[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 241 (Monday, December 20, 2021)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 71820-71823]
[FR Doc No: 2021-27539]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2021-0951; Project Identifier AD-2021-01047-R;
Amendment 39-21804; AD 2021-23-06]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Various Model 234 and Model CH-47D
Helicopters

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for
various Model 234 and Model CH-47D helicopters. This AD was prompted by
two reports of mechanical failures of the longitudinal cyclic trim
actuator (LCTA). This AD requires determining the maintenance history,
and hours time-in-service (TIS) and number of lift cycles for each LCTA
since last overhaul, and then requires initial and repetitive overhauls
of each LCTA based on that maintenance and service history. This AD
also prohibits installing an LCTA unless it meets certain requirements.
Finally, this AD requires reporting certain information to the FAA. The
FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these
products.

DATES: This AD is effective January 4, 2022.
    The FAA must receive comments on this AD by February 3, 2022.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR
11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail address above between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket at https://www.regulations.gov by
searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2021-0951; or in person at
Docket Operations between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this final rule, any
comments received, and other information. The street address for the
Docket Operations is listed above.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David Herron, Aerospace Engineer,
Systems & Equipment Section, Seattle ACO Branch, FAA, 2200 South 216th
St., Des Moines, WA 98198; phone and fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The FAA received two reports of mechanical failure of an LCTA, the
function of which is to constrain and control the non-rotating
swashplate. In both failures, which occurred on Model CH-47D
helicopters, the flight crew was forced to make an emergency landing as
they had difficulty controlling the helicopter. Model 234 and Model CH-
47D helicopters both have the same LCTA installed, with two installed
on each rotorcraft. Investigation as to the root cause of these
failures has determined that inadequate maintenance overhaul procedures
and scheduled overhaul intervals for this critical flight component
with a single structural load path likely contributed to this unsafe
condition. One event occurred due to excessive wear of the acme screw
threads from degradation or lack of lubrication. The other event was
due to metal fatigue leading to the fracture of the fourth stage spur
gear shaft (part of the acme screw) caused by repetitive abnormal
loading. The repetitive abnormal loading occurred because of the
incorrect installation of a travel limit switch, which rendered the
switch ineffective in removing power from the electric motor at the
designed travel limit, thus allowing the electric motor to repetitively
overstroke the actuator into a mechanical stop. While the failure modes
were different, the failure effects were the same: Loss of the
constraint and control normally provided by the LCTA. Failure of the
LCTA, if not prevented, could result in loss of control of the rotor
blades and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter or the rotor
blades striking the fuselage. The FAA is issuing this AD to address the
unsafe condition on these products.
    The type certificate (TC) holder for Model 234 helicopters is
Columbia Helicopters Inc. (TC previously held by Boeing Defense & Space
Group), and the TC holders for Model CH-47D helicopters currently
include Columbia Helicopters, Inc., Billings Flying Service, Inc.,
Tandem Rotor, LLC, and Unical Aviation, Inc. (originally

manufactured for military use). The FAA did not limit this AD to these
TC holders because the FAA expects that additional TC holders of
helicopters are subject to this same unsafe condition.

FAA's Determination

    The FAA is issuing this AD because the agency has determined the
unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop in
other products of the same type design.

AD Requirements

    This AD requires, within 3 calendar days after the effective date
of the AD, determining the hours TIS and lift cycles since last
overhaul for each LCTA. If LCTA lift cycles cannot be determined,
counting 6 lift cycles for each hour TIS is required. For purposes of
this AD, a lift cycle is defined as takeoff from ground for flight, a
lift of a new external load while in flight, or a lift of a new
internal load while in flight (e.g., fluid drawn into an internal
tank).
    If the last LCTA overhaul was not approved for return to service by
a person that meets the requirements of 14 CFR part 43, or, if you are
unable to establish hours TIS and lift cycles since last overhaul of an
LCTA (e.g., hours TIS and lift cycles for each LCTA were not tracked),
this AD requires, within 10 calendar days after the effective date of
the AD, and thereafter at intervals not to exceed 3,000 hours TIS or
18,000 lift cycles, whichever occurs first, overhauling that LCTA. For
purposes of any overhaul required by this AD, the overhaul must include
an inspection of each acme screw for wear and cracking, lubricating all
drive threads and gears, and a test to ensure proper operation of the
extend and retract travel limit switches.
    If the last LCTA overhaul was approved for return to service by a
person that meets the requirements of 14 CFR part 43, overhauling the
LCTA as described in this AD is required within 500 hours TIS or 3,000
lift cycles since last overhaul, whichever occurs first; or within 90
days after the effective date of the AD, whichever occurs later.
Thereafter, overhauling each LCTA at intervals not to exceed 3,000
hours TIS or 18,000 lift cycles, whichever occurs first, is required.
    This AD also prohibits, as of the AD's effective date, installing
any LCTA on any helicopter unless it has been approved for return to
service by a person that meets the requirements of 14 CFR part 43 after
an overhaul as described in this AD, and that LCTA has not been in
service for more than 3,000 hours TIS or 18,000 lift cycles since that
overhaul. Finally, this AD requires, within 10 calendar days after
completing each LCTA overhaul required by this AD, reporting certain
information to the FAA.

