[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 156 (Wednesday, August 13, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 47377-47380]
[FR Doc No: 2014-17331]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R05-OAR-2013-0046; FRL-9913-15-Region 5]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Illinois; Amendments to Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance Program for
Illinois

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving a state
implementation plan (SIP) revision submitted by the Illinois
Environmental Protection Agency on November 29, 2012, concerning the
state's vehicle inspection and maintenance (I/M) program in the Chicago
and Metro-East St. Louis ozone nonattainment areas in Illinois. The
revision amends I/M program requirements in the active control measures
portion of the ozone SIP to reflect changes that have been implemented
at the state level since EPA fully approved the I/M program on February
22, 1999. The submittal also includes a demonstration under section
110(l) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) addressing lost emission reductions
associated with the program changes.

DATES: This final rule is effective on September 12, 2014.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA-R05-OAR-2013-0046. All documents in the docket are listed in
the www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., Confidential Business
Information or other information whose disclosure is restricted by
statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not
placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy
form. Publicly available docket materials are available either
electronically through www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, Air and Radiation Division,
77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. This facility is
open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding
Federal holidays. We recommend that you telephone Francisco J. Acevedo,
Mobile Source Program Manager, at<PHONE_NUMBER>, before visiting the
Region 5 office.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Francisco J. Acevedo, Mobile Source
Program Manager, Control Strategies Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-
18J), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson
Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA. This SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
section is arranged as follows:

I. What is being addressed by this document?
II. What is our response to comments received on the notice of
proposed rulemaking?
III. What action is EPA taking?
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What is being addressed by this document?

    On November 14, 2013, at 78 FR 68378, EPA proposed to approve into
the state's Federally-approved SIP several regulatory changes to the
previously approved I/M program operating in the Chicago and Metro-East
St. Louis ozone nonattainment areas in Illinois. The most significant
changes to the Illinois I/M program took effect beginning on February
1, 2007 and include:
     The elimination of the IM240 transient mode exhaust test
for all vehicles beginning February 1, 2007.
     The elimination of the evaporative system integrity (gas
cap pressure) test for all on-board diagnostics (OBD) compliant
vehicles beginning February 1, 2007.
     The replacement of the computer-matching enforcement
mechanism with a registration denial based system beginning January 1,
2008.
     The elimination of the steady-state idle exhaust and
evaporative integrity (gas cap pressure) testing for all vehicles
beginning February 1, 2012.
     The exemption of pre-2007 model year (MY) heavy-duty
vehicles (HDVs) with gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) between 8,501
and 14,000 pounds beginning February 1, 2012.
     The exemption of all HDVs with a GVWR greater than 14,000
pounds as of February 1, 2012.
     The requirement of OBD pass/fail testing for all 2007 and
newer OBD-compliant HDVs.
    In addition to the changes discussed above, the November 29, 2012,
submittal included a number of minor revisions to the program that do
not have a significant impact on overall program operations or the
emissions reductions associated with it. A full list of the regulatory
changes submitted by Illinois for EPA approval includes:
     VEIL of 2005, as amended, 625 ILCS 5/13C (Public Act 94-
526 enacted on

August 10, 2005; Public Act 94-848 enacted on June 9, 2006; Public Act
97-106, enacted on July 14, 2011).
     Revisions to 35 Ill. Adm. Code 240 (R11-19 effective March
18, 2011 (35 Ill. Reg. 5552 (April 1, 2011)); R12-12 effective February
1, 2012 (36 Ill. Reg. 1066 (January 27, 2012)).
     Revisions to 35 Ill. Adm. Code 276 effective June 28, 2011
(35 Ill. Reg. 11268) and January 30, 2012 (36 Ill. Reg. 2257).

