[Federal Register: August 29, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 169)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 50906-50909]
[DOCID:fr29au08-19]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2008-0123; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-056-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; McDonnell Douglas Model DC-8-11, DC-8-
12, DC-8-21, DC-8-31, DC-8-32, DC-8-33, DC-8-41, DC-8-42, and DC-8-43
Airplanes; Model DC-8-51, DC-8-52, DC-8-53, and DC-8-55 Airplanes;
Model DC-8F-54 and DC-8F-55 Airplanes; Model DC-8-61, DC-8-62, and DC-
8-63 Airplanes; Model DC-8-61F, DC-8-62F, and DC-8-63F Airplanes; Model
DC-8-71, DC-8-72, and DC-8-73 Airplanes; and Model DC-8-71F, DC-8-72F,
and DC-8-73F Airplanes

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

ACTION: Supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM); reopening of
comment period.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is revising an earlier NPRM for an airworthiness
directive (AD) that applies to all McDonnell Douglas Model DC-8
airplanes. The original NPRM would have superseded an existing AD that
currently requires, among other things, revision of an existing program
of structural inspections. The original NPRM proposed to require
implementation of a revised program of structural inspections of
baseline structure to detect and correct fatigue cracking in order to
ensure the continued airworthiness of these airplanes as they approach
the manufacturer's original fatigue design life goal. The original NPRM
resulted from a significant number of these airplanes approaching or
exceeding the design service goal on which the initial type
certification approval was predicated. This new action revises the
original NPRM by reducing the inspection threshold for certain
principal structural elements. We are proposing this supplemental NPRM
to detect and correct fatigue cracking that could compromise the
structural integrity of these airplanes.

DATES: We must receive comments on this supplemental NPRM by September
23, 2008.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments 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: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, 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 service information identified in this AD, contact Boeing
Commercial Airplanes, Long Beach Division, 3855 Lakewood Boulevard,
Long Beach, California 90846, Attention: Data and Service Management,
Dept. C1-L5A (D800-0024).

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 (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the
ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly
after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dara Albouyeh, Aerospace Engineer,
Airframe Branch, ANM-120L, FAA, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification
Office, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, California 90712-4137;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address
listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2008-0123;
Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-056-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 proposed to amend part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations
(14 CFR part 39) with a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) for an AD
(the ``original NPRM'') to supersede AD 93-01-15, amendment 39-8469 (58
FR 5576, January 22, 1993). The original NPRM applied to all McDonnell
Douglas Model DC-8 airplanes. The original NPRM was published in the
Federal Register on February 5, 2008 (73 FR 6622). The original NPRM
proposed to retain certain requirements of AD 93-01-15. The original
NPRM also proposed to require a revision of the FAA-approved
maintenance program. In addition, the original NPRM proposed to require
implementation of a revised structural inspection program of baseline
structure to detect and correct fatigue cracking in order to ensure the
continued airworthiness of airplanes as they approach the
manufacturer's original fatigue design life goal.

Actions Since Original NPRM Was Issued

    Since we issued the original NPRM, we have reviewed Boeing Report
No. L26-011, ``DC-8 All Series Supplemental Inspection Document
(SID),'' Volume I, Revision 7, dated March 2008 (hereafter ``Revision
7''). The procedures specified in Revision 7 are identical to those
specified in Boeing Report No. L26-011, ``DC-8 All Series Supplemental
Inspection Document (SID),'' Volume I, Revision 6, dated July 2005
(referred to in the NPRM as the appropriate source of service
information for accomplishing certain required actions). Revision 7
revises the inspection threshold for certain principal structural
elements from landings to flight hours, which reduces the inspection
threshold. Therefore, we have revised the supplemental NPRM to refer to
Revision 7 as the appropriate source of service information for
accomplishing certain proposed actions.

FAA's Determination and Proposed Requirements of the Supplemental NPRM

    The change discussed above expands the scope of the original NPRM;
therefore, we have determined that it is necessary to reopen the
comment period to provide additional opportunity for public comment on
this supplemental NPRM.

Costs of Compliance

    There are about 194 airplanes of the affected design in the
worldwide fleet. The following table provides the

estimated costs for U.S. operators to comply with this proposed AD.

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Number of U.S.-
            Action                Work hours      Average labor      Cost per       registered      Fleet cost
                                                  rate per hour      operator        airplanes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Revision of maintenance        544 per operator             $80  $43,520, per                131        $739,840
 inspection program (required   (17 U.S.                          operator.
 by AD 93-01-15).               operators).
Revision of maintenance        250 per operator              80  $20,000........             131         340,000
 program and inspections (new   (17 U.S.
 proposed actions).             operators).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The number of inspection work hours, as indicated above, is
presented as if the accomplishment of the actions in this proposed AD
is to be conducted as ``stand alone'' actions. However, in actual
practice, these actions for the most part will be done coincidentally
or in combination with normally scheduled airplane inspections and
other maintenance program tasks. Therefore, the actual number of
necessary additional inspection work hours will be minimal in many
instances. Additionally, any costs associated with special airplane
scheduling will be minimal.

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 have 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 that the 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); and
    3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to
comply with this supplemental NPRM and placed it in the AD docket. See
the ADDRESSES section for a location to examine the regulatory
evaluation.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, 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 Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) amends Sec.  39.13 by
removing amendment 39-8469 (58 FR 5576, January 22, 1993) and adding
the following new airworthiness directive (AD):

McDonnell Douglas: Docket No. FAA-2008-0123; Directorate Identifier
2007-NM-056-AD.

Comments Due Date

    (a) The FAA must receive comments on this AD action by September
23, 2008.

Affected ADs

    (b) This AD supersedes AD 93-01-15.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to all McDonnell Douglas airplanes
identified in Table 1 of this AD, certificated in any category.

