[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 102 (Thursday, May 26, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 33368-33371]
[FR Doc No: 2016-11931]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2015-4815; Directorate Identifier 2015-NM-112-AD;
Amendment 39-18522; AD 2016-10-11]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Airplanes

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are superseding Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2015-03-06 for
all Airbus Model A330-200, A330-200 Freighter, A330-300, A340-200,
A340-300, A340-500, and A340-600 series airplanes. AD 2015-03-06
required repetitive inspections of the left-hand (LH) and right-hand
(RH) wing main landing gear (MLG) rib 6 aft bearing lugs (forward and
aft) to detect any cracks on the two lugs, and replacement if
necessary. This new AD requires reduction of certain compliance times.
This AD was prompted by reports of additional cracking of the MLG rib 6
aft bearing lugs. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct cracking
of the MLG rib 6 aft bearing lugs, which could result in collapse of
the MLG upon landing.

DATES: This AD is effective June 30, 2016.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of June 30,
2016.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of certain other publications listed in this AD as of March
25, 2015 (80 FR 8511, February 18, 2015).

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this final rule,
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_ADDRESS>Internet http://www.airbus.com. You may view this referenced service information at the
FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA.
For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call
425-227-1221. It is also available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-
4815.

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-2015-
4815; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and
5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket
contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and
other information. The address for the Docket Office (telephone 800-
647-5527) is Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Vladimir Ulyanov, Aerospace Engineer,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA,
1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>;
fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 to supersede AD 2015-03-06, Amendment 39-18102 (80 FR 8511,
February 18, 2015) (``AD 2015-03-06''). AD 2015-03-06 applied to all
Airbus Model A330-200, A330-200 Freighter, A330-300, A340-200, A340-
300, A340-500, and A340-600 series airplanes. The NPRM published in the
Federal Register on November 19, 2015 (80 FR 72398) (``the NPRM''). The
NPRM was prompted by reports of additional cracking of the MLG rib 6
aft bearing lugs. The NPRM proposed to continue to require repetitive
inspections of the LH and RH wing MLG rib 6 aft bearing lugs (forward
and aft) to detect any cracks on the two lugs at a more restrictive
initial inspection threshold with a grace period for airplanes that
have already exceeded the new threshold; and replacement, if necessary.
We are issuing this AD to detect and correct cracking of the MLG rib 6
aft bearing lugs, which could result in collapse of the MLG upon
landing.
    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical
Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA
Airworthiness Directive 2015-0120, dated June 26, 2015 (referred to
after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or
``the MCAI''), to correct an unsafe condition for all Airbus Model
A330-200, A330-200 Freighter, A330-300, A340-200, A340-300, A340-500,
and A340-600 series airplanes. The MCAI states:

    During Main Landing Gear (MLG) lubrication, a crack was visually
found in the MLG rib 6 aft bearing forward lug on one A330 in-
service aeroplane. The crack had extended through the entire
thickness of the forward lug at approximately the 4 o'clock position
(when looking forward). It has been determined that a similar type
of crack can develop on other aeroplane types that are listed in the
Applicability paragraph.
    This condition, if not detected and corrected, could affect the
structural integrity of the MLG attachment.
    To address this situation, Airbus issued inspection Service
Bulletin (SB) A330-57-3096, SB A340-57-4104 and SB A340-57-5009 to
provide instructions for repetitive inspections of the gear rib
lugs.
    Prompted by these findings, EASA issued Emergency AD 2006-0364-E
to require repetitive detailed visual inspections of the Left Hand
(LH) and Right Hand (RH) wing MLG rib 6 aft bearing lugs.
    Later, EASA issued AD 2007-0247-E, which superseded [EASA] AD
2006-0364-E, to:
--expand the Applicability to all A330 and A340 aeroplanes, because
the interference fit bushes cannot be considered as a terminating
action, owing to unknown root cause; and
--add a second parameter quoted in flight hours (FH) to the
inspection interval in order to reflect the aeroplane utilisation in
service.

    EASA AD 2007-0247-E was revised to correct a typographical
error.
    Since the first crack finding and issuance of the inspection SBs
and related ADs, six further cracks were reported.
    Consequently, EASA issued AD 2013-0271 [which corresponds to FAA
AD 2015-03-06, Amendment 39-18102 (80 FR 8511, February 18, 2015)],
which retained the requirements of [EASA] AD 2007-0247R1-E, which
was superseded, and expanded the Applicability of the [EASA] AD to
the newly certified models A330-223F and A330-243F. That [EASA] AD
also reduced the inspection threshold(s) to reflect the updated risk
assessment and in-service experience.
    Since this [EASA] AD was issued, a new occurrence of crack
finding was reported. Further analysis resulted in the need to
reduce the threshold of the initial inspection.
    Prompted by this finding, Airbus issued SB A330-57-3096 Revision
06 to introduce a more restrictive initial inspection threshold and
a grace period for aeroplanes which have already passed the new
threshold.
    For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD partially
retains the requirements of EASA AD 2013-0271, which is superseded,
and introduces reduced initial inspection thresholds.

    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-2015-
4815.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD. The following presents the comment received on the NPRM and
the FAA's response to the comment.

Request To Reference Unpublished Service Information That Terminates
Repetitive Inspections

    American Airlines requested that we add a paragraph to the proposed
AD that references new service information that would terminate the
proposed repetitive inspections. The commenter stated that an Airbus
retrofit information letter was published indicating that Airbus plans
to release new service information that will terminate the mandatory
repetitive inspections required by AD 2015-03-06.
    We do not agree because the new service information is not yet
released. In an AD, we cannot refer to service information that does
not exist because doing so violates Office of the Federal Register
(OFR) regulations for approval of materials incorporated by reference
in rules. To allow operators to use service information issued after
publication of an AD, either we must supersede the AD to reference
specific service information, or operators must request approval to use
the new service information as an alternative method of compliance with
the AD under the provisions of paragraph (k) of this AD. We have not
revised this AD in this regard.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the available data, including the comment received, and
determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting
this AD as proposed, except for minor editorial changes. We have
determined that these minor changes:
     Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the
NPRM for correcting the unsafe condition; and
     Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was
already proposed in the NPRM.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    Airbus has issued Service Bulletin A330-57-3096, Revision 06, dated
May 29, 2015. The service information describes procedures for detailed
inspections to detect any cracking on the forward and aft lugs of the
LH and RH wing MLG Rib 6. 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

    We estimate that this AD affects 101 airplanes of U.S. registry.
    The actions required by AD 2015-03-06, and retained in this AD take
about 2 work-hours per product, at an average labor rate of $85 per
work-hour. Based on these figures, the estimated cost of the actions
that were required by AD 2015-03-06 is $170 per product.
    The new requirement (reduced compliance time) of this AD adds no
additional economic burden.
    We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide
cost estimates for the on-condition actions specified in this AD.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

    We determined that 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 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.

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)
2015-03-06, Amendment 39-18102 (80 FR 8511, February 18, 2015), and
adding the following new AD:

2016-10-11 Airbus: Amendment 39-18522; Docket No. FAA-2015-4815;
Directorate Identifier 2015-NM-112-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective June 30, 2016.

(b) Affected ADs

    This AD replaces AD 2015-03-06, Amendment 39-18102 (80 FR 8511,
February 18, 2015) (``AD 2015-03-06'').

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Airbus Model A330-201, -202, -203, -223, -
223F, -243, -243F -301, -302, -303, -321, -322, -323, -341, -342,
and -343 airplanes; and Model A340-211, -212, -213 -311, -312, -313,
-541, and -642 airplanes; certificated in any category; all
manufacturer serial numbers.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 57, Wings.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by reports of cracking of the main landing
gear (MLG) rib 6 aft bearing forward lug. We are issuing this AD to
detect and correct cracking of the MLG rib 6 aft bearing lugs, which
could result in collapse of the MLG upon landing.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Inspections

    At the later of the times specified in paragraphs (g)(1) and
(g)(2) of this AD: Do a detailed inspection for cracking of the
left-hand and right-hand wing MLG rib 6 aft bearing lugs (forward
and aft), in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of
Airbus Service Bulletin A330-57-3096, Revision 06, dated May 29,
2015 (for Model A330-201, -202, -203, -223, -223F, -243, -243F, -
301, -302, -303, -321, -322, -323, -341, -342, and -343 airplanes);
Airbus Service Bulletin A340-57-4104, Revision 04, dated October 17,
2013 (for Model A340-211, -212, -213, -311, -312, -313 airplanes);
or Airbus Service Bulletin A340-57-5009, Revision 03, dated October
17, 2013 (for Model A340-541 and -642 airplanes).
    (1) Within 24 months or 2,000 flight cycles, whichever occurs
first since airplane first flight or since the last MLG support rib
replacement, as applicable.
    (2) Within 30 days after the effective date of this AD.

