We have determined that virtually all of the affected small businesses that own area source dry cleaners are in 95 NAICS 812320. Small businesses complying with the proposed area source requirements ( area source option I described earlier in this preamble) are expected to have the following impacts. Of the approximately 20,000 ultimate parent small businesses affected, less than 2 percent are expected to have annualized compliance costs of no more than 1.2 percent. The one time cost of $ 250 for purchasing a halogenated hydrocarbon detector is less than 0.10 percent of the average annual revenues for dry cleaning businesses in NAICS 812320, and there are minimal annualized costs associated with a detector's use. Of the nearly 200 small businesses that would have to replace their transfer machines, most of these businesses would experience an annual cost savings and the others would have compliance costs of less than 1.2 percent of sales. Therefore, the proposed rule would not impose any significant additional regulatory costs on affected small entities owning either major or area sources. The conclusion in the previous statement accounts for impacts to co residential area sources.

Cost impacts associated with the proposed decision for major sources are presented in Section III. E of this preamble. These impacts are also presented for area sources in Section III. H, and for co residential sources in Section III. J. These impacts are detailed in the BID in the public 96 docket as memos 5 through 7. For more information on the small entity economic impacts associated with the proposed decisions for dry cleaners affected by today's action,

please refer to the Economic Impact and Small Business Analyses in the public docket.

Although the proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities,

we nonetheless tried to reduce the impact of the proposed rule on small entities. When developing the revised standards, we took special steps to ensure that the burdens imposed on small entities were minimal. We conducted several meetings with industry trade associations to discuss regulatory options and the corresponding burden on industry,

such as recordkeeping and reporting.

Following publication of the proposed rule, copies of the Federal Register notice and, in some cases, background documents, will be publically available to all industries,

organizations, and trade associations that have had input during the regulation development, as well as State and local agencies. We continue to be interested in the potential impacts of the proposed rule on small entities and welcome comments on issues related to such impacts.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 ( UMRA), Public Law 104 4, establishes requirements for 97 Federal agencies to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost benefit analysis, for proposed and final rules with " Federal mandates" that may result in expenditures to State,

local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $ 100 million or more in any 1 year.

Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt the least costly, most cost effective, or least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205 do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover, section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least costly, most cost effective, or least burdensome alternative if the Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation why that alternative was not adopted. Before EPA establish any regulatory requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small governments, including tribal governments, it must have developed under section 203 of the UMRA a small government agency plan. The plan must provide for notifying potentially affected small governments, 98 enabling officials of affected small governments to have meaningful and timely input in the development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant Federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and advising small governments on compliance with the regulatory requirements.

Today's proposed rule contains no Federal mandates ( under the regulatory provisions of title II of the UMBR)

for State, local, or tribal governments or the private sector. We have determined that the proposed rule does not contain a Federal mandate that may result in expenditures of $ 100 million or more for State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or to the private sector in any 1 year. No costs are attributable to the proposed rule.

Thus, the proposed rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA.

EPA has determined that today's proposed rule contains no regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small governments because it contains no requirements that apply to such governments or impose obligations upon them. Therefore, the proposed rule is not subject to section 203 of the UMRA.

E. Executive Order 13132, Federalism Executive Order 13132 ( 64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999)

requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure 99 " meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications." " Policies that have federalism implications"

is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations that have " substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States,

or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government."

The proposed rule does not have federalism implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government,

as specified in Executive Order 13132. None of the affected dry cleaning facilities are owned or operated by State governments. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to the proposed rule. In the spirit of Executive Order 13132,

and consistent with EPA policy to promote communications between EPA and State and local governments, EPA specifically solicits comment on the proposed rule from State and local officials.

F. Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments Executive Order 13175 ( 65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000)

requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure 100 " meaningful and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies that have tribal implications." The proposed rule does not have tribal implications as specified in Executive Order 13175. It will not have substantial direct effects on tribal governments,

on the relationship between the Federal government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal government and Indian tribes. No tribal governments own dry cleaning facilities subject to the MACT standards for dry cleaning facilities.

Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to the proposed rule. EPA specifically solicits additional comment on this proposed rule from tribal officials.

G. Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health and Safety Risks Executive Order 13045 ( 62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997)

applies to any rule that: ( 1) Is determined to be " economically significant" as defined under Executive Order 12866, and ( 2) concerns an environmental health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health or safety risk of the planned rule on children, and explain why the planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably 101 feasible alternatives considered by the Agency.

The proposed rule is not subject to the Executive Order because it is not economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866, and because the Agency does not have reason to believe the environmental health or safety risks addressed by this action present a disproportionate risk to children. This conclusion is based on our assessment of the information on PCE effects on human health and exposures associated with dry cleaner operations.

H. Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use The proposed rule is not a " significant energy action"

as defined in Executive Order 13211 ( 66 FR 28355, May 22,

2001) because it is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy.

The proposed rule would have a negligible impact on energy consumption because less than 1 percent of the industry would have to install additional emission control equipment to comply. The cost of energy distribution should not be affected by the proposed rule at all since the standards do not affect energy distribution facilities. We also expect that there would be no impact on the import of foreign energy supplies, and no other adverse outcomes are expected to occur with regards to energy supplies. Further, Perchloroethylene Emissions From Dry Cleaning Facilities  page 102 of 114 we have concluded that the proposed rule is not likely to have any significant adverse energy effects.

I. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act Section 112( d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act ( NTTAA) of 1995 ( Public Law No. 104 113,

12( d) ( 15 U. S. C. 272 note), directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards ( VCS) in its regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. VCS are technical standards ( e. g.,

materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures,

and business practices) that are developed or adopted by VCS bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use available and applicable VCS.

The proposed rule does not involve technical standards.

Therefore, EPA is not considering the use of any VCS.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63 Environmental Protection, Air pollution control, Hazardous substances, Reporting and Recordkeeping requirements.

Dated:

Stephen L. Johnson, Administrator. 103 104 For the reasons stated in the preamble, title 40, chapter I of the Code of Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended as follows:

PART 63[ AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 63 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart M [ AMENDED]

2. Section 63.320 is amended by revising paragraphs ( b),

( c), ( d), and ( e) to read as follows:

§ 63.320 Applicability.

* * * * *

( b) The compliance date for a new dry cleaning system depends on the date that construction or reconstruction commences.

( 1) Each dry cleaning system that commences construction or reconstruction on or after December 9, 1991 and before [ INSERT THE DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE PROPOSED RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], shall be in compliance with the provisions of this subpart except § 63.322( o) beginning on September 22, 1993 or immediately upon startup, whichever is later, except for dry cleaning systems complying with section 112( i)( 2) of the Clean Air Act; and shall be in compliance with the provisions of § 63.322( o) beginning on [ 90 DAYS AFTER DATE FINAL RULE IS PUBLISHED IN THE FEDERAL 105 REGISTER] or immediately upon startup, whichever is later,

except as provided by § 63.6( b)( 4).

( 2) Each dry cleaning system that commences construction or reconstruction on or after [ INSERT DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE PROPOSED RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]

and before [ DATE FINAL RULE IS PUBLISHED IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], shall be in compliance with the provisions of this subpart except § 63.322( o) immediately upon startup, and shall be in compliance with the provisions of § 63.322( o)

beginning on [ DATE FINAL RULE IS PUBLISHED IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER] or immediately upon startup, whichever is later.

( 3) Each dry cleaning system that commences construction or reconstruction on or after [ DATE FINAL RULE IS PUBLISHED IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], shall be in compliance with provisions of this subpart, including § 63.322( o) immediately upon startup.

