[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 208 (Thursday, October 27, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 66609-66613]
[FR Doc No: 2011-27687]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2011-1035; Directorate Identifier 2011-SW-038-AD;
Amendment 39-16817; AD 2011-15-51]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Bell Helicopter Textron Canada (Bell)
Model 407 and 427 Helicopters

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Final rule; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: This document publishes in the Federal Register an amendment
adopting Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2011-15-51, which was sent
previously to all known U.S. owners and operators of the specified Bell
Model 407 and 427 helicopters by individual letters. This AD requires
inspecting certain hydraulic servo actuators to determine whether the
shaft turns independently of the nut or the clevis assembly. If the
shaft turns independently, this AD requires replacing the servo with an
airworthy servo. If the shaft does not turn independently, the AD
requires inspecting to determine the condition of the lock washers.
Based on the condition of the lock washers, the AD requires either
replacing the servo with an airworthy servo, or if any tab of the lock
washer is not flush against a flat surface of the nut or clevis
assembly, bending it flush against a flat surface. The AD also requires
reidentifying the servo by metal-impression stamping or by vibro-
etching ``67.01'' onto the modification plate. Also, the AD requires
before installing a servo with a part number or serial number
identified in this AD, not identified by ``67-01'' on the modification
plate, inspecting it by following the requirements of this AD. This AD
is prompted by a report that a quality escape by a supplier has
occurred and certain servos may have a loose nut, shaft, and clevis
assembly due to improper lock-washer installation. An investigation
after an accident revealed the clevis nut on the servo was loose. The
actions specified by this AD are intended to prevent a malfunction of a
servo in the flight control system and subsequent loss of control of
the helicopter.

DATES: Effective November 14, 2011, to all persons except those persons
to whom it was made immediately effective by Emergency AD 2011-15-51,
issued on July 8, 2011, which contained the requirements of this
amendment.
    The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in
the regulations is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as
of November 14, 2011.
    Comments for inclusion in the Rules Docket must be received on or
before December 27, 2011.

ADDRESSES: Use one of the following addresses to submit comments on
this AD:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    You may get the service information identified in this AD from Bell
Helicopter Textron Canada Limited, 12,800 Rue de l'Avenir, Mirabel,
Quebec J7J1R4, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER> or<PHONE_NUMBER>, fax (450)
433-0272, or at http://www.bellcustomer.com/files/.
    Examining the Docket: You may examine the docket that contains the
AD, any comments, and other information on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov, or in person at the Docket Operations office
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The Docket Operations office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is
located in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the West Building at the
street address stated in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be
available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Matt Wilbanks, Aviation Safety
Engineer, 2601 Meacham Blvd, Fort Worth, Texas 76137, telephone (817)
222-5051, fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On July 8, 2011, the FAA issued Emergency AD
2011-15-51 for the specified model helicopters, which requires
inspecting certain servos to determine whether the shaft turns
independently of the nut or the clevis assembly. If the shaft turns
independently, the AD requires replacing the servo with an airworthy
servo. If the shaft does not turn independently, the AD requires
inspecting to determine the condition of the lock washers. If at least
one lock washer is not bent flush against a flat surface of the nut and
at least one tab of the lock washer is not bent flush against a flat
surface of the clevis assembly, the AD requires replacing the servo
with an airworthy servo. If any tab of the lock washer is not bent
flush against either a flat surface of the nut or clevis assembly, the
AD requires bending the tab flush against a flat surface. The AD also
requires reidentifying the servo by metal-impression stamping or by
vibro-etching ``67.01'' onto the modification plate. Also, the AD
requires before installing a servo with a part number or serial number
identified in this AD, not identified by ``67-01'' on the modification
plate, inspecting and reidentifying it by following the requirements of
this AD. That action was prompted by a report that a quality escape by
a supplier has occurred and certain servos may have a loose nut,

shaft, and clevis assembly due to improper lock-washer installation. An
investigation after an accident revealed the clevis nut on the servo
was loose. This condition, if not corrected, could result in a
malfunction of a servo in the flight control system and subsequent loss
of control of the helicopter.
    Transport Canada, the airworthiness authority for Canada, notified
the FAA that an unsafe condition may exist on these helicopter models.
Transport Canada advises that a quality escape by a supplier has
occurred, and a number of servos may have a loose nut, shaft, and
clevis assembly. Transport Canada states in its AD that the loose
connection is due to improper lock-washer installation, which is not
traceable or identifiable except by inspection. The authority also
states a disconnect of the affected parts may lead to loss of control
of the helicopter.
    Bell has issued Alert Service Bulletin (ASB) 407-11-96 and 427-11-
35, both dated June 29, 2011, which specify the part numbers and serial
numbers of the affected servos and refer to ASB 407-05-70, Revision A,
dated November 10, 2005; ASB 427-05-12, Revision A, dated November 14,
2005; with HR Textron Service Bulletin (SB) 41011300-67-01, Revision 2,
dated November 9, 2005; HR Textron SB 41011400-67-01, Revision 2, dated
November 9, 2005; and HR Textron SB 41011700-67-01, Revision 2, dated
November 9, 2005, attached. The ASBs also specify reidentifying the
servos with a ``67-01'' on the modification plate indicating the
inspection procedures were followed.
    Transport Canada classified the ASBs as mandatory and issued AD No.
CF-2011-17, dated June 30, 2011, to ensure the continued airworthiness
of these helicopters.
    This helicopter model is manufactured in Canada and is type
certificated for operation in the United States under the provisions of
14 CFR 21.29 and the applicable bilateral agreement. Pursuant to the
applicable bilateral agreement, Transport Canada has kept us informed
of the situation described above. We have examined the findings of
Transport Canada, reviewed all available information, and determined
that AD action is necessary for helicopters of this type design that
are certificated for operation in the United States.
    Since the unsafe condition described is likely to exist or develop
on other Bell Model 407 and 427 helicopters of these same type designs,
the FAA issued Emergency AD 2011-15-51 to prevent a malfunction of a
servo in the flight control system and subsequent loss of control of
the helicopter. The AD requires before further flight for certain
affected servos and within 25 hours time-in-service for certain other
affected servos, identified by a serial number, retracting the boot and
inspecting the servo as follows:
     Applying only hand pressure, determining whether the nut,
shaft, or clevis assembly turns independently. If the shaft turns
independently of the nut or the clevis assembly, before further flight,
replacing the servo with an airworthy servo.
     If the shaft does not turn independently, inspecting to
determine whether at least one tab of a lock washer is bent flush
against a flat surface of the nut and at least one tab of the lock
washer is bent flush against a flat surface of the clevis assembly.
     If at least one lock washer tab is not aligned and bent
flush with a flat surface of the nut and at least one lock washer tab
is not aligned and bent flush with a flat surface of the clevis
assembly, before further flight, replacing the servo with an airworthy
servo.
     If any tab of the lock washer is not bent flush against
either a flat surface of the nut or clevis assembly, bend the tab flush
against a flat surface.
     Reidentifying the servo by metal-impression stamping or by
vibro-etching ``67.01'' onto the modification plate.
     Before installing a servo with a P/N and S/N identified in
this AD, not identified by ``67-01'' on the modification plate,
inspecting it by following the requirements of this AD.
    This AD differs from the Transport Canada AD in that we do not
require that the servo be returned to the manufacturer. Also, we do not
limit the applicability to specific serial-numbered helicopters. We
have specified the inspection requirements rather than referring to the
applicable service bulletins. The AD requires that the servo be
replaced before further flight, and the Transport Canada AD refers to
the ASB, which requires that the servo be replaced within 300 hours
time-in-service.
    The short compliance time involved is required because the
previously described critical unsafe condition can adversely affect the
controllability of the helicopter. Therefore, inspecting the servos for
specified conditions and replacing any affected servo, as necessary,
are required before further flight, and this AD must be issued
immediately.
    Since it was found that immediate corrective action was required,
notice and opportunity for prior public comment thereon were
impracticable and contrary to the public interest, and good cause
existed to make the AD effective immediately by individual letters
issued on July 8, 2011, to all known U.S. owners and operators of Bell
Model 407 and 427 helicopters. These conditions still exist, and the AD
is hereby published in the Federal Register as an amendment to 14 CFR
39.13 to make it effective to all persons.
    We estimate that this AD will affect 582 helicopters of U.S.
registry, and inspecting or replacing an affected servo will take about
2 work hours to inspect and 2 work hours to replace per helicopter at
an average labor rate of $85 per work hour. Required parts will cost
about $33,000 per helicopter. Based on these figures, we estimate the
total cost impact of the AD on U.S. operators to be $164,940, assuming
2 servos are replaced on the entire fleet.

Comments Invited

    This AD is a final rule that involves requirements that affect
flight safety and was not preceded by notice and an opportunity for
public comment; however, we invite you to submit any written data,
views, or arguments regarding this AD. Send your comments to an address
listed under ADDRESSES. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2011-1035; Directorate
Identifier 2011-SW-038-AD'' at the beginning of your comments. We
specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic,
environmental, and energy aspects of the AD. We will consider all
comments received by the closing date and may amend the AD in light of
those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact
with FAA personnel concerning this AD. Using the search function of our
docket Web site, you can find and read the comments to any of our
dockets, including the name of the individual who sent the comment. You
may review the DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal
Register published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78).