Interim Action

    The FAA considers this AD to be an interim action. The FAA is
currently considering requiring overhaul of the LCTA at different time
intervals or takeoff and lift cycles. However, the planned compliance
time for those actions would allow enough time to provide notice and
opportunity for prior public comment on the merits of those actions.
Additionally, the inspection reports that are required by this AD will
enable the FAA to obtain better insight into the cause of the unsafe
condition and to eventually develop final action to address the unsafe
condition. Once final action has been identified, the FAA might
consider further rulemaking.

Justification for Immediate Adoption and Determination of the Effective
Date

    Section 553(b)(3)(B) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5
U.S.C. 551 et seq.) authorizes agencies to dispense with notice and
comment procedures for rules when the agency, for ``good cause,'' finds
that those procedures are ``impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to
the public interest.'' Under this section, an agency, upon finding good
cause, may issue a final rule without providing notice and seeking
comment prior to issuance. Further, section 553(d) of the APA
authorizes agencies to make rules effective in less than thirty days,
upon a finding of good cause.
    An unsafe condition exists that requires the immediate adoption of
this AD without providing an opportunity for public comments prior to
adoption. The FAA has found that the risk to the flying public
justifies foregoing notice and comment prior to adoption of this rule
because the LCTAs are critical flight control components with design
elements that must be properly and regularly maintained to ensure
continued safe flight of the identified rotorcraft. The two reported
in-service events evidence a deficiency in the maintenance of the LCTAs
that must be resolved. Additionally, the compliance time for some of
the required actions is within 3 calendar days after the effective date
of this AD, which is shorter than the time necessary for the public to
comment and for publication of the final rule. Accordingly, notice and
opportunity for prior public comment are impracticable and contrary to
the public interest pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B).
    In addition, the FAA finds that good cause exists pursuant to 5
U.S.C. 553(d) for making this amendment effective in less than 30 days,
for the same reasons the FAA found good cause to forego notice and
comment.

Comments Invited

    The FAA invites you to send any written data, views, or arguments
about this final rule. Send your comments to an address listed under
ADDRESSES. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2021-0951 and Project Identifier
AD-2021-01047-R'' at the beginning of your comments. The most helpful
comments reference a specific portion of the final rule, explain the
reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. The FAA
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this final rule because of those comments.
    Except for Confidential Business Information (CBI) as described in
the following paragraph, and other information as described in 14 CFR
11.35, the FAA will post all comments received, without change, to
https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you
provide. The agency will also post a report summarizing each
substantive verbal contact received about this final rule.

Confidential Business Information

    CBI is commercial or financial information that is both customarily
and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of
Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public
disclosure. If your comments responsive to this AD contain commercial
or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that
you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to
this AD, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted
comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission containing
CBI as ``PROPIN.'' The FAA will treat such marked submissions as
confidential under the FOIA, and they will not be placed in the public
docket of this AD. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to David
Herron, Aerospace Engineer, Systems & Equipment Section, Seattle ACO
Branch, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; phone and fax:
(206) 231-3554; email [email protected]. Any commentary that the FAA
receives which is not specifically designated as CBI will be placed in
the public docket for this rulemaking.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) do not
apply when

an agency finds good cause pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553 to adopt a rule
without prior notice and comment. Because FAA has determined that it
has good cause to adopt this rule without prior notice and comment, RFA
analysis is not required.