( c) Each dry cleaning system that commenced construction or reconstruction before December 9, 1991, and each new transfer machine system and its ancillary equipment that commenced construction or reconstruction on or after December 9, 1991 and before September 22, 1993, shall comply with § § 63.322( c), ( d), ( i), ( j), ( k), ( l), and ( m);

63.323( d); and 63.324( a), ( b), ( d)( 1), ( d)( 2), ( d)( 3),

( d)( 4), and ( e) beginning on December 20, 1993, and shall comply with other provisions of this subpart except 106 § 63.322( o) by September 23, 1996; and shall comply with § 63.322( o) by [ DATE 90 DAYS AFTER DATE FINAL RULE IS PUBLISHED IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER].

( d) Each existing dry to dry machine and its ancillary equipment located in a dry cleaning facility that includes only dry to dry machines, and each existing transfer machine system and its ancillary equipment, and each new transfer machine system and its ancillary equipment installed between December 9, 1991 and September 22, 1993, as well as each existing dry to dry machine and its ancillary equipment,

located in a dry cleaning facility that includes both transfer machine system( s) and dry to dry machine( s) is exempt from § § 63.322, 63.323, and 63.324, except paragraphs 63.322( c), ( d), ( i), ( j), ( k), ( l), ( m), ( o)( 1), and ( o)( 4);

63.323( d); and 63.324 ( a), ( b), ( d)( 1), ( d)( 2), ( d)( 3),

( d)( 4), and ( e) if the total perchloroethylene consumption of the dry cleaning facility is less than 530 liters ( 140 gallons) per year. Consumption is determined according to § 63.323( d).

( e) Each existing transfer machine system and its ancillary equipment, and each new transfer machine system and its ancillary equipment installed between December 9,

1991 and September 22, 1993, located in a dry cleaning facility that includes only transfer machine system( s), is exempt from § § 63.322, 63.323, and 63.324, except paragraphs 107 63.322( c), ( d), ( i), ( j), ( k), ( l), ( m), ( o)( 1), and ( o)( 4),

63.323( d), and 63.324 ( a), ( b), ( d)( 1), ( d)( 2), ( d)( 3),

( d)( 4), and ( e) if the perchloroethylene consumption of the dry cleaning facility is less than 760 liters ( 200 gallons)

per year. Consumption is determined according to § 63.323( d).

* * * * *

3. Section 63.321 is amended by revising the definition of filter, and adding definitions for halogenated hydrocarbon detector, perchloroethylene gas analyzer, residence, and vapor leak to read as follows:

§ 63.321 Definitions.

* * * * *

Filter means a porous device through which perchloroethylene is passed to remove contaminants in suspension. Examples include, but are not limited to, lint filter, button trap, cartridge filter, tubular filter,

regenerative filter, prefilter, polishing filter, and spin disc filter.

Halogenated hydrocarbon detector means a portable device capable of detecting vapor concentrations of perchloroethylene of 25 parts per million by volume and indicating a concentration of 25 parts per million by volume or greater by emitting an audible or visual signal that varies as the concentration changes. 108 * * * * *

Perchloroethylene gas analyzer means a flame ionization detector, photoionization detector, or infrared analyzer capable of detecting vapor concentrations of perchloroethylene of 25 parts per million by volume.

* * * * *

Residence means any dwelling or housing in which people reside excluding short term housing that is occupied by the same person for a period of less than 180 days ( such as a hotel room).

* * * * *

Vapor leak means a perchloroethylene vapor concentration exceeding 25 parts per million by volume ( 50 parts per million by volume as methane) as indicated by a halogenated hydrocarbon detector or perchloroethylene gas analyzer.

* * * * *

4. Section 63.322 is amended by revising paragraphs ( e)( 3),

( k), and ( m), and adding paragraph ( o) to read as follows:

§ 63.322 Standards.

* * * * *

( e) * * *

( 3) Shall prevent air drawn into the dry cleaning machine when the door of the machine is open from passing through the refrigerated condenser. 109 * * * * *

( k) The owner or operator of a dry cleaning system shall inspect the system weekly for perceptible leaks while the dry cleaning system is operating. Inspection with a halogenated hydrocarbon detector or perchloroethylene gas analyzer also fulfills the requirement for inspection for perceptible leaks. The following components shall be inspected:

* * * * *

( m) The owner or operator of a dry cleaning system shall repair all leaks detected under paragraph ( k) or ( o)( 1) of this section within 24 hours. If repair parts must be ordered, either a written or verbal order for those parts shall be initiated within 2 working days of detecting such a leak. Such repair parts shall be installed within 5 working days after receipt.

* * * * *

( o) Additional requirements:

( 1) The owner or operator of a dry cleaning system shall inspect the components listed in paragraph ( k) of this section for vapor leaks monthly while the component is in operation.

( i) Area sources shall conduct the inspections using a halogenated hydrocarbon detector or perchloroethylene gas analyzer that is operated according to the manufacturer's 110 instructions. The operator shall place the probe inlet at the surface of each component interface where leakage could occur and move it slowly along the interface periphery.

( ii) Major sources shall conduct the inspections using a perchloroethylene gas analyzer operated according to EPA Method 21.

( 2) The owner or operator of a dry cleaning system at any major source shall route the air perchloroethylene gasvapor stream contained within each dry cleaning machine through a refrigerated condenser and shall pass the airperchloroethylene gas vapor stream from inside the dry cleaning machine drum through a carbon adsorber or equivalent control device immediately before or as the door of the dry cleaning machine is opened. The carbon adsorber must be desorbed in accordance with manufacturer's instructions.

( 3) The owner or operator of each dry cleaning system installed after [ INSERT THE DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE PROPOSED RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER] at an area source shall route the air perchloroethylene gas vapor stream contained within each dry cleaning machine through a refrigerated condenser and pass the air perchloroethylene gas vapor stream from inside the dry cleaning machine drum through a carbon adsorber or equivalent control device immediately before the door of the dry cleaning machine is 111 opened. The carbon adsorber must be desorbed in accordance with manufacturer's instructions.

( 4) The owner or operator of any dry cleaning system shall eliminate any emission of perchloroethylene during the transfer of articles between the washer and the dryer( s) or reclaimer( s).

( 5) The owner or operator shall eliminate any emission of perchloroethylene from any dry cleaning system that is installed after [ INSERT DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE PROPOSED RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER] and that is located in a building with a residence.

5. Section 63.323 is amended by revising paragraphs ( b)

introductory text, ( b)( 1), ( b)( 2), and ( c) to read as follows:

§ 63.323 Test methods and monitoring.

* * * * *

( b) When a carbon adsorber is used to comply with § 63.322( a)( 2) or exhaust is passed through a carbon adsorber immediately upon machine door opening to comply with § 63.322( b)( 3) or § 63.323( o)( 2), the owner or operator shall measure the concentration of perchloroethylene in the exhaust of the carbon adsorber weekly with a colorimetric detector tube or perchloroethylene gas analyzer. The measurement shall be taken while the dry cleaning machine is venting to that carbon adsorber at the end of the last dry 112 cleaning cycle prior to desorption of that carbon adsorber or removal of the activated carbon to determine that the perchloroethylene concentration in the exhaust is equal to or less than 100 parts per million by volume. The owner or operator shall:

( 1) Use a colorimetric detector tube or perchloroethylene gas analyzer designed to measure a concentration of 100 parts per million by volume of perchloroethylene in air to an accuracy of ± 25 parts per million by volume; and ( 2) Use the colorimetric detector tube or perchloroethylene gas analyzer according to the manufacturer's instructions; and * * * * *

( c) If the air perchloroethylene gas vapor stream is passed through a carbon adsorber prior to machine door opening to comply with § 63.322( b)( 3) or § 63.323( o)( 2), the owner or operator of an affected facility shall measure the concentration of perchloroethylene in the dry cleaning machine drum at the end of the dry cleaning cycle weekly with a colorimetric detector tube or perchloroethylene gas analyzer to determine that the perchloroethylene concentration is equal to or less than 300 parts per million by volume. The owner or operator shall:

( 1) Use a colorimetric detector tube or 113 perchloroethylene gas analyzer designed to measure a concentration of 300 parts per million by volume of perchloroethylene in air to an accuracy of ± 75 parts per million by volume; and ( 2) Use the colorimetric detector tube or perchloroethylene gas analyzer according to the manufacturer's instructions; and ( 3) Conduct the weekly monitoring by inserting the colorimetric detector or perchloroethylene gas analyzer tube into the open space above the articles at the rear of the dry cleaning machine drum immediately upon opening the dry cleaning machine door.