(h) Repetitive Inspections

    Repeat the inspection required by paragraph (g) of this AD
thereafter at the time specified in paragraphs (h)(1) through (h)(7)
of this AD, as applicable.
    (1) For Model A330-201, -202, -203, -223, and -243 airplanes:
Repeat the inspections at intervals not to exceed 300 flight cycles
or 1,500 flight hours, whichever occurs first.
    (2) For Model A330-223F and -243F airplanes: Repeat the
inspections at intervals not to exceed 300 flight cycles or 900
flight hours, whichever occurs first.
    (3) For Model A330-301, -302, -303, -321, -322, -323, -341, -
342, and -343 airplanes: Repeat the inspections at intervals not to
exceed 300 flight cycles or 900 flight hours, whichever occurs
first.
    (4) For Model A340-211, -212, and -213 airplanes: Repeat the
inspections at intervals not to exceed 200 flight cycles or 800
flight hours, whichever occurs first.
    (5) For Model A340-311 and -312 airplanes; and Model A340-313
airplanes (except weight variant (WV) 27): Repeat the inspections at
intervals not to exceed 200 flight cycles or 800 flight hours,
whichever occurs first.
    (6) For Model A340-313 (only WV27) airplanes: Repeat the
inspections at intervals not to exceed 200 flight cycles or 400
flight hours, whichever occurs first.
    (7) For Model A340-541 and -642 airplanes: Repeat the
inspections at intervals not to exceed 100 flight cycles or 500
flight hours, whichever occurs first.

(i) Corrective Action

    If any crack is found during any inspection required by
paragraph (g) or (h) of this AD: Before further flight, replace the
cracked MLG support rib using a method approved by the Manager,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA;
or the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA); or Airbus's EASA
Design

Organization Approval (DOA). Replacement of an MLG support rib does
not terminate the repetitive inspections required by paragraph (h)
of this AD.

(j) Credit for Previous Actions

    This paragraph provides credit for actions required by
paragraphs (g) and (h) of this AD, if those actions were performed
before the effective date of this AD using the applicable service
information identified in paragraphs (j)(1) through (j)(15) of this
AD.
    (1) Airbus Service Bulletin A330-57A3096, dated December 5,
2006, which was incorporated by reference in AD 2007-03-04,
Amendment 39-14915 (72 FR 4416, January 31, 2007) (``AD 2007-03-
04'').
    (2) Airbus Service Bulletin A330-57A3096, Revision 01, dated
April 18, 2007, which is not incorporated by reference in this AD.
    (3) Airbus Service Bulletin A330-57-3096, Revision 02, dated
August 13, 2007, which was incorporated by reference in AD 2007-22-
10, Amendment 39-15246 (72 FR 61796, November 1, 2007; corrected
November 16, 2007 (72 FR 64532)) (``AD 2007-22-10'').
    (4) Airbus Service Bulletin A330-57-3096, Revision 03, dated
October 24, 2012, which is not incorporated by reference in this AD.
    (5) Airbus Service Bulletin A330-57-3096, Revision 04, dated
February 6, 2013, which is not incorporated by reference in this AD.
    (6) Airbus Service Bulletin A330-57-3096, Revision 05, dated
October 17, 2013, which was incorporated by reference in AD 2015-03-
06.
    (7) Airbus Service Bulletin A340-57A4104, dated December 5,
2006, which was incorporated by reference in AD 2007-03-04.
    (8) Airbus Service Bulletin A340-57-4104, Revision 01, dated
August 13, 2007, which is not incorporated by reference in this AD.
    (9) Airbus Service Bulletin A340-57-4104, Revision 02, dated
September 5, 2007, which was incorporated by reference in AD 2007-
22-10.
    (10) Airbus Service Bulletin A340-57-4104, Revision 03, dated
October 24, 2012, which is not incorporated by reference in this AD.
    (11) Airbus Service Bulletin A340-57A5009, dated December 5,
2006, which was incorporated by reference in AD 2007-03-04.
    (12) Airbus Service Bulletin A340-57-5009, Revision 01, dated
August 13, 2007, which was incorporated by reference in AD 2007-22-
10.
    (13) Airbus Service Bulletin A340-57-5009, Revision 02, dated
October 24, 2012, which is not incorporated by reference in this AD.
    (14) Airbus Alert Operators Transmission A57L005-14, dated July
15, 2014, which is not incorporated by reference in this AD.
    (15) Airbus Alert Operators Transmission A57L005-14, Revision
01, dated August 20, 2014, which is not incorporated by reference in
this AD.

(k) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, 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 Branch, send it to ATTN: Vladimir
Ulyanov, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116,
Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton,
WA 98057-3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>. Information
may be emailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>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. The
AMOC approval letter must specifically reference this AD.
    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: As of the effective date of
this AD, 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 Branch, ANM-116, Transport
Airplane Directorate, FAA; or the EASA; or Airbus's EASA DOA. If
approved by the DOA, the approval must include the DOA-authorized
signature.
    (3) Required for Compliance (RC): If any service information
contains procedures or tests that are identified as RC, those
procedures and tests must be done to comply with this AD; any
procedures or tests that are not identified as RC are recommended.
Those procedures and tests that are not identified as RC may be
deviated from using accepted methods in accordance with the
operator's maintenance or inspection program without obtaining
approval of an AMOC, provided the procedures and tests identified as
RC can be done and the airplane can be put back in an airworthy
condition. Any substitutions or changes to procedures or tests
identified as RC require approval of an AMOC.

(l) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information
(MCAI) EASA Airworthiness Directive 2015-0120, dated June 26, 2015,
for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on
the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and
locating Docket No. FAA-2015-4815.
    (2) Service information identified in this AD that is not
incorporated by reference is available at the addresses specified in
paragraphs (m)(5) and (m)(6) of this AD.

 (m) 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 this AD specifies otherwise.
    (3) The following service information was approved for IBR on
June 30, 2016.
    (i) Airbus Service Bulletin A330-57-3096, Revision 06, dated May
29, 2015.
    (ii) Reserved.
    (4) The following service information was approved for IBR on
March 25, 2015 (80 FR 8511, February 18, 2015).
    (i) Airbus Service Bulletin A340-57-4104, Revision 04, dated
October 17, 2013.
    (ii) Airbus Service Bulletin A340-57-5009, Revision 03, dated
October 17, 2013.
    (5) 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_ADDRESS>
Internet http://www.airbus.com.
    (6) You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport
Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For
information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call
425-227-1221.
    (7) 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, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on May 12, 2016.
Suzanne Masterson,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2016-11931 Filed 5-25-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 164 (Thursday, August 23, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 50926-50929]
[FR Doc No: 2012-20706]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket No. USCG-2012-0712]
RIN 1625-AA87

Security Zones; Certain Dangerous Cargo Vessels, Tampa, FL

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing temporary moving security
zones around Certain Dangerous Cargo (CDC) vessels, which are vessels
carrying anhydrous ammonia, liquefied propane gas (LPG), and ammonium
nitrate. The security zones will start at buoys 3 and 4 in Tampa Bay
``F'' cut following the vessel to the pier, from pier to pier for berth
shifts, and from the pier out to buoys 3 and 4 in Tampa Bay ``F'' cut.
The security zones are to be implemented during the 2012 Republican
National Convention from August 25, 2012, through August 31, 2012.

DATES: This rule is effective from 12:01 p.m. on August 25, 2012,
through 11:59 a.m. on August 31, 2012.

ADDRESSES: Documents mentioned in this preamble are part of docket
USCG-2012-0712. To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type the
docket number in the ``SEARCH'' box and click ``SEARCH.'' Click on Open
Docket Folder on the line associated with this rulemaking. You may also
visit 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.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or email Marine Science Technician First Class Nolan L. Ammons,
Sector St. Petersburg Prevention Department, Coast Guard; telephone
(813) 228-2191, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have questions
on viewing the docket, call Renee V. Wright, Program Manager, Docket
Operations, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Acronyms

DHS Department of Homeland Security
CDC Certain Dangerous Cargo
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

A. Regulatory History and Information

    The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary final rule without prior
notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section
4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This
provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and
opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those
procedures are ``impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public
interest.'' Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good
cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
with respect to this rule because the Coast Guard did not receive
notice of the need for these security zones until July 19, 2012. As a
result, the Coast Guard did not have sufficient time to publish an NPRM
and to receive public comments prior to implementation of the security
zones. Any delay in the effective date of this rule would be contrary
to the public interest because immediate action is needed to minimize
potential danger to the convention delegates, official parties,
dignitaries, the public, and surrounding waterways.
    For the same reason discussed above, under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) the
Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective
less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register.

