MEMORANDUM
To:		Gil Wood, USEPA
		David Cole, USEPA
From:		Jill Mozier, EC/R Inc.
Date:		November 30, 2012
Subject:	Notes from the November 8, 2012 Q&A session of the National Educational
      Forum on the Residential Wood Heater NSPS in Minneapolis, MN
____________________________________________________________________________________

The presentation documents and slides are available for download from the Basecamp website. Therefore presentation notes are not included in this memo, which focusses exclusively on the question and answer (Q&A) portion following each group of presentations.

Welcome, Overview and Goals of the Meeting
 David Thornton, MPCA
 Molly Mayo, Facilitator

Public Health and Environmental Impacts of Woodsmoke
 Dr. Ryan Allen, Simon Fraser University
 Dr. Philip Hopke, Clarkson University
 Judy Abbott, NY DOH

 Question (Brian Toll, Connecticut Health Dept): What are the health effects under 24 hours? How do we set a reference number for shorter term exposures?
 Answer: Judy Abbot responded that it's a good question but that we're not there yet, and further that county health dept staffs are being cut by 30%. Dr. Hopke commented that we are stuck with FRM measurements which only obtain a third of the data (i.e., only every 3[rd] day), with no time resolution. FEM continuous monitors are needed.

 Question (Ed Miller, VP of American Lung Association of the Northeast): Commented that since there may never be enough monitors and because there appears to be no safe level of PM2.5, it may be more effective to approach this from a property rights perspective (e.g., smoke crossing property line for more than 12 minutes in an hour). Videotaping of such may hold up in court and the definition of the violation may be able to be extended beyond OWHH to other sources.
 Answer: Judy Abbot responded that this is a legal question but her understanding is that this would be considered a private rather than a public nuisance in NY.

 Question (Dick Valentinetti, Vermont Air Quality DEC): Are there different health effects based on different particle sizes?
 Answer: Dr. Allen responded that a probable driver in toxicity is PM size (e.g., health effects from traffic linked to ultrafines), but attribution cannot yet be made definitively. Dr. Hopke commented that there aren't enough measurements of particle size to know definitively. The 11-year study Dr. Hopke is involved with is the longest particle size study in the US and the second longest in the world, but there aren't enough studies.

 Question (Molly Jacobs, UMASS Lowell Center for Sustainable Production): Regarding woodsmoke particle size, are the initial start-up particle size emissions in the nano to ultrafine range, and are there surrogates similar to diesel surrogates? What should be inferred from the extent of combustion and particle size?
 Answer: Dr. Allen responded, regarding the first particle size question, that an epidemiological study can't be done without measurements (and ultrafines can't be measured on a filter; optical equipment is necessary), so instead proximity to major roadway has been used. Related to diesel, there are no equivalent surrogates for woodsmoke. Regarding the extent-of-combustion question, Dr. Allen responded that low temperatures versus high temperatures and incomplete versus complete combustion produce different particle sizes and toxicities. In general, the toxicity decreases with higher temperatures and more complete combustion (based on in vitro cell structure studies rather than epidemiological studies).

 Question (Tomas Carbonell, Environmental Defense Fund): What do the studies say about indoor air quality related to woodsmoke?
 Answer: Dr. Hopke responded that there have been indoor air quality studies on asthmatic children using personal filters, but most indoor air quality studies regard tobacco smoke; not much has been studied regarding the indoor effects of biomass burning. Dr. Allen responded that infiltration studies indicate that 30% to 70% of outdoor PM2.5 infiltrates the house  -  that the issue is generally not woodstoves emitting directly to the indoors but rather the woodsmoke going up the chimney and coming back indoors. He further noted that HEPA filters help. Dr. Abbott noted that a home's typical running of the dryer and furnace creates a negative pressure (which draws outside air in).

 Question (unidentified person): What are the established links between birth defects and woodsmoke?
 Answer: Dr. Allen responded that exposure to PM2.5 from traffic during pregnancy has been linked to more pre-term births and low fetal birth weights. There are no studies pointing to woodsmoke in particular, although in general PM2.5 in urban areas is associated with certain pregnancy health outcomes. Dr. Hopke added that similar outcomes have been seen with tobacco smoke and cookstoves.

Current and Emerging Technologies
 John Crouch, HPBA
 Chris Neufeld, Blaze King / Travis Industries
 Dr. Harry H. "Dutch" Dresser, Jr., Maine Energy Systems
 Nathan Russell, NYSERDA

Question (Arthur Marin, NESCAUM): Regarding retrofitting catalysts, what is the possibility for using this technology in an approach similar to the woodstove change-out effort?
Answer: Chris Neufeld responded that replacing old stoves with catalytic stoves would have limited success because of the higher cost of catalytic stoves, unless a strong incentive is attached (e.g., as in Fairbanks example, owner would need to be given something like $2,500 to exchange old woodstove for EPA-certified replacement). [Editor's Note: Chris has said on other occasions that adding a catalyst to an old conventional wood stove is generally not as simple as just adding a catalyst but rather that the catalyst, bypass, and shielding to protect against flame impingement should be integrated into the design for best performance.]

Question (Andy Ginsburg, Oregon Department of Environmental Quality): Compared to the NSPS, how important are issues like proper sizing, regular maintenance of catalysts, and thermal storage -- that is, how does industry see these compliance issues being implemented and improved in the field?
Answer: John Crouch responded that the NSPS is a small part of the process; the whole system includes aspects like dry and proper wood/fuel. Dutch Dresser commented that there should not be a one-size-fits-all NSPS, rather appliance-specific standards and differentiation are needed in the NSPS. Equipment should be tested for what it is, not for what it isn't. Nate Russell commented that thermal storage plus the boiler should be considered the regulated unit. Chris Neufeld commented that all appliance types need to be maintained, not just catalytic parts. Regarding Andy Ginsburg's follow-up question on how to get dealers to make maintenance happen, John Crouch commented that dealers don't want to put an appliance on the market that causes lots of phone calls. For example, with drafts varying so much it's difficult to design a system that works consistently in all settings  -  this is not a maintenance problem, rather it's a warranty problem. Furthermore, regarding maintenance, who would enforce?

Question (Martin Lunde, Garn Inc.): Are there any studies regarding oversizing (i.e., replacing oversized equipment with proper sized equipment)?
Answer: John Crouch responded that there are no such studies, that the sizing decision is a function of vendor and consumer interaction/discussions. Martin Lunde further commented regarding an example of an oversized pellet stove rated for 200,000 BTU for a 3,000 sq.ft. house in area with only 30 degree lows, and another example regarding a unit which was oversized by 50% but was now oversized by 300% due to caulking and re-insulation of house. He also commented that in Minnesota it's a code issue  -  a unit can't be oversized past 8%. Chris Neufeld commented that for catalytic stoves the option of turning down and burning (a bigger unit) lower is better because it's worse to operate a (too small) catalytic unit too hot. John Crouch commented that the weatherization programs are oblivious to wood stoves and that DOE should conduct stove change-outs in conjunction with improving weatherization of homes.

Question (Dick Valentinetti, Vermont Air Quality DEC): He agrees with John Crouch that federal regulations have unintended consequences. He commented that the new NSPS should include a process for allowing innovation, otherwise it'd be playing around the edges at the state level to improve upon good products. It's a chicken versus egg dilemma  -  for example, Chris Neufeld talked about hybrid models, but how do we get European technology here? What is the driver if it's not regulation?
Answer: Dutch Dresser responded that the Europeans have a stick/carrot/tambourine system. In Austria, the stick is the high tax on fossil fuel; the carrot is a government subsidy (30% of installed cost); and the tambourine is the bully pulpit of government officials talking up the latest technology. John Crouch commented that comparing Europe to the US is an apple to orange comparison.

