[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 65 (Tuesday, April 5, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 18664-18669]
[FR Doc No: 2011-8066]

========================================================================
Proposed Rules
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of
the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these
notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in
the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.

========================================================================

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 65 / Tuesday, April 5, 2011 /
Proposed Rules

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2009-1221; Directorate Identifier 2008-NM-097-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Model 767 Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

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

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

SUMMARY: We are revising an earlier proposed airworthiness directive
(AD) for the products listed above. That NPRM proposed to require
installing new panel assemblies in the main equipment center or on the
forward cargo compartment sidewall and removing certain relays from
some panels in the main equipment center. That NPRM also proposed to
require revising the maintenance program to incorporate Airworthiness
Limitations (AWLs) No. 28-AWL-27 and No. 28-AWL-28. That NPRM was
prompted by fuel system reviews conducted by the manufacturer. For
certain airplanes, this action revises that NPRM by proposing to
require prior or concurrent installation of a second fuel crossfeed
valve. This action also revises that NPRM by proposing an alternative
location for the installation of the new panel assemblies for airplanes
that have the optional water system drain plumbing and changing the
interconnecting wiring between the P141 panel and the P36 and P37
panels. For airplanes with a deactivated center fuel tank, this action
revises that NPRM by proposing an alternative functional test for the
left and right override/jettison pumps. We are proposing this
supplemental NPRM to prevent possible sources of ignition in a fuel
tank caused by electrical fault or uncommanded dry operation of the
main tank boost pumps and center auxiliary tank override and jettison
pumps. An ignition source in the fuel tank could result in a fire or an
explosion and consequent loss of the airplane. Since these actions
impose an additional burden over that proposed in the NPRM, we are
reopening the comment period to allow the public the chance to comment
on these proposed changes.

DATES: We must receive comments on this supplemental NPRM by May 2,
2011.

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 Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention:
Data & Services Management, P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle,
Washington 98124-2207; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, extension 1; fax 206-
766-5680; e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You may review copies of the referenced service
information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind
Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington. For information on the availability of
this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Examining the AD Docket

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elias Natsiopoulos, Aerospace
Engineer, Systems and Equipment Branch, ANM-130S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft
Certification Office, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-
3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address
listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2009-1221;
Directorate Identifier 2008-NM-097-AD'' at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposed AD because of those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this proposed AD.

Discussion

    We issued an NPRM to amend 14 CFR part 39 to include an
airworthiness directive (AD) that would apply to The Boeing Company
Model 767-200, -300, -300F, and -400ER series airplanes. That NPRM
published in the Federal Register on December 29, 2009 (74 FR 68743).
That NPRM proposed to require installing new panel assemblies in the
main equipment center or on the forward cargo compartment sidewall and
removing certain relays from some panels in the main equipment center.
That NPRM also proposed to require revising the maintenance program to
incorporate Airworthiness Limitations (AWLs) No. 28-AWL-27 and No. 28-
AWL-28.

Actions Since Original NPRM Was Issued

    Since we issued the original NPRM, the manufacturer has notified us
that certain airplanes affected by the original NPRM have the optional
water system drain plumbing. This optional system was not addressed in
Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-28A0085, dated

January 10, 2008; or Boeing Service Bulletin 767-28A0085, Revision 1,
dated June 25, 2009; which we referred to as appropriate sources of
service information for accomplishing the proposed actions. Several
operators attempted to accomplish the actions and encountered equipment
installation interference. Specifically, the installation of the new
P141 panel at the location specified in either revision of the service
bulletin interferes with the optional water system drain plumbing.
    We have revised the supplemental NPRM to refer to Boeing Service
Bulletin 767-28A0085, Revision 2, dated August 19, 2010.
    Boeing Service Bulletin 767-28A0085, Revision 2, dated August 19,
2010, specifies the following changes:
     For airplanes equipped with the optional water system
drain plumbing: An alternate location is specified for the installation
of the P141 panel. The interconnecting wiring between the P141 panel
and the P36 and P37 panels is also changed due to the relocation of the
P141 panel.
     For airplanes with a deactivated center fuel tank
(alternately referred to as the center auxiliary fuel tank): An
alternative functional test is added for the left and right override/
jettison pumps.
     For airplanes having line positions 1 through 430:
Installation of a second fuel crossfeed valve is added as a prior or
concurrent action. This installation is specified to be done in
accordance with Boeing Service Bulletin 767-28-0034, Revision 3, dated
March 14, 1996.
     Additional error corrections and clarifications, including
clarifications of wiring configurations and routing, and increased
work-hours for airplanes with the optional water system drain plumbing.

Explanations of Additional Changes to the Original NPRM

    We have added a new paragraph (d) to this supplemental NPRM to
provide the Air Transport Association (ATA) of America subject code 28,
Fuel. This code is added to make this supplemental NPRM parallel with
other new AD actions. We have reidentified subsequent paragraphs
accordingly.
    We have included the cost of the prior/concurrent installation of
the second crossfeed valve.
    We have also removed Table 1 and fully cited the service
information that was specified in the table. We reidentified the
subsequent table.
    As noted above, we have added certain paragraphs to the
supplemental NPRM and, since we issued the original NPRM, the format
has been revised, and certain other paragraphs have been rearranged. As
a result, the corresponding paragraph identifiers have changed from the
original NPRM in this supplemental NPRM, as listed in the table titled
``Revised Paragraph Identifiers.'' In the disposition of comments we
will refer to the relevant paragraph of the original NPRM or the
supplemental NPRM, depending on context.

                      Revised Paragraph Identifiers
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         Corresponding or new paragraph
    Paragraph in the original NPRM          in the supplemental NPRM
------------------------------------------------------------------------
none..................................  paragraph (d)--new ATA code.
paragraph (d).........................  paragraph (e).
paragraph (e).........................  paragraph (f).
paragraph (f).........................  paragraph (g).
none..................................  paragraph (h)--exception.
paragraph (g).........................  paragraph (i).
none..................................  paragraph (j)--new concurrent
                                         requirement.
paragraph (h).........................  paragraph (k).
paragraph (i).........................  paragraph (l).
paragraph (j).........................  paragraph (m).
none..................................  paragraph (n)--new paragraph for
                                         credit for actions accomplished
                                         in accordance with previous
                                         service information.
paragraph (k).........................  paragraph (o).
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to comment on the original NPRM.
The following presents the comments received on the NPRM and the FAA's
response to each comment.

Request To Add Service Information to Table 1 of the Original NPRM

    Japan Airlines (JAL) requested that we revise Table 1 in paragraph
(g) of the original NPRM to include the original versions of two
service bulletins as sources of service information. JAL pointed out
that these two service bulletins are referred to in AD 2009-16-06,
amendment 39-15989, which is the subject of paragraph (g) of the
original NPRM.
    We agree with JAL's request. We have included a new Table 2 in this
supplemental NPRM to include Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-28A0083,
dated May 3, 2006; and Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-28A0084, dated
May 3, 2006. Both of these service bulletins are acceptable for
compliance with the requirements of AD 2009-16-06. Although Boeing
Service Bulletin 767-28A0083, dated May 3, 2006, is identified in
Paragraph 1.B., ``Concurrent Requirements,'' of Boeing Service Bulletin
767-28A0085, Revision 2, dated August 19, 2010, Boeing Alert Service
Bulletin 767-28A0084, dated May 3, 2006, is not listed in Paragraph
1.B. of Boeing Service Bulletin 767-28A0085, Revision 2, dated August
19, 2010. We have coordinated this difference with Boeing.

