another agency;
    (3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants,
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients
thereof; or
    (4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in
the Executive Order.
    Pursuant to the terms of Executive Order 12866, it has been
determined that this rule is not a ``significant regulatory action''
and is therefore not subject to OMB review.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This action would not impose an information collection burden under
the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.
The amendment would re-instate O&G as a pollutant parameter for which
alternative effluent limitations and standards under the ``water
bubble'' provision of the rule may be available and would correct a
date for new source performance standards that was incorrectly
transcribed from the version signed by the Administrator. Consequently,
today's rule does not establish any new information collection burden
on the regulated community.
    Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources
expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or
provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time
needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize
technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and
verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and
disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to
comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements;
train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information;
search data sources; complete and review the collection of information;
and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
    An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's
regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as amended by the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), 5 U.S.C.
601 et seq., generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory
flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment
rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any
other statute unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Small entities include small businesses, small organizations, and small
governmental jurisdictions.
    For purposes of assessing the impacts of today's rule on small
entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business based on
full time employees (FTEs) or annual revenues established by the Small
Business Administration; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is
a government of a city, county, town, school district or special
district with a population less than 50,000; and (3) a small
organization that is any not-for-profit enterprise which is
independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.
    After considering the economic impacts of today's rule on small
entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. In
determining whether a rule has a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities, the impact of concern is any
significant adverse economic impact on small entities, since the
primary purpose of the regulatory flexibility analyses is to identify
and address regulatory alternatives ``which minimize any significant
economic impact of the rule on small entities.'' 5 U.S.C. 603 and 604.
Thus, an agency may certify that a rule will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities if the rule
relieves regulatory burden, or otherwise has a positive economic effect
on all of the small entities subject to the rule.
    The amendment would re-instate O&G as a pollutant parameter for
which alternative effluent limitations and standards may be
established. These changes may reduce the economic impacts of the
regulation on those entities, including small entities that have
already elected or may elect to use the trading provisions of the water
bubble for alternative O&G effluent limitations. The change in the
compliance date for new source performance standards would result in no
economic burden. The change would only correct a date for new source
performance standards that was incorrectly transcribed from the version
signed by the Administrator. EPA has therefore concluded that the rule
will relieve regulatory burden for all affected small entities.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public
Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal
governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA
generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit
analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``Federal mandates'' that
may result in expenditures to State, local, and tribal governments, in
the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any
one year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement
is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to identify
and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt
the least costly, most cost-

effective, or least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives
of the rule. The provisions of section 205 do not apply when they are
inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover, section 205 allows EPA to
adopt an alternative other than the least costly, most cost-effective,
or least burdensome alternative if the Administrator publishes with the
final rule an explanation why that alternative was not adopted. Before
EPA establishes any regulatory requirements that may significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, including tribal governments, it
must have developed, under section 203 of the UMRA, a small government
agency plan. The plan must provide for notifying potentially affected
small governments, enabling officials of affected small governments to
have meaningful and timely input in the development of EPA regulatory
proposals with significant Federal intergovernmental mandates, and
informing, educating, and advising small governments on compliance with
the regulatory requirements.
    EPA has determined that this rule does not contain a Federal
mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more for
State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the private
sector in any one year. The amendment would re-instate O&G as a
pollutant parameter for which alternative effluent limitations and
standards may be established and would correct a date for new source
performance standards that was incorrectly transcribed from the version
signed by the Administrator. EPA has determined that this final rule
will result in no additional costs. Thus, today's rule is not subject
to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA.
    For the same reason, EPA has determined that this rule contains no
regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect
small governments. The rule would not uniquely affect small governments
because small and large governments are affected in the same way. Thus,
today's rule is not subject to the requirements of section 203 of the
UMRA.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August
10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure
``meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.''
``Policies that have federalism implications'' is defined in the
Executive Order to include regulations that have ``substantial direct
effects 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.''
    This rule does not have federalism implications. It will not have
substantial direct effects 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, as
specified in Executive Order 13132. The amendment would re-instate O&G
as a pollutant parameter for which alternative effluent limitations and
standards may be established and would correct a date for new source
performance standards that was incorrectly transcribed from the version
signed by the Administrator. EPA has determined that there are no iron
and steel facilities owned and/or operated by State or local
governments that would be subject to today's rule. Further, the rule
would only incidentally affect State and local governments in their
capacity as implementers of CWA NPDES permitting programs and approved
pretreatment programs. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to
this rule.

