[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 189 (Tuesday, September 29, 2020)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 60900-60904]
[FR Doc No: 2020-21411]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2020-0206; Product Identifier 2019-NM-202-AD; Amendment
39-21220; AD 2020-17-15]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; MHI RJ Aviation ULC (Type Certificate
Previously Held by Bombardier, Inc.) Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all
MHI RJ Aviation ULC Model CL-600-2B19 (Regional Jet Series 100 & 440),
CL-600-2C10 (Regional Jet Series 700, 701 & 702), CL-600-2C11 (Regional
Jet Series 550), CL-600-2D15 (Regional Jet Series 705), CL-600-2D24
(Regional Jet Series 900), and CL-600-2E25 (Regional Jet Series 1000)
airplanes. This AD was prompted by a determination that certain
airplanes have outdated magnetic variation (MV) tables inside
navigation systems. This AD requires revising the existing airplane
flight manual (AFM) to update the Flight Management System (FMS),
Inertial Reference System (IRS), and Attitude and Heading Reference
System (AHRS) limitations. The FAA is issuing this AD to address the
unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: This AD is effective November 3, 2020.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of November 3,
2020.

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this final rule,
contact MHI RJ Aviation ULC, 12655 Henri-Fabre Blvd., Mirabel,
Qu[eacute]bec J7N 1E1 Canada; Widebody Customer Response Center North
America toll-free telephone +1-844-272-2720 or direct-dial telephone
+1-514-855-8500; fax +1-514-855-8501; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>internet
https://mhirj.com. You may view this service information at the FAA,
Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200 South
216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this
material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. It is also available on the
internet at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating
Docket No. FAA-2020-0206.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2020-
0206; or in person at Docket Operations between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains
this final rule, any comments received, and other information. The
address for Docket Operations is 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: Siddeeq Bacchus, Aerospace Engineer,
Mechanical Systems and Administrative Services Section, FAA, New York
ACO Branch, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the aviation
authority for Canada, has issued Canadian AD CF-2019-40, dated November
1, 2019 (``Canadian AD CF-2019-40'') (also referred to as the Mandatory
Continuing Airworthiness Information, or ``the MCAI''), to correct an
unsafe condition for all MHI RJ Aviation ULC (type certificate
previously held by Bombardier, Inc.) Model CL-600-2B19 (Regional Jet
Series 100 & 440), CL-600-2C10 (Regional Jet Series 700, 701 & 702),
CL-600-2C11 (Regional Jet Series 550), CL-600-2D15 (Regional Jet Series
705), CL-600-2D24 (Regional Jet Series 900), and CL-600-2E25 (Regional
Jet Series 1000) airplanes. You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket
on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and
locating Docket No. FAA-2020-0206.
    The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14
CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to all MHI RJ Aviation ULC
Model CL-600-2B19 (Regional Jet Series 100 & 440), CL-600-2C10
(Regional Jet Series 700, 701 & 702), CL-600-2C11 (Regional Jet Series
550), CL-600-2D15 (Regional Jet Series 705), CL-600-2D24 (Regional Jet
Series 900), and CL-600-2E25 (Regional Jet Series 1000) airplanes. The
NPRM published in the Federal Register on March 26, 2020 (85 FR 17036).
The NPRM was prompted by a determination that certain airplanes have
outdated MV tables inside navigation systems. The NPRM proposed to
require revising the existing AFM to update the FMS, IRS, and AHRS
limitations. The FAA is issuing this AD to address outdated MV tables
inside navigation systems, which can affect the performance of the
navigation systems and result in the presentation of misleading
magnetic heading references on the Primary Flight Displays (PFDs) and
Multi-Function Displays (MFDs), positioning the airplane outside of the
terrain and obstacle protection provided by instrument flight
procedures and flight route designs (e.g., outdated MV tables can lead
to significantly inaccurate heading, course, and bearing calculations).
See the MCAI for additional background information.

Comments

    The FAA gave the public the opportunity to participate in
developing this final rule. The following presents the comments
received on the NPRM and the FAA's response to each comment.

Support for the NPRM

    The Airline Pilots Association, International stated its support
for the NPRM.

Request To Refer to the Latest Service Information

    Bombardier requested that the FAA refer to the latest service
information in the NPRM. Bombardier noted that the proposed rule does
not refer to the latest AFM revisions, but acknowledged that the
proposed rule does refer to the AFM revisions that introduced changes
to the MV tables in the limitations sections of the AFMs. Bombardier
listed the current AFM revisions as of the time the comment was
submitted.
    The FAA does not agree. This AD does not directly mandate
incorporating a specific revision level of the corresponding AFMs, but
does require incorporating the information provided in the referenced
AFM revisions in paragraph (g) of this AD. The language in paragraph
(g) of this AD is designed to allow the incorporation of this
information to be accomplished independent of the revision level of the
AFM, under the condition that the incorporated information is identical
to the information that is provided in the referenced AFM revisions
specific in paragraph (g) of this AD. The FAA notes that when this
comment was submitted, the information provided by the revisions of the
AFMs listed by the commenter was identical to the information provided
in the referenced AFM revisions in paragraph (g) of this AD. The FAA
has not changed the AD in this regard.

Conclusion

    The FAA reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments
received, and determined that air safety and the public interest
require adopting this final rule as proposed, except for minor
editorial changes. The FAA has determined that these minor changes:
     Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the
NPRM for addressing the unsafe condition; and
     Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was
already proposed in the NPRM.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    Bombardier has issued the following service information, which
describes procedures for updating, among other systems, the FMS, IRS,
and AHRS. These documents are distinct since they apply to different
airplane models.
     Section 02-09--Navigation System Limitations, of Chapter
2--LIMITATIONS, of the Bombardier CRJ Series Regional Jet Model CL-600-
2B19 Airplane Flight Manual, CSP A-012, Volume 1, Revision 71A, dated
April 26, 2019.
     Section 02-09--Navigation System Limitations, of Chapter
2--LIMITATIONS, of the Bombardier CRJ Series Regional Jet Model CL-600-
2C10 (Series 700, 701, 702) Airplane Flight Manual, CSP B-012, Revision
26, dated March 1, 2019.
     Section 02-09--Navigation System Limitations, of Chapter
2--LIMITATIONS, of the Bombardier CRJ Series Regional Jet Model CL-600-
2C10 (Series 700, 701, 702) and CL-600-2C11 (Series 550) Airplane
Flight Manual, CSP B-012, Revision 28, dated September 18, 2019.
     Section 02-09--Navigation System Limitations, of Chapter
2--LIMITATIONS, of the Bombardier CRJ Series Regional Jet Model CL-600-
2D24 (Series 900) and CL-600-2D15 (Series 705) Airplane Flight Manual,
CSP C-012, Volume 1, Revision 21, dated March 29, 2019.
     Section 02-09--Navigation System Limitations, of Chapter
2--LIMITATIONS, of the Bombardier CRJ Series Regional Jet Model CL-600-
2E25 (Series 1000) Airplane Flight Manual, CSP D-012, Revision 21,
dated February 15, 2019.
    This service information is reasonably available because the
interested parties have access to it through their normal course of
business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this AD affects 1,072 airplanes of U.S.
registry.