II. What is our response to comments received on the notice of proposed
rulemaking?

    The November 14, 2013, proposal provided a 30-day review and
comment period. The comment period closed on December 16, 2013. EPA
received comments from two parties during the public comment period.
One was supportive of our proposed action. We are responding to the
second commenter who disagreed with our action.
    Comment. The commenter notes that the primary concern with EPA's
proposed approval of Illinois' SIP revision is ensuring it is not
counter-productive to compliance of the National Ambient Air Quality
Standards (NAAQS). The commenter states that compliance with these
standards should be a prerequisite for considering such revisions to
ensure timely attainment of all applicable NAAQS. The commenter further
claims that the SIP revision would limit Illinois' ability to reduce
its precursor emissions, interfere with attainment of multiple NAAQS,
and place additional burden on neighboring states.
    Response. States have primary responsibility for deciding how to
attain and maintain the NAAQS. In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role
is to approve state choices, provided that they meet minimum criteria
set by the CAA or any applicable EPA regulations. To ensure that
impacts on the NAAQS are considered, any change submitted to EPA for
approval must include a demonstration of non-interference with the
NAAQS, pursuant to section 110(l) of the CAA. In the absence of an
attainment demonstration, to demonstrate non-interference with any
applicable NAAQS or requirement of the CAA under section 110(l), EPA's
policy is that states may substitute equivalent emissions reductions to
compensate for any change to a SIP approved program, to ensure that
actual emissions in the air are not increased. Allowing states to use
substitute equivalent emissions to address section 110(l) provides
states with flexibility, while not interfering with attainment or
maintenance of the NAAQS. The compensating equivalent reductions must
represent permanent emissions reductions achieved in a contemporaneous
time frame to the change of the existing SIP control measure, in order
to ensure that there is no degradation of air quality.
    As outlined in EPA's proposed approval, Illinois' SIP revision
includes such a demonstration using equivalent emissions reductions
achieved through the shutdown of permitted emission sources to
compensate for emission reduction losses resulting from changes to the
I/M program that was approved into the SIP in 1999 (64 FR 8517 (Feb.
22, 1999). In the Chicago nonattainment area, Illinois identified 1,168
facilities with permitted volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions and
687 facilities with permitted nitrogen oxides (NOX)
emissions that have permanently closed and have expired permits that
have been revoked.
    In the Metro-East St. Louis nonattainment area, Illinois identified
82 facilities with permitted VOC emissions and 39 facilities with
permitted NOX emissions that have permanently closed and
have expired permits that have been revoked. These sources all ceased
operations within the same timeframe of Illinois implementing the
revisions to the I/M program. At this point, these sources have all
been shutdown for at least two years.
    EPA has a well-established policy that reactivation of a
permanently shutdown facility will be treated as operation of a new
source for purposes of Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD)
review. See In the Matter of Monroe Electric Generating Plant, Entergy
Louisiana, Inc. Proposed Operating Permit, Petition No. 6-99-2, Order
Partially Granting and Partially Denying Petition for Objection to
Permit (June 11, 1999) at p.8 & n.9 (citing authorities). In general,
whether a shutdown is treated as permanent depends on the facts and
circumstances, although shutdowns of more than two years or that result
in removal of a source from the state's emissions inventory are
presumed to be permanent.
    EPA has determined, for the sources identified in the record as
part of Illinois' submission, that these sources are permanently
shutdown for purposes of PSD. Any restart of operations, and associated
emissions, at these sites will be treated as a new sources, subject to
the requirements of the PSD program. In addition, the state's 110(l)
demonstration indicates that the reductions achieved by the source
shutdowns occurred during the same timeframe as the increased emissions
from the modified I/M program. As a result, EPA believes it is
reasonable for Illinois to use the reductions in actual emissions of
ozone precursors resulting from the shutdown of these sources as
offsets for any increases in emissions of ozone precursors associated
with the changes to the I/M program.
    A review of Illinois' 110(l) demonstration shows that the emissions
reductions of both VOC and NOX emissions far exceed the
increase in emissions resulting from the revised I/M program. EPA finds
that the net result of these changes will not interfere with attainment
and maintenance of the ozone, or other, NAAQS.
    Comment. The same commenter also included an analysis that it
claims demonstrates that the changes to the Illinois I/M program
resulted in an increase in precursor emissions for ozone. The commenter
further states that the increase in emissions resulting from the
Illinois I/M program changes alone (or largely) was responsible for the
monitored violation of the 2008 ozone standard at the Zion, IL monitor.
The commenter points to a photochemical modeling analysis conducted by
the commenter, showing that the decreased effectiveness in the emission
reduction potential of the Illinois I/M program equates to an increase
in ozone concentrations. The commenter argues that because the State
has been implementing the modified program since 2007, any analysis
should not be based solely on emissions modeling or speculative
results, but supported by actual monitoring data that demonstrates
compliance with the applicable air quality standards as well. The
commenter points to multiple monitored violations of the standard that
have occurred in Illinois subsequent to these I/M program changes, and
claims that such monitored violations provide strong indication that
the current controls and current approved SIP are inadequate to support
attainment of the 2008 ozone standard and are also insufficient to
support attainment of the 2012 standard for fine particles as well.
    Response. The commenter's photochemical modeling analysis
referenced above only reflects the impacts of the changes made to the
Illinois I/M program. The analysis however fails to take into
consideration the emissions reductions achieved through the shutdown of
permitted emission sources that Illinois relies on to compensate for
the emission reduction losses resulting from changes to the February
22, 1999, SIP approved I/M program. When the compensating emission
reductions being used by

