[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 166 (Tuesday, August 27, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 52848-52851]
[FR Doc No: 2013-20841]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Parts 91, 121, 125, and 135

[Docket No.: FAA-2012-0953]

Occupational Safety and Health Standards for Aircraft Cabin
Crewmembers

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of availability; final policy and disposition of
comments.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces the availability of a new policy
statement regarding the regulation of some occupational safety and
health conditions affecting cabin crewmembers on aircraft by the
Occupational Safety and Health Administration. This policy statement
will enhance occupational safety and health in the aircraft cabin by
establishing the extent to which the Occupational Safety and Health
Administration requirements may apply to the working conditions of
aircraft cabin crew while they are onboard aircraft in operation.

DATES: This action becomes effective September 26, 2013.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical questions concerning
this policy statement, contact Gene Kirkendall, Part 121 Air Carrier
Operations Branch (AFS-220), Flight Standards Service, Federal Aviation
Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FAA Policy Statement, Occupational
Safety and Health Standards for Aircraft Cabin Crewmembers, is
available at regulations.gov. (See docket number FAA-2012-0953.)

Disposition of Comments

    On December 7, 2012, the FAA published a draft policy statement in
the Federal Register for public notice and comment regarding the
regulation of some occupational safety and health conditions affecting
cabin crewmembers on aircraft in operation by the Occupational Safety
and Health Administration (OSHA). The FAA

received 196 comments. Comments fell into broad categories: Flight
attendants, and their unions were generally in favor of the proposed
policy statement; air carriers and their trade associations generally
opposed the policy change, sought clarification of its extent, or
expressed uncertainty over practical aspects such as compliance with
certain portions of OSHA standards or how OSHA would enforce the
standards. The policy statement is also available for review at http://www.faa.gov/about/initiatives/ashp/, as well as the docket for this
action.
    This document summarizes those comments and provides FAA and OSHA's
responses.

A. Applicability of Policy Statement

    Avjet Corporation (Avjet) commented that the policy statement does
not adequately address what type of flight operations will be affected
by this policy change. The FAA disagrees. The policy does not limit the
applicability to a specific type of operation. This policy applies to
the working conditions of aircraft cabin crewmembers while they are
onboard aircraft in operation. This includes all aircraft operations
that utilize at least one aircraft cabin crewmember.
    Avjet and the National Air Transportation Association (NATA)
commented that the policy statement does not address the definition of
an aircraft cabin crewmember. The FAA agrees with this comment and has
added the following clarification to the policy statement: For the
purposes of this policy, an aircraft cabin crewmember means a person
assigned to perform duty in an aircraft cabin when the aircraft is in
operation (other than flightcrew members).
    The International Brotherhood of Teamsters (IBT) questioned why
OSHA standards should not apply to flight deck crew (e.g. flightcrew
members). The Allied Pilots Association (APA) argued that, since
Section 829 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 addresses
``crewmembers while in an aircraft'' without limitation, all
crewmembers should receive the same protections. On the other hand, the
Air Line Pilots Association International (ALPA) urged us--without
involving OSHA--to address flight deck crew safety and health issues,
such as fatigue, heat, chemical exposure, laser strikes, cosmic
radiation, ozone exposure, contagious diseases, contamination of oxygen
masks, and noise on the flight deck. However, the issue of flightcrew
member safety and health issues are outside the scope of this policy
change.
    The National Business Aviation Association (NBAA), Avjet, and NATA
also asked whether OSHA coverage would extend to flight deck crew when
they perform cabin passenger safety functions. In response, flightcrew
members are not aircraft cabin crewmembers. Therefore, this policy
change does not apply to them.
    NATA asked for clarification of how the policy would affect
personnel who work in the aircraft cabin and are not flight attendants
(specifically referring to cargo handlers, medical personnel,
supernumeraries, and evacuation crewmembers). Any person assigned to
perform duty in an aircraft cabin when the aircraft is in operation
(other than flightcrew members) would be covered by this policy.
    A few commenters asked whether the new policy will apply to part
135 air charter operations and part 91 corporate flight operators
operating business jets, as well as to commercial aircraft operations.
This policy applies to all aircraft operations that utilize at least
one aircraft cabin crewmember.

