[Federal Register: July 30, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 145)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 41450-41453]
[DOCID:fr30jy07-11]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R05-OAR-2007-0292; FRL-8442-9]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Indiana

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is approving Indiana's requests to amend its State
Implementation Plan (SIP) for control of particulate matter in 326 IAC
6.5-7-13. Indiana submitted the SIP revision requests to EPA on
November 1, 2005 and March 20, 2007. The revisions would change the
source name from St.

Mary's to Holy Cross Services Corporation (Saint Mary's Campus), and
clarify and revise existing particulate matter (PM) emission limits for
the boilers at that source to reflect current operating conditions.
These revisions will not result in an increase in PM.

DATES: This direct final rule will be effective September 28, 2007,
unless EPA receives adverse comments by August 29, 2007. If adverse
comments are received, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of the
direct final rule in the Federal Register informing the public that the
rule will not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-
OAR-2007-0292, by one of the following methods:
    1. http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for

submitting comments.
    2. E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    4. Mail: John M. Mooney, Chief, Criteria Pollutant Section, Air
Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 77 West
Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604.
    5. Hand Delivery: John M. Mooney, Chief, Criteria Pollutant
Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. Such
deliveries are only accepted during the Regional Office normal hours of
operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of
boxed information. The Regional Office official hours of business are
Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. excluding Federal
holidays.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R05-OAR-
2007-0292. 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.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the 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 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 legal
holidays. We recommend that you telephone Charles Hatten, Environmental
Engineer, at<PHONE_NUMBER> before visiting the Region 5 office.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Charles Hatten, Environmental
Engineer, Criteria Pollutant 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. To Whom Does This Action Apply?
II. What Is EPA Approving?
III. What Are the Changes from the Current Rule?
IV. What Action Is EPA Taking?
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews.

I. To Whom Does This Action Apply?

    This action applies to Holy Cross Services Corporation (Saint
Mary's Campus), Notre Dame, Indiana.

II. What Is EPA Approving?

    EPA is approving revisions to Indiana's PM SIP for the three
boilers located in St. Joseph County, Notre Dame, Indiana. The
revisions address Title 326 of the Indiana Administrative Code (IAC),
Rule 6.5-7, Section 13, to clarify and amend existing PM emission
limits. They also change the source name from St. Mary's to Holy Cross
Services Corporation (Saint Mary's Campus).
    Indiana held public hearings on these revisions February 2, and
June 1, 2005; June 7, and August 2, 2006.

III. What Are the Changes From the Current Rule?

    On March 22, 2006 (71 FR 14383), EPA published a direct final rule
approving revisions to the Indiana SIP in 326 IAC 6.5-7 to relocate and
recodify PM emission limits for all sources in St. Joseph County,
Indiana. Today's action revises 326 IAC 6.5-7, Section 13, which
contains particulate emission limits for the boilers at St. Mary's
College in Notre Dame, Indiana, to reflect current operating conditions
and ownership by Holy Cross Services Corporation of those boilers.
    Currently, SIP rule 326 IAC 6.5-7-13 identifies St. Mary's College
as the owner, operator and permittee of the subject boilers. It also
incorrectly lists boiler number 1 as 100% natural gas-fired, and
boilers number 2 and 3 as coal-fired. According to Indiana, however,
boilers numbers 1 and 2 are actually gas-fired, with the capability of
burning number 2 fuel oil as a back-up, while boiler number 3
exclusively burns natural gas. The revised rule corrects this error. It
also tightens the applicable PM limits for the two boilers that have
oil-burning capability (boilers number 1 and 2): from 0.110 lbs/MMBTU
(12.90 tons/year) to 0.014 lbs/MMBTU (3.9 tons/year).
    Finally, the SIP revision amends 326 IAC 6.5-7-13 by correctly
identifying the owner, operator and permittee of the St. Mary's boilers
as Holy Cross Services.

IV. What Action is EPA Taking?

    EPA is approving source-specific revisions to Indiana's PM SIP in
326 IAC 6.5-7 to change the name of the owner, operator and permittee
of the three boilers at St. Mary's College to Holy Cross Services
Corporation (Saint Mary's Campus), and to revise the PM limits to
reflect current operating conditions of the boilers at St. Mary's
College.
    We are publishing this action without prior proposal because we
view this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipate no adverse
comments. However, in the proposed rules section of this Federal
Register publication, we are publishing a separate document that will
serve as the proposal to approve the

state plan if relevant adverse written comments are filed. This rule
will be effective September 28, 2007 without further notice unless we
receive relevant adverse written comments by August 29, 2007. If we
receive such comments, we will withdraw this action before the
effective date by publishing a subsequent document that will withdraw
the final action. All public comments received will then be addressed
in a subsequent final rule based on the proposed action. The EPA will
not institute a second comment period. Any parties interested in
commenting on this action should do so at this time. If we do not
receive any comments, this action will be effective September 28, 2007.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this
action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and, therefore, is
not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget.

Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use

    Because it is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866 or a ``significant energy action,'' this action
is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning
Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or
Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001).

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    This action merely approves state law as meeting Federal
requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that
this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C.
601 et seq.).

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Because this rule approves pre-existing requirements under state
law and does not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that
required by state law, it 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).

Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal
Governments

    This rule also does not have tribal implications because it will
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, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (59
FR 22951, November 9, 2000).

Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This action also does not have Federalism implications because it
does not have substantial direct effects 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, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August
10, 1999). This action merely approves a state rule implementing a
Federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or the
distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean Air
Act (CAA).

Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental Health
and Safety Risks

    This rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 ``Protection
of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997), because it approves a state rule implementing a
Federal Standard.

National Technology Transfer Advancement Act

    In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. In this
context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the state
to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to
disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be
inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP
submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise
satisfies the provisions of the CAA. Thus, the requirements of section
12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995
(15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    This rule does not impose an information collection burden under
the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
et seq.).

Congressional Review Act

    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 rule 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.
section 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 September 28, 2007. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this rule 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, PM, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.

    Dated: July 11, 2007.
Bharat Mathur,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5.