The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:

                                      Estimated Costs for Required Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per       Cost on U.S.
                          Labor cost                              Parts cost        product         operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 work-hour x $85 per hour = $85.............................              $0              $85          $91,120
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.
    The FAA is 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) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
    (3) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

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):

2020-17-15 MHI RJ Aviation ULC (Type Certificate Previously Held by
Bombardier, Inc.): Amendment 39-21220; Docket No. FAA-2020-0206;
Product Identifier 2019-NM-202-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective November 3, 2020.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to MHI RJ Aviation ULC (type certificate
previously held by Bombardier, Inc.) Model CL-600-2B19 (Regional Jet
Series 100 & 440), CL-600-2C10 (Regional Jet Series 700, 701 & 702),
CL-600-2C11 (Regional Jet Series 550), CL-600-2D15 (Regional Jet
Series 705), CL-600-2D24 (Regional Jet Series 900), and CL-600-2E25
(Regional Jet Series 1000) airplanes, certificated in any category,
all serial numbers.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 34, Navigation.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by a determination that certain airplanes
have outdated magnetic variation (MV) tables inside navigation
systems. The FAA is issuing this AD to address outdated MV tables
inside navigation systems, which can affect the performance of the
navigation systems and result in the presentation of misleading
magnetic heading references on the Primary Flight Displays (PFDs)
and Multi-Function Displays (MFDs), positioning the airplane outside
of the terrain and obstacle protection provided by instrument flight
procedures and flight route designs (e.g., outdated MV tables can
lead to significantly inaccurate heading, course, and bearing
calculations).

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Airplane Flight Manual (AFM) Revision

    Within 30 days after the effective date of this AD, revise the
existing AFM to incorporate the information specified in Section 02-
09--Navigation System Limitations, of Chapter 2--LIMITATIONS, of the
applicable Bombardier CRJ Series Regional Jet AFM specified in
figure 1 to paragraph (g) of this AD.

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR29SE20.032

(h) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, New
York ACO Branch, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this
AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In
accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal
inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate.
If sending information directly to the manager of the certification
office, send it to ATTN: Program Manager, Continuing Operational
Safety, FAA, New York ACO Branch, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410,
Westbury, NY 11590; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>. 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.
    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD
to obtain instructions from a manufacturer, the instructions must be
accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, New York ACO
Branch, FAA; or Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA); or MHI RJ
Aviation ULC's TCCA Design Approval Organization (DAO). If approved
by the DAO, the approval must include the DAO-authorized signature.

(i) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information
(MCAI) Canadian AD CF-2019-40, dated November 1, 2019, for related
information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the internet
at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket
No. FAA-2020-0206.
    (2) For more information about this AD, contact Siddeeq Bacchus,
Aerospace Engineer, Mechanical Systems and Administrative Services
Section, FAA, New York ACO Branch, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410,
Westbury, NY 11590; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
(j) 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 this AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) Section 02-09--Navigation System Limitations, of Chapter 2--
LIMITATIONS, of the Bombardier CRJ Series Regional Jet Model CL-600-
2B19 Airplane Flight Manual, CSP A-012, Volume 1, Revision 71A,
dated April 26, 2019.
    (ii) Section 02-09--Navigation System Limitations, of Chapter
2--LIMITATIONS, of the Bombardier CRJ Series Regional Jet Model CL-
600-2C10 (Series 700, 701, 702) Airplane Flight Manual, CSP B-012,
Revision 26, dated March 1, 2019.

    Note 1 to paragraph (j)(2)(ii):  Page 02-09-1 of this document
is identified as Revision 22, dated September 15, 2017.

    (iii) Section 02-09--Navigation System Limitations, of Chapter
2--LIMITATIONS, of the Bombardier CRJ Series Regional Jet Model CL-
600-2C10 (Series 700, 701, 702) and CL-600-2C11 (Series 550)
Airplane Flight Manual, CSP B-012, Revision 28, dated September 18,
2019.

    Note 2 to paragraph (j)(2)(iii):  Page 02-09-1 of this document
is identified as Revision 22, dated September 15, 2017.

    (iv) Section 02-09--Navigation System Limitations, of Chapter
2--LIMITATIONS, of the Bombardier CRJ Series Regional Jet Model CL-
600-2D24 (Series 900) and CL-600-2D15 (Series 705) Airplane Flight
Manual, CSP C-012, Volume 1, Revision 21, dated March 29, 2019.

    Note 3 to paragraph (j)(2)(iv):  Page 02-09-1 of this document
is identified as Revision 17, dated October 13, 2017.

    (v) Section 02-09--Navigation System Limitations, of Chapter 2--
LIMITATIONS, of the Bombardier CRJ Series Regional Jet Model CL-600-
2E25 (Series 1000) Airplane Flight Manual, CSP D-012, Revision 21,
dated February 15, 2019.

    Note 4 to paragraph (j)(2)(v):  Page 02-09-1 of this document is
identified as Revision 17, dated June 16, 2017.

    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact MHI
RJ Aviation ULC, 12655 Henri-Fabre Blvd., Mirabel, Qu[eacute]bec J7N
1E1 Canada; Widebody Customer Response Center North America toll-
free telephone +1-844-272-2720 or direct-dial telephone +1-514-855-
8500; fax +1-514-855-8501; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>internet https://mhirj.com.
    (4) You may view this service information at the FAA,
Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200
South 216th St., Des Moines, 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, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or go to: https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued on August 14, 2020.
Lance T. Gant,
Director, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2020-21411 Filed 9-28-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 168 (Thursday, September 2, 2021)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 49278-49283]
[FR Doc No: 2021-18844]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R10-OAR-2020-0648; FRL-8787-01-R10]

Air Plan Approval; AK; Eagle River Second 10-Year PM10 Limited
Maintenance Plan

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve the Eagle River, Alaska (AK) limited maintenance plan (LMP)
submitted on November 10, 2020, by the Alaska Department of
Environmental Conservation (ADEC or ``the State''). This plan addresses
the second 10-year maintenance period after redesignation for
particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to a
nominal 10 micrometers (PM10). An LMP is used to meet Clean
Air Act (CAA) requirements for formerly designated nonattainment areas
that meet certain qualification criteria. The EPA is proposing to
determine that Alaska's submittal meets the CAA requirements. The plan
relies upon control measures contained in the first 10-year maintenance
plan and the determination that the Eagle River area currently monitors
PM10 levels well below the PM10 National Ambient
Air Quality Standards (NAAQS or ``the standard'').

DATES: Comments must be received on or before October 4, 2021.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R10-
OAR-2020-0648, at https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot
be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. The 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. The 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.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Christi Duboiski, EPA Region 10, 1200
Sixth Avenue--Suite 155, Seattle, WA 98101, at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, wherever ``we'',
``us'' or ``our'' is used, it means the EPA.

