[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 246 (Friday, December 23, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 78857]
[FR Doc No: 2022-27816]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

21 CFR Parts 130 and 131

[Docket No. FDA-2000-P-0126 (formerly Docket No. 2000P-0658)]
RIN 0910-AI40

International Dairy Foods Association and Chobani, Inc.: Response
to the Objections and Requests for a Public Hearing on the Final Rule
To Revoke the Standards for Lowfat Yogurt and Nonfat Yogurt and To
Amend the Standard for Yogurt; Correction

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Final rule; response to objections and denial of public hearing
requests; removal of administrative stay; correction.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration is correcting a final rule
entitled ``International Dairy Foods Association and Chobani, Inc.:
Response to the Objections and Requests for a Public Hearing on the
Final Rule To Revoke the Standards for Lowfat Yogurt and Nonfat Yogurt
and To Amend the Standard for Yogurt'' that appeared in the Federal
Register of December 15, 2022. The final rule revoked the standards of
identity for lowfat yogurt and nonfat yogurt and amended the standard
of identity for yogurt in numerous respects. The document was published
with an errant reference to its effective date in the preamble
discussion. This document corrects that error.

DATES: This correction is effective January 17, 2023, and applicable
December 15, 2022.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Andrea Krause, Center for Food Safety
and Applied Nutrition (HFS-820), Food and Drug Administration, 5001
Campus Dr., College Park, MD 20740,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or Joan Rothenberg,
Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, Office of Regulations and
Policy (HFS-024), Food and Drug Administration, 5001 Campus Dr.,
College Park, MD 20740,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the Federal Register of Wednesday,
December 15, 2022 (87 FR 765590), appearing on page 76567, in FR Doc.
2022-27040, the following correction is made:
    1. On page 76567, in the third column, in the fifth sentence of the
third paragraph under IV. Summary and Conclusions, ``[DATE OF
PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]'' is corrected to read ``January
17, 2023''.

    Dated: December 16, 2022.
Lauren K. Roth,
Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2022-27816 Filed 12-22-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


From:
"Tunno, Brett J"<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Sent:
Wed, 14 Sep 2022 16:00:18
To:
"Jones; DonnaLee"<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>Cc:
Raymond, Gabrielle<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Shappley, Ned<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Mcginn, Kevin<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Dzurinko, Mike G<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Subject:
RE: [External]-RE: U. S. Steel - Clairton Plant - Monitoring Plan Submission
Good afternoon Dr. Jones,

Those tanks are wastewater treatment tanks that are not subject to Subparts L, V, or FF.

Brett Tunno, DrPH, CPH
Environmental Affairs
United States Steel Corporation
Office:<PHONE_NUMBER>
Cell:<PHONE_NUMBER>
Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>

From: Jones, DonnaLee<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Sent: Tuesday, September 13, 2022 11:32 AM
To: Tunno, Brett J<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>Cc: GABRIELLE RAYMOND<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Shappley, Ned<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Mcginn, Kevin<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Dzurinko, Mike G<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Subject: RE: [External]-RE: U. S. Steel - Clairton Plant - Monitoring Plan Submission

Hi. Kevin and Ned have reviewed your plan and we want to make sure you address the usage of the three storage tanks located at 40.29599, -79.86915, e.g., to make sure any tanks excluded are no longer in use or not in organic service, including storage of light oil.

Please either amend your plan or let us know the status of these tanks.

Thank you.

Regards,
Donna Lee Jones, Ph.D.
Senior Technical Advisor, Metals Sector
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Sector Policies and Programs Division / Metals & Inorganic Chemicals Group (D243-02)
Research Triangle Park, NC  27711
Tele:<PHONE_NUMBER>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fax<PHONE_NUMBER>
"Reasonableness never fails to be appreciated."  - anon.

Pronouns - She/Her/Hers
Salutation - Dr./Ms.

From: Tunno, Brett J<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>>
Sent: Monday, September 12, 2022 4:35 PM
To: Jones, DonnaLee<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>Cc: GABRIELLE RAYMOND<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>>; Shappley, Ned<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>>; Mcginn, Kevin<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>>; Dzurinko, Mike G<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>>
Subject: RE: [External]-RE: U. S. Steel - Clairton Plant - Monitoring Plan Submission

Good afternoon Dr. Jones,

Attached is the revised monitoring plan for the U. S. Steel  -  Clairton Plant, as requested.

Have a nice evening,

Brett Tunno, DrPH, CPH
Environmental Affairs
United States Steel Corporation
Office:<PHONE_NUMBER>
Cell:<PHONE_NUMBER>
Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
From: Jones, DonnaLee<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>>
Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2022 1:53 PM
To: Tunno, Brett J<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>>; Dzurinko, Mike G<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>>
Cc: GABRIELLE RAYMOND<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>; Shappley, Ned<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>>; Mcginn, Kevin<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>>
Subject: [External]-RE: U. S. Steel - Clairton Plant - Monitoring Plan Submission

Hello Brett and Mike: Thank you for the submission of your QAPP in response to the 2022 Clean Air Act section 114 test request for the Coke Ovens RTR. We reviewed your submission and had the following comments and requests:

"The SODAR met station should be used for the testing. The interior sample locations are good, but the TO-15 upwind fenceline location should be moved to the same location as the TO-13 upwind site, which appears to be better sited for removing potential interferents. The usage status of the two storage tanks excluded from the fenceline perimeter should be confirmed to ensure their exclusion is appropriate."

Please submit a revised QAPP documents addressing these deficiencies by Monday, September 12, 2022 COB.

Thank you for your efforts wth this 114 request.

Regards,
Donna Lee Jones, Ph.D.
Senior Technical Advisor, Metals Sector
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Sector Policies and Programs Division / Metals & Inorganic Chemicals Group (D243-02)
Research Triangle Park, NC  27711
Tele:<PHONE_NUMBER>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fax<PHONE_NUMBER>
"Reasonableness never fails to be appreciated."  - anon.

Pronouns - She/Her/Hers
Salutation - Dr./Ms.

From: Tunno, Brett J<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>>
Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2022 5:20 PM
To: Coke ICR2<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>>
Cc: Dzurinko, Mike G<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>>
Subject: U. S. Steel - Clairton Plant - Monitoring Plan Submission

Good afternoon,

Attached is the proposed U. S. Steel  -  Clairton Plant Fugitive Monitoring Plan as required by the ICR.  Please reach out to Mike Dzurinko and me if you have any questions.