B. Basis and Purpose

    The legal basis for the rule is the Coast Guard's authority to
establish regulated navigation areas and other limited access areas: 33
U.S.C. 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701, 3306, 3703; 50 U.S.C. 191,
195; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, 160.5; Public Law 107-295, 116
Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
    The purpose of this rule is to provide for the safety and security
of convention delegates, official parties, dignitaries, and the public
during the 2012 Republican National Convention.

C. Discussion of Rule

    The security zones will be effective and enforced from August 25,
2012 through August 31, 2012, during the 2012 Republican National
Convention held in Tampa, Florida.
    The Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security has designated
the 2012 Republican National Convention as a National Special Security
Event. National Special Security Events are significant events, which,
due to their

political, economic, social, or religious significance, may render them
particularly attractive targets of terrorism or other criminal
activity. The Federal government provides support, assistance, and
resources to State and local governments to ensure public safety and
security during National Special Security Events.
    Numerous Federal, State, and local agencies, including the U.S.
Secret Service, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Customs and Border
Protection, U.S. Coast Guard, and the Joint Terrorism Task Force, have
developed comprehensive security plans to protect participants and the
public during the Republican National Convention. As part of the
comprehensive effort, the maritime security objective is to protect
Convention participants, the maritime transportation system, and
maritime stakeholders, including recreational boaters, from threats and
security vulnerabilities. The Coast Guard and other Federal, State, and
local agencies involved in security for the 2012 Republican National
Convention have conducted threat, vulnerability, and risk analyses
relating to the event.
    The convention is expected to draw widespread protests by persons
dissatisfied with national policy, foreign policy, and the Republican
Party agenda. This politically-oriented event has the potential to
attract anarchists and others persons intent on expressing their
opposition through violence and criminal activity. The convention also
presents an attractive target for terrorist and extremist
organizations. Current analysis indicates that some activist groups are
planning maritime activities to make their political views known.
    Maritime security vulnerabilities during the 2012 Republican
National Convention extend beyond the Convention site and include
secondary venues throughout the Tampa Bay area. Considerable law
enforcement presence on land may render maritime approaches a viable
alternative for activist groups. The City of Tampa has critical
infrastructure in its port area, which is proximate to the downtown
area and the Convention's main venues. The Port of Tampa is an
industrial-based port, with significant storage and shipment of
hazardous materials.
    The security zones and accompanying security measures have been
specifically developed to mitigate the threats and vulnerabilities
identified in the analysis discussed above. Security measures have been
limited to the minimum necessary to mitigate risks associated with the
identified threats.
    The rule will establish moving security zones around Certain
Dangerous Cargo (CDC) vessels in the Captain of the Port St. Petersburg
Zone during the 2012 Republican National Convention in Tampa, Florida.
A CDC vessel is one carrying anhydrous ammonia, liquefied propane gas,
and ammonium nitrate. The security zones prohibit any vessel from
entering within 500 yards of a CDC vessel. The security zones will
start at buoys 3 and 4 in Tampa Bay ``F'' cut following the vessel to
the pier, from pier to pier for berth shifts, and from the pier out to
buoys 3 and 4 in Tampa Bay ``F'' cut.
    All persons and vessels desiring to enter or remain within the
regulated areas may contact the Captain of the Port St. Petersburg by
telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or a designated representative via VHF
radio on channel 16, to request authorization. If authorization to
enter or remain within the regulated areas is granted by the Captain of
the Port St. Petersburg or a designated representative, all persons and
vessels receiving such authorization must comply with the instructions
of the Captain of the Port St. Petersburg or a designated
representative. Recreational vessels authorized to enter or remain
within the regulated areas may be subject to boarding and inspection of
the vessel and persons onboard.
    The security zones would be enforced from 12:01 p.m. on August 25,
2012, through 11:59 a.m. on August 31, 2012.
    A Port Community Information Bulletin (PCIB) will be distributed by
Coast Guard Sector St. Petersburg. The PCIB will be available on the
Coast Guard Internet Web portal at http://homeport.uscg.mil. PCIBs are
located under the Port Directory tab in the Safety and Security Alert
links. The Coast Guard would provide notice of the security zones by
Local Notice to Mariners, Broadcast Notice to Mariners, public
outreach, and on-scene designated representatives.

D. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and
executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses
based on 13 of these statutes or executive orders.

1. Regulatory Planning and Review

    This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f)
of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, as
supplemented by Executive Order 13563, and does not require an
assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of
Executive Order 12866 or under section 1 of Executive Order 13563. The
Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under that Order.
    The economic impact of this rule is not significant for the
following reasons: (1) The security zones will be enforced for a total
of 144 hours, and only while CDC vessels are transiting within Tampa
Bay; (2) vessels will be authorized to transit the security zones with
the permission of the Captain of the Port or a designated
representative; (3) vessels may operate in the surrounding area during
the enforcement period; and (4) the Coast Guard would provide advance
notification of the security zones to the local community by Local
Notice to Mariners, Broadcast Notice to Mariners, and public outreach.

2. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The Coast Guard
certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
This rule may affect the following entities, some of which may be small
entities: The owners or operators of vessels intending to enter or
remain within those portions of the security zones encompassing Certain
Dangerous Cargo vessels while transiting through Tampa Bay from 12:01
p.m. on August 25, 2012 through 11:59 a.m. on August 31, 2012. For the
reasons discussed in the Regulatory Planning and Review section above,
this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities.

3. Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your
small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have
questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please
contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by

employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The
Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or
complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.

4. Collection of Information

    This rule will not call for a new collection of information under
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

5. Federalism

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has 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. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and determined
that this rule does not have implications for federalism.

6. Protest Activities

    The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters.
Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section to coordinate protest activities so that
your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or
security of people, places or vessels.

7. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538)
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary
regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may
result in the expenditure by a State, local, or Tribal government, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 or more in any
one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we
do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.

8. Taking of Private Property

    This rule will not cause a taking of private property or otherwise
have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental
Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property
Rights.

9. Civil Justice Reform

    This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2)
of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation,
eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.

10. Protection of Children

    We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection
of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule
is not an economically significant rule and does not create an
environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may
disproportionately affect children.

11. Indian Tribal Governments

    This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order
13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments,
because it 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.

12. Energy Effects

    This action is not a ``significant energy action'' under Executive
Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use.

13. Technical Standards

    This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not
consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

14. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which
guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined
that this action is one of a category of actions that do not
individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human
environment. This rule involves a moving security zone around vessels
containing certain dangerous cargo. This rule is categorically excluded
from further review under paragraph (34)(g) of figure 2-1 of the
Commandant Instruction. An environmental analysis checklist supporting
this determination and a Categorical Exclusion Determination are
available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES. We seek any
comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant
environmental impact from this rule.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

    Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.
    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends
33 CFR part 165 as follows:

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

0
1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  33 U.S.C. 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701, 3306,
3703; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, 160.5; Pub.
L. 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security
Delegation No. 0170.1.

0
2. Add a temporary Sec.  165.T07-0712 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T07-0712  Security Zones; Certain Dangerous Cargo Vessels,
Captain of the Port St. Petersburg Zone, Tampa, FL.

    (a) Regulated Areas. The following regulated areas are moving
security zones around vessels containing Certain Dangerous Cargo (CDC).
    (1) All waters within a 500 yard radius around any CDC vessel as
the vessel transits into Tampa Bay, starting at Tampa Bay Cut ``F''
Channel at Lighted Buoys ``3F'' and ``4F'' and continuing until the CDC
vessel moors at the receiving facility.
    (2) All waters within a 500 yard radius around any CDC vessel as
the vessel departs Tampa Bay, starting when the vessel unmoors from the
receiving terminal and continuing until the vessel passes Tampa Bay Cut
``F'' Channel at Lighted Buoys ``3F'' and ``4F.''
    (b) Definitions.
    (1) The term ``designated representative'' means Coast Guard Patrol
Commanders, including Coast Guard coxswains, petty officers, and other
officers operating Coast Guard vessels, and Federal, state, and local
officers designated by or assisting the Captain of the Port St.
Petersburg in the enforcement of the regulated areas.
    (2) The term ``Certain Dangerous Cargo vessel'' or ``CDC vessel''
is a vessel carrying Anhydrous Ammonia (NH3), Liquefied Petroleum Gas
(LPG), or Ammonium Nitrate (NH4) and that is escorted by a U.S. Coast
Guard vessel.
    (c) Regulations.
    (1) All persons and vessels are prohibited from entering,
transiting through, anchoring in, or remaining within moving security
Zones unless authorized by the Captain of the Port St. Petersburg or a
designated representative.
    (2) All persons and vessels desiring to enter or remain within the
regulated areas may contact the Captain of the Port St. Petersburg by
telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or a designated representative via VHF
radio on channel 16, to request authorization.

