[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 47 (Thursday, March 10, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 13082-13083]
[FR Doc No: 2011-5078]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2011-0009; Airspace Docket No. 10-AWP-20]
RIN 2120-AA66

Amendment of VOR Federal Airways V-1, V-7, V-11 and V-20; Kona,
HI

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action amends four VHF Omnidirectional Range (VOR)
Federal airways in the vicinity of Kona, HI; V- 1, V-7, V-11 and V-20
to bring them in concert with the FAA's Aeronautical Products. These
VOR Federal airways are being impacted due to the relocation of the
Kona VHF Omnidirectional Radio Range and Tactical Air Navigation Aids
(VORTAC).

DATES: Effective date 0901 UTC, May 5, 2011. The Director of the
Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under
1 CFR part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.9 and
publication of conforming amendments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ken McElroy, Airspace Regulation and
ATC Procedures Group, Office of Mission Support Services, Federal
Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC
20591; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The FAA has relocated the Kona VORTAC current location 3.92
nautical miles north northwest to the Kona International Airport
property. As a part of this effort, the FAA realigned V- 1, V-7, V-11
and V-20, and changed the VORTAC identification from IAI to KOA.

The Rule

    This action amends Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR)
part 71 by modifying Hawaiian VOR Federal Airways V-1, V-7, V-11 and V-
20. Specifically, this action realigns the airways north northwest of
the current VORTAC site to reflect the new radials of the relocated
Kona VORTAC (KOA) onto Kona International Keahole Airport property
Kailua-Kona, HI. This will enhance the management of aircraft
operations over Hawaii. This action does not affect the boundaries,
altitudes, or operating requirements of the airspace. The FAA's
Aeronautical Products has correctly charted the airspace, therefore,
notice and public comment under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) are unnecessary.

    Hawaiian VOR airways are published in paragraph 6010(c) of FAA
Order 7400.9U, dated August 18, 2010, and effective September 15, 2010,
which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The VOR airways
listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.
    The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
Therefore, this regulation: (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory
action'' under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule''
under Department of Transportation (DOT) Regulatory Policies and
Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant
preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so
minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air
traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule,
when promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106
describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII,
Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's
authority.
    This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the
FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of the
airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient
use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority
as it revises multiple Federal airways in Hawaii.

Environmental Review

    The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical
exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance
with 311a, FAA Order 1050.1E, ``Environmental Impacts: Policies and
Procedures.'' This airspace action is not expected to cause any
potentially significant environmental impacts, and no extraordinary
circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an environmental
assessment.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

Adoption of the Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

PART 71--DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR
TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS

0
1. The authority citation for part 71 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854,
24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.9U,
Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, signed August 18, 2010 and
effective September 15, 2010 amended as follows:

Paragraph 6010(c) Hawaiian VOR federal airways.

* * * * *

V-1 [Amended]

From Kona, HI, INT Kona 321[deg] and Maui, HI, 180[deg] radials; INT
Maui 180[deg] and Upolu Point, HI, 305[deg] radials; INT Maui
199[deg] and Upolu Point 305[deg] radials; to Maui.
* * * * *

V-7 [Amended]

From Kona, HI, INT Kona 321[deg] and Lanai, HI, 140[deg] radials;
Lanai; Molokai, HI. From Koko Head 050[deg] and Molokai 358[deg]
radials; to INT Molokai 358[deg] radial and lat. 24[deg]19'00'' N.
* * * * *

V-11 [Amended]

From INT Kona, HI, 321[deg] and Upolu Point, HI, 211[deg] radials;
via Upolu Point; INT Upolu Point 349[deg] and Maui, HI, 080[deg]
radials; to Maui.
* * * * *

V-20 [Amended]

From Honolulu, HI, INT Honolulu 136[deg] and Kona, HI, 305[deg]
radials; Kona.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on March 1, 2011.
Rodger A. Dean,
Acting Manager, Airspace, Regulations and ATC Procedures Group.
[FR Doc. 2011-5078 Filed 3-9-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


MEMORANDUM

DATE:		05/19/2022

TO:	National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Coke Ovens: Pushing, Quenching, and Battery Stacks Residual Risk and Technology Review; Docket ID: EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0085

FROM:	Donna Lee Jones, U.S. EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS), Research Triangle Park, NC; Gabrielle Raymond, RTI International, Research Triangle Park, NC

SUBJECT:	Conference call with Coke Industry Representatives
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Summary

      A Microsoft(TM) TEAMS conference call was held on May 18, 2022, between the EPA, the Coke Oven Environmental Task Force (COETF) of the American Coke and Coal Chemicals Institute (ACCCI), SunCoke Energy Energy Partners, L.P., and coke ovens company representatives to provide a summary of the changes to the rule development plans for the residual risk and technology review (RTR) for Pushing, Quenching, and Battery Stacks (PQBS) NESHAP (40 CFR part 63, subpart CCCCC)  and subsequent upcoming draft section 114 information request for Coke Ovens. The EPA had provided a handout of summary material for discussion  during the Coke RTR status update meeting to David Ailor, COETF and Katie Batten, SunCoke, on May 16, 2022 (attached to this meeting memorandum).

      The EPA began by presenting the information from the handout that included background to the rule development and an overview of the draft 2022 coke section 114 request.

      Industry representatives were concerned with the EPA's filing to get an extension to the final rule deadline date to accommodate the change in rule focus. They expressed their opinion that the court order as written cannot legally allow the EPA to address any other rulemakings beyond 40 CFR part 63, subpart CCCCC (RTR) and part 63, subpart L (technology review). The EPA suggested a followup meeting between industry representatives and Office of General Council (OGC) to discuss the legality of the extension.

      The EPA presented details of the draft 2022 coke section 114 request, as described in the handout, that included: stack testing of heat and non-recovery process (HNR) main stacks and heat recovery steam generator (HRSG) bypass/waste heat stacks, byproduct battery continuous opacity monitoring; a questionnaire to gather data and information on technologies and work practice standards to decrease emissions from leaks from doors, lids, offtakes, and charging; byproduct battery door leak testing; co-located coke by-product recovery (chemical) plant testing; and fenceline and interior facility fugitive monitoring.

      The industry questioned who will receive the byproduct battery door leak testing request. The EPA stated that USS Clairton, PA, would be requested to do the byproduct battery door leak testing because the facility had performed the only tests done in 1981 that the EPA is attempting to verify or update, and then possibly another facility.

      The SunCoke representative asked for the reasoning for the repeat testing on the HNR main stack and bypass/waste heat stack sources. The EPA explained that there was only one source test of 3-test runs each for the HNR main stack and bypass/waste heat stack received from the 2016 coke section 114. It is the EPA's best practice to request seven test runs of data to reduce limited data set issues when setting Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) standards.. The EPA further cited the requirements to address unregulated pollutants emitted by this source category pursuant to the decision issued in Louisiana Envtl. Action Network v. EPA, 955 F. 3d. 1088 (D.C. Cir. 2020) ("LEAN"). SunCoke responded that the selection of facilities to conduct 2016 coke section 114 testing was negotiated between SunCoke and the EPA and they believe the testing was adequate. They further stated that the fenceline monitoring at the Haverhill facility would be redundant because there has been numerous studies done in nearby facility areas by state air quality staff. The EPA requested information about the studies so as to be able to obtain the results of the testing.

      Industry representative asked for clarification of interior monitoring and why it was needed. The EPA explained it will be used to refine the fugitive estimates in terms of where emissions are coming from around the facility.

      Industry representatives expressed their concern with the 2022 coke section 114 and regulatory schedule that the EPA presented. They said that it did not seem to include any time for industry's review of the draft 2022 section 114 questionnaire or testing request. They questioned how they would be able to comment on the section 114 if there is not a reasonable amount of time to comment. They also expressed the difficulties with conducting testing in such a short timeframe and said that the schedule does not consider safety or the burden on industry. They further expressed concern that the schedule wouldn't include any time for industry review (i.e., quality assurance/quality control) of any test data compiled. They said that the EPA shared the draft section 114 with them in the past for the 2016 coke request and that there was a collective effort between the EPA and industry in finalizing the request which took a significant amount of time. Industry representatives indicated they want to review the draft 2022 coke section 114 request and need at least 45-60 days to review and comment . They noted that, additionally, many of their staff are currently busy with responding to the Integrated Iron and Steel. and Taconite Ore section 114 requests.

      The EPA thanked the industry for their comments and concerns and agreed to have a followup meeting at a later date.