Regulatory Findings

    We have 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 the regulation:

    1. Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order
12866;
    2. Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and
    3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    We prepared an economic evaluation of the estimated costs to comply
with this AD. See the AD docket to examine the economic evaluation.

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.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

    Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the Federal Aviation Administration amends part 39 of
the Federal Aviation Regulations (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. Section 39.13 is amended by adding a new airworthiness directive to
read as follows:

    2011-15-51 Bell Helicopter Textron, Inc. (Bell): Amendment 39-
16817; Docket No. FAA-2011-1035; Directorate Identifier 2011-SW-038-
AD.

    Applicability: Model 407 helicopters with a hydraulic servo
actuator assembly (servo), part number (P/N) 206-076-062-105, or -
107 and Model 427 helicopters, with servo, P/N 206-076-062-109 or -
111, installed, certificated in any category.
    Compliance: Required as indicated, unless accomplished
previously.
    To detect loose or misaligned parts of the servo that could lead
to failure of the servo and subsequent loss of control of the
helicopter, do the following:
    (a) Before further flight, for those helicopters with a servo
serial number (S/N) on the modification plate listed in Table 1 of
Bell Alert Service Bulletin (ASB) No. 407-11-96, dated June 29,
2011, for the Model 407 helicopters or Table 1 of ASB 427-11-35,
dated June 29, 2011, for the Model 427 helicopters, do the
following:
    (1) Retract the boot depicted as ``230'' in Figure 1 of this AD:

    Note 1: Bell ASB 427-05-12, Revision A, dated November 14, 2005;
HR Textron SBs 41011300-67-01, 41011400-67-01, and 41011700-67-01,
all Revision 2, all dated November 9, 2005, which are not
incorporated by reference, contain information pertaining to the
subject of this AD.

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR27OC11.000

    (2) Applying only hand pressure, determine whether the nut,
shaft, or clevis assembly, depicted as ``225,'' ``215,'' and
``205,'' respectively, in Figure 1 of this AD, turns independently.
If the shaft turns independently of the nut or the clevis assembly,
before further flight, replace the servo with an airworthy servo.
    (3) If the shaft does not turn independently, inspect to
determine whether at least one tab of the lock washer is bent flush
against a flat surface of the nut and at least one tab of the lock
washer is bent flush against a flat surface of the clevis assembly.
    (i) If at least one lock washer tab is not aligned and bent
flush with a nut flat surface and at least one lock washer tab is
not aligned and bent flush with a flat surface of the clevis
assembly, before further flight, replace the servo with an airworthy
servo.
    (ii) If any tab of the lock washer is not bent flush against
either a flat surface of the nut or clevis assembly, bend the tab
flush against a flat surface.
    (4) After accomplishing paragraph (a)(1) through (a)(3) of this
AD, reidentify the servo by metal-impression stamping or by vibro-
etching ``67-01'' onto the modification plate.
    (b) For those servo P/Ns with a S/N less than the S/Ns listed in
the following Table A of this AD but NOT specifically included in
the list of S/Ns in Table 1 referenced in paragraph (a) of this AD,
within 25 hours

time-in-service, inspect the nut, shaft, and clevis assembly and
accomplish the requirements of paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(4) of
this AD.

                                                     Table A
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Helicopter model                      Servo P/N                      Servo prefix ``HR,'' S/N
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
407................................  41011300-101 (BHT 206-076-062-  Less than 807.
                                      105).
                                    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     41011400-101 (BHT 206-076-062-  Less than 2248.
                                      107).
                                    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
427................................  41011300-101 (BHT 206-076-062-  Less than 807.
                                      111).
                                     41011700-101 (BHT 206-076-062-  Less than 230.
                                      109).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

     (c) Before installing a servo with a P/N and S/N identified in
paragraphs (a) or (b) of this AD, not identified by ``67-01'' on the
modification plate, inspect the servo by following the requirements
of this AD.
    (d) To request a different method of compliance or a different
compliance time for this AD, follow the procedures in 14 CFR 39.19.
Contact the Manager, Safety Management Group, FAA, ATTN: Matt
Wilbanks, Aviation Safety Engineer, 2601 Meacham Blvd, Fort Worth,
Texas 76137, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, fax<PHONE_NUMBER>, for
information about previously approved alternative methods of
compliance.
    (e) The Joint Aircraft System/Component (JASC) Code is: 6730:
Rotorcraft Servo System.
    (f) The affected servo serial numbers are listed in Table 1 of
Bell Alert Service Bulletin (ASB) No. 407-11-96, dated June 29,
2011, for the Model 407 helicopters or Table 1 of ASB 427-11-35,
dated June 29, 2011, for the Model 427 helicopters. The Director of
the Federal Register approved this incorporation by reference in
accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Copies may be
obtained from Bell Helicopter Textron Canada Limited, 12,800 Rue de
l'Avenir, Mirabel, Quebec J7J1R4, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER> or (800)
363-8023, fax<PHONE_NUMBER>, or at http://www.bellcustomer.com/files/. Copies may be inspected at the FAA, Office of the Regional
Counsel, Southwest Region, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Room 663, Fort Worth,
Texas or at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA).
For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call
202-741-6030, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html.
    (g) This amendment becomes effective on November 14, 2011, to
all persons except those persons to whom it was made immediately
effective by Emergency AD 2011-15-51, issued July 8, 2011, which
contained the requirements of this amendment.

    Note 2:  The subject of this AD is addressed in Transport Canada
AD CF-2011-17, dated June 30, 2011.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on September 19, 2011.
Kim Smith,
Manager, Rotorcraft Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2011-27687 Filed 10-26-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 178 (Wednesday, September 14, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 63106-63107]
[FR Doc No: 2016-21991]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R04-OAR-2015-0250; FRL-9952-32-Region 4]

Air Plan Approval; GA Infrastructure Requirements for the 2010 1-
Hour NO2 NAAQS

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking final
action to approve portions of the State Implementation Plan (SIP)
submission, submitted by the State of Georgia, through the Georgia
Department of Natural Resources, Environmental Protection Division (GA
EPD), on March 25, 2013, to demonstrate that the State meets the
infrastructure requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) for the
2010 1-hour nitrogen dioxide (NO2) national ambient air
quality standard (NAAQS). The CAA requires that each state adopt and
submit a SIP for the implementation, maintenance and enforcement of
each NAAQS promulgated by EPA, which is commonly referred to as an
``infrastructure'' SIP. GA EPD certified that the Georgia SIP contains
provisions that ensure the 2010 1-hour NO2 NAAQS is
implemented, enforced, and maintained in Georgia. EPA has determined
that portions of Georgia's infrastructure submission, submitted on
March 25, 2013, addresses certain required infrastructure elements for
the 2010 1-hour NO2 NAAQS.

DATES: This rule will be effective October 14, 2016.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket
Identification No. EPA-R04-OAR-2015-0250. All documents in the docket
are listed on the www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the
index, some information is not publicly available, i.e., Confidential
Business Information or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted
material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available
only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are
available either electronically through www.regulations.gov or in hard
copy at the Air Regulatory Management Section, Air Planning and
Implementation Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW.,
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. EPA requests that if at all possible, you
contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section to schedule your inspection. The Regional Office's official
hours of business are Monday through Friday 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.,
excluding federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Richard Wong, Air Regulatory
Management Section, Air Planning and Implementation Branch, Air,
Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia
30303-8960. Mr. Wong can be reached via telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER> or
via electronic mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background and Overview

    On January 22, 2010, (published at 75 FR 6474, February 9, 2010),
EPA promulgated a new 1-hour primary NAAQS for NO2 at a
level of 100 parts per billion, based on a 3-year average of the 98th
percentile of the yearly distribution of 1-hour daily maximum
concentrations. Pursuant to section 110(a)(1) of the CAA, states are
required to submit SIPs meeting the requirements of section 110(a)(2)
within three years after promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS.
Section 110(a)(2) requires states to address basic SIP requirements,
including emissions inventories, monitoring, and modeling to assure
attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS. States were required to submit
such SIPs for the 2010 1-hour NO2 NAAQS to EPA no later than
January 22, 2013.
    In a proposed rulemaking published on June 28, 2016 (81 FR 41905),
EPA proposed to approve Georgia's 2010 1-hour NO2 NAAQS
infrastructure SIP submission submitted on March 25, 2013, with the
exception of the PSD permitting requirements for major sources of
sections 110(a)(2)(C), prong 3 of D(i), and (J) and the interstate
transport requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) and (II) (prongs
1, 2, and 4), for which EPA did not propose any action. On March 18,
2015 (80 FR 14019), EPA approved Georgia's March 25, 2013,
infrastructure SIP submission regarding the PSD permitting requirements
for major sources of sections 110(a)(2)(C), prong 3 of D(i), and (J)
for the 2010 1-hour NO2 NAAQS. Therefore, EPA is not taking
any action today pertaining to sections 110(a)(2)(C), prong 3 of D(i),
and (J). Additionally, on July 11, 2016, EPA published a proposed rule
related to the prong 4 element of Georgia's March 25, 2013, SIP
submission for the 2010 1-hour NO2 NAAQS. See 81 FR 44831.
EPA will consider final action on the prong 4 element of Georgia's
March 25, 2013, SIP submission for the 2010 1-hour NO2 NAAQS
through a separate rulemaking. With respect to the interstate transport
requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) (prongs 1 and 2), EPA does
not yet have a submission before the Agency for action. The details of
Georgia's submission and the rationale for EPA's action are explained
in the proposed rulemaking. Comments on the proposed rulemaking were
due on or before July 28, 2016. EPA received no adverse comments on the
proposed action.