Thanks,

Brett Tunno, DrPH, CPH
Environmental Affairs
United States Steel Corporation
Office:<PHONE_NUMBER>
Cell:<PHONE_NUMBER>
Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>


[Federal Register: December 1, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 230)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 74663-74665]
[DOCID:fr01de10-23]

========================================================================
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-2010-1159; Directorate Identifier 2010-NM-006-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Model 747-400 and -
400D Series Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for
certain Model 747-400 and -400D series airplanes. This proposed AD
would require a general visual inspection to determine the routing of
the wire bundles in the number two and number three engine pylons near
the leading edge, and related investigative and corrective actions, if
necessary. For certain airplanes, this proposed AD would also require
certain concurrent actions. This proposed AD results from a report of a
fuel leak from the drain line of the number two engine pylon. We are
proposing this AD to detect and correct chafing of the main fuel feed
tube and the alternating current motor-driven hydraulic pump wire
bundle, which could lead to arcing from the exposed wire to the fuel
feed tube, and could result in a fire or explosion.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by January 18,
2011.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management,
P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, Washington 98124-2207; telephone 206-
544-5000, extension 1; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You may review copies of the
referenced service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane
Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington. For information
on the availability of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

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: Tung Tran, Aerospace Engineer,
Propulsion Branch, ANM-140S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification
Office, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356, telephone
(425) 917-6505; 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-2010-1159;
Directorate Identifier 2010-NM-006-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 received a report of a Model 747-400 airplane arriving at a gate
with a fuel leak from the drain line of the number two engine pylon. An
investigation revealed that the alternating current motor-driven pump
wire bundle was incorrectly routed and touching the fuel feed tube,
which caused chafing of the fuel feed tube and the resultant leak. If
not detected and corrected, chafing of the main fuel feed tube and the
alternating current motor-driven hydraulic pump wire bundle could lead
to arcing from the exposed wire to the fuel feed tube, and could result
in a fire or explosion.

Related AD

    We issued AD 92-27-13, amendment 39-8448 (58 FR 5920, January 25,
1993), on December 17, 1992, for Model 747-400 series airplanes. We
issued that AD to require repetitive inspections to detect damage,
chafing, and improper clearance between the electrical power feeder
cables and engine fuel supply tube, and corrective actions, if
necessary; and modification of the electrical power feeder cable
installation.

Relevant Service Information

    We have reviewed Boeing Service Bulletin 747-29A2114, Revision 1,
dated July 15, 2010. The service bulletin describes procedures for a
general visual inspection to determine the routing of the wire bundles
in the number two and number three engine pylons near the leading edge,
and related investigative and corrective actions if necessary. Related
investigative actions include a general visual inspection for damage
between the wire bundle and the fuel feed tube. Corrective actions
include repairing the wire bundle, repairing or replacing the fuel feed
tube where the wire bundle goes across the tube, and changing the
routing configuration for the wire bundle to above the support bracket.

    Boeing Service Bulletin 747-29A2114, Revision 1, dated July 15,
2010, refers to Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-24A2168, Revision 1,
dated December 5, 1991; Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-24A2168,
Revision 2, dated September 24, 1992; or Boeing Service Bulletin 747-
24A2168, Revision 3, dated July 29, 1993; for actions that must be done
prior to or concurrently with the actions specified in Boeing Service
Bulletin 747-29A2114, Revision 1, dated July 15, 2010. Boeing Service
Bulletin 747-24A2168, Revision 3, dated July 29, 1993, specifies, for
certain airplanes, procedures for installing the cable support brackets
in the number two and number three strut, and related investigative and
corrective actions, if necessary. The related investigative action is a
detailed inspection of the clearance between the bracket and an
adjacent pneumatic duct. The corrective action is adjusting the
pneumatic duct, if necessary. AD 92-27-13 refers to Boeing Alert
Service Bulletin 747-24A2168, Revision 1, dated December 5, 1991; and
Revision 2, dated September 24, 1992; as appropriate sources of service
information for doing certain actions required by that AD.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD

    We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all relevant
information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is
likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design.
This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions specified in
the service information described previously.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD would affect 15 airplanes of U.S.
registry. The following table provides the estimated costs for U.S.
operators to comply with this proposed AD.

                                                                 Table--Estimated Costs
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Number of U.S.-
                         Action                             Work hours     Average labor       Parts         Cost per       registered      Fleet cost
                                                                           rate per hour                      product        airplanes
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inspection..............................................               1             $85              $0             $85              15          $1,275
Concurrent Inspection and Bracket Installation..........               6              85               0             510              15           7,650
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The cost estimate figure discussed above is based on assumptions
that no operator has yet accomplished any of the actions required by
this proposed AD, and that no operator would accomplish those actions
in the future if this AD were not adopted. However, we have been
advised that the concurrent inspection and bracket installation have
already been done on some affected airplanes. Therefore, the future
economic cost impact of this rule on U.S. operators is expected to be
less than the cost impact figure indicated above.

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.
    You can find our regulatory evaluation and the estimated costs of
compliance in the AD Docket.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

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:

The Boeing Company: Docket No. FAA-2010-1159; Directorate Identifier
2010-NM-006-AD.

Comments Due Date

    (a) We must receive comments by January 18, 2011.

Affected ADs

    (b) AD 92-27-13, Amendment 39-8448, affects this AD.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to The Boeing Company Model 747-400 and -
400D series airplanes, certificated in any category; as specified in
Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-29A2114, Revision 1, dated July
15, 2010.

Subject

    (d) Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 29:
Hydraulic power.

Unsafe Condition

    (e) This AD results from a report of a fuel leak from the drain
line of the number two engine pylon. The Federal Aviation
Administration is issuing this AD to detect and correct chafing of
the main fuel feed tube and the alternating current motor-driven
hydraulic pump wire bundle, which could lead to arcing from the
exposed wire to the

fuel feed tube, and could result in a fire or explosion.

Compliance

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

Inspection

    (g) Within 24 months after the effective date of this AD, do a
general visual inspection to determine the routing of the wire
bundles in the number two and number three engine pylons near the
leading edge; and do all applicable related investigative and
corrective actions; in accordance with the Accomplishment
Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 747-29A2114, Revision 1,
dated July 15, 2010. Do all applicable related investigative and
corrective actions before further flight.

Concurrent Requirements

    (h) For Model 747-400 series airplanes: Before or concurrently
with accomplishing the requirements of paragraph (g) of this AD,
install all applicable cable support brackets in the number two and
number three engine pylon areas, and do all applicable related
investigative and corrective actions, in accordance with Phase II of
Boeing Service Bulletin 747-24A2168, Revision 3, dated July 29,
1993. Do all applicable related investigative and corrective actions
before further flight. Doing the actions required by paragraph (c)
of AD 92-27-13, Amendment 39-8488, is an acceptable method of
compliance with the installation required by this paragraph.

    Note 1: For the purposes of this AD, a detailed inspection is:
``An intensive examination of a specific item, installation, or
assembly to detect damage, failure, or irregularity. Available
lighting is normally supplemented with a direct source of good
lighting at an intensity deemed appropriate. Inspection aids such as
mirror, magnifying lenses, etc., may be necessary. Surface cleaning
and elaborate procedures may be required.''

Credit for Actions Accomplished in Accordance With Previous Service
Information

    (i) Actions accomplished before the effective date of this AD,
in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert
Service Bulletin 747-29A2114, dated October 1, 2009, are considered
acceptable for compliance with the corresponding actions specified
in paragraph (g) of this AD.
    (j) Actions accomplished before the effective date of this AD,
in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert
Service Bulletin 747-24A2168, Revision 1, dated December 5, 1991; or
Revision 2, dated September 24, 1992; are considered acceptable for
compliance with the corresponding actions specified in paragraph (h)
of this AD.

Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (k)(1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO),
FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested
using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send information to
ATTN: Tung Tran, Aerospace Engineer, Propulsion Branch, ANM-140S,
FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW.,
Renton, Washington 98057-3356, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax (425)
917-6590. Information may be e-mailed to: 9-ANM-Seattle-ACO-AMOC-
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (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 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.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on November 15, 2010.
Ali Bahrami,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2010-30134 Filed 11-30-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


Comment Info: =================

General Comment:Dear Mr. Zeller,

My name is Jason Abrahamson, I am writing as an individual consumer to request an extension of the comment period for the Food and Drug Administration's ("FDA") Proposed Rule Deeming Tobacco Products to be Subject to the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, as amended by the Family Smoking and Prevention and Tobacco Control Act (the "Proposed Rule") published at 79 Fed. Reg. 23,142 and Federal Register No. 2014-09491. On behalf of myself, I am requesting that the comment period for the Proposed Rule be extended by the FDA for an additional 105 days, from its current 75-day period, to 180 days.

The Proposed Rule raises a number of significant issues and questions that are important and relevant to me, as a consumer of products that are proposed for regulation under the Proposed Rule. The Proposed Rule asks about a hundred different questions I might want to respond to. I want to provide my thoughts and comments on many of these issues, but my time to devote to researching and providing thoughtful comments on these important questions is limited. I have already spent many hours researching and dissecting these issues, but they take time. I know that the FDA took many years to even come up with the Proposed Rule, so I do not think it is at all unreasonable to allow the public a mere six months to comment on it. This is our only opportunity, as consumers, to provide our feedback.

I feel very strongly about e-cigarettes as an alternative to combustible cigarettes. Quite simply, I firmly believe that they saved my life. I was a cigarette smoker for over 24 years and I have been smoke free for 6 months due to the help of e-cigarettes. I wish to provide you with my personal story, as well as science- and evidence-based responses to your questions so that you can take my comment into account. I realize that the FDA has the authority under 21 CFR 10.40 to extend this time frame and that the FDA has exercised this authority on numerous occasions in the past. I would therefore ask that you do so here, so that all stakeholders have the opportunity to provide their comments on this proposed regulation.

I appreciate your consideration of my request and am happy to discuss this issue with you further. I understand your time is valuable as well and I am just requesting more time to go over these issues further so that my voice can be heard as everyone should have that right.

Thank you for your time and consideration,

Jason Abrahamson


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 104 (Friday, May 29, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 32432-32433]
[FR Doc No: 2020-11594]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Proposed Collection; Comment Request

Upon Written Request, Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of FOIA Services, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549-2736

Extension:
    Rule 611, SEC File No. 270-540, OMB Control No. 3235-0600

    Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995 (``PRA'') (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the

Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') is soliciting
comments on the existing collection of information provided for in Rule
611 (17 CFR 242.611) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15
U.S.C. 78a et seq.) (``Exchange Act''). The Commission plans to submit
this existing collection of information to the Office of Management and
Budget (``OMB'') for extension and approval.
    On June 9, 2005, effective August 29, 2005 (see 70 FR 37496, June
29, 2005), the Commission adopted Rule 611 of Regulation NMS under the
Exchange Act to require any national securities exchange, national
securities association, alternative trading system, exchange market
maker, over-the-counter market maker, and any other broker-dealer that
executes orders internally by trading as principal or crossing orders
as agent, to establish, maintain, and enforce written policies and
procedures reasonably designed to prevent the execution of a
transaction in its market at a price that is inferior to a bid or offer
displayed in another market at the time of execution (a ``trade-
though''), absent an applicable exception and, if relying on an
exception, that are reasonably designed to assure compliance with the
terms of the exception. Without this collection of information,
respondents would not have a means to enforce compliance with the
Commission's intention to prevent trade-throughs pursuant to the rule.
    There are approximately 366 respondents \1\ per year that will
require an aggregate total of approximately 21,960 hours to comply with
this Rule. It is anticipated that each respondent will continue to
expend approximately 60 hours annually: Two hours per month of internal
legal time and three hours per month of internal compliance time to
ensure that its written policies and procedures are up-to-date and
remain in compliance with Rule 611. The estimated cost for an in-house
attorney is $396 per hour and the estimated cost for an assistant
compliance director in the securities industry is $349 per hour.
Therefore the estimated total internal cost of compliance for the
annual hour burden is as follows: [(2 legal hours x 12 months x $396) x
366] + [(3 compliance hours x 12 months x $349) x 366] = $8,076,888.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ This estimate includes 17 national securities exchanges that
are equity securities exchanges. The estimate also includes an
estimated 318 firms that are over-the-counter market makers or
exchange market makers, as well as an estimated 31 alternative
trading systems that trade NMS stocks.
    \2\ The total cost of compliance for the annual hour burden has
been revised to reflect updated estimated cost figures for an in-
house attorney and an assistant compliance director. These figures
are from SIFMA's Management & Professional Earnings in the
Securities Industry 2017, modified by Commission staff to account
for an 1800-hour work-year and multiplied by 5.35 to account for
bonuses, firm size, employee benefits, and overhead.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of
the functions of the Commission, including whether the information
shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's
estimates of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c)
ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to
be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of
information on respondents, including through the use of automated
collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions submitted in
writing within 60 days of this publication.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information under the PRA unless it
displays a currently valid OMB control number.
    Please direct your written comments to: David Bottom, Director/
Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o
Cynthia Roscoe, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549, or send an email
to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Dated: May 26, 2020.
J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-11594 Filed 5-28-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 160 (Monday, August 21, 2023)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 56753-56756]
[FR Doc No: 2023-17777]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2023-1047; Project Identifier MCAI-2022-01601-T;
Amendment 39-22524; AD 2023-16-05]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; De Havilland Aircraft of Canada Limited
(Type Certificate Previously Held by Bombardier, Inc.) Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for
certain De Havilland Aircraft of Canada Limited Model DHC-8-401 and -
402 airplanes. This AD was prompted by reports of the main landing gear
(MLG) aft door not opening when using the alternate extension system.
This AD requires a one-time inspection of the spring box assembly,
repetitive inspections of the cam assembly and alternate release cable
assembly, corrective actions if necessary, and a replacement of certain
alternate release cable assemblies. In addition, this AD requires
certain aircraft maintenance manuals tasks when installing the cam
assembly or alternate release cable assembly. This AD also prohibits
the installation of affected parts. The FAA is issuing this AD to
address the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: This AD is effective September 25, 2023.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of September 25,
2023.

