[Federal Register: July 27, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 143)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 43818-43819]
[DOCID:fr27jy10-12]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2010-0001; Airspace Docket No. 10-ASO-10]

Revocation of Class D and E Airspace; Panama City, FL

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action removes the Class D and E Airspace at Panama City-
Bay County Airport, Panama City, FL, as the airport has closed and the
associated Standard Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAPs) removed,
eliminating the need for controlled airspace.

DATES: Effective 0901 UTC, September 23, 2010. The Director of the
Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under
title 1, Code of Federal Regulations, part 51, subject to the annual
revision of FAA Order 7400.9 and publication of conforming amendments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Melinda Giddens, Operations Support
Group, Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, P.O.
Box 20636, Atlanta, Georgia 30320; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

History

    Northwest Florida-Panama City International Airport, a new airport
for Panama City, FL, opened on May 23, 2010. Therefore, the Panama
City-Bay County Airport was closed effective at 10 p.m. on May 22,
2010. The associated SIAPs and controlled airspace must be removed in
conjunction with the airport closure. As a result, this action will
remove the Class D, E4, and E5 airspace for the Panama City-Bay County
Airport, Panama City, FL. This rule will become effective on the date
specified in the DATES section. Since this action eliminates the impact
of controlled airspace on users of the National Airspace System in the
vicinity of the Panama City-Bay County Airport, Panama City, FL, notice
and public procedure under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) are unnecessary. Class D and
Class E airspace designations are published in paragraphs 5000, 6004
and 6005 respectively of FAA Order 7400.9T, dated August 27, 2009, and
effective September 15, 2009, which is incorporated by reference in 14
CFR 71.1. The Class D and E airspace designations listed in this
document will be published subsequently in the Order.

The Rule

    This amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR)
part 71 removes the Class D, E4 and E5 airspace at Panama City-Bay
County Airport, Panama City, FL. Controlled airspace is no longer
needed as the airport has closed.
    The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current, is
non-controversial and unlikely to result in adverse or negative
comments. It, therefore, (1) is not a ``significant regulatory action''
under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under
DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26,
1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a Regulatory Evaluation
as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter
that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified that this rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the
criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. 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.
    This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the
FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of
airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient
use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority
as it removes controlled airspace at Panama City-Bay County Airport,
Panama City, FL.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (Air).

Adoption of the Amendment

0
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration
amends 14 CFR Part 71 as follows:

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

0
1. The authority citation for Part 71 continues to read as follows:

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

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of Federal Aviation
Administration Order 7400.9T, Airspace Designations and Reporting
Points, signed August 27, 2009, effective September 15, 2009, is
amended as follows:

Paragraph 5000 Class D Airspace.
* * * * *

ASO FL D Panama City, FL [Removed]

Panama City-Bay County Airport, FL
    (Lat. 30[deg]12[min]44[sec] N., long. 85[deg]40[min]58[sec] W.)
* * * * *
Paragraph 6004 Class E Airspace Areas Designated as an Extension to
a Class D Surface Area.
* * * * *

ASO FL E4 Panama City, FL [Removed]

Panama City-Bay County Airport, FL
    (Lat. 30[deg]12[min]44[sec] N., long. 85[deg]40[min]58[sec] W.)
Panama City VORTAC
    (Lat. 30[deg]12[min]59[sec] N., long. 85[deg]40[min]52[sec] W.)
* * * * *
Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Extending Upward From 700 Feet or
More Above the Surface of the Earth.
* * * * *

ASO FL E5 Panama City, FL [Removed]

Panama City-Bay County Airport, FL
    (Lat. 30[deg]12[min]44[sec] N., long. 85[deg]40[min]58[sec] W.)
Tyndall AFB
    (Lat. 30[deg]04[min]12[sec] N., long. 85[deg]34[min]34[sec] W.)

    Issued in College Park, Georgia, on July 13, 2010.
Mark D. Ward,
Manager, Operations Support Group, Eastern Service Center, Air Traffic
Organization.
[FR Doc. 2010-18262 Filed 7-26-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


THIS DOCUMENT IS DRAFT
Date:		31 October 2019
To: 		Jonathan Witt, U.S Environmental Protection Agency
From:		Bea Jackson, RTI International
		Karen Schaffner

Contact:	David Howe
		Cosmed Group
		https://www.cosmedgroup.com/

 Participants

Cosmed Group
David Howe, Chief Operating Officer
Christine Render, Director of Corporate Quality

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Jonathan Witt, Fuels and Incineration Group
Ned Shappley
Margaret Sieffert, Region 5
Tess Petesch

RTI International
Beatrix Jackson
Karen Schaffner

 Discussion

On October 31, 2019, representatives of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and their contractor (RTI International) participated in a meeting with representatives of Cosmed Group (Cosmed).  Mr. David Howe of Cosmed began the discussion with an overview of scrubber categories and the development history of the Glygen air pollution control device.

Glygen Units Overview

Mr. Howe explained that Cosmed has built and used Glygen units since the early 1990s. There are many different types of liquid acid scrubber designs.  He noted that packed bed towers are a common wet acid scrubber design used in the ethylene oxide (EtO) commercial sterilization industry.  In a packed bed tower, there is a column of packing material, the acid water solution is introduced at the top of the column, and the gas flow from the process is introduced at the bottom of the column.  The gas and liquid interface over the bed packing material as each flows countercurrently through the column.  The Glygen unit is not a packed bed tower design but rather the Glygen refers to a bubbling technology where the gas stream is bubbled through a tank of acid water solution.