0
For the reasons stated in the preamble, part 52, chapter I, of title 40
of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

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

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

Subpart P--Indiana

0
2. Sec.  52.770 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(180) to read as
follows:

Sec.  52.770  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (180) On November 1, 2005, and supplemented on March 20, 2007, the

State of Indiana submitted a source specific revision to its state
implementation plan for control of particulate matter in Title 326 of
the Indiana Administrative Code (IAC), Rule 6.5-7, Section 13, which
contains particulate matter emission limits for Holy Cross Services
Corporation, to reflect current operating conditions of the boilers at
St. Mary's College, located in Notre Dame, Indiana. The revision in 326
IAC 6.5-7-13 also changes the source name from St. Mary's to Holy Cross
Services Corporation (Saint Mary's Campus).
    (i) Incorporation by reference. Indiana Administrative Code Title
326: Air Pollution Control Board, Article 6.5: PM Limitations Except
Lake County, Rule 7: St. Joseph County, Section 13: Holy Cross Services
Corporation (Saint Mary's Campus). Approved by the Attorney General
January 18, 2007. Approved by the Governor January 23, 2007. Filed with
the Publisher January 26, 2007. Published on the Indiana Register Web
site February 14, 2007, Document Identification Number (DIN):20070214-
IR-326060121FRA. Effective February 25, 2007.
* * * * *
 [FR Doc. E7-14476 Filed 7-27-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: September 9, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 175)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 52203-52205]
[DOCID:fr09se08-6]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2008-0946; Directorate Identifier 2008-NM-147-AD;
Amendment 39-15667; AD 2008-18-10]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; McDonnell Douglas Model MD-90-30
Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain
McDonnell Douglas Model MD-90-30 airplanes. This AD requires a detailed
inspection for certain defects of the upper fasteners of the aft mount
support fitting of the left and right engines and corrective actions if
necessary. This AD results from reports of loose, cracked, or missing
fasteners in the aft mount support fitting of the left and right
engines. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct loose, cracked,
or missing fasteners in the engine aft support mount fitting, which
could lead to separation of the support fitting from the pylon, which
could result in separation of the engine from the airplane.

DATES: This AD is effective September 24, 2008.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of September
24, 2008.
    We must receive comments on this AD by November 10, 2008.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this AD, contact Boeing
Commercial Airplanes, Long Beach Division, 3855 Lakewood Boulevard,
Long Beach, California 90846, Attention: Data and Service Management,
Dept. C1-L5A (D800-0024).

Examining the AD Docket

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

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We have received reports of loose, cracked, or missing fasteners in
the aft mount support fitting of the left and right engines on several
McDonnell Douglas Model MD-90-30 airplanes. The airplanes had
accumulated between 18,767 and 25,400 total flight hours and between
15,841 and 27,000 total flight cycles. A safety assessment of the
missing fasteners has concluded that loose or discrepant fasteners in
the top

horizontal row, common with the pylon skin, significantly decrease the
margin of safety of the aft mount support installation at the design
limit load. Loose, cracked, or missing fasteners in the engine aft
mount support fitting could lead to separation of the support fitting
from the pylon. This condition, if not corrected, could result in
separation of the engine from the airplane.

Relevant Service Information

    We reviewed Boeing Alert Service Bulletin MD90-54A002, dated August
1, 2008. The service bulletin describes procedures for doing a detailed
inspection for certain defects of the upper fasteners of the aft mount
support fitting of the left and right engines, and corrective action as
applicable. The detailed inspection consists of the following actions:
(1) A general visual inspection of the upper fasteners for any missing,
loose, or damaged fasteners, (2) a gap check between the washers and
structure or between the fastener heads and structure, if applicable,
and (3) a torque check of the fastener nuts, if applicable. The
corrective action includes replacing all fasteners if any defect is
found.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of This AD

    We are issuing 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(se) same type
design(s). This AD requires accomplishing the actions specified in the
service information described previously.

Interim Action

    This is considered to be interim action until final action is
identified, at which time we might consider further rulemaking.

FAA's Justification and Determination of the Effective Date

    Loose, cracked, or missing fasteners in the engine aft mount
support fitting could lead to separation of the support fitting from
the pylon, possibly resulting in separation of the engine from the
airplane. Because of our requirement to promote safe flight of civil
aircraft and thus, the critical need to assure structural integrity of
the engine aft mount support fitting and the short compliance time
involved with this action, this AD must be issued immediately.
    Because an unsafe condition exists that requires the immediate
adoption of this AD, we find that notice and opportunity for prior
public comment hereon are impracticable and that good cause exists for
making this amendment effective in less than 30 days.

Comments Invited

    This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight
safety, and we did not provide you with notice and an opportunity to
provide your comments before it becomes effective. However, we invite
you to send any written data, views, or arguments about this AD. Send
your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include
``Docket No. FAA-2008-0946; Directorate Identifier 2008-NM-147-AD'' at
the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the
overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this
AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may
amend this 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 AD.

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

    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) Is not a ``significant rule'' under 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.
    You can find our regulatory evaluation and the estimated costs of
compliance in the AD Docket.

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:

2008-18-10 McDonnell Douglas: Amendment 39-15667. Docket No. FAA-
2008-0946; Directorate Identifier 2008-NM-147-AD.

Effective Date

    (a) This airworthiness directive (AD) is effective September 24,
2008.

Affected ADs

    (b) None.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to McDonnell Douglas Model MD-90-30
airplanes, certificated in any category; as identified in Boeing
Alert Service Bulletin MD90-54A002, dated August 1, 2008.

Unsafe Condition

    (d) This AD results from reports of loose, cracked, or missing
fasteners in the aft mount support fitting of the left and right
engines. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct loose,
cracked, or missing fasteners in the engine aft support mount
fitting, which could lead to separation of the support fitting from
the pylon, which could result in separation of the engine from the
airplane.

Compliance

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

Detailed Inspection

    (f) Within 703 flight cycles after the effective date of this
AD, do a detailed

inspection for any defect (missing, loose, or damaged fasteners;
incorrect gap between washers and structure or between fastener
heads and structure; or incorrect torque of fastener nuts) of the
upper fasteners of the aft mount support fitting of the left and
right engines, and do all the applicable corrective actions before
further flight, by accomplishing all of the applicable actions
specified in the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service
Bulletin MD90-54A002, dated August 1, 2008.

Credit for Actions Done per Multiple Operator Message (MOM)

    (g) Actions done before the effective date of this AD in
accordance with Boeing MOM 1-893882781-2, dated July 25, 2008, are
acceptable for compliance with the requirements of paragraph (f) of
this AD.

Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

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

Material Incorporated by Reference

    (i) You must use Boeing Alert Service Bulletin MD90-54A002,
dated August 1, 2008, to do the actions required by this AD, unless
the AD specifies otherwise.
    (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
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Long Beach Division, 3855 Lakewood
Boulevard, Long Beach, California 90846, Attention: Data and Service
Management, Dept. C1-L5A (D800-0024).
    (3) You may review copies of the service information
incorporated by reference at the FAA, Transport Airplane
Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington; or 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 August 25, 2008.
Dionne Palermo,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. E8-20494 Filed 9-8-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd">

<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">

        <title>Drinking Water | Ecosystems Research Division | US EPA</title>

        <meta name="DC.description" content="Identification of New Chemical Disinfection By-products (DBPs)">
        <meta name="keywords" content="redox,zones,iron,electron,probe,environments,reactive,reaction,was,thermodynamic,">

        <meta name="DC.title" content="Drinking Water">
        <meta name="DC.Subject.epabrm" content="Research & Development,">
        <meta name="DC.type" content="Overviews & Factsheets,">
        <meta name="DC.Subject.epachannel" content="Science & Technology,">
        <meta name="DC.Subject.epacat" content="">
        <meta name="DC.Subject.epaect" content="">
        <meta name="DC.Subject.epaemt" content="Drinking Water,">
        <meta name="DC.Subject.epahealth" content="">
        <meta name="DC.Subject.eparit" content="">
        <meta name="DC.Subject.eparat" content="">
        <meta name="DC.Subject.epaopt" content="">
        <meta name="DC.Subject.epappt" content="">
        <meta name="DC.Subject.eparegulation" content="">
        <meta name="DC.Subject.epasubstance" content="Chemicals,">
        <meta name="DC.Subject.epaindustry" content="">
        <meta name="DC.audience" content="Researchers & Scientists,">
        <meta name="DC.coverage" content="">

        <meta name="DC.creator" content="US EPA, ORD, Ecosystems Research Division">
        <meta name="DC.language" content="en">

        <meta name="DC.date.created" content="2009-01-05">

        <meta name="DC.date.modified" content="2010-04-23">

        <meta name="DC.date.reviewed" content="2011-03-30">

        <meta name="DC.date.archivedate" content="0000-00-00">
        <meta http-equiv="Content-Style-Type" content="text/css">
        <link rel="schema.DC" href="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">
        <link type="application/rdf+xml" title="ICRA labels" rel="meta" href="http://www.epa.gov/labels.rdf">

        <link type="text/css" rel="stylesheet" href="./US EPA undated_files/epa-core.css">

Jump to main content
				 or
				area navigation.

            <form method="get" id="EPAsearch" action="http://nlquery.epa.gov/epasearch/epasearch">
                <fieldset>

                            <fieldset>
                                <legend>Where should we search?</legend>

                                            <input value="epa" type="radio" name="typeofsearch" id="epa_all">
								All EPA

                                            <input value="area" type="radio" name="typeofsearch" id="area_all" checked="checked">
								This Area

                                        Advanced Search

                            </fieldset>

                            <fieldset id="search">
                                <legend>What are you looking for?</legend>
                                <input value="" name="querytext" id="searchbox" autocomplete="off" class="ac_input">
						<button id="searchbutton" type="submit" title="Search">

						</button>
						</fieldset>

                    <input value="extrmurl" type="hidden" name="fld">
                    <input value="Ecosystems Research Division" type="hidden" name="areaname">
                    <input value="http://www.epa.gov/athens/comments/index.html" type="hidden" name="areacontacts">
                    <input value="" type="hidden" name="areasearchurl">
                    <input value="epafiles_default.xsl" type="hidden" name="result_template">
                    <input value="sample4filt.hts" type="hidden" name="filter">
                </fieldset>
            </form>

                    Learn the Issues

                    Science & Technology

                    Laws & Regulations

                    About EPA

                    Contact Us

Ecosystems Research Division

                            You are here:
                            EPA Home

                            Athens

                            Research

                            Process

Drinking Water

What is in Our Drinking Water?

Identification of New Chemical Disinfection By-products (DBPs)

                        What is a DBP? A drinking water disinfection by-product (DBP) is formed when the chemical used for disinfecting the drinking water reacts with natural organic matter and/or bromide/iodide in the source water.  Popular disinfectants include chlorine, ozone, chlorine dioxide, and chloramine.  Source waters include rivers, lakes, streams, groundwater, and sometimes seawater.  We have only known about DBPs since 1974, when chloroform was identified by Rook as a DBP resulting from the chlorination of tap water. Since then, hundreds of DBPs have been identified in drinking water.

                        So what?  Millions of people in the U.S. are exposed to these drinking water DBPs every day.  While it is vitally important to disinfect drinking water, as thousands of people died from waterborne illnesses before we started disinfection practices in the early 1900s, it is also important to minimize the chemical DBPs formed.  Several DBPs have been linked to cancer in laboratory animals, and as a result, the U.S. EPA has some of these DBPs regulated.  However, there are many more DBPs that have still not been identified and tested for toxicity or cancer effects.  Currently, we have only identified about 50% of the total organic halide (TOX) that is measured in chlorinated drinking water.  There is much less known about DBPs from the newer alternative disinfectants, such as ozone, chlorine dioxide, and chloramine, which are gaining in popularity in the U.S.  Are these alternative disinfectants safer than chlorine?  What kinds of by-products are formed?  And, what about the unidentified chlorine DBPs that people are exposed to through their drinking water--both from drinking and showering/bathing? The objective of our research is to find out what these DBPs are--to thoroughly characterize the chemicals formed in drinking water treatment--and to ultimately minimize any harmful ones that are formed.

Our research approach

Gas chromatography/mass spectrometry (GC/MS), liquid chromatography/mass spectrometry (LC/MS), and gas chromatography/infrared spectroscopy (GC/IR) techniques are used to identify the unknown by-products

NIST and Wiley mass spectral databases are used first to identify any DBPs that happen to be present in these databases

Because many DBPs are not in these databases, most of our work involves unconventional MS and IR techniques, as well as a great deal of scientific interpretation of the spectra

High resolution MS provides empirical formula information for the unknown chemical (e.g., how many carbons, hydrogens, oxygens, nitrogens, etc. are in the chemical’s structure)

Chemical ionization MS provides molecular weight information when this is not provided in conventional electron ionization mass spectra

IR spectroscopy provides functional group information (e.g., whether the oxygens are due to a carboxylic acid group, a ketone, an alcohol, or an aldehyde)

LC/MS is used to identify compounds that cannot be extracted from water (the highly polar, hydrophilic ones), as well as the high molecular weight, nonvolatile DBPs.  This is a major missing gap in our knowledge about DBPs--so far, most DBPs identified have been those that are easily extracted from water and are volatile enough to analyze by GC/MS

Novel derivatization techniques are also applied to aid in the identification of highly polar DBPs

Formation and fate & transport studies are conducted to better understand how certain priority DBPs are formed and transformed in treatment and distribution systems

Currently

We recently completed an iodo-DBP occurrence study (published in the Nov. 15, 2008 issue of Environmental Science & Technology; ES&T 2008, 42 (22), 8330-8338) that involved the measurement of iodo-acid DBPs and iodo-THMs in drinking waters from 23 cities across the U.S. and Canada, and the study of their genotoxicity and cytotoxicity.  We identified the iodo-acids for the first time as part of a large nationwide occurrence study of priority DBPs (mentioned below), and they are important because iodoacetic acid was found to be highly genotoxic (to mammalian cells), and it is more genotoxic than the regulated chloro/bromo-haloacetic acids (ES&T 2004, 38 (18): 4713-4722).  This study helped to underscore the increased formation of iodo-DBPs with chloramination, which is an increasingly popular disinfectant used in the U.S.