ATTENDEES
Chuck French, EPA/OAQPS
Donna Lee Jones, EPA/OAQPS
Kevin McGuinn, EPA/OAQPS
Ned Shappley, EPA/OAQPS
Gabrielle Raymond, RTI International

David Ailor, COETF/ACCCI

Jeffrey Knight, COETF counsel, Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman, LLP

Cleveland Cliffs (previously AK Steel and ArcelorMittal USA)
Rich Zavoda
Katie Kistler
Julianne Kurdila
Mike Long
Rob Beranek

ABC Coke
Jay Cornelius
Abby Dolby

DTE - EES
Brenna Harden

SunCoke
Katie Batten
Kris Singleton
Aron S.

U.S. Steel
Christopher Hardin
David Hacker
Brett Tunno
Mike Dzurinko
Jonelle Sheetz

Ted Palma, COETF consultant

                      Coke Ovens RTR: Section 114 Request
                      Informational Briefing for Industry

Purpose: To provide a summary of the changes to rule development plans for the Coke Ovens RTR and subsequent upcoming draft section 114 information request for Coke Ovens.

BACKGROUND:
    Coke oven HAP emissions are addressed in two Clean Air Act (CAA) section 112 NESHAP:  subpart CCCCC (5C) for "Pushing, Quenching, and Battery Stacks (PQBS)" and subpart L "Coke Oven Batteries."
        Subpart 5C (promulgated in 2003): addresses emissions from pushing coke out of ovens, quenching hot coke, and battery stacks of oven combustion.
        Subpart L (promulgated in 1993): addresses leaks from oven doors, lids, "offtake" ducts, and charging, and includes two groups of facilities based on the CAA: MACT track and Lowest Achievable Emissions Rate (LAER) track.
       In addition, there are co-located coke by-product recovery (chemical) plants (CBRPs) at by-product recovery facilities that are regulated under older 40 CFR part 61 NESHAP (the main rule, 61 subpart L, was promulgated in 1989) that requires facilities to duct emissions of certain CBRP process units and to implement a leak detection and repair (LDAR) program. The CBRPs are not listed or regulated under CAA section 112 because they were delisted from section 112 in 2001.
    In 2016, we sent a section 114 test request to 7 facilities to obtain hazardous air pollutants (HAP) emission data.
        Data were obtained for pushing (6 facilities), quenching (1 facility), battery stacks (7 facilities), HNR charging (1 facility), HRSG main stacks and HRSG bypass/waste heat stacks (1 facility).
        HAP emissions from the subpart 5C sources include: acid gases (HCl and HF), dioxin/furans (D/F), HAP metals, hydrogen cyanide (HCN), PAHs, volatile organic HAP (VOHAP), and formaldehyde.
    EPA currently has a court ordered deadline of December 26, 2022 to complete the risk and technology review (RTR) for subpart 5C and technology review for subpart L.
    During development of the RTR proposed rule during 2021-22, EPA work group members recommended that we consider fenceline monitoring to gain a better understanding of fugitive emissions. People also expressed the need for: more emissions test data for some subpart 5C sources, more data and information regarding oven door leaks, and more data and information regarding co-located CBRPs. With these additional data, EPA could develop a more robust and comprehensive sector-based rule. Our management agreed that we should pursue this path.
    We subsequently discussed this concept with the deadline litigants (Earthjustice) but also explained that in order to get such data and information we would need a significant extension to the deadline.
    The litigants were supportive of this idea. Therefore, we are currently developing a section 114 request to gather additional data and we expect to receive an extension for the Coke Oven RTR final rule to Spring 2024.
    Our current plan is that the comprehensive sector-based rule will include a risk assessment for 40 CFR part 63, subpart L sources and MACT limits for 40 CFR part 61, subpart L sources under CAA section 112.
    This briefing document provides a summary of our draft section 114 request that we plan to send to companies by early June 2022.

OVERVIEW OF THE DRAFT SECTION 114 REQUEST, FIVE MAIN PARTS:
     For subpart 5C, we only have test data from 1 of the 5 HNR facilities for each of two emissions sources (i.e., one HRSG by-pass/waste heat stack and one HRSG main stack), which are currently unregulated. Therefore, we plan to require testing of these 2 emission sources at two additional HNR facilities for several organic HAPs (including D/F and PAHs), metal HAPs, HCl, HF and other pollutants, as shown in Table 1 below. We also plan to request battery continuous opacity monitoring (COMs) data and information regarding existing COMS-driven battery O&M work practices from by-product facilities, as described in detail below (bottom of page 4).
     For subpart L under part 63, we lack data on technologies and work practices to reduce emissions from leaks from doors, lids, offtakes, and emissions from charging, and the costs and effectiveness of those technologies. Therefore, we plan to send a questionnaire/survey to gather data and information on this topic.
     Regarding door leak (fugitive) emissions, these emissions previously were estimated using an equation (from AP-42) based on a 1981 study. We are planning to require at least one facility to repeat this study, which will help us better quantify such emissions and update the equation. These door leak emissions were a main risk driver in our preliminary risk analysis as they were in the 2005 RTR. Details are discussed below in the expanded summary section and in the appendix.
     Regarding co-located CBRPs, there are significant uncertainties about the emissions and work practices performed for these sources. We plan to include an extensive questionnaire/survey to gather data on processes, control measures, and work practices for these chemical plants. We also plan to require stack testing for organic HAP and sulfuric pollutants at 6 by-product chemical plants for three units that have measurable exhaust points, as described in Table 1 below.
     We also plan to request fenceline and interior facility monitoring.

EXPANDED SUMMARY OF THE DRAFT COKE OVENS SECTION 114 REQUEST
A. Source Tests

Table 1 below presents our current plans for the source test portion of the section 114 request, including the sources and specified HAP to be tested.

Table 1 - Summary of Required Emissions Testing for Coke Oven Plants by Emission Process Unit
                             Emission Process Unit
                     Number of Facilities & Companies
                             Pollutant(s) to Test
           Part 63 subpart L:  Coke Ovens at By-product Plants Only
Doors, Bench and Yard
                                1-2 facilities
                                 1-2 companies
Visible emissions (leaks) to repeat the 1981 study that established the current AP-42 equation for estimating coke oven emissions (COE). Equation details described in the appendix.
                                                                    (continued)

  Part 61 subpart: Coke Ovens Chemical By-product Recovery Plants (CBRP) Only
Cooling Tower Inlet
                                 6 facilities
                                 (4 companies)

Volatile organic HAP (VOHAP): as benzene, ethyl benzene, toluene, and xylenes (BTEX), speciated; hydrogen sulfide (H2S), carbonyl sulfide (COS), carbon disulfide (CS2)
Light Oil Condenser

VOHAP: as BTEX; H2S, COS, CS2

Sulfur Recovery/ Desulfurization Combustion Unit

Sulfur dioxide (SO2)
H2S, COS, CS2
         Part 63 subpart 5C: Heat and Non-Recovery Process (HNR) Only
(1) HNR Main Stack after Heat Recovery Steam Generators (HRSG);  and
(2) HNR Bypass Stacks and HNR Waste Heat Stacks
                                 2 facilities,
                                   1 company
Toluene-soluble organics (TSO)
Filterable PM & HAP Metals
PM2.5 filterable & condensable
CO2, CO, SO2
HCl, HF, HCN, PAHs and D/F
Opacity (stack)
VOHAP: as BTEX, and formaldehyde
Baghouse dust

Mercury
               Part 63, Subparts L and 5C, and Part 61 Subpart L
             Testing at Facility Fenceline & Interior Facility
Fugitives emissions at fenceline, and at interior facility locations near (1) the coke oven batteries and (2) the CBRP
6 Coke Oven By-Product facilities; and
1-2 HNR facilities (no interior CBRP test)
VOHAP: as BTEX, and 1,3 Butadiene
PAH and volatile organic compounds (VOC)

 We plan to require 7 test runs for the HAP pollutants (for which we may need to calculate MACT floor limits) and 3 test runs for the other pollutants (PM2.5, CO2, SO2), along with minimum test volumes. All the above items are specified to ensure good quality data.
 Process data will be requested for the duration of the testing, such as rate of coke production, type of coal charged during testing, and average coking time per oven(s) tested (hours).
 Physical data for stack and fugitive sources will be requested, such as stack height and diameter, fugitive source dimensions (LxWxH), location (latitude/longitude), gas temperature, and gas velocity dimensions of source (batteries, HRSG) for any sources for which we don't already have these data.