B. General Opposition to the Policy

    Aviation trade groups, including Airlines for America (A4A), the
Regional Airline Association (RAA), the National Air Carrier
Association (NACA), NATA, and NBAA opposed the draft policy statement.
They believed that the draft FAA policy statement should be subject to
notice-and-comment rulemaking because it calls for a significant,
substantive change in the regulatory regime affecting air carriers. The
FAA disagrees and is not promulgating new regulations. However, because
this has been a long-standing policy, FAA published the draft policy
statement for public notice and comment.
    Aviation trade groups asserted that the congressional directive was
not met in the draft policy statement and asserted that the legislation
does not demand the regulatory action proposed in the draft policy
statement. The FAA disagrees with this assertion. The congressional
directive was met by initiating development of a policy statement that
sets forth the circumstances in which requirements of OSHA may be
applied to crewmembers while working in an aircraft cabin and by
publishing the draft policy statement for public notice and comment.
The FAA is not proposing a regulatory action.
    Aviation trade groups also asserted that an alternative approach
should be used because of important, unresolved, and outstanding
issues, concerning such an assumption of regulatory authority. The FAA
also disagrees with this assertion. OSHA regulations and standards are
in place now in aviation work environments other than the aircraft
cabin. Applying the proposed OSHA regulations and standards to the
aircraft cabin will have minimal implementation impact and will not
compromise aviation safety.
    Aviation trade groups further believed that a voluntary, data-based
system or a Safety Management System (SMS)-based approach should be
implemented instead. US Airways, Inc., did not oppose the application
of the specific OSHA requirements expressly identified in the draft
policy statement, but suggested that the goals reflected in the draft
policy statement could also be achieved through reliance instead on the
presence of robust, SMS-based airline voluntary safety programs. They
also encouraged the expansion of the current OSHA industry alliance
effort to include appropriate participation from flight attendant
unions. The FAA disagrees. Voluntary programs are valuable for some
initiatives. In this case, standardized application of OSHA standards
throughout the aviation industry is good public policy.
    Southwest Airlines opposed the draft policy statement and agreed
with all of Airlines for America's comments, adding that OSHA
enforcement authority should be specifically limited to only those
standards expressly defined in the final policy and Memorandum of
Understanding (MOU). The FAA agrees with the proposed recommendation.
OSHA remains preempted from enforcing its standards on aircraft in
operation, other than the standards specifically addressed in the new
FAA policy statement.
    Southwest Airlines also requested a statement within the MOU,
specifically stating that the general duty clause shall not be applied
to the cabin environment. The FAA will add such language in the new
MOU. In addition, as noted above, the new policy only includes the
three listed standards. If the agencies later decide to add any
additional hazards, including any hazards covered by the General Duty
Clause, they will use a transparent process including notice and
comment to adopt such changes.
    Southwest Airlines further requested that FAA/OSHA provide
clarification regarding enforcement onboard the aircraft. The FAA
agrees with the proposed recommendation. Specific procedures for
addressing OSHA enforcement protocols can be developed through
interagency collaboration.
    ALPA agreed with the Airlines for America comments, adding that it
has

concern regarding the requirement for coordination between the FAA and
OSHA. ALPA urged that appropriate procedures be established before OSHA
involvement to assure smooth operations. The FAA acknowledges the
requirement for coordination between the agencies. The FAA and OSHA
have a procedure for resolving jurisdictional issues, and additional
procedures can be developed through the new MOU.
    ALPA also wanted FAA to regulate pilots' safety and a host of
health issues, such as: Fatigue, heat and humidity of the work
environment, contamination by rain repellant and other chemicals, laser
strikes, cosmic radiation, ozone, aircraft disinsection, contagious
disease, contamination of cockpit oxygen masks, smoke-protection masks
in the cockpit, and ambient flight deck noise. The regulation of
pilots' safety and health issues are beyond the scope of this policy
statement.
    In addition, ALPA requested that the FAA establish an office or
focal point to adequately address the safety and health of flightcrew
members. The FAA acknowledges this request but does not believe that a
new office is required at this time.

C. State and International Jurisdiction

    NBAA stated that aviation is an industry designed to cross state
and national boundaries. As applied to aviation, the proposed notice
would have created a host of uncertainties regarding the application of
either State or national OSHA standards. NATA was also concerned that
the shared jurisdiction policy described by the FAA is ripe for
confusion and contradiction among FAA, OSHA, and OSHA-approved State
programs. Essentially, NATA was concerned that the draft policy
explains only that OSHA is also able to initiate a process to ensure
that airlines will not be subject to multiple, different sets of rules
as they fly into and out of different states. The FAA agrees with these
comments. OSHA has assured the FAA that it has already consulted with
their State Plan Partners, and they have agreed that Federal OSHA will
cover these working conditions in State Plan States. The FAA will
continue to work with OSHA to develop that process.
    NATA raised a second jurisdictional issue relating to how any
applicable OSHA standards might apply to international flight
operations. OSHA jurisdiction is limited to the boundaries of the
United States and its territories and possessions). Therefore, the
proposed OSHA standards would not be applicable on U. S. aircraft
operations conducted outside the United States.