Illinois to address 110(l) are taken into account in the commenter's
analysis, the direct link between the violating monitoring data and the
I/M program changes claimed by the commenter can no longer be
supported. The compensating emission reductions of both VOC and
NOX emissions far exceed the increase in emissions resulting
from the revised I/M program and ensure that there is no net increase
in precursor emissions resulting from the approval of the I/M program
changes. EPA believes that, had the commenter modeled the ozone impact
of the combined increased emissions from the I/M revision and the
decrease in emissions from the offsetting emission reductions, the
commenter would have modeled a net decrease in peak downwind ozone
concentrations. In addition, Illinois' analysis also shows that the
emission reduction losses resulting from the changes to the I/M program
continue to significantly decline through 2025 while the compensating
emission reductions being relied on during the same time period do not.
The commenter's claims that Illinois' current control measures and
current approved SIP are inadequate to support attainment of the 2008
ozone and 2012 fine particle standards are outside the scope of this
action. As stated before, any SIP revision submitted to EPA for
consideration needs to include a demonstration of non-interference with
the NAAQS under section 110(l) of the CAA to ensure that impacts on the
NAAQS are considered. Illinois' SIP revision included such a
demonstration and EPA has determined that Illinois' use of substitute
emission reductions does not affect timely attainment of all applicable
NAAQS.

III. What action is EPA taking?

    EPA is approving the revisions to the Illinois ozone SIP submitted
on November 29, 2012, concerning the I/M program in Illinois. EPA finds
that the revisions meet all applicable requirements and will not
interfere with reasonable further progress or attainment of any of the
national ambient air quality standards.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable
Federal regulations 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and
does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state
law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in
the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by October 14, 2014. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor
does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may
be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or
action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen oxides, Ozone,
Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: June 23, 2014.
Susan Hedman,
Regional Administrator, Region 5.

    40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

0
2. Section 52.720 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(200) to read as
follows:

Sec.  52.720  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (200) On November 29, 2012, the Illinois Environmental Protection
Agency submitted a request to revise Illinois' vehicle inspection and
maintenance (I/M) program to reflect changes that have been made to the
program since EPA fully approved the I/M program on February 22, 1999.
    (i) Incorporation by reference.
    (A) Illinois Administrative Code, Title 35: Environmental
Protection, Subtitle B: Air Pollution, Chapter I: Pollution Control
Board, Subchapter k: Emission Standards and Limitations for Mobile
Sources, Part 240 Mobile Sources. Effective February 1, 2012.
    (B) Illinois Administrative Code, Title 35: Environmental
Protection, Subtitle B: Air Pollution, Chapter II:

Environmental Protection Agency, Part 276 Procedures to be Followed in
the Performance of Inspections of Motor Vehicle Emissions. Effective
January 30, 2012.
    (ii) Other materials.
    (A) Transmittal letter dated November 29, 2012.
    (B) Vehicle Emissions Inspection Law of 2005, as amended, 625 ILCS
5/13C (Public Act 94-526 enacted on August 10, 2005; Public Act 94-848
enacted on June 9, 2006; Public Act 97-106, enacted on July 14, 2011).
    (C) Listing of Chicago and Metro-East St. Louis NAA Facility
Closures (July 2012).

[FR Doc. 2014-17331 Filed 8-12-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 18 (Tuesday, January 28, 2020)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 4910-4912]
[FR Doc No: 2020-00940]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket Number USCG-2019-0897]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone; Isle of Wight Bay, Ocean City, MD

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone for
certain waters in Isle of Wight Bay. This action is necessary to
provide for the safety of personnel and vessels at and immediately
adjacent to the Harry W. Kelley Memorial (US-50) Bridge during
submarine electrical cable replacement operations, which will occur
daily, from 6 a.m. until 10 p.m. on January 27, 2020, through February
3, 2020. This rule will prohibit persons and vessels from being in the
safety zone unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Maryland-
National Capital Region or a designated representative.

DATES: This rule is effective without actual notice from January 28,
2020 through February 3, 2020. For the purposes of enforcement, actual
notice will be used from January 27, 2020, until January 28, 2020.

ADDRESSES: To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to https://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-
2019-0897 in the ``SEARCH'' box and click ``SEARCH.'' Click on Open
Docket Folder on the line associated with this rule.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions about this
rulemaking, call or email Petty Officer Courtney Perry, Sector
Maryland-NCR, Waterways Management Division, U.S. Coast Guard:
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

CFR Code of Federal Regulations
COTP Captain of the Port
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking

Sec.  Section
U.S.C. United States Code

II. Background Information and Regulatory History

    The Maryland Department of Transportation notified the Coast Guard
that it will be conducting an installation of submarine cables from
January 27, 2020, through February 3, 2020, within the navigation
channel at the Harry W. Kelley Memorial (US-50) Bridge located in Ocean
City, MD. The installation operations will be conducted at all hours of
the day throughout this time period. In response, on December 17, 2019,
the Coast Guard published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) titled
Safety Zone; Isle of Wight Bay, Ocean City, MD (84 FR 68858). We stated
why we issued the NPRM and allowed for commenting on our proposed
regulatory action. We received no comments during the comment period
which ended on January 2, 2020.
    Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause
exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after
publication in the Federal Register. Delaying the effective date of
this rule would be impracticable because immediate action is needed to
mitigate the potential hazards to personnel and vessels navigating
immediately adjacent to the Harry W. Kelley Memorial (US-50) Bridge
during this time.