ADDRESSES:
    AD Docket: You may examine the AD docket at regulations.gov under
Docket No. FAA-2023-1047; or in person at Docket Operations between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD
docket contains this final rule, the mandatory continuing airworthiness
information (MCAI), any comments received, and other information. The
address for Docket Operations is U.S. Department of Transportation,
Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.
    Material Incorporated by Reference:
     For service information identified in this final rule,
contact De Havilland Aircraft of Canada Limited, Dash 8 Series Customer
Response Centre, 5800 Explorer Drive, Mississauga, Ontario, L4W 5K9,
Canada; telephone North America (toll-free):<PHONE_NUMBER>, Direct: 647-
277-5820; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>website: dehavilland.com.
     You may view this service information at the FAA,
Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200 South
216th Street, Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of
this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. It is also available at
regulations.gov under Docket No. FAA-2023-1047.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gabriel Kim, Aviation Safety Engineer,
FAA, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone 516-
228-7300; email [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14
CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain De Havilland
Aircraft of Canada Limited (Type Certificate Previously Held by
Bombardier, Inc.) Model DHC-8-401 and -402 airplanes. The NPRM
published in the Federal Register on June 1, 2023 (88 FR 35788). The
NPRM was prompted by AD CF-2022-69, dated December 16, 2022, issued by
Transport Canada, which is the aviation authority for Canada (referred
to after this as the MCAI). The MCAI states that several instances
occurred where the maintenance crew using the MLG alternate extension
system did not open the MLG aft doors. An investigation found that the
associated cam assembly failed due to a fractured cam assembly lever, a
damaged spring box assembly, or a broken alternate release cable
assembly.
    In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to require a one-time inspection of
the spring box assembly, repetitive inspections of the cam assembly and
alternate release cable assembly, corrective actions if necessary, and
a replacement of certain alternate release cable assemblies. In
addition, the NPRM also proposed to require certain aircraft
maintenance manuals tasks when installing the cam assembly or alternate
release cable assembly. The NPRM also proposed to prohibit the
installation of affected parts. The FAA is issuing this AD to address
possible cam assembly, spring box assembly, and alternate release cable
assembly failures. The unsafe condition, if not addressed, could result
in asymmetric main landing gear configuration at landing, and a runway
excursion.
    You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket at regulations.gov under
Docket No. FAA-2023-1047.

Discussion of Final Airworthiness Directive

Comments

    The FAA received a comment from Air Line Pilots Association,
International (ALPA) who supported the NPRM without change.

Conclusion

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another
country and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to
the FAA's bilateral agreement with this State of Design Authority, it
has notified the FAA of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI
referenced above. The FAA reviewed the relevant data, considered the
comments received, and determined that air safety requires adopting
this AD as proposed. Accordingly, the FAA is issuing this AD to address
the unsafe condition on this product. Except for minor editorial
changes, this AD is adopted as proposed in the NPRM. None of the
changes will increase the economic burden on any operator.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    The FAA reviewed De Havilland Aircraft of Canada Limited Service
Bulletin 84-32-159, dated June 28, 2019. This service information
specifies procedures for performing a general visual inspection of the
cam assembly (part number (P/N) 48510-5) for discrepancies (such as the
cam assembly does not return to its original rested position, or signs
of an increased gap between the roller and the cam guide); a general
visual inspection of the alternate release cable assembly (or uplock
cable assembly) (P/N 48503-3) for discrepancies (such as a broken
cable); a one-time general visual inspection for discrepancies (such as
any bend on the plunger) of the left and right MLG spring box assembly
(P/N 48504-1); and corrective actions. Corrective actions include
replacing the cam assembly with a new cam assembly, replacing the
alternate release cable assembly with a new alternate release cable
assembly, and replacing

the spring box assembly with a new spring box assembly.
    The FAA also reviewed De Havilland Aircraft of Canada Limited
Service Bulletin 84-32-172, dated August 16, 2022, including Collins
Aerospace Service Bulletin 48500-32-152, dated July 18, 2022. This
service information specifies procedures for replacing the left and
right MLG alternate release cable assemblies, P/N 48503-3, with the
redesigned alternate release cable assembly, P/N 48503-5.
    The FAA also reviewed De Havilland Aircraft of Canada Limited
Temporary Revision 32-603, dated December 1, 2022, which describes
aircraft maintenance manual (AMM) TASK 32-34-16-400-804, ``Installation
of the Alternate Extension Cables-Center Fuselage to Nacelle.''
    The FAA also reviewed AMM TASK 32-34-26-400-801, ``Installation of
the MLG Alternate-Extension Cam-Mechanism Assembly'' of Subject 32-34-
26, ``Cam Mechanism Assembly-MLG Alternative Extension'' in Chapter 32,
``Landing Gear,'' of the De Havilland Aircraft of Canada Limited
Aircraft Maintenance Manual, Revision 76, dated March 5, 2022. This
service information is reasonably available because the interested
parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by
the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this AD affects 55 airplanes of U.S.
registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:

                                      Estimated Costs for Required Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Labor cost                  Parts cost        Cost per product          Cost on U.S. operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Up to 5 work-hour x $85 per hour =             $4,780   Up to $5,205............  Up to $286,275.
 $425.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FAA estimates the following costs to do any necessary on-
condition action that would be required based on the results of any
required action. The FAA has no way of determining the number of
aircraft that might need this on-condition action:

                 Estimated Costs of On-Condition Actions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Cost per
              Labor cost                   Parts cost        product
------------------------------------------------------------------------
4.5 work-hours x $85 per hour = $383..         $41,328          $41,711
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FAA has included all known costs in its cost estimate.
According to the manufacturer, however, some or all of the costs of
this AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact
on affected operators.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

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

2023-16-05 De Havilland Aircraft of Canada Limited (Type Certificate
Previously Held by Bombardier, Inc.): Amendment 39-22524; Docket No.
FAA-2023-1047; Project Identifier MCAI-2022-01601-T.

(a) Effective Date

    This airworthiness directive (AD) is effective September 25,
2023.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to De Havilland Aircraft of Canada Limited (type
certificate previously held by Bombardier, Inc.) Model DHC-8-401 and
-402 airplanes, certificated in any category, having serial numbers
4001 and 4003 through 4633 inclusive.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code: 32, Landing
Gear.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by reports of the main landing gear (MLG)
aft door not opening when using the alternate extension system. The
FAA is issuing this AD to address possible cam assembly, spring box
assembly, and alternate release cable assembly failures. The unsafe
condition, if not addressed, could result in asymmetric MLG
configuration at landing, and a runway excursion.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) One-Time Inspection

    Within 2,400 flight hours or 12 months, whichever occurs first,
after the effective date of this AD, do a one-time general visual
inspection for discrepancies on the left and right MLG spring box
assemblies (part number (P/N) 48504-1), in accordance with Section
3.B., Part A, of the Accomplishment Instructions of De Havilland
Aircraft of Canada Limited Service Bulletin 84-32-159, dated June
28, 2019. If any discrepancy is discovered in the spring box
assembly, before further flight, replace with a new spring box
assembly, in accordance with Section 3.B. Part B, of the
Accomplishment Instructions of De Havilland Aircraft of Canada
Limited Service Bulletin 84-32-159, dated June 28, 2019.