B. Door Leak Tests

In the testing to verify the door leak emissions equation, the selected facility will assess coke oven door leaks according to U.S. EPA Method 303 from both the yard and the bench. Two teams of two observers would be used. Each team would traverse the same side of the battery simultaneously, one team member at the bench and one at the yard. Team members would then switch position and re-traverse the battery to complete a set of observations. Four sets of observations (2 traverses, one for each team on 2 sides) will be performed at three different batteries. This procedure was used in 1981 to develop the original equation.

An example of the door leak test protocol is shown in Table 2, below, for a hypothetical battery "XYZ". A similar scheme will be requested for two more batteries for a total of three batteries. Abbreviations are as follows: O1 is Observer 1, O2 is Observer 2, etc.

More information regarding development of the original door leak equation and our current draft revision to the equation is provided in the appendix.

Table 2. Door Leak Testing Sequence at One Battery (XYZ)
Traverse No.
Battery XYZ  -  Coke Side
Battery XYZ  -  Coal Side

Bench
Yard
Bench
Yard
1A
O1, O2
O3, O4
O1, O2
O3, O4
1B
O3, O4
O1, O2
O3, O4
O1, O2
2A
O1, O3
O2, O4
O1, O3
O2, O4
2B
O2, O4
O1, O3
O2, O4
O1, O3
3A
O1, O2
O3, O4
O1, O2
O3, O4
3B
O3, O4
O1, O2
O3, O4
O1, O2
4A
O1, O3
O2, O4
O1, O3
O2, O4
4B
O2, O4
O1, O3
O2, O4
O1, O3

C. Questionnaire

The Coke Oven section 114 request questionnaire will be divided into four sections, as follows:

     Basic Company Information: Includes verification/update of data submitted in 2016, and new submittal of information for facilities that did not receive the 2016 section 114 request.

     Coke By-Product Recovery Plants: This section of the questionnaire will request detailed process unit descriptions, facility schematics, emissions calculations, applicable state and local regulations, methods of compliance with 40 CFR part 61, subpart L, and explanation and costs of work practices used or tried in the past to minimize emissions.

     Coke Oven Doors, Lids, Offtakes, and Charging at By-product Coke Oven Facilities: This section of the questionnaire will request details of the techniques used to minimize leaks and charging emissions, the emissions reductions and costs of these techniques that may include maintenance and other work practices, technology upgrades, and any other emission reduction techniques.

     Battery stacks: We plan to request 5 years of hourly COMS data along with the techniques used by the facility to explore the usefulness of these data to identify leaking or otherwise compromised coke ovens. We also plan to request two weeks of 1-minute COMs data along with oven charging and pushing schedules for correlative analyses. We plan to ask for descriptions of existing work practices for oven integrity and battery stack O&M.

We plan to send the questionnaire to five companies, covering a total of six operating by-product coke oven facilities, and two HNR facilities (that did not complete the 2016 114 request).

NEXT STEPS AND ANTICIPATED SCHEDULE
Milestones
                                     Dates
Presentation and meeting with industry
May 18, 2022
Comments and feedback from industry due
May 25, 2022
Brief SPPD Director regarding stakeholder input and comments
May 27, 2022
Complete revised Section 114 request based on input by stakeholders
May 30, 2022
Final section 114 request to SPPD DD for signature
May 30, 2022
EPA sends section 114 request to industry
June 2, 2022
Industry submits responses to enclosure 1 (survey)
July 15, 2022
Industry submits responses to enclosure 2 (testing results)
October 26, 2022
Industry submits 3-months of fenceline and interior monitoring data
November 26, 2022
Industry submits 6-months of fenceline and interior monitoring data
February 2023
Proposed Rule signature
July 2023
Final Rule signature
May 2024

                                    APPENDIX
  Inform or Confirm the Development of a Revised Coke Oven Door Leak Equation

INTRODUCTION

The 1993 NESHAP (subpart L) set maximum achievable control technology (MACT) standards for leaks of coke oven emissions (COE) from oven doors, lids, and offtakes, and other coke oven sources. COE are a separately-listed HAP consisting of approximately 71 chemicals, including volatile, semi-volatile organic HAP, and PM HAP.
      For the by-product coke plants, MACT limits for subpart L sources were set based on the percent of oven doors, offtake gas ducts and oven charging lids that leak visible emissions, as measured using EPA Method 303. Because nonrecovery coke ovens operate under negative pressure, there are zero leaks from their doors, lids, and offtakes. Emissions of COE leaks from by-product coke ovens have historically been estimated using AP-42 emission factor equations that include the number of leaking doors, lids, and offtakes, and the seconds of visible emissions measured with EPA Method 303.

This appendix discusses a revised equation to estimate emissions from oven doors that we think better reflects the technological improvements in today's coke industry.
BACKGROUND
In 2005, the EPA promulgated the residual risk and technology review (RTR) for subpart L (72 FR 19992). In the RTR for subpart L, COE from leaking oven doors, were estimated using the following equation taken from the estimating procedures in AP-42. The nonvisible emissions in the AP-42 equation were considered to be zero in the RTR but were acknowledged to contribute to the uncertainty in the estimates, where actual emissions were stated as potentially higher than estimated with an acknowledgment that they also could be lower (70 FR 20007).

COE-doors (lb/hr) = ND x (PLDyard/100) x (0.04 lb/hr) + ND x (PLDbench/100) x (0.023 lb/hr)

where:
ND		=	number of doors
PLD		=	percent leaking doors
bench		=	walking platform running next to the ovens (and doors)
yard		=	50 to 100 feet from the oven doors
PLDyard  	=	percent of doors with visible leaks visible from the yard
PLDbench	=	percent of doors with visible leaks only visible from the bench, assumed to be 6%.
Because of safety concerns, actual observations are not typically taken from bench and, therefore, this equation has historically included a default value of 6% for leaking doors visible only from the bench, as shown below:

COE-doors (lb/hr) = ND x (PLDyard/100) x (0.04 lb/hr) + ND x (6%/100) x (0.023 lb/hr)

All emissions estimates used in the initial draft 2021 RTR baseline risk assessment were based on application of the 6% default value for bench-only leaks from doors.

RE-ASSESSMENT OF DEFAULT DOOR LEAKS VISIBLE ONLY FROM BENCH

      The value of 6% leaking doors visible only from the bench originates from the July 2008 update to AP-42, where data from 1981 was used as the basis for the 6% value, as described in the 2008 AP-42 background document. In this document, it is stated that the data used to develop the 6% leaking doors that are visible only from the bench were derived from measurements where the percent leaking doors from the yard was 6.4% and the total percent leaking doors visible from the bench was 12.4%, which includes both leaks visible from the yard and leaks visible only from the bench.[4] The difference between 12.4% and 6.4%, at 6%, was taken to represent the percent leaking doors visible only from the bench. The data used to support these estimates are explained in the AP-42 background document,[6] as follows:

      "In August 1981, EPA conducted bench and yard observations of door leaks at the US Steel Clairton Works (Batteries 7, 8, and 9). The program was designed to obtain accurate data and to minimize the bias created by process and observer variance. There were four observers divided into two teams. Each team traversed the same side of the battery simultaneously, one from the bench and one from the yard. At the end of the traverse, the teams switched positions and conducted another traverse. Two traverses of the same side of the battery conducted in this manner are considered a set. A total of 25 sets of observations were made, and in all cases, more leaks were observed from the bench than from the yard. The average was 6.4 PLD from the yard and 12.4 PLD from the bench, which gives an average difference of 6 PLD. The difference ranged from 0.8 PLD to 14.5 PLD."

The 6% leaking doors visible only from the bench were presented as an absolute value and not set in relation to the percent leaking doors from the yard, which is the only measured value related to door emissions. Support for a revised equation can be found in the response to comments included in the July 2008 background document, where the EPA stated: "It is not clear that the difference should be a constant rather than a ratio, i.e., the difference between yard and bench leaks may change as the total number of leaks decreases."

      In the current coke industry, the percent leaking doors measured from the yard are now much lower, at 2.5% or less, based on 2016 source tests performed for an EPA information collection request. The facility that was used to establish the 6% leaking doors visible only from the bench in 1981 was U.S. Steel Clairton-PA, which had 6.4% leaking doors visible from the yard in 1981, but now has a facility average of 0.5% leaking doors visible from the yard. Therefore, we believe the default fixed value of 6% leaking doors visible only from the bench should be reevaluated so that the total emissions from doors are not over estimated and are in relation to the measured percent leaking doors from the yard and not a fixed value.

