[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 115 (Thursday, June 17, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 32306-32308]
[FR Doc No: 2021-12805]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

National Hazardous Materials Route Registry

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), Department
of Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Notice; revisions to the listing of designated and restricted
routes for hazardous materials.

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

SUMMARY: This notice provides revisions to the National Hazardous
Materials Route Registry (NHMRR) reported to the FMCSA from April 1,
2020 through March 31, 2021. The NHMRR is a listing, as reported by
States and Tribal governments, of all designated and restricted roads
and preferred highway routes for transportation of highway route
controlled quantities of Class 7 radioactive materials (HRCQ/RAM) and
non-radioactive hazardous materials (NRHM).

DATES: June 17, 2021.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Melissa Williams, Hazardous
Materials Division, Office of Enforcement and Compliance, FMCSA, 1200
New Jersey Ave. SE, Washington, DC 20590,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Office hours are from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., ET.,
Monday through Friday, except for Federal holidays.

Legal Basis and Background

    Paragraphs (a)(2) and (b) of section 5112 of title 49 United States
Code (U.S.C.) permit States and Tribal governments to designate and
limit highway routes over which hazardous materials (HM) may be
transported, provided the State or Tribal government complies with
standards prescribed by the Secretary of Transportation (the Secretary)
and meets publication requirements in section 5112(c). To establish
standards under paragraph (b), the Secretary must consult with the
States, and, under section 5112(c), coordinate with the States to
``update and publish periodically'' a list of currently effective HM
highway routing designations and restrictions. The requirements that
States and Tribal governments must follow to establish, maintain, or
enforce routing designations for the transport of placardable
quantities of NRHM are set forth in 49 CFR part 397, subpart C. Subpart
D of part 397 sets out the requirements for designating preferred
routes for highway route controlled quantities of HRCQ/RAM shipments as
an alternative, or in addition, to Interstate System highways. For
HRCQ/RAM shipments, Sec.  397.101 defines a preferred route as an
Interstate Highway for which no alternative route is designated by the
State; a route specifically designated by the State; or both. (See
Sec.  397.65 for the definitions of NRHM and routing designations.)
    Under a delegation from the Secretary,\1\ FMCSA has authority to
implement 49 U.S.C. 5112.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 49 CFR 1.87(d)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Currently, Sec.  397.73 establishes public information and
reporting requirements for NRHM. States or Tribal governments are
required to furnish information regarding any new or changed routes to
FMCSA within 60 days after establishment. Under Sec.  397.103, a State
routing designation for HRCQ/RAM routes (preferred routes) as an
alternative, or in addition, to an Interstate System highway, is
effective when the authorized routing agency provides FMCSA with
written notification, FMCSA acknowledges receipt in writing, and the
route is published in FMCSA's NHMRR. The Office of Management and
Budget has approved these collections of information under control
number 2126-0014, Transportation of Hazardous Materials, Highway
Routing.

    In this notice, FMCSA is merely performing the ministerial function
of updating and publishing the NHMRR based on input from its State and
Tribal partners under 49 U.S.C. 5112(c)(1). Accordingly, this notice
serves only to provide the most recent revisions to the NHMRR; it does
not establish any new public information and reporting requirements.

Updates to the NHMRR

    FMCSA published the full NHMRR in a Federal Register notice on
April 29, 2015 (80 FR 23859). Since publication of the 2015 notice,
FMCSA published four updates to the NHMRR in Federal Register notices
on August 8, 2016 (81 FR 52518), August 9, 2018 (83 FR 39500),
September 24, 2019 (84 FR 50098), and June 3, 2020 (85 FR 34284).
    This notice provides revisions to the NHMRR, reported to FMCSA from
April 1, 2020 through March 31, 2021. The revisions to the NHMRR
listings in this notice supersede and replace corresponding NHMRR
listings published in the April 29, 2015 notice and corresponding
revisions to the NHMRR listings published in the August 8, 2016, August
9, 2018, September 24, 2019, and June 3, 2020 notices. Continue to
refer to the April 29, 2015 notice for additional background on the
NHMRR and the August 8, 2016 notice for the procedures for State and
Tribal government routing agencies to update their Route Registry
listings and contact information.
    The full current NHMRR for each State is posted on the FMCSA's
website at: https://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/regulations/hazardous-materials/national-hazardous-materials-route-registry.

Revisions to the NHMRR in This Notice

    In accordance with the requirements of Sec. Sec.  397.73 and
397.103, the NHMRR is being revised as follows:

Table 2--California--Designated NRHM Routes

    Route Order Designator ``A3A-3.0'' with ``I'' designation is
removed.

Table 3--Iowa--Designated NRHM Routes

    Route Order Designator ``A1'' is revised to rename I-680 to I-880.
    Route Order Designator ``A2A'' is revised to rename I-680 to I-880.
    Route Order Designator ``A2B'' is revised to rename I-680 to I-880.
    Route Order Designator ``A3B'' is revised to rename I-680 to I-880.
    Route Order Designator ``A3B-2.0'' is revised to rename I-680 to I-
880.
    Route Order Designator ``A3B-3.0'' is revised to rename I-680 to I-
880.
    Route Order Designator ``A4B-1.0'' is revised to rename I-680 to I-
880.

Route Order Key

    Each listing in the NHMRR includes codes to identify each route
designation and each route restriction reported by the State.
Designation codes identify the routes along which a driver may or must
transport specified HM. Among the designation codes is one for
preferred routes, which apply to the transportation of a highway route
controlled quantity of Class 7 (radioactive) material. Restriction
codes identify the routes along which a driver may not transport
specified HM shipments. Table 1 presents information on each
restriction and designation code.

                  Table 1--Restriction/Designation Key
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Restrictions                         Designations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
0--ALL Hazardous Materials.................  A--ALL NRHM Hazardous
1--Class 1--Explosives.....................   Materials.
2--Class 2--Gas............................  B--Class 1--Explosives.
3--Class 3--Flammable......................  I--Poisonous Inhalation
4--Class 4--Flammable Solid/Combustible....   Hazard (PIH).
5--Class 5--Organic........................  P--*Preferred Route* Class
                                              7--Radioactive.
6--Class 6--Poison.........................
7--Class 7--Radioactive....................
8--Class 8--Corrosives.....................
9--Class 9--Dangerous (Other)..............
i--Poisonous Inhalation Hazard (PIH).......
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Revisions to the National Hazardous Materials Route Registry (March 31,
2021)

