[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 212 (Monday, November 2, 2020)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 69131-69134]
[FR Doc No: 2020-23977]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2020-0618; Product Identifier 2019-SW-064-AD; Amendment
39-21288; AD 2020-21-15]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Helicopters

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for
Airbus Helicopters Model AS-365N2, AS 365 N3, EC 155B, EC155B1, and SA-
365N1 helicopters. This AD requires inspecting the tail rotor gearbox
(TGB) housing recess, and depending on the inspection results,
performing more in-depth inspections and removing certain parts from
service. This AD also prohibits installing a TGB unless it has passed
certain inspections and has a new TGB control rod bearing installed.
This AD was prompted by the discovery of a foreign object obstructing
the oil duct of a TGB control bearing. The actions of this AD are
intended to address an unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: This AD is effective December 7, 2020.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of certain documents listed in this AD as of December 7,
2020.

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this final rule,
contact Airbus Helicopters, 2701 N. Forum Drive, Grand Prairie, TX
75052; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER> or<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; or at
https://www.airbus.com/helicopters/services/technical-support.html. You
may view the referenced service information at the FAA, Office of the
Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Room 6N-321,
Fort Worth, TX 76177. It is also available on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2020-
0618.

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-
0618; 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 AD, the European Union Aviation Safety Agency

(EASA) AD, any service information that is incorporated by reference,
any comments received, and other information. The street 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: Rao Edupuganti, Aviation Safety
Engineer, Regulations and Policy Section, Rotorcraft Standards Branch,
FAA, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone 817-222-
5110; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
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 Airbus Helicopters
Model AS-365N2, AS 365 N3, EC 155B, EC155B1, and SA-365N1 helicopters.
The NPRM published in the Federal Register on June 23, 2020 (85 FR
37591). The NPRM proposed to require opening the TGB oil filter plug
cover and removing the TGB oil filter plug, and then borescope
inspecting for oil retention and visibility of the two T holes in the
TGB housing recess. If there is any oil retention and the two T holes
are not completely visible, the NPRM proposed to require removing the
TGB control rod and inspecting for and removing any foreign object in
the TGB oil duct. The NPRM also proposed to require re-inspecting the
TGB housing recess with all of the oil drained. If, during the re-
inspection, there is any oil retention and the two T holes are not
completely visible, the NPRM proposed to require replacing the TGB. If,
during the re-inspection, there is no oil retention and the two T holes
are completely visible, the NPRM proposed to require inspecting for and
removing any foreign object from the TGB oil duct and inspecting the
TGB oil duct for correct oil flow. If the oil does not flow correctly,
the NPRM proposed to require replacing the TGB. If the oil flows
correctly, the NPRM proposed to require removing the TGB control rod
bearing from service. The NPRM also proposed to prohibit the
installation of a TGB unless it passes the proposed inspections. A non-
installed TGB would be inspected in a level position using shims.
    The NPRM was prompted by EASA AD No. 2019-0165-E, dated July 12,
2019, issued by EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member
States of the European Union, to correct an unsafe condition for Airbus
Helicopters (formerly Eurocopter, Eurocopter France, Aerospatiale, Sud
Aviation) Model AS 365 N2, AS 365 N3, EC 155 B, EC 155 B1, and SA 365
N1 helicopters. EASA advises of a foreign object that was found
obstructing the oil duct of the TGB control bearing during a routine
inspection, causing a lack of lubrication on the bearing. EASA states
this condition, if not detected and corrected, could affect the correct
operation of the TGB and possibly result in reduced control of the
helicopter. Accordingly, the EASA AD requires a one-time inspection of
the TGB housing recess and TGB oil duct housing, and depending on the
findings, applicable investigative and corrective actions. The EASA AD
also prohibits installation of a TGB unless it has passed the specified
inspections.

Comments

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

Request

    A commenter asked who will be conducting the TGB inspections and
how often the inspections will take place. A mechanic that meets the
requirements of 14 CFR part 65 subpart D must perform the TGB
inspections, which are required within 55 hours time-in-service or 5
months, whichever occurs first.

FAA's Determination

    These helicopters have been approved by EASA and are approved for
operation in the United States. Pursuant to the FAA's bilateral
agreement with the European Union, EASA has notified the FAA of the
unsafe condition described in its AD. The FAA is issuing this AD after
evaluating all of the information provided by EASA and determining the
unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other
helicopters of the same type designs and that air safety and the public
interest require adopting the AD requirements as proposed except for
updating the Costs of Compliance section due to an increase in the
number of registered helicopters. These 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.