(h) Repetitive Inspections

    (1) Within 2,400 flight hours or 12 months, whichever occurs
first, after the effective date of this AD, do a general visual
inspection for discrepancies of the cam assemblies (P/N 48510-5) on
the left and right MLG, in accordance with Section 3.B. Part A, of
the Accomplishment Instructions of De Havilland Aircraft of Canada
Limited Service Bulletin 84-32-159, dated June 28, 2019. Thereafter,
repeat the inspection at intervals not to exceed 2,400 flight hours
or 12 months, whichever occurs first. If any discrepancy is
discovered in the cam assembly, before further flight, replace with
a new cam assembly, in accordance with Section 3.B. Part B, of the
Accomplishment Instructions of De Havilland Aircraft of Canada
Limited Service Bulletin 84-32-159, dated June 28, 2019.
    (2) Within 2,400 flight hours or 12 months, whichever occurs
first, after the effective date of this AD, do a general visual
inspection for discrepancies of the alternate release cable
assemblies (P/N 48503-3) on the left and right MLG, in accordance
with Section 3.B., Part A, of the Accomplishment Instructions of De
Havilland Aircraft of Canada Limited Service Bulletin 84-32-159,
dated June 28, 2019. Thereafter, repeat the inspection at intervals
not to exceed 2,400 flight hours or 12 months, whichever occurs
first. If any discrepancy is found, before further flight, replace
the alternate release cable assembly with a redesigned alternate
release cable assembly P/N 48503-5, in accordance with Section 3.B.
of the Accomplishment Instructions of De Havilland Aircraft of
Canada Limited Service Bulletin 84-32-172, dated August 16, 2022,
including Collins Aerospace Service Bulletin 48500-32-152, dated
July 18, 2022. Accomplishing the replacement required by paragraph
(i) of this AD terminates the inspections required by this
paragraph.

(i) Replacement

    Within 5,500 flight hours or 30 months, whichever occurs first,
after the effective date of this AD, replace the left and right MLG
alternate release cable assemblies, P/N 48503-3, with the redesigned
alternate release cable assembly, P/N 48503-5, in accordance with
Section 3.B. of the Accomplishment Instructions of De Havilland
Aircraft of Canada Limited Service Bulletin 84-32-172, dated August
16, 2022, including Collins Aerospace Service Bulletin 48500-32-152,
dated July 18, 2022.

(j) Maintenance Task Requirement

    As of the effective date of this AD, when installing an MLG
alternate extension system cam assembly and when installing an
alternate release cable assembly, the following aircraft maintenance
manual (AMM) tasks must be used, as applicable:
    (1) For the alternate release cable assembly: AMM TASK 32-34-16-
400-804, ``Installation of the Alternate Extension Cables-Center
Fuselage to Nacelle'' as specified in De Havilland Aircraft of
Canada Limited Temporary Revision 32-603, dated December 1, 2022.
    (2) For the MLG alternate extension system cam assembly: AMM
TASK 32-34-26-400-801, ``Installation of the MLG Alternate-Extension
Cam-Mechanism Assembly'' of Subject 32-34-26, ``Cam Mechanism
Assembly-MLG Alternative Extension'' in Chapter 32, ``Landing
Gear,'' of the De Havilland Aircraft of Canada Limited Aircraft
Maintenance Manual, Revision 76, dated March 5, 2022.

(k) Parts Installation Prohibition

    As of the effective date of this AD, no person may install, on
any airplane, an alternate release cable assembly P/N 48503-3.

(l) Additional AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
International Validation Branch, FAA, has the authority to approve
AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR
39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your
principal inspector or responsible Flight Standards Office, as
appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the
International Validation Branch, mail it to ATTN: Program Manager,
Continuing Operational Safety, at the address identified in
paragraph (m)(2) of this AD or email to: [email protected]. If
mailing information, also submit information by email. Before using
any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or
lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the responsible Flight
Standards Office.
    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD
to obtain instructions from a manufacturer, the instructions must be
accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, International
Validation Branch, FAA; or Transport Canada; or De Havilland
Aircraft of Canada Limited's Transport Canada Design Approval
Organization (DAO). If approved by the DAO, the approval must
include the DAO-authorized signature.

(m) Additional Information

    (1) Refer to Transport Canada AD CF-2022-69, dated December 16,
2022, for related information. This Transport Canada AD may be found
in the AD docket at regulations.gov under Docket No. FAA-2023-1047.
    (2) For more information about this AD, contact Gabriel Kim,
Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410,
Westbury, NY 11590; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email [email protected].

(n) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference of the service information listed in this
paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) De Havilland Aircraft of Canada Limited Service Bulletin 84-
32-159, dated June 28, 2019.
    (ii) De Havilland Aircraft of Canada Limited Service Bulletin
84-32-172, dated August 16, 2022, including Collins Aerospace
Service Bulletin 48500-32-152, dated July 18, 2022.
    Note 1 to paragraph (n)(2)(ii): De Havilland issued De Havilland
Service Bulletin 84-32-172, dated August 16, 2022, with Collins
Aerospace Service Bulletin 48500-32-152, dated July 18, 2022,
attached as one ``merged'' file for the convenience of affected
operators.
    (iii) De Havilland Aircraft of Canada Limited Temporary Revision
32-603, dated December 1, 2022.
    (iv) AMM TASK 32-34-26-400-801, ``Installation of the MLG
Alternate-Extension Cam-Mechanism Assembly,'' of Subject 32-34-26,
``Cam Mechanism Assembly-MLG Alternative Extension'' in Chapter 32,
``Landing Gear,'' of the De Havilland Aircraft of Canada Limited
Aircraft Maintenance Manual, Revision 76, dated March 5, 2022.
    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact De
Havilland Aircraft of Canada Limited, Dash 8 Series Customer
Response Centre, 5800 Explorer Drive, Mississauga, Ontario, L4W 5K9,
Canada; telephone North America (toll-free):<PHONE_NUMBER>, Direct:
647-277-5820; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>website: dehavilland.com.
    (4) You may view this service information at the FAA,
Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200
South 216th Street, Des Moines, WA. For information on the
availability of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (5) You may view this service information that is incorporated
by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA). For information on the availability of this material at
NARA, email [email protected], or go to:

www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued on August 7, 2023.
Victor Wicklund,
Deputy Director, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, Aircraft
Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2023-17777 Filed 8-18-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 211 (Thursday, October 31, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 65180-65183]
[FR Doc No: 2013-24039]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2013-0401; Directorate Identifier 2012-SW-047-AD;
Amendment 39-17606; AD 2013-19-24]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; MD Helicopters, Inc., Helicopters

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are superseding Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2003-08-51 for
MD Helicopters, Inc. (MDHI), Model 369A, 369D, 369E, 369H, 369HE,
369HM, 369HS, 369F and 369FF helicopters with certain MDHI or
Helicopter Technology Company (HTC) tail rotor blades installed. AD
2003-08-51 required reducing the retirement life of each tail rotor
blade (blade), performing a one-time visual inspection of each blade's
pitch horn (pitch horn) for a crack or corrosion, and replacing any
cracked blade or any blade that has exceeded its retirement life with
an

airworthy blade. AD 2003-08-51 also required reporting information to
the FAA within 24 hours following the one-time inspection. Since we
issued AD 2003-08-51, an accident in England prompted an investigation
that showed corrosion on the blade's pitch horn that had not been
detected under the paint. This new AD retains some of the requirements
of AD 2003-08-51 and also requires paint removal for all pitch horn
inspections, inspecting for pitting and the shot peen surface's
condition in addition to cracks and corrosion, and adds certain part-
numbered blades to the applicability. These actions are intended to
prevent a pitch horn from cracking, leading to vibration, loss of tail
rotor pitch control, and subsequent loss of tail rotor and helicopter
control.