* * * * *

6. Section 63.324 is amended by revising paragraphs ( d)( 3),

( d)( 5), and ( d)( 6) to read as follows:

§ 63.324 Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

* * * * *

( d) * * *

( 3) The dates when the dry cleaning system components are inspected for leaks, as specified in § 63.322( k), ( l), or ( o)( 1), and the name or location of dry cleaning system components where leaks are detected;

* * * * *

( 5) The date and temperature sensor monitoring results, as specified in § 63.323 if a refrigerated condenser 114 is used to comply with § 63.322( a) or ( b); and ( 6) The date and monitoring results, as specified in § 63.323, if a carbon adsorber is used to comply with § 63.322( a)( 2), ( b)( 3), or ( o)( 2).

* * * * *


       MMT[(R)]/Mn Alternative Tier 2 Health Testing Program (Stage 1):
        Concluding Meeting of the Mn PBPK Technical Advisory Panel  -
                Presentation and Discussion of Overall Results

                     Hamner Institutes for Health Science
                          Thursday, January 29, 2008

Agenda

9:00  -  9:10 AM		Introduction (Andersen)

9:10  -  9:30			Alternative Tier 2 (Stage 1)  -  A Successful
				Collaboration among Government, Research
				Organizations, Universities and Industry (Roper)

9:30  -  10:30			Developing Multi-Dose Route, Multi-Species PBPK Models for
				Mn over Various Life Stages
                        (1) Conceptualization and development of the models (Andersen)
                        (2) Mn PBPK model for the adult rat and monkey (Nong)

10:30  -  10:45			Break

10:45  -  11:30			(3) Mn PBPK model describing gestation and lactation in the rat
				      (Yoon)

11:30  -  Noon 			Q&A

Noon  -  1:00 PM		Lunch  -  Sandwiches, salad, beverage; cost $5.
				Posters and reprints will be on exhibit

1:00  -  2:00			Pharmacokinetic Modeling and Mn Risk Assessment (Clewell)

2:00  -  2:30 			Q&A

2:30  -  2:45			Break

2:45  -  3:15			TAP views, overall discussion and wrap-up


                 Summary of Region 3 Public Listening Session                            on 111(d) for Power Plants

                     November 8, 2013  -  Philadelphia, PA

On November 8, 2013, EPA Region 3 held a public listening session to obtain public input on how EPA can craft carbon pollution standards from existing power plants.  Approximately 125 people attended the meeting, and of those attendees, 75 people spoke.  Of the speakers, approximately 95% were in favor of EPA moving forward with greenhouse gas rules for existing power plants.

A high-level summary of the meeting is provided below.

Overview:

Regional Administrator Shawn Garvin welcomed participants and gave remarks regarding the need for action.  Diana Esher, the Air Protection Division (APD) Director, opened the session with the overview of Section 111(d), ground rules and logistics.

The majority of the speakers supported EPA's efforts to reduce carbon emissions from existing power plants.  They spoke of the need to protect air quality, health concerns (mainly asthma), and preserving the planet for our children.  Region 3 had a significant number of speakers from faith-based organizations, environmental groups, the medical community and the general public.

Representatives of coal and utility organizations stressed the need for (1) realistic timeframes to implement new rules; (2) reliable, balanced, diverse energy portfolio to assure the nation's energy supply; and (3) consideration of the economy of Appalachia by protecting the jobs of those who work in coal mines or coal fired utilities.

A few people presented ideas on how EPA could reduce carbon emissions from existing plants.  Ideas included establishing a tax on emissions, allowing states to establish a cap and trade program, encouraging investments in new technologies through financial incentives, disconnecting utility profits from power consumption, increasing the use of combined heat and power, modernizing the region's electrical grid, and increasing the use of existing high-efficiency natural gas plants.

A few speakers also believed that the air pollution standards for natural gas plants should be tighter.

Impacts of climate change:

Many speakers were concerned about climate changes and its impacts on health, outdoor recreation, businesses (including small businesses), jobs, livelihoods, vulnerable populations, natural resources, assets, and communities, and more broadly, the environment and the economy.  One speaker presented information on carbon pollution's impact on sea level rise and melting glaciers citing NOAA's predicted sea level rise of 5-6 feet.  Another speaker said the cost of climate change should be weighed against the cost of not acting and emphasized that this is not a war on coal; it's a battle to save the planet.  Speakers also said the failure of Congress to act on the issue of climate change means EPA needs to do so, that firming up the rule in a timely manner is essential, and that EPA needs to make the rules strong to give us clear air for the next generation.

Overview of Comments on 111(d):

Most speakers supported action on existing power plants, and asked EPA to act quickly and meet the existing timeline under consideration.  The groups applauded EPA's intention to announce a standard to limit pollution from power plants.  Many speakers supported strong regulation of coal and the phase-out of coal and noted the need to protect air quality, health and the planet.  Many speakers believe the rule is important and should be cost-effective and drive innovation.

Speakers suggested the standards would send market signals to drive long-term investments, spur technological innovation and create jobs, while providing businesses with needed environmental and economic stability.  Other speakers supported these standards as a part of a transition to a cleaner electricity generation fleet.

Speakers presented ideas on supply- and demand-side solutions for addressing carbon pollution from power plants and discussed energy efficiency, combined heat and power, modernizing the grid, and incentivizing new technologies.  They emphasized the use of combined heat and power at commercial facilities, more high-efficiency natural gas plants and improved efficiency at existing coal plants.  Speakers maintained that electric prices need to stay stable and that efficiency increases will outweigh the cost of fuel switching at power plants.  They also stated that increasing renewables by 20% would decrease costs by $9 B annually.

Economic Impacts:

While most speakers were supportive of EPA standards for carbon emissions, some speakers cautioned EPA on several fronts.  Those speakers urged EPA to ensure that regulations are fair and not rushed through, and account for the human element of those who may be negatively affected by EPA regulations (e.g., coal miners).

The speakers also encouraged EPA to consider job losses in Appalachia associated with EPA's regulations, and to protect the jobs of coal miners and those whose work is related to coal-fired utilities.

Some speakers warned that EPA regulations should not harm the affordability and reliability of energy, also articulating the need for a diverse energy portfolio.

Utility and coal groups want to work together for realistic standards.  For utilities, it's not just about selling more power, but also about opportunities for savings.  Recommendations for EPA: require utilities to pursue all cost-effective energy efficiency resources (e.g., cost caps).

Setting the Standard:

Speakers encouraged EPA to maintain realistic timeframes to implement the new standards.

Speakers recommended that EPA maximize the ability that states have to implement regulations and permit states to include energy efficiency and conservation measures to implement regulations.  They also encouraged conversion from dirty to clean energy, pointing out that oil is unaffordable for low income families, and recommended more stringent building codes.

One speaker highlighted Act 129 in Pennsylvania which sets savings and demand reduction goals for the state's large electric utilities.  For utilities, it's not just about selling more power; it's also about opportunities for savings, etc.  The speaker recommended that EPA require utilities to pursue all cost-effective energy efficiency resources (e.g., cost caps).

Another speaker stated that government has to lead the community to reduce carbon emissions by 80% by 2050.  They added that we have enough reliable knowledge about climate change to regulate and limit it.

Considering the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI):

Support for RGGI as a compliance pathway fell mostly in two categories: those that believed that RGGI and pacts like RGGI have been successful and should qualify as a compliance path for participating states; and those that believed all or part of RGGI is a successful model that EPA should build upon for a national program.  In particular, speakers urged EPA to consider market-based tools that have worked in RGGI including its auction system and reinvestment program that uses RGGI funds for energy efficiency and clean energy projects.  Speakers demonstrated that RGGI has provided economic benefit while reducing emissions.