                         Table 1--Applicability
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       Model
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1).....................................  DC-8-11, DC-8-12, DC-8-21, DC-
                                           8-31, DC-8-32, DC-8-33, DC-8-
                                           41, DC-8-42, and DC-8-43
                                           airplanes.
(2).....................................  DC-8-51, DC-8-52, DC-8-53, and
                                           DC-8-55 airplanes.
(3).....................................  DC-8F-54 and DC-8F-55
                                           airplanes.
(4).....................................  DC-8-61, DC-8-62, and DC-8-63
                                           airplanes.
(5).....................................  DC-8-61F, DC-8-62F, and DC-8-
                                           63F airplanes.
(6).....................................  DC-8-71, DC-8-72, and DC-8-73
                                           airplanes.
(7).....................................  DC-8-71F, DC-8-72F, and DC-8-
                                           73F airplanes.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Unsafe Condition

    (d) This AD results from a significant number of these airplanes
approaching or exceeding the design service goal on which the
initial type certification approval was predicated. We are issuing
this AD to detect and correct fatigue cracking that could compromise
the structural integrity of these airplanes.

Compliance

    (e) You are responsible for having the actions required by this
AD performed within the compliance times specified, unless the
actions have already been done.
    Certain Requirements of AD 93-01-15:

Revise the FAA-Approved Maintenance Inspection Program

    (f) Within 6 months after February 26, 1993 (the effective date
of AD 93-01-15), incorporate a revision of the FAA-approved
maintenance inspection program that provides no less than the
required inspection of the Principal Structural Elements (PSEs)
defined in Sections 2 and 3 of Volume I of McDonnell Douglas Report
No. L26-011, ``DC-8 Supplemental Inspection Document (SID),'' dated
March 1991, in accordance with Section 2 of Volume III-91, dated
April 1991, of that document. The non-destructive inspection
techniques set forth in Sections 2 and 3 of Volume II, dated March
1991, of that SID provide acceptable methods for

accomplishing the inspections required by this AD. All inspection
results, negative or positive, must be reported to McDonnell
Douglas, in accordance with the instructions of Section 2 of Volume
III-91 of the SID. Information collection requirements contained in
this regulation have been approved by the OMB under the provisions
of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) and
have been assigned OMB Control Number 2120-0056.

Corrective Action

    (g) Cracked structure detected during the inspections required
by paragraph (f) of this AD must be repaired before further flight,
in accordance with a method approved by the Manager, Los Angeles
Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA, Transport Airplane
Directorate.

New Requirements of this AD

Revision of the Maintenance Inspection Program

    (h) Within 12 months after the effective date of this AD,
incorporate a revision of the FAA-approved maintenance inspection
program that provides for inspection(s) of the PSEs, in accordance
with Boeing Report No. L26-011, ``DC-8 All Series Supplemental
Inspection Document (SID),'' Volume I, Revision 7, dated March 2008.
Incorporation of this revision ends the requirements of paragraphs
(f) and (g) of this AD.

Non-Destructive Inspections (NDIs)

    (i) For all PSEs listed in Section 2 of Boeing Report No. L26-
011, ``DC-8 All Series Supplemental Inspection Document (SID),''
Volume I, Revision 7, dated March 2008, perform an NDI for fatigue
cracking of each PSE, in accordance with the NDI procedures
specified in Section 2 of McDonnell Douglas Report No. L26-011,
``DC-8 Supplemental Inspection Document (SID),'' Volume II, Revision
8, dated January 2005, at the times specified in paragraph (i)(1),
(i)(2), or (i)(3) of this AD, as applicable.
    (1) For airplanes that have less than three quarters of the
fatigue life threshold (\3/4\NTH) as of the effective
date of this AD: Perform the NDI for fatigue cracking at the times
specified in paragraphs (i)(1)(i) and (i)(1)(ii) of this AD. After
reaching the threshold (NTH), repeat the inspection for
that PSE at intervals not to exceed [Delta]NDI/2.
    (i) Perform an initial NDI no earlier than one-half of the
threshold (\1/2\NTH) but before reaching three-quarters
of the threshold (\3/4\NTH), or within 60 months after
the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later.
    (ii) Repeat the NDI no earlier than \3/4\NTH but
before reaching the threshold (NTH), or within 18 months
after the inspection required by paragraph (i)(1)(i) of this AD,
whichever occurs later.

    Note 1: The DC-8 SID and this AD refer to the repetitive
inspection interval as [Delta]NDI/2. However, the headings of the
tables in Section 4 of Volume I of the DC-8 SID refer to the
repetitive inspection interval of NDI/2. The values listed under
NDI/2 in the tables in Section 4 of Volume I of the DC-8 SID are the
repetitive inspection intervals, [Delta]NDI/2.
    (2) For airplanes that have reached or exceeded three-quarters
of the fatigue life threshold (\3/4\NTH), but less than
the threshold (NTH), as of the effective date of this AD:
Perform an NDI before reaching the threshold (NTH), or
within 18 months after the effective date of this AD, whichever
occurs later. Thereafter, after passing the threshold
(NTH), repeat the inspection for that PSE at intervals
not to exceed [Delta]NDI/2.
    (3) For airplanes that have reached or exceeded the fatigue life
threshold (NTH) as of the effective date of this AD:
Perform an NDI within 18 months after the effective date of this AD.
Thereafter, repeat the inspection for that PSE at intervals not to
exceed [Delta]NDI/2.

Discrepant Findings

    (j) If any discrepancy (e.g., differences on the airplane from
the NDI reference standard, such as PSEs that cannot be inspected as
specified in McDonnell Douglas Report No. L26-011, ``DC-8
Supplemental Inspection Document (SID),'' Volume II, Revision 8,
dated January 2005, or do not match rework, repair, or modification
descriptions in Boeing Report No. L26-011, ``DC-8 All Series
Supplemental Inspection Document (SID),'' Volume I, Revision 7,
dated March 2008) is detected during any inspection required by
paragraph (i) of this AD, do the action specified in paragraph
(j)(1) or (j)(2) of this AD, as applicable.
    (1) If a discrepancy is detected during any inspection done
before \3/4\NTH or NTH: The area of the PSE
affected by the discrepancy must be inspected before NTH
or within 18 months after the discovery of the discrepancy,
whichever occurs later, in accordance with a method approved by the
Manager, Los Angeles ACO.
    (2) If a discrepancy is detected during any inspection done
after NTH: The area of the PSE affected by the
discrepancy must be inspected before the accumulation of an
additional [Delta]NDI/2 or within 18 months after the discovery of
the discrepancy, whichever occurs later, in accordance with a method
approved by the Manager, Los Angeles ACO.