Requests To Refer to R1 of AD 2008-11-01

    JAL, Continental Airlines (CAL), United Airlines (UAL), and UPS
pointed out that although paragraph (i) of the original NPRM proposed
the option of incorporating paragraph (g)(2) of AD 2008-11-01,
amendment 39-15523 (73 FR 29414, May 21, 2008), that AD has since been
revised to AD 2008-11-01 R1, amendment 39-16145 (74 FR 68515, December
28, 2009).
    We agree with the requests to refer to AD 2008-11-01 R1, amendment
39-16145. We issued the revision to AD 2008-11-01 to clarify the AD's
intended effect on spares and on-airplane fuel tank system components,
regarding the use of maintenance manuals and instructions for continued
airworthiness. The actions required by AD 2008-11-01 R1 are consistent
with paragraph (j) of the original NPRM, which states that ``after
accomplishing the actions specified in paragraph (i) of this AD, no
alternative inspections or inspection intervals may be used.'' We have
changed paragraph (l) of this supplemental NPRM to refer to AD 2008-11-
01, amendment 39-15523, and AD 2008-11-01 R1, amendment 39-16145.

Requests for Clarification of Date of Maintenance Planning Data (MPD)
Document

    Several commenters requested clarification of the intent of the
``Revision March 2009'' date of Boeing 767 Maintenance Planning Data
(MPD) Document, Section 9, D622T001-9, Revision March 2009, referred to
in the original NPRM.
     JAL stated that the revision should be Revision April 2009
or Revision August 2009 because it does not appear that Revision March
2009 was issued.
     CAL believed that the date should be Revision May 2009.
     UAL asked if the intent of the proposed rule is to
override the requirements of AD 2008-11-01 R1 in that only Revision May
2009 may be used for compliance. UAL stated that it believed that
operators should be allowed to use either Revision April 2008 or
Revision May 2009, and that paragraph (h) of the original NPRM should
be revised accordingly.
     UPS pointed out that as an optional action in AD 2008-11-
01 R1, AWLs No.

28-AWL-27 and No. 28-AWL-28 may be incorporated into the maintenance
program as identified in Revision April 2008 or Revision May 2009 of
the MPD. UPS was unclear as to whether the original NPRM would
supersede the previous option by requiring that only Revision March
2009 be used. UPS further stated that AD 2008-11-01 R1 notes that the
changes in Revision May 2009 are for clarification only and that either
Revision April 2008 or Revision May 2009 are acceptable for use.
    We agree that the date of the MPD document needs to be clarified.
AWLs No. 28-AWL-27 and No. 28-AWL-28 were added to Boeing 767
Maintenance Planning Data (MPD) Document, Section 9, D622T001-9, in
Revision October 2007. None of the revisions of this MPD document since
that time have changed the text of AWLs No. 28-AWL-27 and No. 28-AWL-
28. Therefore, either of the revisions mentioned in AD 2008-11-01 R1,
Revision April 2008 or Revision May 2009, may be used to update the
maintenance program to incorporate AWLs No. 28-AWL-27 and No. 28-AWL-
28. We have revised paragraph (k) of this supplemental NPRM to specify
that Revision April 2008, Revision March 2009, or Revision May 2009,
may be used.

Request To Extend Compliance Time

    CAL had no technical objection to the original NPRM, but pointed
out that although the compliance time for accomplishing the actions
proposed in the original NPRM is 60 months, the concurrent requirements
from AD 2009-16-06, which is specified as terminating action for
paragraph (g) of the original NPRM, have a compliance time of 36
months. CAL stated that doing the actions in AD 2009-16-06 requires
extensive airplane modifications and material allocations that can only
be accomplished during a heavy check or special maintenance hold.
Therefore, CAL requested that we consider a minor extension to the
compliance time in AD 2009-16-06.
    We disagree with approving an extension to the compliance time for
AD 2009-16-06 through this supplemental NPRM. However, we will consider
requests for an adjustment to the compliance time under the provisions
of paragraph (o) of AD 2009-16-06 if data are submitted to substantiate
that such an adjustment would provide an acceptable level of safety. We
have not changed the supplemental NPRM in this regard.

Request To Remove Paragraph (g) of the Original NPRM

    Boeing requested that we consider removing paragraph (g) from the
original NPRM. Paragraph (g) of the original NPRM is the concurrent
installation of an automatic shutoff system for the auxiliary fuel tank
pump. Boeing explained that the safety conditions and fixes associated
with references to Boeing Service Bulletin 767-28A0083, Revision 2,
dated February 12, 2009; or Boeing Service Bulletin 767-28A0084,
Revision 1, dated April 26, 2007; are already mandated by AD 2009-16-
06, and by the instructions in paragraph (f) of the original NPRM with
implementation of Boeing Service Bulletin 767-28A0085, Revision 2,
dated August 19, 2010. Boeing stated that future changes to paragraph
(g) of the original NPRM would require alternative methods of
compliance (AMOCs) and create added paperwork for Boeing, the airlines,
and the FAA.
    We disagree with the request to remove paragraph (g) of the
original NPRM. Accomplishing the actions proposed in the original NPRM
for the center fuel tank pump system depend on the configuration of the
center fuel tank pump system of the affected airplanes as modified by
the accomplishment of the actions specified in the service information
identified in paragraph (g) of the original NPRM. Therefore, airplanes
in the effectivity of the service bulletins identified in Table 1 of
this supplemental NPRM must have the actions done prior to or
concurrently with the actions proposed in paragraph (g) of this
supplemental NPRM. If we remove paragraph (i) of this supplemental
NPRM, there is no assurance that the center fuel tank pump system for
the affected airplanes would be in the correct configuration during the
accomplishment of the actions proposed in paragraph (g) of this
supplemental NPRM.
    Should the service information specified in paragraph (i) of this
supplemental NPRM change in a way that affects the ground fault
interrupt (GFI) relays and uncommanded-on protective feature, under the
provisions of paragraph (o) of this supplemental NPRM, we will consider
requests for approval of an AMOC if sufficient data are submitted to
substantiate that the design change would provide an acceptable level
of safety. We have not changed this supplemental NPRM in this regard.

Request To Remove Paragraphs (h), (i), and (j) of the Original NPRM

    All Nippon Airways (ANA) requested that we remove the proposed
requirements of paragraphs (h), (i), and (j) of the original NPRM,
which specify incorporating AWLs No. 28-AWL-27 and No. 28-AWL-28 into
the maintenance program. ANA stated that these AWLs have already been
introduced in the airline maintenance program as required by AD 2008-
11-01 R1.
    We disagree with the request to remove paragraphs (k), (l), and (m)
of the supplemental NPRM (paragraphs (h), (i), and (j) of the original
NPRM). Incorporating AWLs No. 28-AWL-27 and No. 28-AWL-28 into the
maintenance program in accordance with AD 2008-11-01 R1 is an option,
not a requirement. Operators may or may not decide to exercise this
option. The actions proposed in paragraph (k) of this supplemental NPRM
remain applicable. However, paragraph (l) of this supplemental NPRM
gives credit to operators of the affected airplanes that chose the
optional action; doing the optional action terminates the actions
proposed in paragraph (k) of this supplemental NPRM. We have not
changed this supplemental NPRM in this regard.

Request To Define Unsafe Condition and Corrective Actions Clearly

    TDG Aerospace (TDG) requested that we revise the text of the
original NPRM to reflect the construction of a typical NPRM. TDG stated
that in that construction, the FAA typically discusses the unsafe
condition, describes the desired corrective action, and then refers to
the manufacturer's service information for approved instructions for
doing the corrective action. TDG pointed out that the intent of the
original NPRM is effectively masked by focusing on the ``Installation
of Panel Assemblies and Removal of Relays.'' TDG said this suggests
that the FAA intends to mandate ``Installation of Panel Assemblies and
Removal of Relays'' as a desired corrective action for the unsafe
condition identified in paragraph (d) of the original NPRM. TDG argued
that the corrective action is the installation of an uncommanded-on
protection system and installation of GFI relays. TDG stated that
installing new panels and removing relays is simply one method of
achieving the corrective action. TDG further stated that the language
of the rule is important with respect to the application for AMOCs and
said it would be more straightforward for

AMOC applicants to show an equivalent level of safety to installing
uncommanded-on protection and GFI relays as opposed to showing an
equivalent level of safety to installation of panel assemblies and
removal of relays.
    We partially agree with TDG's request for clarification. We
disagree that the order of the supplemental NPRM should be revised. The
unsafe condition and the intent of the proposed rule are described in
the Summary and Discussion sections and paragraph (d) of the original
NPRM. The heading ``Installation of Panel Assemblies and Removal of
Relays'' is a descriptive title only and not the enforceable language
of paragraph (f) of the original NPRM. However, we agree that some
clarification of the P140 and P141 assemblies is necessary. These panel
assemblies are preassembled modules that contain the GFI relays and the
center fuel tank override/jettison pumps un-commanded ON protective
features. We have included in the Summary and Discussion sections of
the supplemental NPRM the words ``* * * main equipment center or on the
forward cargo compartment sidewall and removing certain relays from
some panels in the main equipment center.'' We have also revised the
wording in paragraph (g) of this supplemental NPRM to reflect a similar
wording.