Speakers also recommended a compliance mechanism framework and that multiple states should be able to use these guidelines.  They said EPA should not penalize early movers to RGGI and, additionally, RGGI should be evaluated for other states and assistance should be provided to states who choose RGGI as an option.


[Federal Register: December 3, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 231)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 67864-67866]
[DOCID:fr03de07-14]

========================================================================
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.

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2007-0263; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-207-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Boeing Model 737-600, -700, -700C, -
800, and -900 Series Airplanes

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

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD)
for all Boeing Model 737-600, -700, -700C, -800, and -900 series
airplanes. This proposed AD would require repetitive inspections for
any cracking of or damage to the left side and right side flight deck
No. 2, No. 4, and No. 5 windows, as necessary, and corrective actions
if necessary. This proposed AD results from reports of in-flight
departure and separation of the flight deck windows. We are proposing
this AD to detect and correct cracking in the vinyl interlayer or
damage to the structural inner glass panes of the flight deck No. 2,
No. 4, and No. 5 windows, which could result in loss of a window and
rapid loss of cabin pressure. Loss of cabin pressure could cause crew
communication difficulties or crew incapacitation.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by January 17,
2008.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov.
 Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this AD, contact Boeing
Commercial Airplanes, P.O. Box 3707, Seattle, Washington 98124-2207.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov
; or in person at the Docket Management Facility

between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory
evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street
address for the Docket Office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the
ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly
after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Wayne Lockett, Aerospace Engineer,
Airframe Branch, ANM-120S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office,
1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone (425)
917-6447; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address
listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2007-0263;
Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-207-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 have received one report of in-flight departure of the flight
deck No. 3 window, on a Boeing Model 747 series airplane, which
resulted in rapid loss of cabin pressure and an emergency landing. That
airplane had accumulated 36,131 total flight hours and 5,607 total
flight cycles. We have also received two reports of in-flight
separation of the left side flight deck No. 5 window, on two Boeing
Model 737 series airplanes. One of the Model 737 series airplanes
experienced cabin pressure loss at 12,500 feet due to separation of the
forward, aft, and upper edges of the left side flight deck No. 5
window. That airplane had accumulated 25,673 total flight hours and
15,669 total flight cycles. The other Model 737 series airplane
experienced a pressure leak at 29,000 feet due to partial separation of
the upper aft corner of the left side flight deck No. 5 window. That
airplane had accumulated 28,139 total flight hours and 16,566 total
flight cycles. Vinyl interlayer cracking of the flight deck No. 2, No.
4, and No. 5 windows could decrease the load carrying capability of the
affected windows during cabin pressurization if the structural glass
pane of the window becomes broken. Vinyl interlayer cracking could also
decrease the bird impact resistance capability of the flight deck No. 2
and No. 4 windows. Cracking in the vinyl interlayer or damage to the
structural inner glass panes of the flight deck No. 2, No. 4, and No. 5
windows, if not corrected, could result in loss of a window and rapid
loss of cabin pressure. Loss of cabin pressure could cause crew
communication difficulties or crew incapacitation.

Other Related Rulemaking

    On July 18, 2007, we issued AD 2007-15-10, amendment 39-15139 (72
FR 41438, July 30, 2007), to address the unsafe condition on all Model
747 airplanes. A correction was issued on September 10, 2007 (72 FR
53923, September 21, 2007), to fix a typographical error in AD 2007-15-
10. That AD requires an inspection of the No. 2 and No. 3 windows on
the left and right sides of the airplane to determine their part
numbers, and related investigative and corrective actions if necessary.
On October 5, 2007, we issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to
amend 14 CFR part 39 to include an airworthiness directive (AD) that
would apply to all Boeing Model 737-100, -200, -200C, -300, -400, and

-500 series airplanes. That NPRM was published in the Federal Register
on October 17, 2007 (72 FR 58766). That NPRM proposed to require
repetitive inspections for any cracking of or damage to the left side
and right side flight deck No. 2, No. 4, and No. 5 windows and
corrective actions if necessary.

Relevant Service Information

    We have reviewed Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-56A1022, dated
July 18, 2007. The service bulletin describes procedures for doing
repetitive internal and external detailed inspections for any cracking
of or damage to the left side and right side flight deck No. 2, No. 4,
and No. 5 windows, as applicable, that exceeds the limits given in the
Accomplishment Instructions of the service bulletin. The service
bulletin specifies an initial compliance time ranging between 6 months
and 24 months, depending on the window location and number of window
flight hours. If a replacement window is not new or has an unknown
number of flight hours, the service bulletin specifies accomplishing
the initial inspections before installation. If a replacement window is
new or has zero flight hours, the service bulletin specifies
accomplishing the initial inspections at the following times: (1) 7,500
window flight hours or 36 months, whichever occurs first, for flight
deck No. 2 windows, and (2) 6,000 window flight hours or 24 months,
whichever occurs first, for flight deck No. 4 and No. 5 windows. The
service bulletin also specifies a repetitive interval of (1) 7,500
window flight hours or 36 months, whichever occurs first, for flight
deck No. 2 windows, and (2) 6,000 window flight hours or 24 months,
whichever occurs first, for flight deck No. 4 and No. 5 windows.
    The service bulletin also describes procedures for accomplishing
corrective actions if necessary. The corrective actions include
replacing any cracked or damaged window with a new or serviceable
window. The service bulletin specifies accomplishing the corrective
actions before further flight.
    Accomplishing the actions specified in the service information is
intended to adequately address the unsafe condition.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of the Proposed AD

    We have evaluated all pertinent information and identified an
unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on other airplanes
of this same type design. For this reason, we are proposing this AD,
which would require accomplishing the actions specified in the service
information described previously.

Costs of Compliance

    There are about 2,127 airplanes of the affected design in the
worldwide fleet. This proposed AD would affect about 737 airplanes of
U.S. registry. The proposed actions would take about 2 work hours per
airplane, at an average labor rate of $80 per work hour. Based on these
figures, the estimated cost of the proposed AD for U.S. operators is
$117,920, or $160 per airplane, per inspection cycle.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

    We have determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not
have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship
between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify that the proposed
regulation:
    1. Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order
12866;
    2. Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and
    3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to
comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket. See the
ADDRESSES section for a location to examine the regulatory evaluation.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety.

The Proposed Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

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

Boeing: Docket No. FAA-2007-0263; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-
207-AD.

Comments Due Date

    (a) The FAA must receive comments on this AD action by January
17, 2008.

Affected ADs

    (b) None.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to all Boeing Model 737-600, -700, -700C, -
800, and -900 series airplanes, certificated in any category.

Unsafe Condition

    (d) This AD results from reports of in-flight departure and
separation of the flight deck windows. We are issuing this AD to
detect and correct cracking in the vinyl interlayer or damage to the
structural inner glass panes of the flight deck No. 2, No. 4, and
No. 5 windows, which could result in loss of a window and rapid loss
of cabin pressure. Loss of cabin pressure could cause crew
communication difficulties or crew incapacitation.

Compliance

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

Repetitive Inspections and Replacement

    (f) At the applicable times specified in Tables 1, 2, and 3 of
paragraph 1.E. of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-56A1022, dated
July 18, 2007, except as provided by paragraph (g) of this AD: Do
the internal and external detailed inspections for any cracking of
or damage to the left side and right side flight deck No. 2, No. 4,
and No. 5 windows, as applicable, and do the applicable corrective
actions before further flight, by accomplishing all of the
applicable actions specified in the Accomplishment Instructions of
Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-56A1022, dated July 18, 2007.
Repeat

the inspections thereafter at the applicable interval specified in
paragraph 1.E. of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-56A1022, dated
July 18, 2007.

Exception to Compliance Times

    (g) Where Tables 1, 2, and 3 of paragraph 1.E. of Boeing Alert
Service Bulletin 737-56A1022, dated July 18, 2007, specify counting
the compliance time from ``* * * the date on this service
bulletin,'' this AD requires counting the compliance time from the
effective date of this AD.

Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (h)(1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO),
FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested in
accordance with the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.
    (2) To request a different method of compliance or a different
compliance time for this AD, follow the procedures in 14 CFR 39.19.
Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC
applies, notify your appropriate principal inspector (PI) in the FAA
Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local
FSDO.
    (3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be
used for any repair required by this AD, if it is approved by an
Authorized Representative for the Boeing Commercial Airplanes
Delegation Option Authorization Organization who has been authorized
by the Manager, Seattle ACO, to make those findings. For a repair
method to be approved, the repair must meet the certification basis
of the airplane, and the approval must specifically refer to this
AD.
    (4) Installation of metallic window blanks at cockpit eyebrow
windows No. 4 and No. 5 in accordance with Supplemental Type
Certificate ST01630SE is approved as a means of compliance with the
initial and repetitive inspections for the flight deck No. 4 and No.
5 windows required by paragraph (f) of this AD. All other applicable
actions required by paragraph (f) of this AD must be fully complied
with.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on November 7, 2007.
Ali Bahrami,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. E7-23335 Filed 11-30-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: February 8, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 26)]
[Notices]
[Page 6462-6463]
[DOCID:fr08fe06-67]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP06-187-000]

Louis Dreyfus Energy Services L.P.; Notice of Request for Waiver

January 31, 2006.
    Take notice that on January 26, 2006, Louis Dreyfus Energy Services
L.P., (LDES) filed a petition requesting certain waivers of the
Commission's regulations and policies relating to capacity release
transactions to allow LDES to consummate an arrangement involving the
long-term release of firm transportation capacity and a related long-
term natural gas sale.
    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 on or before the date as indicated
below. 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>.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time February 8, 2006.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E6-1663 Filed 2-7-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 205 (Wednesday, October 23, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 63181]
[FR Doc No: 2013-24791]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-RCRA-2013-0405, FRL-9901-88-OEI]

Information Collection Request Submitted to OMB for Review and
Approval; Comment Request; Information Requirements for Boilers and
Industrial Furnaces (Renewal)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency has submitted an
information collection request (ICR), ``Information Requirements for
Boilers and Industrial Furnaces (Renewal)'' (EPA ICR No. ICR No.
1361.16, OMB Control No. 2050-0073) to the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork
Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). This is a proposed extension of
the ICR, which is currently approved through October 31, 2013. Public
comments were previously requested via the Federal Register (78 FR
38713) on June 27, 2013 during a 60-day comment period. This notice
allows for an additional 30 days for public comments. A fuller
description of the ICR is given below, including its estimated burden
and cost to the public. An Agency may not conduct or sponsor and a
person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless
it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

DATES: Additional comments may be submitted on or before November 22,
2013.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-RCRA-
2013-0405, to: (1) EPA, either online using www.regulations.gov (our
preferred method), or by email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by mail to:
EPA Docket Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code 28221T,
1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460; and (2) OMB via email
to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Address comments to OMB Desk Officer
for EPA.
    EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the
public docket without change including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information
claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Peggy Vyas, Office of Resource
Conservation and Recovery (mail code 5303P), Environmental Protection
Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Supporting documents which explain in detail
the information that the EPA will be collecting are available in the
public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at
www.regulations.gov or in person at the EPA Docket Center, WJC West,
Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The telephone
number for the Docket Center is<PHONE_NUMBER>. For additional
information about EPA's public docket, visit http://www.epa.gov/dockets.
    Abstract: EPA regulates the burning of hazardous waste in boilers,
incinerators, and industrial furnaces (BIFs) under 40 CFR parts 63,
264, 265, 266 and 270. This ICR describes the paperwork requirements
that apply to the owners and operators of BIFs. This includes the
requirements under the comparable/syngas fuel specification at 40 CFR
261.38; the general facility requirements at 40 CFR parts 264 and 265,
subparts B thru H; the requirements applicable to BIF units at 40 CFR
part 266; and the RCRA Part B permit application and modification
requirements at 40 CFR part 270.
    Form Numbers: None.
    Respondents/affected entities: Businesses or other for-profits.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (per 40 CFR 264, 265,
and 270).
    Estimated number of respondents: 114.
    Frequency of response: On occasion.
    Total estimated burden: 291,757 hours per year. Burden is defined
at 5 CFR 1320.03(b).
    Total estimated cost: $39,476,994 (per year), includes $9,839,942
annualized capital $11,164,608 operation & maintenance costs.
    Changes in the Estimates: There is an increase of 52,972 hours in
the total estimated respondent burden compared with the ICR currently
approved by OMB. This increase is due to an increase in universe size.

John Moses,
Director, Collection Strategies Division.
[FR Doc. 2013-24791 Filed 10-22-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: April 1, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 61)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 14720-14725]
[DOCID:fr01ap09-4]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

21 CFR Part 5

[Docket No. FDA-2009-N-0144]

Revision of Organization and Conforming Changes to Regulations

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is issuing this final
rule to amend the regulations to reflect organizational changes in the
agency and to make other conforming changes. This action is editorial
in nature and is intended to improve the accuracy of the agency's
regulations.

DATES:  This rule is effective April 1, 2009.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Vanessa Starks, Office of Management
Programs (HFA-410), Food and Drug Administration, 5600 Fishers Lane,
Rockville, MD 20857,<PHONE_NUMBER>; or Sharon Burgess, Office of
Management Programs (HFA-410), 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857,
301-827-2065.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    FDA is issuing this final rule to amend the agency's regulations by
updating the organizational information in part 5 (21 CFR part 5). The
agency has updated the references to part 5, subpart M.
    The portion of this final rule updating the organizational
information in part 5, subpart M is a rule of agency organization,
procedure, or practice. FDA is issuing these provisions as a final rule
without publishing a general notice of proposed rulemaking because such
notice is not required for rules of agency organization, procedure, or
practice under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(A). For the conforming changes to the
other regulations, the agency finds good cause under 5 U.S.C.
553(b)(3)(B) to dispense with prior notice and comment, and good cause
under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) to make these conforming changes effective
less than 30 days after publication because such notice and comment and
delayed effective date are unnecessary and contrary to the public
interest. As discussed previously, these conforming changes merely
update the footnotes in part 5, subpart M. These changes do not result
in any substantive change in the regulations.

II. Analysis of Impacts

    FDA has examined the impacts of the final rule under Executive
Order 12866 and the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), and
the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-4). Executive
Order 12866 directs agencies to assess all costs and benefits of
available regulatory alternatives and, when regulation is necessary, to
select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including
potential economic, environmental, public health and safety, and other
advantages; distributive impacts; and equity). The agency believes that
this final rule is consistent with the principles identified in the
Executive order. In addition, the final rule is not a significant
regulatory action as defined by the Executive order and so is not
subject to review under the Executive order.
    The Regulatory Flexibility Act requires agencies to analyze
regulatory options that would minimize any significant impact of a rule
on small entities. Because this rule simply updates the organizational
information, it does not impose any additional costs on industry.
Consequently, the agency certifies that the final rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Therefore, under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, no further analysis is
required.
    Section 202(a) of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 requires
that agencies prepare a written statement, which includes an assessment
of anticipated costs and benefits, before proposing ``any rule that
includes any Federal mandate that may result in the expenditure by
State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the
private sector, of $100,000,000 or more (adjusted annually for
inflation) in any one year.'' The current threshold after adjustment
for inflation is $130 million, using the most current (2007) Implicit
Price Deflator for the Gross Domestic Product. FDA does not expect this
final rule to result in any 1-year expenditure that would meet or
exceed this amount.

III. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    This final rule contains no collections of information. Therefore,
clearance by the Office of Management and Budget under the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 is not required.

IV. Environmental Impact

    FDA has determined under 21 CFR 25.30(h) that this action is of a
type that does not individually or cumulatively have significant effect
on the human environment. Therefore, neither an environmental
assessment nor an environmental impact statement is required.