                                Table 2--California/Iowa--Designated NRHM Routes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Designation(s)     FMCSA QA
     Designation date             Route order             Route description         (A,B, I,P)        comment
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
04/16/92.................  A3A-3.0.................  Interstate 8 from Arizona
                                                      to Interstate 805 [San
                                                      Diego].
07/18/88.................  A1......................  Interstate 880 from                      P
                                                      Nebraska to Interstate 80
                                                      [Use I-880 and I-80 in
                                                      lieu of I-29 in the
                                                      Council Bluffs area when
                                                      heading north/south per
                                                      49 CFR 397.103(b). Use I-
                                                      880 in lieu of I-80 in
                                                      the Council Bluffs area
                                                      when heading east/west
                                                      per IA-NE coordination].
07/18/88.................  A2A.....................  Interstate 29 from                       P
                                                      Missouri to Interstate 80
                                                      [I-80 and I-880 are used
                                                      in lieu of I-29 in the
                                                      Council Bluffs area when
                                                      heading North/South per
                                                      49 CFR 397.103(b)].
07/18/88.................  A2B.....................  Interstate 80 from                       P
                                                      Interstate 29 to Illinois
                                                      [Use I-280 or I-80 in the
                                                      Quad Cities. Use I-80 in
                                                      lieu of I-235 in the Des
                                                      Moines area. Use I-880 in
                                                      lieu of I-80 in the
                                                      Council Bluffs area per
                                                      IA-NE coordination when
                                                      heading east/west. Use I-
                                                      80 and I-880 in the
                                                      Council Bluffs area in
                                                      lieu of I-29 when heading
                                                      north/south].

07/18/88.................  A3A-1.0.................  Interstate 880 from                      P
                                                      Interstate 80 to
                                                      Interstate 29 [Used in
                                                      lieu of I-29 in the
                                                      Council Bluffs area per
                                                      49 CFR 397.103(b)].
07/18/88.................  A3B-2.0.................  Interstate 35 from                       P
                                                      Minnesota to Missouri
                                                      [Stay on I-35/I-80 in
                                                      lieu of I-235 in the Des
                                                      Moines area per 49 CFR
                                                      397.103(b)].
07/18/88.................  A3B-3.0.................  Interstate 280 from                      P
                                                      Interstate 80 to Illinois
                                                      [Use I-280 or I-80 in the
                                                      Quad Cities area.].
07/18/88.................  A4B-1.0.................  Interstate 29 from                       P
                                                      Nebraska to Interstate
                                                      880 [I-80 and I-880 are
                                                      used in lieu of I-29 in
                                                      the Council Bluffs area
                                                      when heading North/South
                                                      per 49 CFR 397.103(b)].
                                                     End of Revisions to the
                                                      National Hazardous
                                                      Materials Route Registry.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Meera Joshi,
Deputy Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2021-12805 Filed 6-16-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 171 (Tuesday, September 4, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 44873-44874]
[FR Doc No: 2018-19130]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[CERCLA-04-2018-3754; FRL-9983-19--Region 4]

Alternate Energy Resources, Inc. Superfund Site; Augusta,
Richmond County, Georgia; Notice of Settlement

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of settlement.

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

SUMMARY: Under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation
and Liability Act (CERCLA), the United States Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) has entered into a settlement with the Whitaker Oil
Company concerning

the Alternate Energy Resources, Inc. Superfund Site located in Augusta,
Richmond County, Georgia. The settlement addresses recovery of CERCLA
costs for a cleanup action performed by the EPA at the Site.

DATES: The Agency will consider public comments on the settlement until
October 4, 2018. The Agency will consider all comments received and may
modify or withdraw its consent to the proposed settlement if comments
received disclose facts or considerations which indicate that the
proposed settlement is inappropriate, improper, or inadequate.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the settlement are available from the Agency by
contacting Ms. Paula V. Painter, Program Analyst, using the contact
information provided in this notice. Comments may also be submitted by
referencing the Site's name through one of the following methods:
    Internet: https://www.epa.gov/aboutepa/about-epa-region-4-southeast#r4-public-notices.
     U.S. Mail: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Superfund
Division, Attn: Paula V. Painter, 61 Forsyth Street SW, Atlanta,
Georgia 30303.
     Email: [email protected].

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paula V. Painter at 404/562-8887.

    Dated: June 20, 2018.
Maurice L. Horsey, IV,
Chief, Enforcement and Community Engagement Branch, Superfund Division.
[FR Doc. 2018-19130 Filed 8-31-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 122 (Monday, June 25, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 37827-37829]
[FR Doc No: 2012-15451]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2012-0644; Directorate Identifier 2012-NM-011-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; The Cessna Aircraft Company Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for
certain The Cessna Aircraft Company Model 750 airplanes. This proposed
AD was prompted by reports of direct current (DC) generator overvoltage
events. This proposed AD would require replacing the auxiliary power
unit (APU) generator control unit (GCU). We are proposing this AD to
prevent DC generator overvoltage events, which could result in
subsequent smoke in the cockpit and loss of avionics and electrical
systems.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by August 9, 2012.

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 http://www.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.
    For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact
Cessna Aircraft Co., P.O. Box 7706, Wichita, Kansas 67277; telephone
316-517-6215; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Internet https://www.cessnasupport.com/newlogin.html. You may review
copies of the referenced service information at the FAA, Transport
Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington. For
information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-
227-1221.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov; or in person at the Docket Management Facility
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory
evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street
address for the Docket Office (phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the ADDRESSES
section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after
receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Christine Abraham, Aerospace Engineer,
Electrical Systems and Avionics Branch, ACE-119W, FAA, Wichita Aircraft
Certification Office, 1801 Airport Road, Room 100, Mid-Continent
Airport, Wichita, Kansas 67209; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax: 316-946-
4107; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed
under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2012-0644;
Directorate Identifier 2012-NM-011-AD'' at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposed AD because of those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this proposed AD.

Discussion

    We have received reports of direct current (DC) generator
overvoltage events. The GCU overvoltage protection circuit can become
damaged and allow high voltage to pass through to the airplane systems
and electrical components. This condition, if not corrected, could
result in smoke in the cockpit and loss of avionics and electrical
systems.

Relevant Service Information

    We reviewed Cessna Service Bulletin SB750-24-30, dated December 5,
2011. The service information describes procedures for replacing the
APU GCU having part number (P/N) 9914752-2 with one having P/N 9914752-
6.

Other Relevant Rulemaking

    On January 28, 2011, we issued AD 2011-03-16, Amendment 39-16600
(76 FR 8607, February 15, 2011), for Model 750 airplanes. That AD
requires an inspection to determine the serial numbers of the APU
generator and the left and right engine DC generators, and corrective
actions if necessary. That AD also requires revising the airplane
flight manual (AFM). That AD was prompted by a report of a DC generator
overvoltage event, which caused smoke in the cockpit and damage to
numerous avionics and electrical components. In that AD, we noted that
additional rulemaking might be necessary. The replacement proposed in
this AD is necessary in addition to the actions required by AD 2011-03-
16, in order to address the identified unsafe condition.

FAA's Determination

    We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all the relevant
information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is
likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design.