Differences Between this AD and the EASA AD

    If required to remove a TGB, the EASA AD requires marking and
returning the TGB to Airbus Helicopters, whereas this AD does not
require marking or returning the TGB to Airbus Helicopters.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    The FAA reviewed one document that co-publishes four Airbus
Helicopters Emergency Alert Service Bulletin (EASB) identification
numbers: No. 65.00.09 for non FAA-type certificated military Model
AS565MA, MB, MBe, SA, SB, and UB helicopters; No. 65.00.19 for Model
AS365N1, N2, and N3 helicopters, and non FAA-type certificated military
Model AS365F, Fi, K, and K2 helicopters; No. 65.06 for non FAA-type
certificated military Model SA366GA helicopters; and No. 65A008 for
Model EC155B and B1 helicopters, all Revision 0 and dated July 10,
2019. EASB Nos. 65.00.19 and 65A008 are incorporated by reference in
this AD. EASB Nos. 65.00.09 and 65.06 are not incorporated by reference
in this AD.
    This service information specifies procedures, using an endoscope
(borescope), to inspect the TGB housing recess for oil retention and
the two T holes for visibility. If there is oil retention and the two T
holes are not visible, this service information specifies removing the
TGB control rod and inspecting for and removing any foreign objects in
the TGB oil duct, and then repeating the TGB housing recess
inspections. If there is oil retention and the two T holes are not
visible after these additional inspections, the service information
specifies marking the TGB as not fit for helicopter installation and
returning the TGB to Airbus Helicopters. If there is no oil retention
and the two T holes are visible after these additional inspections, the
service information specifies removing any foreign objects in the TGB
oil duct and inspecting for proper oil flow at the end of the BTP oil
duct cover. If the oil does not flow properly, this service information
specifies marking the TGB as not fit for helicopter installation and
returning the TGB to Airbus Helicopters. If the oil flows properly, the
service information specifies replacing the TGB control rod bearing
with a new bearing.
    This service information also specifies procedures to close the
filter plug cover with an airworthy O-ring, install the filter plug,
replace a TGB, and perform a ground run-up. Additionally, this service
information specifies procedures to perform the inspections on a non-
installed TGB.
    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 51 helicopters of U.S.
Registry. The FAA estimates that operators may incur the following
costs in order to comply with this AD. Labor rates are estimated at $85
per work-hour.
    Inspecting the TGB housing recess takes about 2 work-hours for an
estimated cost of $170 per helicopter and $8,670 for the U.S. fleet.
    Inspecting for and removing any foreign objects takes a minimal
amount of time for a nominal cost.
    Removing any oil retention and re-inspecting the TGB takes about 5
work-hours for an estimated cost of $425 per helicopter.
    Inspecting for correct oil flow takes about 1 work-hour for an
estimated cost of $85 per helicopter.
    Replacing the TGB control rod bearing takes about 8 work-hours and
parts cost about $2,000 for an estimated replacement cost of $2,680 per
bearing.
    Replacing a TGB takes about 40 work-hours and parts cost about
$48,600 (overhauled) for an estimated replacement cost of $52,000 per
TGB.

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 helicopters 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):

2020-21-15 Airbus Helicopters: Amendment 39-21288; Docket No. FAA-
2020-0618; Product Identifier 2019-SW-064-AD.

(a) Applicability

    This AD applies to Airbus Helicopters Model AS-365N2, AS 365 N3,
EC 155B, EC155B1, and SA-365N1 helicopters, certificated in any
category.

(b) Unsafe Condition

    This AD defines the unsafe condition as obstruction of the oil
duct of the tail rotor gearbox (TGB) control bearing. This condition
could result in a lack of lubrication on the TGB control bearing,
which could affect the correct operation of the TGB, and subsequent
reduced control of the helicopter.

(c) Effective Date

    This AD becomes effective December 7, 2020.

(d) Compliance

    You are responsible for performing each action required by this
AD within the specified compliance time unless it has already been
accomplished prior to that time.

(e) Required Actions

    (1) Within 55 hours time-in-service or 5 months, whichever
occurs first: (i) Open the TGB oil filter plug cover (cover)
identified as ``b'' in Detail ``A'' and Detail ``B'' in Figure 1 of
Airbus Helicopters Emergency Alert Service Bulletin (EASB) No.
65.00.19 or Airbus Helicopters EASB No. 65A008, both Revision 0 and
dated July 10, 2019 (EASB 65.00.19 or EASB 65A008), as applicable to
your model helicopter, by removing any lockwire, opening the cover
(b), and removing the strainer (e) using a screwdriver. Remove the
TGB oil filter plug (plug) identified as ``h'' in Detail ``B'' in
Figure 1 of EASB 65.00.19 or EASB 65A008, as applicable to your
model helicopter, by removing the sealing compound at the base of
the plug (h), marking the base of the plug (h) and the TGB housing
(c), and removing and cleaning the plug (h) and the exterior surface
of the TGB housing (c) surrounding the plug (h) installation area.
    (ii) Using an adjustable or fixed head borescope with a 6 mm or
larger diameter camera probe, inspect for operating oil (oil)
retention and visibility of the two T holes in the TGB oil housing
recess (housing recess) (towards the rear of the helicopter)
identified as ``g'' in Section C-C in Figure 2 of EASB 65.00.19 or
EASB 65A008, as applicable to your model helicopter.
    (A) If there is any oil retention in the housing recess (g) and
the two T holes are not completely visible as shown in photo 1, in
the Accomplishment Instructions, paragraph 3.B.2.b., of EASB
65.00.19 or EASB 65A008, as applicable to your model helicopter,
before further flight, remove the TGB control rod and inspect for
and remove any foreign objects in the TGB oil duct (oil duct)
identified as ``k'' in Detail ``D'' of Figure 2 of EASB 65.00.19 or
EASB 65A008, as applicable to your model helicopter.
    (B) With all of the oil drained from the housing recess (g),
inspect for oil retention and visibility of the two T holes in the
housing recess (g) as required by paragraph (e)(1)(ii) of this AD.
    (1) If there is any oil retention in the housing recess (g) and
the two T holes are not completely visible, before further flight,
replace the TGB.
    (2) If there is no oil retention in the housing recess (g) and
the two T holes are completely visible, before further flight:
    (i) Inspect for any foreign objects in the oil duct identified
as ``k'' in Section EE of Figure 3 of EASB 65.00.19 or EASB 65A008,
as applicable to your model helicopter. If there is any foreign
object, before further flight, remove each foreign object.
    (ii) Inspect for oil flow at the end of the oil duct (k) BTP (q)
cover by following the procedures in the second step through the
sixth step, inclusive, of the Accomplishment Instructions, paragraph
3.B.3.b., of EASB 65.00.19 or EASB 65A008, as applicable to your
model helicopter.
    (iii) If the oil does not flow at the end of the oil duct (k)
BTP (q) cover, before further flight, replace the TGB.
    (iv) If the oil flows at the end of the oil duct (k) BTP (q)
cover, before further flight, remove from service the TGB control
rod bearing.
    (2) As of the effective date of this AD, do not install a TGB on
any helicopter unless, with the non-installed TGB in a level
position using shims, the requirements of paragraph (e)(1) of this
AD have been accomplished. Unless already done, installation of a
new TGB control rod bearing is also required. Accomplishment
Instructions, paragraph 3.B.6., of EASB 65.00.19 and EASB 65A008, as
applicable to your model helicopter, contain information pertaining
to inspecting a non-installed TGB. A TGB with a log card entry
showing it has