    (3) Any vessel or person receiving authorization to enter the
moving security zone must comply with any instructions issued by the
Captain of the Port or a designated representative, including the
following:
    (i) No vessel may enter within a 100 yard radius of the CDC vessel
at any time;
    (ii) Vessels authorized to enter the security zone must proceed at
the minimum speed necessary to maintain safe navigation; and
    (iii) Vessels authorized to enter the security zone are subject to
boarding and inspection of the vessel and persons onboard.
    (4) The Coast Guard will provide notice of the regulated areas by
Local Notice to Mariners, Broadcast Notice to Mariners, public
outreach, and on-scene designated representatives. A Port Community
Information Bulletin is available on the Coast Guard internet web
portal at http://homeport.uscg.mil. Port Community Information
Bulletins are located under the Port Directory tab in the Safety and
Security Alert links.
    (d) Effective Date. This rule is effective from 12:01 p.m. on
August 25, 2012, through 11:59 a.m. on August 31, 2012.

    Dated: August 12, 2012.
S.L. Dickinson,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port..
[FR Doc. 2012-20706 Filed 8-22-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 53 (Monday, March 19, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 12062-12063]
[FR Doc No: 2018-05525]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Submission for OMB Review; 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:
    Form 15, SEC File No. 270-170, OMB Control No. 3235-0167.

    Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') has submitted to the Office of Management
and Budget this request for extension of the previously approved
collection of information discussed below.
    Form 15 (17 CFR 249.323) is a certification of termination of a
class of security under Section 12(g) or notice of suspension of duty
to file reports pursuant to Sections 13 and 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78a et seq.). All information is
provided to the public for review. We estimate that approximately 1,062
issuers file Form 15 annually and it takes approximately 1.5 hours per
response to prepare for a total of 1,593 annual burden hours (1.5 hours
per response x 1,062 responses).
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid control number.
    The public may view the background documentation for this
information collection at the following website, www.reginfo.gov .
Comments should be directed to: (i) Desk Officer for the Securities and
Exchange Commission, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs,
Office of Management and Budget, Room 10102, New Executive Office
Building, Washington, DC 20503, or by sending an email to:
[email protected]; and (ii) Pamela

Dyson, Director/Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange
Commission, c/o Remi Pavlik-Simon, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549 or send an email to: [email protected]. Comments must be
submitted to OMB within 30 days of this notice.

    Dated: March 14, 2018.
Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-05525 Filed 3-16-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


In general, housing and income data suggest that people living in close proximity to major transportation sources (i.e., major roadways, airports, ports, railyards) are likely to have lower income than the general population.  To evaluate the socioeconomic status of students who attend schools near airports, EPA evaluated the number of students who are eligible for the U.S. Department of Agriculture's free or reduced school lunch program.  Children from families with incomes at or below 130 percent of the poverty level are eligible for free meals.  Those with incomes between 130 percent and 185 percent of the poverty level are eligible for reduced-price meals.  Free and reduced lunch eligibility is only tracked by the U.S. Department of Education's National Center for Education Statistics for students who attend public schools.  At public schools that are located within one kilometer of the centroid of an airport, 47% of students are eligible for either free or reduced lunches, whereas nationally, 41% of students at public schools are eligible for either free or reduced lunches.  As this analysis demonstrates, those living in the vicinity of airports are more likely to be low-income households and minority residents.

      We are aware of no studies evaluating blood lead levels among children attending school in close proximity to airports with piston-engine activity.  We are seeking comment and information regarding blood lead concentrations in children who attend schools in close proximity to airports and the extent to which these emissions cause or contribute to any increases in blood lead levels.
      3.  Agricultural Activities

      Piston-engine aircraft are used in a variety of agricultural activities that may introduce lead into the human diet as well as contribute to lead in the environment.  The FAA conducts the General Aviation and Air Taxi Activity (GAATA) Survey annually to obtain information on the general aviation and air taxi fleet, the number of hours flown, and the reasons people use general aviation and air taxi aircraft.,   According to the results of the 2007 GAATA Survey (the most recent), aerial application in agriculture and forestry represented 5% of all hours flown by general aviation aircraft in 2007.  Of the total aerial application hours flown in 2007 (1.41 million hours), 60% of the hours were flown by piston-engine aircraft.  Aerial application activity includes crop and timber production, which involve fertilizer and pesticide application and seeding cropland.  The National Agricultural Aviation Association estimates that there are approximately 3,200 aerial application professional operators and pilots in the United States.

      As discussed in Section II.C.1, surface deposition of lead onto plants may represent a significant contribution to the total lead in and on the plant.  Lead halides, the primary form of lead emitted by engines operating on leaded fuel, are slightly water soluble.  They therefore may be more readily absorbed by plants than other forms of inorganic lead.  Atmospheric deposition of lead also contributes to lead in vegetation as a result of contact with above-ground portions of the plant (AQCD for Lead, pp. 7 - 9 and AXZ7 - 39; USEPA, 1986, Sections 6.5.3 and <IP_ADDRESS>.1).  Livestock may subsequently be exposed to lead in vegetation (e.g., grasses and silage) and in surface soils via incidental ingestion of soil while grazing (USEPA 1986, Section <IP_ADDRESS>.2).  The lead concentration of plants ingested by animals is primarily a result of atmospheric deposition of lead particles onto plant surfaces rather than the uptake of soil lead through plant roots.  Some of the highest levels of lead exposure among livestock have been attributed to grazing near major sources such as smelters (AQCD for Lead, Section 2.3.8).  Atmospheric deposition is estimated to comprise a significant proportion of lead in food (AQCD for Lead, p. 3 - 48) and dietary intake may be a predominant source of lead exposure among adults (greater than consumption of water and beverages or inhalation (73 FR 66971)).

Depending on wind conditions, an aircraft involved in aerial application may fly only 4 inches to 12 feet above the crops.[,] [,]   The low flying height is needed to minimize the drift of the fertilizer and pesticide particles away from their intended target.  An unintended consequence of this practice is that exhaust emissions of lead have a substantially increased potential for directly depositing on vegetation and surrounding soil.  We have not identified any data or analyses regarding the contribution of piston-engine aircraft lead emissions to lead concentrations in or on plant tissues, in livestock or the dose that this might deliver to the human population.  We are seeking comments on the potential significance of this exposure pathway.

      4.  Pilots, Student-Trainees, Passengers

	Pilots, student-trainees, and passengers are all potentially exposed to lead emissions from piston-engine aircraft that use leaded avgas.  General aviation passengers and pilots access their aircraft in areas that are typically in close proximity to runways.  Therefore, these individuals walk near and breathe the air near locations where aircraft are idling, conducting run-up checks, taxiing, taking off, and landing.

	In the U.S., general aviation aircraft fly over 27 million hours and carry 166 million passengers annually.  Approximately 36 percent of the hours flown by general aviation are for personal transportation, 19 percent are instructional flight hours, 11 percent are corporate flight hours, 11 percent are for business, eight percent are air taxi and air tours and the remainder include hours spent in other applications such as aerial observation and aerial application.  According to the 2008 General Aviation Statistical Databook & Industry Outlook report by the General Aviation Manufacturers Association (GAMA) there were 578,541 pilots in the United States in 2008.  Among the pilot population, 75,382 were student pilots, comprising 13% of the total pilot population.  The majority of initial pilot training is conducted in piston-engine aircraft.  There is no age minimum for pilots to begin taking flying lessons.  The minimum age for conducting a solo flight is 16 years and a pilot certificate cannot be issued until 17 years of age.  According to the 2008 General Aviation Statistical Databook & Industry Outlook report by the GAMA, there are 190 student pilots in the 14-15 year old age group and 11,562 student pilots in the 16-19 years old age group.  GAMA reports that in 2008 there are 3,846 private pilots in the 16-19 years old age group.  According to the FAA there are more than 500 flight training schools. [,]   The requirement for a private pilot certificate is 40 hours in a non-approved school, and 35 hours in an approved school.  However, most people obtain 60 to 75 hours of training before earning their pilot certificate.
      The general public for whom flying is a recreational activity may be the most highly exposed population to lead emissions from piston-engine activity.  In addition to their inhalation exposure to engine exhaust emissions, pilots can be exposed to evaporative emissions of TEL during aircraft fueling, and fuel sump checks during preflight inspections.
      5.  Bioaccumulation of Lead in Aquatic Organisms

      As discussed in Section II.C.2 of this ANPR, lead bioaccumulates in the tissues of aquatic organisms through ingestion of food and water.  Because of the potential for significant deposition of lead compounds to water bodies, EPA researches and reports on the atmospheric deposition of lead compounds to the Great Waters (the Great Waters include the Great Lakes, Lake Champlain, Chesapeake Bay and many U.S. coastal estuaries).  Alkyl lead, in particular, has been identified by EPA as a Level I Persistent, Bioaccumulative, and Toxic (PBT) pollutant.  Level I substances are targeted for virtual elimination through pollution prevention and other incentive-based actions that phase out their use, generation or release in a cost-effective manner within the most expedient time-frame.  In 2002, EPA issued the PBT National Action Plan for Alkyl-lead to promote further voluntary reductions of use and exposure to alkyl lead compounds, including leaded avgas.