Question (Dennis Brazier of Central Boiler Inc): Our customers want to save money, but old houses are hard to heat and on the opposite side of the sizing issue there are customers who have high heat load demands who don't want their houses to stay at 60 degrees. It's not acceptable for dealer to simply answer that it's windy today (so stove may not heat the house as well). Thus it's a complex problem. Furthermore some pellet systems are expensive.
Answer: Nate Russell responded that one can look at the building size to quantify heat load and that dealers need to pick-up on model sizing practices.

Case Studies
 Lisa Herschberger, MPCA
 Dr. Jim Conner, Fairbanks Alaska North Star Borough
 Dr. David C. Snyder, University of Wisconsin-Stevens Point
 Jim Hodina, Linn County Public Health Dept, Iowa
 Eric Merchant, Montana DEQ

Question (David Thornton, MPCA): What is the nature of the episodic control in Helena, Montana?
Answer: Eric Merchant responded that once 80% of the standard is reached in Helena, a call alert goes out stating that no one can burn solid fuel (unless they have a sole source of heat exception).

Question (Judy Abbott, NYS Department of Health): Did the installation of high tech indoor filters in the Fairbanks school improve asthma rates and/or other health issues? Also, is the public aware of the cost of heart attacks, etc (e.g., wondering about using BenMap perhaps)? Finally, is there CO monitoring (in Alaska)?
Answer: Dr. Jim Conner responded that the indoor filters did not make a big difference. There was a hospital admissions study but it was not broken down by area, and statistics broken down by local area would help because health costs motivate people. There is CO monitoring and Alaska is in compliance for CO, but CO is a nuisance complaint and needs to be addressed.

Question (Christian Rakos, European Pellet Council): Top level products/appliances could solve Alaska's problem. Did anyone consider subsidizing the top units? There would be a huge incentive to dealers.
Answer: Dr. Jim Conner responded that the change-out should have been limited to top 2% of units, but it wasn't.  Had it been limited to top units, Alaska wouldn't have to ban burning on certain days.

Question (Dr. Ryan Allen, Simon Fraser University): There are real costs associated with health effects and almost invariably there is a net economic benefit [to lowering pollution levels].
Answer: Dr. Jim Conner responded that the public does not see dead bodies lying around the streets, so basically people are not motivated enough.

Question (Janis Denman, Michigan DEQ, Air Quality Division): Regarding the Iowa standard ("for heat inputs less than 10 million BTU, 0.6 lb/million BTUshall apply"), how does one get from input to output?
Answer: Jim Hodina responded that one would need to include the boiler efficiency and moisture content of the wood (and that they were working within the old standard).

Question (Tom Morrissey, Woodstock Soapstone): First, Tom Morrissey commented that he is stunned by the amount of wood burned outdoors for recreation in chimineas, and wondered if there was more data on this. Second, he noted the intersection of low income people with high fuel costs and wondered what the EPA and NSPS can do in this respect
Answer: Lisa Herschberger commented that there is not much data around the country yet on outdoor recreational wood burning (e.g., chiminea use), but she is hoping Minnesota's new survey will provide better estimates. Outdoor recreational wood burning is a problem and is trending with the increases in sales of equipment, but more accurate data is needed. Lisa Herschberger commented that she has been questioned before regarding whether the current estimates are real, but it is at the very least clear that the amount of wood burned outdoors for recreational use is trending upwards.
Answer: Regarding Tom Morrissey's second question, Dr. Jim Conner commented that Alaska wants EPA to get emission level down and also to address coal burning. Alaska needs to lean on federal standards because there's not enough political will locally. Eric Merchant commented that Montana needs a lower standard driving technology to address issues like elevations and inversions.

Market Impacts of Emission and Efficiency Standards
 Bob Ferguson, Consultant to HPBA
 John Ackerly, Alliance for Green Heat
 Christian Rakos, proPellets Austria

Question (Jack Goldman, HPBA): Did European governments subsidize higher cost units?
Answer: Christian Rakos responded that European governments such as Austria's use a carrot and stick approach and that governments did subsidize higher performing units. He suggested that the US should also subsidize renewable energies.

Question (Chris Neufeld, Blaze King): What about woodstoves in Europe (e.g., catalytic stoves)?
Answer: Christian Rakos responded that Europe does have woodstoves (in addition to pellet models) but that he hasn't seen many catalytic stoves, rather there are primarily ceramic tile masonry heaters in Europe (to the best of his knowledge).

Question (Tom Morrissey, Woodstock Soapstone): Will increased efficiency lead to decreased emissions?
Answer: Bob Ferguson responded that there is no guarantee of decreased emissions with increased efficiency because combustion efficiency and overall efficiency can work in opposite directions. Christian Rakos also responded that increased efficiency will not necessarily lead to decreased emissions because of the need to ensure that the combustion process has enough air  -  so both need to be pushed to work well together, for example with electric control of combustion. (John Ackerly agreed with this.)

Question (unidentified): What is the cost of fuel oil in Europe?
Answer: Christian Rakos responded that the cost of one European liter corresponds to a price of approximately $4 to $5 per gallon, and that 20% of cost is government tax.

Question (Lisa Rector, NESCAUM): Are there government subsidies for performance tiers?
Answer: Christian Rakos responded that there were different types of subsidies in each province and that provinces competed to have their subsidy make the largest effect. This competition among province subsidies drove the market.

Question (Dan Henry, 5G3 Consulting): What is the finished cost of the installed heat system (pellet boilers in Europe)?
Answer: Christian Rakos responded that the cost is approximately $18,000 Euro for pellet system and $12,000 Euros for gasified logwood (these numbers would be multiplied by approximately 1.3 to convert to US $ -- so $23,000 for pellet system and $16,000 for gasified logwood). Christian Rakos further commented that these numbers nonetheless pay for themselves because of difference compared to fuel oil prices, and that this is especially true for larger homes where the payback takes about 3 to 4 years.

Question (Judy Abbott, NYS Dept of Health): What is LHV versus HHV?
Answer: Bob Ferguson explained that water is produced in wood burning and that this water can go up the chimney, or heat can be recovered from condensation of this water vapor. HHV assumes that this heat can be recovered and so is a higher number of available BTUs per kilogram of wood (heating value) than LHV. LHV assumes that one will not attempt to recover the heat from the water vapor but rather that it will always go up the chimney so the heat of condensation is not counted, hence the smaller (aka, lower) number for available heat per kilogram of wood. Combustion efficiency is not affected by HHV or LHV, but overall efficiency is the heat output divided by the heat input  -  the smaller the denominator the larger the fraction  -  so LHV results in a larger calculated overall efficiency than HHV does. There is a 5% to 8% difference in the calculated overall efficiency based on whether LHV or HHV is used. John Ackerly further commented that European appliances are therefore not necessarily better/more efficient than US appliances (boilers are, but not other appliances) because Europe typically uses LHV and U.S. typically uses HHV. Nonetheless, the marketplace sometimes perceives that European appliances are more efficient because of this difference (of using LHV, not HHV). Wood burning uses LHV in Europe while fossil fuel uses HHV in Europe. Dutch Dresser commented later that a condensing pellet boiler was introduced in 2004 which recovers water vapor (4 to 8 kilowatt, 12,000 to 30,000 BTU small boiler versions which are good for low energy homes) and that demand for such small boilers is increasing. Thus, it is incorrect to say that condensing wood boilers are not in the marketplace.

Question (Judy Abbott, NYS Dept of Health): Is there an issue with CO emissions from storage of pellets?
Answer: Christian Rakos responded that very large pellet piles can produce high concentrations of CO due to oxidation (e.g., people died in ship transport of bulk pellets)  -  consequently a cellar with a pellet pile needs to have good ventilation. But this is not an issue with bags of pellets, only with a pile on the order of magnitude of 100 tons.

Question (Jiggs Blackburn, Rising Stone Inc): What about CO as a surrogate for PM emissions -  is Europe measuring CO constantly?
Answer: Christian Rakos responded that Europe is measuring CO emissions constantly and has found that low CO values mean complete combustion with hardly-measurable hydrocarbons. Europe has also found that the fine dust composition of the ashes differ in complete versus incomplete combustion, with complete combustion forming white ash (water soluble salts which do not lodge permanently in lungs as black carbon does).