passed the requirements in the Accomplishment Instructions,
paragraph 3.B.6., of EASB 65.00.19 and EASB 65A008, as applicable to
your model helicopter, is acceptable for compliance with this
paragraph.

(f) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Rotorcraft Standards Branch, FAA, may approve
AMOCs for this AD. Send your proposal to: Rao Edupuganti, Aviation
Safety Engineer, Regulations and Policy Section, Rotorcraft
Standards Branch, FAA, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Fort Worth, TX 76177;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) For operations conducted under a 14 CFR part 119 operating
certificate or under 14 CFR part 91, subpart K, the FAA suggests
that you notify your principal inspector, or lacking a principal
inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office
or certificate holding district office, before operating any
aircraft complying with this AD through an AMOC.

(g) Additional Information

    The subject of this AD is addressed in European Union Aviation
Safety Agency (EASA) AD No. 2019-0165-E, dated July 12, 2019. You
may view the EASA AD on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov
in Docket No. FAA-2020-0618.

(h) Subject

    Joint Aircraft Service Component (JASC) Code: 62, Tail Rotor
Gearbox.

(i) 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 the AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) Airbus Helicopters Emergency Alert Service Bulletin (EASB)
No. 65.00.19, Revision 0, dated July 10, 2019.
    (ii) Airbus Helicopters EASB No. 65A008, Revision 0, dated July
10, 2019.

    Note 1 to paragraph (i)(2): Airbus Helicopters EASB Nos.
65.00.19 and 65A008, each Revision 0 and dated July 10, 2019, are
co-published as one document along with Airbus Helicopters EASB Nos.
65.00.09 and 65.06, each Revision 0 and dated July 10, 2019, which
are not incorporated by reference in this AD.

    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Airbus Helicopters, 2701 N. Forum Drive, Grand Prairie, TX 75052;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER> or<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; or at
https://www.airbus.com/helicopters/services/technical-support.html.
    (4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Office of
the Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Room
6N-321, Fort Worth, TX 76177. 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 October 6, 2020.
Lance T. Gant,
Director, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2020-23977 Filed 10-30-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


MEMORANDUM

From:		Margaret Sheppard

		Environmental Scientist, EPA/Stratospheric Protection Division (SPD)

To:		Cindy Newberg

		Chief, Alternatives and Emission Reduction Branch

		EPA/SPD

CC:		Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0118

Subject:	Blends of HFC-245fa and HFC-365mfc for Foam Blowing

Date:		September 17, 2009

Solvay Fluorides has sent us information on blends of HFC-245fa and

HFC-365mfc for foam blowing.  The company is particularly interested in
these blends for use in spray foams.  This supplements the company’s
earlier submission of HFC-365mfc for use in all foam blowing end uses.

Flammability

The Significant New Alternatives Policy (SNAP) Program has concerns
about the risks of using flammable foam blowing agents in spray foam
applications.  We require safety training information for use of
flammable foam blowing agents used in spray foam.  HFC-365mfc by itself
is slightly flammable.  Thus, for HFC-365mfc, we would require training
specifically for dealing with flammability hazards when blowing spray
foams.  Instead, Solvay Fluorides’ approach to addressing the
potential flammability risk for spray foams is to create blends of
HFC-365mfc with non-flammable compounds to create non-flammable blends.

According to flammability testing data, blends of HFC-245fa and
HFC-365mfc are non-flammable as long as HFC-245fa makes up at least 5%
of the foam blowing agent mixture.  Typical blends are likely to contain
30 to 70 percent of each agent and would clearly address flammability
concerns.

Consumer Exposure to Decomposition Products

	It is possible that the blowing agents will decompose and form toxic
decomposition products over time in closed cell rigid foams.  This is a
particular concern in foam blowing end uses for residential foams (e.g.,
spray foam, polystyrene boardstock, rigid polyurethane &
polyisocyanurate boardstock, phenolic board & bunstock, polyolefin).
The decomposition products may slowly escape from the foam over time,
and so, we consider the potential for consumer exposure.  There also is
a concern with blends, even where we have previously reviewed the
components of the blend separately for use in foam blowing.

Since its inception, the SNAP program has examined the potential for
toxic decomposition products from blends for residential foams.  In
particular, we look for whether any decomposition products might be
carcinogenic (e.g., formaldehyde, vinylidene chloride) and whether the
concentration of decomposition products is sufficiently high to be of
concern.  The level of concern that we established in the original SNAP
Background Document for Foam Blowing was 2,000 (+ 500) ppm (by weight
relative to the blowing agent).

	According to information from the submitter, the decomposition products
of HFC-365mfc in polyurethane foams and polyol blends include
CF3CH=CFCH3 isomers Z and E and CF2=CH-CF2CH3.  All these decomposition
products are formed through dehydrofluorination.  The highest
concentration of all decomposition products seen was 0.1%, or 1000 ppm,
below the cutoff of 2000 ppm.