      We are interested in the potential for lead emissions from piston-engine aircraft to be a source of lead pollution to aquatic organisms.  Among the approximately 20,000 airport facilities in the United States there are 448 seaplane facilities.  Landing and take-off activity by aircraft at these facilities provides a direct pathway for emission of organic and inorganic lead to the air near/above inland waters and ocean seaports where these aircraft operate.  In addition to seaplane facilities, many airports and heliports are located very close to rivers, lakes and streams, which can provide a direct pathway for emission of organic and inorganic lead to the air near/above inland waters.  Lead emissions from seaplane facilities as well as airports and heliports near water bodies can enter the aquatic ecosystem by either deposition from ambient air or runoff of lead deposited to surface soils.  As noted in Section IV.A, lead halides (the primary form of lead emitted by engines operating on leaded fuel) are slightly water-soluble and may be more readily dissolved into water than other inorganic forms of lead.
      The EPA Office of Water maintains a database of the National Listing of Fish Advisories (NLFA) which is made available on the Internet to provide information regarding locally-issued fish advisories and safe eating guidelines.  States, territories, and tribes (collectively referred to here as "states") provide this information to EPA every year.  The most recent year for which data are available is 2008.  States provide information regarding contaminant levels of bioaccumulative toxins measured in fish including lead, mercury, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and dioxin.  Based on these data states issue fish consumption advisories that provide information regarding water bodies for which fish tissue concentrations of these pollutants are found by the state criteria to be safe or unsafe for consumption.  The EPA recommends that if fish are detected as having any measureable level of accumulated lead in their tissues that this is cause for concern for all consumers, but especially for children and pregnant or nursing women, and that issuing an advisory is prudent.
      The 2008 NLFA database includes data on lead concentrations in over 23,000 fish from over 1,000 lakes and streams.  Among these fish, lead concentrations were above the analytical detection limit in 1,000 fish samples and among the fish in which measureable lead concentrations were reported, the concentrations of lead ranged from 5 ppb to 60,400 ppb.      States do not provide information regarding the source of contamination in water bodies where fish tissue concentrations of lead are above detection limits.  Lead concentrations in fish tissue samples declined from mean concentrations of 0.28 ppm in 1976 to 0.11ppm in 1984.   The decrease in mean lead concentrations was attributed primarily to reductions in the lead content of motor vehicle gasoline.  Sources of contamination of lead to waterways frequently noted include lead gunshot, lead sinkers, and Superfund sites.  Lead emissions from piston-engine aircraft may contribute to fish tissue lead concentrations in water bodies that are in close proximity to piston-engine aircraft activity.  In one case, a state reported lead contaminated fish in a lake on airport property.  Piston-engine aircraft emissions of lead also have the potential to contribute to fish tissue lead concentrations at water bodies throughout the U.S. due to the emission of lead in-flight.  These in-flight emissions are greatly dispersed in the environment and have been providing a source of lead to the environment for over 80 years.
      The Fond du Lac Band of Lake Superior Chippewa, the Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe and the Mille Lacs Band of Ojibwe submitted comments to the Lead NAAQS docket noting the importance of fish consumption in their diet.  The Fond du Lac Band of Lake Superior Chippewa also noted in their comments, "As a reservation with municipal airport within its exterior boundaries with two schools and tribal housing in close proximity to the airport (one half mile), leaded aircraft fuel is a concern."  The Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe noted in their comments, "Along with the concerns over the emission inventory, the Tribes have great concern regarding the amount of lead from "small" prop engine airports. On or very near the Leech Lake Reservation there are seven prop plane airports with many private air strips scattered throughout the area."  EPA is requesting comment on any information regarding the potential impact of lead emissions from piston-engine aircraft on aquatic environments.

B. Related Exposures of Concern

      While the subject of this ANPR is focused on the emissions of lead from piston-engine aircraft, the use of tetraethyl lead in fuel contributes to additional public health and welfare issues that are also of concern to the Agency.  Among these issues are 1) the contribution of lead emissions to ambient PM, especially in areas in nonattainment with the PM2.5 NAAQS, 2) the emissions of ethylene dibromide to the environment and 3) the evaporative emissions of tetraethyl lead.
      1.  Lead Contribution to Ambient Particulate Matter
      As discussed in Section IV.A of this ANPR, lead emitted by piston engines is expected to be predominantly in the particle phase and will contribute to ambient PM.  There are two U.S. National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for PM2.5: an annual standard (15 μg/m[3]) and a 24-hour standard (35 μg/m[3]).  As of March 4, 2009 there are 39 1997 PM2.5 nonattainment areas.  Area designations for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS were promulgated in 2009 for 31 areas.  All of these nonattainment areas have at least one airport servicing aircraft using leaded avgas and most nonattainment areas have several airport facilities.  The Los Angeles-South Coast Air Basin has 343 airport facilities which have a cumulative lead inventory of 15.0 tons.  The contribution of PM-lead to these nonattainment areas ranges from 0.001 to 0.7% of the mobile source PM2.5 inventory in these areas.  In each of four areas designated as nonattainment with the PM2.5 annual standard, there is at least one lead monitor at which design values for 2006-2008 are greater than the 2008 Lead NAAQS and two of these counties have PM2.5 concentrations exceeding the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.  Reductions in lead emissions in these counties would help bring the area into attainment.
      2.  Ethylene Dibromide

      As noted in Section IV.A, ethylene dibromide (1,2-dibromoethane) is added to leaded avgas to scavenge lead in order to prevent the deposition of lead oxide to valves and spark plugs.  Emissions of ethylene dibromide are a concern to the EPA.  Ethylene dibromide is classified in EPA's Integrated Risk Information System database as likely to be carcinogenic to humans, and a number of chronic noncancer effects have been observed in animals and humans exposed to ethylene dibromide by inhalation and ingestion.  EPA developed an inhalation reference concentration, ingestion dose and cancer unit risk estimates for inhalation and ingestion of ethylene dibromide.  Evidence of nasal tumors, hemangiosarcomas and mesotheliomas in rodents was used by EPA to develop inhalation unit risk estimates (central tendency estimates and 95% upper bound estimates) of 3x10[-4] to 6x10[-4] per ug/m[3].  Evidence of forestomach tumors, hemangiosarcomas, thyroid follicular cell adenomas or carcinomas was used by EPA to develop drinking water unit risk estimates (central tendency estimates and 95% upper bound estimates) of 3x10[-5] to 6x10[-5] per ug/L assuming consumption of 2 L of water per day by a 70 kg human.  EPA developed a reference concentration for chronic inhalation of 9 ug/m[3] based on the critical effect of nasal inflammation and a reference dose for chronic ingestion of 9 ug per kg per day based on the critical effects of testicular atrophy, liver peliosis, and adrenal cortical degeneration.  The National Toxicology Program listed ethylene dibromide as "reasonably anticipated to be a human carcinogen" in the Eleventh Report on Carcinogens in 2005.  The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has classified ethylene dibromide as a Group 2A carcinogen: probably carcinogenic to humans.

      In the additive package used to dose fuel with lead, ethylene dibromide is added to achieve a lead-to-bromine atom ratio of 1:2 and a bromine-to-lead weight ratio of 1:2.  The concentration of ethylene dibromide in leaded avgas is listed as less than 4 milliliters per gallon (<9 grams per gallon).  Since ethylene dibromide was measured in the exhaust and evaporative emissions from light-duty vehicles in the U.S. when they were operated on leaded fuel containing ethylene dibromide we anticipate piston-engine aircraft are currently a source of ethylene dibromide to air.  Measurements of ethylene dibromide have not been made that would allow estimation of the exhaust and evaporative emissions from piston-engine aircraft as well as the emissions associated with refueling and pre-flight fuel checks.