Reporting Requirements

    (k) All negative or positive findings of the inspections done in
accordance with paragraph (i) of this AD must be reported to Boeing
at the times specified in, and in accordance with, the instructions
contained in Section 4 of Boeing Report No. L26-011, ``DC-8 All
Series Supplemental Inspection Document (SID),'' Volume I, Revision
7, dated March 2008. Information collection requirements contained
in this regulation have been approved by the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1980 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) and have been assigned OMB Control
Number 2120-0056.

Corrective Actions

    (l) Any cracked structure of a PSE detected during any
inspection required by paragraph (i) of this AD must be repaired
before further flight using a method approved in accordance with the
procedures specified in paragraph (p) of this AD. Accomplish the
actions described in paragraphs (l)(1), (l)(2), and (l)(3) of this
AD, at the times specified.
    (1) Within 18 months after repair, do a damage tolerance
assessment (DTA) that defines the threshold for inspection of the
repair and submit the assessment for approval.
    (2) Before reaching 75% of the repair threshold as determined in
paragraph (l)(1) of this AD, submit the inspection methods and
repetitive inspection intervals for the repair for approval.
    (3) Before the repair threshold, as determined in paragraph
(l)(1) of this AD, incorporate the inspection method and repetitive
inspection intervals into the FAA-approved structural maintenance or
inspection program for the airplane.

    Note 2: For the purposes of this AD, we anticipate that
submissions of the DTA of the repair, if acceptable, should be
approved within 6 months after submission.

    Note 3: FAA Order 8110.54, ``Instructions for Continued
Airworthiness,'' dated July 1, 2005, provides additional guidance
about the approval of repairs to PSEs.

Inspection for Transferred Airplanes

    (m) Before any airplane that has exceeded the fatigue life
threshold (NTH) can be added to an air carrier's
operations specifications, a program for the accomplishment of the
inspections required by this AD must be established as specified in
paragraph (m)(1) or (m)(2) of this AD, as applicable.
    (1) For airplanes that have been inspected in accordance with
this AD: The inspection of each PSE must be done by the new operator
in accordance with the previous operator's schedule and inspection
method, or the new operator's schedule and inspection method, at
whichever time would result in the earlier accomplishment date for
that PSE inspection. The compliance time for accomplishing this
inspection must be measured from the last inspection done by the
previous operator. After each inspection has been done once, each
subsequent inspection must be done in accordance with the new
operator's schedule and inspection method.
    (2) For airplanes that have not been inspected in accordance
with this AD: The inspection of each PSE required by this AD must be
done either before adding the airplane to the air carrier's
operations specification, or in accordance with a schedule and an
inspection method approved by the Manager, Los Angeles ACO. After
each inspection has been done once, each subsequent inspection must
be done in accordance with the new operator's schedule.

Acceptable for Compliance

    (n) McDonnell Douglas Report No. MDC 91K0262, ``DC-8 Aging
Aircraft Repair Assessment Program Document,'' Revision 1, dated
October 2000, provides inspection/replacement programs for certain
repairs to the fuselage pressure shell. Accomplishing these repairs
and inspection/replacement programs before the effective date of
this AD is considered acceptable for compliance with the
requirements of paragraphs (g) and (l) of this AD for repairs
subject to that document.
    (o) Actions done before the effective date of this AD in
accordance with Boeing Report No. L26-011, ``DC-8 All Series
Supplemental

Inspection Document (SID),'' Volume I, Revision 6, dated July 2005,
are acceptable for compliance with the corresponding requirements of
this AD.

Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (p)(1) The Manager, Los Angeles ACO, FAA, ATTN: Dara Albouyeh,
Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM-120L, FAA, Los Angeles
Aircraft Certification Office, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood,
California 90712-4137; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>;
has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using
the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.
    (2) To request a different method of compliance or a different
compliance time for this AD, follow the procedures in 14 CFR 39.19.
Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC
applies, notify your appropriate principal inspector (PI) in the FAA
Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local
FSDO.
    (3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be
used for any repair required by this AD, if it is approved by an
Authorized Representative for the Boeing Commercial Airplanes
Delegation Option Authorization Organization who has been authorized
by the Manager, Los Angeles ACO, to make those findings. For a
repair method to be approved, the repair must meet the certification
basis of the airplane and 14 CFR 25.571, Amendment 45, and the
approval must specifically refer to this AD.
    (4) AMOCs approved previously in accordance with AD 93-01-15 are
approved as AMOCs for the corresponding provisions of this AD.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on August 21, 2008.
Kevin Hull,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. E8-20085 Filed 8-28-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: March 13, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 50)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 13511-13513]
[DOCID:fr13mr08-26]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2008-0272; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-275-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Dassault Model Falcon 2000 Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for the
products listed above. This proposed AD results from mandatory
continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) originated by an aviation
authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe
condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe
condition as:

    In service events have shown that, after implementation of
Dassault Aviation SB

F2000-133 and F2000-166, a risk of engine cowlings separation from
the airplane still exists, and may cause potential damages to the
engine itself and to the horizontal stabilizer.
    It is suspected that on-ground improper latching may lead to a
radial deformation of engine cowlings in flight and to their
eventual escape out of their locking devices. This situation may
represent a hazard to the aircraft propulsive system and/or its
structural integrity.

* * * * *
The proposed AD would require actions that are intended to address the
unsafe condition described in the MCAI.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by April 14, 2008.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments 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: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-40, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://
www.regulations.gov; or in person at the Docket Operations office
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 Operations office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is
in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket
shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tom Rodriguez, Aerospace Engineer,
International Branch, ANM-116, FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate,
1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone (425)
227-1137; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address
listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2008-0272;
Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-275-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 based on 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

    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical
Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued
Airworthiness Directive 2007-0016, dated January 12, 2007 (referred to
after this as ``the MCAI''), to correct an unsafe condition for the
specified products. The MCAI states:

    In service events have shown that, after implementation of
Dassault Aviation SB F2000-133 and F2000-166, a risk of engine
cowlings separation from the airplane still exists, and may cause
potential damages to the engine itself and to the horizontal
stabilizer.
    It is suspected that on-ground improper latching may lead to a
radial deformation of engine cowlings in flight and to their
eventual escape out of their locking devices. This situation may
represent a hazard to the aircraft propulsive system and/or its
structural integrity.
    The purpose of this Airworthiness Directive (AD) is to secure
safe closure of engine cowlings and improve the existing locking
devices.