	I also examined data from our earlier review on blends of HFC-245fa and
HCFC-22 in foam blowing for similar end uses.  There, we found that the
decomposition products, cis- and trans- HFO-1234ze were also produced
from dehydrofluorination.  The trans-isomer is relatively well-studied
and we are planning to include it on the list of acceptable substitutes
in foam blowing.  The concentrations of those decomposition products
were below the level of concern.

	Given the relatively low concentrations of the decomposition products,
the lack of indication of unusual toxicity or carcinogenicity of one of
the decomposition products, and the lack of obvious carcinogens, the
consumer risks from decomposition products are acceptably low.

Recommendation

We previously found HFC-245fa acceptable in all foam blowing end uses.
It is probably the most common foam blowing agent for spray foam today
in the U.S.  The blends of HFC-365mfc and HFC-245fa that we have
evaluated would have lower toxicity and less direct impact on climate
than HFC-245fa alone.  The blends are non-ozone depleting and clearly
reduce risk compared to ozone-depleting substances.  Thus, I recommend
that we find blends of HFC-365mfc and HFC-245fa, containing at least 5%
HFC-245fa, acceptable as substitutes for CFCs and HCFCs for foam
blowing.

ATTACHMENT

From Background Document (Risk Screen) for the Foam Blowing Sector
(1994)

DECOMPOSITION PRODUCTS ANALYSIS FOR SHEATHING IN RESIDENTIAL
CONSTRUCTION FOAMS

	CFC-11 has been widely used as a blowing agent in the production of
rigid insulating foam boardstock.  In addition to use as insulation in
commercial buildings, rigid insulating boardstock foams are commonly
used as sheathing in residential construction.  For these types of
closed-cell foam, most of the blowing agent is retained at the time of
manufacture, and is then released gradually over the useful life and
disposal of the product.  Although the blowing agent in the foam
products is released at different rates depending on variables such as
the foam type, the type of blowing agent used and the type of facer used
in construction of the boards, a typical loss rate of the blowing agent
is less than 10 percent of the volume at manufacture over a 30 year
period.

	In approving the alternatives contained in EPA's final rule for rigid
foam insulating boardstock, the Agency analyzed potential toxicity
concerns related to the decomposition products that are formed by the
chemical degradation of the blowing agent during the foaming or are
otherwise present in the foam boards.  Based on the risk analyses
reviewed by the Agency, EPA has concluded that the decomposition
products associated with the approved substitutes do not pose a concern.

	In reaching this decision, EPA relied on a risk assessment of
HCFC-141b, a leading replacement candidate.  In particular, EPA
determined an initial concentration of 2,000 parts per million (ppm) (by
weight relative to the blowing agent) of HCFC-141b decomposition
products in the foam corresponds to an estimated risk of 10-6 (one in a
million).

	The basis for the 2,000 ppm risk screen trigger included the following
assumptions, most of which are conservative:

Hazard Identification:  EPA assumed that all of the primary HCFC-141b
decomposition products (HCFC-151a, HCFC-1131a, and vinylidene chloride)
exhibit the same potency as vinylidene chloride.

Dose-Response Assessment:  EPA derived an inhalation unit risk factor of
5.0 x 10-5 for vinylidene chloride form information in its IRIS
database.  At a risk level of 1 x 10-6, this corresponds to an exposure
level of 0.02 micrograms per cubic meter (0.02 ppb) in air.

Exposure assessment:  EPA determined exposure levels based on data on
the characteristics of the following:

	(Exposure levels were estimated based on the methodology reported by
ENVIRON Corporation.  Ficks's law was used to calculate the mass of the
decomposition products released from a typical board.  The diffusion
coefficients used in the Fick's law for the decomposition products were
estimated based on experimental studies of the diffusion properties of
CFC-11 and HCFC-141b.  The values used are summarized in the
above-referenced ENVIRON report;

	(For the structure containing the boardstock foam, it was assumed that
61 4 ft x 8 ft boards were used and that it would have an internal
volume of 411 cubic meters.  The air exchange rate was assumed to be 0.2
air changes per hour;

	(Structure residents were assumed to move into the home immediately
after construction and maintain residence for 30 years, occupying the
house 24 hours per day.

	This risk screen methodology will be applicable to additional blowing
agents reviewed under SNAP.  Thus, EPA would consider use of any blowing
agent that results in insulating foam boards that have aggregate initial
concentrations of decomposition products above 2,000 (plus or minus 500)
ppm (by weight relative to the blowing agent) of concern, unless the
manufacturer can demonstrate to the Agency that higher concentration
levels do not pose risks greater than 10-6.  Risks below this level are
considered acceptable in the context of Agency decisionmaking.

	To demonstrate the acceptability of a rigid insulating foam product
that does not meet the 2,000 (+/-500) ppm trigger, a manufacturer may
submit a variety of supporting data, including evidence that the
relevant decomposition products exhibit low toxicity, or that the
product is significantly less permeable than typical insulation
boardstock.

	This trigger also applies to rigid foam products blown with blends of
chemical alternatives.  In this situation, the initial concentration of
the decomposition products associated with all of the constituents of
the blend in the foam boards should not exceed the trigger.  It is
important that the constituents of the blend not be considered
separately because there may be interactions that occur between the
decomposition products of one constituent and those of another that
could be potentially harmful.

     Prepared by ENVIRON Corporation for Allied-Signal, Inc.,
"Assessment of the Potential Risk to Human Health from the Use of
HCFC-141b as a Blowing Agent in the Manufacture of Rigid Insulating
Boards For Use in Home Construction," September 1991.

     The Agency recognizes that test results may vary slightly due
to sample quality or calibration of instruments.  Therefore, sample
results up to 2,500 ppm (2,000 +/- 500 ppm) are an acceptable
demonstration of no significant risk.