      In addition to contributing to ambient concentrations, ethylene dibromide may also enter underground aquifers via leaking underground storage tanks or fuel spills.  Studies demonstrate that ethylene dibromide may persist for long periods of time in certain groundwater environments.  The EPA established a Maximum Concentration Level (MCL) of 0.05 g/L for ethylene dibromide, which is 100-fold lower than the MCL for benzene and 300-fold lower than the MCL for lead.  The MCL is the highest level of a contaminant that is allowed in drinking water and is an enforceable drinking water standard.

      The EPA Office of Underground Storage Tanks (OUST) and Office of Research and Development's National Risk Management Research Laboratory (NRMRL) in association with the Association of State and Territorial Solid Waste Management Officials (ATSWMO) have formed a team to evaluate the potential for public health and welfare effects attributable to ethylene dibromide from past or present fuel leaks and spills.  Among the goals of the EPA/ATSWMO team is to develop information on the distribution of ethylene dibromide in groundwater at leaking underground storage tank sites in states that do not routinely monitor this contaminant.  Water samples for this study were provided by state agencies to EPA between October 2005 and July 2007.  Of the 802 groundwater samples provided from 102 sites, ethylene dibromide was detected in 54 samples, 43 of which had ethylene dibromide concentrations above the MCL.  These sites did not include analysis of groundwater at airports.

      While not the focus of this ANPR, ethylene dibromide exposure from inhalation or ingestion pathways is an ongoing concern for EPA, and reduction in the use of leaded gasoline containing ethylene dibromide may reduce exposure and risk to public health and welfare from ethylene dibromide.
      3.  Non-Exhaust Exposure to Tetraethyl Lead

      Tetraethyl lead is a volatile component of leaded avgas.  The largest source of tetraethyl lead exposure is expected to originate from evaporative emissions associated with fuel production, fuel distribution, aircraft refueling, pre-flight fuel checks, accidental spills, and fuel tank venting.  Pilots check fuel for contaminants by draining a small amount of fuel from each tank sump before flight and after refueling.  This fuel is frequently deposited onto the tarmac after the fuel check.  EPA is interested in data regarding this practice and any estimates of lead emitted to the air by evaporation of the alkyl lead in the fuel deposited on the tarmac.  Alkyl lead becomes oxidized in the atmosphere by direct photolysis, reaction with ozone, and by reaction with hydroxyl compounds.  Therefore, depending on ambient conditions, alkyl lead may exist in the atmosphere for hours to days.

      Pilots, aviation fuel attendants and mechanics are likely to be among the most highly exposed population to alkyl lead.  These populations are at risk due to both inhalation and possible dermal exposure.  Absorption of inhaled alkyl lead into the bloodstream is higher than that for inorganic lead compounds which are generally in particulate form (AQCD for Lead, Section 4.2.1).  In addition to exposure to lead in the exhaust emissions from piston-engine aircraft, the PBT National Action Plan for Alkyl-lead noted that aviation fuel attendants and mechanics are potentially exposed to alkyl lead emissions due to inhalation of alkyl lead compounds released to the air during fueling, via evaporative emissions from spills, or via evaporative emissions from unused gasoline remaining in the engine or fuel tanks.  Further, these populations are also at risk because of possible dermal absorption of gasoline containing alkyl lead compounds.  Due to the lipophilic nature of alkyl lead and its ability to permeate biological membranes, alkyl lead is absorbed rapidly and extensively through the skin (AQCD for Lead, page 4-12).  In addition to direct human exposure, runoff and deposition of alkyl lead to waterways would increase the amount of lead available for uptake by aquatic plants and animals (see Section V.A.7 of this ANPR for more information).

VI. Additional Information Available for the NPRM to Evaluate the Potential for Public Health and Welfare Impacts and Considerations Regarding Engine Emission Standards

      As noted in the Overview section of this ANPR, in this action we are describing information currently available and information being collected that will be used by the Administrator to subsequently exercise her judgment regarding whether aircraft lead emissions from avgas use cause or contribute to air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare.  These additional data will come from lead monitoring being planned to satisfy requirements of the Lead NAAQS, air quality modeling planned at EPA that is described below and any information submitted to EPA during the comment period for this ANPR.

A. The Lead NAAQS and Lead Emissions from Piston-Engine Aircraft

      On November 12, 2008, when EPA promulgated revisions to the Lead NAAQS, EPA also adopted revisions to ambient air monitoring requirements for lead, described the approach for implementing the revised standards, and provided an implementation timeline.  We describe each of these activities as well as more recent activities below.  This section also discusses the most current information available regarding how implementation of the Lead NAAQS may provide additional data on the potential for lead emissions from piston-engine aircraft to cause or contribute to ambient air concentrations that exceed the 2008 Lead NAAQS.

      Acknowledging that the existing monitoring network for lead is not sufficient to determine whether many areas of the country would meet the 2008 Lead NAAQS, the EPA re-designed the nation's lead monitoring network to allow assessment of compliance with the revised lead standard.  Lead monitoring requirements promulgated in 2008 stipulate that, at a minimum, monitoring agencies must place monitors at maximum impact areas where lead emissions are greater than or equal to one ton or more per year.  We refer to these monitors as source-oriented monitors.  EPA Regional Administrators may waive the source-oriented monitoring requirements if the monitoring agency can demonstrate that emissions from the source will not contribute to maximum air lead concentrations greater than 50 percent of the revised standard, or 0.075 ug/m[3].  EPA estimated that approximately 135 facilities emit lead at levels over the one ton emission threshold, making them subject to the lead monitoring requirements.  Lead monitors are operating at a small number of these sources (described in Section VI.A.2 below).  For the remainder, source-oriented monitors are to be operational by January 1, 2010.

      EPA also required monitors to be operated in each of the 101 urban areas with populations greater than 500,000 in order to gather information on the general population's exposure to lead in air.  We refer to these monitors as population-oriented monitors.

      Following promulgation of the 2008 Lead NAAQS and monitoring requirements, the Natural Resources Defense Council, the Missouri Coalition for the Environment Foundation, Physicians for Social Responsibility, and the Coalition to End Childhood Lead Poisoning (Petitioners) petitioned EPA for reconsideration of the lead emission rate at which we required monitoring (the "emission threshold," currently 1.0 tpy).  EPA granted the petition to reconsider aspects of the monitoring requirements and proposed revisions to lead ambient air monitoring requirements in December 2009 (74 FR 69050).

      Also as part of promulgating the 2008 Lead NAAQS, EPA described the approach for implementing the revised standards and provided an implementation timeline.  EPA will use county boundaries as the presumptive boundaries for nonattainment areas, and adjustments to boundaries will be made on case-by-case bases.  States in which there is sufficient monitoring data made recommendations for areas to be designated attainment, nonattainment, or unclassifiable in October 2009.  States update their recommendations to EPA in October 2010 using any additional monitoring data available from the increased source-oriented monitoring network described above.  Final designations of all attainment, nonattainment and unclassifiable areas will be effective no later than January 2012.  Where data are sufficient from the currently existing lead monitoring network, we expect that initial designations will be effective January 2011.  States are directed to submit State Implementation Plans (SIPs) no later than eighteen months after designation, outlining how they will reduce pollution to meet the lead standards.  States are required to attain the standards no later than five years after designation.  Additional information regarding the lead standard implementation is available at www.epa.gov/air/lead/actions.html and in the 2008 Lead NAAQS (73 FR 67030-67043).

      1.  Monitoring Lead at Airports to Evaluate Ambient Concentrations to Which Lead Emissions from Piston-Engine Aircraft Contribute

      Among the estimated 135 source-oriented lead monitoring sites, there are four airports where we expect lead monitoring to begin in January 2010.  These airports are the Van Nuys Airport in Van Nuys, CA; the Phoenix Deer Valley Airport in Phoenix, AZ; the Centennial Airport in Englewood, CO; and the Daytona Beach International Airport in Daytona Beach, FL.  In each of these areas, we will, as data becomes available, evaluate the impact of lead emissions from piston-engine aircraft on air quality.

      2. Evaluating the Contribution of Lead Emissions from Piston-Engine Aircraft to Areas Approaching or Exceeding the Lead NAAQS

      In this section we discuss available information and information that will become available in 2010 that can be used to evaluate the potential for lead emissions from piston-engine aircraft to contribute to ambient concentrations in areas exceeding the Lead NAAQS.  This evaluation may include the following: 1) areas currently out of attainment or designated as maintenance with the 1978 Lead NAAQS; 2) areas with current lead monitors that are out of attainment with the 2008 Lead NAAQS; and 3) locations that will have new lead monitors to meet the 2008 Lead NAAQS source-oriented monitoring requirements.  In each of these areas, we will, as data become available, evaluate the contribution of lead emissions from piston-engine aircraft to lead inventories and air quality.