D. General Support of the Policy

    The Transportation Trades Department, the Association of Flight
Attendants, the Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers (IAM),
the International Brotherhood of Teamsters (IBT) and the Transport
Workers Union of America generally support the new policy statement.
The IAM added that flight attendants have not been required to wear
protective gloves, and stated that some airlines have prohibited Flight
Attendants from wearing gloves. IAM also stated that other hazards of
great concern that should be regulated include, hazards related to
lifting and moving luggage, exposure to extremes of heat and cold as a
result of cabin temperature, hazards related to opening and closing
aircraft doors. IAM also stated that cabin air quality is also an
essential issue to flight attendant occupational health as flight
attendants have no choice, but to breathe recirculated, pressurized air
while at work. IAM further stated that in-flight coffee maker hazards
should be addressed. The FAA acknowledges these recommendations. The
FAA will consider when FAA and OSHA establish procedures to identify
any additional working conditions where OSHA requirements may apply.
    IAM stated that more extensive sanitation standards could be
applied to enhance the working conditions of flight attendants without
compromising aviation safety. The IBT supported incorporation of the
OSHA sanitation standard into the policy memo and forthcoming MOU. The
FAA disagrees. Existing FAA regulations address sanitation standards,
so OSHA sanitation standards are not being considered.
    The IBT also urged the FAA to reconsider OSHA's role in worksite
inspections pertaining to the applicable OSHA standards mentioned in
the policy memo and forthcoming MOU. The FAA and OSHA will explore the
feasibility of developing interagency procedures to address and
coordinate workplace inspections if and when they may be required.
    The IBT further urged the FAA to stress the importance of properly
reporting safety and health issues and encourage employers to utilize
the OSHA 300/300A injury and illness reports as a means of identifying
and targeting areas of concern. The IBT also stressed the importance of
education of both employers and employees on the protections afforded
by the OSHA Anti-Discrimination Act found in 29 CFR part 1977 (i.e.,
Whistleblower Act 11(c)). The IBT stated that including proper signage
aboard aircraft will not implicate a concern for aviation safety. In
response, the FAA will consider these comments when establishing
interagency procedures.
    The IBT finally urged FAA and OSHA to reconsider inclusion of
flight deck crewmembers in the discussion on the application of OSHA's
requirements to employees on aircraft in operation. The FAA is not
considering including flightcrew members in this policy statement.
    Individual flight attendants support the draft policy statement and
commented on the need for additional regulation of exposure to noise,
bloodborne pathogens, chemicals, pesticides, and de-icing fluids;
sanitation; duty/rest requirements; exposure to radiation; cabin air
quality issues; food/beverage carts; and ergonomics. OSHA's noise,
bloodborne pathogens, and hazard communication standards are included
in the policy statement. Existing FAA regulations address sanitation
standards, so OSHA sanitation standards are not being considered. Duty
and rest requirements are aviation safety requirements regulated by the
FAA. Effects of cosmic, galactic and solar ionizing radiation exposure,
cabin air quality, food and beverage cart and ergonomic issues are not
being considered at this time.
    Individual comments believe that pilots should be included.
However, the FAA is not considering including flightcrew members at
this time.
    The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health supported
the draft policy but believes more research is needed. The FAA will
consider this recommendation if further research is needed on any
additional or future regulations.

E. Hazards Addressed

    The selection of the three OSHA standards to apply in aircraft
cabins--hazard communications, bloodborne pathogens and noise--was also
questioned. The RAA asserted that the FAA did not identify the most
critical occupational safety and health concerns and then only transfer
oversight if such concerns could best be solved, regulated and
monitored by OSHA. A4A claimed there are no specific or immediate
safety concerns that require urgent action, asserting that the proposed
policy resulted from political action and not an underlying safety
issue that was identified by the FAA.
    Some commenters also questioned the need to apply these standards
to aircraft cabins and expressed uncertainty about whether additional
OSHA requirements would apply, as well. For example,

Southwest, A4A, and the NBAA are concerned that other OSHA standards,
regulations, or the OSH Act's general duty clause, 29 U.S.C. 654
(a)(1), could apply and requested clarification.
    In contrast, other commenters argued that OSHA should have
authority to protect crewmembers from additional hazards. For example,
the IBT commented that OSHA should enforce its general duty clause to
protect employees from cosmic radiation, contaminated bleed air
ventilation systems, heat stress, ergonomic hazards, hazardous agents,
pinch points, and slip and fall hazards.
    There were also comments from the National Institute for
Occupational Safety and Health that cited several studies it conducted
for FAA on reproductive issues for flight attendants, cosmic radiation,
circadian rhythm disruption, cabin air quality, and infectious
diseases.
    The Aerospace Medical Association (AsMA) said it assumed that new
regulations will be drafted to comply with the aircraft environment and
that those should include aerospace medicine assessment and opinion.
The new FAA policy statement only applies to OSHA standards for noise,
bloodborne pathogens, and hazard communication. These standards were
selected because they were identified in the agencies' 2000 MOU. The
agencies examined the potential application of these three standards to
aircraft cabin crewmembers in detail in the year 2000. The joint FAA/
OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Team determined that application of
these OSHA standards to aircraft cabin crewmembers should not
compromise aviation safety. These standards also address the hazards of
greatest concern to aircraft cabin crewmembers.

F. Procedural Issues

    A number of commenters suggested that a full rulemaking process
should be utilized before applying any OSHA standards to cabin
crewmembers. According to NATA, for example, the change creates new
compliance obligations because OSHA promulgated rules after the FAA's
1975 Policy Statement with the understanding that those rules would not
apply to aircraft cabins. NATA also claimed that OSHA and FAA need to
engage in a cost-benefit analysis, a regulatory flexibility
determination, and a small business impact assessment.
    A few other commenters also asserted that the agencies had not
adequately considered the effect of the policy change on small and
medium-sized businesses, citing the Regulatory Flexibility Act and
Executive Order 12866. Avjet, for example, noted that part 121 airlines
have resources to implement the changes while these changes will be
extremely onerous to small-business part 135 air charter operators of
business jets. And according to NATA, operators will have to test
interior noise levels of every aircraft in its fleet since some
identical aircraft types may exhibit different cabin noise levels. NATA
also asserted that operators who are not required to have a flight
attendant onboard but elect to place a cabin attendant in the aircraft
for added service and safety, may no longer employ these workers. NATA
urged for rulemaking to determine how OSHA rules can be adapted for
environments not previously considered.
    We do not agree with these comments. In any event, we have provided
the public and regulated community with notice and an opportunity to be
heard on this policy change and plan to continue to do so should any
further policy changes be considered. We have also met with most groups
affected by this policy. After years of consideration of the
application of these OSHA standards, FAA has decided that these
standards should not compromise aviation safety. FAA and OSHA agree
with the suggestions of some commenters that, to ease implementation of
the policy, OSHA has expanded its existing industry alliances to
develop training and job-aids for the safety of aircraft cabin
crewmembers, as well as aviation personnel and vendors in ground-
support activities, such as fueling, catering and cargo/baggage
handling.