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments

    Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination
with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful
and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory
policies that have tribal implications.''
    This rule does not have tribal implications. It will not have
substantial direct effects on tribal governments, on the relationship
between the Federal government and Indian tribes or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities between the Federal government and Indian
tribes, as specified in Executive Order 13175. The amendment would re-
instate O&G as a pollutant parameter for which alternative effluent
limitations and standards may be established and would correct a date
for new source performance standards that was incorrectly transcribed
from the version signed by the Administrator. EPA has not identified
any iron and steel facilities covered by today's rule that are owned
and/or operated by Indian tribal governments. Thus, Executive Order
13175 does not apply to this rule.

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks

    Executive Order 13045: ``Protection of Children from Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies
to any rule that: (1) Is determined to be ``economically significant''
as defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an
environmental health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may
have a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action
meets both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health
or safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the
planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and
reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency.
    This rule is not subject to E.O. 13045 because it is not
economically significant as defined under Executive Order 12866.
Further, this regulation does not concern an environmental health or
safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a disproportionate
effect on children.

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use

    This regulation is not subject to Executive Order 13211, ``Actions
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not a
significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (``NTTAA''), Public Law 104-113, section 12(d), (15 U.S.C.
272 note), directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its
regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with
applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards
are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods,
sampling procedures, business practices) that are developed or adopted
by voluntary consensus standards bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to
provide Congress, through the Office of Management and Budget (OMB),
explanations when the Agency decides not to use available and
applicable voluntary consensus standards.
    This action does not involve technical standards. Therefore, EPA
did not consider the use of any new voluntary consensus standards.

J. Congressional Review Act

    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 rule 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). This rule will be effective on January 12, 2006.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 420

    Environmental protection, Iron, Steel, Waste treatment and
disposal, Water pollution control.

    Dated: December 7, 2005.
Stephen L. Johnson,
Administrator.

0
For reasons set out in the preamble, title 40, chapter I of the Code of
Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

PART 420--IRON AND STEEL MANUFACTURING POINT SOURCE CATEGORY

0
1. The authority citation for part 420 is revised to read as follows:

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1311, 1314, 1316, 1317, 1318, 1342, and
1361.

0
2. Section 420.03 is amended by removing and reserving paragraph (c),
by removing the ``; and'' at the end of paragraph (f)(1) and adding a
period in its place, and by adding paragraph (f)(3) to read as follows:

Sec.  420.03  Alternative effluent limitations representing the degree
of effluent reduction attainable by the application of best practicable
control technology currently available, best available technology
economically achievable, best available demonstrated control
technology, and best conventional pollutant control technology (the
``water bubble'').

* * * * *
    (f) * * *
    (3) There shall be no alternate effluent limitations for O&G in
sintering process wastewater unless the alternative limitations are
more stringent than the otherwise applicable limitations in subpart B
of this part.

Sec.  420.14  [Amended]

0
3. Section 420.14 is amended in paragraph (a)(1) by removing the date
``November 19, 2012'' and replacing it with the date ``November 18,
1992.''

Sec.  420.16  [Amended]

0
4. Section 420.16 is amended in paragraph (a)(1) by removing the date
``November 19, 2012'' and replacing it with the date ``November 18,
1992.''

Sec.  420.24  [Amended]

0
5. Section 420.24 is amended in paragraph (a) by removing the date
``November 19, 2012'' and replacing it with the date ``November 18,
1992.''

Sec.  420.26  [Amended]

0
6. Section 420.26 is amended in paragraph (a)(1) by removing the date
``November 19, 2012'' and replacing it with the date ``November 18,
1992.''

[FR Doc. 05-23973 Filed 12-12-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P