DATES: This AD is effective December 5, 2013.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of certain documents listed in this AD as of December 5,
2013.

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this AD, contact MD
Helicopters, Inc., Attn: Customer Support Division, 4555 E. McDowell
Rd., Mail Stop M615, Mesa, AZ 85215-9734; telephone 1-800-388-3378; fax
480-346-6813; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Web site
http://www.mdhelicopters.com or contact Helicopter Technology Company,
12923 South Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90061; telephone 310-523-
2750; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Web site
www.helicoptertech.com.

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 AD, any incorporated-by-reference
service information, the economic evaluation, any comments received,
and other information. The street address for the Docket Operations
Office (phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>) is U.S. Department of Transportation,
Docket Operations Office, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-
140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Fred Guerin, Aviation Safety Engineer,
Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office, Transport Airplane
Directorate, FAA, 3960 Paramount Blvd., Lakewood, California 90712;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    On May 13, 2013, at 78 FR 27867, the Federal Register published our
notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM), which proposed to amend 14 CFR
part 39 by removing AD No. 2003-08-51 (68 FR 39449, July 2, 2003;
corrected 68 FR 47447, August 11, 2003) and by adding an AD that would
apply to MDHI Model 369A, 369D, 369E, 369H, 369HE, 369HM, 369HS, 369F
and 369FF helicopters with a tail rotor blade (blade) part number (P/N)
369D21640-501, 369D21640-503, 369D21641-501, 369D21641-503, 369D21642-
501, 369D21642-503, 369D21643-501, or 369D21643-503 installed, or with
an HTC blade P/N 500P3100-101, 500P3100-301, 500P3300-501, or 500P3500-
701 installed. AD No. 2003-08-51 required reducing the retirement life
of the blade, performing a one-time visual inspection of each pitch
horn for a crack or corrosion, and replacing any cracked blade or any
blade that has exceeded its retirement life. AD No. 2003-08-51 was
prompted by two reports of cracked pitch horns that failed during
flight. The cracks developed before the blades reached their retirement
lives.

Actions Since AD 2003-08-51 Was Issued

    Since we published AD No. 2003-08-51, investigation of an accident
in England found corrosion on the pitch horn that was not detected
under the paint. The corrosion compromised the shot peen surface, which
caused premature fatigue failure.
    As a result, the NPRM (78 FR 27867, May 13, 2013) proposed to
require establishing a retirement life for new applicable blades of 400
hours time-in-service (TIS), replacing within 10 hours TIS any
installed blades with 390 to 700 hours TIS, and replacing before
further flight any blades with more than 700 hours TIS. Within 60 days
and thereafter at intervals not to exceed one year, the NPRM proposed
to inspect all other blades with a 10X or higher power magnifying glass
for a crack, pitting, corrosion, and the condition of the dimpled shot
peen surface. If there is a crack, pitting, corrosion, or a
nonconforming shot peen surface, the NPRM proposed to require
replacement of the blade with an airworthy blade. The proposed
requirements were intended to prevent a pitch horn from cracking and
separating from the blade, leading to an unbalanced condition,
vibration, loss of tail rotor pitch control, and loss of directional
control of the helicopter.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD, but we did not receive any comments on the NPRM (78 FR 27867,
May 13, 2013).

FAA's Determination

    We have reviewed the relevant information and determined that an
unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other
products of these same type designs and that air safety and the public
interest require adopting the AD requirements as proposed.

Related Service Information

    We reviewed MDHI Service Bulletins SB369D-210, SB369E-105, SB369F-
091, and SB369H-252, all dated November 21, 2011, and HTC Mandatory
Service Bulletin No. 3100-5, dated August 25, 2011 (service bulletins).
The service bulletins specify removing the paint from the pitch horn,
performing an inspection of the blade using a 10x magnifying glass and
a bright light, repainting the pitch horn area, and repeating the
inspection annually. The service bulletins state that no corrosion,
pitting, or cracking is acceptable. The MDHI service bulletins adds
that a lack, removal, or blending of the shot peen surface is
unacceptable.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD will affect 827 helicopters of U.S.
Registry and that labor costs will average $85 a work-hour. Based on
these estimates, we expect the following costs:
     The inspection will require 4.5 work hours, and parts will
cost $20 for a total cost of about $403 per helicopter and $333,281 for
the U.S. fleet.
     Replacing a tail rotor blade, if needed, would require 1
work hour. Parts would cost $15,951, for a total cost of $16,036 per
helicopter.
     The cost is negligible to revise the Airworthiness
Limitations section of the maintenance manual to reflect a blade's new
retirement life.

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,
describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
    We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: ``General
requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in

air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and
procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air
commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because
it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on
products identified in this rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

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

Adoption of the Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by removing Airworthiness Directive (AD)
2003-08-51, Amendment 39-13215 (68 FR 39449, August 11, 2003;
correction 68 FR 47447, August 11, 2003), and adding the following new
(AD):

2013-19-24 MD Helicopters, Inc.: Amendment 39-17606; Docket No. FAA-
2013-0401; Directorate Identifier 2012-SW-047-AD.

(a) Applicability

    This AD applies to MD Helicopters, Inc. (MDHI), Model 369A,
369D, 369E, 369H, 369HE, 369HM, 369HS, 369F and 369FF helicopters
with a tail rotor blade (blade) part number (P/N) 369D21640-501,
369D21640-503, 369D21641-501, 369D21641-503, 369D21642-501,
369D21642-503, 369D21643-501, or 369D21643-503 installed, or with a
Helicopter Technology Company blade P/N 500P3100-101, 500P3100-301,
500P3300-501, or 500P3500-701 installed, certificated in any
category.

(b) Unsafe Condition

    This AD defines the unsafe condition as the tail rotor blade
pitch horn (pitch horn) separating from the tail rotor blade,
leading to an unbalanced condition, vibration, loss of tail rotor
pitch control and loss of directional control of the helicopter.

(c) Affected ADs

    This AD supersedes AD No. 2003-08-51, Amendment 39-13215 (68 FR
39449, July 2, 2003; correction 68 FR 47447, August 11, 2003).

(d) Effective Date

    This AD becomes effective December 5, 2013.

(e) Compliance

    You are responsible for performing each action required by this
AD within the specified compliance time unless it has already been
accomplished prior to that time.

(f) Required Actions

    (1) Before further flight, for each applicable blade, revise the
Airworthiness Limitations section of the maintenance manual to
reflect that the blade has a retirement life of 400 hours time-in-
service (TIS).
    (2) For helicopters with an applicable blade installed that has
390 through 700 hours TIS, within 10 hours TIS, replace the blade
with an airworthy blade.
    (3) For all other applicable helicopters, within 60 days, and
thereafter at intervals not to exceed one year, remove the paint
from the blade pitch control arm in accordance with the
Accomplishment Instructions, Section 2.A.(1) through 2.A.(3), of
MDHI Service Bulletins SB369D-210, SB369E-105, SB369F-091, and
SB369H-252, all dated November 21, 2011, as applicable to your model
helicopter.
    (i) Using a 10X or higher power magnifying glass, inspect all
four sides and the pocket of the blade pitch control arm for a
crack, pitting, or corrosion and for the condition of the dimpled
shot peen surface by referring to Figure 1 of MDHI Service Bulletins
SB369D-210, SB369E-105, SB369F-091, and SB369H-252, as applicable to
your model helicopter, and by reviewing the rotorcraft maintenance
records to determine whether rework was done in this area.
    (ii) If there is pitting, corrosion, a crack, blending or
removal of any of the dimpled shot peen surface, or any indication
that the shot peen has not been done, replace the blade with an
airworthy blade.
    (iii) If there is no pitting, corrosion, cracks, or blending or
removal of any of the dimpled shot peen surface, refinish the
stripped pitch control arm in accordance with the Accomplishment
Instructions, Section 2.A.(6) through 2.A.(7), of MDHI Service
Bulletins SB369D-210, SB369E-105, SB369F-091, and SB369H-252, as
applicable to your model helicopter.