G. Practical Implementation

    Several comments expressed concerns about how the policy change
would be implemented in practice. For example, AsMA suggested that OSHA
and FAA form a coordination group to review the operation of
regulations and oversee responsibility.
    ALPA also expressed concern about coordination between the two
agencies. It favors an FAA preemption of OSHA requirements if those
requirements interfere with aviation safety.
    NATA questioned how the FAA and OSHA will determine which OSHA
standards have safety implications and whether these determinations
will include industry representatives. NATA asserted that the FAA
should apply OSHA standards onboard rather than having OSHA consult
with FAA on aviation safety implications.
    Others questioned how OSHA will inspect aircraft in operation to
ensure compliance and how it will respond to complaints. Southwest and
RAA asked how OSHA would investigate complaints, so as not to interfere
with flight duties and delay flight operations, consequences which
could have a substantial economic impact on carriers. Southwest also
asked about coordination among FAA, OSHA, and the Transportation
Security Administration to provide access to secure areas, and what
resources would be required of the carriers (e.g., escorts/seating).
    Although some commenters (IBT, IAM, and APA) recommended that OSHA
conduct worksite inspections just as FAA inspectors do, others (e.g.,
NATA and RAA) are concerned that OSHA is not precluded from conducting
inspections of aircraft in operation. APA stated that the FAA should
require manufacturers and operators to sample the environment on
aircraft for known hazards. As stated in the draft and final policy
statements, the FAA and OSHA do not anticipate that OSHA will have to
conduct inspections onboard aircraft to ensure compliance with the
three OSHA standards. All three standards require employers to develop
and implement their own programs. OSHA can examine the programs and
verify compliance without being onboard aircraft. If there is a
specific instance in the future where it is determined that compliance
with one of the standards will have an adverse effect on aviation
safety, both agencies understand that FAA will take precedence.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on August 21, 2013.
John S. Duncan,
Acting Director, Flight Standards Service.
[FR Doc. 2013-20841 Filed 8-26-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 5 (Friday, January 8, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 933-934]
[FR Doc No: 2016-117]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings #1

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:
    Docket Numbers: ER10-2400-006.
    Applicants: Blue Canyon Windpower LLC.
    Description: Updated Market Power Analysis for the Southwest Power
Pool Region of Blue Canyon Windpower LLC.
    Filed Date: 12/31/15.
    Accession Number: 20151231-5391.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/29/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-3232-004; ER14-2871-007; ER16-182-002; ER10-
3244-009; ER10-3251-007; ER14-2382-007; ER15-621-006; ER15-622-006;
ER15-463-006; ER16-72-002; ER15-110-006; ER13-1586-008; ER10-1992-014.
    Applicants: Wheelabrator Shasta Energy Company Inc., Cameron Ridge,
LLC, Cameron Ridge II, LLC, Coso Geothermal Power Holdings, LLC, Oak

Creek Wind Power, LLC,ON Wind Energy LLC, Pacific Crest Power, LLC,
Ridgetop Energy, LLC, San Gorgonio Westwinds II, LLC, San Gorgonio
Westwinds II--Windustries,,Terra-Gen Energy Services, LLC,TGP Energy
Management, LLC, Victory Garden Phase IV, LLC.
    Description: Triennial Market Power Analysis of the ECP MBR
Sellers.
    Filed Date: 12/31/15.
    Accession Number: 20151231-5387.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/29/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1332-003; ER10-2401-004; ER10-2402-004; ER11-
2414-001; ER10-2403-004; ER13-1816-003; ER15-1333-002.
    Applicants: Arbuckle Mountain Wind Farm LLC, Blue Canyon Windpower
II LLC, Blue Canyon Windpower V LLC, Blue Canyon Windpower VI LLC,
Cloud County Wind Farm, LLC, Sustaining Power Solutions LLC, Waverly
Wind Farm LLC.
    Description: Updated Market Power Analysis for the Southwest Power
Pool Region of Arbuckle Mountain Wind Farm LLC, et al.
    Filed Date: 12/31/15.
    Accession Number: 20151231-5400.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/29/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-674-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Section 205(d) Rate Filing: Original Service Agreement
No. 4320; Queue AA1-109 (ISA) to be effective 12/3/2015.
    Filed Date: 12/31/15.
    Accession Number: 20151231-5169.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/21/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-675-000.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Section 205(d) Rate Filing: 2015-12-31_Queue Reform
Attachment X Filing to be effective 3/30/2016.
    Filed Date: 12/31/15.
    Accession Number: 20151231-5238.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/29/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-676-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Section 205(d) Rate Filing: Revisions to Schedule 12-
Appdx & Appdx A re: 2016 RTEP Annual Cost Allocations to be effective
1/1/2016.
    Filed Date: 12/31/15.
    Accession Number: 20151231-5261.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/21/16.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the
proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: January 4, 2016.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-117 Filed 1-7-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: April 16, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 73)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 19882-19885]
[DOCID:fr16ap10-5]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket No. USCG-2010-0150]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone; Benchmark Destination Corporate Party, Fireworks
Display, San Francisco, CA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone in the
navigable waters in San Francisco Bay CA, in support of the Benchmark
Destination Corporate Party Fireworks Display. This safety zone is
being established to ensure the safety of participants and spectators
from the dangers associated with the pyrotechnics. Unauthorized persons
or vessels are prohibited from entering into, transiting through, or
remaining in the safety zone without permission of the Captain of the
Port or his designated representative.