The first phase of the Four Lab Study was also published recently (see special issue of Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health, Part A, October 22, 2008 issue), where we combined chemical and toxicological characterization (with an emphasis on newer reproductive and developmental effects) of complex DBP mixtures.  This study is called the Four Lab Study because it involves the collaboration of scientists from the four national laboratories/centers of the U.S. EPA:  The National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory, the National Exposure Research Laboratory, the National Risk Management Research Laboratory, and the National Center for Environmental Assessment.  The Four Lab Study serves to address potential health concerns that cannot be addressed directly by the toxicological study of individual DBPs or defined DBP mixtures, and in essence, provides toxicological information for the complete drinking water mixture:  both the known DBPs, as well as the unidentified fraction of DBPs.  Drinking water treated with chlorine or ozone-chlorine was concentrated by reverse osmosis to maintain a water matrix suitable for the animal studies.  The next phase of this work is also nearing completion and included a larger battery of toxicological endpoints and focused on chlorinated drinking water.

Our earlier nationwide DBP occurrence study was published in ES&T in the Dec. 1, 2006 issue (ES&T, 2006, 40, 7175-7185), and can also be found in its full 400+ page report at EPA/600/R-02/068.  This large study involved the sampling of drinking waters across the U.S. (disinfected with the different disinfectants and with different water quality, including elevated levels of bromide in the source water).  A group of >50 DBPs that resulted from a prioritization of >500 DBPs in the literature for predicted adverse health effects was quantified in these drinking waters.  Fate and transport studies were also conducted in the drinking water distribution systems to determine whether these DBPs changed in concentration or were transformed in the distribution systems. In addition to obtaining important quantitative information on these new DBPs (to help in prioritizing health effects testing), important new discoveries were made regarding the use of alternative disinfectants.  While the use of alternative disinfectants lowered the levels of the four regulated trihalomethanes and five haloacetic acids (as compared to chlorine), many of the other prioritized DBPs were formed at higher levels with these alternative disinfectants.  For example, the highest levels of iodinated DBPs were found in chloraminated drinking water, the highest levels of halonitromethanes were found in pre-ozonated drinking water, and dihaloaldehydes were highest at a plant using chloramines and ozone.

Our new work includes investigating other potential sources of iodine in the formation of iodo-DBPs and investigating the influence of the length of free chlorine contact time (before ammonia addition to form chloramines) on their formation.  In other research, a toxicity-based identification approach (using mammalian cell and medaka fish assays) is being used to focus identification efforts on the most toxic drinking water fractions, with an emphasis on obtaining new information on high molecular weight DBPs (which are believed to make up approximately 50% of the halogenated DBPs produced).

Recent results

A recent iodo-DBP occurrence study (ES&T 2008, 42 (22), 8330-8338) has provided the first quantitative occurrence data for highly genotoxic iodo-acid DBPs and information on their formation (along with iodo-THMs) in chloraminated drinking water, along with the first toxicity data for iodo-THMs and iodo-acids (beyond the first work on iodoacetic acid)

The first phase of the Four Lab Study (Environ. Toxicol. Health, Pt. A, 2008, 71, 1125-1132 and following papers in this issue) reports results from an integrated chemical/toxicological research study to investigate the toxicological effects of complex DBP mixtures

A Nationwide DBP Occurrence Study (ES&T, 2006, 40, 7175-7185) provided important new quantitative information on unregulated DBPs that have the potential to cause adverse health effects based on a structure-activity analysis (Woo et al., 2002); several of these DBPs have concentrations similar to some that are already regulated

The use of alternative disinfectants can produce higher levels of these DBPs, as compared to chlorine

Collaborations are ongoing with health effects researchers to study selected DBPs for potential adverse health effects

Gordon Research Conference on DBPs

The second Gordon Research Conference on drinking water DBPs was held August 9-14, 2009, at Mount Holyoke College in South Hadley, Massachusetts.  Like the first one initiated in 2006 (where scientists from 22 countries came), this conference brought together scientists from different disciplines:  chemists, toxicologists, epidemiologists, engineers, clinicians, human exposure scientists, risk assessors, and regulators to address the issues with drinking water DBPs.  Ben Blount from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) was the Chair of the 2009 conference, and Manolis Kogevinas from Centre for Research in Environmental Epidemiology (CREAL) and the Municipal Institute of Medical Research (IMIM-Hospital del Mar) in Barcelona, Spain will be the next chair of the upcoming 2012 conference  Contact Susan Richardson (<a href="mailto:richardson.susan<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or Manolis Kogevinas<EMAIL_ADDRESS>for more information.

Useful publications

LaKind, J. S., S. D. Richardson, B. C. Blount. 2010.  The good, the bad, and the volatile – Can we have both healthy pools and healthy people?  Environ. Sci. Technol., in press.

Richardson, S. D. 2009. Water Analysis: Emerging Contaminants and Current Issues. Anal. Chem., 81(12): 4645-4677. (Invited biennial review article).

Weisel, C. P., S. D. Richardson, B. Nemery, G. Aggazzotti, E. Baraldi, E. R. Blatchley, III, B. C. Blount, K-H. Carlsen, P. A. Eggleston, F. H. Frimmel, M. Goodman, G. Gordon, S. A. Grinshpun, D. Heederik, M. Kogenvinas, J. S. LaKind, M. J. Nieuwenhuijsen, F. C. Piper, S. A. Sattar.  2009.  Childhood Asthma and Environmental Exposures at Swimming Pools:  State of the Science and Research Recommendations.  Environ. Health Perspect., 117 (4): 500-507.

Richardson, S. D. 2009.  Disinfection By-Products and Drinking Water Treatment. In Drinking Water – Sources, Sanitation and Safeguarding. Swedish Research Council for Environment, Agricultural Sciences and Spatial Planning: Stockholm Sweden. (Invited book chapter for World Water Week book).

Richardson, S. D., C. Rav-Acha, and G. D. Simpson.  2009.  Chlorine Dioxide Chemistry, Reactions, and Disinfection By-Products.  In State of the Science of Chlorine Dioxide in Drinking Water, Water Research Foundation and Fondazione AMGA: Denver, CO. (Invited book chapter).

Richardson, S. D., F. Fasano, J. J. Ellington, F. G. Crumley, K. M. Buettner, J. J. Evans, B. C. Blount, L. K. Silva, T. J. Waite, G. W. Luther, A. B. McKague, R. J. Miltner, E. D. Wagner, and M. J. Plewa.  2008.  Occurrence and Mammalian Cell Toxicity of Iodinated Disinfection Byproducts in Drinking Water.  Environ. Sci. Technol., 42 (22): 8330-8338.