II. Final Action

    With the exception of the PSD permitting requirements for major
sources of sections 110(a)(2)(C), prong 3 of D(i), and (J) and the
interstate transport requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) and
(II) (prongs 1, 2, and 4), EPA is taking final action to action to
approve Georgia's infrastructure submission submitted on March 25,
2013, for the 2010 1-hour NO2 NAAQS. EPA is taking final
action to approve Georgia's infrastructure SIP submission for the 2010
1-hour NO2 NAAQS because the submission is consistent with
section 110 of the CAA.

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable
federal regulations. See 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely approves state law as meeting federal requirements and
does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state
law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
     does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or
in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a
tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does
not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65
FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by November 14, 2016. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor
does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may
be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or
action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements. See section 307(b)(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: September 2, 2016.
V. Anne Heard,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.

    40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart L--Georgia

0
2. Section 52.570(e), is amended by adding the entry ``110(a)(1) and
(2) Infrastructure Requirements for the 2010 1-hour NO2
NAAQS'' at the end of the table to read as follows:

Sec.  52.570   Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *

                                 EPA-Approved Georgia Non-Regulatory Provisions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                State
     Name of nonregulatory SIP      Applicable geographic  submittal date/  EPA approval        Explanation
             provision              or nonattainment area  effective date       date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  * * * * * * *
110(a)(1) and (2) Infrastructure    Georgia..............       3/25/2013       9/14/2016  With the exception of
 Requirements for the 2010 1-hour                                                           sections
 NO2 NAASQ.                                                                                110(a)(2)(C), prong
                                                                                3 of D(i), and (J)
                                                                                and sections
                                                                                110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)
                                                                                and (II) (prongs 1,
                                                                                2, and 4).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2016-21991 Filed 9-13-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

NATIONAL VEHICLE AND FUEL EMISSIONS LABORATORY

2000 TRAVERWOOD DRIVE

ANN ARBOR, MI  48105-2498

									     OFFICE OF

									AIR AND RADIATION

August 26, 2013

MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT: Meeting with Ford Motor Company regarding Tier 3

FROM: Michael Olechiw

TO:  EPA Docket # EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0135

This memo documents a meeting held on August 26, 2013 between representatives of Ford Motor Company and EPA to discuss Tier 3.

The agenda as well as the attendees are shown below.  The purpose of the meeting was to clarify points in the Tier 3 rule.

Attendees:

Glen Passavant	EPA

Dominic DiCicco	Ford

Jeff Glodich		Ford

Dan Adsit		Ford

Michael Olechiw	EPA

Will Ruona		Ford

Tony Fernandez	EPA

John Hedges		Ford

Ken Middleton	Ford

Joe McDonald		EPA (by phone)

Agenda

1.	Welcome and Introductions

2.	Review of Ford’s comments

3.	Focus topics

a.	Sulfur Case

b.	R-Factor

c.	Lead time / program start

d.	US06 PM

4.	Next steps


[Federal Register: September 22, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 184)]
[Notices]
[Page 54624]
[DOCID:fr22se08-74]

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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

Charter Renewal for the Maritime Advisory Committee for
Occupational Safety and Health (MACOSH)

AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor.

ACTION: MACOSH charter renewal; notice of.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the provisions of the Federal Advisory
Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C., App. 2), and after consultation
with the General Services Administration, the Secretary of Labor has
determined that the charter renewal of the Maritime Advisory Committee
for Occupational Safety and Health (``Committee'') is in the public
interest. The Committee will better enable OSHA to perform the duties
imposed by the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (``OSH
Act''), 29 U.S.C. 651 et seq.). Authority to establish this Committee
is found in Sections 6(b) and 7(b) of the OSH Act, Section 41 of the
Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act (33 U.S.C. 941), other
general agency authority in Title 5 of the United States Code, and 29
CFR part 1912.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joseph V. Daddura, Director, Office of
Maritime, Directorate of Standards and Guidance, U.S. Department of
Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, Room N-3609, 200
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210; telephone: (202) 693-
2086.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    The Committee will advise OSHA on matters relevant to the safety
and health of employees in the maritime industry. This includes advice
on maritime issues that will result in more effective enforcement,
training, and outreach programs, and streamlined regulatory efforts.
The maritime industry includes the shipbuilding, ship-repair,
shipbreaking, longshoring, and marine-terminal industries.
    The Committee will function solely as an advisory body and in
compliance with the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act
and OSHA's regulations covering advisory committees (29 CFR part 1912).
The Committee charter will be filed 15 days from the date of this
publication.

II. Authority and Signature

    This notice was prepared under the direction of Edwin G. Foulke,
Jr., Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health,
U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC
20210, pursuant to Sections 6(b) and 7(b) of the Occupational Safety
and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 655, 656), Section 41 of the
Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act (33 U.S.C. 941), other
general agency authority in Title 5 of the United States Code, and 29
CFR part 1912.

    Signed at Washington, DC this 16th day of September 2008.
Edwin G. Foulke, Jr.,
Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health.
[FR Doc. E8-21983 Filed 9-19-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510-26-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 164 (Friday, August 23, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 44297-44299]
[FR Doc No: 2019-18132]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OGC-2019-0478; FRL 9998-70-OGC]

Proposed Stipulated Partial Settlement Agreement, Endangered
Species Act Claims

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of proposed stipulated partial settlement agreement;
request for public comment.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the EPA Administrator's October 16, 2017,
Directive Promoting Transparency and Public Participation in Consent
Decrees and Settlement Agreements, notice is

hereby given of a proposed stipulated partial settlement agreement in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California in the case of Center for Biological Diversity et. al., v.
United States Environmental Protection Agency et al., No. 3:11 cv 0293
(N.D.Ca.). Plaintiffs filed the original case on January 20, 2011,
asserting a single claim against EPA for allegedly violating section
7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) by failing to initiate and
reinitiate consultation with the Services with respect to its ongoing
oversight of 382 pesticide active ingredients. After several motions to
narrow the case and an appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals,
the plaintiffs filed their fourth amended complaint on June 29, 2018
for failure to initiate ESA section 7(a)(2) consultation for certain
pesticide products containing 35 pesticide active ingredients. After
several settlement discussions, the parties reached a partial agreement
in this case. The parties are proposing to reach a settlement in the
form of a stipulated partial settlement agreement. Among other
provisions, this agreement would set a February 14, 2021, deadline for
EPA to complete ESA section 7(a)(2) effects determination for carbaryl
and methomyl, and, as appropriate, request initiation of any ESA
section 7(a)(2) consultations with the National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS) and/or the United States Fish and Wildlife Service
(USFWS) that EPA may determine to be necessary as a result of those
effects determinations. Additional deadlines would include August 14,
2021, for atrazine and simazine, and August 14, 2024, for brodifacoum,
bromadiolone, warfarin, and zinc phosphide for EPA to complete effects
determinations, and, as appropriate, request initiation of any ESA
consultations with NMFS and/or USFWS. The stipulated partial settlement
agreement would also include a meet and confer deadline of August 30,
2021, for all parties to discuss possible resolution of the remaining
issues in this case.

DATES: Written comments on the proposed stipulated partial settlement
agreement must be received by September 23, 2019.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID number EPA-HQ-
OGC-2019-0478 online at www.regulations.gov (EPA's preferred method).
For comments submitted at www.regulations.gov, follow the online
instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot
be edited or removed from www.regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any
comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any
information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a
written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment
and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA
generally will not consider comments or comment contents located
outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other
file sharing system). For additional submission methods, please contact
the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
For the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or
multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective
comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michele Knorr, Pesticides and Toxic
Substances Law Office (2333A), Office of General Counsel, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington,
DC 20460; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Additional Information About the Proposed Stipulated Settlement
Agreement