      We are suggesting that a bench-to-yard "adjustment ratio" be used instead of the 6% fixed value for bench-only visible door emissions. The adjustment ratio would be based on the historic values measured in 1981, as the ratio of the percent leaking doors visible from the bench[4] to the percent leaking doors visible from the yard. This adjustment ratio would be used with the measured percent leaking doors from the yard (with EPA Method 303) to estimate percent leaking doors visible only from the bench. The ratio of bench-only visible emissions to yard emissions from 1981 is ((12.4-6.4)/6.4), equal to 6.0/6.4 or 0.94. This adjustment ratio (0.94) would be multiplied by data for percent leaking doors measured from the yard to estimate the bench-only component of door emissions in the equation for COE for doors from above, and shown below with the adjustment factor:

COE-doors (lb/hr) = ND x (PLDyard/100) x (0.04 lb/hr) +
                                    ND x ((PLDyard x 0.94PLDbench/PLDyard)/100) x (0.023 lb/hr)

where:
ND	=	number of doors
PLD	=	percent leaking doors
yard	=	50 to 100 feet from the oven doors
bench	=	walking platform running next to the ovens (and doors)
0.94	=	ratio of PLDbench to PLDyard

      In this revised equation, the percent leaking doors visible only from the bench is still represented by the second term, which is now set equal to PLDyard. x 0.94.

COE-doors (lb/hr) = ND x (PLDyard/100) x (0.04 lb/hr) + ND x ((PLDyard x 0.94)/100) x (0.023 lb/hr)

CONCLUSION

      This revised equation is expected to provide more accurate estimates of total COE from doors that reflects advancements in preventing and reducing door leaks that have occurred since 1981. The term used to estimate unmeasured leaking doors visible only from the bench in the revised equation above still incorporates the historic measurements but also includes measured values at the facility. However, it would be helpful get additional data to inform the further development of the revised equation. Therefore, we are planning to require at least one coke facility to repeat this study in 2022, which will help us better quantify these emissions and update the equation.


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 82 (Monday, May 1, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 20417-20418]
[FR Doc No: 2017-08683]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

[Docket Number FRA-2017-0008]

Petition for Waiver of Compliance

    Under part 211 of Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR), this document provides the public notice that on January 18,
2017, the Middletown & Hummelstown Railroad Company (MIDH) petitioned
the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) for a waiver of compliance
from certain provisions of the Federal railroad safety regulations at
49 CFR part 230, Steam Locomotive Inspection and Maintenance Standards.
FRA assigned the petition Docket Number FRA-2017-0008.
    Specifically, MIDH's letter requests relief from performing the
1,472 service day inspection (SDI) for No. 91, a 2-6-0 ``Mogul'' type
steam locomotive built by the Canadian Locomotive Company in 1910 for
the Canadian National Railway. MIDH's request pertains to the
inspection of the boiler every 15 calendar years or 1,472 service days,
as required by 49 CFR 230.17. MIDH is requesting an additional 19
calendar months before performing a 1,472 SDI. The previous SDI was
completed on May 30, 2002, and expires on May 30, 2017. Granting relief
will allow No. 91 an SDI period of 16 calendar years and 7 calendar
months while not exceeding 1,472 service days. MIDH operated No. 91
from 2002 to 2009. It has been stored in serviceable condition, but has
not operated since 2009 due to the lack of an experienced mechanical
staff. MIDH's justification for requesting relief is that No. 91 has
only operated for a total of 116 service days within the 15-calendar
year period.
    A copy of the petition, as well as any written communications
concerning the petition, is available for review online at
www.regulations.gov and in person at the Department of Transportation's
Docket Operations Facility, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., W12-140,
Washington, DC 20590. The Docket Operations Facility is open from 9
a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays.
    Interested parties are invited to participate in these proceedings
by submitting written views, data, or

comments. FRA does not anticipate scheduling a public hearing in
connection with these proceedings since the facts do not appear to
warrant a hearing. If any interested parties desire an opportunity for
oral comment and a public hearing, they should notify FRA, in writing,
before the end of the comment period and specify the basis for their
request.
    All communications concerning these proceedings should identify the
appropriate docket number and may be submitted by any of the following
methods:
     Web site: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Docket Operations Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., W12-140, Washington, DC
20590.
     Hand Delivery: 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room W12-140,
Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal Holidays.
    Communications received by June 15, 2017 will be considered by FRA
before final action is taken. Comments received after that date will be
considered if practicable.
    Anyone can search the electronic form of any written communications
and comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the
individual submitting the comment (or signing the document, if
submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.).
Under 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the public to better
inform its processes. DOT posts these comments, without edit, including
any personal information the commenter provides, to
www.regulations.gov, as described in the system of records notice (DOT/
ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at https://www.transportation.gov/privacy. See also https://www.regulations.gov/privacyNotice for the
privacy notice of regulations.gov.

    Issued in Washington, DC.
Robert C. Lauby,
Associate Administrator for Railroad Safety, Chief Safety Officer.
[FR Doc. 2017-08683 Filed 4-28-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-06-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 84 (Wednesday, May 3, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 20549-20553]
[FR Doc No: 2017-08944]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

49 CFR Part 243

[Docket No. FRA-2009-0033, Notice No. 4]
RIN 2130-AC68

Training, Qualification, and Oversight for Safety-Related
Railroad Employees

AGENCY: Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Final rule; delay of implementation dates.

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

SUMMARY: This document delays the implementation dates in the final
rule published November 7, 2014, because model training program
developers alerted FRA they will not be able to timely produce model
programs that an estimated 1,459 railroads and contractors are expected
to use to comply with the rule's program submission requirements.

DATES: This regulation is effective June 2, 2017. Petitions for
reconsideration of this delay must be received on or before May 23,
2017. Petitions for reconsideration will be posted in the docket for
this proceeding. Comments on any submitted petition for reconsideration
must be received on or before June 19, 2017.

ADDRESSES: Petitions for reconsideration or comments on such petitions:
Any petitions and any comments on petitions related to Docket No. FRA-
2009-0033 may be submitted by any of the following methods:
     Online: Comments should be filed at the Federal
eRulemaking Portal, http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility, U.S. DOT, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., W12-140, Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: Room W12-140 on the Ground level of the
West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m. Monday through Friday, except federal holidays.
    Instructions: All submissions must include the agency name and
docket number or Regulatory Identification Number (RIN) for this
rulemaking. All petitions and comments received will be posted without
change to http://www.regulations.gov; this includes any personal
information. Please see the Privacy Act heading in the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section of this document for Privacy Act information
related to any submitted petitions or materials.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov at any time or to
Room W12-140 on the Ground level of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert J. Castiglione, Staff
Director--Technical Training, U.S. Department of Transportation,
Federal Railroad Administration, 4100 International Plaza, Suite 450,
Fort Worth, TX 76109-4820 (telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>); or Alan H. Nagler,
Senior Trial Attorney, U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal
Railroad Administration, Office of Chief Counsel, RCC-10, Mail Stop 10,
West Building 3rd Floor, Room W31-309, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC 20590 (telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: FRA issued a final rule establishing minimum
training standards for each category and subcategory of safety-related
railroad employees and requiring railroad carriers, contractors, and
subcontractors to submit training programs to FRA for FRA approval. The
final rule was published November 7, 2014 (79 FR 66459) and was
effective on January 6, 2015 (2014 Final Rule). The 2014 Final Rule was
required by section 401(a) of the Rail Safety Improvement Act of 2008,
Public Law 110-432, 122 Stat. 4883 (Oct. 16, 2008), codified at 49
U.S.C. 20162, and the Secretary of