Plewa, M. J., M. G. Muellner, S. D. Richardson, F. Fasano, K. M. Buettner, Y.-T. Woo, A. B. McKague, and E. D. Wagner.  2008.  Occurrence, Synthesis, and Genotoxicity of Haloacetamides:  An Emerging Class of Nitrogenous Drinking Water Disinfection Byproducts.  Environ. Sci. Technol., 42 (3), 955-961.

Richardson, S. D., A. D. Thruston, Jr., S. W. Krasner, H. S. Weinberg, R. J. Miltner, M. G. Narotsky, and J. E. Simmons.  2008.  Integrated Disinfection Byproducts Mixtures Research: Comprehensive Characterization of Water Concentrates Prepared from Chlorinated and Ozonated/Postchlorinated Drinking Water.  J. Toxicol. Environ. Health, Pt. A, 71: 1165-1186.

Simmons, J. E., S. D. Richardson, T. F. Speth, R. J. Miltner, G. Rice, K. M. Schenck, E. S. Hunter, III, and L. K. Teuschler.  2008.  Research Issues Underlying the Four-Lab Study:  Integrated Disinfection Byproducts Mixtures Research.  J. Toxicol. Environ. Health, Pt. A, 71: 1125-1132.

Miltner, R. J., T. F. Speth, S. D. Richardson, S. W. Krasner, H. S. Weinberg, and J. E. Simmons.  2008.  Integrated Disinfection Byproducts Mixtures Research:  Disinfection of Drinking Waters by Chlorination and Ozonation/Postchlorination Treatment Scenarios.  J. Toxicol. Environ. Health, Pt. A, 71: 1133-1148.

Speth, T. F., R. J. Miltner, S. D. Richardson, and J. E. Simmons.  2008.  Integrated Disinfection Byproducts Mixtures Research:  Concentration by Reverse Osmosis Membrane Techniques of Disinfection Byproducts from Water Disinfected by Chlorination and Ozonation/Postchlorination.  J. Toxicol. Environ. Health, Pt. A, 71: 1149-1164.

Rice, G., L. K. Teuschler, S. D. Richardson, T. F. Speth, and J. E. Simmons. 2008.   Integrated Disinfection Byproducts Mixtures Research:  Assessing Reproductive and Developmental Risks Posed by Complex Disinfection Byproduct Mixtures.  J. Toxicol. Environ. Health, Pt. A, 71: 1222-1234.

Richardson. S. D. 2008.  Environmental Mass Spectrometry:  Emerging Contaminants and Current Issues.  Anal. Chem., 80(12): 4373-4402.

Richardson, S. D., M. J. Plewa, E. D. Wagner, R. Schoeny, and D. M. DeMarini.  Occurrence, Genotoxicity, and Carcinogenicity of Emerging Disinfection By-Products in Drinking Water:  A Review and Roadmap for Research.  2007.  Mutat. Res., 636: 178-242.

Muellner, M. G., E. D. Wagner, K. McCalla, S. D. Richardson, Y.-T. Wood, and M. J. Plewa. 2007.  Haloacetonitriles vs. Regulated Haloacetic Acids:  Are Nitrogen Containing DBPs More Toxic?  Environ. Sci. Technol., 41 (2): 645-651.

Zwiener, C., S. D. Richardson, D. M. DeMarini, T. Grummt, T. Glauner, and F. H. Frimmel.  2007.  Drowining in Disinfection By-Products?  Swimming Pool Water Quality Reconsidered.  Environ. Sci. Technol., 41 (2): 363-372.

Plewa, M. J., M. G. Muellner, S. D. Richardson, F. Fasano, K. M. Buettner, Y.-T. Woo, A. B. McKague, and E. D. Wagner.  2007.  Occurrence, Synthesis, and Mammalian Cell Cytotoxicity and Genotoxicity of Haloacetamides:  An Emerging Class of Nitrogenous Drinking Water Disinfection By-Product. Environ. Sci. Technol., 42 (3): 955-961.

Richardson, S. D.  Water Analysis:  Emerging Contaminants and Current Issues.  2007.  Anal. Chem., 79(12): 4295-4324.

Krasner, S. W., H. S. Weinberg, S. D. Richardson, S. Pastor, R. Chinn, M. J. Sclimenti, G. Onstad, and A. D. Thruston, Jr.  2006.  The Occurrence of a New Generation of Disinfection Byproducts.  Environ. Sci. Technol., 40 (23): 7175-7185.

Richardson. S. D. Environmental Mass Spectrometry:  Emerging Contaminants and Current Issues.  2006.  Anal. Chem., 78 (12): 4021-4046.

Richardson, S. D., and  T. Ternes.  2005.  Water Analysis:  Emerging Contaminants and Current Issues.  Anal. Chem., 77(12): 3807-3838.

Cemeli, E., E. D. Wagner, D. Anderson, S. D. Richardson, and M. J. Plewa.  2006.  Modulation of the Cytotoxicity and Genotoxicity of the Drinking Water DBP Iodoacetic Acid by Suppressors of Oxidative Stress. Environ. Sci. Technol., 40 (6): 1878-1883.

Vincenti, M., S. Biazzi, N. Ghiglione, M. C. Valsania, and S. D. Richardson.  2005.  Comparison of Highly- Fluorinated Chloroformates as Direct Aqueous Sample Derivatizing Agents for Hydrophilic Analytes and Drinking Water Disinfection By-Products.  J. Am. Soc. Mass Spectrom., 16 (6): 803-813.

Plewa, M. J., E. D. Wagner, S. D. Richardson, A. D. Thruston, Jr., Y.-T. Woo, and A. B. McKague.  2004.  Chemical and Biological Characterization of Newly Discovered Iodoacid Drinking Water Disinfection Byproducts.  Environ. Sci. Technol., 38(18): 4713-4722.

Zwiener, C., and S. D. Richardson.  2005.  Drinking Water Disinfection By-Product Analysis by LC/MS and LC/MS/MS.  Trends Anal. Chem., 24(7): 613-621.  (Invited review article for special thematic issue on Liquid Chromatography-Tandem Mass Spectrometry).

Plewa, M. J., E. D. Wagner, P. Jazwierska, S. D. Richardson, P. H. Chen, and A. B. McKague.  2004.  Halonitromethane Drinking Water Disinfection Byproducts: Chemical Characterization and Mammalian Cell Cytotoxicity and Genotoxicity.  Environ. Sci. Technol., 38(1): 62-68.

Kundu, B., S. D. Richardson, P. D. Swartz, P. P. Matthews, A. M. Richard, and D. M. DeMarini.  2004.  Mutagenicity in Salmonella of Halonitrometanes: A Recently Recognized Class of Disinfection By-Product in Drinking Water.  Mutat. Res., 562: 39-65.