Request for Clarification of Prior or Concurrent Actions for Airplanes
With Deactivated Center Fuel Tank

    TDG pointed out that paragraph (j) of AD 2009-16-06 provides for
optional terminating action for paragraphs (f), (h), and (i) of that AD
via deactivation of the center fuel tank. TDG expressed concern that
operators that deactivate the center tank will not be able to do the
modifications proposed in the original NPRM without prior or concurrent
installation of the automatic shutoff system in accordance with the
actions in proposed paragraph (g) of the original NPRM. TDG stated that
requiring operators to install an automatic shutoff system on an
airplane with a deactivated center tank effectively eliminates the
center tank deactivation as an optional terminating action for AD 2009-
16-06.
    We infer from TDG's comments that it sees a conflict between the
original NPRM and AD 2009-16-06, amendment 39-15989, that would
invalidate certain provisions of that AD. We disagree. We note that
paragraph (g) of the original NPRM proposed to require changes to all
affected airplanes, whether the airplanes have an active center fuel
tank (with changes made per paragraphs (f), (h), and (i) of AD 2009-16-
06), or a deactivated center fuel tank (as allowed by paragraph (j) of
AD 2009-16-06). Changes made per Boeing Service Bulletin 767-28A0085,
Revision 2, dated August 19, 2010, can be made on airplanes in either
configuration, and this service bulletin includes instructions for
testing of an airplane with a deactivated center fuel tank (reference
Step 3.B.29.e. of the Accomplishment Instructions of this service
bulletin). If a deactivated center fuel tank is later reactivated, the
requirements in paragraph (i) of AD 2009-16-06 must be done. We have
not changed the supplemental NPRM in this regard.

FAA's Determination

    We are proposing this supplemental NPRM because we evaluated all
the relevant information and determined the unsafe condition described
previously is likely to exist or develop in other products of the same
type design. Certain changes described above expand the scope of the
original NPRM. As a result, we have determined that it is necessary to
reopen the comment period to provide additional opportunity for the
public to comment on this supplemental NPRM.

Proposed Requirements of the Supplemental NPRM

    This supplemental NPRM would require accomplishing the actions
specified in the service information described previously.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD will affect 416 airplanes of U.S.
registry.
    We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost on  U.S.
             Action                   Labor cost          Parts cost       Cost per product        operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Installation of GFI equipment     Between 216 and     Between $52,285     Between $70,645     Up to $31,964,608.
 and wiring.                       279 work-hours x    and $53,123.        and $76,838.
                                   $85 per hour =
                                   between $18,360
                                   and $23,715.
Installation of second crossfeed  Between 274 and     Between $30,838     Between $54,128     Between
 valve (prior/concurrent action).  302 work-hours x    and $66,903.        and $92,573.        $22,517,248 and
                                   $85 per hour =                                              $38,510,368.
                                   between $23,290
                                   and $25,670.
Installing automatic shutoff      Between 3 and 29    Between $421 and    Between $676 and    Between $281,216
 system (prior/concurrent          work-hours x $85    $9,374.             $11,835.            and $4,925,024.
 action; required by AD 2009-16-   per hour =
 06).                              between $255 and
                                   $2,465.
Revising the maintenance program  1.................  None..............  $85...............  $35,360.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not
have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship
between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed
regulation:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866,
    (2) Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
    (3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
    (4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Proposed Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

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

The Boeing Company: Docket No. FAA-2009-1221; Directorate Identifier
2008-NM-097-AD.

Comments Due Date

    (a) We must receive comments by May 2, 2011.

Affected ADs

    (b) None.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to The Boeing Company Model 767-200, -300, -
300F, and -400ER series airplanes, certificated in any category; as
identified in Boeing Service Bulletin 767-28A0085, Revision 2, dated
August 19, 2010.

    Note 1:  This AD requires revisions to certain operator
maintenance documents to include new inspections. Compliance with
these inspections is required by 14 CFR 91.403(c). For airplanes
that have been previously modified, altered, or repaired in the
areas addressed by these inspections, the operator may not be able
to accomplish the inspections described in the revisions. In this
situation, to comply with 14 CFR 91.403(c), the operator must
request approval for an alternative method of compliance (AMOC)
according to paragraph (o) of this AD. The request should include a
description of changes to the required inspections that will ensure
the continued operational safety of the airplane.

Subject

    (d) Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC)/Air Transport
Association (ATA) of America Code 28, Fuel.

Unsafe Condition

    (e) This AD results from fuel system reviews conducted by the
manufacturer. We are issuing this AD to prevent possible sources of
ignition in a fuel tank caused by electrical fault or uncommanded
dry operation of the main tank boost pumps and center auxiliary tank
override and jettison pumps. An ignition source in the fuel tank
could result in a fire or an explosion, and consequent loss of the
airplane.

Compliance

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

Installation of Panel Assemblies and Removal of Relays

    (g) Within 60 months after the effective date of this AD,
install ground fault interrupt relays (P140 and P141 panel
assemblies) and all applicable parts and components in the main
equipment center or in the forward cargo compartment sidewall, as
applicable, and remove the fuel boost pump control relays from the
P33, P36, and P37 panels, in accordance with the Accomplishment
Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 767-28A0085, Revision 2,
dated August 19, 2010, except as required by paragraph (h) of this
AD.

Exception to Service Bulletin

    (h) Although paragraph 3.B.29.e. of the Accomplishment
Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 767-28A0085, Revision 2,
dated August 19, 2010, specifies an alternative functional test of
the left and right center override pumps as an option, this AD
requires that test for airplanes on which the center tank is
deactivated.

Prior/Concurrent Installations

    (i) For airplanes identified in paragraph 1.A.1. of Boeing
Service Bulletin 767-28A0083, Revision 2, dated February 12, 2009;
or Boeing Service Bulletin 767-28A0084, Revision 1, dated April 26,
2007: Prior or concurrently with accomplishing the action required
by paragraph (g) of this AD, install an automatic shutoff system for
the auxiliary fuel tank pump, in accordance with the Accomplishment
Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 767-28A0083, Revision 2,
dated February 12, 2009; or Boeing Service Bulletin 767-28A0084,
Revision 1, dated April 26, 2007; as applicable. Accomplishing the
requirements of AD 2009-16-06, amendment 39-15989, terminates the
requirements of this paragraph.
    (j) For airplanes having line positions 1 through 430: Prior or
concurrently with accomplishing the action required by paragraph (g)
of this AD, install a second fuel crossfeed valve, in accordance
with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 767-
28-0034, Revision 3, dated March 14, 1996.