You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD
docket.

Relevant Service Information

    Dassault has issued Service Bulletins F2000-166, Revision 1, dated
October 24, 2001, and F2000-298, Revision 3, dated September 26, 2007.
The actions described in this service information are intended to
correct the unsafe condition identified in the MCAI.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another
country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant
to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have
been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service
information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we
evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition
exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same
type design.

Differences Between This AD and the MCAI or Service Information

    We have reviewed the MCAI and related service information and, in
general, agree with their substance. But we might have found it
necessary to use different words from those in the MCAI to ensure the
AD is clear for U.S. operators and is enforceable. In making these
changes, we do not intend to differ substantively from the information
provided in the MCAI and related service information.
    We might also have proposed different actions in this AD from those
in the MCAI in order to follow FAA policies. Any such differences are
highlighted in a NOTE within the proposed AD.

Costs of Compliance

    Based on the service information, we estimate that this proposed AD
would affect about 229 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that
it would take about 90 work-hours per product to comply with the basic
requirements of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $80 per
work-hour. Required parts would cost about $0 per product. Where the
service information lists required parts costs that are covered under
warranty, we have assumed that there will be no charge for these costs.
As we do not control warranty coverage for affected parties, some
parties may incur costs higher than estimated here. Based on these
figures, we estimate the cost of the proposed AD on U.S. operators to
be $1,648,800, or $7,200 per product.

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); and
    3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to
comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, 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 AD:

Dassault Aviation: Docket No. FAA-2008-0272; Directorate Identifier
2007-NM-275-AD.

Comments Due Date

    (a) We must receive comments by April 14, 2008.

Affected ADs

    (b) None.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to Dassault Model Falcon 2000 airplanes,
certificated in any category, all serial numbers, except those that
have incorporated Modification M2275 during production or Dassault
Service Bulletin F2000-298 in service.

Subject

    (d) Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 54:
Nacelles/Pylons.

Reason

    (e) The mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI)
states:
    In service events have shown that, after implementation of
Dassault Aviation SB F2000-133 and F2000-166, a risk of engine
cowlings separation from the airplane still exists, and may cause
potential damages to the engine itself and to the horizontal
stabilizer.
    It is suspected that on-ground improper latching may lead to a
radial deformation of engine cowlings in flight and to their
eventual escape out of their locking devices. This situation may
represent a hazard to the aircraft propulsive system and/or its
structural integrity.
    The purpose of this Airworthiness Directive (AD) is to secure
safe closure of engine cowlings and improve the existing locking
devices.

Actions and Compliance

    (f) Within 12 months after the effective date of this AD unless
already done, do the following actions.
    (1) Modify the existing engine cowls locking system in
accordance with the instructions contained in Dassault Service
Bulletin F2000-298, Revision 3, dated September 26, 2007.
    (2) Before or concurrent with the modification required by
paragraph (f)(1) of this AD, modify the engine cowling attachments
in accordance with the instructions contained in Dassault Service
Bulletin F2000-166, Revision 1, dated October 24, 2001 (Modification
M1579).
    (3) Actions done before the effective date of this AD in
accordance with Dassault Service Bulletins F2000-298, Revision 1,
dated October 31, 2006, or Revision 2, dated April 12, 2007; and
F2000-166 dated June 27, 2001; are acceptable for compliance with
the corresponding actions of this AD.

FAA AD Differences

    Note: This AD differs from the MCAI and/or service information
as follows: No differences.

Other FAA AD Provisions

    (g) The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
International Branch, ANM-116, has the authority to approve AMOCs
for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR
39.19. Send information to ATTN: Tom Rodriguez, Aerospace Engineer,
International Branch, ANM-116, FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate,
1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone
(425) 227-1137; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>. Before using any approved AMOC
on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify your appropriate
principal inspector (PI) in the FAA Flight Standards District Office
(FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local FSDO.
    (2) Airworthy Product: For any requirement in this AD to obtain
corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these
actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered
FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority
(or their delegated agent). You are required to assure the product
is airworthy before it is returned to service.
    (3) Reporting Requirements: For any reporting requirement in
this AD, under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has approved the information
collection requirements and has assigned OMB Control Number 2120-
0056.

Related Information

    (h) Refer to MCAI European Aviation Safety Agency Airworthiness
Directive 2007-0016, dated January 12, 2007; and Dassault Service
Bulletins F2000-166, Revision 1, dated October 24, 2001; and F2000-
298, Revision 3, dated September 26, 2007; for related information.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on March 3, 2008.
Ali Bahrami,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
 [FR Doc. E8-4999 Filed 3-12-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: December 30, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 250)]
[Notices]
[Page 79943-79944]
[DOCID:fr30de08-141]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-59134; File No. 4-574]

Program for Allocation of Regulatory Responsibilities Pursuant to
Rule 17d-2; Order Approving and Declaring Effective a Plan for the
Allocation of Regulatory Responsibilities Between the International
Securities Exchange, LLC and the Financial Industry Regulatory
Authority, Inc.

 December 22, 2008.
    Notice is hereby given that the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') has issued an Order, pursuant to Sections 17(d)\1\ and
11A(a)(3)(B)\2\ of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act''),
approving and declaring effective a plan for the allocation of
regulatory responsibilities (``Plan'') that was filed pursuant to Rule
17d-2 under the Act \3\ by the International Securities Exchange, LLC
(``ISE'') and the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc.
(``FINRA'') (together with ISE, the ``Parties'').\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78q(d).
    \2\ 15 U.S.C. 78k-1(a)(3)(B).
    \3\ 17 CFR 240.17d-2.
    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 59003 (November 24,
2008), 73 FR 72873 (December 1, 2008) (``Notice'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Accordingly, FINRA shall assume, in addition to the regulatory
responsibility it has under the Act, the regulatory responsibilities
allocated to it under the Plan. At the same time, ISE is relieved of
those regulatory responsibilities allocated to FINRA under the Plan.