    On January 20, 2011, Plaintiffs (non-governmental environmental
organizations) filed a complaint in the United States District Court in
the Northern District of California asserting a single claim against
EPA for allegedly violating section 7(a)(2) of the ESA by failing to
initiate and reinitiate consultation with the Services with respect to
382 pesticide active ingredients. After motions practice and an appeal
to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, the plaintiffs filed their
fourth amended complaint on June 29, 2018 for failure to initiate
consultation under ESA section 7(a)(2) for certain pesticide products
containing 35 pesticide active ingredients. After several settlement
discussions, the parties reached a partial agreement in this case.
Specifically, Paragraph 1.a. of the proposed stipulated partial
settlement provides that EPA would agree to complete ESA section
7(a)(2) effects determinations, compiled into a biological evaluation,
by February 14, 2021, for carbaryl and methomyl, and, as appropriate,
request initiation of any ESA section 7(a)(2) consultations with the
NMFS and/or the USFWS that EPA may determine to be necessary as a
result of those effects determinations. Additional deadlines for
completing ESA section 7(a)(2) effects determinations, compiled into a
biological evaluation, included in Paragraphs 2.a. and 3.a.,
respectively, would be August 14, 2021, for atrazine and simazine, and
August 14, 2024, for brodifacoum, bromadiolone, warfarin, and zinc
phosphide, and, as appropriate, request initiation of any ESA
consultations with NMFS and/or USFWS.
    The agreement also includes statements of EPA's intent to take
certain actions, in addition to the deadlines associated with specific
biological evaluations, including: (1) To complete draft biological
evaluations no later than one year prior to the deadline for the final
biological evaluations, as well to provide notice and a 60-day
opportunity for public comment on any such draft, (2) consistent with
current practice, EPA would, within 30 business days of receipt from
the USFWS of any draft biological opinions on the effects of
chlorpyrifos and diazinon, make the draft available to the public for a
60-day comment period, (3) consistent with current practice, conduct
nationwide-scale effects determinations, and (4) to complete biological
evaluations for glyphosate and propazine on the same schedule as
simazine and atrazine.
    The stipulated partial settlement also includes provisions that
would require EPA to meet specific milestones connected to the
deadlines in Paragraphs 1.a, 2.a, and 3.a. These provisions included in
Paragraphs 1.b., 2.b., and 3.b would include: (1) No later than 90 days
prior to EPA's commitment to complete draft biological evaluations, EPA
would provide a status report to the Court and other parties on its
progress toward completing these drafts; and (2) EPA would provide a
status report to the Court and the parties 90 days prior to the
deadline to complete the final biological evaluations. Additionally,
Paragraphs 1.c., 2.c., and 3.c. would include provisions for modifying
the final biological evaluation deadlines. The stipulated partial
settlement agreement would also include a meet and confer deadline of
August 30, 2021 for all parties to discuss resolving the remaining
issues in this case.
    For a period of thirty (30) days following the date of publication
of this notice, the Agency will accept written comments relating to the
proposed stipulated partial settlement from persons who are not named
as parties to the litigation in question. If so requested, EPA will
also consider holding a public hearing on whether to

agree to the proposed joint stipulation and stipulated notice of
dismissal. EPA or the Department of Justice may withdraw or withhold
consent to the proposed stipulated partial settlement if the comments
disclose facts or considerations that indicate that such consent is
inappropriate, improper, inadequate, or inconsistent with the
requirements of the ESA or FIFRA. Unless EPA or the Department of
Justice determines that consent should be withdrawn, the terms of the
proposed stipulation and stipulated notice of dismissal will be
affirmed.

II. Additional Information About Commenting on the Proposed Stipulation
and Stipulated Notice of Dismissal

A. How can I get a copy of the proposed stipulated partial settlement
agreement?

    The official public docket for this action (identified by EPA-HQ-
OGC-2019-0478) contains a copy of the proposed stipulated partial
settlement agreement. The official public docket is available for
public viewing at the Office of Environmental Information (OEI) Docket
in the EPA Docket Center, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave.
NW, Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open
from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal
holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202)
566-1744, and the telephone number for the OEI Docket is (202) 566-
1752.
    An electronic version of the public docket is available on EPA's
website at [Insert URL] and through www.regulations.gov. You may use
www.regulations.gov to submit or view public comments, access the index
listing of the contents of the official public docket, and access those
documents in the public docket that are available electronically. Once
in the system, key in the appropriate docket identification number then
select ``search.'' It is important to note that EPA's policy is that
public comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be
made available for public viewing online at www.regulations.gov without
change, unless the comment contains copyrighted material, CBI, or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Information
claimed as CBI and other information whose disclosure is restricted by
statute is not included in the official public docket or in the
electronic public docket.
    EPA's policy is that copyrighted material, including copyrighted
material contained in a public comment, will not be placed in EPA's
electronic public docket but will be available only in printed, paper
form in the official public docket. Although not all docket materials
may be available electronically, you may still access any of the
publicly available docket materials through the EPA Docket Center.

B. How and to whom do I submit comments?

    You may submit comments as provided in the ADDRESSES section.
Please ensure that your comments are submitted within the specified
comment period.
    If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you
include your name, mailing address, and an email address or other
contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD
ROM you submit. This ensures that you can be identified as the
submitter of the comment and allows EPA to contact you in case EPA
cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties or needs further
information on the substance of your comment. Any identifying or
contact information provided in the body of a comment will be included
as part of the comment that is placed in the official public docket,
and made available in EPA's electronic public docket. If EPA cannot
read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you
for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment.
    Use of the www.regulations.gov website to submit comments to EPA
electronically is EPA's preferred method for receiving comments. The
electronic public docket system is an ``anonymous access'' system,
which means EPA will not know your identity, email address, or other
contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment.
In contrast to EPA's electronic public docket, EPA's electronic mail
(email) system is not an ``anonymous access'' system. If you send an
email comment directly to the Docket without going through
www.regulations.gov, your email address is automatically captured and
included as part of the comment that is placed in the official public
docket, and made available in EPA's electronic public docket.

    Dated: August 13, 2019.
Joseph E. Cole,
Associate General Counsel.
[FR Doc. 2019-18132 Filed 8-22-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


14 I mean, it should be that way. I'm 15 sitting up there with you guys and you're in your suit 16 and we're like chumming, we're drinking beers like 17 afterwards, it should be that way, that's the ideal.

18 So we had this hearing, and we didn't 19 get a super fund listing like we wanted. What happened 20 is DOE is like EPA, we'll just take care of it. We'll 21 swing a deal with Rainier. We'll clean it up.

22 So what happens is Rainier pays DOE.

23 All right, look, we'll give you like $15,000. You guys 24 clean it up. Where it would have been 15 million 25 dollars cleaning up that town, of course, those figures 111 1 are wrong. Don't quote me. Well, you're going to 2 quote me. They're not legitimate.

3 And what happens is Port Angeles gets 4 away with no super fund listing, which is good PR, but 5 then the water's contaminated because it wasn't super 6 fund listed.

7 So I was disappointed in EPA in that.

8 And also after the hearing, I quote, I gave a quote for 9 Puget Sound Alliance. Like several weeks later they 10 call me up, EPA calls me up, and they say, Mr. Shank,

11 we seem to have  we seem to have lost your statement,

12 like that's what they said.

13 Evidently the recorder said the 14 batteries weren't working or something. So that whole 15 hearing was lost. And I sure hope  all right , it 16 looks good. I just want to make sure. I mean, that's 17 a real issue. What are they going to do, call up, there 18 are a lot of people that commented tonight. It's 19 working right, because if you're not going to  so 20 anyway, trust in EPA, that's important.

21 Another point, I have a roommate and 22 she's on a detox. Yeah, thank you, that's nice. You 23 didn't say it  she's been detoxing for four weeks and 24 she is a pain in the ass to be around, because like 25 this detox, she's like, "Michael, I'm on detox. I need 112 1 to get these chemicals out." And she's really hard to 2 live with. And hopefully they're gone and hopefully 3 she's in a good mood now.

4 But if she has to go through this 5 periodically, and if I have to live with people, I don't 6 want to do it because I just saw how she  I'm fine 7 with these toxins in my body, because if we all have to 8 go through these detox I mean you are a bitch, you're 9 an ass when you're in detox. I don't know if you guys 10  we're acclimated to the toxins, so it's like no big 11 deal, but if you want to clean your system, forget about 12 it. It's hard.

13 So, anyway, I concur with Washington 14 Toxic Coalition. You did a great job. Thank you for 15 coming in.

16 I would like  no time  I mean, I 17 grew up on the farm, of course we were self sufficient,

18 we didn't have any fertilizers. So I think  I don't 19 know if I'm healthy or not. Well, it's in the brain.

20 Anyway, thanks for coming out here,

21 supporting Washington Toxic Coalition.

22 MR. FOX: Next is John Moore,

23 followed by Norm Winn, then Chris Savage.

24 MR. MOORE: Oh, Michael, it's a tough 25 job to follow your act, lad. I'm John Moore, and my 113 1 main claim to fame is I almost died 14 years ago from 2 mercury poisoning from the silver fillings in my teeth 3 that were leaching into our system, much as the mercury 4 is leaching into our systems out here, the water,

5 everywhere.

6 I'm very concerned about the mercury 7 issue, because the State of Washington after holding 8 their ecology hearings said that mercury was the number 9 one item on the list, and they moved it up to the very 10 top.

11 That doesn't mean that the other 12 issues aren't important, they are very, very important.

13 The problem is, mercury is unstable, it's unstable at 50 14 degrees below zero Fahrenheit.

15 Now, I share that with you because I 16 have also had some other items come up that I can kind 17 of put this together with in terms of the fertilizer 18 industry.

19 I also have lamas, in fact, that's 20 the reason I was late tonight. I got splashed in the 21 face by one of them that didn't want to behave himself 22 when we were trying to address an injured foot with the 23 vet. So I apologize for being late.