Maintenance Program Revision

    (k) Concurrently with accomplishing the actions required by
paragraph (g) of this AD, or within 30 days after the effective date
of this AD, whichever occurs later: Revise the maintenance program
by incorporating Airworthiness Limitations (AWLs) No. 28-AWL-27 and
No. 28-AWL-28 of Section 9 (``AIRWORTHINESS LIMITATIONS (AWLs) AND
CERTIFICATION MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS (CMRs)'') of the Boeing 767
Maintenance Planning Data (MPD) Document, D622T001-9, Revision April
2008; Revision March 2009; or Revision May 2009. The initial
compliance time for the actions specified in AWLs No. 28-AWL-27 and
No. 28-AWL-28 is within 1 year after accomplishing the installation
required by paragraph (g) of this AD, or within 1 year after the
effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later.

Terminating Action for AWLs Revision

    (l) Incorporating AWLs No. 28-AWL-27 and No. 28-AWL-28 into the
maintenance program in accordance with paragraph (g)(2) of AD 2008-
11-01, amendment 39-15523, or paragraph (g)(2) of 2008-11-01 R1,
amendment 39-16145, terminates the action required by paragraph (k)
of this AD.

No Alternative Inspections or Inspection Intervals

    (m) After accomplishing the actions specified in paragraph (k)
of this AD, no alterative inspections or inspection intervals may be
used unless the inspections or intervals are approved as an
alternative method of compliance (AMOC) in accordance with the
procedures specified in paragraph (o) of this AD.

Credit for Actions Accomplished in Accordance With Previous Service
Information

    (n) Actions done before the effective date of this AD in
accordance with the service information identified in Table 1 of
this AD are acceptable for compliance with the corresponding
requirements of this AD.

                                       Table 1--Credit Service Information
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Boeing Service Bulletin                        Revision                              Date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-       Original...........................  January 10, 2008.
 28A0085.
Boeing Service Bulletin 767-28A0085....  1..................................  June 25, 2009.
Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-       Original...........................  May 3, 2006.
 28A0083.
Boeing Service Bulletin 767-28A0083....  1..................................  April 26, 2007.
Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-       Original...........................  May 3, 2006.
 28A0084.
Boeing Service Bulletin 767-28-0034....  2..................................  May 4, 1995.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (o)(1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO),
FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested
using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14
CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local
Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending
information directly to the manager of the ACO, send it to the
attention of the person identified in the Related Information
section of this AD. Information may be e-mailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate
principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager
of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding
district office.

Related Information

    (p) For more information about this AD, contact Elias
Natsiopoulos, Aerospace Engineer, Systems and Equipment Branch, ANM-
130S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, 1601 Lind Avenue,
SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax
(425) 917-6590; e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (q) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management,
P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, Washington 98124-2207; telephone
206-544-5000, extension 1; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You
may review copies of the referenced service information at the FAA,
Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,
Washington. For information on the availability of this material at
the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on March 24, 2011.
Ali Bahrami,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2011-8066 Filed 4-4-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 9 (Thursday, January 13, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 2148-2149]
[FR Doc No: 2022-00569]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP21-134-000]

Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company, LLC; Notice of
Availability of the Environmental Assessment for the Proposed Happytown
Abandonment Project

    The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or
Commission) has prepared an environmental assessment (EA) for the
Happytown Abandonment Project, proposed by Transcontinental Gas Pipe
Line Company, LLC (Transco) in the above-referenced docket. Transco
requests authorization to abandon pipelines and four-meter stations
that have not been utilized in over 20 years and are not expected to be
used in the future, all located in Pointe Coup[eacute]e Parish,
Louisiana.
    The EA assesses the potential environmental effects of the
abandonment activities of the Happytown Abandonment Project in
accordance with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy
Act (NEPA). The FERC staff concludes that approval of the proposed
project, with appropriate mitigating measures, would not constitute a
major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human
environment.

    The proposed Happytown Abandonment Project includes the following
facilities:
     Abandon in-place approximately 29.6 miles of 8-, 10-, and
12-inch diameter pipeline segments;
     abandon by removal approximately 0.8 miles of 8- and 10-
inch diameter pipeline segments;
     abandon by removal the Courtney Happytown Meter Station
and associated appurtenance;
     abandon by removal the Sugar Bowl Meter Station and
associated appurtenance;
     abandon by removal the Sun Fordoche Meter Station and
associated appurtenance; and
     abandon by removal the Oryx Energy Meter Station and
associated appurtenance.
    The Commission mailed a copy of the Notice of Availability to
federal, state, and local government representatives and agencies;
elected officials; environmental and public interest groups; Native
American tribes; potentially affected landowners and other interested
individuals and groups; and newspapers and libraries in the project
area. The EA is only available in electronic format. It may be viewed
and downloaded from the FERC's website (www.ferc.gov), on the natural
gas environmental documents page (https://www.ferc.gov/industries-data/natural-gas/environment/environmental-documents). In addition, the EA
may be accessed by using the eLibrary link on the FERC's website. Click
on the eLibrary link (https://elibrary.ferc.gov/eLibrary/search),
select ``General Search'' and enter the docket number in the ``Docket
Number'' field, excluding the last three digits (i.e. CP21-134). Be
sure you have selected an appropriate date range. For assistance,
please contact FERC Online Support at [email protected] or
toll free at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or for TTY, contact<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    The EA is not a decision document. It presents Commission staff's
independent analysis of the environmental issues for the Commission to
consider when addressing the merits of all issues in this proceeding.
Any person wishing to comment on the EA may do so. Your comments should
focus on the EA's disclosure and discussion of potential environmental
effects, reasonable alternatives, and measures to avoid or lessen
environmental impacts. The more specific your comments, the more useful
they will be. To ensure that the Commission has the opportunity to
consider your comments prior to making its decision on this project, it
is important that we receive your comments in Washington, DC on or
before 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on February 7, 2022.
    For your convenience, there are three methods you can use to file
your comments to the Commission. The Commission encourages electronic
filing of comments and has staff available to assist you at (866) 208-
3676 or [email protected]. Please carefully follow these
instructions so that your comments are properly recorded.
    (1) You can file your comments electronically using the eComment
feature on the Commission's website (www.ferc.gov) under the link to
FERC Online. This is an easy method for submitting brief, text-only
comments on a project;
    (2) You can also file your comments electronically using the
eFiling feature on the Commission's website (www.ferc.gov) under the
link to FERC Online. With eFiling, you can provide comments in a
variety of formats by attaching them as a file with your submission.
New eFiling users must first create an account by clicking on
``eRegister.'' You must select the type of filing you are making. If
you are filing a comment on a particular project, please select
``Comment on a Filing''; or
    (3) You can file a paper copy of your comments by mailing them to
the Commission. Be sure to reference the project docket number (CP21-
134-000) on your letter. Submissions sent via the U.S. Postal Service
must be addressed to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Room 1A, Washington, DC
20426. Submissions sent via any other carrier must be addressed to:
Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,
12225 Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
    Filing environmental comments will not give you intervenor status,
but you do not need intervenor status to have your comments considered.
Only intervenors have the right to seek rehearing or judicial review of
the Commission's decision. At this point in this proceeding, the
timeframe for filing timely intervention requests has expired. Any
person seeking to become a party to the proceeding must file a motion
to intervene out-of-time pursuant to Rule 214(b)(3) and (d) of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedures (18 CFR 385.214(b)(3) and
(d)) and show good cause why the time limitation should be waived.
Motions to intervene are more fully described at https://www.ferc.gov/ferc-online/ferc-online/how-guides.
    Additional information about the project is available from the
Commission's Office of External Affairs, at (866) 208-FERC, or on the
FERC website (www.ferc.gov) using the eLibrary link. The eLibrary link
also provides access to the texts of all formal documents issued by the
Commission, such as orders, notices, and rulemakings.
    In addition, the Commission offers a free service called
eSubscription which allows you to keep track of all formal issuances
and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time
you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with
notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to
the documents. Go to https://www.ferc.gov/ferc-online/overview to
register for eSubscription.