Cosmed roughly based the Glygen unit design on an older scrubber design and improved it for EtO control.  (The older scrubber was Damas wet scrubber technology.) The Glygen unit consists of a "liquid scrubber," commonly referred to as a reactor tank or scrubber tank, filled with water and sulfuric acid (H2SO4) solution, with a diffusion plate at the bottom of the tank, and the gas flow from the process is introduced at the bottom of the tank.  The diffusion plate at the bottom of the scrubber tank is a stainless-steel plate perforated with thousands of small laser-cut holes.  The gas stream from the process bubbles through the diffusion plate into contact with the acid water solution, and the EtO is absorbed into the solution, resulting in efficient EtO removal. All Glygen units use H2SO4 solution to create a low pH solution in the scrubber tank to catalyze the reaction of EtO to ethylene glycol (EG).

Mr. Howe explained that the Glygen unit is a two-stage unit that is designed with two scrubber tanks operating in series.  This ensures small bubble size in each tank, i.e., that there is sufficient exposure area with the acid water solution; when the gas bubbles are larger in size, this reduces the EtO removal efficiency.

Mr. Howe further stated that the Glygen unit operates at relatively low pressure, i.e., less than 5 pounds per square inch (psi).  The pressure from the vacuum pump provides the force to move the EtO process stream through the scrubber tanks.

The Glygen units are designed for use on process units that have high EtO concentration and low gas flow rate.  The emission points most commonly controlled include the sterilizer chamber vent (SCV) and sometimes the chamber exhaust vent (CEV) can be controlled as well.  The Glygen is not typically used for low EtO concentration and high flow rate streams, such as would be typical for an aeration room vent (ARV) or room area air.  High flow rates tend to lower the destruction and removal efficiency (DRE) of the Glygen unit.  Better contact between the gas and the acid water solution is achieved with lower gas stream flow rate and higher liquid volume. Mr. Howe emphasized that lower flow rates generate higher efficiencies, resulting in less gas passing through higher volumes of water.

Since 2004, Cosmed has often paired Glygen units with packed bed towers.  The ARVs are often vented to the packed bed tower, if these are in place. Mr. Howe noted that the Glygen application is not patented.

In the original Glygen design, units consisted of a reactor tank, a bubbling tank, and a liquid pump between the two tanks that recirculated the acid water solution. If the pump between the two tanks was not working correctly, the DRE was affected. Cosmed later redesigned the Glygen to avoid any moving mechanical parts.  Use of the new design with scrubber tanks with no circulation of the acid water solution made the volume of the Glygen much larger.  Although larger, the Glygen design with no moving parts is simple and durable/reliable.  The older Damas scrubber unit used tubes made of sintered material that each handled 1 cubic feet per minute (cfm) of gas flowrate.  As mentioned previously, one of the improvements over the Damas scrubber is that the Glygen unit uses a laser cut plate in the bottom rather than the tubes.

Initially, Glygen scrubber tanks were made of polyvinyl chloride (PVC) material, however, these were subject to cracking over time. Cosmed revised the material to stainless steel, and stainless steel tanks are now in use.

Cosmed is not aware of the use of Glygen units in other industry sectors.

Sterilizer Chamber Operation

Cosmed has added combination sterilizers, i.e., all-in-one sterilizers, that conduct both sterilization and aeration operations in the same sterilizer unit.   In the last 5 years, approximately 50 percent of Cosmed facilities operate combination sterilizers, and the other 50 percent operate with a more typical sterilization process with a sterilizer chamber followed by a separate aeration unit. Cosmed noted that the majority of typical sterilizers have the capacity to operate as all-in-one units, simply by increasing the number of washes following the sterilization step and to continue to aerate within the sterilizer chamber.

The Glygen unit can be applied to a wide range of products.  As a contract sterilizer, Cosmed handles most every type of product and is able to handle products with different residual EtO standards. In general, the industry tendency is toward longer sterilization cycles and longer aeration.  When a combination sterilizer chamber is used, the product remains in the chamber for a longer period.  This combination sterilizer approach results in a reduction of EtO emissions in comparison to those with separate aeration rooms. When product is removed from the sterilizer chamber for placement in a separate aeration unit, the offgassing of EtO results in dilute EtO concentrations in the room area air that are more difficult to control.  Containing the EtO in the sterilizer chamber equipment is best. Mr. Howe noted that there are some sensitive products for which aeration in a separate room may be necessary because the product requires slower aeration. Mr. Howe noted that the combination sterilizer approach that combines the sterilization operation and the aeration operation in the same chamber is ideal, and he indicated again that most all sterilizer chambers can adopt this approach.