I. Introduction

    Section 19(g)(1) of the Act,\5\ among other things, requires every
self-regulatory organization (``SRO'') registered as either a national
securities exchange or registered securities association to examine
for, and enforce compliance by, its members and persons associated with
its members with the Act, the rules and regulations thereunder, and the
SRO's own rules, unless the SRO is relieved of this responsibility
pursuant to Section 17(d)\6\ or 19(g)(2)\7\ of the Act. Section
17(d)(1) of the Act \8\ was intended, in part, to eliminate unnecessary
multiple examinations and regulatory duplication for those broker-
dealers that maintain memberships in more than one SRO (``common
members'').\9\ With respect to a common member, Section 17(d)(1)
authorizes the Commission, by rule or order, to relieve an SRO of the
responsibility to receive regulatory reports, to examine for and
enforce compliance with applicable statutes, rules, and regulations, or
to perform other specified regulatory functions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(g)(1).
    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78q(d).
    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(g)(2).
    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78q(d)(1).
    \9\ See Securities Act Amendments of 1975, Report of the Senate
Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs to Accompany S.
249, S. Rep. No. 94-75, 94th Cong., 1st Session 32 (1975).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To implement Section 17(d)(1), the Commission adopted two rules:
Rule 17d-1 \10\ and Rule 17d-2 \11\ under the Act. Rule 17d-2 permits
SROs to propose joint plans for the allocation of regulatory
responsibilities, other than financial responsibility rules, with
respect to their common members. Under paragraph (c) of Rule 17d-2, the
Commission may declare such a plan effective if, after providing for
notice and comment, it determines that the plan is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest and for the protection of investors,
to foster cooperation and coordination among the SROs, to remove
impediments to, and foster the development of, a national market system
and a national clearance and settlement system, and is in conformity
with the factors set forth in Section 17(d) of the Act. Upon
effectiveness of a plan filed pursuant to Rule 17d-2, an SRO is
relieved of those regulatory responsibilities for common members that
are allocated by the plan to another SRO.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 17 CFR 240.17d-1. Rule 17d-1 authorizes the Commission to
name a single SRO as the designated examining authority (``DEA'') to
examine common members for compliance with the financial
responsibility requirements imposed by the Act, or by Commission or
SRO rules.
    \11\ 17 CFR 240.17d-2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On December 1, 2008, the Commission published notice of the Plan
filed by ISE and FINRA.\12\ The Commission received no comments on the
Plan. The Plan is separate from the agreement made pursuant to Rule
17d-2 between ISE and FINRA entered into on December 20, 2006 (the
``Foundation Plan'').\13\ This Plan supplements the Foundation Plan by
delineating regulatory responsibilities between the Parties, including
responsibility for ISE rules, with respect to Direct Edge ECN, LLC
(``DE ECN''), which is a common member of FINRA and ISE, and which also
is affiliated with ISE.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See Notice, supra note 4.
    \13\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 55367 (February 27,
2007), 72 FR 9983 (March 6, 2007). Pursuant to the Foundation Plan,
FINRA has assumed certain inspection, examination, and enforcement
responsibility for common members, including ISE Route LLC, the
outbound Router Member, with respect to certain applicable laws,
rules, and regulations.
    \14\ On November 17, 2008, the Commission published notice of a
proposed rule change by the ISE relating to the proposed acquisition
by ISE Holdings, Inc., the parent of ISE, of an equity interest in
Direct Edge Holdings LLC (``Direct Edge'') in exchange for cash and
the ISE's equities trading facility, ISE Stock Exchange, LLC (``ISE
Stock''). After such transaction, (1) Direct Edge, through a
subsidiary, will own and operate ISE Stock as a facility of ISE and
(2) ISE Holdings will have a 31.54% equity interest in Direct Edge,
which wholly owns and operates an Electronic Access Member of ISE,
DE ECN. Recognizing the potential for conflicts of interest in
instances where an exchange is affiliated with one of its members,
ISE proposed ISE Rule 312(b), which imposes several conditions and
limitations to the affiliation between ISE and DE ECN, one of which
is that ISE enter into a 17d-2 plan with a non-affiliated self-
regulatory organization to regulate and oversee the activities of DE
ECN. The Plan is intended to satisfy this condition. See Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 58918 (November 7, 2008), 73 FR 67909
(November 17, 2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The text of the Plan allocates regulatory responsibilities among
the Parties with respect to DE ECN, which is a common member. Included
in the Plan is an attachment (the ``ISE

Certification of Common Rules,'' referred to herein as the
``Certification'') that lists every ISE rule and federal securities law
and rule and regulation thereunder for which, under the Plan, FINRA
would bear responsibility for examining, and enforcing compliance by,
DE ECN.