24 What happened was I decided I wanted 25 to buy some fertilizer. So I went to some of you know 114 1 McLendon's Hardware, here in town.

2 And I said, look, I want some 3 fertilizer to put on my soil in my orchard area on the 4 grass so that I can grow some nice, healthy grass, and 5 then my lamas can browse on that grass.

6 So I went there and this fellow 7 handed me this bag and he said here's a good bag. And 8 I looked at it, and I said, well, this is very nice. I 9 see the MPK on the front, and then I see, it says, 50 10 percent inert ingredients. And, I said, tell me, what 11 are those inert ingredients, and the guy couldn't tell 12 me. And I pursued it. And ultimately, through a slip 13 I think, this information came to me from the 14 manufacturer of the fertilizer. And guess what was in 15 the other 50 percent.

16 MEMBER OF THE AUDIENCE: Mercury.

17 MR. MOORE: Mercury, lead, cadmium,

18 beryllium, you name it in the heavy metal category and 19 it was there.

20 I took the package back to the store.

21 I said, look, I said I really appreciate the fact that 22 you offered me this wonderful, wonderful product to put 23 on my soil for my lamas, but I don't think I want to 24 feed them any of these heavy metals today. Thank you 25 very much. 115 1 It's really, really hard to get away 2 from threes heavy metals. And it's a big job for the 3 EPA to even get close to handling this. One part

4 I'm a dental researcher for 14 years

5 MR. FOX: Thirty second.

6 MR. MOORE: Thank you. One part per 7 billion causes damage of mercury. There is, in our 8 mouth for example, is 52 percent mercury when they first 9 put the fillings, in five years later they pull them out 10 and there's only 26 percent mercury.

11 The question is where did the other 12 26 percent go. And I know where it went, just like it 13 does in the ground, just like it does in the fertilizer,

14 just like it does everywhere.

15 I have a friend who has dogs. She 16 could not get the female pregnant. I said, you look at 17 the sphincter muscle of the rectum and see what color 18 that muscle is, it should be pink. She said she looked 19 at it, it was black.

20 I said, that animal is mercury toxic.

21 I said, detox that animal for mercury and I think you'll 22 get the female pregnant. She did, indeed, do that, and 23 the female was pregnant and had four babies, first time,

24 the second time was five babies.

25 Interesting story is when the babies 116 1 were born of this female they were shaking a little bit 2 tremoring, which was not normal, but the vet said, oh,

3 that's normal. They did a few other things, their eyes 4 opened a week early, they were on their feet a week 5 early, they were doing everything a lot faster than most 6 animals of this nature did.

7 She did a second female, did not 8 detox her enough for the mercury. She had gotten all 9 kinds of shots which were full of mercury. She went 10 ahead and bred her, and all five of the babies, all,

11 had birth defects, crooked legs, crooked everything. I 12 mean, the entire litter was damaged. She was so bad 13 they had to put two down.

14 Anyway, I just wanted to share some 15 of that with you because we need the toxins out of the 16 soil. One part per billion causes damage. Let's get 17 them out.

18 Thank you very much.

19 MR. FOX: Norm Winn is next, Chris 20 Savage following him, and then Alexander West.

21 MR. WINN: My name is Norm Winn. I'm 22 the immediate past conservation chair of the 23 Mountaineers. I've been the president of three 24 environmental organizations, and on the board of five 25 environmental organizations, been involved in pollution 117 1 and toxic issues for a long time.

2 Fifty years ago  fifty years ago I 3 was a Boy Scout in a small town in Iowa. And in Iowa 4 we didn't have mountains so I did my hiking and camping 5 walking through the fields and the rivers and the 6 streams in Iowa.

7 And at that time we didn't have all 8 these fancy fertilizers, so farmers mostly used animal 9 manure and some nitrogen, and people were a lot 10 healthier then than they are now.

11 And farmers weren't smart enough to 12 ask for all these toxic chemicals in their fertilizers 13 and so they didn't get them, but now we have them, and 14 I guess some people would call that progress.

15 I want to make just two simple 16 points: One, is that there ought to be accurate and 17 complete labeling on all fertilizers, and other 18 products. You shouldn't have to go to a web site to 19 find out what the ingredients of fertilizers are.

20 When you go to the grocery store and 21 you buy a can of soup or beans all the ingredients are 22 listed on labels, same thing ought to be true of 23 fertilizers.

24 Secondly, as many, many other speakers 25 have pointed out tonight, there should be no toxic 118 1 materials at all in fertilizer, it is outrageous and 2 immoral that people are dumping these products into 3 fertilizers instead of recycling them as hazardous 4 materials as any normal, ethical person would do.

5 So I think that both of those are 6 simple easy steps in the right direction, and those 7 should be implemented immediately.

8 Thank you.

9 MR. FOX: Chris Savage is next,

10 followed by Alexander West and Rachel Liston.

11 MR. SAVAGE: Hi my name is Chris 12 Savage, and I am a division director with the March of 13 Dimes. And our mission is to improve the health of 14 babies by preventing birth defects and inmortality.

15 And a lot of people don't realize 16 there are 3,000 birth defects that have been discovered,

17 thus far. We only know, actually have working 18 knowledge, of about 50 percent of those. And 28,000 19 babies die before the age of one, in America, alone.

20 And you can't help but to think about 21 what percentage of that is happening because of these,

22 you know, these chemicals.

23 And I just wanted to bring that 24 about. I also wanted to bring about that 150,000 babies 25 per year in the US have birth defects. 119 1 And if we don't eradicate this problem 2 what is the future of this country and the world? How 3 are these people, how are children with birth defects 4 and Ritalin, the issues with  with Ritalin, etcetera,

5 how are we going to have a productive society. How are 6 we going to lead and do the things that we need to do.

7 I wanted to note that there are four 8 causes of birth defects, heredity, environmental factors 9 multifactorial issues that that aren't really known, and 10 prenatal damage. And I just wanted everybody to think 11 about that, and from that perspective.

12 And I would like to yield my other 13 two minutes to Patty, if she would like to keep 14 speaking. Would you like to do that? I know you've 15 been working very hard.

16 MEMBER OF THE AUDIENCE: If anybody 17 wants one minute to, you know.

18 SUE: I'll take a minute.

19 MR. SAVAGE: You want a minute?

20 SUE: Sure.

21 MR. SAVAGE: One minute to Sue.

22 SUE: My name is Sue, and I'm going 23 through mercury detox, and I'm taking cholera, and I'm 24 feeling better and better. And, boy, am I a bitch 25 going through this mercury detox. 120 1 No, I just wanted to share that, that 2 I'm doing this and I'm aware of these issues. And I'm 3 very grateful to be going through my detox and I'm 4 learning a lot about what these things have been doing 5 and I strongly encourage everyone else to go through it,

6 too.

7 Thank you.

8 MR. FOX: Alexander West is next,

9 Rachel Liston, and then Colin Stevens.

10 MR. WEST: Good evening. I'm 11 Alexander West, I'm a shareholder of United Stars 12 Industries, and a board member of the company.

13 I know from going to the board 14 meetings that we encourage all of our presidents of our 15 various corporations, which are in Washington, Wisconsin 16 and Pennsylvania, to maximize values to the shareholder 17 and maximize profits.

18 I know that our corporations dispose 19 of toxic chemicals in the most cheap way possible, and 20 I'm certain that they wind up as fertilizer.

21 We have 750 employees that all eat 22 food. All of our shareholders eat food, and it's hard 23 to avoid eating food. So, you know, I think all of our 24 employees, all of our shareholders and the population at 25 large, would benefit from having information available 121 1 to them.

2 I was an economic student at college,

3 and one of the primary requirements for a functioning 4 economy, according to good old Adam Smith, is that 5 people have information available to them.

6 And I would encourage the EPA to, at 7 the very least, require the labeling of all foods that 8 are fertilized with toxic waste to be labeled.

9 Also, as a company, we purchase from 10 other corporations and sell to other corporations. Most 11 consumers really don't interact with us directly, which 12 means that, you know, people who are aware of what 13 they're buying aren't influencing our production 14 decisions and, therefore, we have no economic incentive 15 to try and dispose of our waste in a way that is 16 friendlier to ourselves and our employees and our 17 citizens.

18 And we would like to be responsible,

19 but, you know, we're currently in an economic down turn,

20 and, you know, we would like to continue to provide our 21 employees with jobs. And I think it's very important to 22 us to have an equal economic playing field with other 23 corporations. And we can not choose to dispose of our 24 wastes in a manner that is more responsible and still 25 remain in business if our competitors are able to 122 1 dispose of their wastes in immoral manners.

2 And that's where I would also request 3 that the EPA pass more stringent codes  is that the 4 term I'm looking for  in order to recycle toxins waste 5 so that we can all be responsible without suffering 6 economic hardship.

7 MR. FOX: Rachel Liston, Colin 8 Stevens, and then Roger Baker.

9 MS. LISTON: Hi, I'm Rachel Liston,

10 and I'm a freshman at the University of Washington,

11 here. And I'm hearing all these very intelligent people 12 speak, and I've only been here for a short time, but I 13 just wanted to bring up the fact that although the EPA 14 does have  does do some very good things and I, you 15 know, I've been working with some people at EPA about 16 impaired water bodies in Washington State, my big 17 problem with EPA is the enforcement policy.