Question (Tomas Carbonell, Environmental Defense Fund): In Europe, how does in-field performance compare with tested performance (in lab)?
Answer: Christian Rakos responded that this discrepancy is very important as long as the consumer can interfere and effect performance of stove/boiler. If consumers cannot effect the performance (as in the case of automatic boilers with electronic controls), then there is a very low discrepancy.

Question (Roger Holland, Supreme Fireplace Products):  Doesn't the Burnwise program already educate consumers? What more is needed?
Answer: John Ackerly responded that better education is needed regarding the efficiency confusion and the differences in American HHV and European LHV usage.

Question (Larry Sorrels, USEPA): Regarding HPBA's 1% annual sales increase estimate, how far in the future does this apply and what assumptions regarding fuel oil (other fuel costs) are inherent to this estimate?
Answer: Bob Ferguson responded that the projection is based on ~10-year history and rolling averages (included fireplace inserts). The saw tooth graph Bob displayed indicates that the trend is hard to predict, so he just assumed the historical sales would continue for 5 to 7 years in the future. [Question about other fuel costs was not answered.]

Pellet Fuel Supply and Fuel Quality
 Chris Wiberg, Timber Products Inspection
 Christian Rakos, proPellets Austria
 Lisa Rector, NESCAUM

Question (unidentified person from a Minnesota county): The question regarded the BTU listed on the pellet bags being based on HHV (which includes the heat of condensation) and whether this was the standard basis for the listed BTU seen by consumers on all pellet bags.
Answer: Chris Wiberg responded that the reason the BTU is on the pellet bags is to help consumers compare (although the declared BTU is not necessarily dealing with the LHV versus HHV issue).

Question (Andy Ginsburg, Oregon DEQ): Is a better appliance needed for utility grade pellets? How can you stop consumers from using utility grade?
Answer: Chris Wiberg responded that the ash content can be as high as 6% (e.g., agricultural feed stock like switch grass pellets fall into utility grade). NSPS may rate stove as to whether it can burn utility grade pellets but consumers cannot be stopped from using the lower grade since there are no pellet police. Manufacturers may void warranties however. Dan Henry of 5G3 Consulting commented that this problem is self-regulating because the pellet stove will stop operating if using utility grade pellets.

Question (Gil Wood, USEPA): Is the EN Plus standard for residential units only (not power/utility)?
Answer: Christian Rakos responded that yes, EN Plus is for residential units only.

Question (Gil Wood, USEPA): What is in the European standard to measure/analyze (e.g., metals)?
Answer: Christian Rakos responded that every element is tested for in the ISO standard, so it's a complete system. Europe would like US to use the same standard system. Chris Wiberg commented that assuming the feedstock is clean, there would not be metals. Audit inspections rather than testing and analysis are the best chance of catching problems. Chris Wiberg further commented that he agrees the ISO standards are appropriate, but the limits may not be the same limits the US would have chosen  -  so while it's a good basis for comparison, it is not necessarily a good match.

Question (Molly Jacobs, UMASS Lowell Center for Sustainable Production): Is the variability within a single manufacturer part of the sampling? Can you track where the contamination came from (e.g., through labeling scheme)?
Answer: Lisa Rector responded that de-barked hardwood produced a consistent product with no methodological contamination. However, another supplier had multiple feedstocks with some contamination which was hard to track/identify. For example, one bag tested high and then 3 more bags from different states during the heating season were all off-the-charts as well. So this is an ongoing problem which is of concern, based on elemental analysis. Lot numbers are needed.

Question (Lisa Rector, NESCAUM): Is sampling of pellet manufacturers random or planned?
Answer: Christian Rakos responded that an EN Plus facility is informed of inspection several days before, so there is some warning, but the auditor would nonetheless catch a systematic use of waste/trash and serious contamination. Furthermore, serious contamination would cause the boiler to malfunction. Chris Wiberg responded that the first inspection (in the US) is planned but additional inspections are unannounced/random.

Question (Ben Myron, Myren Consulting Inc): Were there any split samples in data NESCAUM was referring to?
Answer: Lisa Rector responded that there were no split samples between labs, but 15% had duplicate samples analyzed.

Overview and Status of Current Draft of USEPA's NSPS for Residential Wood Heating Devices
 Gil Wood, USEPA

Question (Jack Goldman, HPBA): If EPA has a goal of completing a draft proposal by the end of the year, what is the deadline for sending information to EPA?
Answer: Gil Wood responded that information should be sent as soon as possible  -  that is, within weeks not months.

Question (unidentified person): What about limitations on operational requirements? For example, a stove can work well in the laboratory but not in the field  -  so how can EPA address boiler operation once it's installed and then operated poorly by a consumer?
Answer: Gil Wood responded that the current NSPS has a requirement that homeowners operate the appliance according to the owner's manual  -  so that requirement is potentially federally enforceable, although it has never been used to date. Warranty requirements need to be reviewed more closely. In the draft proposal, pellet stoves must certify with fuel(s) they advertize for burning and include in warranty.

Question (Lisa Rector, NESCAUM): Can energy audit/tune-up be included, like in the area source boiler rules?
Answer: Gil Wood responded that legally yes, but he is not the EPA Administrator and she has not been briefed on the details of the draft proposal yet.

Question (Ed Miller of American Lung Association): Vehicle emission success story has gotten too little attention. Stoves have too long a shelf life (and he is concerned about legacy fleet).
Answer: Gil Wood responded that the CAA legal authority for motor vehicles is different than the CAA authority for stationary sources. The CAA authority (section 111) for new stationary sources requires EPA to base the standards on emission levels that reflect technology, that is best systems of emission reduction (BSER) considering costs and not health-based AQ levels. Looking over a longer lifetime (20 years) of the heaters is appropriate.
Question (Ed Miller of American Lung Association): Is there a role for an advocacy group  -  that is, should we look at modifying CAA instead of working within it?
Answer: Gil Wood responded that EPA cannot legally tell people to speak to their Congressman.

Question (unidentified person): An inexpensive way to measure [ambient air] particulates is needed  -  that is, a particle counter is needed for use in the residential setting to measure PM2.5 and other sizes (rather than the timely and expensive EPA [Federal Reference Method for the NAAQS and the] metric of ug/m[3]). Laser type counters offer easy, continuous checking but it would help if EPA had guidelines on what constituted a health threat.
Answer: Gil Wood responded that Region 5 is looking at this, as well as USEPA's ORD.

Question (David Menotti, Crowell & Moring): Woodstoves are being regulated under the NSPS because the NRDC proposed this as a settlement option in early 80's (i.e., using Section 111 for PM instead of 112 for PAHs since no one wanted a national standard to physically require removing all existing woodstoves from houses across the country). The challenge is to get existing non-certified appliances out of the inventory versus fooling around with tightening new source performance standards at the margins.
Answer: Gil Wood commented that Larry Brockman is the EPA lead for the Burn Wise program and leads EPA's team that has been working on public education/outreach and promoting change-outs. Other areas of opportunity and success (which do not fall under the NSPS) include: PM Advance [a new EPA program that will encourage states and local authorities to institute additional measures in "advance" of the revisions to the PM NAAQS compliance deadlines]; tools for PM measurements; burn ban days; promoting seasoned wood; energy audits; requiring change-out of stove when home is sold; etc. The Libby, Montana example points to improperly installed and unsafe stoves  -  so proper installation and DOE incentives are also being looked at.

Question (Chris Neufeld, Blaze King): In 1988 there were no Phase 1 and Phase 2 EPA stoves on the market, so original stoves were grandfathered in. But now Phase 1 and 2 stoves are available on (the secondary) market. Do original stoves still have to be grandfathered in, or can we promote secondary market stoves? When does someone say that the original impetus is no longer there?
Answer: Gil Wood clarified with Chris Neufeld that he was referring to the re-selling of existing stoves, and then responded that having existing stoves in a new place is probably not enough to be considered a "new source" so it's doubtful that EPA can address the issue this way under the NSPS. OGC has already commented that such a stove is not a new source. EPA could restrict the sale of replacement parts but this could be problematic. Dick Valentinetti (Vermont DEC Air Quality) further commented that both new source performance standards and change-outs are required  -  a requirement for new products (to keep industry going) is not all that's required. State and local agencies need to do something as well, not just the USEPA.