Glygen Removal Efficiency

Mr. Howe noted that the Glygen units are designed to comply with the NESHAP and often are enhanced to deliver an efficiency of 99 percent or better.  While the federal NESHAP requirement is 99 percent, multiple state regulations require more stringent control efficiencies (e.g., California requires 99.9 percent).  EPA noted that a facility in South Carolina reported achieving a 99.999 percent removal efficiency for its Glygen unit.  Mr. Howe suggested that the enhanced efficiency of 99.999 percent achieved by the South Carolina facility may be in response to additional regulatory requirements by state agencies or risk assessment requirements.  Mr. Howe noted that the efficiency of the Glygen technology can be influenced by a number of variables such as gas flow rate from the sterilizer chamber (or vacuum pump system), the scrubber tank water volume, and how well the Glygen unit was sized.

To achieve higher control efficiency, the outlet stream from the Glygen unit may be vented to a second APCD in series, e.g., a packed bed tower. Higher efficiencies may involve polishing scrubbers such as packed towers, that are highly compatible with Glygen application. If the packed bed tower achieves 99 percent control, then the overall control efficiency of the Glygen unit followed in series with the packed bed tower is greater than 99 percent.  The packed bed tower is not part of the Glygen unit, it is a second, separate control device.

Mr. Howe also explained that different types of vacuum pumps, for example liquid ring vacuum pumps and air sealed vacuum pumps, may be used for the sterilizer chambers. Glygen units with liquid seal vacuum pumps may actually achieve slightly better efficiencies because the water in the pump seal also absorbs EtO, which results in increased efficiency.

On average, 100 gallons (gal) of acid water solution is able to absorb approximately 30 gal of EtO.  Mr. Howe stated that Glygen units achieve a DRE of greater than 99 percent, until the operating limit of the absorbing limit of the acid water solution is reached.

Compliance testing is typically conducted at peak conditions and under worst case scenarios, for example when multiple sterilizer chambers are vented to one Glygen at once.

Monitoring Activities

Mr. Howe indicated that typical monitoring activities would include monitoring the scrubber tank solution level, testing for the EG concentration, and monitoring the pH. Glygen units are equipped with alarm systems that are activated when critical levels are reached.  The scrubber tanks are often equipped with high and low alarms, and the alarms are triggered before the tank level reaches its maximum, i.e., several inches below.  Operators monitor the tank levels daily.

The Glygen scrubber tanks are replenished periodically in "batch" mode, i.e., all acid water solution is removed at one time. When maximum EG concentration or scrubber tank level is reached, the acid water solution and the EG in the scrubber tank are removed, and the empty tank is replenished with new acid water solution and the scrubber tank is ready to go back online. The acid water solution and EG are not removed until the maximum level is reached.  The solution in the scrubber tank is moved to an EG storage tank.  The EG storage tanks are typically vented to the packed bed tower or to a catalytic oxidizer.  The replenishment of the Glygen scrubber tank occurs when the sterilizer chamber is not in operation.

There are no mechanical parts in a Glygen unit that require monitoring, therefore major maintenance downtime does not occur. Mr. Howe stated that in most cases, facilities have daily or weekly inspections of the control device.

Monitoring for a packed tower scrubber is typically done at the scrubber liquid recirculation tank.  The circulating acid water solution is collected in the recirculation tank and returned to the top of the packed bed column.  Periodically, the acid water solution is moved from the recirculating tank and collected in the storage tank.

Capital and Annual Costs

Mr. Howe shared capital and installation cost data for the largest size sterilizer chamber that Cosmed uses.  The Total Capital Investment for a Glygen unit would range from $150,000 to $200,000 for venting of either one large sterilizer chamber that can handle a tractor trailer size load of product (i.e., a set up with one sterilizer chamber to one Glygen unit), or for venting of four sterilizer chambers that are "6-pallet" chambers (i.e., a set up with four sterilizers to one Glygen unit).  The cost cited is based on stainless steel materials for the tanks.

The gas flow rate from the process largely depends on the size of the sterilizer chamber. For a set up of one large sterilizer chamber and one vacuum pump that are sized to handle a load of product equivalent to a tractor trailer, the flowrate would peak at approximately 700 to 1000 cfm. In a different setup, where several sterilizer chambers, each with a volume sufficient to handle the product load equivalent to a tractor trailer, are vented to one Glygen unit, this setup would roughly double the peak flowrate to approximately 2000 cfm. One-to-one setups with one sterilizer chamber venting to one Glygen unit are more common, because these units can undergo initial testing without affecting other existing operations.

Operating costs for the Glygen unit include water usage, electricity, H2SO4 usage, sodium hydroxide (NaOH) usage, and the dumping/disposal cost for EG.

Mr. Howe reviewed an annual cost example for one Glygen unit controlling a 30-pallet sterilizer chamber operating at maximum capacity.  The Glygen unit is a two-stage system where each stage has equivalent absorption capacity.  The first, primary scrubber tank absorbs the most EtO and gets replenished more often than the second scrubber tank. The primary scrubber tank would be replenished approximately once every 2 (1/2) weeks with approximately 1000 gal of water. The second scrubber tank typically needs to be replenished approximately once per month with 1000 gal of water. Mr. Howe estimated that a large Glygen unit would need a total of approximately 40 to 50 water replenishments per year, for a total of approximately 50,000 gallons per year (gal/yr).