18 I was doing some research about which 19 companies are the biggest polluters of mercury, and I 20 found that many companies had multiple violations,

21 multiple enforcement actions, hundreds and thousands of 22 dollars in fines because of different types of  just 23 one company basically dumped 10,000 pounds of hazardous 24 waste, it was a medical supply company, I believe, just 25 dumped it into Puget Sound and they're fine was $2500, 123 1 and that's unacceptable.

2 I  I mean, like I  I work with 3 WashPIRG, which is the Washington Public Industry 4 Research Group, and if I didn't work for them I wouldn't 5 know anything.

6 I really did used to trust the EPA 7 and the Department of Ecology. And I am just up here 8 to ask you to please enforce the policies that you have 9 and enforce the laws and don't allow companies to be 10 repeat offenders and just give them a slap on the wrist,

11 because nobody's going to learn.

12 Company's have no reason to be 13 responsible if  if they don't have to. There's always 14 going to be companies that are looking at the bottom 15 line. Companies are not out for our best interests.

16 They don't care what happens to us. All they care 17 about is their profit.

18 And if you don't give them any sort 19 of restrictions or any sort of  at least make it, you 20 know, a little bit more enforced just so that they have 21 a reason to just clean up and do a better job.

22 And thank you for having this hearing,

23 and that's all.

24 MR. FOX: Colin Stevens is next,

25 Roger Baker, and David Rodabaugh. 124 1 MR. STEVENS: My name is Collins 2 Stevens. I'm a student at the University of Washington,

3 also. And I don't have any interesting statistics or 4 moving stories, but I just like to come up here and say 5 that I support what people have been saying and I 6 support the ban on toxins in fertilizers. That's it.

7 MR. FOX: Roger Baker's next, and 8 then David Rodabaugh.

9 MS. BAKER: I'm Roger Baker. I took 10 a toxicology quarter long course when I was at the U. W.,

11 plus also a quarter long course in pesticides.

12 And, anyway, some of the things that 13 came up in that class was that different people have 14 different sensitivity to chemicals. I should imagine 15 that the same applies to plants, thus you might have one 16 plant that absorbs 10, 100 times as much of one chemical 17 in the soil as another.

18 So, as far as studying how much of 19 different chemicals are absorbed out of the soil by 20 different plants I don't think we have enough time to 21 explore the range that's possible as far as  because 22 there's such a wide  there can be a wide range of 23 genetic variety, assuming they're not all cloned plants.

24 Okay, another thing, there's organic 25 standards that were recently adopted. I am not exactly 125 1  I didn't read the final standard, but I believe that 2 to  if someone wants to certify their land as their 3 farm as organic they can, after three years  after

4 since the last time that non organic fertilizers were 5 applied so if  but since a lot of these metals are 6 persistent long beyond three years that sort of screws 7 up the  it kind of reduces the value of organic 8 certification, because the plants may still be absorbing 9 a lot of stuff that other people  that people aren't 10 expecting in their organically grown food.

11 About labeling, there have been cases 12 where very toxic chemicals have been mixed in with 13 agricultural products, animal feed, like some plant 14 where a fire retardant was mixed in with animal feed and 15 at least hundreds, if not thousands, of cattle had to be 16 destroyed. And I bet those bags were labeled animal 17 feed.

18 So if you got a company that's 19 putting  has a range of

20 MR. FOX: Thirty seconds.

21 MS. BAKER: Okay.  you have a 22 range of toxicity in your company, that you're selling 23 some of it to farmers, I don't think they should have 24 any kind of thing that's going to go on soil coming 25 from a company that's also manufactured  is putting 126 1 out stuff that won't even go into soil.

2 Labeling assumes people are plant and 3 animal toxicology experts. The labels need to explain 4 the risks, not just what the chemicals are in them. If 5 there's going to be a label. If we're going to be 6 risking having any kind of weird stuff in our 7 fertilizer.

8 It takes many years, this is another 9 topic, it takes many years to manifest the effects of 10 chemicals on people, organisms. In those cases it will 11 take multiples of that kind to discover the cause what's 12 going wrong with the people.

13 Some toxic effects are  only show 14 up when offspring of those exposed become mature. So 15 it's like a generation down the line might be when you 16 find out that something is going wrong, then it's going 17 to take a long time to figure out what caused that 18 effect.

19 And we don't  it's not worth it, to 20 be putting things with questionable safety in the soil,

21 because we just can't test everything before we do it.

22 So why  why bother taking risk and putting unnatural 23 products in the soil at all.

24 You put the hazards in and  and 25 it's a lot harder to keep them out rather than to take 127 1 them out after you found that they're toxic.

2 It can be just a pretty impossible 3 task once you dispersed it all, finally, throughout the 4 environment.

5 Thanks for bearing with me with my 6 semi  well, mostly, unprepared comments. Thanks.

7 MR. FOX: Okay. The last speaker is 8 David Rodabaugh.

9 MS. RODABAUGH: Thank you. My name 10 is David Rodabaugh. I will try to keep things fairly 11 simple, here, and just the idea that hazardous materials 12 such as lead, cadmium and arsenic are not appropriate 13 additives to fertilizer.

14 The second point I would like to look 15 at is the  there's the obligation for notice of what 16 is going into materials, fertilizer materials.

17 And it might help if I tell a short 18 story to illustrate why  why I have taken these views.

19 I know a person a few years back 20 added a significant amount of what was labeled steer 21 manure to his vegetable garden, and proceeded to a grow 22 a nice vegetable garden, ate the food out of the 23 vegetable garden, and then for other reasons that had 24 nothing to do with the topic tonight thought it would be 25 appropriate to  to run some  some  some  some 128 1  some samples of some of the soils around the 2 property, took various samples near the house, took a 3 control sample in the vegetable garden, went out to 4 where there was exposure to street run off, and brought 5 that to a lab for lead levels.

6 And much to this person's surprise 7 found the highest lead levels were in the vegetable 8 garden. All this happened a couple years or so after 9  after he had added the steer manure.

10 So it's a little hard to  to  to 11 say this was the cause, but that sure is a concern,

12 sure is a suspicion there. And it was to a level that 13 the person felt uncomfortable with  with  with 14 continuing to use that area for a vegetable garden. The 15 area become a nice subgrade for a driveway in the 16 future, and no more vegetable garden.

17 But I guess my first point there is 18  is that without their knowledge they possibly became 19 exposed to levels of lead which  which might or might 20 not have been safe. And that's a concern.

21 The second point, then, is there was 22 no notice of this. There was nothing on the bag of 23 steer manure saying contains lead, nothing like that.

24 So they had no notice.

25 So, having gone through that quick 129 1 story, I will reiterate my points: One, where we have 2 many producers of fertilizers, many different operations 3 going on, it  it's  it's really impossible to  to 4 regulate when you're adding materials and consciously 5 allowing these additives. It's going to be probably 6 impossible to get it right.

7 You're going to have, even if you 8 have a very tight regulatory framework, you're going to 9 have mistakes made. You're going to have materials 10 added where you have unsafe levels out there. So that 11 shouldn't be allowed to happen. Simply don't have those 12 additives.

13 The second point is notice. There is 14 a right to  to be  to know what is in those 15 products. There's one  one person offering testimony 16 noted 50 percent inert ingredients. There's a right to 17 know what's in that. So there should be notice in 18 labeling.

19 Thank you.

20 MR. FOX: Thank you. All right, is 21 there anyone who has not made any comments who wishes 22 to, tonight?

23 MEMBER OF THE AUDIENCE: Well, before 24 it concludes, I would like to have a response from Mr.

25 Fagan. I would like to know what's going to be done 130 1 after this is over.

2 MR. FOX: The responses will  will 3 follow some time for consideration. And they will be in 4 the federal register; is that correct

5 MR. FAGAN: Yes.

6 MR. FOX:  for the final rule. So 7 there's not going to be any response tonight, but it 8 will be in writing. And if you leave your name we will 9 send you the answers.

10 MEMBER OF THE AUDIENCE: Thank you.

11 MEMBER OF THE AUDIENCE: Does that

12 does that include there was a gentleman that asked 13 earlier how  what are the time frames for public 14 comment, is this it.

15 MR. FAGAN: Yeah, we  we had the

16 when we first published the proposed rules back a year 17 ago we opened up a three month public comment period,

18 which ended in February. So that formal public comment 19 period is over.

20 This is kind of the last shot to 21 submit formal public comments that will, you know, by 22 law have to be considered. But as a  as a practice,

23 usually

24 MEMBER OF THE AUDIENCE: Including our 25 wish for more public comment? 131 1 MR. FAGAN: Well, what I was going to 2 say is, you know, typically we accept comments whenever 3 we get them. We don't stand on the legal niceties. So 4 if you want to submit written comments, please do so.

5 MEMBER OF THE AUDIENCE: Thank you.

6 MEMBER OF THE AUDIENCE: How could we 7 go about getting more of these  you must realize this 8 is a very unusual outpouring  how could one go about 9 petitioning or whatever other framework to see to it 10 that these hearings take place elsewhere in the US?