 PAGE

 PAGE   4


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 117 (Friday, June 17, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 39648-39649]
[FR Doc No: 2016-14357]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket Nos. FDA-2013-E-0681 and FDA-2013-E-0676]

Determination of Regulatory Review Period for Purposes of Patent
Extension; ZILVER PTX DRUG ELUTING PERIPHERAL STENT

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has determined the
regulatory review period for ZILVER PTX DRUG ELUTING PERIPHERAL STENT
and is publishing this notice of that determination as required by law.
FDA has made the determination because of the submission of
applications by Boston Scientific Scimed, Inc., to the Director of the
U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), Department of Commerce, for
the extension of patents which claim that medical device.

DATES: Anyone with knowledge that any of the dates as published (see
the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section) are incorrect may submit either
electronic or written comments and ask for a redetermination by August
16, 2016. Furthermore, any interested person may petition FDA for a
determination regarding whether the applicant for extension acted with
due diligence during the regulatory review period by December 14, 2016.
See ``Petitions'' in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for more
information.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments as follows:

Electronic Submissions

    Submit electronic comments in the following way:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments. Comments submitted
electronically, including attachments, to http://www.regulations.gov
will be posted to the docket unchanged. Because your comment will be
made public, you are solely responsible for ensuring that your comment
does not include any confidential information that you or a third party
may not wish to be posted, such as medical information, your or anyone
else's Social Security number, or confidential business information,
such as a manufacturing process. Please note that if you include your
name, contact information, or other information that identifies you in
the body of your comments, that information will be posted on http://www.regulations.gov.
     If you want to submit a comment with confidential
information that you do not wish to be made available to the public,
submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner
detailed (see ``Written/Paper Submissions'' and ``Instructions'').

Written/Paper Submissions

    Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
     Mail/Hand delivery/Courier (for written/paper
submissions): Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug
Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.
     For written/paper comments submitted to the Division of
Dockets Management, FDA will post your comment, as well as any
attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified,
as confidential, if submitted as detailed in ``Instructions.''
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket Nos.
FDA-2013-E-0681 and FDA-2013-E-0676 for ``Determination of Regulatory
Review Period for Purposes of Patent Extension; ZILVER PTX DRUG ELUTING
PERIPHERAL STENT.'' Received comments will be placed in the dockets
and, except for those submitted as ``Confidential Submissions,''
publicly viewable at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Division of
Dockets Management between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.
     Confidential Submissions--To submit a comment with
confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly
available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You
should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information
you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states
``THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.'' The Agency will
review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in
its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the
claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be
available for public viewing and posted on http://www.regulations.gov.
Submit both copies to the Division of Dockets Management. If you do not
wish your name and contact information to be made publicly available,
you can provide this information on the cover sheet and not in the body
of your comments and you must identify this information as
``confidential.'' Any information marked as ``confidential'' will not
be disclosed except in accordance with 21 CFR 10.20 and other
applicable disclosure law. For more information about FDA's posting of
comments to public dockets, see 80 FR 56469, September 18, 2015, or
access the information at: http://www.fda.gov/regulatoryinformation/dockets/default.htm.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
the electronic and written/paper comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov and insert the docket number, found in brackets in
the heading of this document, into the ``Search'' box and follow the
prompts and/or go to the Division of Dockets Management, 5630 Fishers
Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Beverly Friedman, Office of Regulatory
Policy, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg.
51, Rm. 6250, Silver Spring, MD 20993,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    The Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984
(Pub. L. 98-417) and the Generic Animal Drug and Patent Term
Restoration Act (Pub. L. 100-670) generally provide that a patent may
be extended for a period of up to 5 years so long as the patented item
(human drug product, animal drug product, medical device, food
additive, or color additive) was subject to regulatory review by FDA
before the item was marketed. Under these acts, a product's regulatory
review period forms the basis for determining the amount of extension
an applicant may receive.
    A regulatory review period consists of two periods of time: A
testing phase and an approval phase. For medical devices, the testing
phase begins with a clinical investigation of the device and runs until
the approval phase begins. The approval phase starts with the initial
submission of an application to market the device and continues until
permission to market the device is granted. Although only a portion of
a regulatory review period may count toward the actual amount of
extension

that the Director of USPTO may award (half the testing phase must be
subtracted as well as any time that may have occurred before the patent
was issued), FDA's determination of the length of a regulatory review
period for a medical device will include all of the testing phase and
approval phase as specified in 35 U.S.C. 156(g)(3)(B).
    FDA has approved for marketing the medical device, ZILVER PTX DRUG
ELUTING PERIPHERAL STENT. ZILVER PTX DRUG ELUTING PERIPHERAL STENT is
indicated for improving luminal diameter for the treatment of de novo
or restenotic symptomatic lesions in native vascular disease of the
above-the-knee femoropopliteal arteries having reference vessel
diameters from 4 millimeters (mm) to 9 mm and total lesion lengths up
to 140 mm per limb and 280 mm per patient. Subsequent to this approval,
the USPTO received a patent term restoration application for ZILVER PTX
DRUG ELUTING PERIPHERAL STENT (U.S. Patent Nos. 6,515,009 and
7,820,193) from Boston Scientific Scimed, Inc., and the USPTO requested
FDA's assistance in determining this patent's eligibility for patent
term restoration. In a letter dated May 11, 2015, FDA advised the USPTO
that this medical device had undergone a regulatory review period and
that the approval of ZILVER PTX DRUG ELUTING PERIPHERAL STENT
represented the first permitted commercial marketing or use of the
product. Thereafter, the USPTO requested that FDA determine the
product's regulatory review period.