III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

    The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 46 U.S.C.
70034 (previously 33 U.S.C. 1231). The COTP Maryland-National Capital
Region has determined that the potential hazards associated with the
installation of submarine electrical cables would be a safety concern
for anyone at and immediately adjacent to the Harry W. Kelley Memorial
Bridge during these operations. The purpose of this rule is to ensure
the safety of vessels and the navigable waters in the safety zone
before, during, and after the scheduled event.

IV. Discussion of Comments, Changes, and the Rule

    As noted above, we received no comments on our NPRM, which was
published on December 17, 2019. There are no changes in the regulatory
text of this rule from the proposed rule in the NPRM.
    This rule establishes a safety zone from January 27, 2020, through
February 3, 2020, that will be enforced daily from 6 a.m. until 10 p.m.
The safety zone will cover all navigable waters of the Isle of Wight
Bay, in Ocean City, MD encompassed by an area connecting the following
points: Beginning at 38[deg]19'57.2'' N, 075[deg]05'26.0'' W, thence to
38[deg]19'56.9'' N, 075[deg]05'24.8'' W, thence to 38[deg]19'55.6'' N,
075[deg]05'25.3'' W, thence to 38[deg]19'55.9'' N, 075[deg]05'26.6'' W,
and back to the beginning point. The zone is established to ensure the
safety of vessels and the navigable waters before, during, and after
the scheduled submarine cable installation. No vessel or person will be
permitted to enter the safety zone without obtaining permission from
the COTP or a designated representative.

V. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and
Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses
based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders, additionally,
we discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits. Executive Order 13771 directs agencies to control
regulatory costs through a budgeting process. This rule has not been
designated a ``significant regulatory action,'' under Executive Order
12866. Accordingly, this rule has not been reviewed by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB), and pursuant to OMB guidance, it is exempt
from the requirements of Executive Order 13771.
    This regulatory action determination is based on the size,
duration, and the time-of-year of the safety zone. The submarine cable
installation is being planned during the winter/non-peak season, when
vessel transit in this area of the channel is unlikely. Vessel traffic
not required to use the navigation channel will be able to safely
transit around the safety zone. This safety zone will impact a small
designated area of the Isle of Wight Bay for approximately 8 days, but
coincides with the non-peak season for recreational boating.

B. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities.
    While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the
safety zone may be small entities, for reasons stated in section V.A
above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on any
vessel owner or operator.
    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this rule. If this rule will effect your
small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have
questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please
call or email the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on the actions of employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-
FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or
action of the Coast Guard.

C. Collection of Information

    This rule will not call for a new collection of information under
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has 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. We have analyzed this rule under that order and have
determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism
principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order
13132.
    Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive
Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments, because it does not have a substantial

direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between
the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of
power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian
tribes. If you believe this rule has implications for federalism or
Indian tribes, please call or email the person listed in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

F. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under the Department of Homeland
Security Directive 023-01, Rev. 1, associated implementing
instructions, and the Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series),
which guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have
determined that this action is one of a category of actions that does
not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human
environment. This rule involves a safety zone lasting approximately
eight days that would prohibit use of navigable waters at or adjacent
to the Harry W. Kelley Memorial (US-50) Bridge. It is categorically
excluded from further review under paragraph L60(a) of Appendix A,
Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 1. A Record of
Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is available
in the docket. For instructions on locating the docket, see the
ADDRESSES section of this preamble.

G. Protest Activities

    The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters.
Protesters are asked to call or email the person listed in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to coordinate protest activities so
that your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or
security of people, places, or vessels.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

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

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

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

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

    Authority:  46 U.S.C. 70034, 70051; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-
6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

0
2. Add Sec.  165.T05-0897 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T05-0897  Safety Zone; Isle of Wight Bay, Ocean City, MD.