Proposed AD Requirements

    This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions specified
in the service information described previously, except as discussed
under ``Differences Between the Proposed AD and the Service
Information.''

Differences Between the Proposed AD and the Service Information

    Operators should note that, although the Accomplishment
Instructions of Cessna Service Bulletin SB750-24-30, dated December 5,
2011, state that operators must return the GCU having P/N 9914752-2 to
the manufacturer, this proposed AD would not include that requirement.
    Operators should also note that, although the Accomplishment
Instructions of Cessna Service Bulletin SB750-24-30, dated December 5,
2011, describe procedures for submitting a sheet recording compliance
with that service bulletin, this proposed AD would not include that
requirement.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 58 airplanes of U.S.
registry.

    We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per       Cost on U.S.
               Action                        Labor cost           Parts cost        product         operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Replacement.........................  2 work-hours x $85 per           $2,400           $2,570         $149,060
                                       hour = $170.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    According to the manufacturer, all of the costs of this proposed AD
may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on
affected individuals. We do not control warranty coverage for affected
individuals. As a result, we have included all costs in our cost
estimate.

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,
describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
    We are 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

    We 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) Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
    (3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
    (4) 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 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

    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]

    2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new
airworthiness directive (AD):

The Cessna Aircraft Company: Docket No. FAA-2012-0644; Directorate
Identifier 2012-NM-011-AD.

(a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by August 9, 2012.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to The Cessna Aircraft Company Model 750
airplanes; certificated in any category; having serial numbers -
0222, -0225 through -0306 inclusive, and -0308.

(d) Subject

    Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC)/Air Transport Association
(ATA) of America Code 24, Electrical power.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by reports of direct current (DC) generator
overvoltage events. We are issuing this AD to prevent DC generator
overvoltage, which could result in smoke in the cockpit and loss of
avionics and electrical systems.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Replacement

    Except as required by paragraph (h) of this AD: Within 6 months
after the effective date of this AD, replace the auxiliary power
unit generator control unit (GCU) having part number (P/N) 9914752-2
with one having P/N 9914752-6, in accordance with the Accomplishment
Instructions of Cessna Service Bulletin SB750-24-30, dated December
5, 2011.

(h) Exceptions

    (1) Where the Accomplishment Instructions of Cessna Service
Bulletin SB750-24-30, dated December 5, 2011, state that operators
must return the GCU having P/N 9914752-2 to the manufacturer, this
AD does not require that action.
    (2) Where the Accomplishment Instructions of Cessna Service
Bulletin SB750-24-30, dated December 5, 2011, state that the
operator must record that the service bulletin has been completed,
this AD does not require that action.

(i) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Wichita Aircraft Certification Office (ACO),
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 ACO, send it to the
attention of the person identified in the Related Information
section of this AD.
    (2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate
principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager
of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding
district office.

(j) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact Christine
Abraham, Aerospace Engineer, Electrical Systems and Avionics Branch,
ACE-119W, FAA, Wichita Aircraft Certification Office, 1801 Airport
Road, Room 100, Mid-Continent Airport, Wichita, Kansas 67209;
telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Cessna Aircraft Co., P.O. Box 7706, Wichita, Kansas 67277; telephone
316-517-6215; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet https://www.cessnasupport.com/newlogin.html. You may review copies of the
referenced service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane
Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington. For
information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call
425-227-1221.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on June 18, 2012.
John P. Piccola,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2012-15451 Filed 6-22-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 61 (Monday, March 31, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 17868-17869]
[FR Doc No: 2014-07082]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket No. USCG-2014-0086]

Safety Zone; San Francisco Giants Fireworks, San Francisco Bay,
San Francisco, CA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of enforcement of regulation.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard will enforce the safety zone for the San
Francisco Giants Fireworks display in the Captain of the Port, San
Francisco area of responsibility during the dates and times noted
below. This action is necessary to protect life and property of the
maritime public from the hazards associated with the fireworks display.
During the enforcement period, unauthorized persons or vessels are
prohibited from entering into, transiting through, or anchoring in the
safety zone, unless authorized by the Patrol Commander (PATCOM).

DATES: The regulations in 33 CFR 165.1191, Table 1, Item number 1 will
be enforced from 11 a.m. to 10:30 p.m. on April 11, 2014.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this notice,
call or email Lieutenant Junior Grade William Hawn, U.S. Coast Guard
Sector San Francisco; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER> or email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Coast Guard will enforce the safety
zones established in 33 CFR 165.1191, Table 1, Item number 1 on April
11, 2014. From 11 a.m. until 10 p.m. on April 11, 2014 the safety zone
applies to the navigable waters around and under the fireworks barge
within a radius of 100 feet during the loading, transit, and arrival of
the fireworks barge at the launch site and until the start of the
fireworks display. From 11 a.m. until 8:30 p.m. on April 11, 2014 the
fireworks barge will be

loading pyrotechnics at Pier 50 in San Francisco, CA. From 8:30 p.m. to
8:40 p.m. on April 11, 2014 the loaded fireworks barge will transit
from Pier 50 to the launch site near Pier 48 in approximate position
37[deg]46'40'' N, 122[deg]22'58'' W (NAD83). At the conclusion of the
baseball game, approximately 10 p.m. on April 11, 2014, the safety zone
will increase in size and encompass the navigable waters around and
under the fireworks barge within a radius of 700 feet in approximate
position 37[deg]46'40'' N, 122[deg]22'58'' W (NAD83) for the San
Francisco Giants Fireworks display in 33 CFR 165.1191, Table 1, Item
number 1. Upon the conclusion of the fireworks display the safety zone
shall terminate. This safety zone will be in effect from 11 a.m. to
10:30 p.m. on April 11, 2014.
    Under the provisions of 33 CFR 165.1191, unauthorized persons or
vessels are prohibited from entering into, transiting through, or
anchoring in the safety zone during all applicable effective dates and
times, unless authorized to do so by the PATCOM. Additionally, each
person who receives notice of a lawful order or direction issued by an
official patrol vessel shall obey the order or direction. The PATCOM is
empowered to forbid entry into and control the regulated area. The
PATCOM shall be designated by the Commander, Coast Guard Sector San
Francisco. The PATCOM may, upon request, allow the transit of
commercial vessels through regulated areas when it is safe to do so.
    This notice is issued under authority of 33 CFR 165.1191 and 5
U.S.C. 552(a). In addition to this notice in the Federal Register, the
Coast Guard will provide the maritime community with extensive advance
notification of the safety zone and its enforcement period via the
Local Notice to Mariners.
    If the Captain of the Port determines that the regulated area need
not be enforced for the full duration stated in this notice, a
Broadcast Notice to Mariners may be used to grant general permission to
enter the regulated area.