    Dated: January 7, 2022.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-00569 Filed 1-12-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 95 (Wednesday, May 16, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 22741-22742]
[FR Doc No: 2018-10444]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

[Docket Number FRA-2006-23686]

Petition for Approval of Product Safety Plan

    Under part 211 of Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), this
document provides the public notice that on May 4, 2018, BNSF Railway
Company (BNSF), with participating railroads Union Pacific Railroad
(UP) and Canadian Pacific Railway (CP), petitioned the Federal Railroad
Administration (FRA) for approval of a Product Safety Plan (PSP)
pursuant to 49 CFR 236.907(a). FRA assigned the petition Docket Number
FRA-2006-23686.
    BNSF, with participant railroads UP and CP, request FRA approval of
a PSP for the Dual Radar Roadway Vehicle Detector (VDR24). The VDR24,
supplied by Island Radar, is used as a vehicle detection subsystem for
four-quadrant gate crossing warning systems, with its intended
application as an alternative to inductive loop vehicle detectors.
    The petition asserts that this PSP addresses all requirements of 49
CFR 236.907(a).
    A copy of the petition, as well as any written communications
concerning the petition, is available for review online at
www.regulations.gov and in person at the U.S. Department of
Transportation's (DOT) Docket Operations Facility, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE, W12-140, Washington, DC 20590. The Docket Operations
Facility is open from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except
Federal Holidays.
    Interested parties are invited to participate in these proceedings
by submitting written views, data, or comments. FRA does not anticipate
scheduling a public hearing in connection with these proceedings since
the facts do not appear to warrant a hearing. If any interested parties
desire an opportunity for oral comment and a public hearing, they
should notify FRA, in writing, before the end of the comment period and
specify the basis for their request.
    All communications concerning these proceedings should identify the
appropriate docket number and may be submitted by any of the following
methods:
     Website: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Docket Operations Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200

New Jersey Avenue SE, W12-140, Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Room W12-140,
Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal Holidays.
    Communications received by July 2, 2018 will be considered by FRA
before final action is taken. Comments received after that date will be
considered if practicable.
    Anyone can search the electronic form of any written communications
and comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the
individual submitting the comment (or signing the document, if
submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.).
Under 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the public to better
inform its processes. DOT posts these comments, without edit, including
any personal information the commenter provides, to
www.regulations.gov, as described in the system of records notice (DOT/
ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at https://www.transportation.gov/privacy. See also https://www.regulations.gov/privacyNotice for the
privacy notice of regulations.gov.

Robert C. Lauby,
Associate Administrator for Railroad Safety, Chief Safety Officer.
[FR Doc. 2018-10444 Filed 5-15-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-06-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 64 (Thursday, April 2, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 18573-18574]
[FR Doc No: 2020-06816]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP15-8-000]

Northwest Pipeline LLC; Notice of Extension of Time Request

    Take notice that on March 12, 2020, Northwest Pipeline LLC
(Northwest) requested that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
(Commission) grant an extension of time, until April 11, 2022, to
construct and place into service the facilities for its Kalama Lateral
Project authorized on April 11, 2016. The Kalama Lateral Project would
enable Northwest to provide service to the proposed methanol facility
of Northwest Innovation Works Kalama LLC (NWIW).
    Northwest was initially required to construct the facilities and
place them into service by April 11, 2018. On April 11, 2018, the
Office of Energy Projects, by delegated order, extended the deadline
through April 11, 2019. On April 10, 2019 the Office of Energy
Projects, by delegated order, extended the deadline through April 11,
2020. Northwest now requests a two-year extension of this deadline
through April 11, 2022. Northwest states that the basis for the
previous extensions of time, as well as this one, are based upon
permitting issues encountered by the NWIW methanol plant.
    This notice establishes a 15-calendar day intervention and comment
period deadline. Any person wishing to comment on the extension motion
may do so. No reply comments or answers will be considered. If you wish
to obtain legal status by becoming a party to the proceedings for this
request, you should, on or before the comment date stated below, file a
motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and

Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or 385.211) and the Regulations under the
Natural Gas Act (18 CFR 157.10). However, only motions to intervene
from entities that were party to the underlying proceeding will be
accepted.
    As a matter of practice, the Commission itself generally acts on
requests for extensions of time to complete construction for NGA
facilities when such requests are contested before order issuance. For
those extension requests that are contested,\1\ the Commission acting
as a whole will aim to issue an order acting on the request within 45
days.\2\ The Commission will address all arguments relating to whether
the applicant has demonstrated there is good cause to grant the
extension. The Commission will not consider arguments that re-litigate
the issuance of the certificate order, including whether the Commission
properly found the project to be in the public convenience and
necessity and whether the Commission's environmental analysis for the
certificate complied with the National Environmental Policy Act.\3\ At
the time a pipeline requests an extension of time, orders on
certificates of public convenience and necessity are final and the
Commission will not re-litigate their issuance. The OEP Director, or
his or her designee, will act on all of those extension requests that
are uncontested.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Contested proceedings are those where an intervenor disputes
any material issue of the filing. 18 CFR 385.2201(c)(1) (2019).
    \2\ Algonquin Gas Transmission, LLC, 170 FERC ] 61,144, at P 40
(2020).
    \3\ Similarly, the Commission will not re-litigate the issuance
of an NGA section 3 authorization, including whether a proposed
project is not inconsistent with the public interest and whether the
Commission's environmental analysis for the permit order complied
with NEPA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The extension request is available for review at the Commission in
the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's website
web at http://www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the
docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number
field to access the document. For assistance, contact FERC at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call toll-free,<PHONE_NUMBER> or TYY,
(202) 502-8659.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments,
protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link
at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should
submit an original and three copies of the protest or intervention to
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE,
Washington, DC 20426.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on April 1, 2020.

    Dated: March 17, 2020.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-06816 Filed 4-1-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


                               Butralin (106501)
                     Screening Level Usage Analysis (SLUA)
                              Date: June 3, 2011

What is a Screening Level Usage Analysis (SLUA)?
      * Available estimates of pesticide usage data for a particular active ingredient that is used on agricultural crops in the United States.
      * Pesticide usage data obtained from various sources.  The data are then merged, averaged, and rounded so that the presented information is not proprietary, business confidential, or trade secret.
What does it contain?
      * Pesticide usage data for a single active ingredient only.
      * Agricultural use sites (crops) that the pesticide is reported to be used on.
      * Available pesticide usage information from U.S. states that produce 80% or more of a crop, in most cases, or less than 80%, in rare cases, depending on the scope of the survey and available resources.
      * Annual percent of crop treated (average & maximum) for each agricultural crop.
      * Average annual pounds of the pesticide applied for each agricultural crop (i.e., for the states surveyed, not for the entire United States).
What assumptions can I make about the reported data?
      * Average pounds of active ingredient applied - Values are calculated by merging pesticide usage data sources together; averaging across all observations, then rounding.  Note:  If the estimated value is less than 500, then that value is labeled <500.  Estimated values between 500 & <1,000,000 are rounded to 1 significant digit.  Estimated values of 1,000,000 or greater are rounded to 2 significant digits.)
      * Average percent of crop treated - Values are calculated by merging data sources together; averaging by year, averaging across all years, & rounding to the nearest multiple of 5.  Note:  If the estimated value is less than 2.5, then the value is labeled <2.5.  If the estimated value is less than 1, then the value is labeled <1.
      * Maximum percent of crop treated - Value is the single maximum value reported across all data sources, across all years, & rounded up to the nearest multiple of 5.  Note:  If the estimated value is less than 2.5, then the value is labeled <2.5.
What are the data sources used?
      * USDA-NASS (United States Department of Agriculture's National Agricultural Statistics Service)  -  pesticide usage data from 2001 to 2008.
      * Private pesticide market research  -  pesticide usage data from 2004 to 2010.
      * California Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) Pesticide Use Reporting (PUR) data for 2000 to 2009.
What are the limitations to the data?
      * Additional registered uses may exist but are not included because the available surveys do not report usage (e.g., small acreage crops).
      * Lack of reported usage data for the pesticide on a crop does not imply zero usage.
      * Usage data on a particular site may be noted in data sources, but not quantified.  In these instances, the site would not be reported in the SLUA.
      * Non-agricultural use sites (e.g., turf, post-harvest, mosquito control, etc.) are not reported in the SLUA.  A separate request must be made to receive these estimates.
      * Some sites show some use, even though they are not on the label.  This usage could be due to various factors, including, but not limited to Section 18 requests, existing stocks of the chemical, data collection errors, and experimental use permits (EUPs).