DATES: This rule is effective from 10:45 a.m. through 9:30 p.m. on July
11, 2010.

ADDRESSES: Documents indicated in this preamble as being available in
the docket are part of docket USCG-2010-0150 and are available online
by going to http://www.regulations.gov, inserting USCG-2010-0150 in the
``Keyword'' box, and then clicking ``Search.'' They are also available
for inspection or copying at the Docket Management Facility (M-30),
U.S. Department of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590,

between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this
temporary rule, call Ensign Elizabeth Ellerson at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or e-
mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have questions on viewing
the docket, call Renee V. Wright, Program Manager, Docket Operations,
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Regulatory Information

    The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary final rule without prior
notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section
4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This
provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and
opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those
procedures are ``impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public
interest.'' Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good
cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
with respect to this rule because the event would occur before the
rulemaking process would be completed. Because of the dangers posed by
the pyrotechnics used in these fireworks displays, it would be contrary
to the public interest to delay implementation of the safety zone.
    Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause
exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after
publication in the Federal Register. Any delay in the effective date of
this rule would expose mariners to the dangers posed by the
pyrotechnics used in the fireworks display.

Background and Purpose

    The City of San Francisco will sponsor the Benchmark Destinations
Corporate Party Fireworks Display on July 11, 2010, on the navigable
waters of San Francisco Bay, CA. The fireworks display is meant for
entertainment purposes. This safety zone establishes a temporary
restricted area on the waters surrounding the fireworks launch site
during loading of the pyrotechnics, and during the fireworks displays.
This restricted area around the launch site is necessary to protect
spectators, vessels, and other property from the hazards associated
with the pyrotechnics on the fireworks barges. The Coast Guard has
granted the event sponsor a marine event permit for the fireworks
displays.

Discussion of Rule

    During the set up of the fireworks display, at 10:45 a.m., until
the start of the fireworks displays, the temporary safety zone applies
to the navigable waters around the fireworks sites within a radius of
100 feet around the center of the safety zone, located at:
37[deg]48'56.34'' N, 122[deg]22'36.18'' W. From 8:35 p.m. until 9:10
p.m., the area to which the temporary safety zone applies will increase
in size to encompass the navigable waters around the fireworks launch
site within a radius of 1,000 feet. At 9:30 p.m., the safety zone shall
terminate.
    The effect of the temporary safety zones will be to restrict
navigation in the vicinity of the fireworks sites while the fireworks
are set up, and until the conclusion of the scheduled displays. Except
for persons or vessels authorized by the Coast Guard Patrol Commander,
no person or vessel may enter or remain in the restricted area. These
regulations are needed to keep spectators and vessels a safe distance
away from the fireworks barges to ensure the safety of participants,
spectators, and transiting vessels.

Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and
executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses
based on 13 of these statutes or executive orders.

Regulatory Planning and Review

    This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f)
of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does not
require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section
6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not
reviewed it under that Order.
    Although this rule restricts access to the waters encompassed by
the safety zones, the effect of this rule will not be significant. The
entities most likely to be affected are pleasure craft engaged in
recreational activities. Vessel traffic will be able to transit around
the safety zone. In addition, the rule will only restrict access for a
limited time. Finally, the Public Broadcast Notice to Mariners will
notify the users of local waterway to ensure that the safety zone will
result in minimum impact.

Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have
considered whether this rule would have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities. The term ``small entities''
comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are
independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields,
and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000.
    The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities.
    Although this rule may affect owners and operators of pleasure
craft engaged in recreational activities and sightseeing, it will not
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities for several reasons: (i) This rule will encompass only a small
portion of the waterway for a limited period of time; (ii) vessel
traffic can pass safely around the area; (iii) vessels engaged in
recreational activities and sightseeing have ample space outside of the
affected areas of San Francisco, CA to engage in these activities; and
(iv) the maritime public will be advised in advance of this safety zone
via Broadcast Notice to Mariners.

Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we offer to assist small
entities in understanding the rule so that they can better evaluate its
effects on them and participate in the rulemaking process.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or
action of the Coast Guard.

Collection of Information

    This rule calls for no new collection of information under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

Federalism

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local
governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial
direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this rule under
that Order and have

determined that it does not have implications for federalism.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538)
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary
regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may
result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 or more in any
one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we
do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.

Taking of Private Property

    This rule will not effect a taking of private property or otherwise
have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental
Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property
Rights.

Civil Justice Reform

    This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2)
of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation,
eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.

Protection of Children

    We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection
of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule
is not an economically significant rule and does not create an
environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may
disproportionately affect children.

Indian Tribal Governments

    This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order
13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments,
because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more
Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and
Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities
between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

Energy Effects

    We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a ``significant
energy action'' under that order because it is not a ``significant
regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to
have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use
of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy
action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects
under Executive Order 13211.