V. Federalism

    FDA has analyzed this final rule in accordance with the principles
set forth in Executive Order 13132. FDA has determined that the rule
does not contain policies that have substantial direct effects on the
States, on the relationship between the National Government and the
States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the
various levels of government. Accordingly the agency has concluded that
the rule does not contain policies that have federalism implications as
defined in the Executive order and, consequently, a federalism summary
impact statement is not required.

List of Subjects in 21 CFR Part 5

    Authority delegations (Government agencies), Imports, Organization
and functions (Government agencies).

0
Therefore, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under the
authority of the Commissioner of Food and Drugs, 21 CFR part 5 is
amended as follows:
0
1. Revise part 5 to read as follows:

PART 5--ORGANIZATION

Subparts A-L--[Reserved]

Subpart M--Organization

Sec.
5.1100 Headquarters.
5.1105 Chief Counsel, Food and Drug Administration.
5.1110 FDA Public Information Offices.

    Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552; 21 U.S.C. 301-397.

Subparts A-L--[Reserved]

Subpart M--Organization

Sec.  5.1100  Headquarters.

    The central organization of the Food and Drug Administration
consists of the following:

OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER.\1\

    \1\ Mailing address: 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 1, Silver
Spring, MD 20993-0002.

Office of the Chief Counsel.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The Office of the Chief Counsel (also known as the Food and
Drug Division, Office of the General Counsel, Department of Health
and Human Services), while administratively within the Office of the
Commissioner, is part of the Office of the General Counsel of the
Department of Health and Human Services.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office of the Administrative Law Judge.

Office of Chief of Staff.

Office of Executive Secretariat.

Office of Public Affairs.

Office of Legislation.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Mailing address: 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20852.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office of External Relations.

Office of the Ombudsman.

Office of Scientific and Medical Programs.

Office of Critical Path.

Office of Science and Health Coordination.

Office of Orphan Products Development.

Office of Women's Health.

National Center for Toxicology Research.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Mailing address: 3900 NCTR Rd., Jefferson, AR 72079.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office of Management, NCTR.

Office of Executive Programs and Services, NCTR.

Office of Scientific Coordination, NCTR.

Office of Research, NCTR.

Division of Biochemical Toxicology, NCTR.

Division of Genetic and Reproductive Toxicology, NCTR.

Division of Personalized Nutrition and Medicine, NCTR.

Division of Microbiology, NCTR.

Division of Neurotoxicology, NCTR.

Division of Veterinary Services, NCTR.

Office of Regulatory Compliance and Risk Management, NCTR.

Office of Management, NCTR.

Office of Executive Programs and Services, NCTR.

Office of Scientific Coordination, NCTR.

Office of Research, NCTR.

Division of Biochemical Toxicology, NCTR.

Division of Genetic and Reproductive Toxicology, NCTR.

Division of Personalized Nutrition and Medicine, NCTR.

Division of Microbiology, NCTR.

Division of Neurotoxicology, NCTR.

Division of Veterinary Services, NCTR.

Office of Regulatory Compliance and Risk Management, NCTR.

Office of International Activities and Strategic Initiatives.\3\

Office of International Programs.\3\

Office of Pediatric Therapeutics.\3\

Office of Combination Products.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Mailing address: 15800 Crabbs Branch Way, Rockville, MD
20855.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office of Operations.\1\

Office of Information Management.\3\

Division of Business Partnership and Support.

Division of Chief Information Officer Support.

Division of Systems Management.

Division of Infrastructure Operations.

Division of Technology.

Office of Management.\1\

Office of Management Programs.\3\

Division of Human Capital Management.

Division of Freedom of Information.

Division of Dockets Management.\6\

Office of Shared Services.\6\

Office of Acquisitions and Grants Services.

Division of Contracts and Grants Management.

Office of Financial Services.

Division of Travel Services.

Division of Payment Services.

Office of Equal Employment Opportunity and Diversity Management.\3\

Office of Real Property.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Mailing address: Mailing address: 5630 Fishers Lane,
Rockville, MD 20852.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Division of Portfolio Development.

Division of Engineering Services.

Division of Facilities Operations.

Division of Logistic Services.

Office of Field Financial and Acquisition Services.\6\

FDA Bioscience Library.\6\

Office of Financial Management.\3\

Division of Financial Support Services.

Division of Accounting.

Division of Budget Execution and Control.

Office of Executive Operations.\3\

Office of Crisis Management.\1\

Office of Emergency Operations.\3\

Office of Security Operations.\6\

Office of Policy, Planning, and Preparedness.\1\

Office of Counter-Terrorism and Emerging Threats.\1\

Office of Integrity and Accountability.\1\

Office of Policy and Planning.\3\

Office of Policy.\3\

Office of Planning.\3\

CENTER FOR BIOLOGICS EVALUATION AND RESEARCH.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Mailing address: 5515 Security Ln., Rockville, MD 20852.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office of the Center Director.

Office of Management.

Regulatory Information Management Staff.

Division of Planning, Evaluation, and Budget.

Division of Management Services.

Office of Compliance and Biologics Quality.

Division of Case Management.

Division of Inspection and Surveillance.

Division of Manufacturing and Product Quality.

Office of Biostatistics and Epidemiology.

Division of Biostatistics.

Division of Epidemiology.

Office of Information Management.

Division of Vaccines and Related Products Applications.

Office of Communication, Training, and Manufacturers Assistance.

Division of Disclosure and Oversight Management.

Division of Manufacturers Assistance and Training.

Division of Communication and Consumer Affairs.

Office of Biostatistics and Epidemiology.

Division of Biostatistics.

Division of Epidemiology.

Office of Information Management.

Division of Information Operations.

Division of Information Development.

Office of Cellular, Tissue, and Gene Therapies.

Division of Cell and Gene Therapies.

Division of Clinical Evaluation and Pharmacology/Toxicology Review.

Division of Human Tissues.

Information Technology Staff.

Division of Information Operations.

Division of Information Development.

Office of Blood Research and Review.

Division of Emerging and Transfusion Transmitted Diseases.

Division of Hematology.

Division of Blood Applications.

Office of Vaccines Research and Review.

Analytical Chemistry Staff.

Standards and Testing Staff.

Program Operation Staff.

Division of Bacterial, Parasitic, and Allergenic Products.

Division of Viral Products.

Division of Vaccines and Related Product Applications.

Office of Cellular, Tissue, and Gene Therapies.

Regulatory Management Staff.

Division of Cell and Gene Therapies.

Division of Clinical Evaluation and Pharmacology/Toxicology Review.

Division of Human Tissues.

Office of Communication, Training, and Manufacturers Assistance.

Division of Disclosure and Oversight Management.

Division of Manufacturers Assistance and Training.

Division of Communication and Consumer Affairs.

CENTER FOR FOOD SAFETY AND APPLIED NUTRITION.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Mailing address: 5100 Paint Branch Pkwy., College Park, MD
20740-3835.

Office of the Center Director.

Senior Science Advisor Staff.

Executive Operations Staff.

International Staff.

Office of Management Systems.

Division of Planning and Financial Resources Management.

Division of Program Support Services.

Office of Food Defense, Communication and Emergency Response.

Division of Education and Communication.

Division of Public Health and Biostatistics.

Office of Food Safety.

Retail Food and Cooperative Programs Support Staff

Division of Seafood Science and Technology.

Division of Food Processing Science and Technology.

Division of Plant and Dairy Food Safety.

Division of Seafood Safety.

Office of Cosmetics and Colors.

Cosmetic Staff.

Division of Color Certification and Technology.

Office of Regulatory Science.

Division of Analytical Chemistry.

Division of Microbiology.

Division of Bioanalytical Chemistry.

Office of Food Additive Safety.

Senior Science and Policy Staff.

Division of Food Contact Notifications.

Division of Biotechnology and GRAS Notice Review.

Office of Compliance.