In addition to the water replenishment, a 50 percent H2SO4 solution is added to the water. The annual usage of H2SO4 solution is approximately 1,200 gal/yr. Approximately 4 gal of 60 percent NaOH solution is used at each replenishment for neutralizing the spent acid water solution and EG, and approximately 200 gal/yr is used. Some of the spent acid water solution and EG is recycled/used and some is waste.

Minimal maintenance is needed for the Glygen unit.  There is minimal component replacement since there are no moving equipment parts, and there is no fouling of equipment due to stainless steel material.  The Glygen unit does not need to be taken offline for any significant length of time for maintenance activities. In comparison, if the Glygen is paired with a packed bed tower, the packed bed tower would have to come offline for maintenance and there would be downtime for replacing the packing.

With respect to the APCD lifetime, Mr. Howe noted that the equipment lifetime is roughly 25 years, if the scrubber tank material is stainless steel.  He noted there are older Glygen units that are still operating that are between 25 and 30 years old.

Closing

In closing, Mr. Howe offered to answer any additional questions EPA or RTI may have on the Glygen unit in the future.  Mr. Howe noted that Glygen units operate really well, and that an add-on packed bed tower can be added to increase the emission reduction, this is not difficult to do.


PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT SUBMISSION Please read the instructions before completing this form. For additional forms or assistance in completing this form, contact your agency's Paperwork Clearance Officer. Send two copies of this form, the collection instrument to be reviewed, the Supporting Statement and any additional documentation to: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Docket Library, Room 10102, 725 17th Street NW Washington, DC 20503.

1. Agency/ Subagency originating request EPA/ OAR/ OAP 2. OMB control number b. G None a. 2060  0350 3. Type of information collection ( check one) a. G New collection b. G Revision of a currently approved collection c. X Extension of a currently approved collection d. G Reinstatement, without change, of a previously approved collection for which approval has expired e. G Reinstatement, with change, of a previously approved collection for which approval has expired f. G Existing collection in use without an OMB control number 4. Type of review requested ( check one) a. X Regular b. G Emergency  Approval requested by: / / c. G Delegated 5. Small entities Will this information collection have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? G Yes X No For b f, note item A2 of Supporting Statement Instructions 6. Requested expiration date a. X Three years from approval date b. G Other Specify: / /___

7. Title Mobile Air Conditioner Retrofitting Program 8. Agency form number( s) ( If applicable) 1774.03 9. Keywords: Significant New Alternatives Policy Program, SNAP, ozone depleting substance, ODS, mobile air conditioner, MAC, motor vehicle air conditioner, MVAC, refrigerant, chlorofluorocarbon, CFC, CFC 12, R 12, hydrochlorofluorocarbon, HCFC, hydrofluorocarbon, HFC, HFC 134a, R 134a 10. Abstract The purpose of this Information Collection Request ( ICR) is to estimate the burden associated with the 40 Code of Federal Regulations part 82 requirement that service technicians label mobile air conditioners with information about new refrigerants when they retrofit a system. The label will alert service technicians and car owners that the car has been retrofitted to use non CFC refrigerant. The label will provide essential information to technicians about the specific refrigerant used in the air conditioning system. This information will assist the technician in avoiding service practices that might result in cross contamination of refrigerants, system failure and/ or system performance degradation.

11. Affected public ( Mark primary with " P" and all others that apply with " X") a. Individuals or households d. Farms b. P Business or other for profit e. Federal Government c. Not for profit institutions f. State, Local or Tribal Government 12. Obligation to respond ( Mark primary with " P" and all others that apply with " X") a. G Voluntary b. G Required to obtain or retain benefits c. P Mandatory 13. Annual reporting and recordkeeping hour burden a. Number of respondents 87,000 b. Total annual responses 1,000,000 1. Percentage of these responses collected electronically 0 % c. Total hours requested 83,333 d. Current OMB inventory 416,667 e. Difference  333,334 f. Explanation of difference 1. Program Change 2. Adjustment  333,334 14. Annual reporting and recordkeeping cost burden ( in thousands of dollars)

a. Total annualized capital/ startup costs $ 100 b. Total annual costs ( O& M) $ 0 c. Total annualized cost requested $ 100 d. Current OMB inventory $ 500 e. Difference $ 400 f. Explanation of difference 1. Program change 2. Adjustment $ 400 15. Purpose of information collection ( Mark Primary With " P" and all others that apply with " X") a. __ Application for benefits e. __ Program planning or management b. __ Program evaluation f. __ Research c. __ General purpose statistics g. P Regulatory or compliance d. __ Audit 16. Frequency of recordkeeping or reporting ( check all that apply) a. Q Recordkeeping b. X Third party disclosure c. Q Reporting 1. Q On occasion 2. Q Weekly 3. Q Monthly 4. Q Quarterly 5. Q Semi annually 6. Q Annually 7. Q Biannually 8. Q Other ( describe)

17. Statistical methods Does this information collection employ statistical methods?

Q Yes X No 18. Agency contact ( person who can best answer questions regarding the content of this submission) Name: Dave Godwin Phone: 202 564 3517 OMB 83 I 10/ 95 19. Certification for Paperwork Reduction Act Submissions On behalf of this Federal agency, 1 certify that the collection of information encompassed by this request complies with' 5 CFR 1320.9.