    Dated: March 11, 2014.
Gregory G. Stump,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port San Francisco.
[FR Doc. 2014-07082 Filed 3-28-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


Site Visit Report

	Mercer Generating Station

	Lamberton Road

	Hamilton Township, NJ 08611

May 26, 2010

Background and Objectives

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is in the process of
developing 316(b) cooling water intake structure requirements that
reflect the best technology available (BTA) for minimizing adverse
environmental impact for all existing power plants and manufacturing
facilities. As part of this process, EPA staff is visiting electric
generators and manufacturers to better understand the cooling water
intake structure (CWIS) technologies in use at facilities, including the
site-specific characteristics of each facility and how these affect the
selection and performance of CWIS technologies.  EPA is also visiting
facilities to better understand cooling water use and specific issues or
technologies that can affect 316(b) compliance.  Mercer was selected for
a site visit due to its proximity to EPA Headquarters and its location
on a large tidally influenced freshwater river.

Facility Description

Mercer is located on a 115 acre site outside of Trenton, along the
Delaware River, and began operations in 1960.  The facility is owned by
PSEG and employs approximately 125 people.  The facility’s NPDES
permit (NJ0004995) is due to expire on October 31, 2011.

Electricity Generation and Transmission

Mercer has two coal-fired generating units, each with a generating
capacity of 300 MW (600 MW total).  The facility typically uses eastern
bituminous coal from West Virginia.  The coal (delivered by barge) is a
premium grade with low sulfur content.  Mercer is a load-following
plant, with a capacity factor in recent years of approximately 50-70%.

The facility has routine maintenance outages approximately every 18
months.

Unit 3 is an old 8-turbine expander turbine generating unit (125 MW
total) that is rarely operated and will be decommissioned in 2015.

Cooling Water System and Intake Structure

Mercer uses a once-through cooling system and operates a shoreline CWIS.
 The intake structure is comprised of a trash rack/ice barrier followed
by coarse mesh traveling screens (1/2 by 1/4 inch mesh).  There are 4
screens, each with a single fixed speed circulating pump and a service
water pump, with a total design intake flow of 610 million gallons per
day (mgd).  The design through-screen velocity is approximately 1.5 feet
per second (fps).  The facility is permitted to use chlorine as a
biocide for up to three 20 minute cycles per day.  The facility is also
capable of redirecting heated effluent to the CWIS in the winter to
prevent ice formation.

As part of the requirements in their current NPDES permit, Mercer will
be installing new Ristroph screens with a new directional (i.e., will
discharge fish in the direction of the tidal current) fish return and
dual pressure spray wash next year.  The screens will be continuously
rotated from May to October.  The new screens will cost approximately $8
million.  PSEG selected the Ristroph screens over other designs due to
the familiarity from using them at other sites and known performance.
Mercer will be required to conduct 2 years of verification monitoring
following the installation of the new screens.

Impingement and Entrainment Information

The facility conducted extensive impingement and entrainment studies in
the 1990s (one in 1991-1992 and another in 1998-1999) and did not find
significant impingement, even during the large shad runs each spring.

Cooling Tower Feasibility

The facility has not extensively studied a potential retrofit to
closed-cycle cooling.  Facility representatives noted significant
economic challenges (see Section 14.0), as well as space constraints;
the facility’s recently constructed air emissions controls occupy much
of the space near the facility.  Facility representatives also noted a
nearby highway that could be affected.  See Section 12.0 below for
information on other potentially available space.

Mercer has a wastewater treatment facility onsite and facility
representatives assumed that it would be capable of handling additional
flow from cooling tower blowdown if the site were required to retrofit
to closed-cycle cooling.

Debris Handling

Mercer does not have significant problems with trash or debris.
Episodic debris events occur in spring, when accumulated woody debris is
flushed into the river.

Repowering/Future Uses

Facility representatives stated that there are no plans to expand the
facility; at present, Mercer provides PSEG with valuable fuel diversity
in its generating fleet.

Cooling Ponds

There are no active cooling ponds on site.  Two ash ponds are no longer
in service; see Section 12.0.

Ownership

Mercer is owned by PSEG, an investor-owned company. PSEG has fossil
plants in New Jersey, Connecticut, New York and Texas, plus nuclear
plants in New Jersey.

316(a)

Mercer is subject to thermal discharge limits (discharge temperature,
total heat load, and delta T) and has a 316(a) variance that was
developed in the 1990s.

Ash Handling

Bottom ash is used for roofing and other products, while fly ash is also
used for beneficial uses.

Mercer previously operated two ash ponds just northeast of the
generating units, but decommissioned these ponds in the 1990s.

Air Emissions Controls

Mercer is constructing a dry scrubber for each generating unit to
address SOx.  These units will become operational in late 2010.  The
facility also installed electrostatic precipitators in the 1990s to
collect dust and particulate matter.  In 2004, they added an SCR to
address NOx emissions.  By adding each of these control technologies,
the facility has greater flexibility in the types of coal that it can
use.  Facility representatives noted that PSEG is closing 2000 MW of
generating capacity as a result of compliance with air regulations.
They added that new units are being added at some facilities, but that
the company will not recover all of the lost capacity.

Additional Information

In response to the now-suspended 2004 Phase II rule, facility
representatives stated that Mercer was likely to pursue the cost-benefit
test, given the low impingement and entrainment rates at the site.  They
noted that NJDEP was likely to be supportive of this, as they generally
consider Mercer to be a site with low biological impacts.

Facility representatives stated that the revised rule should contain a
site-specific option, as cooling towers are not a sensible choice for
facilities such as Mercer.  They believe that a cost-benefit test is the
most direct approach, but other options (such as pre-approved
technologies for certain categories of facility) may also be available.
Facility representatives note that PSEG operates a number of facilities
that are only marginally profitable; a rule requiring closed-cycle
cooling could have a significant effect.

Merryll Reservoir is a large off-river reservoir upstream of the site
that was constructed by power plants in the area to provide supplemental
water supplies in times of extreme drought.

PSEG deployed a Gunderboom at another facility (Bethlehem Energy Center)
and experienced significant problems.  The first-of-its-kind fixed panel
barrier failed each season it was deployed for a variety of reasons.

Bergen is a sister station to Mercer and recently repowered to combined
cycle with cooling towers (with plume abatement); a nearby WWTP supplies
the makeup water for the towers.

Attachments

Attachment A		List of Attendees

Attachment B		Aerial Photos

Attachment C		Site Visit Photos

Attachment A--List of Attendees

Paul Shriner, EPA Headquarters

Erik Helm, EPA Headquarters

Tom Born, EPA Headquarters

Shari Goodwin, Tetra Tech

Kelly Meadows, Tetra Tech

Mark Strickland, PSEG

Carmine DeNicola, PSEG

Mark Schwartzkopf, PSEG

Attachment C—Site Visit Photos

Please see DCNs 10-6558B through L accompanying this document.