Table of Contents

I. Background
II. Limited Maintenance Plan Option for PM10 Areas
    A. Requirements for the Limited Maintenance Plan Option
    B. Conformity Under the Limited Maintenance Plan Option
III. Review of the State's Submittal
    A. Qualifying for the Limited Maintenance Plan Option
    B. Attainment Inventory
    C. Air Quality Monitoring Network
    D. Verification of Continued Attainment
    E. Contingency Provisions
IV. Proposed Action
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background

    On August 7, 1987, the EPA designated the Community of Eagle River
(Eagle River) as a PM10 nonattainment area (NAA) due to
measured violations of the 24-hour PM10 NAAQS (52 FR 29383).
The notice announcing the designation upon enactment of the 1990 CAA
Amendments was published on March 15, 1991 (56 FR 11101). On November
6, 1991, the Eagle River NAA was subsequently classified as moderate
under sections 107(d)(4)(B) and 188(a) of the CAA (56 FR 56694). After
Eagle River was designated nonattainment for PM10, ADEC and
the Municipality of Anchorage (MOA) worked with Eagle River to develop
a plan to bring the area into attainment no later than December 31,
1994. The State submitted the plan to the EPA on October 15, 1991, as a
moderate PM10 State Implementation Plan (SIP) under section
189(a) of the CAA. The primary control measure that the plan relied on
was a comprehensive road paving program throughout the Eagle River NAA.
The EPA took final action to approve the State's moderate
PM10 SIP on August 13, 1993 (58 FR 43084).
    On September 29, 2010, the State requested that the EPA redesignate
the Eagle River NAA to attainment for PM10 and submitted the
Eagle River first 10-year PM10 LMP to the EPA for approval.
On October 19, 2010, the EPA determined that the Eagle River NAA had
attained the PM10 NAAQS by the applicable attainment date of
December 31, 1994 (75 FR 64162). On January 7, 2013, the EPA took
direct final action to approve the first 10-year LMP submitted by the
State for the Eagle River NAA and concurrently redesignated the area to
attainment for the PM10 NAAQS (78 FR 900).

II. Limited Maintenance Plan Option for PM10 Areas

A. Requirements for the Limited Maintenance Plan Option

    Section 175A of the CAA sets forth the elements of a maintenance
plan. Under section 175A, a state must submit a plan to demonstrate
continued attainment of the applicable NAAQS for at least 10 years
after an area is redesignated to attainment. Eight years into the first
maintenance period, the state must submit a second maintenance plan
demonstrating that the area will continue to attain for the following
10-year period. On September 4, 1992, the EPA issued guidance on the
content of a maintenance plan (Memorandum from John Calcagni, Director,
Air Quality Management Division, entitled ``Procedures for Processing
Requests to Redesignate Areas to Attainment,'' (Calcagni Memo)).\1\ The
Calcagni Memo states that a maintenance plan should include the
following provisions: (1) An attainment emissions inventory; (2) a
maintenance demonstration showing maintenance for 10 years; (3) a
commitment to maintain the existing monitoring network; (4)
verification of continued attainment; and (5) a contingency plan to
prevent or correct future violations of the NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The Memorandum from the EPA's Air Quality Management
Division Director to EPA Regional Air Directors entitled
``Procedures for Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to
Attainment,'' dated September 4, 1992 (Calcagni Memo) can be found
at https://www3.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/aqmguide/collection/cp2/19920904_calcagni_process_redesignation_guidance.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On August 9, 2001, the EPA issued guidance on streamlined
maintenance plan provisions for certain moderate PM10
nonattainment areas (see Memo from Lydia Wegman, Director, Air Quality
Standards and Strategies Division, entitled ``Limited Maintenance Plan
Option for Moderate PM10 Nonattainment Areas'' (LMP Option
Memo).\2\ The LMP Option memo contains a statistical demonstration
states can use to show that areas are meeting certain air quality
criteria with a high degree of probability, and therefore will maintain
the standard 10 years into the future. By providing this statistical
demonstration, the EPA can consider the maintenance demonstration
requirement of the CAA to be satisfied for the moderate PM10
nonattainment area meeting this air quality criteria. If the tests
described in section IV of the LMP Option memo are met, the EPA will
treat that as a demonstration that the area will maintain the NAAQS.
Consequently, it follows that future year emission inventories for
these areas, and some of the standard analyses to determine
transportation conformity with the SIP, are no longer necessary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The ``Limited Maintenance Plan Option for Moderate
PM10 Nonattainment Areas'' Memo outlines the criteria for
development of a PM10 limited maintenance plan and can be
found at https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-06/documents/2001lmp-pm10.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To qualify for the LMP option, a State must demonstrate that the
area meets the following criteria. First, the area should have attained
the PM10 NAAQS. Second, the most recent five years of air
quality data at all monitors in the area, called the 24-hour average
design value, should be at or below 98 micrograms per cubic meter
([micro]g/m\3\). Third, the State should expect only limited growth in
on-road motor vehicle PM10 emissions and should have passed
a motor vehicle regional emissions analysis test. Lastly, the LMP
Option Memo identifies core provisions that must be included in all
limited maintenance plans. These provisions include an attainment year
emissions inventory, assurance of continued operation of an EPA-

approved air quality monitoring network, and contingency provisions.

B. Conformity Under the Limited Maintenance Plan Option

    The transportation conformity rule and the general conformity rule
(set forth in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) at 40 CFR parts 51
and 93) apply to nonattainment areas and maintenance areas covered by
an approved maintenance plan. Under either conformity rule, an
acceptable method of demonstrating that a Federal action conforms to
the applicable SIP is to demonstrate that expected emissions from the
planned action are consistent with the emissions budget for the area.
    While the EPA's LMP option does not exempt an area from the need to
affirm conformity, it explains that the area may demonstrate conformity
without conforming to an emissions budget. Under the LMP option,
emissions budgets are treated as essentially not constraining for the
length of the maintenance period because it is unreasonable to expect
that the qualifying areas would experience so much growth in that
period that a violation of the PM10 NAAQS would result. For
transportation conformity purposes, the EPA would conclude that
emissions in these areas need not be capped for the maintenance period
and therefore a regional emissions analysis would not be required.
Similarly, Federal actions subject to the general conformity rule could
be considered to satisfy the ``budget test'' specified in 40 CFR
93.158(a)(5)(i)(A) for the same reasons that the budgets are
essentially considered to be unlimited.
    While areas with maintenance plans approved under the LMP option
are not subject to the budget test (see 40 CFR 93.109(e)), the areas
remain subject to the other transportation conformity requirements of
40 CFR part 93, subpart A. Thus, the metropolitan planning organization
(MPO) in the area or the state must document and ensure that:
    a. Transportation plans and projects provide for timely
implementation of SIP transportation control measures (TCMs) in
accordance with 40 CFR 93.113;
    b. transportation plans and projects comply with the fiscal
constraint element as set forth in 40 CFR 93.108;
    c. the MPO's interagency consultation procedures meet the
applicable requirements of 40 CFR 93.105;
    d. conformity of transportation plans is determined no less
frequently than every four years, and conformity of plan amendments and
transportation projects is demonstrated in accordance with the timing
requirements specified in 40 CFR 93.104;
    e. the latest planning assumptions and emissions model are used as
set forth in 40 CFR 93.110 and 40 CFR 93.111;
    f. projects do not cause or contribute to any new localized carbon
monoxide or particulate matter violations, in accordance with
procedures specified in 40 CFR 93.123; and
    g. project sponsors and/or operators provide written commitments as
specified in 40 CFR 93.125.
    If the EPA approves the second 10-year LMP, the Eagle River
maintenance area will continue to be exempt from performing a regional
emissions analysis but must meet project-level conformity analyses as
well as the transportation conformity criteria described above.