NOTE: The text of 5 CFR 1320.9, and the related provisions of 5 CFR 1320.8( b)( 3), appear at the end of the instructions. The certification is to be made with reference to those regulatory provisions as set forth in the instructions.

The following is a summary of the topics, regarding the proposed collection of information, that the certification covers:

( a) It is necessary for the proper performance of agency functions;

( b) It avoids unnecessary duplication;

( c) It reduces burden on small entities;

( d) It uses plain, coherent, and unambiguous terminology that is understandable to respondents;

( e) Its implementation will be consistent and compatible with current reporting and recordkeeping practices;

( f) It indicates the retention periods for recordkeeping requirements;

( g) It informs respondents of the information called for under 5 CFR 1320.8( b)( 3): ( I) Why the information is being collected' ( ii) Use of information; ( iii) Burden estimate; ( iv) Nature of response ( voluntary, required for a benefit, or mandatory); ( v) Nature and extent of confidentiality; and ( vi) Need to display currently valid OMB control number;

( h) It was developed by an office that has planned and allocated resources for the efficient and effective management and use of the information to be collected ( see note in Item 19 of the instructions);

( I) It uses effective and efficient statistical survey methodology; and ( j) It makes appropriate use of information technology.

If you are unable to certify compliance with any of these provisions, identify the item below and explain the reason in Item 18 of the Supporting Statement.

Signature of Program Official Drusilla Hufford, Director Global Programs Division Office of Atmospheric Programs Date Signature of Senior Official or designee Oscar Morales, Director Collection Strategies Division Office of Environmental Information Date OMB 83 I 10/ 95


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 112 (Monday, June 11, 2018)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 26880-26882]
[FR Doc No: 2018-12230]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2018-0505; Product Identifier 2017-NM-178-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all
Airbus Model A350-941 airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by a
report of an overheat failure mode of the hydraulic engine-driven pump,
which could cause a fast temperature rise of the hydraulic fluid. This
proposed AD would require modifying the hydraulic monitoring and
control application (HMCA) software. We are proposing this AD to
address the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by July 26, 2018.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR
11.43 and 11.45, 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: Deliver to Mail address above between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this NPRM, contact Airbus
SAS, Airworthiness Office--EAL, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707
Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 45
80; email [email protected]; internet http://www.airbus.com. You may view this service information at the FAA,
Transport Standards Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For
information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 206-
231-3195.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2018-
0505; 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 NPRM, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received,
and other information. The street address for the Docket Operations
office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments
will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kathleen Arrigotti, Aerospace
Engineer, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 2200
South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone and fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed
under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2018-0505;
Product Identifier 2017-NM-178-AD'' at the beginning of your comments.
We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic,
environmental, and energy aspects of this NPRM. We will consider all
comments received by the closing date and may amend this NPRM 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 NPRM.

Discussion

    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical
Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD
2017-0200, dated October 10, 2017 (referred to after this as the
Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or ``the MCAI''), to
correct an unsafe condition for all Airbus Model A350-941 airplanes.
The MCAI states:

    In the Airbus A350 design, the hydraulic fluid cooling system is
located in the fuel tanks. Recently, an overheat failure mode of the
hydraulic engine-driven pump (EDP) was found. Such EDP failure may
cause a fast temperature rise of the hydraulic fluid.
    This condition, if not detected and corrected, combined with an
inoperative fuel tank inerting system, could lead to an uncontrolled
overheat of the hydraulic fluid, possibly resulting in ignition of
the fuel-air mixture in the affected fuel tank.
    To address this potential unsafe condition, Airbus issued a
Major Event Revision (MER) of the A350 Master Minimum Equipment List
(MMEL) that incorporates restrictions to avoid an uncontrolled
overheat of the hydraulic system. Consequently, EASA issued
Emergency AD 2017-0154-E to require implementation of these dispatch
restrictions.
    Since EASA Emergency AD 2017-0154-E was issued, following
further investigation, Airbus issued another MER of the A350 MMEL
that expands the number of restricted MMEL items. At the same time,
Airbus revised Flight Operation Transmission (FOT) 999.0068/17, to
inform all operators about the latest MMEL restrictions.
Consequently, EASA issued AD 2017-0180, retaining the requirements
of EASA Emergency AD 2017-0154-E, which was superseded, and
requiring implementation of the new Airbus A350 MMEL MER and,
consequently, restrictions for aeroplane dispatch.
    Since EASA AD 2017-0180 was issued, Airbus developed a software
(SW) update of the Hydraulic Monitoring and Control Application
(HMCA) SW S4.2, introduction of which avoids uncontrolled overheat
of the hydraulic system. HMCA SW S4.2 is embodied in production
through Airbus modification (mod) 112090, and introduced in service
through Airbus Service Bulletin (SB) A350-29-P012.
    For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD retains the
requirements of EASA AD 2017-0180, which is superseded, and requires
modification of the aeroplane by installing HMCA SW S4.2.
    This [EASA] AD is still considered to be an interim action and
further AD action may follow.

    You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2018-
0505.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    Airbus has issued Service Bulletin A350-29-P012, dated October 6,
2017. The service information describes procedures for modifying the
HMCA software by installing HMCA software S4.2 upgrades. 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.