    (a) Location. The following area is a safety zone: All navigable
waters of Isle of Wight Bay, encompassed by a line connecting the
following points beginning at 38[deg]19'57.2'' N, 075[deg]05'26.0'' W,
thence to 38[deg]19'56.9'' N, 075[deg]05'24.8'' W, thence to
38[deg]19'55.6'' N, 075[deg]05'25.3'' W, thence to 38[deg]19'55.9'' N,
075[deg]05'26.6'' W, and back to the beginning point, located at Ocean
City, MD. These coordinates are based on datum NAD 1983.
    (b) Definitions. As used in this section--
    Captain of the Port (COTP) means the Commander, U.S. Coast Guard
Sector Maryland-National Capital Region.
    Designated representative means any Coast Guard commissioned,
warrant, or petty officer who has been authorized by the Captain of the
Port Maryland-National Capital Region to assist in enforcing the
security zone described in paragraph (a) of this section.
    Marine equipment means any vessel, barge or other equipment
operated by Covington Machine and Welding, Inc. or its subcontractors.
    (c) Regulations. (1) Under the general safety zone regulations in
subpart C of this part, you may not enter the safety zone described in
paragraph (a) of this section unless authorized by the COTP or the
COTP's designated representative. Except for marine equipment, all
vessels within this safety zone at the time it is implemented are to
depart the zone.
    (2) To seek permission to enter, contact the COTP or the COTP's
representative by telephone number<PHONE_NUMBER> or on Marine Band Radio
VHF-FM channel 16 (156.8 MHz). Those in the safety zone must comply
with all lawful orders or directions given to them by the COTP or the
COTP's designated representative.
    (d) Enforcement officials. The U.S. Coast Guard may be assisted in
the patrol and enforcement of the safety zone by Federal, State, and
local agencies.
    (e) Enforcement. This safety zone will be enforced during the
period described in paragraph (f) of this section. A ``CABLE WORK--
DANGER--STAY AWAY'' sign facing the northern and southern approaches of
the navigation channel will be posted on the sides of the marine
equipment on-scene within the location described in paragraph (a) of
this section.
    (f) Enforcement period. This section will be enforced daily January
27, 2020, through February 3, 2020, from 6:00 a.m. until 10 p.m.

    Dated: January 16, 2020.
Joseph B. Loring,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Sector Maryland-NCR.
[FR Doc. 2020-00940 Filed 1-27-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 140 (Thursday, July 22, 2010)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 42589-42592]
[FR Doc No: 2010-17064]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2009-0003; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-251-AD;
Amendment 39-16368; AD 2010-15-02]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Model A330-200 and -300 Series
Airplanes, and A340-200, -300, -500, and -600 Series Airplanes

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

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

    Several cases of corrosion and damage on the Down Drive Shafts
(DDS), between the Down Drive Gear Box (DDGB) and the Input Gear Box
(IPGB), on all 10 Flap Tracks (5 per wing), have been reported by
AIRBUS Long Range Operators.
    Investigations have revealed that corrosion and wear due to
absence of grease in the spline interfaces could cause [DDS]
disconnection which could result in a free movable flap surface,
potentially leading to aircraft asymmetry or even flap detachment.
* * * * *
    The unsafe condition could reduce the ability of the flightcrew to
maintain the safe flight and landing of the airplane. We are issuing
this AD to require actions to correct the unsafe condition on these
products.

DATES: This AD becomes effective August 26, 2010.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of August 26,
2010.

ADDRESSES: You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov or in person at the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Vladimir Ulyanov, Aerospace Engineer,
International Branch, ANM-116, FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate,
1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone (425)
227-1138; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to
amend 14 CFR part 39 to include an AD that would apply to the specified
products. That supplemental NPRM was published in the Federal Register
on March 29, 2010 (75 FR 15353). That supplemental NPRM proposed to
correct an unsafe condition for the products listed above.

Explanation of Revised Service Information

    Airbus has issued Mandatory Service Bulletin A330-27-3152, Revision
03, including Appendices 1 and 2, dated February 22, 2010. Airbus
Mandatory Service Bulletin A330-27-3152, Revision 02, dated September
23, 2008, is referred to as the appropriate source of service
information for accomplishing certain actions in the supplemental NPRM.
The changes in Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A330-27-

3152, Revision 03, dated February 22, 2010, are minor and no additional
work is necessary for airplanes on which the actions specified in
Revision 02 of this service bulletin were done.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD. We considered the comments received.

Comments

    Delta supports the proposed actions in the supplemental NPRM and
asks that we include Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A330-27-3152,
Revision 03, dated February 22, 2010, as the appropriate source of
service information for accomplishing certain actions. Delta also asks
that we give credit for Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A330-27-3152,
Revision 02, dated September 23, 2008.
    As stated previously, Airbus issued Mandatory Service Bulletin
A330-27-3152, Revision 03, dated February 22, 2010. We have cited
Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A330-27-3152, Revision 03, dated
February 22, 2010, as the appropriate source of service information for
accomplishing the required actions and have changed the service
bulletin references in Tables 1 and 2 of this AD accordingly.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the available data, including the comment received, and
determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting the
AD with the changes described previously. We determined that these
changes will not increase the economic burden on any operator or
increase the scope of the AD.