                            Friday, June 03, 2011

      Screening Level Estimates of Agricultural Uses of Butralin (106501)
                             Sorted Alphabetically

                                                           Percent Crop Treated

			Crop
                                                                      Lbs. A.I.
                                                                           Avg.
                                                                           Max.
                                                                              1
Tobacco
                                                                         30,000
                                                                              5
                                                                             10

All numbers rounded.
                                                                        <500
Less than 500 pounds of active ingredient
                                                                        <2.5
Less than 2.5 percent of crop treated
                                                                          <1
Less than 1 percent of crop treated

SLUA data sources include:
  USDA-NASS (United States Department of Agriculture's National Agricultural Statistics Service)
Private Pesticide Market Research
  California DPR (Department of Pesticide Regulation)

These results reflect amalgamated data developed by the Agency and are releasable to the public.


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 212 (Friday, November 1, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 65570-65573]
[FR Doc No: 2013-25981]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 721

[EPA-HQ-OPPT-2008-0918; FRL-9901-97]
RIN 2070-AB27

Modification of Significant New Uses of 1-Propene, 2,3,3,3-
tetrafluoro-

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: Under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), EPA is
finalizing an amendment to the significant new use rule (SNUR) for the
chemical substance identified as 1-Propene, 2,3,3,3-tetrafluoro-, which
was the subject of premanufacture notice (PMN) P-07-601. This action
amends the SNUR to allow the manufacture and processing for certain
uses without requiring a significant new use notice (SNUN). EPA is
finalizing this amendment based on review of newly submitted exposure
and toxicity data.

DATES: This final rule is effective December 2, 2013.

ADDRESSES: The docket for this action, identified by docket
identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2008-0918 is available at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of Pollution Prevention and
Toxics Docket (OPPT Docket), Environmental Protection Agency Docket
Center (EPA/DC), EPA West Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW.,
Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30
p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone
number for the Public Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone
number for the OPPT Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Please review the visitor
instructions and additional information about the docket available at
http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical information contact: Jim
Alwood, Chemical Control Division (7405M), Office of Pollution
Prevention and Toxics, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:
(202) 564-8974; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    For general information contact: The TSCA-Hotline, ABVI-Goodwill,
422 South Clinton Ave., Rochester, NY 14620; telephone number: (202)
554-1404; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Does this action apply to me?

    You may be potentially affected by this action if you manufacture,
process, or use the chemical substance identified as 1-Propene,
2,3,3,3-tetrafluoro- (PMN P-07-601). Potentially affected entities may
include, but are not limited to:
     Manufacturers or processors of the subject chemical
substance (NAICS codes 325 and 324110), e.g., chemical manufacturers
and petroleum refineries.
    This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides
a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this
action. Other types of entities not listed in this unit could also be
affected. The North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS)
codes have been provided to assist you and others in determining
whether this action might apply to certain entities. To determine
whether you or your business may be affected by this action, you should
carefully examine the applicability provisions in Sec.  721.5. If you
have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a
particular entity, consult the technical person listed under FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
    This action may also affect certain entities through pre-existing
import certification and export notification rules under TSCA. Chemical
importers are subject to the TSCA section 13 (15 U.S.C. 2612) import
certification requirements promulgated at 19 CFR 12.118 through 12.127,
and 19 CFR 127.28. Chemical importers must certify that the shipment of
the chemical substance complies with all applicable rules and orders
under TSCA. Importers of chemicals subject to a SNUR must certify their
compliance with the SNUR requirements. The EPA policy in support of
import certification appears at 40 CFR part 707, subpart B. In
addition, any persons who export or intend to export the chemical
substance that is the subject of a proposed or final SNUR are subject
to the export notification provisions of TSCA section 12(b) (15 U.S.C.
2611(b)) (see Sec.  721.20), and must comply with the export
notification requirements in 40 CFR part 707, subpart D.

II. Background

A. What action is the agency taking?

    EPA is finalizing an amendment to the SNUR for the chemical
substance identified as 1-Propene, 2,3,3,3-tetrafluoro-, (PMN P-07-601;
CAS No. 754-12-1; which is also identified by the trade name HFO-
1234yf), codified at 40 CFR 721.10182. This final action removes the
requirement to notify EPA at least 90 days prior to the manufacture or
processing of the chemical substance for the consumer use to recharge
the motor vehicle air conditioning systems in passenger cars and
vehicles in which the original charging of motor vehicle air
conditioning systems with the PMN substance was done by the motor
vehicle.
    This rule was proposed in the Federal Register issue of May 31,
2013 (78 FR 32617) (FRL-9387-7). EPA received three public comments
supporting the proposed modification. One of the commenters also noted
a potential ambiguity in the proposed regulatory text. Part of the
proposed regulatory text would identify a significant new use as ``use
in consumer products other than products used to recharge the motor
vehicle air conditioning systems in passenger cars and vehicles in
which the charging of motor vehicle air conditioning systems with the
PMN substance was done by the motor vehicle original equipment
manufacturer (OEM)''. The commenter stated this could be construed to
allow only one recharge of automotive air conditioning systems
originally charged with HFO-1234yf. To clarify this ambiguity the
commenter suggested revising the proposed text to ``use in consumer
products other than products used to recharge the motor vehicle air
conditioning systems in passenger cars and vehicles in which the
original charging of motor vehicle air conditioning systems with the
PMN substance was done by the motor vehicle OEM'' (the proposed
revision is in italics). The commenter also suggested a similar change
to the regulatory text for the significant new use designation for
commercial use. EPA agrees with this clarification that the regulatory
text is not intended to allow only one recharge of automotive air
conditioning systems originally charged with HFO-1234yf. Therefore, the
Agency is issuing a final amended SNUR, that:
    1. No longer requires notification prior to the manufacture or
processing for the consumer use to recharge the motor vehicle air
conditioning systems in passenger cars and vehicles in which the
original charging of motor vehicle air conditioning systems with the
PMN substance was done by the motor vehicle OEM.
    2. Clarifies the language in the regulatory text that manufacture
and processing for use as a refrigerant in motor vehicle air
conditioning systems in new passenger cars and vehicles as reported in
the original PMN is not a significant new use.
    3. Clarifies the language in the regulatory text for commercial and
consumer use that it is not intended to allow only one recharge of
automotive air conditioning systems originally charged with HFO-1234yf.

B. What is the agency's authority for taking this action?

    Section 5(a)(2) of TSCA (15 U.S.C. 2604(a)(2)) authorizes EPA to
determine that a use of a chemical substance is a ``significant new
use.'' EPA must make this determination by rule after considering all
relevant factors, including the four bulleted TSCA section 5(a)(2)
factors, listed in Unit IV. of this document. Once EPA determines that
a use of a chemical substance is a significant new use, TSCA section
5(a)(1)(B) requires persons to submit a significant new use notice
(SNUN) to EPA at least 90 days before they manufacture or process the
chemical substance for that use. Persons who must report are described
in Sec.  721.5.

III. Rationale for the Rule

    During review of PMN P-07-601, the chemical substance identified as
1-Propene, 2,3,3,3-tetrafluoro-, EPA determined that one or more of the
criteria of concern established at Sec.  721.170 were met and
regulation under section 5(a)(2) of TSCA was warranted. The basis for
such criteria of concern is outlined in Unit II.A. of the proposed rule
and in the Federal Register document of June 26, 1990 (55 FR 26102).
Based on these findings, a SNUR was promulgated pursuant to Sec.
721.170.
    After the review of new test data and information subsequent to
issuance of the SNUR (see Unit II.A of the proposed rule), and
consideration of the factors included in TSCA section 5(a)(2) (see Unit
IV.), EPA determined that the concern criteria in Sec.  721.170(b) are
no longer met for the consumer use in the recharge of motor vehicle air
conditioning systems originally charged with the PMN substance by the
motor vehicle OEM.