Technical Standards

    The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15
U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards
in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress,
through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why
using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., specifications of materials, performance, design, or
operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management
systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus
standards bodies.
    This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not
consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Management Directive 023-1 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which
guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded
this action is one of a category of actions which do not individually
or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment.
This rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph
(34)(g), of the Instruction. This rule involves establishing a safety
zone.
    An environmental analysis checklist and a categorical exclusion
determination are available in the docket where indicated under
ADDRESSES.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

    Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.

0
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33
CFR part 165 as follows:

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

0
1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  33 U.S.C. 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701; 3306,
3701 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5;
Pub. L. 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security
Delegation No. 0170.1.

0
2. Add Sec.  165.T11-303 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T11-303  Safety Zone; Benchmark Destinations Corporate Party,
Fireworks Display, San Francisco, CA.

    (a) Location. (1) This temporary safety zone is established for the
waters of San Francisco Bay in San Francisco, CA. The fireworks launch
sites will be located in position: 37[deg]48'56.34'' N,
122[deg]22'36.18'' W (NAD 83).
    (2) During the loading of the fireworks, on 10:45 a.m. July 11,
2010, and until the start of the fireworks displays at 8:35 p.m., the
area of the safety zone consists of the navigable waters around the
fireworks sites within a radius of 100 feet.
    (3) From 8:35 p.m. until 9:30 p.m. on July 11, 2010, the area to
which the temporary safety zone applies will increase in size to
encompass the navigable waters around the fireworks site within a
radius of 1,000 feet.
    (4) At 9:30 p.m. on July 11, 2010, this safety zone shall
terminate.
    (b) Definitions. As used in this section, ``designated
representative'' means a Coast Guard Patrol Commander, including a
Coast Guard coxswain, petty officer, or other officer operating a Coast
Guard vessel and a Federal, State, and local officer designated by or
assisting the Captain of the Port San Francisco (COTP) in the
enforcement of the safety zone.
    (c) Regulations. (1) Under the general regulations in Sec.  165.23,
entry into, transiting, or anchoring within this safety zone is
prohibited unless authorized by the COTP or the COTP's designated
representative.
    (2) The safety zone is closed to all vessel traffic, except as may
be permitted by the COTP or a designated representative.
    (3) Vessel operators desiring to enter or operate within the safety
zone must contact the COTP or a designated representative to obtain
permission to do so. Vessel operators given permission to enter or
operate in the safety zone must comply with all directions given to
them by the COTP or the designated representative. Persons and vessels
may request permission to enter the safety zones on VHF-16 or through
the 24-hour Command Center at telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (d) Effective period. This section is effective from 10:45 a.m.
through 9:30 p.m. on July 11, 2010.

    Dated: April 7, 2010.
P.M. Gugg,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port San Francisco.
[FR Doc. 2010-8734 Filed 4-15-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 191 (Friday, October 2, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 59772-59773]
[FR Doc No: 2015-25119]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-9920-73-OEI]

Cross-Media Electronic Reporting: Authorized Program Revision
Approval, State of Georgia

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces EPA's approval of the State of Georgia's
request to revise/modify certain of its EPA-authorized programs to
allow electronic reporting.

DATES: EPA's approval is effective November 2, 2015 for the State of
Georgia's National Primary Drinking Water Regulations Implementation
program, if no timely request for a public hearing is received and
accepted by the Agency, and on October 2, 2015 for the State of
Georgia's other authorized programs.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Karen Seeh, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Environmental Information, Mail Stop
2823T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460, (202) 566-
1175<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On October 13, 2005, the final Cross-Media
Electronic Reporting Rule (CROMERR) was published in the Federal
Register (70 FR 59848) and codified as part 3 of title 40 of the CFR.
CROMERR establishes electronic reporting as an acceptable regulatory
alternative to paper reporting and establishes requirements to assure
that electronic documents are as legally dependable as their paper
counterparts. Subpart D of CROMERR requires that state, tribal or local
government agencies that receive, or wish to begin receiving,
electronic reports under their EPA-authorized programs must apply to
EPA for a

revision or modification of those programs and obtain EPA approval.
Subpart D provides standards for such approvals based on consideration
of the electronic document receiving systems that the state, tribe, or
local government will use to implement the electronic reporting.
Additionally, Sec.  3.1000(b) through (e) of 40 CFR part 3, subpart D
provides special procedures for program revisions and modifications to
allow electronic reporting, to be used at the option of the state,
tribe or local government in place of procedures available under
existing program-specific authorization regulations. An application
submitted under the subpart D procedures must show that the state,
tribe or local government has sufficient legal authority to implement
the electronic reporting components of the programs covered by the
application and will use electronic document receiving systems that
meet the applicable subpart D requirements.
    On January 14, 2010, the Georgia Department of Natural Resources
(GA DNR) submitted an application entitled Georgia Environmental
Protection Division Online System for revisions/modifications to its
EPA-authorized programs under title 40 CFR. EPA reviewed GA DNR's
request to revise/modify its EPA-authorized programs and, based on this
review, EPA determined that the application met the standards for
approval of authorized program revisions/modifications set out in 40
CFR part 3, subpart D. In accordance with 40 CFR 3.1000(d), this notice
of EPA's decision to approve Georgia's request to revise/modify its
following EPA-authorized programs to allow electronic reporting under
40 CFR parts 51, 52, 60, 61, 63, 65, 68, 70, 71, 72, 74, 75, 79, 82,
86, 90, 91, 92, 94, 122, 123, 141, 146, 239, 262, 264, 266, 268, 270,
280, 403, and 437, is being published in the Federal Register:

Part 52--Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans;
Part 60--Standards of Performance For New Stationary Sources;
Part 62--Approval and Promulgation of State Plans for Designated
Facilities and Pollutants;
Part 65--Consolidated Federal Air Rule, 70--State Operating Permit
Programs;
Part 68--Chemical Accident Prevention Provisions;
Part 70--State Operating Permit Programs;
Part 71--Federal Operating Permit Programs;
Part 72--Permits Regulation;
Part 74--Sulfur Dioxide OPT-INS;
Part 75--Continuous Emission Monitoring;
Part 79--Registration of Fuels and Fuel Additives;
Part 82--Protection of Stratospheric Ozone;
Part 86--Control of Emissions from New and IN-USE Highway Vehicles and
Engines;
Part 90--Control of Emissions From Nonroad Spark-Ignition Engines at or
Below 19 Kilowatts;
Part 91--Control of Emissions From Marine Spark-Ignition Engines;
Part 92--Control of Air Pollution From Locomotives and Locomotive
Engines;
Part 94--Control of Emissions From Marine Compression-Ignition Engines;
Part 123--EPA Administered Permit Programs: The National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System;
Part 142--National Primary Drinking Water Regulations Implementation;
Part 145--State Underground Injection Control Programs;
Part 239--Requirements for State Permit Program Determination of
Adequacy;
Part 272--Approved State Hazardous Waste Management Programs;
Part 281--Technical Standards and Corrective Action Requirements for
Owners and Operators of Underground Storage Tanks;
Part 403--General Pretreatment Regulations for Existing and New Sources
of Pollution;
Part 745--Lead-based Paint Poisoning Prevention in Certain Residential
Structures.
    GA DNR was notified of EPA's determination to approve its
application with respect to the authorized programs listed above.
    Also, in today's notice, EPA is informing interested persons that
they may request a public hearing on EPA's action to approve the State
of Georgia's request to revise its authorized public water system
program under 40 CFR part 142, in accordance with 40 CFR 3.1000(f).
Requests for a hearing must be submitted to EPA within 30 days of
publication of today's Federal Register notice. Such requests should
include the following information: (1) The name, address and telephone
number of the individual, organization or other entity requesting a
hearing; (2) A brief statement of the requesting person's interest in
EPA's determination, a brief explanation as to why EPA should hold a
hearing, and any other information that the requesting person wants EPA
to consider when determining whether to grant the request; (3) The
signature of the individual making the request, or, if the request is
made on behalf of an organization or other entity, the signature of a
responsible official of the organization or other entity.
    In the event a hearing is requested and granted, EPA will provide
notice of the hearing in the Federal Register not less than 15 days
prior to the scheduled hearing date. Frivolous or insubstantial
requests for hearing may be denied by EPA. Following such a public
hearing, EPA will review the record of the hearing and issue an order
either affirming today's determination or rescinding such
determination. If no timely request for a hearing is received and
granted, EPA's approval of the State of Georgia's request to revise its
part 142--National Primary Drinking Water Regulations Implementation
program to allow electronic reporting will become effective 30 days
after today's notice is published, pursuant to CROMERR section
3.1000(f)(4).

Matthew Leopard,
Director, Office of Information Collection.
[FR Doc. 2015-25119 Filed 10-1-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 33 (Tuesday, February 19, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 11553-11554]
[FR Doc No: 2013-03656]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 25

[Docket No. FAA-2012-0978; Special Conditions No. 25-478-SC]

Special Conditions: Embraer S.A., Model EMB-550 Airplane;
Electronic Flight Control System: Control Surface Awareness and Mode
Annunciation

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final special conditions.

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

SUMMARY: These special conditions are issued for the Embraer S.A. Model
EMB-550 airplane. This airplane will have a novel or unusual design
feature(s) associated with the control surface awareness and mode
annunciation of the electronic flight control system. The applicable
airworthiness regulations do not contain adequate or appropriate safety
standards for this design feature. These special conditions contain the
additional safety standards that the Administrator considers necessary
to establish a level of safety equivalent to that established by the
existing airworthiness standards.

DATES: Effective Date: March 21, 2013.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joe Jacobsen, FAA, Airplane and Flight
Crew Interface Branch, ANM-111, Transport Airplane Directorate,
Aircraft Certification Service, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton,
Washington 98057-3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; facsimile<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On May 14, 2009, Embraer S.A. applied for a type certificate for
their new Model EMB-550 airplane. The Model EMB-550 airplane is the
first of a new family of jet airplanes designed for corporate flight,
fractional, charter, and private owner operations. The aircraft has a
conventional configuration with low wing and T-tail empennage. The
primary structure is metal with composite empennage and control
surfaces. The Model EMB-550 airplane is designed for 8 passengers, with
a maximum of 12 passengers. It is equipped with two Honeywell HTF7500-E
medium bypass ratio turbofan engines mounted on aft fuselage pylons.
Each engine produces approximately 6,540 pounds of thrust for normal
takeoff. The primary flight controls consist of hydraulically powered
fly-by-wire elevators, aileron and rudder, controlled by the pilot or
copilot sidestick.