Differences Between This AD and the MCAI or Service Information

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

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects about 41 products of U.S.
registry. We also estimate that it takes 65 work-hours per product to
comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate
is $85 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of
the AD on U.S. operators to be $226,525, or $5,525 per product.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this 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 this AD:
    1. Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order
12866;
    2. Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and
    3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to
comply with this AD and placed it in the AD docket.

Examining the AD Docket

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

0
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 AD:

2010-15-02 Airbus: Amendment 39-16368. Docket No. FAA-2009-0003;
Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-251-AD.

Effective Date

    (a) This airworthiness directive (AD) becomes effective August
26, 2010.

Affected ADs

    (b) None.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to Airbus Model A330-201, -202, -203, -223,
-243, -301, -302, -303, -321, -322, -323, -341, -342, and -343
series airplanes, A340-211, -212, -213, -311, -312, and -313 series
airplanes, and A340-541 and -642 airplanes, certificated in any
category; all certified models, all manufacturer serial numbers.

Subject

    (d) Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 27: Flight
Controls.

Reason

    (e) The mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI)
states:
    Several cases of corrosion and damage on the Down Drive Shafts
(DDS), between the Down Drive Gear Box (DDGB) and the Input Gear Box
(IPGB), on all 10 Flap Tracks (5 per wing), have been reported by
AIRBUS Long Range Operators.
    Investigations have revealed that corrosion and wear due to
absence of grease in the spline interfaces could cause [DDS]
disconnection which could result in a free movable flap surface,
potentially leading to aircraft asymmetry or even flap detachment.
    Emergency Airworthiness Directive (EAD) 2007-0222-E mandated on
all aircraft older than 6 years since AIRBUS original delivery date
of the aircraft, an initial inspection of all DDS and IPGB for
corrosion and wear detection in order to replace any damaged part.
    Revision 1 of EAD 2007-0222-E aimed for clarifying the
compliance instructions.

    [EASA AD 2008-0026] supersedes the EAD 2007-0222R1-E and
mandates repetitive inspections every 6 years for all the fleet.

The unsafe condition could reduce the ability of the flightcrew to
maintain the safe flight and landing of the airplane. The corrective
actions include replacing damaged parts.

Compliance

    (f) You are responsible for having the actions required by this
AD performed within the compliance times specified, unless the
actions have already been done.

Actions

    (g) Do the applicable inspections and corrective actions
specified in paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(2) of this AD, in accordance
with the instructions of the applicable service information
specified in Table 1 of this AD.

                                          Table 1--Service Information
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   Use Airbus Mandatory
           For model--              Service Bulletin--             For actions specified in paragraph--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A330-200 and -300 series           A330-27-3151,         (g)(1)(i) and (g)(1)(ii) of this AD.
 airplanes.                         Revision 01, dated
                                    March 19, 2008.
A330-200 and -300 series           A330-27-3152,         (g)(1)(iv) and (g)(2) of this AD.
 airplanes.                         Revision 03, dated
                                    February 22, 2010.
A340-200 and -300 series           A340[dash]27[dash]41  (g)(1)(i) and (g)(1)(ii) of this AD.
 airplanes.                         51, Revision 01,
                                    dated March 19,
                                    2008.
A340-200 and -300 series           A340-27-4152,         (g)(1)(iv) and (g)(2) of this AD.
 airplanes.                         Revision 02, dated
                                    September 23, 2008.
A340-541 and -642 airplanes......  A340-27-5040,         (g)(2) of this AD.
                                    Revision 02, dated
                                    September 23, 2008.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