Kundu, B., S. D. Richardson, C. A. Granville, D. T. Shaughnessy, N. M. Hanley, P. D. Swartz, A. M. Richard, and D. M. DeMarini.  2004.  Comparative Mutagenicity of Halomethanes and Halonitromethanes in Salmonella TA100: Structure-Activity Analysis and Mutation Spectra.  Mutat. Res., 554: 335-350.

Richardson, S. D.  2004.  Environmental Mass Spectrometry:  Emerging Contaminants and Current Issues.  Anal. Chem., 76(12): 3337-3364.

Simmons, J. E., L. K. Teuschler, C. Gennings, T. F. Speth, S. D. Richardson, R. J. Miltner, M. G. Narotsky, K. D. Schenck, E. S. Hunter, III, R. C. Hertzberg, III, and G. Rice.  2004.  Component-Based and Whole-Mixture Techniques for Addressing the Toxicity of Drinking Water Disinfection Byproducts Mixtures.  J. Toxicol. Environ. Health, 67: 741-754.

Richardson, S.D., J. E. Simmons, and G. Rice.  2002.  DBPs: The Next Generation.  Environ. Sci. Technol., 36(9): 198A-205A.

Woo, Y.-T., D. Lai, J. L. McLain, M. K. Manibusan, and V. Dellarco.  2002.  Environ. Health Perspect., 110 (Suppl. 1): 75-87.

Richardson, S. D., A. D. Thruston, Jr., C. Rav-Acha, L. Groisman, I. Popilevsky, V. Glezer, A. B. McKague, M. J. Plewa, and E. D. Wagner.  2003.  Tribromopyrrole and Other DBPs Produced by the Disinfection of Drinking Water Rich in Bromide.  Environ. Sci. Technol., 37(17): 3782-3793.

Richardson, S. D.  2003.  Water Analysis:  Emerging Contaminants and Current Issues.  Anal. Chem., 75(12): 2831-2857.

Richardson, S. D.  2003.  Disinfection By-Products and Other Emerging Contaminants in Drinking Water.  Trends Anal. Chem., 22(10):666-684.

Weinberg, H. S., S. W. Krasner, S. D. Richardson, and A. D. Thruston, Jr.  The Occurrence of Disinfection By-Products (DBPs) of Health Concern in Drinking Water: Results of a Nationwide DBP Occurrence Study.  EPA/600/R02/068.  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Exposure Research Laboratory, Athens, GA.  2002.

Chen, P. H., S. D. Richardson, S. W. Krasner, G. Majetich, and G. L. Glish.  2002.  Hydrogen Abstraction and Decomposition of Tribromonitromethane and Other Trihalo Compounds by GC/MS.  Environ. Sci. Technol., 36(15): 3362-3371.

Simmons, J. E., S. D. Richardson, T. F. Speth, R. J. Miltner, G. Rice, K. M. Schenck, E. S. Hunter, III, and L. K. Teuschler.  2002.  Development of a Research Strategy for Integrated Technology-Based Toxicological and Chemical Evaluation of Complex Mixtures of Drinking Water Disinfection Byproducts.  Environ. Health Perspect., 110(Supp. 6): 1013-1024.

Arbuckle, T. E., S. E. Hrudey, S. W. Krasner, J. R. Nuckols, S. D. Richardson, P. Singer, P. Mendola, L. Dodds, C. Weisel, D. L. Ashley, K. L. Froese, R. A. Pegram, I. R. Schultz, J. Reif,  A. M. Bachand, F. M. Benoit, M. Lynberg, C. Poole, and K. Waller.  2002.  Assessing Exposure in Epidemiologic Studies to Disinfection By-products in Drinking Water: Report from an International Workshop.  Environ. Health Perspect., 110 (Supp. 1): 53-60.

Richardson, S. D., T. V. Caughran, T. Poiger, Y. Guo, and F. G. Crumley.  2000.  Application of DNPH Derivatization with LC/MS to the Identification of Polar Carbonyl Disinfection By-products in Drinking Water.  Ozone Sci. Engin., 22: 653-675.

Richardson, S. D., A. D. Thruston, Jr., T. V. Caughran, P. H. Chen, T. W. Collette, T. L. Floyd, K. M. Schenck, B. W. Lykins, Jr., G.-R. Sun, and G. Majetich.  1999.  Identification of New Ozone Disinfection By-products in Drinking Water.  Environ. Sci. Technol., 33: 3368-3377.

Richardson, S. D., A. D. Thruston, Jr., T. V. Caughran, P. H. Chen, T. W. Collette, T. L. Floyd, K. M. Schenck, B. W. Lykins, Jr., G.-R. Sun, and G. Majetich.  1999.  Identification of New Drinking Water Disinfection By-products Formed in the Presence of Bromide.  Environ. Sci. Technol., 33: 3378-3383.

Richardson, S. D., A. D. Thruston, Jr., T. V. Caughran, P. H. Chen, T. W. Collette, K. M.  Schenck, B. W. Lykins, Jr., C. Rav-Acha, and V. Glezer.  2000.  Identification of New Drinking Water Disinfection By-products from Ozone, Chlorine Dioxide, Chloramine, and Chlorine.  Water Air Soil Pollut., 123: 95-102.

*For more information, contact
                            Susan Richardson
                         at <a<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>

                        ERD Home | NERL Home | ORD Home

Area Navigation

                            ERD Home

                            About ERD

                            Visitor Information

                            Publications

                            Research Areas

                            Opportunities

                            Staff

                            Education

Share

Del.icio.us

Digg

Facebook

StumbleUpon

What is this?

                    News Feeds

                    Podcasts

                    EPA Mobile

                    News by Email

                    Widgets

                    Students

                    EPA Home

                    Privacy and Security Notice

                    Contact Us

WCMS

                Jump to main content.

Last updated on Monday, October 11, 2010

http://www.epa.gov/athens/research/process/drinkingwater.html


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 41 (Monday, March 2, 2020)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 12230-12232]
[FR Doc No: 2020-04180]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 25

[Docket No. FAA-2019-0841; Notice No. 25-20-02-SC]

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

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed special conditions.

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

SUMMARY: This action proposes special conditions for The Boeing Company
(Boeing) Model 787-10 series airplanes. These airplanes will have a
novel or unusual design feature when compared to the state of
technology envisioned in the airworthiness standards for transport
category airplanes. This design feature is single-occupant oblique
seats equipped with pretensioner restraint systems. The applicable
airworthiness regulations do not contain adequate or appropriate safety
standards for this design feature. These proposed special conditions
contain the additional safety standards that the Administrator
considers necessary to establish a level of safety equivalent to that
established by the existing airworthiness standards.

DATES: Send comments on or before April 16, 2020.