III. Review of the State's Submittal

A. Qualifying for the Limited Maintenance Plan Option

    As discussed in Section II.A. of this preamble, the LMP Option Memo
outlines the requirements for an area to qualify for an LMP. First, the
area should be attaining the PM10 NAAQS. The PM10
NAAQS is attained when the expected number of days per calendar year
with a 24-hour average concentration above 150 [micro]g/m\3\ is equal
to or less than one (40 CFR 50.6). The Eagle River area continues to
attain the standard for PM10 despite exceedances of the
standard for the 24-hour average concentration in 2010, 2013 and 2019.
We have evaluated the most recent ambient air quality data for the 24-
hour PM10 NAAQS and determined that the Eagle River area
continues to attain the standard with the number of annual exceedances
equal to 0.4 for the period 2018 through 2020. Table 1 of this preamble
shows the 24-hour maximum PM10 concentrations measured at
the Parkgate monitoring site from 2010-2020, which are consistently
below the NAAQS.

                          Table 1--Parkgate 24-Hour Maximum PM Concentrations 2010-2020
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                2nd highest 24-
                              Year                                 24-hour max   hour [micro]g/   Number of days
                                                                  [micro]g/m\3\       m\3\       exceeding NAAQS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2010...........................................................             207              92                1
2011...........................................................             108              70                0
2012...........................................................              81              77                0
2013...........................................................             174              78                1
2014...........................................................             111             109                0
2015...........................................................              90              70                0
2016...........................................................             110             105                0
2017...........................................................              63              59                0
2018...........................................................              62              61                0
2019...........................................................             168              79                1
2020...........................................................              56              45                0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Second, the 24-hour average design value for the most recent five
years of monitoring data must be at or below the critical design value
of 98 [micro]g/m\3\ for the PM10 NAAQS. The critical design
value is a margin of safety in which an area has a one in ten
probability of exceeding the NAAQS. The 5-year average design value for
Eagle River, based on PM10 monitoring data from 2014 through
2018, is 96 [micro]g/m\3\. In addition, the EPA also calculated the 5-
year average design value for Eagle River based on PM10
monitoring data from 2016 through 2020 and found the most conservative
design value estimate to be 93.4 [mu]g/m\3\, which is below the
critical design value of 98 [micro]g/m\3\. The EPA's attainment and
average design value evaluation used to determine if the area qualifies
for the LMP option is included in the docket for this action. The EPA
reviewed the data and methodology provided by the State and the most
recent 5-year average design value and finds that the Eagle River
area's 5-year average design value is below the critical design value
of 98

[micro]g/m\3\ outlined in the LMP Option Memo. Therefore, the EPA finds
that the Eagle River area meets the design value criteria outlined in
the LMP options memo.
    Third, the area must meet the motor vehicle regional emissions
analysis test described in the LMP Option Memo. The State submitted an
analysis showing that growth in on-road mobile PM10
emissions sources was minimal and would not threaten the assumption of
maintenance that underlies the LMP policy. Using the EPA's methodology,
the State calculated total projected growth in on-road motor vehicle
PM10 emissions through 2033 (the end of the 20-year
maintenance period) for the Eagle River area. This calculation is
derived using Attachment B of the EPA's LMP Option Memo, where the
projected percentage increase in vehicle miles traveled over the next
ten years (VMTpi) is multiplied by the on-road mobile
portion of the attainment year inventory (DVmv), including
re-entrained road dust. This test is met when (VMTpi x
DVmv) plus the design value for the most recent five years
of quality assured data is below the margin of safety (MOS) for the
relevant PM10 standard in [micro]g/m\3\ for a given area.
This MOS value can be 98 [micro]g/m\3\ or a site-specific value
computed from data collected at the site of interest using methods
outlined in Attachment A of the LMP Option Memo. The computed site-
specific MOS selected for the Parkgate monitoring site in Eagle River
is 125.7 [micro]g/m\3\ (the critical design value for all the empirical
data). See the Eagle River LMP, Section III.D.2.5 and associated
appendix, placed in the docket for this action, for details of this
computation. The motor vehicle regional emissions analysis test results
of 109.6 [micro]g/m\3\, when adjusted for growth, are below the
calculated site-specific critical design value, or MOS, of 125.7
[micro]g/m\3\. The EPA has reviewed the calculations in the State's
Eagle River LMP submittal and proposes to find that the area meets the
motor vehicle regional emissions analysis test.
    As described above, the Eagle River PM10 maintenance
area meets the qualification criteria set forth in the LMP Option Memo
and accordingly qualifies for the LMP option. To ensure these
requirements continue to be met, the State commits to evaluate
monitoring data annually to ensure the area continues to qualify for
the LMP option. However, if after performing the annual recalculation
of the area's average design value in a given year, the State
determines that the area no longer qualifies for the LMP, the State
will take action to attempt to reduce PM10 concentrations
enough for the area to requalify for the LMP. One possible approach the
State may take is to implement a contingency measure found in its SIP.
See Section III.D.2.10 of the State's submittal, placed in the docket
for this action, for a description of the contingency measures. If the
attempt to reduce PM10 concentrations fails, or if it
succeeds but in future years it becomes necessary again to address
increasing PM10 concentrations in the area, the area will no
longer qualify for the LMP option.