Transportation delegated the authority to conduct this rulemaking and
implement the rule to the Federal Railroad Administrator. 49 CFR
1.89(b).
    In the preamble to the 2014 Final Rule, FRA noted the importance of
establishing implementation dates and providing incentives for the
early filing of model programs to improve the efficiency and
effectiveness of the review process. FRA recognized it was paramount to
give model program developers sufficient time to develop programs and
receive FRA approval. FRA also recognized that employers would not use
those model programs unless the employers were given a reasonable time
to consider using those programs before the employers' deadline for
implementation. Consequently, the 2014 Final Rule provided model
program developers with an incentive to file all model programs by May
1, 2017--eight months before the first employers would have to submit
model programs and two years before smaller employers (i.e., those
employers with less than 400,000 total employee work hours annually)
would have to submit their model programs. See Sec. Sec.
243.105(a)(3), and 243.101(a)(1) and (2). The incentive to submit early
was a guarantee from FRA that the model program would be considered
approved so it could be implemented within 180 days after the date of
submission unless FRA identified that all or part of the program did
not conform to the rule requirements.
    After publishing the 2014 Final Rule, FRA took significant steps to
educate the regulated community on its requirements. On May 1, 2015,
FRA notified the regulated community it issued an Interim Final
Compliance Guide published in the rulemaking docket. The guide
illustrates ways to comply with the rule, provides the requirements in
a different format to make it quicker and easier to understand, and
answers questions FRA believes are likely to be frequently asked. Any
sized employer can use this guide as a quick way to determine if FRA
will likely find the employer's training program complies with the 2014
Final Rule. The guide was ``Interim Final'' because it was effective
upon publication and signaled FRA would consider amending the guidance
based on comments received. FRA considered all comments received by the
June 30, 2015 deadline and considered many late-filed comments, as
practicable, before issuing the Final Compliance Guide published in the
rulemaking docket May 25, 2016.
    FRA personnel also conducted significant outreach to the regulated
community; making presentations at association conferences;
participating in association-sponsored webinars; and having numerous
meetings, conference calls, and other exchanges of information in which
FRA answered questions as they arose. FRA included many of the
questions and answers with broad industry scope in the Final Compliance
Guide.
    On March 20, 2017, FRA added information to its Web site to more
broadly disseminate information about the 2014 Final Rule's
requirements. See https://www.fra.dot.gov/Page/P1023. The information
on FRA's Web site provides quick links to FRA's Final Compliance Guide,
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs), the portal for submitting training
programs, and an electronic Shareholder Training Matrix (Matrix). The
Matrix allows individuals to search general job categories and titles
to determine whether training is required for a particular rule and
what kind of training is required (i.e., formal or on-the-job training,
or a briefing only). Anyone can use the Matrix to determine what
regulatory provisions must be included in a training program.
    During FRA's outreach on the 2014 Final Rule, FRA heard concerns
from the American Short Line and Regional Railroad Association (ASLRRA)
and National Railroad Construction and Maintenance Association, Inc.
(NRC), two of the associations identified in the Regulatory Impact
Analysis (RIA) as likely model program developers. These two
associations represent most of the 1,459 employers FRA projected would
adopt model training programs rather than develop their own.\1\ ASLRRA
requested FRA's help in developing its model programs for its members,
and FRA provided training documents FRA uses to train the agency's
personnel on federal rail safety requirements. In December 2016, FRA
completed sharing the last of those documents with ASLRRA. Because the
training materials FRA made available to ASLRRA may be useful for
others in the regulated community, FRA will also make them available on
FRA's Web site. ASLRRA has submitted several model training programs to
FRA and has made significant strides towards completing some programs.
However, ASLRRA still has a significant number of training programs
left to develop and submit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The RIA for the 2014 Final Rule provided the estimated costs
and benefits, and explained FRA based this analysis on the premise
that ``most small railroads and contractors will use consortiums or
model training programs developed by industry associations . . .
thereby minimizing costs.'' RIA at 15. In the RIA, FRA estimated
that 1,459 railroads and contractors would use model programs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Similarly, NRC informed FRA it found certain aspects of the rule
confusing to implement and difficult for contractors to apply in
practice. Despite FRA's efforts since 2015 to explain the regulatory
requirements to NRC and its members through multiple webinars,
conference calls, and other outreach, NRC informed FRA it needs more
time to develop and submit model training programs the 2014 Final Rule
requires.
    The fact that both ASLRRA and NRC have notified FRA they cannot
submit most or all of their model training programs by the May 1, 2017
deadline significantly impacts the costs associated with the rule and
complicates the approval process. The 1,459 employers would bear
significantly higher costs developing personalized training programs,
rather than adopting model programs that are generic enough to apply to
any size railroad or contractor. Further, FRA's resources would be
stretched thin reviewing up to 1,459 individual employer programs,
rather than a relatively small number of model programs. In addition,
if FRA gives the associations additional time to produce model
programs, FRA expects the quality of those model programs will be much
better than those separately prepared by a large number of individual
small or medium employers.
    The additional time to implement the rule should also help model
training program developers and other regulated entities comply with
the final rule. Nevertheless, any individual employer, model training
program developer, or other regulated person that finds these revised
implementation deadlines difficult to comply with may file a waiver
requesting additional time as permitted by 49 CFR part 211, subpart C
for FRA approval. FRA would appreciate receiving any such request for
additional time to comply with the implementation dates no earlier than
four months before the relevant implementation deadline.
    Of course, nothing in this rule affects the ability of any
regulated entity from complying with the requirements in advance of any
deadline.
    In consideration of the foregoing, FRA delays each of the
implementation dates in the 2014 Final Rule by one year.

Section-by-Section Analysis

Subpart B--Program Components and Approval Process

Section 243.101 Employer Program Required
    The implementation dates in this section are delayed by one year so
all employers will have an additional year to develop and submit
training programs. Specifically, in paragraphs (a)(1) and (b), the
January 1, 2018 implementation dates are changed to January 1, 2019.
    In paragraph (a)(2), the implementation date in the 2014 Final Rule
was dependent on the date FRA issued the Interim Final Compliance Guide
published May 1, 2015. Because that date has passed, and FRA can now
calculate the specific implementation date in paragraph (a)(2), FRA
calculated that implementation date and added an additional year.
Consequently, the May 1, 2019 implementation date is changed to May 1,
2020. It is also no longer necessary to reference the Interim Final
Compliance Guide.
Section 243.105 Optional Model Program Development
    The implementation date in paragraph (a)(3) of this section is
delayed by one year. Consequently, model program developers will have
an additional year to submit model programs. Instead of a May 1, 2017
implementation date, model program developers will have until May 1,
2018, for their programs to be considered approved by FRA and can be
implemented 180 days after the date of submission.
Section 243.111 Approval of Programs Filed by Training Organizations or
Learning Institutions
    Each training organization or learning institution that has
provided training services to employers this part covers will have an
extra year to continue to offer such training services without FRA
approval. The 2014 Final Rule specified that a training organization or
learning institution that has provided training services to employers
covered by this part before January 1, 2017, may continue to offer such
training services without FRA approval until January 1, 2018. FRA
amends paragraph (b) of this section so that both dates are delayed by
one year. That requirement now reads that a training organization or
learning institution that has provided training services to employers
covered by this part before January 1, 2018, may continue to offer such
training services without FRA approval until January 1, 2019.

Subpart C--Program Implementation and Oversight Requirements

Section 243.201 Employee Qualification Requirements
    The implementation dates in this section are delayed by one year so
all employers have an additional year to designate each of their
existing safety-related railroad employees by occupational category or
subcategory, and only permit designated employees to perform safety-
related service in that occupational category or subcategory. In
paragraph (a)(1), the September 1, 2018 implementation date is changed
to September 1, 2019.
    In paragraph (a)(2), the implementation date in the 2014 Final Rule
was dependent on the date FRA issued the Interim Final Compliance Guide
published May 1, 2015. Because that date has passed, and FRA can now
calculate the specific implementation date in paragraph (a)(2), FRA
calculated that implementation date and added an additional year.
Consequently, the May 1, 2019 implementation date is changed to January
1, 2021. It also is no longer necessary to reference the Interim Final
Compliance Guide.
    In paragraph (b), the January 1, 2018 implementation date is
changed to January 1, 2019.
    In paragraphs (e)(1) and (2), the implementation dates for
refresher training are also delayed by one year. Thus, the January 1,
2020 implementation date in paragraph (e)(1) is changed to January 1,
2021, and completion of that refresher training for each employee must
be completed by no later than December 31, 2023, instead of the 2014
Final Rule requirement of December 31, 2022. In paragraph (e)(2), each
employer with less than 400,000 total employee work hours annually must
implement a refresher training program by May 1, 2022, rather than the
2014 Final Rule requirement of May 1, 2021, and complete that refresher
training for each employee by no later than December 31, 2024, instead
of the 2014 Final Rule requirement of December 31, 2023.