 EPA was unable to provide a copy of this report to the facility for
review prior to publication.

 Mercer is located in the freshwater portion of the Delaware River, but
does experience tidal surges of up to 7 feet.  Approximately 3 miles
downriver, the Delaware is generally considered to be tidal/brackish.

 The facility has 3 pulverizers to provide fuel to the generating units.
These units can also burn natural gas.

 Each circulating pump is rated at 105,000 gpm, while each service water
pump has a capacity of 875 gpm.

 PAGE

 PAGE   1


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 48 (Friday, March 11, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 13422-13423]
[FR Doc No: 2011-5669]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

[Docket No. USCG-2011-0043]

Lower Mississippi River Waterway Safety Advisory Committee;
Vacancies

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Request for applications.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard seeks applications for membership on the Lower
Mississippi River Waterway Safety Advisory Committee. This Committee
advises and makes recommendations to the Coast Guard on matters
relating to safe transit of vessels and products to and from the ports
on the Lower Mississippi River and related waterways.

DATES: Applicants should submit a cover letter and resume in time to
reach the Designated Federal Officer on or before May 1, 2011.

ADDRESSES: Applicants should send his or her cover letter and resume to
Captain E. M. Stanton, Designated Federal Officer, DFO, 200 Hendee
Street, New Orleans, LA 70114. This notice, is available in our online
docket, USCG-2011-0043, at http://www.regulations.gov. Send your
completed application to the DFO at the street address above.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Chief Warrant Officer David Chapman,
Assistant to DFO of Lower Mississippi River Waterway Safety Advisory
Committee; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER> or fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Lower Mississippi River Waterway Safety
Advisory Committee is a Federal advisory committee under the authority
found in section 19 of the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 1991, (Pub.
L. 102-241) as amended by section 621 of the Coast Guard Authorization
Act of 2010, Public Law 111-281. The Lower Mississippi River Waterway
Safety Advisory Committee advises the U.S. Coast Guard on matters
relating to communications, surveillance, traffic management,
anchorages, development and operation of the New Orleans Vessel Traffic
Service, and other related topics dealing with navigation safety on the
Lower Mississippi River as required by the U.S. Coast Guard.
    The Committee expects to meet at least two times annually. It may
also meet for extraordinary purposes with the approval of the DFO.
    We will consider applications for 25 positions that expire or
become vacant March 30, 2011. To be eligible, you should have
experience regarding the transportation, equipment, and techniques that
are used to ship cargo and to navigate vessels on the Lower Mississippi
River and its connecting navigable waterways, including the Gulf of
Mexico. The 25 positions available for application are broken down as
follows:
    1. Five members representing River Port authorities between Baton
Rouge, Louisiana, and the Head of Passes of the Lower Mississippi
River, of which one member shall be from the Port of St. Bernard and
one member from the Port of Plaquemines.
    2. Two members representing vessel owners domiciled in the state of
Louisiana.
    3. Two members representing organizations which operate harbor tugs
or barge fleets in the geographical area covered by the committee.
    4. Two members representing companies which transport cargo or
passengers on the navigable waterways in the geographical area covered
by the Committee.
    5. Three members representing State Commissioned Pilot
organizations, with one member each representing New Orleans-Baton
Rouge Steamship Pilots Association, the Crescent River Port Pilots
Association, and the Associated Branch Pilots Association.
    6. Two at-large members who utilize water transportation facilities
located in the geographical area covered by the committee.
    7. Three members each one representing one of three categories:
consumers, shippers, and importers-exporters that utilize vessels which
utilize the navigable waterways covered by the committee.
    8. Two members representing those licensed merchant mariners, other
than pilots, who perform shipboard duties on those vessels which
utilize navigable waterways covered by the committee.
    9. One member representing an organization that serves in a
consulting or advisory capacity to the maritime industry.
    10. One member representing an environmental organization.
    11. One member drawn from the general public.
    12. One member representing the Associated Federal Pilots and
Docking Masters of Louisiana.
    Each member serves for a term of 2 years. Members may serve
consecutive terms. All members serve at their own expense and receive
no salary, reimbursement of travel expenses, or other compensation from
the Federal Government. Registered lobbyists are not eligible to serve
on Federal Advisory Committees. Registered lobbyists are lobbyists
required to comply with provisions contained in the Lobbying Disclosure
Act, Title 2, United States Code, Section 1603.
    In support of the policy of the Coast Guard on gender and ethnic
nondiscrimination, we encourage qualified men and women and members of
all racial and ethnic groups to apply. The Coast Guard values
diversity; all the different characteristics and attributes of persons
that enhance the mission of the Coast Guard.
    If you are selected as a non-representative member, or as a member
who is drawn from the general public, you will be appointed and serve
as a special Government employee (SGE) as defined in section 202(a) of
title 18, United States Code. As a candidate for appointment as a SGE,
applicants are required to complete a Confidential Financial Disclosure
Report (OGE Form 450). A completed OGE Form 450 is not releasable to
the public except under an order issued by a Federal court or as
otherwise provided under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. 552a). Only the
Designated Agency Ethics Official or the DAEO's designate may release a
Confidential Financial Disclosure Report.
    If you are interested in applying to become a member of the
Committee, send a completed application to Captain E.M. Stanton,
Designated Federal Officer (DFO) of Lower Mississippi River Waterway
Safety Advisory Committee, 200 Hendee Street, New Orleans, LA 70114.
Send the application in time for it to be received by the DFO on or
before 1, May 2011. A copy of the application form is available in the
docket for this notice. To visit our online docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, enter the docket number for this notice (USCG-
2011-0043) in the Search box, and click ``Go >>.'' Please do not post
your application on this site.

    Dated: February 28, 2011.
Mary Landry,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Eighth Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2011-5669 Filed 3-10-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 133 (Friday, July 10, 2020)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 41334-41337]
[FR Doc No: 2020-13760]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 25

[Docket No. FAA-2019-0841; Special Conditions No. 25-770-SC]

Special Conditions: The Boeing Company Model 787-10 Series
Airplanes; Dynamic Test Requirements for Single-Occupant Oblique Seats
With Pretensioner Restraint Systems

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

ACTION: Final special conditions.

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

SUMMARY: These special conditions are issued for The Boeing Company
(Boeing) Model 787-10 series airplanes. These airplanes will have a
novel or unusual design feature when compared to the state of
technology envisioned in the airworthiness standards for transport
category airplanes. This design feature is single-occupant oblique
seats equipped with pretensioner restraint systems. 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 August 10, 2020.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Shannon Lennon, Airframe and Cabin
Safety Section, AIR-675, Transport Standards Branch, Policy and
Innovation Division, Aircraft Certification Service, Federal Aviation
Administration, 2200 South 216th Street, Des Moines, Washington 98198;
telephone and fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On July 18, 2018, Boeing applied for a change to Type Certificate
No. T00021SE for single-occupant oblique seats with pretensioner
restraint systems, instead of airbags, which are the typical restraints
used to protect the passengers from head injuries. These seats are to
be installed in Boeing Model 787-10 series airplanes. The Boeing Model
787-10 series airplanes are twin-engine, transport-category airplanes
with passenger seating capacity of 440 and a maximum takeoff weight of
560,000 pounds.