B. Attainment Inventory

    Pursuant to the LMP Option Memo, the State's submission should
include an emissions inventory, which can be used to demonstrate
attainment of the relevant NAAQS. The inventory should represent
emissions during the same five-year period associated with air quality
data used to determine whether the area meets the applicability
requirements of the LMP option. The State should review its inventory
every three years to ensure emissions growth is incorporated in the
inventory if necessary.
    Alaska's Eagle River PM10 LMP includes an emissions
inventory, with a base year of 2017. In the past, the highest
PM10 concentrations have typically occurred during spring
break-up and fall freeze-up. For this reason, the emissions inventories
reflect conditions and activity levels (e.g., amount of silt loading on
roads and residential wood heating rates) that commonly occur during
these two times of the year. The same assumptions and methods used to
develop the first 10-year LMP were used to develop the 2017 base year
PM10 emissions inventory for the second 10-year LMP and are
described in detail in the Appendix to III.D.2.6 of the Eagle River LMP
submittal in the docket for this action. The 2017 base year represents
the most recent emissions inventory data available, is representative
of the level of emissions during a period of time used to calculate the
area is attaining the NAAQS, and is consistent with the data used to
determine applicability of the LMP option (i.e., having no violations
of the NAAQS during the five-year period used to calculate the design
value).
    Unlike the first 10-year LMP, where five sources of PM10
emissions were identified and inventoried, the second 10-year LMP
inventoried six sources as shown in Table 2 of this preamble. The first
10-year LMP assumed emissions from non-road equipment were zero,
however, the second 10-year LMP calculated these emissions to be less
than 1% of the 2017 emissions inventory. The most significant of the
PM10 emission sources for the Eagle River area are still
paved road dust, windblown dust, and residential wood combustion. Like
the emission inventory prepared for the first 10-year LMP, unpaved
roads emissions are not included in the inventory for the second 10-
year LMP. This is because since 2007, all the unpaved roads in Eagle
River have been paved with either hot asphalt paving or surfaced with
recycled asphalt product.

                     Table 2--2017 Emissions Inventory in Tons/Day and % of Total Emissions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Spring break-up (March,       Fall freeze-up
                        Source category                            April) (tons/day)       (October, November)
                                                                       (percent)           (tons/day) (percent)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paved Roads...................................................              3.71 (56.3)              1.06 (48.6)
Wind-blown Dust from Paved Roads, Parking Lots and Un-                      2.48 (37.6)              0.73 (33.4)
 Vegetated Areas..............................................
Fireplaces and Wood Stoves....................................              0.35 (5.31)              0.35 (16.0)
Natural Gas Combustion........................................             0.009 (0.13)             0.009 (0.41)
Exhaust, Tire and Brake Wear Emissions........................             0.026 (0.39)             0.027 (1.23)
from Motor Vehicles...........................................
Non-Road Equipment Emissions..................................            0.0135 (0.20)            0.0132 (0.60)
                                                               -------------------------------------------------
    Total.....................................................               6.58 (100)               2.18 (100)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In accordance with the LMP Option Memo, all controls relied on to
demonstrate attainment and continued maintenance will remain in place
(e.g., the required paved road improvements for non-rural, residential
properties in the Municipality of Anchorage).\3\ Efforts by the
Municipality of Anchorage (MOA) to pave all streets except those in low
density residential areas was the primary PM10 mitigation
program in Eagle River that lead to significant reduction in
PM10 emissions. By 2007 all 22 miles of local gravel roads
were paved with either traditional hot asphalt paving or surfaced with
recycled asphalt product (RAP). The MOA is committed to continued
maintenance of these roads, and the MOA and the Alaska Department of
Transportation and Public Facilities are committed to maintaining sand
specifications that allow no more than 2% fines or silt allowed in
winter traction sand. ADEC asserts that no additional control measures
are necessary to maintain the NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The control measures are fully implemented and continue to
apply after the SIP commitment was fulfilled. The Anchorage
Municipal Code (AMC) Title 21 was reorganized and recodified, State
effective January 1, 2014. The AMC Title 21section that requires
paved road improvements for non-rural, residential properties in the
MOA can be found in Section 21.08.050.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The submittal meets the EPA guidance for purposes of an attainment
emissions inventory, and the emissions inventory data supports the
State's conclusions that the existing control measures will continue to
protect and maintain the PM10 NAAQS.

C. Air Quality Monitoring Network

    Once an area is redesignated, the state must continue to operate an
appropriate air monitoring network in accordance with 40 CFR part 58 to
verify the attainment status of the area. From 1985 until present,
Alaska has operated a PM10 monitor at the Parkgate Business
Center (Parkgate monitor) in the Eagle River NAA. The Parkgate monitor
was sited and maintained in accordance with Federal siting and design
criteria in 40 CFR part 58, and in consultation with the EPA Region 10.
On June 26, 2020, ADEC submitted the 2020 Annual Monitoring Network
Plan that the EPA approved on January 25, 2021. ADEC's network plan and
the EPA's approval letter are included in the docket for this action.
    The State commits to continued operation of at least one EPA-
approved PM10 monitoring site in the Eagle River maintenance
area through the end of the maintenance planning period, 2033, and will
continue to operate the monitor consistent with the EPA-approved ADEC
annual network plan in order to meet the EPA requirements at 40 CFR
part 58.

D. Verification of Continued Attainment

    The level of the PM10 NAAQS is 150 [micro]g/m\3\, 24-
hour average concentration. The NAAQS is attained when the expected
number of days per calendar year with a 24-hour average concentration
above 150 [micro]g/m\3\ is equal to or less than one (40 CFR 50.6). As
stated in Section III.D. of this preamble, ADEC commits to continue to
operate a regulatory monitoring network in accordance with 40 CFR part
58. In addition, ADEC commits to verifying continued attainment of the
PM10 standard through the maintenance plan period with the
operation of an appropriate PM10 monitoring network. In
developing the second 10-year maintenance plan, ADEC evaluated the most
recent three years of complete, quality-assured data for the Eagle
River NAA (2017 through 2019) to verify continued attainment of the
standard.

E. Contingency Provisions

    The CAA section 175A states that a maintenance plan must include
contingency provisions, as necessary, to ensure prompt correction of
any violation of the NAAQS, which may occur after redesignation of the
area to attainment. As explained in the LMP Option Memo and the
Calcagni Memo, these contingency provisions are an enforceable part of
the federally approved SIP. The maintenance plan should clearly
identify the events that would ``trigger'' the adoption and
implementation of a contingency provision, the contingency provision(s)
that would be adopted and implemented, and the schedule indicating the
time frame by which the State would adopt and implement the
provision(s). The LMP Option Memo and the Calcagni Memo state that the
EPA will determine the adequacy of a contingency plan on a case-by-case
basis. At a minimum, it must require that the state implement all
measures contained in the CAA part D nonattainment plan for the area
prior to redesignation.
    In the Eagle River PM10 LMP, ADEC included maintenance
plan contingency provisions to ensure the area continues to meet the
PM10 NAAQS. The Eagle River LMP describes a process and a
timeline to identify, evaluate and select the appropriate contingency
measure(s) from a list of measures in the event of a quality assured
violation of the PM10 NAAQS. The contingency measures that
may be implemented to reduce emissions are listed in Section III.D.2.10
of the Eagle River LMP in the docket for this action. Within 30 days
following a violation of the PM10 NAAQS, the MOA will
convene an assessment team to evaluate the events contributing to the
violation and identify control measure(s) that appropriately address
the source(s) and circumstances causing the violation. Within 120 days
of the violation, the assessment team will prepare a report that
identifies the cause or causes of the violation and recommend
appropriate measures for mitigating future violations. The report will
be presented to the Anchorage Metropolitan Area Transportation
Solutions Policy Committee for review and adoption and will then be
forwarded to ADEC for approval.
    The EPA proposes to determine that the contingency provisions
submitted in the Eagle River PM10 LMP are adequate to meet
CAA section 175A requirements and the contingency provisions as
outlined in the LMP Option Memo.