Division of Enforcement.

Division of Field Programs and Guidance.

Office of Applied Research and Safety Assessment.

Muirkirk Technical Operations Staff.

Division of Molecular Biology.

Division of Virulence Assessment.

Division of Toxicology.

Office of Regulations, Policy and Social Sciences.

Regulations and Special Government Employees Management Staff.

Office of Nutrition, Labeling and Dietary Supplements.

Food Labeling and Standards Staff.

Nutrition Programs Staff.

Infant Formula and Medical Foods Staff.

Division of Dietary Supplement Programs.

CENTER FOR DRUG EVALUATION AND RESEARCH.\1\

Office of the Center Director.

Equal Employment Opportunity Staff.

Controlled Substance Staff.

Office of Regulatory Policy.

Division of Regulatory Policy I.

Division of Regulatory Policy II.

Division of Information Disclosure Policy.

Office of Management.

Division of Management and Budget.

Division of Management Services.

Office of Training and Communication.

Medwatch Staff.

Division of Library and Information Services.

Division of Training and Development.

Division of Public Affairs.

Division of Drug Information.

Office of Surveillance Research and Communication Support.

Division of Medical Errors and Technical Support.

Division of Drug Risk Evaluation.

Office of Compliance.

Division of Compliance Risk Management and Surveillance.

Division of New Drugs and Labeling Compliance.

Division of Manufacturing and Product Quality.

Division of Scientific Investigations.

Office of New Drugs.

Office of Drug Evaluation I.

Division of Cardiorenal Drug Products.

Division of Neuropharmacological Drug Products.

Division of Metabolic and Endocrine Drug Products.

Division of Pulmonary and Allergy Drug Products.

Division of Anesthetic, Critical Care and Addiction Drug Products.

Division of Oncology Drug Products.

Office of Drug Evaluation II.

Division of Metabolic and Endocrine Drug Products.

Division of Pulmonary and Allergy Drug Products.

Division of Anesthetic, Critical Care and Addiction Drug Products.

Office of Drug Evaluation III.

Division of Gastrointestinal and Coagulation Drug Products.

Division of Medical Imaging and Radiopharmaceutical Drug Products.

Division of Reproductive and Urologic Drug Products.

Office of Drug Evaluation IV.

Division of Anti-Infective Drug Products.

Division of Anti-Viral Drug Products.

Division of Special Pathogen and Immunologic Drug Products.

Office of Drug Evaluation V.

Division of Anti-Inflammatory, Analgesic and Ophthalmologic Drug
Products.

Division of Dermatologic and Dental Drug Products.

Division of Over-The-Counter Drug Products.

Office of Drug Evaluation VI.

Division of Therapeutic Biological Oncology Products.

Division of Therapeutic Biological Internal Medicine Products.

Division of Review Management and Policy.

Office of Post-Marketing Drug Risk Assessment.

Division of Therapeutic Biological Oncology Products.

Division of Therapeutic Biological Internal Medicine Products.

Division of Review Management and Policy.

Office of Post-Marketing Drug Risk Assessment.

Extramural Programs Staff.

Information Technology Staff.

Division of Drug Risk Evaluation I.

Division of Drug Risk Evaluation II.

Office of Pediatric Drug Development and Program Initiatives.

Pediatric Therapeutics Staff.

Program Initiatives Staff.

Office of Pharmaceutical Science.

Quality Implementation Staff.

Operations Staff.

Informatics and Computational Safety Analysis Staff.

Office of Clinical Pharmacology and Biopharmaceutics.

Division of Pharmaceutical Evaluation I.

Division of Pharmaceutical Evaluation II.

Division of Pharmaceutical Evaluation III.\1\

Office of Generic Drugs.\9\

Division of Bioequivalence.

Division of Chemistry I.

Division of Chemistry II.

Division of Labeling and Program Support.

Division of Chemistry III.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Mailing address: 7519 Standish Pl., Rockville, MD 20855.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office of New Drug Chemistry.

Division of New Drug Chemistry I.

Division of New Drug Chemistry II.

Division of New Drug Chemistry III.

Office of Testing and Research.

Laboratory of Clinical Pharmacology.

Division of Applied Pharmacology Research.

Division of Pharmaceutical Analysis.

Division of Product Quality Research.

Office of Biotechnology Products.

Division of Monoclonal Antibodies.

Division of Therapeutic Protein.

Office of Information Technology.\3\

Division of Applications Development and Services.\3\

Division of Infrastructure Management and Service.

Office of Medical Policy.

Division of Drug Marketing, Advertising and Communication.

Office of Executive Programs.

Executive Operations Staff.

Quality Assurance Staff.

Advisors and Consultants Staff.\3\

Office of Translational Science.

Office of Biostatistics.

Division of Biometrics I.

Division of Biometrics II.

Division of Biometrics III.

Division of Biometrics IV.

Division of Biometrics V.

Division of Biometrics VI.

Office of Clinical Pharmacology.

Division of Clinical Pharmacology I.

Division of Clinical Pharmacology II.

Division of Clinical Pharmacology III.

Division of Clinical Pharmacology IV.

Division of Clinical Pharmacology V.

Office of Counter-Terrorism and Pediatric Drug Development.

OFFICE OF REGULATORY AFFAIRS.\3\

Equal Employment Opportunity Staff.

Office of Resource Management.\3\

Division of Planning, Evaluation, and Management.

Division of Human Resource Development.

Division of Management Operations.

Division of Personnel Operations.

Office of Information Technology.

Office of Enforcement.\5\

Division of Compliance Management and Operations.

Division of Compliance Policy.

Division of Compliance Information and Quality Assurance.

Office of Regional Operations.\3\

Division of Federal-State Relations.

Division of Field Science.

Division of Import Operations and Policy.

Division of Field Investigations.

Office of Criminal Investigations.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Mailing address: 7500 Standish Pl., Rockville, MD 20855.

Mid-Atlantic Area Office.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Mailing address: 11750 Beltsville Dr., Beltsville, MD
20705.

Midwest Area Office.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Mailing address: 901 Warrenville Rd., Lisle, IL 60532.

Northeast Area Office.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Mailing address: 10 Exchange Pl., Jersey City, NJ 07302.

Pacific Area Office.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Mailing address: 201 Avenida Fabricante, San Clemente, CA
92672.

Southeast Area Office.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Mailing address: 865 SW., 78th Ave., Plantation, FL 33324.

Southwest Area Office.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ Mailing address: 5799 Broadmoor St., Mission, KS 66202.

CENTER FOR VETERINARY MEDICINE.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ Mailing address: 7500 Standish Pl. (MPN-2), Rockville, MD
20855.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office of the Center Director.

Office of Management.

Management Services Staff.

Information Resources Management Staff.

Office of New Animal Drug Evaluation.

Division of Therapeutic Drugs for Non-Food Animals.

Division of Biometrics and Production Drugs.

Division of Therapeutic Drugs for Food Animals.

Division of Human Safety.

Division of Manufacturing Technologies.

Division of Scientific Support.

Office of Surveillance and Compliance.

Division of Surveillance.

Division of Animal Feeds.

Division of Compliance.

Division of Epidemiology.

Office of Research.

Division of Residue Chemistry.

Division of Animal Research.

Division of Animal and Food Microbiology.

CENTER FOR DEVICES AND RADIOLOGICAL HEALTH.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ Mailing address: 9200 Corporate Blvd., Rockville, MD 20850.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office of the Center Director.

Office of Systems and Management.

Division of Ethics and Management Operations.

Division of Planning, Analysis and Finance.

Division of Information Dissemination.

Division of Information Technology.

Office of Compliance.

Promotion and Advertising Policy Staff.

Division of Bioresearch Monitoring.

Division of Program Operations.

Division of Enforcement A.

Division of Enforcement B.

Office of Device Evaluation.

Program Management Staff.

Program Operations Staff.

Division of Cardiovascular Devices.

Division of Reproductive, Abdominal, and Radiological Devices.