Question (Tomas Carbonell, Environmental Defense Fund): EPA has lots of discretion with cost; he hopes that EPA considers that these [appliances] are unique since they are in residential areas and much of the emitted pollution is inhaled. Tomas Carbonell further commented that strict standards may stimulate a robust market (as in international/European example).
Answer: Gil Wood commented that EPA does have discretion regarding what levels of cost effectiveness are appropriate. Regarding Tomas Carbonell's robust market point, a representative from HPBA commented that Europe, unlike the US, is subsidized.

Question (unidentified person): Why not regulate based on cleanest available fuel  -  for example, why consider allowing wood in a populated area if natural gas is cleaner?
Answer: Gil Wood responded that this approach may be appropriate for state and local agencies to consider, but the USEPA has to look at residential wood heaters as a new source category listed under Section 111 and determine the emission levels for standards based on demonstrated best systems of emission reductions for those new sources. Dan Henry commented that in reality people will choose natural gas over wood because natural gas is cheaper  -  wood is not competing with natural gas but rather with more expensive forms of fuel.

Next Steps
 Dan Johnson, WESTAR

 The Multi-Jurisdictional Organizations (MJOs)  -  representing 40 states  -  have a purpose at this two-day educational forum to become better informed. The MJOs have sent a letter to the USEPA requesting that EPA move forward with the NSPS, including BSER and cost, considering test methods and costs, and in-home performance. The group has 4 weeks to continue the discussion on Basecamp. Please share ideas on Basecamp. EPA has to propose regulations with or without those shared ideas.


[Federal Register: May 26, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 102)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 30356-30358]
[DOCID:fr26my06-31]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 300

[EPA-R04-SFUND-2006-0385; FRL-8173-8]

National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan;
National Priorities List

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Notice of intent to delete the Cedartown Industries, Inc. site
from the National Priorities List: request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 4
announces its intent to delete the Cedartown Industries, Inc. site (the
Site) from the National Priorities List (NPL) and requests public
comment on this proposed action. The NPL constitutes Appendix B of the
National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP),
40 CFR part 300, which EPA promulgated pursuant to section 105 of the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
(CERCLA) of 1980, as amended. EPA and the State of Georgia
Environmental Protection Division (GEPD) have determined that the Site
poses no significant threat to public health or the environment and
therefore, further response measures pursuant to CERCLA are not
appropriate.

DATES: Comments concerning this proposed action may be submitted on or
before: June 26, 2006.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-
SFUND-2006-0385, by one of the following methods:
     http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line

instructions for submitting comments.
     E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>/Attn Brian Farrier
     Mail: Brian Farrier, U.S. EPA Region 4, WMD-SRTSB, 61
Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303. In addition, please mail a
copy of your comments on the information collection provisions to the
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and
Budget (OMB), Attn Desk Officer for EPA, 725 17th Street, NW.,
Washington, DC 20503.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R04-SFUND-
2006-0385. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at

http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,

unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to
be CBI or otherwise protected through http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous

access'' system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact
information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you
send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through
http://www.regulations.gov your e-mail address will be automatically captured

and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket
and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic
comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact
information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you
submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties
and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to
consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special
characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or
viruses. For additional information about EPA's public docket visit the
EPA Docket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the http://.

http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some

information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the U.S. EPA Region 4

office located at 61 Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303.
Regional office is open from 7 a.m. until 6:30 p.m. Monday through
Friday, excluding legal holidays.
    Written comments may be submitted to Brian Farrier within 30 days
of the date of this publication.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brian Farrier, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 4, Atlanta Federal Center, 61 Forsyth Street,
SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303, or e-mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Introduction
II. NPL Deletion Criteria
III. Deletion Procedures
IV. Basis for Intended Site Deletion

I. Introduction

    The EPA Region 4 announces its intent to delete the Cedartown
Industries, Inc. site, located in Cedartown, Polk County, Georgia, from
the NPL, which constitutes Appendix B of the NCP, 40 CFR Part 300, and
requests comments on this proposed action. EPA identifies sites on the
NPL that appear to present a significant risk to public health,
welfare, or the environment. Sites on the NPL may be the subject of
remedial actions financed by the Hazardous Substance Superfund Trust
Fund (Fund). Pursuant to Sec.  300.425(e)(3) of the NCP, any site
deleted from the NPL remains eligible for Fund-financed remedial
actions if conditions at the site warrant such action.
    EPA will accept comments concerning this proposed action for thirty
days after publication of this notice in the Federal Register.

II. NPL Deletion Criteria

    The NCP establishes the criteria that the EPA uses to delete sites
from the NPL. In accordance with 40 CFR 300.425(e), sites may be
deleted from, or re-categorized on, the NPL where no further response
is appropriate. In making this determination, EPA shall consider, in
consultation with the State, whether any of the following criteria have
been met:
    (i) Responsible or other parties have implemented all appropriate
response actions required;
    (ii) All appropriate Fund-financed responses under CERCLA have been
implemented and no further action by responsible parties is
appropriate; or
    (iii) The remedial investigation has shown that the release poses
no significant threat to public health or the environment and,
therefore, taking of remedial measures is not appropriate.
    CERCLA Section 121(c), 42 U.S.C. 9621(c), provides in pertinent
part that:

    ``If the President selects a remedial action that results in any
hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants remaining at the
Site, the President shall review such remedial action no less often
than each five years after the initiation of such remedial action to
assure that human health and the environment are being protected by
the remedial action being implemented. * * *''

    EPA policy interprets this provision of CERCLA to apply to those
sites where treated, in this case solidified, waste remains on-site. On
that basis, for reasons set forth below, the statutory requirement has
been satisfied at this Site, and five year reviews and operation and
maintenance activities will be required. In the event new information
is discovered which indicates a need for further action, EPA may
initiate appropriate remedial actions. In addition, whenever there is a
significant release from a site previously deleted from the NPL, that
site may be restored to the NPL without application of the Hazardous
Ranking System. Accordingly, the Site is qualified for deletion from
the NPL.

III. Deletion Procedures

    EPA will accept and evaluate public comments before making a final
decision on deletion. The following procedures were used for the
intended deletion of the site:
    1. EPA has consulted with the GEPD on this proposed action, and
GEPD has concurred with the deletion decision;
    2. Concurrently with this Notice of Intent, a notice has been
published in local newspapers and has been distributed to appropriate
federal, state and local officials and other interested parties
announcing a 30-day public comment period on the proposed deletion from
the NPL; and
    3. The Region has made all relevant documents available at the
information repositories.
    The Region will respond to significant comments, if any, submitted
during the comment period.
    Deletion of the Site from the NPL does not itself create, alter, or
revoke any individual rights or obligations. The NPL is designed
primarily for informational purposes to assist Agency management.
    A deletion occurs when EPA's Regional Administrator places a final
notice in the Federal Register. Generally, the NPL will reflect any
deletions in the final update following the Notice. Public notices and
copies of the Responsiveness Summary, if any, will be made available to
local residents by the Regional office.