IV. Proposed Action

    The EPA is proposing to approve the second 10-year PM10
limited maintenance plan for Eagle River submitted by the State of
Alaska.\4\ The EPA's review of the air quality data for the Eagle River
area indicates that the area continues to show attainment of the
PM10 NAAQS and meets all the LMP requirements as described
in this action. If finalized, the EPA's approval of this LMP will
satisfy the section 175A CAA requirements for the second 10-year period
for the Eagle River PM10 area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ We intend to address the remainder of the November 10, 2020
State of Alaska SIP submission (the Juneau, Mendenhall Valley Second
10-year PM10 LMP, the 2019 Emission Limit Control
Measures, and the 2019 Adoption by Reference Updates and Standard
Permit Conditions) in separate EPA actions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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, the EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
proposed 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 proposed 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 it does not involve technical standards; and
     Does not provide the 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).
    The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or
in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated
that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the
proposed 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).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

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

    Dated: August 25, 2021.
Michelle L. Pirzadeh,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 10.
[FR Doc. 2021-18844 Filed 9-1-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 60 (Friday, March 28, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 17649-17650]
[FR Doc No: 2014-06923]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2013-0123; Notice 1]

Thor Industries, Inc., Receipt of Petition for Decision of
Inconsequential Noncompliance

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Receipt of Petition.

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

SUMMARY: Livin' Lite RV, Inc. (Livin' Lite), a wholly owned subsidiary
of Thor Industries, Inc. (Thor), has determined that certain model year
Livin' Lite RV trailers manufactured between November 7, 2008 and
September 10, 2013, do not fully comply with paragraph S9 of Federal
Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 110, Tire Selection and Rims
and Motor Home/Recreation Vehicle Trailer Load Carrying Capacity
Information for Motor Vehicles with a GVWR of 4,536 kilograms (10,000
pounds) or less and paragraph S10 of FMVSS No. 120, Tire Selection and
Rims and Motor Home/Recreation Vehicle Trailer Load Carrying Capacity
Information for Motor Vehicles with a GVWR of more than 4,536 kilograms
(10,000 pounds). Thor has filed an appropriate report dated November 7,
2013, pursuant to 49 CFR part 573, Defect and Noncompliance
Responsibility and Reports.

DATES: The closing date for comments on the petition is April 28, 2014.

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are invited to submit written data,
views, and arguments on this petition. Comments must refer to the
docket and notice number cited at the beginning of this notice and must
be submitted by any of the following methods:
     Mail: Send comments by mail addressed to: U.S. Department
of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Deliver: Deliver comments by hand to: U.S. Department
of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590. The
Docket Section is open on weekdays from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. except
Federal Holidays.
     Electronically: Submit comments electronically by: Logging
onto the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) Web site at http://www.regulations.gov/. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments. Comments may also be faxed to<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comments must be written in the English language, and be no greater
than 15 pages in length, although there is no limit to the length of
necessary attachments to the comments. If comments are submitted in
hard copy form, please ensure that two copies are provided. If you wish
to receive confirmation that your comments were received, please
enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard with the comments. Note that
all comments received will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided.
    Documents submitted to a docket may be viewed by anyone at the
address and times given above. The documents may also be viewed on the
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by following the online
instructions for accessing the dockets. DOT's complete Privacy Act
Statement is available for review in the Federal Register published on
April 11, 2000, (65 FR 19477-78).
    The petition, supporting materials, and all comments received
before the close of business on the closing date indicated below will
be filed and will be considered. All comments and supporting materials
received after the closing date will also be filed and will be
considered to the extent possible. When the petition is granted or
denied, notice of the decision will be published in the Federal
Register pursuant to the authority indicated below.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    I. Thor's Petition: Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h)
(see implementing rule at 49 CFR part 556), Thor submitted a petition
for an exemption from the notification and remedy requirements of 49
U.S.C. Chapter 301 on the basis that this noncompliance is
inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.
    This notice of receipt of Thor's petition is published under 49
U.S.C. 30118 and 30120 and does not represent any agency decision or
other exercise of judgment concerning the merits of the petition.
    II. RV Trailers Involved: Affected are approximately 3,465 RV
trailers manufactured between November 7, 2008 and September 10, 2013.
The trailer models affected are Livin' Lite model year (MY) 2008-2014
Quicksilver, MY 2009-2014 Camplite, MY 2009-2014 VRV, MY 2009-2014
Bearcat, and MY 2013-2014 Axxess.
    III. Noncompliance: Thor explains that the noncompliance is that of
the absence of the Cargo Carrying Capacity (CCC) label that is required
by paragraph S9 of FMVSS No. 110 and paragraph S10 of FMVSS No. 120 for
all motor homes and RV Trailers.
    IV. Rule Text: Paragraph S9 of FMVSS No. 110 requires in pertinent
part:

    . . . S9.3 Each motor home and RV Trailer single stage or final
stage manufacturer must affix either a motor home occupant and cargo
carrying capacity (OCCC) label (Figure 3) or a RV trailer cargo
carrying capacity (CCC) label (Figure 4) to its vehicles that meets
the following criteria . . .

    Paragraph S10 of FMVSS No. 120 requires in pertinent part:

    . . . S10.4 Each motor home and RV Trailer single stage or final
stage manufacturer must affix either a motor home occupant and cargo
carrying capacity (OCCC) label (Figure 1) or a RV trailer cargo
carrying capacity (CCC) label (Figure 2) to its vehicles that meets
the following criteria . . .

    V. Summary of Thor's Analyses: Thor stated its belief that the
subject noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety for
the following reasons:
    1. The cargo carrying capacity information displayed on the CCC
label is redundant since it is also displayed on the Tire Placard Label
as required by paragraph S4.3 of FMVSS No. 110.
    2. Although the Tire Placard Label is not required on trailers over
10,000 lbs GVWR, Thor placed the Tire Placard Label on all trailers it
produced and is located on the trailer tongue next to the Federal
Certification Label.
    3. The Livin' Lite Owner's manuals (which can be found on
www.livinlite.com) instruct owners on the loading of their vehicle and
where to find the required ratings that are displayed on the Federal
Certification Label.
    4. The Manufacturer's Certificate of Origin (MSO) also contains
both the Gross Vehicle Weight Rating (GVWR) and the unloaded vehicle
weight (UVW). The difference of these two numbers would also give the
owner the available CCC of the trailer.
    5. Thor had received no complaints or inquiries regarding cargo
carrying capacity from any of its owners or dealers.
    6. Thor also stated its belief that NHTSA has previously stated (72
FR 68442-68466, December 4, 2007) that the most important time for RV
purchasers to receive the CCC information is at the point-of-sale.
    Thor has additionally informed NHTSA that it has corrected the
noncompliance so that all future production of these trailers will
fully comply with FMVSS Nos. 110 and 120.
    In summation, Thor believes that the described noncompliance of the
subject trailers is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety, and that
its petition, to exempt from providing recall notification of
noncompliance as required by 49 U.S.C. 30118 and remedying the recall
noncompliance as required by 49 U.S.C. 30120 should be granted.
    NHTSA notes that the statutory provisions (49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and
30120(h)) that permit manufacturers to file petitions for a
determination of inconsequentiality allow NHTSA to exempt manufacturers
only from the duties found in sections 30118 and 30120, respectively,
to notify owners, purchasers, and dealers of a defect or noncompliance
and to remedy the defect or noncompliance. Therefore, any decision on
this petition only applies to the subject noncompliant trailers that
Thor no longer controlled at the time it determined that the
noncompliance existed. However, any decision on this petition does not
relieve trailer distributors and dealers of the prohibitions on the
sale, offer for sale, or introduction or delivery for introduction into
interstate commerce of the noncompliant trailers under their control
after Thor notified them that the subject noncompliance existed.