II. Discussion

    The Commission finds that the proposed Plan is consistent with the
factors set forth in Section 17(d) of the Act \15\ and Rule 17d-2(c)
thereunder \16\ in that the proposed Plan is necessary or appropriate
in the public interest and for the protection of investors, fosters
cooperation and coordination among SROs, and removes impediments to and
fosters the development of the national market system. In particular,
the Commission believes that the proposed Plan should reduce
unnecessary regulatory duplication by allocating to FINRA certain
responsibilities for DE ECN, a common member, that would otherwise be
performed by both ISE and FINRA. Accordingly, the proposed Plan
promotes efficiency by reducing costs to DE ECN. Furthermore, because
ISE and FINRA will coordinate their regulatory functions in accordance
with the Plan, the Plan should promote investor protection.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 15 U.S.C. 78q(d).
    \16\ 17 CFR 240.17d-2(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission notes that, under the Plan, ISE and FINRA have
allocated regulatory responsibility for all ISE rules that are
substantially similar to FINRA rules in that ISE's rule would not
require FINRA to develop one or more new examination standards,
modules, procedures, or criteria in order to analyze the application of
the rule, or a dual member's activity, conduct, or output in relation
to such rule (``Common Rules''). These Common Rules are specifically
listed in the Certification. In addition, under the Plan, FINRA would
assume regulatory responsibility for any provisions of the federal
securities laws and the rules and regulations thereunder that are set
forth in the Certification.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ As proposed currently, however, there are no federal
securities rules listed on the Certification. Therefore, at present,
ISE has not been relieved of any regulatory responsibilities,
pursuant to the Plan, for any provisions of the federal securities
laws and the rules and regulations thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Plan further provides that FINRA shall not assume regulatory
responsibility, and ISE will retain full responsibility, for: (1)
Surveillance, examination, investigation, and enforcement with respect
to trading activities or practices involving ISE's own marketplace; (2)
registration pursuant to ISE's applicable rules of associated persons
(i.e., registration rules that are not Common Rules); (3) ISE's duties
as a DEA under Rule 17d-1 of the Act; \18\ and (4) any rules of ISE
that do not qualify as Common Rules, except that FINRA shall be
responsible for such rules with respect to any ISE member that operates
as a facility,\19\ acts as an inbound router for ISE, and is a member
of ISE and FINRA (``Inbound Router Member'').\20\ Apparent violations
of any ISE rules by the Inbound Router Member will be processed by
FINRA, and FINRA will conduct any enforcement proceedings. The effect
of these provisions is that regulatory oversight and enforcement
responsibilities for the Inbound Router Member will be vested with
FINRA. These provisions should help avoid any potential conflicts of
interest that could arise if ISE was primarily responsible for
regulating the Inbound Router Member, with which ISE is affiliated.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 17 CFR 240.17d-1.
    \19\ See Section 3(a)(2) of the Act (defining ``facility''). 15
U.S.C. 78c(a)(2).
    \20\ Currently, DE ECN is the only Inbound Router Member.
    \21\ See supra note 14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    According to the Plan, ISE will perform a review of the
Certification, at least annually, or more frequently if required by
changes in either the rules of ISE or FINRA, to add ISE rules not
included on the then-current list of Common Rules that are
substantially similar to FINRA rules (i.e., new rules that qualify as
Common Rules or existing rules that have been amended so that they now
qualify as Common Rules); delete ISE rules included in the then-current
list of Common Rules that are no longer substantially similar to FINRA
rules (i.e., amended rules that cease to be Common Rules); and confirm
that the remaining rules on the list of Common Rules continue to be ISE
rules that are substantially similar to FINRA rules. FINRA will then
confirm in writing whether the rules listed in any updated list are
Common Rules as defined in the Plan.
    The Commission is hereby declaring effective and approving a plan
that, among other things, allocates regulatory responsibility to FINRA
for the oversight and enforcement of all ISE rules that are
substantially similar to the rules of FINRA for DE ECN, a common member
of ISE and FINRA. Therefore, modifications to the Certification need
not be filed with the Commission as an amendment to the Plan, provided
that the Parties are only adding to, deleting from, or confirming
changes to ISE rules in the Certification in conformance with the
definition of Common Rules provided in the Plan. However, should ISE or
FINRA decide to add an ISE rule to the Certification that is not
substantially similar to an FINRA rule; delete an ISE rule from the
Certification that is substantially similar to an FINRA rule; or leave
on the Certification an ISE rule that is no longer substantially
similar to an FINRA rule, then such a change would constitute an
amendment to the Plan, which must be filed with the Commission pursuant
to Rule 17d-2 under the Act.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ The Commission also notes that the addition to (or eventual
deletion from) the Certification of any federal securities laws,
rules, and regulations for which FINRA would bear responsibility
under the Plan for examining, and enforcing compliance by, common
members, would constitute an amendment to the Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Plan also permits ISE and FINRA to terminate the Plan, subject
to notice, for various reasons.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ The Commission notes that paragraph 12 of the Plan reflects
the fact that FINRA's responsibilities under the Plan will continue
in effect until the earlier of (a) the date on which DE ECN ceases
operations as a facility of ISE, or (b) the Commission approves the
termination of the Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Conclusion

    This Order gives effect to the Plan filed with the Commission in
File No. 4-574. The Parties shall notify all members affected by the
Plan of their rights and obligations under the Plan.
    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Sections 17(d) of the Act,
that the Plan in File No. 4-574, between ISE and FINRA, filed pursuant
to Rule 17d-2 under the Act, is approved and declared effective.
    It is therefore ordered that ISE is relieved of those
responsibilities allocated to FINRA under the Plan in File No. 4-574.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\24\
Florence E. Harmon,
Acting Secretary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(34).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

 [FR Doc. E8-30861 Filed 12-29-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


Animal Feeding Operations Air Quality Compliance Agreement Fact Sheet June 22, 2005 Status   The Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA) announced the Air Quality Compliance Agreement ( Agreement) on January 21, 2005. The Agreement was published in the Federal Register, and EPA solicited public comments on the Agreement through May 2, 2005.   EPA negotiators have worked with industry representatives, EPA regions, state and local governments, environmental groups and other stakeholders to develop a proposed Agreement for Animal Feeding Operations ( AFOs).   EPA negotiators and industry representatives agreed on issues, and negotiations concluded.   AFOs have until July 29, 2005, to sign an Agreement with EPA.

Primary Goals of the Air Quality Compliance Agreement   Reduce air pollution   Ensure compliance with applicable Clean Air Act, Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act ( CERCLA) and Environmental Planning and Community Right to Know Act ( EPCRA) provisions   Monitor and evaluate AFO emissions   Promote a national consensus on methodologies for estimating emissions from AFOs.

Background   A 2002 report by the National Academy of Sciences emphasized that scientifically credible methodologies for estimating emissions from AFOs needed to be developed.   Commencing in 2002, EPA and industry representatives began discussions on a proposed Agreement that would facilitate the development of these methodologies.   During 2002 2004, EPA met with many groups to discuss the proposed Agreement, including: o Agricultural industry representatives o State and local government officials, including the State and Territorial Air Pollution Program Administrators ( STAPPA), and Association of Local Air Pollution Control Officials ( ALAPCO) o Environmental organizations   Citizen groups Key Provisions in the Air Quality Compliance Agreement   Participating AFOs will be required to: o Pay a civil penalty, ranging from $ 200 to $ 100,000, depending on the size and number of AFOs. o Pay up to $ 2,500 into a fund for a nationwide emissions monitoring program o Make facilities available for monitoring. o Apply for all applicable air permits and comply with permit conditions. o Install Best Available Control Technology ( BACT) or control technology meeting the Lowest Achievable Emission Rate ( LAER) on all sources that exceed the " major source" threshold for their area. o Report any qualifying releases of ammonia ( NH3) and hydrogen sulfide ( H2S) as required by section 103 of CERCLA and section 304 of EPCRA.   AFOs that satisfy these requirements will receive, from EPA, a covenant not to sue for past violations of: o Clean Air Act permitting requirements in Title V, and Title I Parts C & D Prevention of Significant Deterioration/ New Source Review, and State Implementation Plans arising from emissions of Nitrogen Oxides ( NOx), Hydrogen Sulfide ( H2S), Volatile Organic Compounds ( VOCs), or Particulate Matter ( PM) from animal confinement structures and agricultural livestock waste lagoons. o CERCLA section 103 and EPCRA section 304 hazardous substance reporting requirements arising from releases of ( NH3) and H2S from animal confinement structures and agricultural livestock waste lagoons.   Conditions and limits of the covenant not to sue: o EPA will continue to prosecute cases that may present an imminent and substantial endangerment to human health. o The covenant not to sue applies to past violations and will terminate after a short period following the monitoring program. o The covenant not to sue covers only violations related to emissions from agricultural livestock and agricultural livestock waste. o The covenant does not cover emissions from generators or other internal combustion engines, waste to energy systems and land application of animal waste. The covenant not to sue also does not cover emissions from sources not participating in the Agreement. o The covenant not to sue does not affect permits required for new construction or modification of existing AFOs. o The covenant not to sue will be nullified if AFOs fail to comply with state nuisance final orders relating to air emissions. o AFOs that are subject to federal or state Clean Air Act, CERCLA section 103 or EPCRA section 304 enforcement actions may not be eligible to enter into the Agreement. o EPA will continue to prosecute cases that may present an imminent and substantial endangerment to human health.