IV. Basis for Intended Site Deletion

    The following site summary provides the EPA's rationale for the
intention to delete this Site from the NPL.
    The Cedartown Industries, Inc. site is located in Cedartown, Polk
County, Georgia. The Site is 6.8 acres in size and it was used as an
iron foundry beginning in 1874, smelting iron ore from regional iron
mines northwest of Cedartown. In addition to iron smelting, pumps and
plow blades were manufactured, and a machine shop was operated,
beginning in the 1930s. Then,

from February 1978 to May 1980, the site operated a secondary lead
smelting business. It is the lead smelting operations that resulted in
the majority of the environmental impact at the Site.
    In 1986, GEPD conducted a site inspection and found approximately
5,000 cubic yards of slag material and 32,000 gallons of wastewater in
an inactive impoundment, in addition to elevated concentrations of lead
and cadmium in site waste piles and in the soil.
    EPA proposed the site for inclusion on the NPL in June 1988,
finalizing the site's listing in February 1990.
    In March 1990, under the direction of the EPA, an Interim Waste
Removal was implemented to remove the slag pile, contaminated soil and
debris, wastewater, and impoundment sediment from the site; in all, a
total of 8,380 tons of solid material was disposed of off-site, in
addition to 485, 360 pounds of liquid waste and a small amount of
reclaimed coke.
    Based on Cedartown Industries, Inc. records and other information,
GEPD and EPA identified a number of potentially responsible parties
(PRPs). In 1990, the Cedartown Industries, Inc. PRP Group entered into
an Administrative Order of Consent with EPA. This Order required the
Cedartown Industries, Inc. PRP Group to conduct a Remedial
Investigation and Feasibility Study (RI/FS) at the site. The RI/FS was
conducted from 1990 to 1993. The purpose of the RI is to identify the
nature and extent of contamination, whereas the purpose of the FS is to
identify the options available to remediate this contamination.
    The RI documented inorganic contamination in soil and groundwater.
After reviewing the results of the RI/FS, EPA issued a Record of
Decision (ROD) on May 7, 1993. The selected remedy called for the
excavation and onsite treatment of impacted soils by stabilization/
solidification, with onsite disposal. Soils with lead levels above 500
milligrams per kilogram were excavated; these soils were then treated
until four treatment standards were met, as detailed in the ROD. In
addition, the ROD also called for monitoring of the groundwater beneath
the site, with a contingency remedy to be invoked at EPA's discretion,
as necessary.
    On May 24, 1994, a Consent Decree was negotiated between EPA and
the Cedartown Industries, Inc. PRP Group, for the performance of the
Remedial Design and the Remedial Action.
    The Remedial Action was implemented in 1996, with a total of 11,555
cubic yards of soils excavated and treated. The final inspection was
conducted at the site on August 8, 1996, with representatives present
from EPA, EPA's oversight contractor, GEPD, the supervising contractor,
and the remediation contractor, and the property owner. This inspection
indicated that components of the remedy had been constructed in
accordance with the ROD and the remedial design, with two outstanding
items identified: Proper establishment of the vegetative ground cover
(i.e., grass) and stormwater accumulation. Plans were made to address
these two items and a certificate of construction completion was
submitted to EPA in September 1996, with EPA approval in March 1997.
Long term groundwater monitoring was implemented in September 1996 with
quarterly monitoring through 1998, followed by semi-annual monitoring
beginning in 1999. The contingent groundwater remedy was not invoked at
this site; the latest sampling performed in 2005 showed no results
above groundwater standards.
    In September 2001, EPA finalized a Five Year Review for this site,
which included a site walk-through inspection. The only deficiency
noted during the Five Year Review was the lack of a comprehensive deed
restriction, which has since been addressed. The Five Year Review
concluded that the remedy is functioning as intended and is protective
of human health and the environment.
    EPA, with the concurrence of the GEPD, has determined that all
appropriate actions at the Cedartown Industries, Inc. site have been
completed, and no further remedial action is necessary. Therefore, EPA
is proposing deletion of the Site from the NPL.

    Editorial Note: This document was received in the Office of the
Federal Register May 19, 2006.

    Dated: February 22, 2006.
J.I. Palmer, Jr.,
Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. E6-7928 Filed 5-25-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 124 (Wednesday, June 29, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 38653-38654]
[FR Doc No: 2022-13690]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2021-0864; Airspace Docket No. 21-AAL-13]
RIN 2120-AA66

Establishment of United States Area Navigation (RNAV) Route T-
415; Gulkana, AK

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action establishes United States Area Navigation (RNAV)
route T-415 in the vicinity of Gulkana, AK in support of a large and
comprehensive T-route modernization project for the state of Alaska.

DATES: Effective date 0901 UTC, September 8, 2022. The Director of the
Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under
1 CFR part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order JO 7400.11
and publication of conforming amendments.

ADDRESSES: FAA Order JO 7400.11F, Airspace Designations and Reporting
Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. For further information, you can
contact the Rules and Regulations Group, Federal Aviation
Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591;
telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jesse Acevedo, Rules and Regulations
Group, Office of Policy, Federal Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-
8783.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106
describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII,
Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's
authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described
in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section,
the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of
the airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the
efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that
authority as it expands the availability of RNAV in Alaska and improve
the efficient flow of air traffic within the National Airspace System
by lessening the dependency on ground based navigation.

History

    The FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking for Docket No.
FAA-2021-0864 in the Federal Register (86 FR 59068; October 26, 2021),
establishing United States Area Navigation (RNAV) route T-415 in the
vicinity of Gulkana, AK in support of a large and comprehensive T-route
modernization project for the state of Alaska. Interested parties were
invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting comments
on the proposal. There were no comments received.
    United States Area Navigation Routes are published in paragraph
6011 of FAA Order JO 7400.11F dated August 10, 2021 and effective
September 15, 2021, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1.
The RNAV route listed in this document would be published subsequently
in FAA Order JO 7400.11F.

Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

    This document amends FAA Order JO 7400.11F, Airspace Designations
and Reporting Points, dated August 10, 2021, and effective September
15, 2021. FAA Order JO 7400.11F is publicly available as listed in the
ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order JO 7400.11F lists Class
A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and
reporting points.

The Rule

    This action amends 14 CFR part 71 by establishing RNAV route T-415
in the vicinity of Gulkana, AK in support of a large and comprehensive
T-route modernization project for the state of Alaska.
    The route is described below.
    T-415: This action establishes T-415 extending between the WRNGL,
AK, waypoint (WP), located over the McCarthy Airport (PAMX), AK and the
Gulkana, AK, (GKN) VHF Omnidirectional Range/Distance Measuring
Equipment (VOR/DME) navigational aide (NAVAID).
    FAA Order JO 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points,
is published yearly and effective on September 15.

Regulatory Notices and Analyses

    The FAA determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
It, therefore: (1) is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under
Department of Transportation (DOT) Regulatory Policies and Procedures
(44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation
of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal.
Since this is a routine matter that only affects air traffic procedures
and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated,
does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Environmental Review

    The FAA determined that this airspace action of establishing RNAV
route T-415 in the vicinity of Gulkana, AK qualifies for categorical
exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321
et seq.) and its implementing regulations at 40 CFR part 1500, and in
accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, Environmental Impacts: Policies and
Procedures, paragraph 5-6.5a, which categorically excludes from further
environmental impact review rulemaking actions that designate or modify
classes of airspace areas, airways, routes, and reporting points (see
14 CFR part 71, Designation of Class A, B, C, D, and E Airspace Areas;
Air Traffic Service Routes; and Reporting Points), and paragraph 5-
6.5i, which categorically excludes from further environmental review
the establishment of new or revised air traffic control procedures
conducted at 3,000 feet or more above ground level (AGL); procedures
conducted below 3,000 feet AGL that do not cause traffic to be
routinely routed over noise sensitive areas; modifications to currently
approved procedures conducted below 3,000 feet AGL that do not
significantly increase noise over noise sensitive areas; and increases
in minimum altitudes and landing minima. As such, this action is not
expected to result in any potentially significant environmental
impacts. In accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, paragraph 5-2 regarding
Extraordinary Circumstances, the FAA has reviewed this action for
factors and circumstances in which a normally categorically excluded
action may have a significant environmental impact requiring further
analysis. Accordingly, the FAA has determined that no extraordinary
circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an environmental
assessment or environmental impact study.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

The Amendment

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

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

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

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

Sec.  71.1   [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order JO
7400.11F, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 10,
2021, and effective September 15, 2021, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 6011 United States Area Navigation Routes.