Division of General, Restorative, and Neurological Devices.

Division of Ophthalmic, and Ear, Nose and Throat Devices.

Division of Anesthesiology, General Hospital, Infection Control, and
Dental Devices.

Office of Science and Engineering Laboratories.\1\

Division of Biology.

Management Support Staff.

Standards Management Staff.

Division of Chemistry and Materials Science.

Division of Solid and Fluid Mechanics.

Division of Physic.

Division of Imaging and Applied Mathematics.

Office of Communication, Education and Radiation Programs.

Program Operations Staff.

Regulations Staff.

Staff College.

Division of Device User Programs and Systems Analysis.

Division of Small Manufacturers Assistance.

Division of Mammography Quality and Radiation Programs.

Division of Communication Media.

Office of Surveillance and Biometrics.

Issues Management Staff.

Division of Biostatistics.

Division of Postmarket Surveillance.

Division of Surveillance Systems.

Office of In Vitro Diagnostic Device Evaluation and Safety.

Division of Chemistry and Toxicology Devices.

Division of Immunology and Hematology Devices.

Division of Microbiology.

Sec.  5.1105  Chief Counsel, Food and Drug Administration.

    The Office of the Chief Counsel's mailing address is 5600 Fishers
Lane, rm. 6-05, Rockville, MD 20857.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The Office of the Chief Counsel (also known as the Food and
Drug Division, Office of the General Counsel, Department of Health
and Human Services), while administratively within the Office of the
Commissioner, is part of the Office of the General Counsel of the
Department of Health and Human Services.

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

Sec.  5.1110  FDA public information offices.

    (a) Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305). The Division of
Dockets Management public room is located in rm. 1061, 5630 Fishers
Lane, Rockville, MD 20852, Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (b) Division of Freedom of Information (HFI-35). The Freedom of
Information public room is located in rm. 6-30, Parklawn Bldg., 5600
Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857, Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (c) Press Relations Staff (HFI-40). Press offices are located at
10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 1, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002,
Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; and at 5100 Paint Branch Pkwy., College Park,
MD 20740, Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: March 27, 2009.
Jeffrey Shuren,
Associate Commissioner for Policy and Planning.
[FR Doc. E9-7349 Filed 3-31-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4160-01-S


[Federal Register: September 28, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 187)]
[Notices]
[Page 56664]
[DOCID:fr28se05-85]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket Nos. EL05-102-000, EL05-102-001, ER97-4166-018, ER97-4166-021,
ER96-780-007, ER96-780-010, EL05-104-000, and EL05-104-001]

Southern Company Services, Inc., Southern Company Energy
Marketing, L.P. and Southern Company Services, Inc.; Notice of
Designation of Commission Staff as Non-Decisional

September 21, 2005.
    Effective the date of issuance of this notice, Daniel Larcamp, of
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission), is designated as
non-decisional staff in the above-captioned dockets. As non-decisional
staff, Mr. Larcamp will not participate in an advisory capacity in
deliberations on the issues pending therein. In addition, as non-
decisional staff, Mr. Larcamp will also take no part in the
Commission's review of any offer of settlement. Separated non-
decisional and advisory staffs are prohibited from communicating with
one another concerning the deliberations set forth above, including any
pertinent settlement offer.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E5-5268 Filed 9-27-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: September 28, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 186)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 49349-49351]
[DOCID:fr28se09-18]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2009-0793; Directorate Identifier 2009-NM-051-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Fokker Model F.28 Mark 0070 and 0100
Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

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

    Several cases have been reported where a passenger door actuator
detached from the passenger door. This caused the passenger door to
drop to the platform in an uncontrolled manner.
    This condition, if not corrected, could result in injury to
persons on the ground and damage to the aircraft.

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

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by October 28,
2009.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-40, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact
Fokker Services B.V., Technical Services Dept., P.O. Box 231, 2150 AE
Nieuw-Vennep, the Netherlands; telephone +31 (0)252-627-350; fax +31
(0)252-627-211; e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Internet http://www.myfokkerfleet.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> or
425-227-1152.

Examining the AD Docket

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

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address
listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2009-0793;
Directorate Identifier 2009-NM-051-AD'' at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposed AD based on those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this proposed AD.

Discussion

    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical
Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued EASA
Airworthiness Directive 2009-0026, dated February 17, 2009 (referred to
after this as ``the MCAI''), to correct an unsafe condition for the
specified products. The MCAI states:

    Several cases have been reported where a passenger door actuator
detached from the passenger door. This caused the passenger door to
drop to the platform in an uncontrolled manner.
    This condition, if not corrected, could result in injury to
persons on the ground and damage to the aircraft.
    To address this problem, Fokker Services has developed an
improved actuator to ensure the proper functioning of the door
opening mechanism.
    For the reason described above, this AD requires the replacement
of existing airstair door actuators with improved actuators.

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

Relevant Service Information

    Fokker Services B.V. has issued Service Bulletin SBF100-52-087 and
Component Service Bulletin R5320-52-011, both dated November 10, 2008.
The actions described in this service information are intended to
correct the unsafe condition identified in the MCAI.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of this Proposed AD

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

Differences between this AD and the MCAI or Service Information

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

Costs of Compliance

    Based on the service information, we estimate that this proposed AD
would affect about 2 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that
it would take about 12 work-hours per product to comply with the basic
requirements of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $80 per
work-hour. Required parts would cost about $4,933 per product. Where
the service information lists required parts costs that are covered
under warranty, we have assumed that there will be no charge for these
costs. As we do not control warranty coverage for affected parties,
some parties may incur costs higher than estimated here. Based on these
figures, we estimate the cost of the proposed AD on U.S. operators to
be $11,786, or $5,893 per product.

Authority for this Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not
have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship
between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, 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 AD:

Fokker Services B.V.: Docket No. FAA-2009-0793; Directorate
Identifier 2009-NM-051-AD.

Comments Due Date

    (a) We must receive comments by October 28, 2009.

Affected ADs

    (b) None.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to Fokker Model F.28 Mark 0070 and 0100
airplanes, certificated in any category, all serial numbers, if
equipped with an ``airstair'' type door with a passenger door
actuator having part number (P/N) A26900-401, A82936-701, A82936-
705, R5320, R5320-1, R5320-12, W26900-401, W53200-401, W53200-403,
or W53200-405.

Subject

    (d) Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 52: Doors.

Reason

    (e) The mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI)
states:
    Several cases have been reported where a passenger door actuator
detached from the passenger door. This caused the passenger door to
drop to the platform in an uncontrolled manner.
    This condition, if not corrected, could result in injury to
persons on the ground and damage to the aircraft.
    To address this problem, Fokker Services has developed an
improved actuator to ensure the proper functioning of the door
opening mechanism.
    For the reason described above, this AD requires the replacement
of existing airstair door actuators with improved actuators.

Actions and Compliance

    (f) Unless already done, do the following actions.
    (1) Within 7,500 flight cycles after the effective date of this
AD, replace the affected door actuator with a new or modified unit
that has a part number not identified in paragraph (c) of this AD,
in accordance with Fokker Service Bulletin SBF100-52-087, dated
November 10, 2008.
    (2) As of 18 months after the effective date of this AD, no
person may install on any airplane a door actuator with a part
number listed in paragraph (c) of this AD; modification of the
actuators in accordance with Fokker Component Service Bulletin
R5320-52-011, dated November 10, 2008, changes the part number of
the actuator.

FAA AD Differences

    Note 1: This AD differs from the MCAI and/or service information
as follows: No differences.

Other FAA AD Provisions

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

Related Information

    (h) Refer to MCAI European Aviation Safety Agency Airworthiness
Directive 2009-0026, dated February 17, 2009; Fokker Service
Bulletin SBF100-52-087, dated November 10, 2008; and Fokker
Component Service Bulletin R5320-52-011, dated November 10, 2008;
for related information.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on September 18, 2009.
Ali Bahrami,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. E9-23299 Filed 9-25-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P