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.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 7 airplanes of U.S.
registry. We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed
AD:

                                      Estimated Costs for Required Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per       Cost on U.S.
                          Labor cost                              Parts cost        product         operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2 work-hours x $85 per hour = $170...........................            $450             $620           $4,340
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.
    This proposed AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated
by the Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as
authorized by FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order,
issuance of ADs is normally a function of the Compliance and
Airworthiness Division, but during this transition period, the
Executive Director has delegated the authority to issue ADs applicable
to transport category airplanes to the Director of the System Oversight
Division.

Regulatory Findings

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Proposed Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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 (AD):

Airbus: Docket No. FAA-2018-0505; Product Identifier 2017-NM-178-AD.

(a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by July 26, 2018.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to all Airbus Model A350-941 airplanes,
certificated in any category.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 29, Hydraulic
Power.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by a report of an overheat failure mode of
the hydraulic engine-driven pump, which could cause a fast
temperature rise of the hydraulic fluid. We are issuing this AD to
address high hydraulic fluid temperature combined with an
inoperative fuel tank inerting system, which could result in
uncontrolled overheating of the hydraulic system and consequent
ignition sources inside the fuel tank, which, combined with
flammable fuel vapors, could result in a fuel tank explosion and
consequent loss of the airplane.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Definition of Airplane Groups

    (1) Group 1 are airplanes on which the hydraulic monitoring and
control application (HMCA) software (SW) S4.2 is not installed.
    (2) Group 2 are post-mod 112090 airplanes on which the HMCA SW
S4.2 is installed.

(h) Software Modification

    For Group 1 airplanes: Within 30 days after the effective date
of this AD, modify the HMCA software by installing HMCA SW S4.2, in
accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service
Bulletin A350-29-P012, dated October 6, 2017. Where paragraphs
3.C.(1)(a) and 3.C.(2)(a) of Airbus Service Bulletin A350-29-P012,
dated October 6, 2017, identify ``SOFTWARE-**'' and indicate that
the ``Software becomes'' new software: For purposes of this AD, the
new software titles/descriptions might not match exactly with the
airplane and the service information; the old and new software
titles/descriptions are for reference only as an aid to operators.

(i) Parts Prohibition

    At the applicable time specified in paragraph (i)(1) or (i)(2)
of this AD: No person may install an HMCA software pre-mod HMCA SW
S4.2, on any airplane.
    (1) For Group 1 airplanes: After accomplishment of the
modification required by paragraph (h) of this AD.
    (2) For Group 2 airplanes: As of the effective date of this AD.

(j) Other Acceptable Installation Method

    Installation of an HMCA SW standard approved after the effective
date of this AD is acceptable for compliance with the corresponding
actions required by paragraph (h) of this AD, provided the
conditions required by paragraphs (j)(1) and (j)(2) of this AD are
met.
    (1) The HMCA SW standard must be approved by the Manager,
International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA; the European
Aviation Safety Agency (EASA); or Airbus's EASA Design Organization
Approval (DOA). If approved by the DOA, the approval must include
the DOA-authorized signature.
    (2) The installation must be accomplished in accordance with the
modification instructions approved by the Manager, International
Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA; the EASA; or Airbus's EASA
DOA. If approved by the DOA, the approval must include the DOA-
authorized signature.

(k) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
International Section, Transport Standards 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 local Flight
Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information
directly to the International Section, send it to the attention of
the person identified in paragraph (l)(2) of this AD. Information
may be emailed to: [email protected]. Before using any
approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or
lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight
standards district office/certificate holding district office.
    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD
to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer, the action must be
accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, International
Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA; or the EASA; or Airbus's
EASA DOA. If approved by the DOA, the approval must include the DOA-
authorized signature.

(l) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information
(MCAI) EASA AD 2017-0200, dated October 10, 2017, for related
information. You may examine the MCAI on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-
2018-0505.
    (2) For more information about this AD, contact Kathleen
Arrigotti, Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport
Standards Branch, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198;
telephone and fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Airbus SAS, Airworthiness Office--EAL, 1 Rond Point Maurice
Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96;
fax +33 5 61 93 45 80; email [email protected]; internet http://www.airbus.com. You
may view this service information at the FAA, Transport Standards
Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the
availability of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Issued in Des Moines, Washington, on May 29, 2018.
Jeffrey E. Duven,
Director, System Oversight Division, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2018-12230 Filed 6-8-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: December 10, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 236)]
[Notices]
[Page 65543-65545]
[DOCID:fr10de09-77]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

[Docket No. USCG-2009-0576]

Port Access Route Study: Off San Francisco, CA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of study; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is conducting a Port Access Route Study (PARS)
to evaluate the continued applicability of and the need for
modifications to current vessel routing measures in the approaches to
San Francisco. The goal of the study is to help reduce the risk of
marine casualties and increase the efficiency of vessel traffic in the
study area. The recommendations of the study may lead to future
rulemaking action or appropriate international agreements.