II. Determination of Regulatory Review Period

    FDA has determined that the applicable regulatory review period for
ZILVER PTX DRUG ELUTING PERIPHERAL STENT is 3,075 days. Of this time,
2,180 days occurred during the testing phase of the regulatory review
period, while 895 days occurred during the approval phase. These
periods of time were derived from the following dates:
    1. The date an exemption under section 520(g) of the Federal Food,
Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 360j(g)) involving
this device became effective: June 16, 2004. The applicant claims that
the investigational device exemption (IDE) required under section
520(g) of the FD&C Act for human tests to begin became effective on
July 28, 2004. However, FDA records indicate that the IDE was
determined substantially complete for clinical studies to have begun on
June 16, 2004, which represents the IDE effective date.
    2. The date an application was initially submitted with respect to
the device under section 515 of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 360e): June 4,
2010. The applicant claims April 1, 2009, as the date the premarket
approval application (PMA) for ZILVER PTX DRUG ELUTING PERIPHERAL STENT
(PMA P100022) was initially submitted. However, FDA records indicate
that PMA P100022 was submitted in full on June 4, 2010.
    3. The date the application was approved: November 14, 2012. The
applicant claims that the PMA P100022 was approved on November 15,
2012. However, FDA records indicate that PMA P100022 was approved on
November 14, 2012.
    This determination of the regulatory review period establishes the
maximum potential length of a patent extension. However, the USPTO
applies several statutory limitations in its calculations of the actual
period for patent extension. In its applications for patent extension,
this applicant seeks 1,826 days or 751 days of patent term extension.

III. Petitions

    Anyone with knowledge that any of the dates as published are
incorrect may submit either electronic or written comments and ask for
a redetermination (see DATES). Furthermore, any interested person may
petition FDA for a determination regarding whether the applicant for
extension acted with due diligence during the regulatory review period.
To meet its burden, the petition must be timely (see DATES) and contain
sufficient facts to merit an FDA investigation. (See H. Rept. 857, part
1, 98th Cong., 2d sess., pp. 41-42, 1984.) Petitions should be in the
format specified in 21 CFR 10.30.
    Submit petitions electronically to http://www.regulations.gov at
Docket No. FDA-2013-S-0610. Submit written petitions (two copies are
required) to the Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and
Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

    Dated: June 13, 2016.
Leslie Kux,
Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2016-14357 Filed 6-16-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register: April 24, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 80)]
[Notices]
[Page 22176-22177]
[DOCID:fr24ap08-76]

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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

[Docket No. OSHA-2008-0009]

Methylene Chloride Standard; Extension of the Office of
Management and Budget's (OMB) Approval of Information Collection
(Paperwork) Requirements

AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor.

ACTION: Request for public comment.

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

SUMMARY: OSHA solicits public comment concerning its proposal to extend
OMB approval of the information collection requirements specified by
the Methylene Chloride Standard (Sec.  1910.1052).

DATES: Comments must be submitted (postmarked, sent, or received) by
June 23, 2008.

ADDRESSES: Electronically: You may submit comments and attachments
electronically at http://www.regulations.gov, which is the Federal
eRulemaking Portal. Follow the instructions online for submitting
comments.
    Facsimile: If your comments, including attachments, are not longer
than 10 pages, you may fax them to the OSHA Docket Office at (202) 693-
1648.
    Mail, hand delivery, express mail, messenger, or courier service:
When using this method, you must submit three copies of your comments
and attachments to the OSHA Docket Office, OSHA Docket No. OSHA-2008-
0009, U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health
Administration, Room N-2625, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington,
DC 20210. Deliveries (hand, express mail, messenger, and courier
service) are accepted during the Department of Labor's and Docket
Office's normal business hours, 8:15 a.m. to 4:45 p.m., e.t.
    Instructions: All submissions must include the Agency name and OSHA
docket number for the Information Collection Request (ICR) (OSHA-2008-
0009). All comments, including any personal information you provide,
are placed in the public docket without change, and may be made
available online at http://www.regulations.gov. For further information
on submitting comments see the ``Public Participation'' heading in the
section of this notice titled SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION .
    Docket: To read or download comments or other material in the
docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov or the OSHA Docket Office at
the address above. All documents in the docket (including this Federal
Register notice) are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index;
however, some information (e.g., copyrighted material) is not publicly
available to read or download through the Web site. All submissions,
including copyrighted material, are available for inspection and
copying at the OSHA Docket Office. You may also contact Jamaa Hill at
the address below to obtain a copy of the ICR.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jamaa N. Hill or Todd Owen,
Directorate of Standards and Guidance, OSHA, U.S. Department of Labor,
Room N-3468, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    The Department of Labor, as part of its continuing effort to reduce
paperwork and respondent (i.e., employer) burden, conducts a
preclearance consultation program to provide the public with an
opportunity to comment on proposed and continuing information
collection requirements in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995 (PRA-95) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)).
    This program ensures that information is in the desired format,
reporting burden (time and costs) is minimal, collection instruments
are clearly understood, and OSHA's estimate of the information
collection burden is accurate. The Occupational Safety and Health Act
of 1970 (the Act) (29 U.S.C. 651 et seq.) authorizes information
collection by employers as necessary or appropriate for enforcement of
the Act or for developing information regarding the causes and
prevention of occupational injuries, illnesses, and accidents (29
U.S.C. 657). The OSH Act also requires that OSHA obtain such
information with minimum burden upon employers, especially those
operating small businesses, and to reduce to the maximum extent
feasible unnecessary duplication of efforts in obtaining information
(29 U.S.C. 657).
    The standard entitled ``Methylene Chloride'' (MC) (29 CFR
1910.1052; the ``Standard'') protects employees from the adverse health
effects that may result from their exposure to methylene chloride. The
requirements in the MC Standard include employee exposure monitoring,
notifying employees of their MC exposures, administering medical
examinations to employees, providing examining physicians with specific
program and employee information, ensuring that employees receive a
copy of their medical examination results, training employees on the
hazards of MC, maintaining employees' exposure monitoring and medical
examination records for specific periods, and providing access to these
records by OSHA, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and
Health, the affected employees, and their authorized representatives.