Public Proceedings

    The Administrative Procedure Act generally requires agencies to
provide the public with notice of proposed rulemaking and an
opportunity to comment prior to publication of a substantive rule.
However, 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B) authorizes agencies to dispense with
notice and comment ``when the agency for good cause finds that notice
and public procedure thereon are impracticable, unnecessary, or
contrary to the public interest.'' FRA finds that providing notice and
an opportunity to comment would be impracticable and contrary to the
public interest. The first of several implementation deadlines for the
regulated community is forthcoming on May 1, 2017. Providing notice and
an opportunity to comment would likely preclude FRA from delaying the
implementation dates before this important deadline passes. Delaying
the implementation dates is necessary to ensure model programs have a
chance to succeed. If FRA does not delay the implementation dates,
costs to the regulated community and FRA are expected to escalate, and
the quality of training programs is expected to decrease, which would
be contrary to the public interest.

Regulatory Impact and Notices

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 and DOT Regulatory Policies and
Procedures

    This rule has been evaluated in accordance with existing regulatory
policies and procedures and is considered to be nonsignificant under
both Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 and DOT policies and procedures.
See 44 FR 11034, Feb. 26, 1979. This rule is beneficial for regulated
entities by adding time to comply with the 2014 Final Rule and imposing
no costs. Because any regulated entity may file according to the 2014
Final Rule's schedule or the extended schedule in this final rule,
there are no specific costs associated with this rule.

Regulatory Flexibility Act and Executive Order 13272; Final Regulatory
Flexibility Assessment

    FRA determines and certifies that this final rule is not expected
to have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities.
The requirements of this rule will apply to employers of safety-related
railroad employees, whether the employers are railroads, contractors,
or subcontractors. Although a substantial number of small entities are
subject to this rule, the rule provides relief by extending all of the
implementation dates in the 2014 Final Rule. Thus, the economic impact
of this rule will not be significant because it will only provide
additional time for all entities to comply.
    This final rule will have no direct impact on small units of
government, businesses, or other organizations. State rail agencies are
not required to participate in this program. State owned

railroads will receive a positive impact by having additional time to
comply.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    There are no new collection of information requirements contained
in this final rule and, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., the record keeping and reporting
requirements already contained in this rule have been approved by the
Office of Management and Budget. The OMB approval number is OMB No.
2130-0597. The information collection requirements of this rule became
effective when they were approved by OMB.

Federalism Implications

    This rule will not have a substantial 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. Thus in accordance with Executive Order 13132,
``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, Aug. 10, 1999), preparation of a
Federalism Assessment is not warranted.

International Trade Impact Assessment

    The Trade Agreement Act of 1979 prohibits Federal agencies from
engaging in any standards or related activities that create unnecessary
obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States. Legitimate
domestic objectives, such as safety, are not considered unnecessary
obstacles. The statute also requires consideration of international
standards and where appropriate, that they be the basis for U.S.
standards.
    This final rule is purely domestic in nature and is not expected to
affect trade opportunities for U.S. firms doing business overseas or
for foreign firms doing business in the United States.

Environmental Impact

    FRA has evaluated this rule in accordance with its ``Procedures for
Considering Environmental Impacts'' (FRA's Procedures) (64 FR 28545,
May 26, 1999) as required by the National Environmental Policy Act (42
U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), other environmental statutes, Executive Orders,
and related regulatory requirements. FRA has determined that this final
rule is not a major FRA action (requiring the preparation of an
environmental impact statement or environmental assessment) because it
is categorically excluded from detailed environmental review pursuant
to section 4(c)(20) of FRA's Procedures. See 64 FR 28547 (May 26,
1999).
    In accordance with section 4(c) and (e) of FRA's Procedures, the
agency has further concluded that no extraordinary circumstances exist
with respect to this final rule that might trigger the need for a more
detailed environmental review. As a result, FRA finds that this final
rule is not a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality
of the human environment.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    Pursuant to section 201 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(Pub. L. 104-4, 2 U.S.C. 1531), each Federal agency ``shall, unless
otherwise prohibited by law, assess the effects of Federal regulatory
actions on State, local, and tribal governments, and the private sector
(other than to the extent that such regulations incorporate
requirements specifically set forth in law).'' Section 202 of the Act
(2 U.S.C. 1532) further requires that ``before promulgating any general
notice of proposed rulemaking that is likely to result in the
promulgation of any rule that includes any Federal mandate that may
result in expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the
aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100,000,000 or more (adjusted
annually for inflation) in any 1 year, and before promulgating any
final rule for which a general notice of proposed rulemaking was
published, the agency shall prepare a written statement'' detailing the
effect on State, local, and tribal governments and the private sector.
This final rule will not result in such an expenditure, and thus
preparation of such a statement is not required.

Energy Impact

    Executive Order 13211 requires Federal agencies to prepare a
Statement of Energy Effects for any ``significant energy action.'' 66
FR 28355 (May 22, 2001). FRA has evaluated this final rule in
accordance with Executive Order 13211, and has determined that this
regulatory action is not a ``significant energy action'' within the
meaning of the Executive Order.

Privacy Act

    Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments
received into any of DOT's dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf
of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's
complete Privacy Act Statement published in the Federal Register on
April 11, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 70, Pages 19477-78), or you may visit
http://DocketsInfo.dot.gov.

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 243

    Administrative practice and procedure, Penalties, Railroad
employees, Railroad safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

The Final Rule

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, FRA amends chapter II,
subtitle B of title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:

PART 243--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 243 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 20103, 20107, 20131-20155, 20162, 20301-
20306, 20701-20702, 21301-21304, 21311; 28 U.S.C. 2461, note; and 49
CFR 1.89.

Subpart B--Program Components and Approval Process--[Amended]

0
2. Revise 243.101(a) and (b) to read as follows:

Sec.  243.101  Employer program required.

    (a)(1) Effective January 1, 2019, each employer conducting
operations subject to this part with 400,000 total employee work hours
annually or more shall submit, adopt, and comply with a training
program for its safety-related railroad employees.
    (2) Effective May 1, 2020, each employer conducting operations
subject to this part with less than 400,000 total employee work hours
annually shall submit, adopt, and comply with a training program for
its safety-related railroad employees.
    (b) Except for an employer subject to the requirement in paragraph
(a)(2) of this section, an employer commencing operations subject to
this part after January 1, 2019, shall submit a training program for
its safety-related railroad employees before commencing operations.
Upon commencing operations, the employer shall adopt and comply with
the training program.
* * * * *

0
 3. Revise 243.105(a)(3) to read as follows:

Sec.  243.105  Optional model program development.

    (a) * * *
    (3) Each model training program submitted to FRA before May 1,
2018, is considered approved and may be implemented 180 days after the
date of submission unless the Associate Administrator advises the
organization, business, or association that developed and submitted the
program that all or part of the program does not conform.
* * * * *

0
 4. Revise 243.111(b) to read as follows:

Sec.  243.111  Approval of programs filed by training organizations or
learning institutions.

* * * * *
    (b) A training organization or learning institution that has
provided training services to employers covered by this part before
January 1, 2018, may continue to offer such training services without
FRA approval until January 1, 2019. The Associate Administrator may
extend this period at any time based on a written request. Such written
requests for an extension of time to submit a program should contain
any factors the training organization or learning institution wants the
Associate Administrator to consider before approving or disapproving
the extension.
* * * * *

Subpart C--Program Implementation and Oversight Requirements--
[Amended]

0
 5. Revise 243.201(a)(1) and (2), (b), and (e)(1) and (2) to read as
follows:

Sec.  243.201  Employee qualification requirements.