ADDRESSES: Send comments identified by Docket No. FAA-2019-0841 using
any of the following methods:
     Federal eRegulations Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov/ and follow the online instructions for sending
your comments electronically.
     Mail: Send comments to Docket Operations, M-30, U.S.
Department of Transportation (DOT), 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Room
W12-140, West Building Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: Take comments to Docket
Operations in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Fax: Fax comments to Docket Operations at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Privacy: The FAA will post all comments it receives, without
change, to http://www.regulations.gov/, including any personal
information the commenter provides. Using the search function of the
docket website, anyone can find and read the electronic form of all
comments received into any FAA docket, including the name of the
individual sending the comment (or signing the comment for an
association, business, labor union, etc.). DOT's complete Privacy Act
Statement can be found in the Federal Register published on April 11,
2000 (65 FR 19477-19478).
    Docket: Background documents or comments received may be read at
http://www.regulations.gov/ at any time. Follow the online instructions
for accessing the docket or go to Docket Operations in Room W12-140 of
the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.

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

Comments Invited

    The FAA invites interested people to take part in this rulemaking
by sending written comments, data, or views. The most helpful comments
reference a specific portion of the special conditions, explain the
reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data.
    The FAA will consider all comments received by the closing date for
comments. The FAA may change these special conditions based on the
comments received.

Background

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

Type Certification Basis

    Under the provisions of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14
CFR) 21.101, Boeing must show that the Model 787-10 series airplanes,
as changed, continue to meet the applicable provisions of the
regulations listed in Type Certificate No. T00021SE or the applicable
regulations in effect on the date of application for the change, except
for earlier amendments as agreed upon by the FAA.
    If the Administrator finds that the applicable airworthiness
regulations (e.g., 14 CFR part 25) do not contain adequate or
appropriate safety standards for Boeing Model 787-10 series airplanes
because of a novel or unusual design feature, special conditions are
prescribed under the provisions of Sec.  21.16.
    Special conditions are initially applicable to the model for which
they are issued. Should the type certificate for that model be amended
later to include any other model that incorporates the same novel or
unusual design feature, or should any other model already included on
the same type certificate be modified to incorporate the same novel or
unusual design feature, these special conditions would also apply to
the other model under Sec.  21.101.
    In addition to the applicable airworthiness regulations and special
conditions, Boeing Model 787-10 series airplanes must comply with the
fuel-vent and exhaust-emission requirements of 14 CFR part 34 and the
noise certification requirements of 14 CFR part 36.
    The FAA issues special conditions, as defined in 14 CFR 11.19, in
accordance with Sec.  11.38, and they become part of the type
certification basis under Sec.  21.101.

Novel or Unusual Design Features

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

Discussion

    Boeing will install, in Model 787-10 series airplanes, oblique
(side-facing) seats that incorporate seatbelts with a pretensioner
system at each seat place, to comply with the occupant injury criteria
of Sec.  25.562(c)(5).
    The FAA has been conducting and sponsoring research on appropriate
injury criteria for oblique seat installations. However, the FAA
research program is not complete, and the FAA may update these criteria
as further research results are collected. To reflect current research
findings, the FAA issued policy statement PS-ANM-25-03-R1, ``Technical
Criteria for Approving Side-Facing Seats,'' November 12, 2012, which
updates injury criteria for fully side-facing seats, and policy
statement PS-AIR-25-27,

``Technical Criteria for Approving Oblique Seats,'' July 11, 2018, to
define injury criteria for oblique seats. These policies provide
background and technical information as well as applicable injury
criteria.
    The installation of obliquely oriented passenger seats are novel
such that the current certification basis does not adequately address
occupant-protection expectations with regard to the occupant's neck and
spine for seat configurations that are positioned at an angle greater
than 18 degrees from airplane centerline.
    The installation of passenger seats at angles of 18 to 45 degrees
from the aircraft centerline are unusual due to the seat occupant
interface with the surrounding furniture, and which introduce occupant
alignment and loading concerns with or without the installation of 3-
point or airbag-restraint systems.
    FAA-sponsored research has found that an unrestrained flailing of
the upper torso, even when the pelvis and torso are nearly aligned, can
produce serious spinal and torso injuries. At lower impact severities,
even with significant misalignment between the torso and pelvis, these
injuries did not occur. Tests with the FAA Hybrid III anthropomorphic
test device (ATD) have identified a level of lumbar spinal tension
corresponding to the no-injury impact severity. This level of tension
is included as a limit in the special conditions. The spinal-tension
limit selected is conservative with respect to other aviation injury
criteria because it corresponds to a no-injury loading condition, but
the degree of conservatism is unknown because the precise spinal-
loading level at which injuries would begin to occur is unknown. The
small number of human-subject tests accomplished during this research
project limits the robustness of the selected tension limit.
    Other restraint systems have been used to comply with the occupant
injury criteria of Sec.  25.562(c)(5). For instance, shoulder harnesses
have been widely used on flight-attendant seats, flight-deck seats, in
business jets, and in general-aviation airplanes to reduce occupant
head injury in the event of an emergency landing. Special conditions,
pertinent regulations, and published guidance exist that relate to
other restraint systems. However, the use of pretensioners in the
restraint system on transport-airplane seats is a novel design.
    Pretensioner technology involves a step-change in loading
experienced by the occupant for impacts below and above that at which
the device deploys, because activation of the shoulder harness, at the
point at which the pretensioner engages, interrupts upper-torso
excursion. This could result in the head injury criteria (HIC) being
higher at an intermediate impact condition than that resulting from the
maximum impact condition corresponding to the test conditions specified
in Sec.  25.562. See condition 7 in these special conditions.
    The ideal triangular maximum-severity pulse is defined in Advisory
Circular (AC) 25.562-1B. For the evaluation and testing of less-severe
pulses for purposes of assessing the effectiveness of the pretensioner
setting, a similar triangular pulse should be used with acceleration,
rise time, and velocity change scaled accordingly. The magnitude of the
required pulse should not deviate below the ideal pulse by more than
0.5g until 1.33 t1 is reached, where t1
represents the time interval between 0 and t1 on the
referenced pulse shape as shown in AC 25.562-1B. This is an acceptable
method of compliance to the test requirements of the special
conditions.
    Additionally, the pretensioner might not provide protection, after
actuation, during secondary impacts. Therefore, the case where a small
impact is followed by a large impact should be addressed. If the
minimum deceleration severity at which the pretensioner is set to
deploy is unnecessarily low, the protection offered by the pretensioner
may be lost by the time a second larger impact occurs.
    The existing special conditions for Boeing Model 777-300ER series
airplane oblique seat installations do not address oblique seats with
3-point restraint systems equipped with pretensioners. Therefore, the
proposed configuration requires special conditions.
    Conditions 1 through 6 address occupant protection in consideration
of the oblique-facing seats. Conditions 7 through 10 address ensuring
that the pretensioner system activates when intended, to provide the
necessary protection of occupants. This includes protection of a range
of occupants under various accident conditions. Conditions 11 through
16 address maintenance and reliability of the pretensioner system,
including any outside influences on the mechanism, to ensure it
functions as intended.
    These proposed special conditions contain the additional safety
standards that the Administrator considers necessary to establish a
level of safety equivalent to that established by the existing
airworthiness standards.