  Additional Protections and Benefits: o AFOs that install waste to energy systems in compliance with all applicable permitting and control requirements will get additional time to apply for air permits for their emissions from agricultural livestock and livestock waste. o The Agreement will complement ongoing state and local efforts to promote research into AFO air emissions and to improve air quality.

Nationwide Monitoring Program   Based on EPA criteria, an independent organization will select for monitoring approximately 28 farms that represent major animal groups ( e. g. swine, dairy, and poultry), different types of operations, and different geographic regions. EPA will ensure the farms selected for monitoring are representative.   Monitoring will occur at the selected lagoons and barns for approximately 24 months.   Pollutants to be monitored include PM ( TSP, PM10 and PM2.5), H2S, VOCs, NH3 and NOx.


[Federal Register: October 24, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 205)]
[Notices]
[Page 60345-60347]
[DOCID:fr24oc07-73]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP07-427-000]

PetroLogistics Natural Gas Storage, LLC; Notice of Intent To
Prepare an Environmental Assessment for the Proposed PetroLogistics Gas
Storage Project and Request for Comments on Environmental Issues

October 17, 2007.
    The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or
Commission) will prepare an environmental assessment (EA) that will
discuss the environmental impacts of the PetroLogistics Gas Storage
Project involving construction and operation of facilities by
PetroLogistics Natural Gas Storage, LLC (PetroLogistics) in Iberville
Parish, Louisiana.\1\ These facilities would consist of one injection/
withdrawal storage well, various diameter gas header, intereconnect,
and lateral pipelines totaling 13.73 miles, one new 20,000 horsepower
(hp) electric compressor station, five meter stations and two mainline
valves. This EA will be used by the Commission in its decision-making
process to determine whether the project is in the public convenience
and necessity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ PetroLogistics's application was filed with the Commission
under section 7 of the Natural Gas Act and Part 157 of the
Commission's regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    If you are a landowner receiving this notice, you may be contacted
by a pipeline company representative about the acquisition of an
easement to construct, operate, and maintain the proposed facilities.
The pipeline company would seek to negotiate a mutually acceptable
agreement. However, if the project is approved by the Commission, that
approval conveys with it the right of eminent domain. Therefore, if
easement negotiations fail to produce an agreement, the pipeline
company could initiate condemnation proceedings in accordance with
state law.
    A fact sheet prepared by the FERC entitled ``An Interstate Natural
Gas Facility On My Land? What Do I Need To Know?'' was attached to the
project notice PetroLogistics provided to landowners. This fact sheet
addresses a number of typically asked questions, including the use of
eminent domain and how to participate in the Commission's proceedings.
It is available for viewing on the FERC Internet Web site (http://www.ferc.gov
).

Summary of the Proposed Project

    PetroLogistics proposes to build and operate a high-deliverability,
multi-cycle natural gas storage facility and appurtenant facilities in
an existing brine cavern in the Choctaw Salt Dome located 4 miles
northwest of the city of Plaquemine, Louisiana. The project would use
one cavern within the Choctaw Salt Dome which currently is the site of
up to nine caverns used as part of the U.S. Strategic Petroleum Reserve
operated by the U.S. Department of Energy. This project would provide a
working gas capacity of approximately 9 billion cubic feet and maximum
daily injection and withdrawal capabilities of up to 150 to 300 million
cubic feet per day.
    PetroLogistics seeks authority to construct and operate:
     One 20,000 hp electric compressor station on a 2 acre
site;
     One 350-foot-long 24-inch-diameter interconnect pipeline;
     7.3 miles of 24-inch-diameter natural gas header pipeline
connecting the compressor station and the Florida Gas Transmission
Company (FGT), CrossTex LIG Pipeline Company (Crosstex)/Bridgeline
Pipeline System (Bridgeline) and Texas Eastern Transmission Company
(TETCO) interconnects;
     5.83 miles of 16-inch-diameter interconnect pipeline from
the Bridgeline/CrossTex tie-in to the Southern Natural Gas Company
(SONAT) pipeline interconnect;
     A 0.60-mile-long TETCO lateral from the TETCO Lateral
Meter Station; five meter stations/interconnects (FGT, Bridgeline,
Crosstex, TETCO and SONAT Meter Stations);
     And two mainline valves.
    PetroLogistics requests certification by December 31, 2007.
    The location of the project facilities is shown in Appendix 1.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The appendices referenced in this notice are not being
printed in the Federal Register. Copies of all appendices, other
than Appendix 1 (maps), are available on the Commission's Web site
at the ``eLibrary'' link or from the Commission's Public Reference
Room, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, or call (202)
502-8371. For instructions on connecting to eLibrary refer to the
last page of this notice. Copies of the appendices were sent to all
those receiving this notice in the mail.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Land Requirements for Construction

    Construction of the proposed facilities would require disturbance
of 137 acres of land, including 47 acres under existing permanent
easement, 40 acres to be added as new permanent easement or ownership,
and 53 acres as temporary construction right-of-way that would be
restored to previous land use following

construction. PetroLogistics would use a 75-foot-wide construction
right-of-way width 40-foot-wide operational right-of-way for the
installed pipelines.