    (a) * * *
    (1) By no later than September 1, 2019, each employer with 400,000
total employee work hours annually or more in operation as of January
1, 2019, shall declare the designation of each of its existing safety-
related railroad employees by occupational category or subcategory, and
only permit designated employees to perform safety-related service in
that occupational category or subcategory. The Associate Administrator
may extend this period based on a written request.
    (2) By no later than January 1, 2021, each employer with less than
400,000 total employee work hours annually in operation as of January
1, 2020, shall declare the designation of each of its existing safety-
related railroad employees by occupational category or subcategory, and
only permit designated employees to perform safety-related service in
that occupational category or subcategory. The Associate Administrator
may extend this period based on a written request.
    (b) Except for an employer subject to the requirement in paragraph
(a)(2) of this section, an employer commencing operations after January
1, 2019 shall declare the designation of each of its existing safety-
related railroad employees by occupational category or subcategory
before beginning operations, and only permit designated employees to
perform safety-related service in that category or subcategory. Any
person designated shall have met the requirements for newly hired
employees or those assigned new safety-related duties in accordance
with paragraph (c) of this section.
* * * * *
    (e) * * *
    (1) Beginning January 1, 2021, each employer with 400,000 total
employee work hours annually or more shall deliver refresher training
at an interval not to exceed 3 calendar years from the date of an
employee's last training event, except where refresher training is
specifically required more frequently in accordance with this chapter.
If the last training event occurs before FRA's approval of the
employer's training program, the employer shall provide refresher
training either within 3 calendar years from that prior training event
or no later than December 31, 2023. Each employer shall ensure that, as
part of each employee's refresher training, the employee is trained and
qualified on the application of any Federal railroad safety laws,
regulations, and orders the person is required to comply with, as well
as any relevant railroad rules and procedures promulgated to implement
those Federal railroad safety laws, regulations, and orders.
    (2) Beginning May 1, 2022, each employer with less than 400,000
total employee work hours annually shall deliver refresher training at
an interval not to exceed 3 calendar years from the date of an
employee's last training event, except where refresher training is
specifically required more frequently in accordance with this chapter.
If the last training event occurs before FRA's approval of the
employer's training program, the employer shall provide refresher
training either within 3 calendar years from that prior training event
or no later than December 31, 2024. Each employer shall ensure that, as
part of each employee's refresher training, the employee is trained and
qualified on the application of any Federal railroad safety laws,
regulations, and orders the person is required to comply with, as well
as any relevant railroad rules and procedures promulgated to implement
those Federal railroad safety laws, regulations, and orders.

Patrick T. Warren,
Acting Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2017-08944 Filed 5-2-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-06-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 17 (Thursday, January 26, 2023)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 4920-4922]
[FR Doc No: 2023-01463]

========================================================================
Proposed Rules
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of
the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these
notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in
the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.

========================================================================

Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 17 / Thursday, January 26, 2023 /
Proposed Rules

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2023-0017; Project Identifier AD-2022-01418-T]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD)
for all The Boeing Company Model 757 airplanes. This proposed AD was
prompted by the potential for cracks to start in hidden areas
underneath the scuff plates in the fuselage skin and bear strap of
certain doors. This proposed AD would require an inspection or a
maintenance records check for repairs in the areas around the fuselage
skin door cutout lower corners of certain doors, and applicable on-
condition actions. The FAA is proposing this AD to address the unsafe
condition on these products.

DATES: The FAA must receive comments on this proposed AD by March 13,
2023.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR
11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to regulations.gov. Follow
the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: 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 Delivery: Deliver to Mail address above between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    AD Docket: You may examine the AD docket at regulations.gov under
Docket No. FAA-2023-0017; 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 NPRM, any comments received, and other
information. The street address for Docket Operations is listed above.
    Material Incorporated by Reference:
     For service information identified in this NPRM, contact
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data Services
(C&DS), 2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110-SK57, Seal Beach, CA 90740-5600;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; website myboeingfleet.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 at
regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2023-0017.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Peter Jarzomb, Aerospace Engineer,
Airframe Section, FAA, Los Angeles ACO Branch, 3960 Paramount
Boulevard, Lakewood, CA 90712 4137; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    The FAA invites you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed
under ADDRESSES. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2023-0017; Project Identifier
AD-2022-01418-T'' at the beginning of your comments. The most helpful
comments reference a specific portion of the proposal, explain the
reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. The FAA
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposal because of those comments.
    Except for Confidential Business Information (CBI) as described in
the following paragraph, and other information as described in 14 CFR
11.35, the FAA will post all comments received, without change, to
regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. The
agency will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal
contact received about this NPRM.

Confidential Business Information

    CBI is commercial or financial information that is both customarily
and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of
Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public
disclosure. If your comments responsive to this NPRM contain commercial
or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that
you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to
this NPRM, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted
comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission containing
CBI as ``PROPIN.'' The FAA will treat such marked submissions as
confidential under the FOIA, and they will not be placed in the public
docket of this NPRM. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to Peter
Jarzomb, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Section, FAA, Los Angeles ACO
Branch, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, CA 90712 4137; phone: 562-
627-5234; email: [email protected]. Any commentary that the FAA
receives that is not specifically designated as CBI will be placed in
the public docket for this rulemaking.

Background

    The FAA has received a report indicating operators of Model 767
airplanes have reported cracks in the fuselage skin and bear strap
under the No. 1 and No. 2 passenger entry door scuff plates at the aft
lower corners of the fuselage skin door cutout. Although no cracks have
been reported at these locations on Model 757 airplanes in service,
both Model 757 and 767 airplanes have the potential for cracks to start
in hidden areas underneath the scuff plates caused by higher fatigue
stresses at the fuselage skin door cutout lower corners. In addition,
similar lower door corner skin and bear strap cracks were found on the
Model 757 fatigue test article at the No. 2 and No. 4 passenger entry
doors, and the forward cargo door. Certain maintenance inspections do
not include a step to remove the scuff plates, which also contributes
to the inability to find cracks before they become critical. Cracks
underneath the scuff plates in the fuselage skin and bear strap, if not
addressed, could adversely affect the structural integrity of the
airplane.

FAA's Determination

    The FAA is issuing this NPRM after determining that the unsafe
condition described previously is likely to exist or develop on other
products of the same type design.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    The FAA reviewed Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 757-53A0119 RB,
dated October 12, 2022. This service information specifies procedures
for either a general visual inspection or a maintenance records check
for repairs in the areas around the fuselage skin door cutout lower
corners of the No. 1, No. 2, and No. 4 passenger entry doors; crew
entry door; No. 1, No. 2, and No. 3 cargo doors; and main deck cargo
door; and applicable on-condition actions, including repetitive low
frequency and high frequency eddy current inspections for cracks in the
skin or bear strap in the unrepaired areas, and crack repair. 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 ADDRESSES.

Proposed AD Requirements in This NPRM

    This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions specified
in the service information already described except for any differences
identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of this proposed AD.
For information on the procedures and compliance times, see this
service information at regulations.gov by searching for and locating
Docket No. FAA-2023-0017.

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this AD, if adopted as proposed, would
affect 482 airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following
costs to comply with this proposed AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per      Cost on U.S.
                Action                         Labor cost           Parts cost        product        operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
General visual inspection for repairs.  1 work-hour x $85 per                 $0             $85         $40,970
                                         hour = $85.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FAA estimates the following costs to do any necessary on-
condition actions that would be required based on the results of the
proposed inspection. The agency has no way of determining the number of
aircraft that might need these on-condition actions:

                           On-Condition Costs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Labor cost                Parts cost      Cost per product
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Up to 27 work-hours x $85 per hour             (*)  Up to $2,295.
 = $2,295.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The FAA has received no definitive data on which to base the cost
  estimates for parts required for any on-condition actions specified in
  this proposed AD.

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

    The FAA determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not
have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship
between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed
regulation:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866,
    (2) Would not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
    (3) Would 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.

The Proposed Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 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:

The Boeing Company: Docket No. FAA-2023-0017; Project Identifier AD-
2022-01418-T.

(a) Comments Due Date

    The FAA must receive comments on this airworthiness directive
(AD) by March 13, 2023.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to all The Boeing Company Model 757-200, -200PF,
-200CB, and -300 series airplanes, certificated in any category.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 53, Fuselage.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by the potential for cracks to start in
hidden areas underneath the scuff plates in the fuselage skin and
bear strap of certain doors. The FAA is issuing this AD to address
cracks caused by higher fatigue stresses at the fuselage skin door
cutout lower corners. This unsafe condition, if not addressed, could
adversely affect the structural integrity of the airplane.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Required Actions

    Except as specified by paragraph (h) of this AD: At the
applicable times specified in the ``Compliance'' paragraph of Boeing
Alert Requirements Bulletin 757-53A0119 RB, dated October 12, 2022,
do all applicable actions identified in, and in accordance with, the
Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin
757-53A0119 RB, dated October 12, 2022.
    Note 1 to paragraph (g): Guidance for accomplishing the actions
required by this AD can be found in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin
757-53A0119, dated October 12, 2022, which is referred to in Boeing
Alert Requirements Bulletin 757-53A0119 RB, dated October 12, 2022.