DATES: Comments and related material must reach the Docket Management
Facility on or before February 8, 2010.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-
2009-0576 using any one of the following methods:
    (1) Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
    (2) Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (3) Mail: Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S. Department of
Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001.
    (4) Hand delivery: Same as mail address above, between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The telephone
number is<PHONE_NUMBER>. To avoid duplication, please use only one of
these four methods. See the ``Public Participation and Request for
Comments'' portion of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below for
instructions on submitting comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this notice
of study, contact Lieutenant Sara Young, Project Officer, Eleventh
Coast Guard District, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; or e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or George Detweiler, Office of Waterways
Management, Coast Guard, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, or e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have questions on viewing or
submitting material to the docket, call Ms. Renee K. Wright, Program
Manager, Docket Operations, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Public Participation and Request for Comments

    We encourage you to participate in this study by submitting
comments and related materials. All comments received will be posted,
without change, to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any
personal information you have provided.

Submitting Comments

    If you submit comments, please include the docket number for this
rulemaking (USCG-2009-0576), indicate the specific section of this
document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each
suggestion or recommendation. You may submit your comments and material
online, or by fax, mail or hand delivery, but please use only one of
these means. We recommend that you include your name and a mailing
address, an e-mail address, or a telephone number in the body of your
document so that we can contact you if we have questions regarding your
submission.
    To submit your comment online, go to http://www.regulations.gov,
click on the ``submit a comment'' box, which will then become
highlighted in blue. In the ``Document Type'' drop down menu select
``Notices'' and insert ``USCG-2009-0576'' in the ``Keyword'' box. Click
``Search'' then click on the balloon shape in the ``Actions'' column.
If you submit your comments by mail or hand delivery, submit them in an
unbound format, no larger than 8\1/2\ by 11 inches, suitable for
copying and electronic filing. If you submit them by mail and would
like to know that they reached the Facility, please enclose a stamped,
self-addressed postcard or envelope. We will consider all comments and
material received during the comment period.

Viewing the Comments and Documents

    To view the comments and documents mentioned in this preamble as
being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, click
on the ``read comments'' box, which will then become highlighted in
blue. In the ``Keyword'' box insert ``USCG-2009-0576'' and click
``Search.'' Click the ``Open Docket Folder'' in the ``Actions'' column.
If you do not have access to the Internet, you may view the docket
online by visiting the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on
the ground floor of the Department of Transportation West Building,
1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. We have an
agreement with the Department of Transportation to use the Docket
Management Facility.

Privacy Act

    Anyone can search the electronic form of comments received into any
of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or
signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association,
business, labor union, etc.). You may review a Privacy Act, system of
records notice regarding our public dockets in the January 17, 2008,
issue of the Federal Register (73 FR 3316).

Definitions

    The following definitions are from the International Maritime
Organization's (IMO's) publication ``Ships' Routeing'' (except
``Regulated Navigation Area'') and should help you review this notice:
    Area to be avoided (ATBA) means a routing measure comprising an
area within defined limits in which either navigation is particularly
hazardous or it is exceptionally important to avoid casualties and
which should be avoided by all vessels, or certain classes of vessels.
    Deep-water route means a route within defined limits, which has
been accurately surveyed for clearance of sea bottom and submerged
obstacles as indicated on nautical charts.
    Inshore traffic zone means a routing measure comprising a
designated area between the landward boundary of a traffic separation
scheme and the adjacent coast, to be used in accordance with the
provisions of Rule 10(d), as amended, of the International Regulations
for Preventing Collisions at Sea, 1972 (COLREGS).
    Precautionary area means a routing measure comprising an area
within defined limits where vessels must navigate with particular
caution and within which the direction of traffic flow may be
recommended.
    Recommended route means a route of undefined width, for the
convenience of vessels in transit, which is often marked by centerline
buoys.
    Recommended track is a route which has been specially examined to
ensure so far as possible that it is free of dangers and along which
vessels are advised to navigate.
    Regulated Navigation Area (RNA) means a water area within a defined
boundary for which regulations for vessels navigating within the area
have been established under 33 CFR part 165.
    Roundabout means a routing measure comprising a separation point or
circular separation zone and a circular traffic lane within defined
limits. Traffic within the roundabout is separated by moving in a
counterclockwise direction around the separation point or zone.
    Separation Zone or separation line means a zone or line separating
the traffic lanes in which vessels are proceeding in opposite or nearly
opposite directions; or separating a traffic lane from the adjacent sea
area; or separating traffic lanes designated for particular classes of
vessels proceeding in the same direction.
    Traffic lane means an area within defined limits in which one-way
traffic is established. Natural obstacles, including those forming
separation zones may constitute a boundary.
    Traffic Separation Scheme (TSS) means a routing measure aimed at
the separation of opposing streams of traffic by appropriate means and
by the establishment of traffic lanes.
    Two-way route means a route within defined limits inside which two-
way traffic is established, aimed at providing safe passage of ships
through waters where navigation is difficult or dangerous.
    Vessel routing system means any system of one or more routes or
routing measure aimed at reducing the risk of casualties; it includes
traffic separation schemes, two-way routes, recommended tracks, areas
to be avoided, no anchoring areas, inshore traffic zones, roundabouts,
precautionary areas, and deep-water routes.