     (1) For Model A330-200 and -300 series airplanes, up to and
including manufacturer serial number (MSN) 0420, and Model A340-200
and -300 series airplanes, up to and including MSN 0415, except MSNs
0385 and 0395: Do the applicable actions specified in paragraphs
(g)(1)(i), (g)(1)(ii), (g)(1)(iii), and (g)(1)(iv) of this AD at the
applicable time specified.
    (i) For airplanes on which less than 10 years have accumulated
since the date of issuance of the original French standard
airworthiness certificate or the date of issuance of the original
French or EASA export certificate of airworthiness as of the
effective date of this AD: Within 24 months after the effective date
of this AD, perform simultaneous detailed visual inspections of the
IPGB and of the DDS on all flap tracks on both wings for corrosion
and wear detection and do all applicable corrective actions. For
Type 3 damaged parts, do all applicable corrective actions before
further flight. For Type 2 damaged IPGB parts, do all applicable
corrective actions within 18 months after doing the inspection.
    (ii) For airplanes on which 10 or more years have accumulated
since the date of issuance of the original French standard
airworthiness certificate or the date of issuance of the original
French or EASA export certificate of airworthiness as of the
effective date of this AD: Within 4 months after the effective date
of this AD, perform simultaneous detailed visual inspections of the
IPGB and of the DDS on flap tracks 2 and 4 on both wings for
corrosion and wear detection. For any Type 3 damaged parts on flap
tracks 2 and 4, do all applicable corrective actions before further
flight. For any Type 2 damaged IPGB parts on flap tracks 2 and 4, do
all applicable corrective actions within 18 months after doing the
inspection required by paragraph (g)(1)(ii) of this AD.
    (A) For wings on which Type 3 damage is found on the DDS of flap
track 2 or 4, perform simultaneous detailed visual inspections of
the IPGB and of the DDS on flap track 3 on both wings for corrosion
and wear detection. For Type 3 damaged parts on flap track 3, do all
applicable corrective actions before further flight. For Type 2
damaged IPGB parts, on flap track 3, do all applicable corrective
actions within 18 months after doing the inspection required by
paragraph (g)(1)(ii)(A) of this AD.
    (1) For wings on which Type 3 damage is found on the DDS of flap
track 3, before further flight, perform simultaneous detailed visual
inspections of the IPGB and of the DDS on flap tracks 1 and 5 on
both wings for corrosion and wear detection. For Type 3 damaged
parts on flap tracks 1 and 5, do all applicable corrective actions
before further flight. For Type 2 damaged IPGB parts on flap tracks
1 and 5, do all applicable corrective actions within 18 months after
doing the inspection required by paragraph (g)(1)(ii)(A)(1) of this
AD.
    (2) For wings on which no Type 3 damage is found on the DDS of
flap track 3, within 18 months after doing the inspection required
by paragraph (g)(1)(ii)(A) of this AD, perform simultaneous detailed
visual inspections of the IPGB and of the DDS on flap tracks 1 and 5
on both wings for corrosion and wear detection. For any Type 3
damaged parts on flap tracks 1 and 5, do all applicable corrective
actions before further flight. For any Type 2 damaged IPGB parts on
flap tracks 1 and 5, do all applicable corrective actions within 18
months after doing the inspection required by paragraph
(g)(1)(ii)(A)(2) of this AD.
    (B) For wings on which no Type 3 damage is found on the DDS of
flap track 2 and 4: Within 18 months after doing the inspection
required by paragraph (g)(1)(ii) of this AD, perform simultaneous
detailed visual inspections of the IPGB and of the DDS on flap
tracks 1, 3, and 5 on both wings for corrosion and wear detection.
For any Type 3 damaged parts on flap tracks 1, 3, and 5, do all
applicable corrective actions before further flight. For Type 2
damaged IPGB parts on flap tracks 1, 3, and 5, do all applicable
corrective actions within 18 months after doing the inspection
required by paragraph (g)(1)(ii) of this AD.
    (iii) Within 30 days after performing an initial inspection
required by paragraph (g)(1)(i) or (g)(1)(ii) of this AD, or within
30 days after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later,
report the initial inspection results only, whatever they are, to
Airbus as specified in the reporting sheet of the applicable service
information listed in Table 1 of this AD.
    (iv) Within 6 years after performing the applicable inspection
required by paragraph (g)(1)(i) or (g)(1)(ii) of this AD, and
thereafter at intervals not exceeding 6 years: Perform simultaneous
detailed visual inspections of the IPGB and of the DDS on all flap
tracks on both wings for corrosion and wear detection and do all
applicable corrective actions. For Type 3 damaged parts, do all
applicable corrective actions before further flight. For Type 2
damaged IPGB parts, do all applicable corrective actions within 18
months after doing the inspection.
    (2) For airplanes other than those identified in paragraph
(g)(1) of this AD: Within 6 years after issuance of the original
French standard airworthiness certificate or the date of issuance of
the original French or EASA export certificate of airworthiness, or
within 20 months after the effective date of this AD, whichever
occurs later; and thereafter at intervals not exceeding 6 years;
perform simultaneous detailed visual inspections of the IPGB and of
the DDS on all flap tracks on both wings for corrosion and wear
detection and do all applicable corrective actions. For Type 3
damaged parts, do all applicable corrective actions before further
flight. For Type 2 damaged IPGB parts, do all applicable corrective
actions within 18 months after doing the inspection.
    (3) Actions done before the effective date of this AD in
accordance with the applicable service information specified in
Table 2 of this AD are acceptable for compliance with the
corresponding requirements of this AD.

                                       Table 2--Credit Service Information
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Airbus mandatory service bulletin--             Revision--                           Dated--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A330-27-3151............................  Original...................  August 9, 2007.
A330-27-3152............................  Original...................  August 9, 2007.