Type Certification Basis

    Under the provisions of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14
CFR) 21.101, Boeing must show that the Model 787-10 series airplanes,
as changed, continue to meet the applicable provisions of the
regulations listed in Type Certificate No. T00021SE or the applicable
regulations in effect on the date of application for the change, except
for earlier amendments as agreed upon by the FAA.
    If the Administrator finds that the applicable airworthiness
regulations (e.g., 14 CFR part 25) do not contain adequate or
appropriate safety standards for Boeing Model 787-10 series airplanes
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 novel or
unusual design feature, or should any other model already included on
the same type certificate be modified to incorporate the same novel or
unusual design feature, these special conditions would also apply to
the other model under Sec.  21.101.
    In addition to the applicable airworthiness regulations and special
conditions, Boeing Model 787-10 series airplanes 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.
    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.  21.101.

Novel or Unusual Design Features

    The Boeing Model 787-10 series airplanes will incorporate the
following novel or unusual design feature:
    Single-occupant oblique seats with pretensioner restraint systems
to protect the passengers from head injuries.

Discussion

    Boeing will install, in Model 787-10 series airplanes, oblique
(side-facing) seats that incorporate seatbelts with a pretensioner
system at each seat place, to comply with the occupant injury criteria
of Sec.  25.562(c)(5).
    The FAA has been conducting and sponsoring research on appropriate
injury criteria for oblique seat installations. However, the FAA
research program is not complete, and the FAA may update these criteria
as further research results are collected. To reflect current research
findings, the FAA issued policy statements PS-ANM-25-03-R1, ``Technical
Criteria for Approving Side-Facing Seats,'' November 12, 2012, which
updates injury criteria for fully side-facing seats, and PS-AIR-25-27,
``Technical Criteria for Approving Oblique Seats,'' July 11, 2018, to
define injury criteria for oblique seats. These policies provide
background and technical information as well as applicable injury
criteria.
    The installation of obliquely oriented passenger seats are novel
such that the current certification basis does not adequately address
occupant-protection expectations with regard to the occupant's neck and
spine for seat configurations that are positioned at an angle greater
than 18 degrees from the airplane longitudinal centerline.
    The installation of passenger seats at angles between 18 and 45
degrees from the airplane longitudinal centerline are unusual due to
the seat occupant interface with the surrounding furniture, and which
introduce occupant alignment and loading concerns with or without the
installation of 3-point or airbag-restraint systems.
    FAA-sponsored research has found that an unrestrained flailing of
the upper torso, even when the pelvis and torso are nearly aligned, can
produce serious spinal and torso injuries. At lower impact severities,
even with significant misalignment between the torso and pelvis, these
injuries did not occur. Tests with the FAA Hybrid III anthropomorphic
test device (ATD) have identified a level of lumbar spinal tension
corresponding to the no-injury impact severity. This level of tension
is included as a limit in the special conditions. The spinal-tension
limit selected is conservative with respect to other aviation injury
criteria because it corresponds to a no-injury loading condition, but
the degree of conservatism is unknown because the precise spinal-
loading level at which injuries would begin to occur is unknown. The
small number of human-subject tests accomplished during this research
project limits the robustness of the selected tension limit.
    Other restraint systems have been used to comply with the occupant
injury criteria of Sec.  25.562(c)(5). For instance, shoulder harnesses
have been widely used on flight attendant seats, flight-deck seats, in
business jets, and in general-aviation airplanes to reduce occupant
head injury in the event of an emergency landing. Special conditions,
pertinent regulations, and published guidance exist that relate to
other restraint systems. However, the use of pretensioners in the
restraint system on transport-airplane seats is a novel design.
    Pretensioner technology involves a step-change in loading
experienced by the occupant for impacts below and above that at which
the device deploys, because activation of the shoulder harness, at the
point at which the pretensioner engages, interrupts upper-torso
excursion. This could result in the head injury criteria (HIC) being
higher at an intermediate impact condition than that resulting from the
maximum impact condition corresponding to the test conditions specified
in Sec.  25.562. See condition 7 in these special conditions.
    The ideal triangular maximum-severity pulse is defined in Advisory
Circular (AC) 25.562-1B. For the evaluation and testing of less-severe
pulses for purposes of assessing the effectiveness of the pretensioner
setting, a similar triangular pulse should be used with acceleration,
rise time, and velocity change scaled accordingly. The magnitude of the
required pulse should not deviate below the ideal pulse by more than
0.5g until 1.33 t1 is reached, where t1
represents the time interval between 0 and t1 on the
referenced pulse shape as shown in AC 25.562-1B. This is an acceptable
method of compliance to the test requirements of the special
conditions.
    Additionally, the pretensioner might not provide protection, after
actuation, during secondary impacts. Therefore, the case where a small
impact is followed by a large impact should be addressed. If the
minimum deceleration severity at which the pretensioner is set to
deploy is unnecessarily low, the protection offered by the pretensioner
may be lost by the time a second larger impact occurs.
    The existing special conditions for Model 787 oblique seat
installations do not adequately address oblique seats with 3-point and
pretensioner restraint systems. Therefore, the proposed configuration
requires special conditions.
    Conditions 1 through 6 address occupant protection in consideration
of the oblique-facing seats. Conditions 7 through 10 ensure that the
pretensioner system activates when intended, to provide the necessary
protection of occupants. This includes protection of a range of
occupants under various accident conditions. Conditions 11 through 16
address maintenance and reliability of the pretensioner system,
including any outside influences on the mechanism, to ensure it
functions as intended.

    The 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.