* * * * *

                                   T-415 WRNGL, AK to Gulkana, AK (GKN) [New]

WRNGL, AK                         WP                (Lat. 61[deg]28'54.40'' N, long. 143[deg]59'24.23'' W)
GRYNE, AK                         WP                (Lat. 61[deg]33'21.59'' N, long. 144[deg]15'00.78'' W)
DUYZI, AK                         WP                (Lat. 61[deg]45'00.59'' N, long. 144[deg]46'01.75'' W)
Gulkana, AK (GKN)                 VOR/DME           (Lat. 62[deg]09'13.51'' N, long. 145[deg]26'50.51'' W)

* * * * *

    Issued in Washington, DC, on June 22, 2022.
Scott M. Rosenbloom,
Manager, Airspace Rules and Regulations.
[FR Doc. 2022-13690 Filed 6-28-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: July 27, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 144)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 42623-42624]
[DOCID:fr27jy06-16]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 300

[EPA-HQ-SFUND-1990-0011; FRL-8202-9]

National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan;
National Priorities List

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Notice of intent to delete the Arctic Surplus Superfund Site
from the National Priorities List.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is issuing a notice
of intent to delete the Arctic Surplus Superfund Site (Site) located in
Fairbanks, Alaska, from the National Priorities List (NPL) and requests
public comments on this notice of intent. The NPL, promulgated pursuant
to section 105 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) OF 1980, as amended, is found
at Appendix B of 40 CFR part 300 of the National Oil and Hazardous
Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP). The EPA and the State of
Alaska, through the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation,
have determined that all appropriate response actions under CERCLA,
other than operation and maintenance and five-year reviews, have been
completed. However, this deletion does not preclude future actions
under Superfund.

DATES: Comments concerning this site must be received by August 28,
2006.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
SFUND-1990-0011, by one of the following methods:
     http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instruction

for submitting comments.
     E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Jacques L. Gusmano, Remedial Project Manager, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10, Alaska Operations Office,
222 West 7th Avenue, Suite 19, Anchorage, Alaska 99513.
     Hand Delivery: 222 West 7th Avenue, Suite 19, Anchorage,
Alaska 99513. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's
normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for
deliveries of boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-SF-1990-
0011. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in
the public docket without change and may be made available online at
http://www.regulations.gov including any personal information provided,

unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to
be CBI or otherwise protected through http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The http://www.regulations.gov. Web site is an ``anonymous

access'' system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact
information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you
send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through http://www.regulations.gov
, your e-mail will be automatically captured and

included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and
made available on

the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that
you include your name and other contact information in the body of your
comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov
 index in the Deletion Docket Bibliography. Although

listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g.,
CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, will be publicly
available only in hard copy. Deletion Docket materials are available
electronically or in hard copy at the EPA's Region 10 Superfund Records
Center, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, Washington 98101 and the Defense
Reutilization & Marketing Office (Administrative Records) Building
5001, Mile Badger Road, Fairbanks, AK 99703 at<PHONE_NUMBER>. The
Region 10 Superfund Records Center is open from 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. by
appointment, Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays The
Superfund Records Center telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jacques L. Gusmano, Remedial Project
Manager, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10, Alaska
Operations Office, 222 West 7th Avenue, Suite 19, Anchorage, Alaska
99513, phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>, fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>, e-mail:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the ``Rules and Regulations'' section of
today's Federal Register, we are publishing a direct final notice of
deletion of the Arctic Surplus Superfund Site without prior notice of
intent to delete because we view this as a noncontroversial revision
and anticipate no adverse comment. We have explained our reasons for
this deletion in the preamble to the direct final deletion. If we
receive no adverse comment(s) on this notice of intent to delete or the
direct final notice of deletion, we will not take further action on
this final notice of deletion. If we receive adverse comment(s), we
will withdraw the direct final notice of deletion and it will not take
effect. We will, as appropriate, address all public comments in a
subsequent final deletion notice based on this notice of intent to
delete. We will not institute a second comment period on this notice of
intent to delete. Any parties interested in commenting must, do so at
this time. For additional information, see the direct final notice of
deletion which is located in the Rules section of this Federal
Register.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 300

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Chemicals,
Hazardous substances, Hazardous waste, Intergovernmental relations,
Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Superfund, Water
pollution control, Water supply.

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1321(c)(2); 42 U.S.C. 9601-9657; E.O.
12777, 56 FR 54757, 3 CFR, 1991 Comp., p. 351; E.O. 12580, 52 FR
2923; 3 CFR, 1987 Comp., p. 193.

    Dated: July 18, 2006.
Michelle Pirzadeh,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 10.
 [FR Doc. E6-11811 Filed 7-26-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 106 (Friday, June 1, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 32437-32439]
[FR Doc No: 2012-13324]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2011-0115; Directorate Identifier 2010-NE-40-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Turbomeca S.A. Turboshaft Engines

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to supersede an existing airworthiness directive
(AD) that applies to certain Turbomeca S.A. Arriel 2B and 2B1
turboshaft engines. The existing AD currently requires accomplishment
of the TU166 modification. Since we issued that AD, we became aware of
an accident involving an engine in-flight shutdown on a twin-engine
helicopter powered by two Arriel 2S2 engines. This proposed AD would
add the Arriel 2S2 engine to the applicability of engines requiring the
TU166 modification with a different compliance time. We are proposing
this AD to prevent rupture of a gas generator (GG) turbine blade, which
could result in an uncommanded in-flight shutdown and a forced landing
or accident.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by July 31, 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 AD, contact Turbomeca,
40220 Tarnos, France; phone: 33 (0)5 59 74 40 00; telex: 570 042; fax:
33 (0)5 59 74 45 15. You may review copies of the referenced service
information at the FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 12 New England
Executive Park, Burlington, MA. For information on the availability of
this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

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: Rose Len, Aerospace Engineer, Engine
Certification Office, FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 12 New
England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:
781-238-7199; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
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-2011-0115;
Directorate Identifier 2010-NE-40-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

    On June 14, 2011, we issued AD 2011-13-05, Amendment 39-16728 (76
FR 40222, July 8, 2011) for Turbomeca S.A. Arriel 2B and 2B1 turboshaft
engines not modified by the TU166 modification. That AD requires
accomplishment of the TU166 modification when the GG turbine is
replaced or when the engine or Module M03 is going through overhaul or
repair, or within 1,300 cycles-in-service after the effective date of
that AD, whichever occurs first. That AD resulted from several cases of
GG turbine blade rupture occurring in service on Arriel 2 twin-engine
powered helicopters, and one case on a single-engine powered
helicopter. We issued that AD to prevent rupture of a GG turbine blade,

which could result in an uncommanded in-flight shutdown and an
emergency autorotation landing or accident on single-engine powered
helicopters.

Actions Since Existing AD Was Issued

    Since we issued AD 2011-13-05, Amendment 39-16728 (76 FR 40222,
July 8, 2011), an accident occurred on a Sikorsky S-76C++ twin-engine
helicopter following an uncommanded in-flight shutdown of one of its
Arriel 2S2 turboshaft engines. That engine did not have the TU166
modification incorporated. The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA),
which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European
Community, has superseded EASA AD 2010-0198, dated October 1, 2010,
which we reference in AD 2011-13-05. The EASA superseding AD, AD 2012-
0054, dated April 2, 2012, adds the Arriel 2S2 turboshaft engine to the
applicability for incorporating the TU166 modification with its own
compliance time. This AD adds the Arriel 2S2 engine with a compliance
time different than the Arriel 2B and 2B1 engines.

Relevant Service Information

    We reviewed Turbomeca S.A. Alert Mandatory Service Bulletin (MSB)
No. A292 72 3166 Version B, dated September 20, 2010, and Alert MSB No.
A292 72 4166 Version A, dated March 23, 2012. The Alert MSBs describe
procedures for accomplishing the TU166 modification.