A330-27-3152............................  01.........................  March 19, 2008.
A330-27-3152............................  02.........................  September 23, 2008.
A340-27-4151............................  Original...................  August 9, 2007.
A340-27-4152............................  Original...................  August 9, 2007.
A340-27-4152............................  01.........................  March 19, 2008.
A340-27-5040............................  Original...................  August 9, 2007.
A340-27-5040............................  01.........................  March 19, 2008.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Note 1: Airbus should be contacted in order to get appropriate
information for airplanes on which the original delivery date of the
airplane is unknown to the operator.

FAA AD Differences

    Note 2: This AD differs from the MCAI and/or service information
as follows: No differences.

Other FAA AD Provisions

    (h) The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
International Branch, ANM-116, has the authority to approve AMOCs
for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR
39.19. Send information to ATTN: Vladimir Ulyanov, Aerospace
Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, FAA, Transport Airplane
Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>. Before using any
approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify your
principal maintenance inspector (PMI) or principal avionics
inspector (PAI), as appropriate, or lacking a principal inspector,
your local Flight Standards District Office. The AMOC approval
letter must specifically reference this AD.
    (2) Airworthy Product: For any requirement in this AD to obtain
corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these
actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered
FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority
(or their delegated agent). You are required to assure the product
is airworthy before it is returned to service.
    (3) Reporting Requirements: For any reporting requirement in
this AD, under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has
approved the information collection requirements and has assigned
OMB Control Number 2120-0056.

Related Information

    (i) Refer to MCAI EASA Airworthiness Directive 2008-0026, dated
February 12, 2008, and the service information specified in Table 1
of this AD, for related information.

Material Incorporated by Reference

    (j) You must use the service information contained in Table 3 of
this AD to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD
specifies otherwise.

                                   Table 3--Material Incorporated by Reference
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Airbus mandatory service bulletin--         Revision--                         Dated--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A330-27-3151, including Appendix 1............              01  March 19, 2008
A330-27-3152, including Appendices 1 and 2....              03  February 22, 2010
A340-27-4151, including Appendix 1............              01  March 19, 2008
A340-27-4152, including Appendices 1 and 2....              02  September 23, 2008
A340-27-5040, including Appendix 1............              02  September 23, 2008
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

     (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference of this service information under 5
U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Airbus SAS--Airworthiness Office--EAL, 1 Rond Point Maurice
Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96;
fax +33 5 61 93 45 80, e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Internet http://www.airbus.com.
    (3) You may review copies of the service information at the FAA,
Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,
Washington. For information on the availability of this material at
the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (4) You may also review copies of the service information that
is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records
Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this
material at NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on June 30, 2010.
Todd G. Dixon,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2010-17064 Filed 7-21-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 164 (Friday, August 23, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 52523]
[FR Doc No: 2013-20594]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings

    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural
Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

Filings Instituting Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: CP13-532-000.
    Applicants: Gulf South Pipeline Company, LP.
    Description: Abbreviated Application of Public Convenience and
Necessity and Authorization to Abandon Firm Capacity.
    Filed Date: 8/13/13.
    Accession Number: 20130813-5066.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/26/13.

    Docket Numbers: RP13-1246-000.
    Applicants: Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company.
    Description: Negotiated Rates--Northeast Supply Link Expansion
(Interim) to be effective 8/19/2013.
    Filed Date: 8/14/13.
    Accession Number: 20130814-5030.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/26/13.

    Docket Numbers: RP13-1247-000.
    Applicants: El Paso Natural Gas Company, L.L.C.
    Description: Non-Conforming Amendment Filing to be effective 9/14/
2013.
    Filed Date: 8/14/13.
    Accession Number: 20130814-5043.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/26/13.

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

    Dated: August 15, 2013.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-20594 Filed 8-22-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


I f you checked no , you are done with this f o m . Simplyplace it in the docket for your regulation. If you checked yes , please fill out the remainder of the foma before placing it in the docket. Also docket any relevant documents referenced in the form.

For regulations that are checked Yes above:

This regulation was reviewed by OMB under Executive Order 12866  Regulatory Planning an& Review.

Attached is the draft regulation and any other documents sent to OMB for review, such as analyses and assessments. E. O. 12866 requires agencies to make these publicly available.

E. O. 12866 also requires agencies to identify the substantive changes between the draft regulation sent to OMB for review and the regulation subsequently announced [ Please check the appropriate box below:]

EPA made substantive changes to this regulation ( includes changes initiated by EE'A or OMB). Attached is a document which: ( 1) identifies all the substantive changes made, and ( 2) notes those changes OMB suggested or recommended.

No substantive changes were made to this regulation Therefore, no further attachments are required.

If you have questions about this regulation, please call the EPA contact person listed above.