Discussion of Comments

    The FAA issued Notice of Proposed Special Conditions No. 25-20-02-
SC for the Boeing Model 787-10 series airplane, which was published in
the Federal Register on March 2, 2020 (85 FR 12230). The FAA received
responses from three commenters.
    Boeing suggested one edit for clarity, to the paragraph immediately
preceding the list of conditions in the Special Conditions section, to
change text that reads, ``. . . passenger seats installed at an angle
18 degrees and 45 degrees . . .'' to read, ``. . . passenger seats
installed at an angle between 18 degrees and 45 degrees . . .'' The FAA
concurs with the suggested change because the change more correctly
conveys the installation angle range for oblique seats discussed in
these special conditions.
    Boeing recommended adding two sentences at the end of condition no.
7 regarding HIC, to be consistent with same-topic special conditions
previously issued. It is the FAA's understanding that the proposed
pretensioner restraint system is intended to replace the use of an
airbag system as mentioned in the Background section of this document.
Therefore, the information Boeing requested, pertaining to HIC
associated with airbag contact, would not apply to these special
conditions as originally proposed. However, in the event that an airbag
device is incorporated in conjunction with a pretensioner restraint
system, the FAA agrees to include the additional information consistent
with the information provided in recently published oblique-seat
special conditions. When present, the airbag device (e.g., inflatable
lap-belt airbag or structure-mounted airbag) must also meet the
existing special conditions applicable to either inflatable lap belts
or structure-mounted airbags.
    An individual commenter states, ``Diagrams of the proposed seat
installation with and without a person sitting in it would provide the
visual context to the proposed regulation. Also, a seat diagram would
help clarify how neck injuries will be mitigated by the restraint
system is vague. Assuming a crash, would a person's neck just receive
minor injuries resulting in whiplash [or] is the seat designed to
reduce head movement during crashes?''
    The pretensioner restraint system, which is incorporated into the
seat design, is intended to eliminate slack in the shoulder harness,
and to pull the occupant back into the seat prior to impact. This has
the effect of reducing occupant forward translation and reducing head
movement, thus minimizing the potential for injuries. Based on this
description of the pretensioner restraint system, the FAA has
determined that it is not necessary to provide a seat diagram to convey
the same information. Further discussion regarding the development of
criteria to address occupant injuries can be found in FAA Policy
Statement PS-AIR-25-27, Appendix A.
    Another individual commenter asks, ``Has an investigation been
completed as to how much aircraft evacuations may be affected by
canting the seats at an angle from centerline?''
    An investigation of the effects of obliquely positioned (canted)
seat installations on aircraft evacuations has not been conducted
because it is not necessary to do so. Occupants in oblique seats have
access to egress aisles as well as visibility of emergency exits and
exit signs similar to occupants of non-oblique, forward-facing seats.
Furthermore, for all interior configuration variants, it is the
installer's responsibility to demonstrate evacuation capability of the
airplane, via demonstration of compliance to Sec.  25.803, prior to
certification.
    Except as discussed above, the special conditions are adopted as
proposed.

Applicability

    As discussed above, these special conditions are applicable to
Boeing Model 787-10 series airplanes. Should Boeing apply at a later
date for a change to the type certificate to include another model
incorporating the same novel or unusual design feature, these special
conditions would apply to that model as well.

Conclusion

    This action affects only a certain novel or unusual design feature
on one model series 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.

Authority Citation

    The authority citation for these special conditions is as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(f), 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 Boeing Model 787-10 series airplanes.
    In addition to the requirements of Sec.  25.562, passenger seats
installed at an angle between 18 degrees and 45 degrees from the
airplane longitudinal centerline must meet the following:
    1. Body-to-Wall and Body-to-Furnishing Contact:
    If a seat is installed aft of structure, such as an interior wall
or furnishings, and which does not provide a homogenous contact surface
for the expected range of occupants and yaw angles, then additional
analysis and tests may be required to demonstrate that the injury
criteria are met for the area which an occupant could contact. For
example if, in addition to a pretensioner restraint system, an airbag
device is present, different yaw angles could result in different
airbag-device performance, then additional analysis or separate tests
may be necessary to evaluate performance.
    2. Neck Injury Criteria:
    a. The seating system must protect the occupant from experiencing
serious neck injury. In addition to a pretensioner restraint system, if
an airbag device also is present, the assessment of neck injury must be
conducted with the airbag device activated, unless there is reason to
also consider that the neck injury potential would be higher for
impacts below the airbag-device deployment threshold.
    b. The Nij (calculated in accordance with 49 CFR
571.208) must be below 1.0, where Nij = Fz/
Fzc + My/Myc, and Nij
critical values are:

Fzc = 1530 lbs for tension
Fzc = 1385 lbs for compression
Myc = 229 lb-ft in flexion
Myc = 100 lb-ft in extension

    c. Peak Fz must be below 937 lbs in tension and 899 lbs
in compression.
    d. Rotation of the head about its vertical axis relative to the
torso is limited to 105 degrees in either direction from forward
facing.
    e. The neck must not impact any surface that would produce
concentrated loading on the neck.
    3. Spine and Torso Injury Criteria:
    a. The lumbar spine tension (Fz) cannot exceed 1200 lbs.
    b. Significant concentrated loading on the occupant's spine, in the
area between the pelvis and shoulders during impact, including rebound,
is not acceptable. During this type of contact, the interval for any
rearward (X

direction) acceleration exceeding 20g must be less than 3 milliseconds
as measured by the thoracic instrumentation specified in 49 CFR part
572, subpart E, filtered in accordance with SAE recommended practice
J211/1, ``Instrumentation for Impact Test--Part 1-Electronic
Instrumentation.''
    c. The occupant must not interact with the armrest or other seat
components in any manner significantly different than would be expected
for a forward-facing seat installation.
    4. Pelvis Criteria:
    Any part of the load-bearing portion of the bottom of the ATD
pelvis must not translate beyond the edges of the seat bottom seat-
cushion supporting structure.
    5. Femur Criteria:
    Axial rotation of the upper leg (about the Z-axis of the femur per
SAE Recommended Practice J211/1) must be limited to 35 degrees from the
nominal seated position. Evaluation during rebound does not need to be
considered.
    6. ATD and Test Conditions:
    Longitudinal tests conducted to measure the injury criteria above
must be performed with the FAA Hybrid III ATD, as described in SAE
1999-01-1609. The tests must be conducted with an undeformed floor, at
the most-critical yaw cases for injury, and with all lateral structural
supports (e.g. armrests or walls) installed.

    Note:  Boeing must demonstrate that the installation of seats
via plinths or pallets meets all applicable requirements. Compliance
with the guidance contained in policy memorandum PS-ANM-100-2000-
00123, ``Guidance for Demonstrating Compliance with Seat Dynamic
Testing for Plinths and Pallets,'' dated February 2, 2000, is
acceptable to the FAA.