II. Special Issues for Comment

    OSHA has a particular interest in comments on the following issues:
     Whether the proposed information collection requirements
are necessary for the proper performance of the Agency's functions,
including whether the information is useful;
     The accuracy of OSHA's estimate of the burden (time and
costs) of the information collection requirements, including the
validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
     The quality, utility, and clarity of the information
collected; and
     Ways to minimize the burden on employers who must comply;
for example, by using automated or other technological information
collection and transmission techniques.

III. Proposed Actions

    OSHA is proposing to extend the information collection requirements
contained in the Methylene Chloride Standard (29 CFR 1910.1052). The
Agency is requesting to increase its current burden hour total from
64,305 hours to 67,362 for a total increase of 3,057 hours. The
adjustment is primarily a result of an increase in the total number of
establishments (from 88,623 to 92,354) based on updated data obtained
from the U.S. Census Bureau and the North American Industry
Classification System (NAICS). The Agency will summarize the comments
submitted in response to this notice, and will include this summary in
the request to OMB to extend the approval of the information collection
requirements contained in the Standard. The Agency will summarize the
comments submitted in response to this notice and will include this
summary in the request to OMB.
    Type of Review: Extension of currently approved information
collection requirements.
    Title: Methylene Chloride Standard.
    OMB Number: 1218-0179.
    Affected Public: Business or other for-profits; not-for-profit
institutions; Federal government; State, local, or Tribal governments.
    Number of Respondents: 92,354.
    Frequency of Response: Annually; monthly; on occasion.
    Total Responses: 287,899.
    Average Time per Response: Varies from 1 hour for administering a
medical examination to 5 minutes to maintain an employee's medical or
exposure record.
    Estimated Total Burden Hours: 67,362.
    Estimated Cost (Operation and Maintenance): $16,753,110.

IV. Public Participation--Submission of Comments on This Notice and
Internet Access to Comments and Submissions

    You may submit comments in response to this document as follows:
(1) Electronically at http://www.regulations.gov, which is the Federal
eRulemaking Portal; (2) by facsimile (FAX); or (3) by hard copy. All
comments, attachments, and other material must identify the Agency name
and the OSHA docket number for the ICR (Docket No. OSHA-2008-0009). You
may supplement electronic submissions by uploading document files
electronically. If you wish to mail additional materials in reference
to an electronic or facsimile submission, you must submit them to the
OSHA Docket Office (see the section of this notice titled ADDRESSES).
The additional materials must clearly identify your electronic comments
by your name, date, and the docket number so the Agency can attach them
to your comments.
    Because of security procedures, the use of regular mail may cause a
significant delay in the receipt of comments. For information about
security procedures concerning the delivery of materials by hand,
express delivery, messenger, or courier service, please contact the
OSHA Docket Office at<PHONE_NUMBER> (TTY<PHONE_NUMBER>).
    Comments and submissions are posted without change at http://
www.regulations.gov. Therefore, OSHA cautions commenters about
submitting personal information such as social security numbers and
date of birth. Although all submissions are listed in the http://
www.regulations.gov index, some information (e.g., copyrighted
material) is not publicly available to read or download through this
Web site. All submissions, including copyrighted material, are
available for inspection and copying at the OSHA Docket Office.
Information on using the http://www.regulations.gov Web site to submit
comments and access the docket is available at the Web site's ``User
Tips'' link. Contact the OSHA Docket Office for information about
materials not available through the Web site, and for assistance in
using the Internet to locate docket submissions.

V. Authority and Signature

    Edwin G. Foulke, Jr., Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational
Safety and Health, directed the preparation of this notice. The
authority for this notice is the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44
U.S.C. 3506 et seq.) and Secretary of Labor's Order No. 5-2007 (72 FR
31159).

    Signed at Washington, DC, on April 21, 2008.
Edwin G. Foulke, Jr.,
Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health.
[FR Doc. E8-8879 Filed 4-23-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510-26-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 206 (Wednesday, October 24, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 64979-64980]
[FR Doc No: 2012-26175]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER13-131-000]

Great Bay Energy IV, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial
Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204
Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of
Great Bay Energy IV, LLC's application for market-based rate authority,
with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes
a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future
issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington,
DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's
Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone
filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability, is November 7, 2012.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in
the above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link
on the web site that enables subscribers to receive email notification
when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with
any FERC

Online service, please email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call (866)
208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: October 18, 2012.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-26175 Filed 10-23-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 243 (Monday, December 19, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 78642]
[FR Doc No: 2011-32383]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. PF09-11-000 ]

TransCanada Alaska Company, LLC; Notice of Public Scoping
Meetings for the Planned Alaska Pipeline Project

    The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or
Commission) will conduct public scoping meetings as part of their
preparation of an environmental impact statement (EIS) on the Alaska
Pipeline Project (APP). The APP is a planned natural gas pipeline
system that would transport gas produced on the Alaska North Slope to
the Alaska-Canada border to connect with a pipeline system in Canada
for onward delivery to markets in North America. The APP is being
advanced jointly by TransCanada Alaska Company, LLC and ExxonMobil
Alaska Midstream Gas Investments, LLC.
    More information about the Commission's EIS and the APP is
available in the Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Impact
Statement for the Planned Alaska Pipeline Project and Request for
Comments on Environmental Issues (NOI), issued August 1, 2011. The NOI
describes the scoping process that is under way seeking public
participation in the environmental review of this planned project. The
public scoping meetings, listed below, provide an opportunity to submit
verbal comments in addition to, or in lieu of, written comments on
issues of environmental concern related to the APP. Please note that
the scoping period for the APP will close on February 27, 2012.
    The NOI and additional information regarding the pre-filing review
of this planned project is available from FERC's Office of External
Affairs at (866) 208-FERC (3372) or on the FERC Web site (www.ferc.gov)
using the eLibrary link. Click on the eLibrary link, click on ``General
Search,'' and enter the docket number, excluding the last three digits
in the Docket Number field (i.e., PF09-11). Be sure you have selected
an appropriate date range. For assistance, please contact FERC Online
Support at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll free at<PHONE_NUMBER>,
or for TTY, contact<PHONE_NUMBER>.