Background and Purpose

    Requirement for port access route studies: Under the Ports and
Waterways Safety Act (PWSA) (33 U.S.C. 1223(c)), the Commandant of the
Coast Guard may designate necessary fairways and traffic separation
schemes (TSSs) to provide safe access routes for vessels proceeding to
and from United States ports. The designation of fairways and TSSs
recognizes the paramount right of navigation over all other uses in the
designated areas.
    The PWSA requires the Coast Guard to conduct a study of potential
traffic density and the need for safe access routes for vessels before
establishing or adjusting fairways or TSSs. Through the study process,
we must coordinate with Federal, State, and foreign state agencies (as
appropriate) and consider the views of maritime community
representatives, environmental groups, and other interested
stakeholders. A primary purpose of this coordination is, to the extent
practicable, to reconcile the need for safe access routes with other
reasonable waterway uses.
    Previous port access route studies: In 1979, the Coast Guard
initiated a port access route study of the California coast. The study
recommended an amendment to the existing TSSs off San Francisco which
consisted of rotating the southern approach lane westward (seaward) to
provide a true north-south alignment. This shift would encourage
vessels in the area to transit farther offshore when entering or
departing San Francisco Bay from or to the south. The International
Maritime Organization

(IMO) adopted this recommendation in 1990.
    The United States elected to postpone implementation of the
amendment until the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary was
designated and a study of potential impacts was conducted. The Monterey
Bay National Marine Sanctuary Vessel Management Final Report was
published October 22, 1998. Similar to the 1979 PARS and the IMO
adopted amendments, the report recommended shifting the ``southern
approach'' of the San Francisco TSS slightly west to reduce risk of
groundings along the San Mateo coastline and to improve north-south
alignment.
    Necessity for a new port access route study: The Coast Guard is
always seeking ways to enhance the safety of life at sea. The Coast
Guard has identified a potential safety enhancement by increasing
predictability of vessel traffic patterns in a popular offshore fishing
area near the northern approach of the traffic separation scheme off
San Francisco. When vessels follow predictable and charted routing
measures, congestion may be reduced, and mariners may be better able to
predict where vessel interactions may occur and act accordingly.
    The Coast Guard plans to study whether extending the traffic lanes
of the Traffic Separation Schemes off San Francisco would increase
safety in the area just outside the radar range of Vessel Traffic
Service (VTS) San Francisco. Because the VTS does not monitor this
region, extending the traffic lanes may increase the predictability of
vessel movements and encounters and improve navigation safety. In
addition, the study will also assess whether extending the traffic
lanes may interfere with fishing vessels operating in the area.
    Furthermore, the present traffic lanes go through the Gulf of the
Farallones National Marine Sanctuary and, if extended, will go into the
Cordell Bank National Marine Sanctuary. The increased predictability of
vessel traffic using established traffic lanes may decrease the
potential for oil spills, collisions and other events that could
threaten the marine environment.
    Timeline, study area, and process of this PARS: The Eleventh Coast
Guard District will conduct this PARS. The study will begin immediately
and should take 6 to 12 months to complete.
    The study area will encompass the traffic separation schemes off
San Francisco extending to the limit of the VTS area and vessel traffic
patterns of vessels departing from or approaching the traffic lanes.
The VTS area covers the seaward approaches within a 38 nautical mile
radius of Mount Tamalpais (37[deg]55.8' N., 122[deg]34.6' W).
    As part of this study, we will consider previous studies, analyses
of vessel traffic density, fishing vessel information, and agency and
stakeholder experience in vessel traffic management, navigation, ship
handling, and effects of weather. We encourage you to participate in
the study process by submitting comments in response to this notice.
    We will publish the results of the PARS in the Federal Register. It
is possible that the study may validate existing vessel routing
measures and conclude that no changes are necessary. It is also
possible that the study may recommend one or more changes to enhance
navigational safety and the efficiency of vessel traffic. The
recommendations may lead to future rulemakings or appropriate
international agreements.

Possible Scope of the Recommendations

    We are attempting to determine the scope of any safety problems
associated with vessel transits in the study area. We expect that
information gathered during the study will help us identify any
problems and appropriate solutions. The study may recommend that we--
     Maintain the current vessel routing measures;
     Modify the existing traffic separation scheme;
     Create one or more precautionary areas;
     Create one or more inshore traffic zones;
     Establish area(s) to be avoided;
     Create deep-draft routes;
     Establish a Regulated Navigation Area (RNA) with specific
vessel operating requirements to ensure safe navigation near shallow
water; and
     Identify any other appropriate ships' routing measures.

Questions

    To help us conduct the port access route study, we request
information that will help answer the following questions, although
comments on other issues addressed in this notice are also welcome. In
responding to a question, please explain your reasons for each answer
and follow the instructions under ``Public Participation and Request
for Comments'' above.
    1. What navigational hazards do vessels operating in the study area
face? Please describe.
    2. Are there strains on the current vessel routing system, such as
increasing traffic density? Please describe.
    3. Are modifications to existing vessel routing measures needed to
address hazards and strains and to improve traffic efficiency in the
study area? If so, please describe.
    4. What costs and benefits are associated with the measures listed
as potential study recommendations? What measures do you think are most
cost-effective?
    5. What impacts, both positive and negative, would changes to
existing routing measures or new routing measures have on the study
area?
    This notice is issued under authority of 33 U.S.C. 1223(c) and 5
U.S.C. 552.

    Dated: October 13, 2009.
Kevin S. Cook,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Director of Prevention Policy.
[FR Doc. E9-29415 Filed 12-9-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-15-P