      The EPA is retaining the 1978 Lead NAAQS until one year after designations for the 2008 Lead NAAQS, except in current nonattainment areas.  In those areas, EPA will retain the 1978 standard until the area submits, and EPA approves, attainment and/or maintenance demonstrations for the new standards.  Only two areas, East Helena, MT (including Lewis and Clark counties), and part of Jefferson County in Herculaneum, MO, are designated nonattainment with the 1978 Lead NAAQS.  The industrial facility causing nonattainment with the Lead NAAQS in the East Helena area closed in 2001.  Eleven areas are designated as maintenance areas, only three of which currently have lead monitors.  These three locations (Iron County, MO, Dakota County MN, and Collin County, TX) have lead monitors with design value concentrations exceeding the 2008 Lead NAAQS.  The design value is the highest "rolling" three month average over a three-year period that is relevant for comparison to the level of the 2008 Lead NAAQS.

      Implementation of the 2008 Lead NAAQS is underway, and we have not yet designated areas under it.  When EPA promulgated the 2008 Lead NAAQS, EPA provided a list of 18 counties with design values exceeding the 2008 lead standard of 0.15 ug/m3.  Using more recent data from EPA's Air Quality System, there are 14 sites at which design values exceed the 2008 Lead NAAQS (Table 3).  Over 4.6 million people live in the counties where design values are greater than the 2008 Lead NAAQS.  After EPA designates areas that currently have sufficient lead monitoring data, no later than October 15, 2010, we will evaluate the contribution of lead emissions from piston-engine aircraft to lead inventories in nonattainment, maintenance and in some cases, unclassifiable areas, depending on the presence of point sources of lead and the status of ambient lead monitoring in those areas.

Table 3.  Counties with Maximum Rolling Quarterly Average Lead Concentrations Exceeding the 2008 Lead NAAQS.

County, State
                                  EPA Region
County Population (2000 Census)
Design Value, 2006-2008 (g/m3)
Jefferson, MO
                                       7
                                    198,099
                                     2.89
Iron, MO
                                       7
                                    10,697
                                     2.46
Delaware, IN
                                       5
                                    118,769
                                     2.16
Hillsborough, FL
                                       4
                                    998,948
                                     1.77
Collin, TX
                                       6
                                    491,675
                                     1.26
Pike, AL
                                       4
                                    29,605
                                     1.21
Dakota, MN
                                       5
                                    355,904
                                     0.70
Fulton, OH
                                       5
                                    42,084
                                     0.69
Berks, PA
                                       3
                                    373,638
                                     0.36
Madison, IL
                                       5
                                    258,941
                                     0.28
Logan, OH
                                       5
                                    46,005
                                     0.27
Sullivan, TN
                                       4
                                    153,048
                                     0.26
Beaver, PA
                                       3
                                    181,412
                                     0.20
Cuyahoga, OH
                                       5
                                   1,393,978
                                     0.17

      Lead emissions from piston-engine aircraft operating at airports outside nonattainment areas can also contribute to lead measured in the nonattainment area.  In addition, other sources of lead that do not, by themselves, exceed the lead emission monitoring threshold may be located near airports.  For example, at some airports in the U.S., race track venues are located immediately adjacent to runways where piston-engine aircraft operate.  We are seeking information regarding ambient concentrations of lead that can result from the combined emissions of leaded fuel used in some race vehicles, lead emissions from piston-engine aircraft and other sources of ambient lead.

      The EPA intends to conduct modeling analyses to evaluate the contribution of these lead emissions to nonattainment areas and areas that may be approaching nonattainment concentrations.  Lead emitted by piston-engine aircraft flying through nonattainment areas may also contribute to lead measured in the nonattainment area.  These emissions would be potentially challenging to quantify, although a series of scoping analyses could be conducted.  We seek comment on characterizing the contribution of lead emissions from piston-engine aircraft flying through areas that are not attaining the 2008 Lead NAAQS and the potential contribution of piston-engine lead emissions that may be transported into lead nonattainment areas.

      As noted above, approximately 135 new lead monitors will begin collecting ambient lead samples starting in January 2010 in order to satisfy the source-oriented monitoring requirements of the 2008 Lead NAAQS.  In the NPRM we will discuss the potential contribution of lead from piston-engine aircraft to these areas where the ambient data suggest lead concentrations are close to or exceeding the 2008 Lead NAAQS of 0.15 g/m3.

B. Additional Information EPA is Collecting to Evaluate Ambient Lead Concentrations Attributable to Emissions from Piston-Engine Aircraft

      In 2008 EPA initiated a study to provide information regarding the local-scale gradient in lead concentrations on- and near airport facilities with piston-engine powered aircraft activity.  This study focused mainly on developing an approach for modeling lead emissions from piston-engine aircraft using the Meteorological Society (AMS)/EPA Regulatory Model (AERMOD), and evaluating it using air quality measurements.  For purposes of local-scale dispersion modeling, AERMOD is EPA's preferred model.  The approach developed includes apportioning lead emitted during landing and take-off to different altitudes in order to characterize emissions during these modes of operation in a realistic manner.  In addition, this modeling study includes analysis of the spatial and temporal emissions from piston-engine aircraft during the other modes of aircraft operation (e.g., taxi, run-up check, take-off, landing).  The modeling results include an evaluation of the relative contributions of all known sources of lead to the local ambient air, including piston-engine aircraft, local traffic, resuspended road dust, and industrial sources within 20 km of the airport selected for our case study.  The EPA study at the Santa Monica Airport was recently completed.

      As part of this work, we collected air, soil and house dust samples for lead analysis in order to conduct a model-to-monitor evaluation, and to evaluate the potential for lead emissions from piston-engine aircraft to create a gradient in air, soil and house dust concentrations of lead in proximity to the airport activities.

      We selected the Santa Monica municipal airport for this study because of the data available from the monitoring study conducted by the SCAQMD in 2005-2007 discussed in Section IV.B of this ANPR.  In addition, there are no major point sources of lead in close proximity to the airport, simplifying the model development and interpretation of monitoring results.

      EPA intends to use this modeling approach to evaluate potential for exceedance of the Lead NAAQS on airport property and surrounding areas, as well as providing an approach to characterize the contribution of lead emissions from piston-engine aircraft to areas with ambient lead concentrations currently exceeding the 2008 Lead NAAQS.  This modeling approach will also allow us to quantify the changes in ambient lead concentrations following the implementation of different piston-engine control strategies.  The application of this modeling approach to a case-study airport could also be used as input to conduct a risk assessment evaluating the potential contribution of lead from piston-engine emissions on blood lead levels and IQ deficits for those living near or attending school near general aviation activity.

      We request comment on all information EPA is collecting to evaluate ambient lead concentrations attributable to emissions from piston-engine aircraft and risk posed by emissions of lead from piston-engine aircraft.

C. Considerations Regarding Engine Emission Standards

      A positive endangerment and cause or contribute finding with respect to the emissions of lead from general aviation aircraft would trigger EPA's duty to set emission standards.  In considering emission standards, EPA would consider controlling emissions from piston engines using aviation gasoline in aircraft.  In cooperation with FAA, EPA would evaluate the technical feasibility of a possible phase-down or elimination of leaded aviation gasoline.  One option to consider, for example, could be an emissions standard (established under 40 CFR 87) that would require all newly-manufactured general aviation piston engines to be able to operate with appropriate reliability and durability on unleaded aviation gasoline by some future date.  Such a standard might require that new engines used in aircraft would have to receive an FAA type certificate that reflects achievement of these requirements under FAA regulations set forth at 14 CFR parts 33/34.

      Beyond this, EPA recognizes that there is a big challenge in dealing with the in-use fleet.  Converting in-use aircraft/engines to operate on unleaded aviation gasoline would be a significant logistical challenge, and in some cases a technical challenge as well.  In many cases, the implementation of this concept might depend upon efforts and actions of aircraft and engine manufacturers in identifying the necessary modifications and developing hardware as necessary.  Depending on timing, these engines might need to be able to operate on either leaded or unleaded aviation gasoline, or a blend thereof.  EPA recognizes that in many cases these modifications could trigger the need for FAA regulatory approval of the modifications for both the engines and airframes.  Given the potentially large number of affected aircraft and the potential complexities involved, a program affecting in-use aircraft engines would need careful consideration by both EPA and FAA and the two agencies would need to work together in considering any potential program affecting the in-use fleet.