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

Jeffrey Giuseppe,
Acting Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2014-06923 Filed 3-27-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 222 (Friday, November 16, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 57786]
[FR Doc No: 2018-25019]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release Nos. 33-10573; 34-84574; File No. 265-28]

Investor Advisory Committee Meeting

AGENCY: Securities and Exchange Commission.

ACTION: Notice of meeting of Securities and Exchange Commission Dodd-
Frank Investor Advisory Committee.

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

SUMMARY: The Securities and Exchange Commission Investor Advisory
Committee, established pursuant to Section 911 of the Dodd-Frank Wall
Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010, is providing notice
that it will hold a public meeting. The public is invited to submit
written statements to the Committee.

DATES: The meeting will be held on Thursday, December 13, 2018 from
9:00 a.m. until 3:00 p.m. (ET). Written statements should be received
on or before December 13, 2018.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held in Multi-Purpose Room LL-006 at the
Commission's headquarters, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549. The
meeting will be webcast on the Commission's website at www.sec.gov.
Written statements may be submitted by any of the following methods:

Electronic Statements

    [ssquf] Use the Commission's internet submission form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/other.shtml); or
    [ssquf] Send an email message to [email protected]. Please
include File No. 265-28 on the subject line; or

Paper Statements

    [ssquf] Send paper statements to Brent J. Fields, Secretary,
Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549-1090.
    All submissions should refer to File No. 265-28. This file number
should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help us
process and review your statement more efficiently, please use only one
method.
    Statements also will be available for website viewing and printing
in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Room 1503,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. All statements received will be posted without
change. Persons submitting comments are cautioned that we do not redact
or edit personal identifying information from comment submissions. You
should submit only information that you wish to make available
publicly.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Marc Oorloff Sharma, Chief Counsel,
Office of the Investor Advocate, at<PHONE_NUMBER>, Securities and
Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The meeting will be open to the public,
except during that portion of the meeting reserved for an
administrative work session during lunch. Persons needing special
accommodations to take part because of a disability should notify the
contact person listed in the section above entitled FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT.
    The agenda for the meeting includes: Welcome remarks; a discussion
regarding disclosures on human capital (which may include a
recommendation from the Investor as Owner subcommittee); a discussion
regarding disclosures on sustainability and environmental, social, and
governance (ESG) topics; a discussion regarding unpaid arbitration
awards; subcommittee reports; and a nonpublic administrative work
session during lunch.

    Dated: November 9, 2018.
Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-25019 Filed 11-15-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 99 (Thursday, May 21, 2020)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 30837-30840]
[FR Doc No: 2020-10915]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2019-0204; Project Identifier 2018-CE-042-AD; Amendment
39-21129; AD 2020-11-04]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Learjet Inc. Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for
certain Learjet Inc. Model 60 airplanes. This AD was prompted by a
report of a reverse thrust command accelerating the airplane instead of
decelerating the airplane. The acceleration with reverse thrust
commanded occurred when the thrust reverser doors were in the stowed
position instead of the deployed position. This AD requires installing
a thrust reverser (T/R) Voice Command Warning System (VCWS) to alert
the crew of a T/R malfunction. The FAA is

issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: This AD is effective June 25, 2020.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of June 25,
2020.

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this final rule,
contact Learjet Inc., MS 53, P.O. Box 7707, Wichita, Kansas 67277-7707;
telephone: (toll free) 1-866-538-1247;<PHONE_NUMBER>; internet:
https://my.businessaircraft.bombardier.com. You may view this service
information at the FAA, Airworthiness Products Section, Operational
Safety Branch, 901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. For information
on the availability of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
It is also available on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by
searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2019-0204.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2019-
0204; or in person at Docket Operations between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains
this final rule, any comments received, and other information. The
address for Docket Operations is Docket Operations, 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: James Galstad, Aerospace Engineer,
Wichita ACO Branch, 1801 Airport Road, Room 100, Wichita, Kansas 67209;
telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or 1a4d737972736e7b375955495a7c7b7b347d756c.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14
CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain serial-numbered
Learjet Inc. Model 60 airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal
Register on May 13, 2019 (84 FR 20823). The NPRM was prompted by a
report of a high-speed rejected takeoff involving a Learjet Model 60
airplane that occurred when all four main landing gear (MLG) tires blew
out during the takeoff roll. The tires blew out due to internal heat
damage consistent with under-inflation, overloading, or a combination
of both. Subsequently, damage from tires caused damage to various
components, including the MLG squat switches, brake hydraulic tubes,
wheel speed sensor wiring, and anti-skid components. In the event of
squat switch wiring failures, thrust reverser operation can be
adversely affected. During the subject accident, forward thrust
occurred when the thrust reverser doors stowed due to the failure, and
at the same time the crew was still commanding reverse thrust. Squat
switch wiring can also be damaged by other external factors, such as
bird strikes or deer strikes.
    The FAA considers this AD to be the third of three related ADs that
collectively address unsafe conditions that might result from damage to
critical components on the landing gear or in the wheel well that
affect the braking, spoiler, and thrust reverser systems. AD 2010-11-
11, Amendment 39-16316 (75 FR 32255, June 8, 2010) was issued to
prevent tire failure, and AD 2013-13-09, Amendment 39-17497 (78 FR
39574, July 2, 2013) was issued to prevent failure of the braking
system or adverse operation of the spoiler and reverse thruster system
due to external damage, particularly from tire failure, which could
result in loss of control of the airplane.
    The NPRM proposed to require installing a T/R VCWS to alert the
crew of a T/R malfunction. The FAA is issuing this AD to mitigate
failure of the engine thrust reverser system. The unsafe condition, if
not addressed, could result in the airplane overrunning the runway or a
runway excursion.

Comments

    The FAA gave the public the opportunity to participate in
developing this final rule. The following presents the comments
received on the NPRM and the FAA's response to each comment.

Support for the NPRM

    The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) and Damian Palaich
expressed support for the NPRM.