The EA Process

    The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires the
Commission to take into account the environmental impacts that could
result from an action whenever it considers the issuance of a
Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity. NEPA also requires us
to discover and address concerns the public may have about proposals.
This process is referred to as ``scoping''. The main goal of the
scoping process is to focus the analysis in the EA on the important
environmental issues. By this Notice of Intent, the Commission staff
requests public comments on the scope of the issues to address in the
EA. All comments received are considered during the preparation of the
EA. State and local government representatives are encouraged to notify
their constituents of this proposed action and encourage them to
comment on their areas of concern.
    In the EA we \3\ will discuss impacts that could occur as a result
of the construction and operation of the proposed project under these
general headings:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ ''We'', ``us'', and ``our'' refer to the environmental staff
of the Office of Energy Projects (OEP).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Geology and soils;
     Water resources;
     Wetlands and fisheries;
     Vegetation and wildlife;
     Threatened and endangered species;
     Land use;
     Cultural resources;
     Air quality and noise;
     Reliability and safety; and
     Cumulative impacts.
    We will also evaluate reasonable alternatives to the proposed
project or portions of the project, and make recommendations on how to
lessen or avoid impacts on the various resource areas.
    Our independent analysis of the issues will be in the EA. Depending
on the comments received during the scoping process, the EA may be
published and mailed to federal, state, and local agencies, public
interest groups, interested individuals, affected landowners,
newspapers, libraries, and the Commission's official service list for
this proceeding. A comment period will be allotted for review if the EA
is published. We will consider all comments on the EA before we make
our recommendations to the Commission.
    To ensure your comments are considered, please carefully follow the
instructions in the public participation section below.

Currently Identified Environmental Issues

    We have already identified several issues that we think deserve
attention based on a preliminary review of the proposed facilities and
the environmental information provided by PetroLogistics. This
preliminary list of issues may be changed based on your comments and
our analysis.
     Horizontal directional drill crossing of eight perennial
waterways, including Wilbert's Canal, Bayou Jacob, Bayou Plaquemine,
Bayou Tigre, and other unnamed canals;
     Impact of 15 acres of emergent wetlands, 17 acres of
forested wetlands, and 66 acres of agricultural land;
     Potential clearing of cypress and tupelo trees;
     Potential impacts to a crawfish farm;
     Visual impacts of one reworked injection/withdrawal well;
     Compressor station operational noise impacts for
residences located northeast of the site; and
     Adjacent to crude oil storage caverns operated as part of
the U.S. Strategic Petroleum Preserve.

Public Participation

    You can make a difference by providing us with your specific
comments or concerns about the project. By becoming a commentor, your
concerns will be addressed in the EA and considered by the Commission.
You should focus on the potential environmental effects of the
proposal, alternatives to the proposal (including alternative
locations/routes), and measures to avoid or lessen environmental
impact. The more specific your comments, the more useful they will be.
Please carefully follow these instructions to ensure that your comments
are received in time and properly recorded:
     Send an original and two copies of your letter to:
Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888
First St., NE., Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426.
     Label one copy of the comments for the attention of Gas 2.
     Reference Docket No. CP07-427-000.
     Mail your comments so that they will be received in
Washington, DC on or before November 15, 2007.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing of any
comments or interventions or protests to this proceeding. See 18 CFR
385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site
at http://www.ferc.gov under the ``e-Filing'' link and the link to the

User's Guide. Before you can file comments you will need to create a
free account which can be created online.
    We may mail the EA for comment. If you are interested in receiving
it, please return the Information Request (Appendix 3). If you do not
return the Information Request, you will be taken off the mailing list.

Becoming an Intervenor

    In addition to involvement in the EA scoping process, you may want
to become an official party to the proceeding, or ``intervenor''. To
become an intervenor you must file a motion to intervene according to
Rule 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR
385.214). Intervenors have the right to seek rehearing of the
Commission's decision. Motions to Intervene should be electronically
submitted using the Commission's eFiling system at http://www.ferc.gov.

Persons without Internet access should send an original and 14 copies
of their motion to the Secretary of the Commission at the address
indicated previously. Persons filing Motions to Intervene on or before
the comment deadline indicated above must send a copy of the motion to
the Applicant. All filings, including late interventions, submitted
after the comment deadline must be served on the Applicant and all
other intervenors identified on the Commission's service list for this
proceeding. Persons on the service list with email addresses may be
served electronically; others must be served a hard copy of the filing.
    Affected landowners and parties with environmental concerns may be
granted intervenor status upon showing good cause by stating that they
have a clear and direct interest in this proceeding which would not be
adequately represented by any other parties. You do not need intervenor
status to have your environmental comments considered.

Environmental Mailing List

    An effort is being made to send this notice to all individuals,
organizations, and government entities interested in and/or potentially
affected by the proposed project. This includes all landowners who are
potential right-of-way grantors, whose property may be used temporarily
for project purposes, or who own homes within distances defined in the
Commission's regulations of certain aboveground facilities. By this
notice we are also asking governmental

agencies, especially those in Appendix 2, to express their interest in
becoming cooperating agencies for the preparation of the EA.

Additional Information

    Additional information about the project is available from the
Commission's Office of External Affairs, at 1-866-208 FERC (3372) or on
the FERC Internet Web site (http://www.ferc.gov) using the eLibrary

link. Click on the eLibrary link, click on ``General Search'' and enter
the docket number excluding the last three digits (i.e., enter PF06-
398) in the Docket Number field. Be sure you have selected an
appropriate date range. For assistance, please contact FERC Online
Support at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll free at 1-866-208-3676,
or for TTY, contact<PHONE_NUMBER>. The eLibrary link also provides
access to the texts of formal documents issued by the Commission, such
as orders, notices, and rulemakings.
    In addition, the Commission now offers a free service called
eSubscription which allows you to keep track of all formal issuances
and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time
you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with
notification of these filings, document summaries and direct links to
the documents. Go to http://www.ferc.gov/esubscribenow.htm.

    Finally, public meetings or site visits will be posted on the
Commission's calendar located at http://www.ferc.gov/EventCalendar/EventsList.aspx
 along with other related information.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E7-20897 Filed 10-23-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P