IV. Significant New Use Determination

    Section 5(a)(2) of TSCA states that EPA's determination that a use
of a chemical substance is a significant new use must be made after
consideration of all relevant factors, including:
     The projected volume of manufacturing and processing of a
chemical substance.
     The extent to which a use changes the type or form of
exposure of human beings or the environment to a chemical substance.
     The extent to which a use increases the magnitude and
duration of exposure of human beings or the environment to a chemical
substance.
     The reasonably anticipated manner and methods of
manufacturing, processing, distribution in commerce, and disposal of a
chemical substance.
    In addition to these factors enumerated in TSCA section 5(a)(2),
the statute authorizes EPA to consider any other relevant factors. To
determine that the consumer use in the recharge of motor vehicle air
conditioning systems originally charged with the PMN substance by the
motor vehicle OEM would not constitute a significant new use for the
chemical substance identified as 1-Propene, 2,3,3,3-tetrafluoro-, (PMN
P-07-601), EPA considered relevant information about the toxicity of
the chemical substance, likely human exposures and environmental
releases associated with possible uses, taking into consideration the
four bulleted TSCA section 5(a)(2) factors listed in this unit.

V. Economic Analysis

    EPA evaluated the potential costs of establishing SNUN requirements
for potential manufacturers and processors of the chemical substance
during the development of the direct final rule. The Agency's complete
Economic Analysis is available in the docket under docket ID number
EPA-HQ-OPPT-2008-0918.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866

    This action modifies a SNUR for a chemical substance that is the
subject of a PMN. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has
exempted these types of actions from review under Executive Order
12866, entitled Regulatory Planning and Review (58 FR 51735, October 4,
1993).

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    According to the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et
seq., an Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not
required to respond to a collection of information that requires OMB
approval under PRA, unless it has been approved by OMB and displays a
currently valid OMB

control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations in title
40 of the CFR, after appearing in the Federal Register, are listed in
40 CFR part 9, and included on the related collection instrument or
form, if applicable. EPA has amended the table in 40 CFR part 9 to list
the OMB approval number for the information collection requirements
contained in this rule. This listing of the OMB control numbers and
their subsequent codification in the CFR satisfies the display
requirements of PRA and OMB's implementing regulations at 5 CFR part
1320.
    The information collection requirements related to this action have
already been approved by OMB pursuant to PRA under OMB control number
2070-0012 (EPA ICR No. 574). This action does not impose any burden
requiring additional OMB approval. If an entity were to submit a SNUN
to the Agency, the annual burden is estimated to average between 30 and
170 hours per response. This burden estimate includes the time needed
to review instructions, search existing data sources, gather and
maintain the data needed, and complete, review, and submit the required
SNUN.
    Send any comments about the accuracy of the burden estimate, and
any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, including
through the use of automated collection techniques, to the Director,
Collection Strategies Division, Office of Environmental Information
(2822T), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW.,
Washington, DC 20460-0001. Please remember to include the OMB control
number in any correspondence, but do not submit any completed forms to
this address.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    On February 18, 2012, EPA certified pursuant to section 605(b) of
the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), that
promulgation of a SNUR does not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities where the following are true:
    1. A significant number of SNUNs would not be submitted by small
entities in response to the SNUR.
    2. The SNUN submitted by any small entity would not cost
significantly more than $8,300.
    A copy of that certification is available in the docket for this
rule.
    This rule is within the scope of the February 18, 2012
certification. Based on the Economic Analysis discussed in Unit V. and
EPA's experience promulgating SNURs (discussed in the certification),
EPA believes that the following are true:
     A significant number of SNUNs would not be submitted by
small entities in response to the SNUR.
     Submission of the SNUN would not cost any small entity
significantly more than $8,300. Therefore, the promulgation of the SNUR
would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Based on EPA's experience with proposing and finalizing SNURs,
State, local, and Tribal governments have not been impacted by these
rulemakings, and EPA does not have any reasons to believe that any
State, local, or Tribal government will be impacted by this final rule.
As such, EPA has determined that this final rule does not impose any
enforceable duty, contain any unfunded mandate, or otherwise have any
affect on small governments subject to the requirements of sections
202, 203, 204, or 205 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(UMRA) (Pub. L. 104-4).

E. Executive Order 13132

    This action will not have a substantial direct effect on 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, entitled
Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999).

F. Executive Order 13175

    This final rule does not have Tribal implications because it is not
expected to have substantial direct effects on Indian Tribes. This
final rule does not significantly nor uniquely affect the communities
of Indian Tribal governments, nor does it involve or impose any
requirements that affect Indian Tribes. Accordingly, the requirements
of Executive Order 13175, entitled Consultation and Coordination with
Indian Tribal Governments (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), do not apply
to this final rule.

G. Executive Order 13045

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045, entitled
Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
(62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because this is not an economically
significant regulatory action as defined by Executive Order 12866, and
this action does not address environmental health or safety risks
disproportionately affecting children.

H. Executive Order 13211

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, entitled
Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001), because this action
is not expected to affect energy supply, distribution, or use and
because this action is not a significant regulatory action under
Executive Order 12866.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    In addition, since this action does not involve any technical
standards, section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15
U.S.C. 272 note), does not apply to this action.

J. Executive Order 12898

    This action does not entail special considerations of environmental
justice related issues as delineated by Executive Order 12898, entitled
Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority
Populations and Low-Income Populations (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

VII. Congressional Review Act

    Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.),
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. This action is not a ``major rule''
as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 721

    Environmental protection, Chemicals, Hazardous substances,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: October 24, 2013.
Maria J. Doa,
Director, Chemical Control Division, Office of Pollution Prevention and
Toxics.

    Therefore, 40 CFR part 721 is amended as follows:

PART 721--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 721 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 15 U.S.C. 2604, 2607, and 2625(c).

0
2. In Sec.  721.10182, revise paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2)(i) to read
as follows:

Sec.  721.10182  1-Propene, 2,3,3,3-tetrafluoro-.

    (a) * * *
    (1) The chemical substance identified as 1-propene, 2,3,3,3-
tetrafluoro- (PMN

P-07-601; CAS No. 754-12-1) is subject to reporting under this section
for the significant new uses described in paragraph (a)(2) of this
section.
    (2) * * *
    (i) Industrial, commercial, and consumer activities. A significant
new use is use other than as a refrigerant in motor vehicle air
conditioning systems in new passenger cars and vehicles (i.e., as
defined in 40 CFR 82.32(c) and (d)); Sec.  721.80(m) (commercial use
other than in passenger cars and vehicles in which the original
charging of motor vehicle air conditioning systems with the PMN
substance was done by the motor vehicle original equipment manufacturer
(OEM)); Sec.  721.80(o) (use in consumer products other than products
used to recharge the motor vehicle air conditioning systems in
passenger cars and vehicles in which the original charging of motor
vehicle air conditioning systems with the PMN substance was done by the
motor vehicle OEM).
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2013-25981 Filed 10-31-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


Johnd Bachmann 01/ 23/ 2004 02: 25 PM To: Amy_ L._ Farrell@ omb. eop. gov cc: Jeff Holmstead/ DC/ USEPA/ US@ EPA, Bill Wehrum/ DC/ USEPA/ US@ EPA, Stephanie Daigle/ DC/ USEPA/ US@ EPA, Don Zinger/ DC/ USEPA/ US@ EPA, Peter Tsirigotis/ RTP/ USEPA/ US@ EPA, Lisaa Jones/ DC/ USEPA/ US@ EPA, Sarah Dunham, Sam Napolitano, Lydia Wegman/ RTP/ USEPA/ US@ EPA, Steve Page Subject: Revised IAQR Benefits Document Here is the revised IAQR Benefits/ Costs analysis, which incorporates response to comments regarding harmonizing mercury and PM presenations. We zipped to make it small, but this package should be unzippable by just clicking on it.