Request To Withdraw the NPRM

    Charles Perrigoue requested that the NPRM be withdrawn. The
commenter noted that modern aircraft designs have shifted away from a
multitude of aural alarms and warnings and that most modern business
jets and airline aircraft suppress alarms during critical phases of
flight. The commenter stated there is no nexus between the proposed AD
actions and the precipitating Learjet Model 60 accident, as the pilot
correctly recognized and reacted to the thrust reverser malfunction.
    The FAA disagrees with the commenter's request. The design change
required by paragraph (g) of this AD incorporates a direct aural voice
command for a rapid effective response and design features to minimize
faulty voice commands. The FAA's evaluation concludes that the
installation of the T/R VCWS required by this AD will effectively
mitigate the identified unsafe condition and prevent future scenarios
similar to the September 19, 2008, accident involving a Learjet Model
60 airplane. The T/R VCWS is monitoring the thrust reversers and
providing a voice command, when needed, which will enable a faster
pilot response to decelerate the airplane. The FAA has not changed this
AD in this regard.

Request To Incorporate a Solution That Is Not Reliant on Crew Action

    An anonymous commenter stated the proposed AD does not eliminate
the root cause of the unsafe condition. The commenter further suggested
that relying on pilot response to address a catastrophic hazard is not
always valid. The commenter stated that a design solution is available
that would eliminate the uncontrollable high thrust condition. The
commenter asserted that the FAA's proposed AD contradicts its guidance
in draft advisory circular (AC) AC 25.901-2X. The acceptable design
solution suggested by the commenter is a similar installation on
another aircraft identified in the NTSB investigation report (NTSB/AAR-
10/02) and addressed through AD 2016-13-13, Amendment 18577 (81 FR
44494, July 8, 2016) (``AD 2016-13-13''). The commenter noted that AD
2016-13-13 requires installation of a control system modification that,
following a single failure cause, prevents uncontrolled high failure
thrust from occurring and prevents the engine from accelerating above
idle. The commenter further stated that Draft AC 25.901-2X identified
that assuming a crew response to address a hazard is not proper.
    The FAA infers that the commenter is requesting corrective action
that does not rely on crew action, similar to the modification required
by AD 2016-13-13. The FAA acknowledges that Draft AC 25.901-2X suggests
that relying on pilot response to address a catastrophic hazard is not
always feasible; however, Draft AC 25.901-2X is not current agency
guidance because it has not yet been finalized and issued. In addition,
the FAA has determined that in some cases, including this one, relying
on pilot response to address a hazard is

appropriate. The installation of a T/R VCWS and performance of a
functional test, as required by paragraph (g) of this AD, adequately
addresses the unsafe condition on the affected airplanes. The T/R VCWS
monitors the thrust reversers and provides voice command when needed,
which will enable a faster pilot response to decelerate the airplane.
However, if the FAA obtains and analyzes additional data that indicates
the unsafe condition has not been adequately addressed by this AD, the
FAA will consider further rulemaking. The FAA has not changed this AD
in this regard.

Request To Shorten the Compliance Time

    The NTSB requested that the FAA shorten the proposed compliance
time of 1,200 hours time-in-service or 48 months, because of how much
time has passed since the NTSB's July 17, 2009, safety recommendation
regarding this issue.
    The FAA disagrees with the commenter's request. Based on the FAA's
risk assessment, the FAA has determined that the proposed compliance
time in this AD is adequate to address the unsafe condition. In
developing an appropriate compliance time for this action, the agency
considered the urgency associated with the unsafe condition and the
practical aspects of accomplishing the required modification within a
period of time that corresponds to the normal scheduled maintenance for
most affected owners/operators. The FAA has not changed this AD in this
regard.

Conclusion

    The FAA reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments
received, and determined that air safety and the public interest
require adopting this final rule as proposed except for minor editorial
changes. The FAA has determined that these minor changes:
     Are consistent with what was proposed in the NPRM for
addressing the unsafe condition; and
     Do not add any burden upon the public than was proposed in
the NPRM.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    The FAA reviewed Bombardier Learjet 60 Service Bulletin SB 60-78-9,
dated June 25, 2018. This service information contains procedures for
installing a T/R VCWS to alert the pilot of a T/R malfunction. This
service information is reasonably available because the interested
parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by
the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this AD affects 289 airplanes of U.S.
registry.
    The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per      Cost on U.S.
                Action                         Labor cost           Parts  cost       product        operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Install a T/R VCWS....................  20 work-hours x $85 per          $28,274         $29,974      $8,662,486
                                         hour = $1,700.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    According to the manufacturer, some of the costs of this AD may be
covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on affected
individuals. The FAA does not control warranty coverage for affected
individuals. As a result, the FAA has included all costs in this 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.
    The FAA is 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) Will not affect intrastate aviation in, and
    (3) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

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):

2020-11-04 Learjet Inc.: Amendment 39-21129; Docket No. FAA-2019-
0204; Project Identifier 2018-CE-042-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective June 25, 2020.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Learjet Inc. Model 60 airplanes, serial
numbers 60-001 through 60-430 inclusive, certificated in any
category.

(d) Subject

    Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC)/Air Transport Association
(ATA) of America Code 78, Engine Exhaust.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by a report of a reverse thrust command
accelerating the airplane instead of decelerating the airplane
because the thrust reverser doors were stowed instead of deployed.
The FAA is

issuing this AD to mitigate failure of the engine thrust reverser
system. The unsafe condition, if not addressed, could result in the
airplane overrunning the runway or a runway excursion.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Install a Thrust Reverser Voice Command Warning System

    Within the next 1,200 hours time-in-service or within the next
48 months after June 25, 2020 (the effective date of this AD),
whichever occurs first, install a Thrust Reverser Voice Command
Warning System and perform a functional test in accordance with
sections 3.A. through 3.C. of the Accomplishment Instructions in
Bombardier Learjet 60 Service Bulletin SB 60-78-9, dated June 25,
2018.

(h) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Wichita ACO Branch, FAA, has the authority to
approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found
in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request
to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District
Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the
manager of the certification office, send it to the attention of the
person identified in paragraph (i) of this AD.
    (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.

(i) Related Information

    For more information about this AD, contact James Galstad,
Aerospace Engineer, Wichita ACO Branch, 1801 Airport Road, Room 100,
Wichita, Kansas 67209; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax: (316) 946-
4107; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or bbecd2d8d3d2cfda96f8f4e8fbdddada95dcd4cd.

(j) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference 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 this AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) Bombardier Learjet 60 Service Bulletin SB 60-78-9, dated
June 25, 2018.
    (ii) [Reserved]
    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Learjet Inc., MS 53, P.O. Box 7707, Wichita, Kansas 67277-7707;
telephone: (toll free) 1-866-538-1247;<PHONE_NUMBER>; internet:
https://my.businessaircraft.bombardier.com.
    (4) You may view this service information at the FAA,
Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 901
Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. 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, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or go to: https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued on May 15, 2020.
Lance T. Gant,
 Director, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2020-10915 Filed 5-20-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P