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 retain all of the requirements of AD 2011-
13-05, Amendment 39-16728 (76 FR 40222, July 8, 2011) except it would
reduce the compliance time for the Arriel 2B and 2B1 engines to account
for the effective date of that AD. This proposed AD would add the
Arriel 2S2 turboshaft engine to the AD applicability and would add
accomplishing the TU166 modification to those engines with a compliance
time different from the compliance time for the Arriel 2B and 2B1
engines.

Costs of Compliance

    Based on the service information, we estimate that this proposed AD
would affect about 542 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that
it would take about 60 work-hours per product to comply with this AD.
The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Required parts would cost
about $3,900 per product. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost
of the AD on U.S. operators to be $4,878,000.

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),
    (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 removing airworthiness directive
(AD) 2011-13-05, Amendment 39-16728 (76 FR 40222, July 8, 2011), and
adding the following new AD:

Turbomeca S.A.: Docket No. FAA-2011-0115; Directorate Identifier
2010-NE-40-AD.

(a) Comments Due Date

    The FAA must receive comments on this AD action by July 31,
2012.

(b) Affected ADs

    This AD supersedes AD 2011-13-05, Amendment 39-16728 (76 FR
40222, July 8, 2011).

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Turbomeca S.A. Arriel 2B, 2B1, and 2S2
turboshaft engines not modified by TU166 modification.

(d) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by reports of an accident involving a twin-
engine helicopter powered by two Arriel 2S2 engines. We are issuing
this AD to prevent rupture of a gas generator (GG) turbine blade,
which could result in an uncommanded in-flight shutdown and a forced
landing or accident.

(e) Compliance

    Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified,
unless already done.
    (1) For Arriel 2B and 2B1 turboshaft engines, accomplish the
TU166 modification in accordance with the instructions specified
within Turbomeca Alert Mandatory Service Bulletin (MSB) No. A292 72
3166 Version B, dated September 20, 2010, when the GG Turbine is
replaced or when the engine or Module M03 is going through overhaul
or repair, or within 676 cycles-in-service (CIS) after the effective
date of this AD, whichever occurs first.
    (2) For Arriel 2S2 turboshaft engines, accomplish the TU166
modification in accordance with the instructions specified within
Turbomeca Alert MSB No. A292 72 4166 Version A, dated March 23,
2012, when the GG Turbine is replaced or when the engine or Module
M03 is going through overhaul or repair, or within 500 CIS after the
effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first.

(f) Credit for Previous Actions

    For Arriel 2B and 2B1 turboshaft engines, if before the
effective date of this AD, you performed the TU166 modification
using Turbomeca Alert MSB No. A292 72 3166 Version A, dated August
17, 2010, you met the requirements of this AD.

(g) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    The Manager, Engine Certification Office, may approve AMOCs for
this AD. Use the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19 to make your
request.

(h) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact Rose Len,
Aerospace Engineer, Engine Certification Office, FAA, Engine &
Propeller Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA
01803; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) European Aviation Safety Agency AD 2012-0054, dated April 2,
2012, also pertains to this AD.
    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Turbomeca, 40220 Tarnos, France; phone: 33 (0)5 59 74 40 00; telex:
570 042; fax: 33 (0)5 59 74 45 15. You may review copies of the
referenced service information at the FAA, Engine & Propeller
Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA. You may
review copies of the referenced service information at the FAA,
Engine & Propeller Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park,
Burlington, MA. For information on the availability of this material
at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on May 25, 2012.
Pete A. White,
Manager, Engine & Propeller Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2012-13324 Filed 5-31-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: January 13, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 8)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 1704-1705]
[DOCID:fr13ja10-5]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 27

[Docket No. USCG-2009-0891]
RIN 1625-AB40

Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act--2009
Implementation

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Final rule; correction.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is correcting a final rule that appeared in
the Federal Register of December 23, 2009 (74 FR 68150). The document
concerned the adjustment of fines and other civil monetary penalties.

DATES: Effective January 13, 2010.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Heather Young, CG-5232, Coast
Guard; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In FR Doc. E9-30493 appearing on page 68150
in the second column under DATES, correct ``This final rule is
effective 30 days after December 23, 2009'' to read ``This final rule
is effective January 22, 2010''.

    Dated: January 6, 2010.
Mark W. Skolnicki,
Commander, U.S. Coast Guard, Acting Chief, Office of Regulations and
Administrative Law.
[FR Doc. 2010-432 Filed 1-12-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register: November 7, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 214)]
[Notices]
[Page 67466]
[DOCID:fr07no05-63]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP06-54-000]

Canyon Creek Compression Company; Notice of Proposed Changes in
FERC Gas Tariff

November 1, 2005.
    Take notice that on October 28, 2005, Canyon Creek Compression
Company (Canyon) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff,
Third Revised Volume No. 1, the following tariff sheets, to become
effective December 1, 2005:

Fourteenth Revised Sheet No. 6
Seventh Revised Sheet No. 6A

    Canyon states that the purpose of this filing is to make a periodic
adjustment in Canyon's rates under its cost-of-service tracking
mechanism. Canyon further states that this filing represents Canyon's
sixth tracking filing under section 37 of the general terms and
conditions of its tariff.
    Canyon states that copies of the filing are being mailed to its
customers and interested State commissions.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed in accordance with the provisions of
Section 154.210 of the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210).
Anyone filing an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on
or before the intervention or protest date need not serve motions to
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov.
 Persons unable to file electronically should submit an

original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the

``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For

TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E5-6166 Filed 11-4-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 171 (Wednesday, September 8, 2021)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 50235-50237]
[FR Doc No: 2021-19249]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2021-0383; Project Identifier 2018-SW-005-AD; Amendment
39-21671; AD 2021-16-09]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Leonardo S.p.a. Helicopters

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for
certain Leonardo S.p.a. Model AW189 helicopters. This AD was prompted
by corrosion on the inlet check valve banjo fitting of emergency
flotation system (EFS) float assemblies. This AD requires visually
inspecting each banjo fitting installed on an affected EFS float
assembly, and depending on the results, removing the banjo fitting from
service. This AD also requires applying corrosion inhibiting compound
and prohibits installing an affected EFS float assembly unless certain
requirements have been accomplished as specified in a European Aviation
Safety Agency (now European Union Aviation Safety Agency) (EASA) AD,
which is incorporated by reference. The FAA is issuing this AD to
address the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: This AD is effective October 13, 2021.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of October 13,
2021.

ADDRESSES: For material incorporated by reference (IBR) in this AD,
contact the EASA, Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3, 50668 Cologne, Germany;
telephone +49 221 8999 000; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>internet
www.easa.europa.eu. You may find this material on the EASA website at
https://ad.easa.europa.eu. For Aero Sekur and Leonardo Helicopters
service information identified in this final rule, contact Leonardo
S.p.A. Helicopters, Emanuele Bufano, Head of Airworthiness, Viale
G.Agusta 520, 21017 C.Costa di Samarate (Va) Italy; telephone +39-0331-
225074; fax +39-0331-229046; or at https://customerportal.leonardocompany.com/en-US/. You may view this material
at the FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 10101
Hillwood Pkwy., Room 6N-321, Fort Worth, TX 76177. For information on
the availability of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. It
is also available in the AD docket at https://www.regulations.gov by
searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2021-0383.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket at https://www.regulations.gov by
searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2021-0383; or in person at
Docket Operations between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this final rule, any
comments received, and other information. The address for Docket
Operations is U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-
30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue
SE, Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kristi Bradley, Program Manager, COS
Program Management Section, Operational Safety Branch, Compliance &
Airworthiness Division, FAA, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Fort Worth, TX
76177; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the
European Union, has issued a series of ADs, the most recent being EASA
AD 2018-0006, dated January 10, 2018 (EASA AD 2018-0006), to correct an
unsafe condition for Leonardo S.p.A. Helicopters (formerly Finmeccanica
S.p.A., AgustaWestland S.p.A.) Model AW189 helicopters with certain
part-numbered and serial-numbered Aero Sekur EFS float assemblies
installed, except those float assemblies marked with SB-189-25-004.
EASA initially issued EASA AD 2017-0256, dated December 22, 2017 (EASA
AD 2017-0256), to address the unsafe condition. EASA issued EASA AD
2018-0006 to supersede EASA AD 2017-0256 to revise the compliance time
based on the EFS float assembly condition.
    The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14
CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain Leonardo S.p.a.
Model AW189 helicopters. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on
May 28, 2021 (86 FR 28714). The NPRM was prompted by corrosion on the
inlet check valve banjo fitting of EFS float assemblies. The NPRM
proposed to require visually inspecting each banjo fitting installed on
an affected EFS float assembly, and depending on the results, removing
the banjo fitting from service. The NPRM also proposed to require
applying corrosion inhibiting compound to each banjo fitting installed
on an affected EFS float assembly and prohibit installing an affected
EFS float assembly unless the banjo fitting inspection, banjo fitting
replacement, and corrosion inhibiting compound application requirements
have been accomplished, as specified in an EASA AD.
    The FAA is issuing this AD to prevent reduced inflation of an EFS
float. The unsafe condition, if not addressed, could affect the
helicopter's buoyancy during an emergency landing on water. See EASA AD
2018-0006 for additional background information.