      EPA requests comment on this outline of approaches for transitioning the fleet to unleaded aviation gasoline, as well as potential implementation dates, if EPA were to trigger the duty to set emission standards.  Comment is also requested on how a program could be best structured to assure that conversions conducted by engine manufacturers (OEMs), independent shops, and in the field by certified power plant mechanics are performed to fully meet the intent of a possible program without compromising the safety of those aircraft and engines.  EPA also asks for comment on potential problems with this approach including suggested modifications, improvements, or other approaches.  EPA requests comment on how market incentives might be developed to encourage modification to run on unleaded aviation gasoline as part of a regulatory requirement.

      As part of the responses to the Federal Register notice EPA published in November 2007 entitled "Petition Requesting Rulemaking to Limit Lead Emissions from General Aviation Aircraft," EPA received a number of comments addressing both technology and fuel-based options as potential measures to reduce or eliminate lead in avgas.  In addition to these comments, EPA is aware of completed and ongoing work done under the auspices of the Coordinating Research Council and more recent viewpoints and efforts put forth by industry trade associations, airframe/engine manufacturers, specialty vendors, aviation user groups, and other innovators.  The work and perspectives of these groups on technology and avgas fuel quality options are important, and EPA asks for further comment reflecting any new data on technology developments, fuel formulation approaches, or other technical viewpoints.

      According to Department of Energy data, annual demand for aviation gasoline is very small in comparison to motor gasoline yet its use is as geographically widespread.  This of course creates challenges for supply, distribution, and storage.  EPA asks for comment on the avgas refining locations and practices, supply (including imports and exports, if any), details on distribution to terminals and airports, and storage practices for avgas at terminals and airports across the country.  EPA is also interested in comments on progress and timeframes for developing alternatives to current leaded avgas and how these might be integrated into the fuel supply and distribution system.

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

      Under Executive Order 12866, entitled Regulatory Planning and Review (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this is a "significant regulatory action" because of the cross-agency nature of this issue.  Accordingly, EPA submitted this action to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review under Executive Order 12866 and any changes made in response to OMB recommendations have been documented in the docket for this action.  Because this action does not propose or impose any requirements, other statutory and Executive Order reviews that apply to rulemaking do not apply.  Should EPA subsequently determine to pursue a rulemaking, EPA will address the statues and Executive Orders as applicable to that rulemaking.

      Nevertheless, the Agency welcomes comments and/or information that would help the Agency to assess any of the following:  tribal implications pursuant to Executive Order 13175, entitled Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments (65 FR 67249, November 6, 2000); environmental health or safety effects on children pursuant to Executive Order 13045, entitled Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) and human health or environmental effects on minority or low-income populations pursuant to Executive Order 12898, entitled Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).  The Agency will consider such comments during the development of any subsequent rulemaking.
Dated_____________
___________________________________
Lisa P. Jackson,
Administrator

 Advance Notice of Proposed Endangerment Finding for Lead Emissions from Piston-Engine Aircraft Using Leaded Aviation Gasoline page 103 of 103


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 162 (Tuesday, August 21, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 50494-50495]
[FR Doc No: 2012-20507]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0707; FRL 9521-8]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to OMB for
Review and Approval; Comment Request; Data Reporting Requirements for
State and Local Vehicle Emission Inspection and Maintenance (I/M)
Programs (Renewal)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)(44 U.S.C.
3501 et seq.), this document announces that an Information Collection
Request (ICR) has been forwarded to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) for review and approval. This is a request to renew an existing
approved collection. The ICR, which is abstracted below, describes the
nature of the information collection and its estimated burden and cost.

DATES: Additional comments may be submitted on or before September 20,
2012.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2008-0707 to (1) EPA online using www.regulations.gov (our preferred
method), by email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by mail to: EPA Docket
Center, Environmental Protection Agency, EPA West (Air Docket) 1200
Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Room B108; mail Code: 6102T, Washington, DC
20460, and (2) OMB by mail to: Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Attention: Desk Officer
for EPA, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dave Sosnowski, Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Transportation and Air Quality,
Transportation and Climate Division, 2000 Traverwood, Ann Arbor,
Michigan 48105; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number: 734-214-
4052; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA has submitted the following ICR to OMB
for review and approval according to the procedures prescribed in 5 CFR
1320.12. On March 5, 2012 (77 FR 13122), EPA sought comments on this
ICR pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.8(d). EPA received 2 comments during the
comment period, which are addressed in the supporting statement of this
ICR. Any additional comments on this ICR should be submitted to EPA and
OMB within 30 days of this notice.
    EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0707, which is available for online viewing at
www.regulations.gov, or in person viewing at the Air Docket in the EPA
Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave.
NW., Washington, DC. The EPA/DC Public Reading Room is open from 8:30
a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The
telephone number for the Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the
telephone number for the Air Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Use EPA's electronic docket and comment system at
www.regulations.gov, to submit or view public comments, access the
index listing of the contents of the docket, and to access those
documents in the docket that are available electronically. Once in the
system, select ``docket search,'' then key in the docket ID number
identified above. Please note that EPA's policy is that public
comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made
available for public viewing at www.regulations.gov as EPA receives
them and without change, unless the comment contains copyrighted
material, confidential business information (CBI), or other information
whose public disclosure is restricted by statute. For further
information about the electronic docket, go to www.regulations.gov.
    Title: Data Reporting Requirements for State and Local Vehicle
Emission Inspection and Maintenance (I/M) Programs (Renewal).
    ICR numbers: EPA ICR No. 1613.04, OMB Control No. 2060-0252.
    ICR Status: This ICR is scheduled to expire on August 31, 2012.
Under OMB

regulations, the Agency may continue to conduct or sponsor the
collection of information while this submission is pending at OMB. An
Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to
respond to, a collection of information, unless it displays a currently
valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations
in title 40 of the CFR, after appearing in the Federal Register when
approved, are listed in 40 CFR part 9, are displayed either by
publication in the Federal Register or by other appropriate means, such
as on the related collection instrument or form, if applicable. The
display of OMB control numbers in certain EPA regulations is
consolidated in 40 CFR part 9.
    Abstract: To provide general oversight and support to state and
local I/M programs, the Transportation and Climate Division (TCD),
Office of Transportation and Air Quality, Office of Air and Radiation,
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, requires that state or local
program management for both basic and enhanced I/M programs prepare and
submit two varieties of reports to EPA. The first reporting requirement
is the submittal of an annual report providing general program
operating data and summary statistics, addressing the program's current
design and coverage; a summary of testing data, enforcement program
efforts, quality assurance and quality control efforts; and other
miscellaneous information allowing for an assessment of the program's
relative effectiveness. The second reporting requirement is a biennial
report on any changes to the program over the two-year period and the
impact of such changes, including any weaknesses discovered and
corrections made or planned.
    General program effectiveness is determined by the degree to which
a program misses, meets, or exceeds the emission reductions committed
to in the state's approved SIP, which, in turn, must meet or exceed the
minimum emission reductions expected from the relevant performance
standard, as promulgated under EPA's revisions to 40 CFR part 51, in
response to requirements established in section 182 of the Clean Air
Act Amendments of 1990. This information will be used by EPA to
determine a program's progress toward meeting requirements under 40 CFR
part 51, as well as to assess national trends in the area of basic and
enhanced I/M programs and to provide background information in support
of periodic site visits and evaluations.
    Burden Statement: The annual public reporting and recordkeeping
burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 86
hours per response. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial
resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or
disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This
includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire,
install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of
collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and
maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information;
adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable
instructions and requirements which have subsequently changed; train
personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search
data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and
transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
    The ICR provides a detailed explanation of the Agency's estimate,
which is only briefly summarized here:
    Respondents/Affected Entities:
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 28.
    Frequency of response: Annual and Biennial.
    Estimated Total Annual Hour Burden: 2,408 hours.
    Estimated Total Annual Cost: $144,564. This includes an estimated
burden cost of $144,564 and an estimated cost of $0 for capital
investment or maintenance and operational costs.
    Changes in the Estimates: There is a decrease of 482 hours in the
total estimated burden currently identified in the OMB Inventory of
Approved ICR Burdens. This decrease is due to (1) a mathematical error
discovered in the previous ICR renewal; and (2) a decrease in the
number of respondents due to areas redesignating to attainment for the
criteria pollutant(s) that triggered the original I/M program
requirement and either dropping the program or converting the program
to a maintenance measure.

John Moses,
Director, Collection Strategies Division.
[FR Doc. 2012-20507 Filed 8-20-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P