Applicability

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

Conclusion

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 25

    Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.

Authority Citation

    The authority citation for these special conditions is as follows:

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

The Proposed Special Conditions

    Accordingly, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes the
following special conditions as part of the type certification basis
for Boeing Model 787-10 series airplanes.
    In addition to the requirements of Sec.  25.562, passenger seats
installed at an angle 18 degrees and 45 degrees from the aircraft
longitudinal centerline must meet the following:
    1. Body-to-Wall and Body-to-Furnishing Contact:
    If a seat is installed aft of structure, such as an interior wall
or furnishings, and which does not provide a homogenous contact surface
for the expected range of occupants and yaw angles, then additional
analysis and tests may be required to demonstrate that the injury
criteria are met for the area which an occupant could contact. For
example if, in addition to a pretensioner restraint system, an airbag
device is present, different yaw angles could result in different
airbag-device performance, then additional analysis or separate tests
may be necessary to evaluate performance.
    2. Neck Injury Criteria:
    a. The seating system must protect the occupant from experiencing
serious neck injury. In addition to a pretensioner restraint system, if
an airbag device also is present, the assessment of neck injury must be
conducted with the airbag device activated, unless there is reason to
also consider that the neck injury potential would be higher for
impacts below the airbag-device deployment threshold.

    b. The Nij (calculated in accordance with 49 CFR
571.208) must be below 1.0, where Nij = Fz/
Fzc + My/Myc, and Nij
critical values are:

Fzc = 1,530 lbs for tension
Fzc = 1,385 lbs for compression
Myc = 229 lb-ft in flexion
Myc = 100 lb-ft in extension

    c. Peak Fz must be below 937 lbs in tension and 899 lbs
in compression.
    d. Rotation of the head about its vertical axis relative to the
torso is limited to 105 degrees in either direction from forward
facing.
    e. The neck must not impact any surface that would produce
concentrated loading on the neck.
    3. Spine and Torso Injury Criteria:
    a. The lumbar spine tension (Fz) cannot exceed 1,200
lbs.
    b. Significant concentrated loading on the occupant's spine, in the
area between the pelvis and shoulders during impact, including rebound,
is not acceptable. During this type of contact, the interval for any
rearward (X direction) acceleration exceeding 20g must be less than 3
milliseconds as measured by the thoracic instrumentation specified in
49 CFR part 572, subpart E, filtered in accordance with SAE recommended
practice J211/1, ``Instrumentation for Impact Test-Part 1-Electronic
Instrumentation.''
    c. The occupant must not interact with the armrest or other seat
components in any manner significantly different than would be expected
for a forward-facing seat installation.
    4. Pelvis Criteria:
    Any part of the load-bearing portion of the bottom of the ATD
pelvis must not translate beyond the edges of the seat bottom seat-
cushion supporting structure.
    5. Femur Criteria:
    Axial rotation of the upper leg (about the Z-axis of the femur per
SAE Recommended Practice J211/1) must be limited to 35 degrees from the
nominal seated position. Evaluation during rebound does not need to be
considered.
    6. ATD and Test Conditions:
    Longitudinal tests conducted to measure the injury criteria above
must be performed with the FAA Hybrid III ATD, as described in SAE
1999-01-1609. The tests must be conducted with an undeformed floor, at
the most-critical yaw cases for injury, and with all lateral structural
supports (e.g., armrests or walls) installed.

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

    7. Head Injury Criteria (HIC):
    The HIC value must not exceed 1000 at any condition at which the
pretensioner does or does not deploy, up to the maximum severity pulse
that corresponds to the test conditions specified in Sec.  25.562.
Tests must be performed to demonstrate this, taking into account any
necessary tolerances for deployment.
    8. Protection During Secondary Impacts:
    The pretensioner activation setting must be demonstrated to
maximize the probability of the protection being available when needed,
considering secondary impacts.
    9. Protection of Occupants Other than 50th Percentile:
    Protection of occupants for a range of stature from a 2-year-old
child to a 95th percentile male must be shown. For shoulder harnesses
that include pretensioners, protection of occupants other than a 50th
percentile male may be shown by test or analysis. In addition, the
pretensioner must not introduce a hazard to passengers due to the
following seating configurations:
    a. The seat occupant is holding an infant.
    b. The seat occupant is a child in a child-restraint device.
    c. The seat occupant is a pregnant woman.
    10. Occupants Adopting the Brace Position:
    Occupants in the traditional brace position when the pretensioner
activates must not experience adverse effects from the pretensioner
activation.
    11. Inadvertent Pretensioner Actuation:
    a. The probability of inadvertent pretensioner actuation must be
shown to be extremely remote (i.e., average probability per flight hour
of less than 10-\7\).
    b. The system must be shown not susceptible to inadvertent
pretensioner actuation as a result of wear and tear, or inertia loads
resulting from in-flight or ground maneuvers likely to be experienced
in service.
    c. The seated occupant must not be seriously injured as a result of
inadvertent pretensioner actuation.
    d. Inadvertent pretensioner activation must not cause a hazard to
the airplane, nor cause serious injury to anyone who may be positioned
close to the retractor or belt (e.g., seated in an adjacent seat or
standing adjacent to the seat).
    12. Availability of the Pretensioner Function Prior to Flight:
    The design must provide means for a crewmember to verify the
availability of the pretensioner function prior to each flight, or the
probability of failure of the pretensioner function must be
demonstrated to be extremely remote (i.e., average probability per
flight hour of less than 10-\7\) between inspection
intervals.
    13. Incorrect Seat Belt Orientation:
    The system design must ensure that any incorrect orientation
(twisting) of the seat belt does not compromise the pretensioner
protection function.
    14. Contamination Protection:
    The pretensioner mechanisms and controls must be protected from
external contamination associated with that which could occur on or
around passenger seating.
    15. Prevention of Hazards:
    The pretensioner system must not induce a hazard to passengers in
case of fire, nor create a fire hazard, if activated.
    16. Functionality After Loss of Power:
    The system must function properly after loss of normal airplane
electrical power, and after a transverse separation in the fuselage at
the most critical location. A separation at the location of the system
does not have to be considered.

    Issued in Des Moines, Washington, on February 25, 2020.
James E. Wilborn,
Acting Manager, Transport Standards Branch, Policy and Innovation
Division, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2020-04180 Filed 2-28-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P