Discussion of Final Airworthiness Directive

Comments

    The FAA gave the public the opportunity to participate in
developing this final rule. The FAA received no comments on the NPRM or
on the determination of the cost to the public.

Conclusion

    The FAA reviewed the relevant data and determined that air safety
and the public interest require adopting this final rule as proposed.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    EASA AD 2018-0006 requires visually inspecting the banjo fittings
installed on an affected EFS float assembly. If there is corrosion on a
banjo fitting, EASA AD 2018-0006 requires replacing the banjo fitting.
EASA AD 2018-0006 also requires applying corrosion inhibiting compound
to each banjo fitting installed on an affected EFS float assembly. EASA
AD 2018-0006 prohibits installing an affected EFS float assembly unless
the banjo fitting inspection, banjo fitting replacement, and corrosion
inhibiting compound application requirements have been accomplished.
EASA AD 2018-0006 also allows credit for actions accomplished
previously with a prior revision of the Leonardo Helicopters service
information.
    This material is reasonably available because the interested
parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by
the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

Other Related Service Information

    The FAA reviewed Leonardo Helicopters Alert Service Bulletin No.
189-174, original issue, dated December 22, 2017 (ASB 189-174 original
issue), and Revision A, dated January 5, 2018 (ASB 189-174 Rev A). The
FAA also

reviewed Aero Sekur Service Bulletin SB-189-25-004, original issue,
dated November 22, 2017 (SB-189-25-004), which is attached as Annex A
to ASB 189-174 original issue and ASB 189-174 Rev A.
    ASB 189-174 Rev A and ASB 189-174 original issue specify the same
procedures, except the compliance time specified by ASB 189-174 Rev A
has been revised by adding affected EFS float assemblies that have been
inspected using procedures in the maintenance manual within the
previous 12 months. ASB 189-174 original issue and ASB 189-174 Rev A
specify accomplishing the Visual Inspection and Corrosion Prevention,
and Record Instruction procedures specified in SB-189-25-004. ASB 189-
174 original issue and ASB 189-174 Rev A also specify emailing
photographical evidence of each corroded banjo fitting to Leonardo
Helicopters PSE Division and returning replaced banjo fittings to
Leonardo Helicopters Customer Support Division.
    SB-189-25-004 specifies procedures for cleaning and visually
inspecting each banjo fitting for evidence of corrosion. If there is
corrosion, SB-189-25-004 specifies procedures for discarding the banjo
fitting and its O-rings, and installing a new banjo fitting. SB-189-25-
004 also specifies procedures for applying corrosion inhibiting
compound (JC5A or Mastinox 6856) on all banjo fittings. When SB-189-25-
004 is accomplished, SB-189-25-004 specifies procedures for marking the
identification label of the EFS float assembly.

Differences Between This AD and the EASA AD

    EASA AD 2018-0006 requires returning and discarding certain parts,
whereas this AD requires removing those parts from service instead.

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this AD affects 4 helicopters of U.S.
Registry. Labor rates are estimated at $85 per work-hour. Based on
these numbers, the FAA estimates the following costs to comply with
this AD.
    Inspecting the banjo fittings takes about 8.5 work-hours for an
estimated cost of $723 per helicopter and $2,892 for the U.S. fleet.
Applying corrosion inhibiting compound takes about 1.5 work-hours for
an estimated cost of $128 per helicopter and $512 for the U.S. fleet.
If required, replacing a banjo fitting takes a minimal additional
amount of time after inspecting it and parts cost about $550 for an
estimated cost of $550 per helicopter.

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,
describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
    The FAA is issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.
Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight
of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for
practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary
for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that
authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to
exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

    This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order
13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States,
on the relationship between the national government and the States, or
on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various
levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866,
    (2) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
    (3) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by
reference, Safety.

The Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

0
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness
directive:

2021-16-09 Leonardo S.p.a.: Amendment 39-21671; Docket No. FAA-2021-
0383; Project Identifier 2018-SW-005-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This airworthiness directive (AD) is effective October 13, 2021.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Leonardo S.p.a. Model AW189 helicopters,
certificated in any category, as identified in European Aviation
Safety Agency (now European Union Aviation Safety Agency) (EASA) AD
2018-0006, dated January 10, 2018 (EASA AD 2018-0006).

(d) Subject

    Joint Aircraft Service Component (JASC) Code: 3212, Emergency
Flotation Section.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by corrosion on the inlet check valve banjo
fitting of emergency flotation system (EFS) float assemblies. The
FAA is issuing this AD to prevent reduced inflation of an EFS float.
The unsafe condition, if not addressed, could affect the
helicopter's buoyancy during an emergency landing on water.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Requirements

    Except as specified in paragraph (h) of this AD: Comply with all
required actions and compliance times specified in, and in
accordance with, EASA AD 2018-0006.

(h) Exceptions to EASA AD 2018-0006

    (1) Where EASA AD 2018-0006 refers to December 29, 2017 (the
effective date of EASA AD 2017-0256, dated December 22, 2017), this
AD requires using the effective date of this AD.
    (2) Where the service information referenced in EASA AD 2018-
0006 specifies to return a certain part, this AD requires removing
that part from service.
    (3) Where the service information referenced in EASA AD 2018-
0006 specifies to discard certain parts, this AD requires removing
those parts from service.
    (4) The ``Remarks'' section of EASA AD 2018-0006 does not apply
to this AD.

(i) No Reporting Requirement

    Although the service information referenced in EASA AD 2018-0006
specifies to submit certain information to the manufacturer, this AD
does not include that requirement.

(j) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, International Validation Branch, FAA, has the
authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the
procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19,
send your request to your principal inspector or local

Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending
information directly to the manager of the International Validation
Branch, send it to the attention of the person identified in
paragraph (k) of this AD. Information may be emailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (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.

(k) Related Information

    For more information about this AD, contact Kristi Bradley,
Program Manager, COS Program Management Section, Operational Safety
Branch, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, FAA, 10101 Hillwood
Pkwy., Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
(l) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed
in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD 2018-0006, dated
January 10, 2018.
    (ii) [Reserved]
    (3) For EASA AD 2018-0006, contact the EASA, Konrad-Adenauer-
Ufer 3, 50668 Cologne, Germany; telephone +49 221 8999 000; email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>internet www.easa.europa.eu. You may find this
EASA AD on the EASA website at https://ad.easa.europa.eu.
    (4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Office of
the Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Room
6N-321, Fort Worth, TX 76177. For information on the availability of
this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. This material may be
found in the AD docket at https://www.regulations.gov by searching
for and locating Docket No. FAA-2021-0383.
    (5) You may view this material that is incorporated by reference
at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For
information on the availability of this material at NARA, email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or go to https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued on July 26, 2021.
Lance T. Gant,
Director, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2021-19249 Filed 9-7-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P