Type Certification Basis

    Under the provisions of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14
CFR) 21.17, Embraer S.A. must show that the Model EMB-550 airplane
meets the applicable provisions of part 25, as amended by Amendments
25-1 through 25-127.
    If the Administrator finds that the applicable airworthiness
regulations (i.e., 14 CFR part 25) do not contain adequate or
appropriate safety standards for the Model EMB-550 airplane because of
a novel or unusual design feature, special conditions are prescribed
under the provisions of Sec.  21.16.
    Special conditions are initially applicable to the model for which
they are issued. Should the type certificate for that model be amended
later to include any other model that incorporates the same or similar
novel or unusual design feature, the special conditions would also
apply to the other model under Sec.  21.101.
    In addition to the applicable airworthiness regulations and special
conditions, the Model EMB-550 airplane must comply with the fuel vent
and exhaust emission requirements of 14 CFR part 34 and the noise
certification requirements of 14 CFR part 36 and the FAA must issue a
finding of regulatory adequacy under Sec.  611 of Public Law 92-574,
the ``Noise Control Act of 1972.''
    The FAA issues special conditions, as defined in 14 CFR 11.19, in
accordance with Sec.  11.38, and they become part of the type-
certification basis under Sec.  21.17(a)(2).

Novel or Unusual Design Features

    The Model EMB-550 airplane will incorporate the following novel or
unusual design features: The Embraer S.A. Model EMB-550 airplane will
have a fly-by-wire electronic flight control system and no direct
coupling from the flightdeck controller to the control surface. As a
result, the pilot is not aware of the actual control surface position
as envisioned when part 25 was written.

Discussion

    These special conditions propose that the flightcrew receive a
suitable flight control position annunciation when a flight condition
exists in which nearly full surface authority (not crew-commanded) is
being used. Suitability of such a display must take into account that
some pilot-demanded maneuvers (e.g., rapid roll) are necessarily
associated with intended full performance, which may saturate the
surface. Therefore, simple alerting systems function in both intended
and unexpected control-limiting situations. As a result, they must be
properly balanced between providing necessary crew awareness and being
a potential nuisance to the flightcrew. A monitoring system that
compares airplane motion and surface deflection with the demand of the
pilot sidestick controller could help reduce nuisance alerting.
    These special conditions also address flight control system mode
annunciation. It proposes suitable mode annunciation be provided to the
flightcrew for events that significantly change the operating mode of
the system but do not merit the classic ``failure warning.''
    These special conditions establish a level of safety equivalent to
that provided by a conventional flight control system and that
contemplated in existing regulations.

Discussion of Comments

    Notice of proposed special conditions No. SC-12-25 for the Embraer
S.A. EMB-550 airplanes was published in the Federal Register on
September 27, 2012 (77 FR 57039). No comments were received, and the
special conditions are adopted as proposed.

Applicability

    As discussed above, these special conditions are applicable to the
Model EMB-550 airplane. Should Embraer S.A. apply at a later date for a
change to the type certificate to include another model incorporating
the same novel or unusual design feature, the special conditions would
apply to that model as well.

Conclusion

    This action affects only certain novel or unusual design features
on one model of airplanes. It is not a rule of general applicability.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 25

    Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.

0
The authority citation for these special conditions is as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701, 44702, 44704.

The Special Conditions

    Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the following special conditions are issued as part of
the type certification basis for Model EMB-550 airplanes.
    1. Electronic Flight Control System: Control Surface Awareness and
Mode Annunciation. In addition to the requirements of Sec. Sec.
25.143, 25.671, and

25.672, the following requirements apply:
    a. The system design must ensure that the flightcrew is made
suitably aware whenever the primary control means nears the limit of
control authority.

    Note: The term ``suitably aware'' indicates annunciations
provided to the flightcrew are appropriately balanced between
nuisance and that necessary for crew awareness.

    b. If the design of the flight control system has multiple modes of
operation, a means must be provided to indicate to the flightcrew any
mode that significantly changes or degrades the normal handling or
operational characteristics of the airplane.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on February 12, 2013.
Ali Bahrami,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2013-03656 Filed 2-15-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/els/00221139/1999/00000095/00000001/art00297

Hydrofluoropolyethers
Authors: Marchionni G.1; Silvani R.; Fontana G.; Malinverno G.; Visca M.
Source: Journal of Fluorine Chemistry, Volume 95, Number 1, 4 June 1999 , pp. 41-50(10)
Publisher: Elsevier
Top of Form
Bottom of Form
Abstract:
,-Dihydrofluoropolyethers (HFPEs) have been synthesized by a novel process consisting of radical-initiated oxypolymerization of tetrafluoroethylene, chemical cleavage of peroxy groups, and chemical modification of the resulting difunctional fluoropolyethers. The physicochemical properties of the HFPEs depend upon the molecular weight, and are influenced by their hydrogen atoms. The effect of terminal hydrogens is however reduced with increasing molecular weight. The HFPE molecules show a certain degree of polarity, which allows miscibility with polar solvents. The hydrogen abstraction reaction is a limiting factor in the atmospheric lifetime of this class of products, thus reducing their environmental impact.The preliminary toxicological tests indicate the products to be substantially nontoxic.
Keywords: Hydrofluoropolyethers; Fluorinated fluids; Physicochemical properties; Environmental impact
Language: English
Document Type: Research article
DOI: 10.1016/S0022-1139(98)00297-8
Affiliations: 1: Ausimont SpA, R & D Centre, Via S. Pietro, 50, 20021, Bollate, Italy
Publication date: 1999-06-04