       Schedule and Locations for the APP Public Scoping Meetings
------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Date and time                          Location
------------------------------------------------------------------------
January 18, 2012, 7:00 p.m........  Dena'ina Center, Kahtu Room, 600
                                     West 7th Avenue Anchorage, AK.
January 30, 2012, 7:00 p.m........  Carlson Center, Arthur Buswell
                                     Pioneer North Star Room, 2010 2nd
                                     Avenue Fairbanks, AK.
January 31, 2012, 7:00 p.m........  Delta Community Center, 2287 Deborah
                                     Street Delta Junction, AK.
February 1, 2012, 7:00 p.m........  Tok School, Multipurpose Room, Jon
                                     Summar Way Tok, AK.
February 6, 2012, 7:00 p.m........  Inupiat Heritage Center,
                                     Multipurpose Room, 5421 North Star
                                     Street Barrow, AK.
February 7, 2012, 7:00 p.m........  Kisik Community Center, 2230 2nd
                                     Avenue Nuiqsut, AK.
February 8, 2012, 4:30 p.m........  Kaktovik Community Center, 2051
                                     Barter Avenue Kaktovik, AK.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Dated: December 9, 2011.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-32383 Filed 12-16-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 37 (Friday, February 23, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 8073]
[FR Doc No: 2018-03730]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OW-2018-0079] [ER-FRL-9037-7]

Availability of an Environmental Assessment (EA) and Finding of
No Significant Impact (FONSI)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Environmental Assessment (EA)/Finding of No Significant Impact
(FONSI).

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the
Council on Environmental Quality's NEPA regulations, and EPA's
regulations for implementing NEPA, EPA has prepared an Environmental
Assessment (EA) to analyze the potential environmental impacts related
to the issuance of credit assistance to the Indiana Finance Authority
(IFA) for State Revolving Fund (SRF) Loans under the Water
Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (WIFIA) program. The EA
evaluates the potential environmental impacts of water infrastructure
projects funded under the WIFIA credit assistance program in compliance
with NEPA and the required environmental cross-cutters and other
federal, state, and local environmental reviews. Based on the
environmental impact analysis in the EA, EPA has made a preliminary
determination that no significant environmental impacts are anticipated
from the issuance of the credit assistance to IFA. This notice
initiates the 30-day review period and invites comments from Federal,
State, and local agencies, Indian tribes, and the public regarding
EPA's preliminary determination.

DATES: Comments must be received by March 25, 2018.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-
2018-0079 to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Please follow the online instructions for
submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or
withdrawn. The EPA may publish public comments 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: Danusha Chandy, Water Infrastructure
Division, Office of Wastewater Management, WIFIA Program, Mail Code:
4201T, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW,
Washington, DC 20460; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA is seeking public comment regarding its
preliminary Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) to document its
determination that no significant environmental impacts are anticipated
from the issuance of credit assistance to IFA for SRF Loans under the
WIFIA program. EPA invites the public to submit comments through
Regulations.gov during the 30-day comment period following the
publication of this notice in the Federal Register.
    Congress enacted the WIFIA as part of the Water Resources Reform
and Development Act of 2014, as amended by sec. 1445 of Public Law 114-
94[thinsp][1] and codified at 33 U.S.C. 3901-3914. WIFIA establishes a
new federal credit program for water infrastructure projects to be
administered by EPA.
    The proposed federal action under consideration in this EA is
approving or denying IFA's application by either issuing or not issuing
a WIFIA loan. The IFA provides loans for the design, construction,
operation, and maintenance of eligible water and wastewater
infrastructure projects as described in section 603(c) of the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1383(c)) and section 1452(a)(2)
of the Safe Drinking Water Act (42 U.S.C. 300j-12(a)(2)). IFA applied
for a WIFIA loan to help fund the 2017 3rd Quarter Project Priority
Lists for the Drinking Water SRF (DWSRF) and Clean Water SRF (CWSRF)
Loan Programs for projects applying for financial assistance in State
Fiscal Year 2017. The proposed action involves the planning, design,
construction, operation, and maintenance for a wide range of water and
wastewater infrastructure projects, which are eligible for WIFIA credit
assistance.
    The environmental review process, which is documented by the EA,
indicates that no potential significant adverse environmental impacts
are anticipated from the proposed action. The EA, which analyzed the
potential environmental impacts of issuing of credit assistance to IFA
for SRF Loans under the WIFIA program, considered the potential
environmental impacts from water and waste water infrastructure
projects.
    Based on the environmental impact analysis in the EA, EPA has
determined that no significant environmental impacts are anticipated
from the issuance of credit assistance to IFA for SRF Loans and the
proposed action does not constitute a major Federal action
significantly affecting the quality of the human environment, making
the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) unnecessary.
Therefore, EPA is issuing a preliminary FONSI.

    Dated: February 20, 2018.
Kelly Knight,
Director, NEPA Compliance Division, Office of Federal Activities.
[FR Doc. 2018-03730 Filed 2-22-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P