(g) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office, FAA,
may approve AMOCs for this AD. Send your proposal to: Fred Guerin,
Aviation Safety Engineer, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office,
Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 3960 Paramount Blvd., Lakewood,
California 90712; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) For operations conducted under a 14 CFR part 119 operating
certificate or under 14 CFR part 91, subpart K, we suggest that you
notify your principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector,
the manager of the local flight standards district office or
certificate holding district office before operating any aircraft
complying with this AD through an AMOC.
    (3) AMOCs approved previously in accordance with AD No. 2003-08-
51 (68 FR 39449, July 2, 2003; correction 68 FR 47447, August 11,
2003) are approved as AMOCs for the corresponding requirements in
this AD.

(h) Additional Information

    MD Helicopters, Inc., maintenance manuals CSP-HMI2, TR12-001,
CHP-H-4, and TR12-001, which are not incorporated by reference,
contain additional information about the subject of this AD. For
service information identified in this AD, contact MD Helicopters,
Inc., Attn: Customer Support Division, 4555 E. McDowell Rd., Mail
Stop M615, Mesa, AZ 85215-9734; telephone 1-800-388-3378; fax 480-
346-6813; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Web site
http://www.mdhelicopters.com or contact Helicopter Technology
Company, 12923 South Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90061; telephone
310-523-2750; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Web site
www.helicoptertech.com. You may review a copy of this information at
the FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 2601
Meacham Blvd., Room 663, Fort Worth, Texas 76137.

(i) Subject

    Joint Aircraft Service Component (JASC) Code: 6410, Tail Rotor
Blades.

(j) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed
in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) MD Helicopters Service Bulletin SB369D-210, dated November
21, 2011.
    (ii) MD Helicopters Service Bulletin SB369E-105, dated November
21, 2011.
    (iii) MD Helicopters Service Bulletin SB369F-091, dated November
21, 2011.

    (iv) MD Helicopters Service Bulletin SB369H-252, dated November
21, 2011.
    Note 1 to paragraph (j)(2): MD Helicopters Service Bulletins
SB369D-210, SB369E-105, SB369F-091, and SB369H-252, all dated
November 21, 2011, are co-published as one document.
    (3) For MD Helicopters service information identified in this
AD, contact MD Helicopters, Inc., Attn: Customer Support Division,
4555 E. McDowell Rd., Mail Stop M615, Mesa, AZ 85215-9734; telephone
1-800-388-3378; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Web site http://www.mdhelicopters.com.
    (4) You may view this service information at FAA, Office of the
Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Room 663,
Fort Worth, Texas 76137. For information on the availability of this
material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (5) You may also view this service information that is
incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records
Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this
material at NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on September 18, 2013.
Kim Smith,
Directorate Manager, Rotorcraft Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2013-24039 Filed 10-30-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [ EPA R03 OAR 2006 0528; FRL ]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; West Virginia; Amendments to Nonattainment New Source Review ( NSR) Air Quality Permit Program AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve a revision to the West Virginia State Implementation Plan ( SIP). The revision consists of amendments to West Virginia's existing Nonattainment New Source Review ( NSR) preconstruction air quality permit program. This action is being taken under the Clean Air Act ( CAA or the Act). In a separate action, EPA will address changes made by West Virginia to its prevention of significant deterioration ( PSD) air quality permit program,

also submitted on December 1, 2005.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before [ insert date 30 days from date of publication].

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA R03 OAR 2006

0528 by one of the following methods:

A. www. regulations. gov. Follow the on line instructions for submitting comments.

B. E mail: campbell. dave@ epa. gov C. Mail: EPA R03 OAR 2006 0528, David Campbell, Chief, Permits and Technical Assessment Branch, Mailcode 3AP11, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. 2 D. Hand Delivery: At the previously listed EPA Region III address. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket =

s normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information.

Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA R03 OAR 2006 0528. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change, and may be made available online at www. regulations. gov, including any personal information provided,

unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information ( CBI)

or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through www. regulations. gov or e mail. The www. regulations. gov website is an A anonymous access @

system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e mail comment directly to EPA without going through www. regulations. gov, your email address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption,

and be free of any defects or viruses.

Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the www. regulations. gov index. 3 Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, i. e., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form.

Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in www. regulations. gov or in hard copy during normal business hours at the Air Protection Division, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. Copies of the State submittal are available at the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection,

Division of Air Quality, 601 57th Street SE, Charleston, WV 25304.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rosemarie Nino, ( 215) 814 3377, or by email at nino. rose@ epa. gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The supplementary information is arranged as follows:

I. Background II. Program Review A. What is being address in this document?

B. What are the program changes that EPA is approving?

III. Proposed Action IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews.

I. Background On December 31, 2002, the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA) published revisions to the Federal prevention of significant deterioration ( PSD) and nonattainment new 4 source review ( NSR) regulations ( 67 FR 80186). These revisions are commonly referred to as EPA's " NSR Reform" regulations and became effective on March 3, 2003. These regulatory revisions included provisions for baseline emissions determinations, actual to future actual methodology, Plantwide Applicability Limits ( PALs), Clean Units, and Pollution Control Projects ( PCPs). The December 2002 rulemaking action required State and local permitting authorities to include the NSR Reform measures as minimum program elements in their State implementation plans ( SIP) and to submit these revisions to EPA by January 2, 2006.

The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled in New York v. EPA, 45 F. 3d 3 ( D. C. Cir. June 24, 2005) that EPA lacked the authority to promulgate the Clean Unit provisions, and the Court requested that EPA vacate that portion of the 2002 Federal regulation, codified at 40 CFR 52.21( x), as contrary to the statute. Also, the Court determined EPA lacked the authority to create PCP exceptions from NSR and vacated those parts of the 1991 and 2002 rules, codified at 40 CFR 52.21( b)( 32) and 52.21( z), as contrary to the statute.

On December 1, 2005, EPA Region III received a revision to the West Virginia State Implementation Plan ( SIP) from the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection ( WVDEP). This SIP revision consists of Legislative Rule 45 CSR 19  Permits for Construction and Major Modification of Major Stationary Sources of Air Pollution Which Cause or Contribute to Nonattainment adopted by the State of West Virginia on April 8, 2005 and effective June 1,

2005. The State adopted the regulation in order to meet the relevant plan requirements of 40 CFR 51.165. On December 22, 2005, WVDEP provided supplemental materials consisting of a 5 letter and an attached one page table requesting that EPA exclude from its December 1, 2005 request for SIP approval the provisions of 45 CSR 19, as set forth in the attached table, that pertain to " Clean Units" and " Pollution Control Project" in order to ensure that their federallyapproved regulations are consistent with the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit's June 24, 2005 ruling.