(h) Exceptions to Service Information Specifications

    (1) Where the Compliance Time column and notes of the tables in
the ``Compliance'' paragraph of Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin
757-53A0119 RB, dated October 12, 2022, use the phrase ``the
original issue date of Requirements Bulletin 757-53A0119 RB,'' this
AD requires using ``the effective date of this AD.''
    (2) Where Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 757-53A0119RB,
dated October 12, 2022, specifies ``General Visual Inspection (GVI)
or a maintenance records check for any existing repair'', if only a
Maintenance Records Check is accomplished with no GVI, then any
directly follow-on condition actions that specify a compliance time
``Before further flight'' are required prior to the accumulation of
30,000 total flight cycles, or within 3,000 flight cycles after the
effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later.
    (3) Where Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 757-53A0119 RB,
dated October 12, 2022, specifies contacting Boeing for repair
instructions or for alternative inspections: This AD requires doing
the repair, or doing the alternative inspections and applicable on-
condition actions, before further flight using a method approved in
accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (i) of this
AD.

(i) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Los Angeles 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 responsible Flight Standards
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 (j) of this AD. Information may be
emailed to: [email protected].
    (2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate
principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager
of the responsible Flight Standards Office.
    (3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be
used for any repair, modification, or alteration required by this AD
if it is approved by The Boeing Company Organization Designation
Authorization (ODA) that has been authorized by the Manager, Los
Angeles ACO Branch, FAA, to make those findings. To be approved, the
repair method, modification deviation, or alteration deviation must
meet the certification basis of the airplane, and the approval must
specifically refer to this AD.

(j) Related Information

    For more information about this AD, contact Peter Jarzomb,
Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Section, FAA, Los Angeles ACO Branch,
3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, CA 90712 4137; phone: 562-627-
5234; email: [email protected].

(k) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed
in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 757-53A0119 RB, dated
October 12, 2022.
    (ii) [Reserved]
    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data Services
(C&DS), 2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110-SK57, Seal Beach, CA 90740-
5600; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; website myboeingfleet.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 protected], or go to: www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued on January 11, 2023.
Christina Underwood,
Acting Director, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, Aircraft
Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2023-01463 Filed 1-25-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 241 (Monday, December 20, 2021)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 71818-71820]
[FR Doc No: 2021-27390]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2021-0834; Project Identifier MCAI-2021-00298-R;
Amendment 39-21844; AD 2021-25-01]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Leonardo S.p.a. Helicopters

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for
certain Leonardo S.p.a. Model A109S and AW109SP helicopters. This AD
was prompted by the discovery that rubber protection of certain
electrical wiring had not been installed in the baggage avionics bay
during production. This AD requires installing protective rubber
borders on the edge of the baggage avionics bay frames, as specified in
a European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD, which is
incorporated by reference. The FAA is issuing this AD to address the
unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: This AD is effective January 24, 2022.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of January 24,
2022.

ADDRESSES: For EASA material incorporated by reference (IBR) in this
AD, contact EASA, Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3, 50668 Cologne, Germany;
telephone +49 221 8999 000; email [email protected]; internet
www.easa.europa.eu. You may find the EASA material on the EASA website
at https://ad.easa.europa.eu. For Leonardo Helicopters service
information identified in this final rule, contact Leonardo S.p.A.
Helicopters, Emanuele Bufano, Head of Airworthiness, Viale G.Agusta
520, 21017 C.Costa di Samarate (Va) Italy; telephone +39-0331-225074;
fax +39-0331-229046; or at https://customerportal.leonardocompany.com/en-US/. You may view this material 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>. Service information that is
incorporated by reference is also available in the AD docket at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2021-
0834.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket at https://www.regulations.gov by
searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2021-0834; 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, the
EASA AD, 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: Hal Jensen, Aerospace Engineer,
Operational Safety Branch, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, FAA,
950 L'Enfant Plaza N SW, Washington, DC 20024; telephone (202) 267-
9167; email [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the
European Union, has issued EASA AD 2021-0065, dated March 8, 2021 (EASA
AD 2021-0065), to correct an unsafe condition for certain serial-
numbered Leonardo S.p.A. Helicopters, formerly Finmeccanica S.p.A.,
AgustaWestland S.p.A., Agusta S.p.A., Model A109S and AW109SP
helicopters.
    The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14
CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to Leonardo S.p.a. Model
A109S and AW109SP helicopters as identified in EASA AD 2021-0065. The
NPRM published in the Federal Register on September 30, 2021 (86 FR
54124). The NPRM was prompted by the discovery that rubber protection
of certain electrical wiring had not been installed in the baggage
avionics bay during production. The NPRM proposed to require installing
protective rubber borders on the edge of the baggage avionics bay
frames, as specified in EASA AD 2021-0065.
    The FAA is issuing this AD to prevent chafing of electrical wiring,
which if not addressed, could result in fire ignition and smoke in the
baggage compartment and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter.
See EASA AD 2021-0065 for additional background information.

Discussion of Final Airworthiness Directive

Comments

    The FAA received no comments on the NPRM or on the determination of
the costs.

Conclusion

    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 about the
unsafe condition described in its AD. The FAA reviewed the relevant
data and determined that air safety requires adopting this AD as
proposed. Accordingly, the FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe
condition on these helicopters.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    EASA AD 2021-0065 requires installing rubber protections on the
electrical wiring in the baggage/avionics compartment.
    This material 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.

Other Related Service Information

    The FAA reviewed Leonardo Helicopters Alert Service Bulletin (ASB)
No. 109S-100, dated February 2, 2021, for Model A109S helicopters, and
Leonardo Helicopters ASB No. 109SP-142, also dated February 2, 2021,
for Model AW109SP helicopters. This service information specifies
procedures for installing protective rubber borders on the edge of the
baggage avionics bay frames.

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this AD affects 3 helicopters of U.S.
Registry. Labor rates are estimated at $85 per work-hour. Based on
these numbers, the FAA estimates the following costs to comply with
this AD.
    Installing protective rubber borders on the edge of the baggage
avionics bay frames will take about 2 work-hours and parts will cost
about $24 for an estimated cost of $194 per helicopter and $582 for the
U.S. fleet.
    The FAA has included all known costs in its cost estimate.
According to the manufacturer, however, some of the costs of this AD
may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on
affected operators.

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.

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:

2021-25-01 Leonardo S.p.a.: Amendment 39-21844; Docket No. FAA-2021-
0834; Project Identifier MCAI-2021-00298-R.

(a) Effective Date

    This airworthiness directive (AD) is effective January 24, 2022.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Leonardo S.p.a. Model A109S and AW109SP
helicopters, certificated in any category, as identified in European
Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD 2021-0065, dated March 8,
2021 (EASA AD 2021-0065).

(d) Subject

    Joint Aircraft Service Component (JASC) Code: 2497, Electrical
Power System Wiring.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by the discovery that rubber protection of
certain electrical wiring had not been installed in the baggage
avionics bay during production. The FAA is issuing this AD to
prevent chafing of electrical wiring. The unsafe condition, if not
addressed, could result in fire ignition and smoke in the baggage
compartment and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Requirements

    Except as specified in paragraph (h) of this AD: Comply with all
required actions and compliance times specified in, and in
accordance with, EASA AD 2021-0065.

(h) Exceptions to EASA AD 2021-0065

    (1) Where EASA AD 2021-0065 requires compliance in terms of
flight hours, this AD requires using hours time-in-service.
    (2) Where EASA AD 2021-0065 refers to its effective date, this
AD requires using the effective date of this AD.
    (3) This AD does not mandate compliance with the ``Remarks''
section of EASA AD 2021-0065.

(i) No Reporting Requirement

    Although the service information referenced in EASA AD 2021-0065
specifies to submit certain information to the manufacturer, this AD
does not include that requirement.

(j) Special Flight Permit

    Special flight permits are prohibited.

(k) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, International Validation 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 International Validation Branch, send
it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (l) of
this AD. Information may be emailed to: [email protected].

    (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.

(l) Related Information

    For more information about this AD, contact Hal Jensen,
Aerospace Engineer, Operational Safety Branch, Compliance &
Airworthiness Division, FAA, 950 L'Enfant Plaza N SW, Washington, DC
20024; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email [email protected].

(m) 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) European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD 2021-0065,
dated March 8, 2021.
    (ii) [Reserved]
    (3) For EASA AD 2021-0065, contact EASA, Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3,
50668 Cologne, Germany; telephone +49 221 8999 000; email
[email protected]; internet www.easa.europa.eu. You may find the
EASA material on the EASA website at https://ad.easa.europa.eu.
    (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>. This material may be
found in the AD docket at https://www.regulations.gov by searching
for and locating Docket No. FAA-2021-0834.
    (5) You may view this material 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 protected], or go to: https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued on November 23, 2021.
Lance T. Gant,
Director, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2021-27390 Filed 12-17-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P