11 MR. FAGAN: I think the best way to 12 do that is to write to my boss.

13 MEMBER OF THE AUDIENCE: Who is that.

14 MR. FAGAN: Christine Todd Whitman.

15 MR. FOX: All right. We're already 16 45 minutes over time, so this meeting is adjourned.

17 (Whereupon, the hearing was adjourned 18 at 9: 50 p. m.)

19 .

20 .

21 .

22 .

23 .

24 .

25 .


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 208 (Friday, October 26, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 65440-65443]
[FR Doc No: 2012-26329]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

[Docket No: FAA-2005-22842]

Notice of Opportunity To Participate, Criteria Requirements and
Application Procedure for Participation in the Military Airport Program

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

ACTION: Notice of criteria and application procedures for designation
or redesignation, in the Military Airport Program (MAP), for the fiscal
year 2013.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces the criteria, application procedures,
and schedule to be applied by the Secretary of Transportation in
designating or redesignating, and funding capital development for up to
15 current joint-use or former military airports seeking first time
designation or redesignation to participate in the MAP.
    The MAP allows the Secretary to designate current joint-use or
former military airports to receive grants from the Airport Improvement
Program (AIP). The Secretary is authorized to designate an airport
(other than an airport designated before August 24, 1994) only if:
    (1) The airport is a former military installation closed or
realigned under the Title 10 U.S.C. Sec. 2687 (announcement of closures
of large Department of Defense installations after September 30, 1977),
or under Section 201 or 2905 of the Defense Authorization Amendments
and Base Closure and Realignment Acts; or
    (2) The airport is a military installation with both military and
civil aircraft operations.
    The Secretary shall consider for designation only those current
joint or former military airports, at least partly converted to
civilian airports as part of the national air transportation system,
that will reduce delays at airports with more than 20,000 hours of
annual delays in commercial passenger aircraft takeoffs and landings,
or will enhance airport and air traffic control system capacity in
metropolitan areas, or reduce current and projected flight delays (49
U.S.C. 47118(c)).

DATES: Applications must be received on or before December 26, 2012.

ADDRESSES: Submit an original and two copies of Standard Form (SF) 424,
``Application for Federal Assistance,'' prescribed by the Office of
Management and Budget Circular A-102, available at http://www.faa.gov/airports/resources/forms/media/aip_sf424_2010.pdf along with all
supporting and justifying documentation required by this notice.
Applicant should specifically request to be considered for designation
or redesignation to participate in the fiscal year 2013 MAP. Submission
should be sent to the Regional FAA Airports Division or Airports
District Office that serves the airport. Applicants may find the proper
office on the FAA Web site http://www.faa.gov/airports/news_information/contact_info/regional/ or may contact the office below.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Kendall Ball
(Kendall.Ball@faa.gov), Airports Financial Assistance Division (APP-
500), Office of Airport Planning and Programming, Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC
20591,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

General Description of the Program

    The MAP provides capital development assistance to civil airport
sponsors of designated current joint-use military airfields or former
military airports that are included in the FAA's National Plan of
Integrated Airport Systems (NPIAS). Airports designated to the MAP may
obtain funds from a set-aside (currently four percent) of AIP
discretionary funds for airport development, including certain projects
not otherwise eligible for AIP assistance. These airports are also
eligible to receive grants from other categories of AIP funding.

Number of Airports

    A maximum of 15 airports per fiscal year (FY) may participate in
the MAP, of which 3 may be general aviation (GA) airports. There are 6
slots available for designation or redesignation in FY 2013. There are
no GA slots available in fiscal year 2013.

Term of Designation

    The maximum term is five fiscal years following designation. The
FAA can designate airports for a period of less than five years. The
FAA will evaluate the conversion needs of the airport in its capital
development plan to determine the appropriate length of designation.

Redesignation

    Previously designated airports may apply for redesignation of an
additional term not to exceed five years. Those airports must meet
current eligibility requirements in 49 U.S.C. 47118(a) at the beginning
of each grant period and have MAP eligible projects. The FAA will
evaluate applications for redesignation primarily in terms of warranted
projects fundable only under the MAP as these candidates tend to have
fewer conversion needs than new candidates. The FAA's goal is to
graduate MAP airports to regular AIP participation by successfully
converting these airports to civilian airport operations.

Eligible Projects

    In addition to eligible AIP projects, MAP can fund fuel farms,
utility systems, surface automobile parking lots, hangars, and air
cargo terminals up to 50,000 square feet. A designated or redesignated
military airport can receive not more than $7,000,000 each fiscal year
to construct, improve, and repair terminal building facilities. In
addition a designated or redesignated military airports can receive not
more than $7,000,000 each fiscal year for MAP eligible projects that
include hangars, cargo facilities, fuel farms, automobile surface
parking, and utility work.

Designation Considerations

    In making designations of new candidate airports, the Secretary of
Transportation may only designate an airport (other than an airport so
designated before August 24, 1994) if it meets the following general
requirements:
    (1) The airport is a former military installation closed or
realigned under:
    (A) Section 2687 of Title 10;
    (B) Section 201 of the Defense Authorization Amendments and Base
Closure and Realignment Act (BRAC) (10 U.S.C. 2687 note); or
    (C) Section 2905 of the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of
1990 (10 U.S.C. 2687 note); or
    (2) The airport is a military installation with both military and
civil aircraft operations; and
    (3) The airport is classified as a commercial service or reliever
airport in the NPIAS. (See 49 U.S.C. 47105(b)(2)). Three of the
designated airports, if included in the NPIAS, may be GA airports
(``general aviation airport'' means a public airport that is located in
a State that, as determined by the Secretary: (A) does not have
scheduled service; or (B) has scheduled service with less than 2,500
passenger boardings each year) that was a former military installation
closed or realigned under BRAC, as amended, or 10 U.S.C. 2687. (See 49
U.S.C. 47118(g)). A GA airport must qualify under (1) above. However,
as noted under ``Number of Airports,'' there are no GA slots available
in fiscal year 2013.
    In designating new candidate airports, the Secretary shall consider
if a grant will:
    (1) Reduce delays at an airport with more than 20,000 hours of
annual delays in commercial passenger aircraft takeoffs and landings;
or
    (2) Enhance airport and air traffic control system capacity in a
metropolitan area or reduce current and projected flight delays.
    The application for new designations will be evaluated in terms of
how the proposed projects will contribute to reducing delays and/or how
the airport will enhance air traffic or airport system capacity and
provide adequate user services.

Project Evaluation

    Recently realigned or closed military airports, as well as active
military airfields with new joint-use agreements, have the greatest
need of funding to convert to, or to incorporate, civil airport
operations. Newly converted airports and new joint-use locations
frequently have minimal capital development resources and will
therefore receive priority consideration for designation and MAP
funding. The FAA will evaluate the need for eligible projects based
upon information in the candidate airport's five-year Capital
Improvement Plan (CIP).
    1. The FAA will evaluate candidate airports and/or the airports
such candidate airports will relieve based on the following specific
factors:
     Compatibility of airport roles and the ability of the
airport to provide an adequate airport facility;
     The capability of the candidate airport and its airside
and landside complex to serve aircraft that otherwise must use a
congested airport;
     Landside surface access;
     Airport operational capability, including peak hour and
annual capacities of the candidate airport;
     Potential of other metropolitan area airports to relieve
the congested airport;
     Ability to satisfy, relieve, or meet air cargo demand
within the metropolitan area;
     Forecasted aircraft and passenger levels, type of
commercial service anticipated, i.e., scheduled or charter commercial
service;
     Type and capacity of aircraft projected to serve the
airport and level of operations at the congested airport and the
candidate airport;
     The potential for the candidate airport to be served by
aircraft or users, including the airlines, serving the congested
airport;
     Ability to replace an existing commercial service or
reliever airport serving the area; and
     Any other documentation to support the FAA designation of
the candidate airport.
    2. The FAA will evaluate the extent to which development needs
funded through MAP will make the airport a viable civil airport that
will enhance system capacity or reduce delays.

Application Procedures and Required Documentation

    Airport sponsors applying for designation or redesignation must
complete and submit an SF 424, Application for Federal Assistance, and
provide supporting documentation to the appropriate FAA Airports
regional or district office serving that airport.
    Standard Form 424:
    Sponsors may obtain this fillable form at http://www.faa.gov/airports/resources/forms/media/aip_sf424_2010.pdf.
    Applicants should fill this form out completely, including the
following:
     Mark Item 1, Type of Submission as a ``pre-application''
and indicate it is for ``construction''.
     Mark item 8, Type of Application as ``new'', and in
``other'', fill in ``Military Airport Program''.
     Fill in Item 11, Descriptive Title of Applicants Project.
``Designation (or redesignation) to the Military Airport Program''.
     In Item 15a, Estimated Funding, indicate the total amount
of funding requested from the MAP during the entire term for which you
are applying.