    7. Head Injury Criteria (HIC):
    The HIC value must not exceed 1000 at any condition at which the
pretensioner does or does not deploy, up to the maximum severity pulse
that corresponds to the test conditions specified in Sec.  25.562.
Tests must be performed to demonstrate this, taking into account any
necessary tolerances for deployment.
    When an airbag device is present in addition to the pretensioner
restraint system, and the anthropormorphic test device (ATD) has no
apparent contact with the seat/structure but has contact with an
airbag, a HIC unlimited scored in excess of 1000 is acceptable,
provided the HIC15 score (calculated in accordance with 49 CFR 571.208)
for that contact is less than 700. ATD head contact with the seat or
other structure, through the airbag, or contact subsequent to contact
with the airbag, requires a HIC value that does not exceed 1000.
    8. Protection During Secondary Impacts:
    The pretensioner activation setting must be demonstrated to
maximize the probability of the protection being available when needed,
considering secondary impacts.
    9. Protection of Occupants Other than 50th Percentile:
    Protection of occupants for a range of stature from a 2-year-old
child to a 95th percentile male must be shown. For shoulder harnesses
that include pretensioners, protection of occupants other than a 50th
percentile male may be shown by test or analysis. In addition, the
pretensioner must not introduce a hazard to passengers due to the
following seating configurations:
    a. The seat occupant is holding an infant.
    b. The seat occupant is a child in a child-restraint device.
    c. The seat occupant is a pregnant woman.
    10. Occupants Adopting the Brace Position:
    Occupants in the traditional brace position when the pretensioner
activates must not experience adverse effects from the pretensioner
activation.
    11. Inadvertent Pretensioner Actuation:
    a. The probability of inadvertent pretensioner actuation must be
shown to be extremely remote (i.e., average probability per flight hour
of less than 10-\7\).
    b. The system must be shown not susceptible to inadvertent
pretensioner actuation as a result of wear and tear, or inertia loads
resulting from in-flight or ground maneuvers likely to be experienced
in service.
    c. The seated occupant must not be seriously injured as a result of
inadvertent pretensioner actuation.
    d. Inadvertent pretensioner activation must not cause a hazard to
the airplane, nor cause serious injury to anyone who may be positioned
close to the retractor or belt (e.g., seated in an adjacent seat or
standing adjacent to the seat).
    12. Availability of the Pretensioner Function Prior to Flight:
    The design must provide means for a crewmember to verify the
availability of the pretensioner function prior to each flight, or the
probability of failure of the pretensioner function must be
demonstrated to be extremely remote (i.e., average probability per
flight hour of less than 10-\7\) between inspection
intervals.
    13. Incorrect Seat Belt Orientation:
    The system design must ensure that any incorrect orientation
(twisting) of the seat belt does not compromise the pretensioner
protection function.
    14. Contamination Protection:
    The pretensioner mechanisms and controls must be protected from
external contamination associated with that which could occur on or
around passenger seating.
    15. Prevention of Hazards:
    The pretensioner system must not induce a hazard to passengers in
case of fire, nor create a fire hazard, if activated.
    16. Functionality After Loss of Power:
    The system must function properly after loss of normal airplane
electrical power, and after a transverse separation in the fuselage at
the most critical location. A separation at the location of the system
does not have to be considered.

    Issued in Des Moines, Washington, on June 22, 2020.
James E. Wilborn,
Acting Manager, Transport Standards Branch, Policy and Innovation
Division, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2020-13760 Filed 7-9-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


Meeting Summary

EPA and National Cement Company of Alabama, Inc.

September 8, 2008

Research Triangle Park, NC

I.  Attendees

EPA

Keith Barnett, OAQPS/SPPD

Steve Fruh, OAQPS/SPPD

RTI

Marvin Branscome

National Cement Company Personnel and their representatives

Sid Trant, Bradley Arant Rose & White LLP

Jody Foster, Hogan & Hartson

Russell Kemp, Environ

Spencer Weitman, Natiojla Cement

Serge Brazzolotto, National Cement

John Holmes, AEMS L.L.P.

Patrick Raher, Hogen & Hartson

II.  Discussion Items

Background

The National Cement Company of Alabama is located in Birmingham, has 155
employees, and is one of two U.S. cement plants owned by the Vicat Group
(a family-owned French cement and concrete company).  The other plant is
in California.

The company has filed an application for a prevention of significant
(PSD) permit to construct a new kiln to replace the existing one.  They
will be ready soon to start construction on the $300 to $320 million
project.

The new kiln will be efficient with respect to fuel conservation, energy
use, and emissions.  The preheater/precalciner kiln will produce 5,000
metric tons per day, and 70% of the energy requirements will be met
using alternative fuels.

The company requested the meeting with EPA to discuss concerns and to
offer suggestions about the pending regulations that will impact the new
kiln:  the NSPS and revised MACT standards.

Emission limits and controls

The kiln and emission control system will be designed to achieve PM
limits of 0.01 gr/dscf and 0.12 lb/ton of clinker for the main stack
and 0.10 lb/ton for the cooler.  SO2 limits will be 2.5 lb/ton (30-day
average) and 5.0 lb/t (24-hr average).  NOx will be limited to 1.95
lb/t.

+

PM emissions will be controlled by a baghouse.  Low-NOx burners and
selective non-catalytic reduction will be used for NOx control.  Dry
lime injection will be used to scrub SO2.

Company representative stated the kiln would be able to meet the limits
for dioxin/furans, PM, and mercury that are in the MACT standard.
However, they are concerned that they will not be able to achieve the
THC limit of 20 ppm.

THC emissions range from 22 to 69 ppm and average 44 ppm with the raw
mill on and 33 ppm with the raw mill off.  They believe much of the THC
is from the release of entrapped methane and ethane when the limestone
is ground.

The company asked that EPA consider an equivalent alternative standard
of 5 ppm organic HAP based on a report in the rulemaking docket that
stated organic HAP averaged 23 percent of THC (in terms of
concentration).   They agreed to check with other companies to ask if
additional data were available relating organic HAP and THC.

They identified 11 HAP as candidates for analysis and suggested
compliance would be determined by sampling for the organic HAP within 18
months of startup, with repeat performance tests every 30 months.

They recommended that THC CEMS not be required because of the high
variability in THC concentrations from the kiln, but suggested
parametric monitoring instead, such as the temperature at the exit of
the precalciner and the oxygen content of the exhaust at the top of the
preheater.

For mercury, they stated their kiln could meet 25 µg/m3 (raw mill on)
and 41 µg/m3 (raw mill off).  They stated that activated carbon
injection has not been done commercially at cement kilns.  They also
stated the cost effectiveness for add-on mercury controls would be much
higher for them ($20,000 to $40,000 per lb) than for a plant like Ash
Grove Cement ($5,000/lb).

For the NSPS, the new kiln can achieve the PM limit of 0.086 lb/ton.
However, they expressed concern that they could not meet the NOx and SO2
limits.  They stated the planned controls will achieve a 60 percent
reduction in NOx and meet 1.95 lb/ton, but can’t meet the limit of 1.5
lb/ton even with more ammonia. The emissions without SNCR are estimated
to be 3.2 to 3.5 lb/ton clinker.  They expect the dry lime scrubber to
reduce SO2 emissions from 4.3 lb/ton to 2.3 lb/ton, but do not believe
they can meet a limit of 1.33 lb/ton or 90 percent reduction.

 PAGE

 PAGE   2