The WVDEP is seeking approval of amendments in 45 CSR 19 in order to meet the minimum requirements of 40 CFR 51.165 and the Clean Air Act. It should be noted that West Virginia also submitted amendments to its prevention of significant deterioration ( PSD)

regulations on December 1, 2005. The EPA will address those amendments in a separate rulemaking action.

II Program Review A. What is being addressed in this document?

1. As stated in the December 31, 2002 " NSR Reform" rulemaking, State and local permitting agencies were required to adopt and submit revisions to their part 51 permitting programs, implementing the minimum program elements of that rulemaking no later then January 2, 2006 ( 67 FR 80240). With this submittal,

West Virginia requests approval of program revisions to satisfy this requirement.

2. On December 1, 2005, WVDEP submitted regulatory revisions to EPA for approval. The submitted West Virginia Rule was entitled, " 45 CSR 19  Permits for Construction and Major Modification of Major Stationary Sources of Air 6 Pollution Which Cause or Contribute to Nonattainment" and was adopted April 8,

2005 and effective June 1, 2005.

3. By letter dated December 22, 2005, WVDEP requested that EPA exclude from its December 1, 2005 request for approval into the SIP those provisions of 45 CSR 19 that pertain to the Clean Unit and Pollution Control Project ( PCP) provisions of 40 CFR 51.165. The specific provisions to be excluded were set forth in a table attached to the letter. The WVDEP made this request in order for its SIP to be consistent with the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit June 24, 2005 ruling which vacated those provisions of the Federal rules.

West Virginia also asked that EPA not act upon the provisions of 45 CSR 19.17.4 pertaining to the recordkeeping and reporting requirements for sources that elect to use the actual to projected actual emission test and where there is a " reasonable possibility" that a project may result in a significant net emissions increase. The " reasonable possibility" clause of the corresponding provisions of the Federal rules ( 51.165( a)( 6)) was remanded to EPA in the June 24, 2005 ruling mentioned above. West Virginia has instructed EPA to not consider this clause as part of this SIP revision request. In its December 22, 2005 letter, WVDEP stated its intent to make any revisions to 45 CSR 19 necessary to incorporate and implement Federal program revisions once EPA takes further action on the remand of 40 CFR 51.165( a)( 6).

B. What are the program changes that EPA is approving? 7 In its December 2002 regulatory action, EPA dramatically changed many aspects of the regulations governing the PSD and nonattainment NSR programs ( together, as " NSR"). These changes affected the NSR applicability requirements to allow sources more flexibility to pursue modifications of their facilities in order to respond to changes in the marketplace and to plan for plant improvements. The goals of the changes were to provide greater regulatory certainty,

administrative flexibility, and permit streamlining, while ensuring the current level of environmental protection, or more, from the existing program.

West Virginia has fully embraced EPA's NSR reform regulatory revisions and sought to develop a regulatory program that closely reflects the Federal NSR regulations and conforms to the minimum requirements of 40 CFR 51.165. As such, West Virginia has translated the Federal NSR requirements into the regulatory text of 45 CSR 19 in a manner that is consistent with State regulatory development procedures. Since West Virginia has sought to incorporate the majority of the Federal regulatory language into its regulations, the following is an examination of only those few areas in which the State altered the Federal regulatory text or approach. A more detailed comparison of 45 CSR 19 to the Federal requirements of 40 CFR 51.165 can be found in the technical support document ( TSD) prepared for this rulemaking.

Notable Differences in 45 CSR 19  Permits for Construction and Major Modification of Major Stationary Sources of Air Pollution Which Cause or Contribute to Nonattainment:

1. In the provisions for setting the PAL level at 45 CSR 19 23.6, the reference to the " baseline actual emissions" erroneously cites to Section 2.52 of the rules for 8 purposes of defining the term " baseline actual emissions." The appropriate citation for this term is Section 2.9. This typographical error will not adversely affect implementation of the regulations since the text of 45 CSR 19 23.6 directly identifies " baseline actual emissions" and that term is only defined at Section 2.9 and the incorrect citation to Section 2.52 does not confuse or otherwise alter the meaning of 45 CSR 19 23.6.

2. In a change unrelated to the Federal NSR Reform efforts, West Virginia changed the definition for " Offset" at 45 CSR 19 2.41 to read ". . . provided that the amount of reduction in emissions at the existing source ( or an emission unit with such sources), is greater on tons per year basis." The previous definition defined offsets in terms of pounds per hours and/ or tons per year basis. The regulation is now consistent with the existing Federal requirement because the determination of necessary offsets must be based on tons per year reductions. EPA approves this change.

3. In another change unrelated to the Federal NSR Reform efforts, West Virginia changed Table 19A to include " Subpart I" ozone nonattainment areas along with marginal and moderate nonattainment areas for purposes of defining significant net emissions increase levels for purposes of NSR applicability. This change is acceptable.

III. Proposed Action 9 Based on the above analysis, EPA has determined that the amendments to West Virginia's nonattainment new source review ( NSR) permit programs at 45 CSR 19, as submitted on December 1, 2005 and supplemented on December 22, 2005, meet the minimum requirements of 40 CFR 51.166 and the Clean Air Act. This amendment is approvable as a revision to the West Virginia SIP.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews Under Executive Order 12866 ( 58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this proposed action is not a " significant regulatory action" and therefore is not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, " Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use" ( 66 Fed.

Reg. 28355 ( May 22, 2001)). This action merely proposes to approve state law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law.

Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act ( 5 U. S. C. 601 et seq.) Because this rule proposes to approve pre existing requirements under state law and does not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by state law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 ( Public Law 104 4). This proposed rule also does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive 10 Order 13175 ( 65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 ( 64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), because it merely proposes to approve a state rule implementing a Federal requirement, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act. This proposed rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 ( 62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically significant.

In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA =

s role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. In this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the State to use voluntary consensus standards ( VCS), EPA has no authority to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA,

when it reviews a SIP submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements of section 12( d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 ( 15 U. S. C. 272 note) do not apply.

As required by section 3 of Executive Order 12988 ( 61 FR 4729, February 7, 1996), in issuing this proposed rule, EPA has taken the necessary steps to eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity,

minimize potential litigation, and provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct. EPA has complied with Executive Order 12630 ( 53 FR 8859, March 15, 1988) by examining the takings implications of the rule in accordance with the A Attorney General =

s Supplemental Guidelines for 11 the Evaluation of Risk and Avoidance of Unanticipated Takings @

issued under the executive order. This proposed rule, approving amendments to West Virginia's Nonattainment New Source Review ( NSR) Permit Program, does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 ( 44 U. S. C. 3501 et seq.).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Intergovernmental relations,

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.

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

______ 7/ 24/ 06______________ ___/ s/_________________________ Dated: Donald S. Welsh, Regional Administrator, Region III.