Supporting Documentation

    (A) Identification as a Current or Former Military Airport. The
application must identify the airport as either a current or former
military airport and indicate whether it was:
    (1) Closed or realigned under Section 201 of the Defense
Authorization Amendments and Base Closure and Realignment Act, and/or
Section 2905 of the Defense Base Closure and

Realignment Act of 1990 (Installations Approved for Closure by the
Defense Base Realignment and Closure Commissions), or
    (2) Closed or realigned pursuant to 10 U.S.C. 2687 as excess
property (bases announced for closure by Department of Defense (DOD)
pursuant to this title after September 30, 1977 (this is the date of
announcement for closure)), or
    (3) A military installation with both military and civil aircraft
operations. A general aviation airport applying for the MAP may be
joint-use but must also qualify under (1) or (2) above.
    (B) Qualifications for MAP:
    Submit documents for (1) through (8) below:
    (1) Documentation that the airport meets the definition of a
``public airport'' as defined in 49 U.S.C. Sec. 47102(20).
    (2) Documentation indicating the required environmental review for
civil reuse or joint-use of the military airfield has been completed.
This environmental review need not include review of the individual
projects to be funded by the MAP. Rather, the documentation should
reflect that the environmental review necessary to convey the property,
enter into a long-term lease, or finalize a joint-use agreement has
been completed. The military department conveying or leasing the
property, or entering into a joint-use agreement, has the lead
responsibility for this environmental review. To meet AIP requirements
the environmental review and approvals must indicate that the operator
or owner of the airport has good title, satisfactory to the Secretary,
or assures that good title will be acquired.
    (3) For a former military airport, documentation that the eligible
airport sponsor holds or will hold satisfactory title, a long-term
lease in furtherance of conveyance of property for airport purposes, or
a long-term interim lease for 25 years or longer to the property on
which the civil airport is being located. Documentation that an
application for surplus or BRAC airport property has been accepted by
the Federal Government is sufficient to indicate the eligible airport
sponsor holds or will hold satisfactory title or a long-term lease.
    (4) For a current military airport, documentation that the airport
sponsor has an existing joint-use agreement with the military
department having jurisdiction over the airport. For all first time
applicants a copy of the existing joint-use agreement must be submitted
with the application. This is necessary so the FAA can legally issue
grants to the sponsor. Here and in (3) directly above, the airport must
possess the necessary property rights in order to accept a grant for
its proposed projects during FY 2013.
    (5) Documentation that the airport is classified as a ``commercial
service airport'' or a ``reliever airport'' as defined in 49 U.S.C.
47102(7) and 47102(22).
    (6) Documentation that the airport owner is an eligible airport
``sponsor'' as defined in 49 U.S.C. 47102(24).
    (7) Documentation that the airport has an FAA approved airport
layout plan (ALP) and a five-year capital improvement plan (CIP)
indicating all eligible grant projects proposed to be funded either
from the MAP or other portions of the AIP.
    (8) For commercial service airports a business/marketing plan or
equivalent must be submitted with the application. For general aviation
airports other planning documents may be submitted.
    (C) Evaluation Factors:
    Submit information on the items below to assist in our evaluation:
    (1) Information identifying the existing and potential levels of
visual or instrument operations and aeronautical activity at the
current or former military airport and, if applicable, the congested
airport. Also, if applicable, information on how the airport
contributes to air traffic system or airport system capacity. If served
by commercial air carriers, the revenue passenger and cargo levels
should be provided.
    (2) A description of the airport's projected civil role and
development needs for transitioning from use as a military airfield to
a civil airport. Include how development projects would serve to reduce
delays at an airport with more than 20,000 hours of annual delays in
commercial passenger aircraft takeoffs and landings; or enhance
capacity in a metropolitan area or reduce current and projected flight
delays.
    (3) A description of the existing airspace capacity. Describe how
anticipated new operations would affect the surrounding airspace and
air traffic flow patterns in the metropolitan area in or near the
airport. Include a discussion of whether operations at this airport
create airspace conflicts that may cause congestion or whether air
traffic works into the flow of other air traffic in the area.
    (4) A description of the airport's five-year CIP, including a
discussion of major projects, their priorities, projected schedule for
project accomplishment, and estimated costs. The CIP must specifically
identify the safety, capacity, and conversion related projects,
associated costs, and projected five-year schedule of project
construction, including those requested for consideration for MAP
funding.
    (5) A description of those projects that are consistent with the
role of the airport and effectively contribute to the joint-use or
conversion of the airfield to a civil airport. The projects can be
related to various improvement categories depending on what is needed
to convert from military to civil airport use, to meet required civil
airport standards, and/or to provide capacity to the airport and/or
airport system. The projects selected (e.g., safety-related,
conversion-related, and/or capacity-related), must be identified and
fully explained based on the airport's planned use. Those projects that
may be eligible under MAP, if needed for conversion or capacity-related
purposes, must be clearly indicated, and include the following
information:

Airside

     Modification of airport or military airfield for safety
purposes, including airport pavement modifications, marking, lighting,
strengthening, drainage or modifying other structures or features in
the airport environs to meet civil standards for approach, departure
and other protected airport surfaces as described in 14 CFR part 77 or
standards set forth in FAA Advisory Circular 150/5300-13.
     Construction of facilities or support facilities such as
passenger terminal gates, aprons for passenger terminals, taxiways to
new terminal facilities, aircraft parking, and cargo facilities to
accommodate civil use.
     Modification of airport or military utilities (electrical
distribution systems, communications lines, water, sewer, storm
drainage) to meet civil standards. Also, modifications that allow
utilities on the civil airport to operate independently, where other
portions of the base are conveyed to entities other than the airport
sponsor or retained by the Government.
     Purchase, rehabilitation, or modification of airport and
airport support facilities and equipment, including snow removal,
aircraft rescue, fire fighting buildings and equipment, airport
security, lighting vaults, and reconfiguration or relocation of
eligible buildings for more efficient civil airport operations.
     Modification of airport or military airfield fuel systems
and fuel farms to accommodate civil aviation use.
     Acquisition of additional land for runway protection
zones, other approach protection, or airport development.
     Cargo facility requirements.

     Modifications, which will permit the airfield to
accommodate general aviation users.

Landside

     Construction of surface parking areas and access roads to
accommodate automobiles in the airport terminal and air cargo areas and
provide an adequate level of access to the airport.
     Construction or relocation of access roads to provide
efficient and convenient movement of vehicular traffic to, on, and from
the airport, including access to passenger, air cargo, fixed base
operations, and aircraft maintenance areas.
     Modification or construction of facilities such as
passenger terminals, surface automobile parking lots, hangars, air
cargo terminal buildings, and access roads to cargo facilities to
accommodate civil use.
    (6) An evaluation of the ability of surface transportation
facilities (e.g., road, rail, high-speed rail, and/or maritime) to
provide intermodal connections.
    (7) A description of the type and level of aviation and community
interest in the civil use of a current or former military airport.
    (8) One copy of the FAA-approved ALP for each copy of the
application. The ALP or supporting information should clearly show
capacity and conversion related projects. Other information such as
project costs, schedule, project justification, other maps and drawings
showing the project locations, and any other supporting documentation
that would make the application easier to understand should also be
included. You may also provide photos, which would further describe the
airport, projects, and otherwise clarify certain aspects of this
application. These maps and ALP's should be cross-referenced with the
project costs and project descriptions.

Redesignation of Airports Previously Designated and Applying for up to
an Additional Five Years in the Program

    Airports applying for redesignation to the Military Airport Program
must submit the same information required by new candidate airports
applying for a new designation. On the SF 424, Application for Federal
Assistance, prescribed by the Office of Management and Budget Circular
A-102, airports must indicate their application is for redesignation to
the MAP. In addition to the information required for new candidates,
airports requesting redesignation must also explain:
    (1) Why a redesignation and additional MAP eligible project funding
is needed to accomplish the conversion to meet the civil role of the
airport and the preferred time period for redesignation not, to exceed
five years;
    (2) Why funding of eligible work under other categories of AIP or
other sources of funding would not accomplish the development needs of
the airport; and
    (3) Why, based on the previously funded MAP projects, the projects
and/or funding level were insufficient to accomplish the airport
conversion needs and development goals.
    In addition to the information requested above, airports applying
for redesignation must provide a reanalysis of their original business/
marketing plans (for example, a plan previously funded by the Office of
Economic Adjustment or the original Master Plan for the airport) and
prepare a report. If there is not an existing business/marketing plan a
business/marketing plan or strategy must be developed. The report must
contain:
    (1) Whether the original business/marketing plan is still
appropriate;
    (2) Is the airport continuing to work towards the goals established
in the business/marketing plan;
    (3) Discuss how the MAP projects contained in the application
contribute to the goals of the sponsor and their plans; and
    (4) If the business/marketing plan no longer applies to the current
goals of the airport, how has the airport altered the business/
marketing plan to establish a new direction for the facility and how do
the projects contained in the MAP application aid in the completion of
the new direction and goals and by what date does the sponsor
anticipate graduating from the MAP.
    This notice is issued pursuant to Title 49 U.S.C. 47118.

    Issued at Washington, DC, on October 3, 2012.
Benito DeLeon,
Director, Office of Airport Planning and Programming.
[FR Doc. 2012-26329 Filed 10-25-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P