The pdf process garbled one table that lists Hg effects and has the proper footnotes, but is unreadable. Linda Chappell will fax that table to you. In addition, while waiting for resolution of revisions to the chart showing distribution of hg, we've left that chart out altogether and bracketed the language, which presumably would change to reflect the final figure. The remainder of the document is ready for final review.

John Bachmann U. S. EPA C404 04 Research Triangle Park, NC27711 Voice 919 541 5359 Fax 919 541 2464 email Bachmann. JohnD@ epa. gov


[Federal Register: April 25, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 79)]
[Notices]
[Page 20518]
[DOCID:fr25ap07-45]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP99-301-158]

ANR Pipeline Company; Notice of Negotiated Rate Amendment Filing

April 19, 2007.
    Take notice that on April 2, 2007, ANR Pipeline Company (ANR)
tendered for filing and approval a negotiated rate agreement amendments
between ANR and Wisconsin Gas, L.L.C., ANR and Wisconsin Electric Power
Company, and ANR and Wisconsin Public Service Corporation.
    ANR requests that the Commission accept and approve the subject
filing to be effective April 1, 2007.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed in accordance with the provisions of
Section 154.210 of the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210).
Anyone filing an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on
or before the intervention or protest date need not serve motions to
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov.
 Persons unable to file electronically should submit an

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

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

TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E7-7857 Filed 4-24-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 83 (Monday, April 30, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 18834]
[FR Doc No: 2018-09043]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER18-1427-000]

Rio Bravo Rocklin, a California Joint Venture; Supplemental
Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for
Blanket Section 204 Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding
Rio Bravo Rocklin, A California Joint Venture's application for market-
based rate authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that
such application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington,
DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's
Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone
filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability, is May 14, 2018.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in
the above list. They are also available for electronic review in the
Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an
eSubscription link on the website that enables subscribers to receive
email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s).
For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
[email protected]. or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: April 24, 2018.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-09043 Filed 4-27-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: April 13, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 69)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 16812-16814]
[DOCID:fr13ap09-24]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2009-0042; Airspace Docket No. 09-ANM-1]

Proposed Modification of Class E Airspace; Montrose, CO

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: This action proposes to modify Class E airspace at Montrose
Regional Airport, Montrose, CO. Additional controlled airspace is
necessary to accommodate aircraft using the Instrument Landing System
(ILS) Localizer/Distance Measuring Equipment (LOC/DME) Standard
Instrument Approach Procedure (SIAP) at Montrose Regional Airport,
Montrose, CO. The geographic coordinates are being updated to coincide
with the FAA's National Aeronautical Charting Office. The FAA is
proposing this action to enhance the safety and management of aircraft
operations at Montrose Regional Airport, Montrose, CO.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before May 28, 2009.

ADDRESSES: Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590.
Telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>. You must identify FAA Docket No. FAA-2009-
0042; Airspace Docket No. 09-ANM-1, at the beginning of your comments.
You may also submit comments through the Internet at http://
www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eldon Taylor, Federal Aviation
Administration, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center, 1601
Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, WA 98057; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed
rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as
they may desire.

Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and
suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned
regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited
on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and
energy-related aspects of the proposal.
    Communications should identify both docket numbers (FAA Docket No.
FAA 2009-0042 and Airspace Docket No. 09-ANM-1) and be submitted in
triplicate to the Docket Management System (see ADDRESSES section for
address and phone number). You may also submit comments through the
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov.
    Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments
on this action must submit with those comments a self-addressed stamped
postcard on which the following statement is made: ``Comments to FAA
Docket No. FAA-2009-0042 and Airspace Docket No. 09-ANM-1''. The
postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.
    All communications received on or before the specified closing date
for comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed
rule. The proposal contained in this action may be changed in light of
comments received. All comments submitted will be available for
examination in the public docket both before and after the closing date
for comments. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with
FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the
docket.

Availability of NPRMs

    An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking
documents can also be accessed through the FAA's Web page at http://
www.faa.gov/airports_airtraffic/air_traffic/publications/airspace_
amendments/.
    You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any
comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets
Office (see the ADDRESSES section for the address and phone number)
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. An informal docket may also be examined during normal
business hours at the Northwest Mountain Regional Office of the Federal
Aviation Administration, Air Traffic Organization, Western Service
Area, Operations Support Group, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, WA
98057.
    Persons interested in being placed on a mailing list for future
NPRMs should contact the FAA's Office of Rulemaking,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
for a copy of Advisory Circular No. 11-2A, Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking Distribution System, which describes the application
procedure.

The Proposal

    The FAA is proposing an amendment to Title 14 Code of Federal
Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 by modifying Class E airspace at Montrose
Regional Airport, Montrose, CO. Additional controlled airspace is
necessary to accommodate aircraft using the new ILS LOC/DME SIAP at
Montrose Regional Airport, Montrose, CO. The geographic coordinates are
being updated to coincide with the FAA's National Aeronautical Charting
Office. This action would enhance the safety and management of aircraft
operations at Montrose Regional Airport, Montrose, CO.
    Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005 of
FAA Order 7400.9S, signed October 3, 2008, and effective October 31,
2008, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E
airspace designation listed in this document will be published
subsequently in this Order.
    The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves
an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
Therefore, this proposed regulation: (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) does not warrant preparation of a
regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since
this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures
and air navigation, it is certified that this proposed rule, when
promulgated, would not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the U.S. Code, Subtitle 1, Section 106, describes
the authority for the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation
Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority.
This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the
FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of the
airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient
use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority
as it modifies controlled airspace at Montrose Regional Airport,
Montrose, CO.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

The Proposed Amendment

    Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, the Federal
Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

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

    1. The authority citation for 14 CFR part 71 continues to read as
follows:

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

Sec.  71.1   [Amended]

    2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of the FAA Order
7400.9S, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, signed October 3,
2008, and effective October 31, 2008 is amended as follows:

Paragraph 6005 Class E airspace areas extending upward from 700
feet or more above the surface of the earth.

* * * * *

ANM CO, E5 Montrose, CO [Modify]

Montrose Regional Airport, CO
    (Lat. 38[deg]30'35'' N., long. 107[deg]53'38'' W.)
Montrose VOR/DME
    (Lat. 38[deg]30'23'' N., long. 107[deg]53'58'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 7.2-mile radius of the Montrose Regional Airport and within
4.3 miles northeast and 8.3 miles southwest of the Montrose VOR/DME
313[deg] and 133[deg] radials extending from 7.2 miles southeast to
21.4 miles northwest of the VOR/DME, and within 4 miles each side of
the Montrose VOR/DME 360[deg] radial extending to 13.6 miles north
of the VOR/DME; and that airspace extending upward from 1,200 feet
above the surface within an area bounded by a point beginning at
lat. 38[deg]40'00'' N., long. 108[deg]46'00'' W.; to lat.
38[deg]25'00'' N., long. 108[deg]42'30'' W.; to lat. 37[deg]58'00''
N., long. 108[deg]10'00'' W.; to lat. 38[deg]09'00'' N., long.
107[deg]35'00'' W.; to lat. 38[deg]43'00'' N., long. 107[deg]39'30''
W.; to lat. 38[deg]51'30'' N., long. 107[deg]41'00'' W.; to lat.
39[deg]01'00'' N., long. 107[deg]47'00'' W.; to lat. 39[deg]01'00''
N., long. 108[deg]09'00'' W.; thence to the point of beginning.
* * * * *

    Issued in Seattle, Washington, on April 2, 2009.
H. Steve Karnes,
Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center.
[FR Doc. E9-8363 Filed 4-10-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P