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this AD affects 74 helicopters of U.S.
Registry. Labor rates are estimated at $85 per work-hour. Based on
these numbers, the FAA estimates the following costs to comply with
this AD.
    Removing and reinstalling both LCTAs on each helicopter will take
about 4 work-hours, with no parts costs, for an estimated cost of about
$340 per helicopter or $25,160 for the U.S. fleet.
    Overhauling both LCTAs on each helicopter will take about 56 work-
hours, and parts costs will be about $200, for an estimated cost of
about $4,960 per overhaul.
    Reporting information to the FAA will take about 1 work hour per
helicopter, for an estimated cost of about $85 per report.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    A federal agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not
required to respond to, nor shall a person be subject to a penalty for
failure to comply with a collection of information subject to the
requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act unless that collection of
information displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. The OMB
Control Number for this information collection is 2120-0056. Public
reporting for this collection of information is estimated to be
approximately 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing
instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and
maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the
collection of information. All responses to this collection of
information are mandatory. Send comments regarding this burden estimate
or any other aspect of this collection of information, including
suggestions for reducing this burden to: Information Collection
Clearance Officer, Federal Aviation Administration, 10101 Hillwood
Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177-1524.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13   [Amended]

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

2021-23-06 Various Model 234 and Model CH-47D Helicopters: Amendment
39-21804; Docket No. FAA-2021-0951; Project Identifier AD-2021-
01047-R.

(a) Effective Date

    This airworthiness directive (AD) is effective January 4, 2022.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Model 234 and Model CH-47D helicopters,
regardless of type certificate holder, certificated in any category.
Type certificate holders include, but are not limited to:
    (1) Columbia Helicopters, Inc.,
    (2) Billings Flying Service, Inc.,
    (3) Tandem Rotor, LLC, and
    (4) Unical Aviation, Inc.

(d) Subject

    Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC) Code/Air Transport
Association (ATA) of America Code: 6710, Rotor flight controls.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by inadequate maintenance, which resulted
in mechanical failure of the longitudinal cyclic trim actuator
(LCTA). The FAA is issuing this AD to correct this unsafe condition,
which if not addressed, could result in loss of control of the rotor
blades and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter or the rotor
blades striking the fuselage.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Required Actions

    (1) Within 3 calendar days after the effective date of this AD,
determine the hours time-in-service (TIS) and lift cycles since last
overhaul for each LCTA on your helicopter. If lift cycles cannot be
determined, count 6 lift cycles for each hour TIS for each LCTA. For
purposes of this AD, a lift cycle is defined as any of the
following:
    (i) Takeoff from ground for flight;
    (ii) Lift of a new external load while in flight; or
    (iii) Lift of a new internal load while in flight (e.g., fluid
drawn into an internal tank).
    (2) If the last overhaul of any LCTA was not approved for return
to service by a person that meets the requirements of 14 CFR part
43, or, if you are unable to establish hours TIS and lift cycles
since last overhaul of an LCTA (e.g., hours TIS and lift cycles for
each LCTA were not tracked), within 10 calendar days after the
effective date of this AD, and thereafter at intervals not to exceed
3,000 hours TIS or 18,000 lift cycles, whichever occurs first,
overhaul that LCTA. For purposes of any overhaul required by this
AD, the overhaul must include:
    (i) An inspection of each acme screw for wear and cracking;
    (ii) Lubricating all drive threads and gears; and
    (iii) A test to ensure proper operation of the extend and
retract travel limit switches.
    (3) If the last overhaul of an LCTA was approved for return to
service by a person that meets the requirements of 14 CFR part 43,
overhaul the LCTA (to include the overhaul requirements specified in
paragraphs (g)(2)(i) through (iii) of this AD) within 500 hours TIS
or 3,000 lift cycles since last overhaul, whichever occurs first; or
within 90 days after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs
later. Thereafter, overhaul each LCTA at intervals not to exceed
3,000 hours TIS or 18,000 lift cycles, whichever occurs first.
    (4) As of the effective date of this AD, do not install any LCTA
on any helicopter

unless it has been approved for return to service by a person that
meets the requirements of 14 CFR part 43 after an overhaul that
includes the overhaul requirements specified in paragraphs (g)(2)(i)
through (iii) of this AD, and that LCTA has not been in service for
more than 3,000 hours TIS or 18,000 lift cycles since that overhaul.
    (5) Within 10 days after completing each LCTA overhaul required
by this AD, provide the following information by email to
[email protected] and [email protected]; or by mail to
Vaughn Schmitt and Ian Hansen, Aircraft Evaluation Group, Safety
Standards Division, FAA, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX
76177:
    (i) Helicopter Owner/Operator name, email, address, and
telephone number,
    (ii) LCTA model, part number and serial number,
    (iii) Months TIS since last LCTA overhaul,
    (iv) Operating hours and lift cycles since last LCTA overhaul,
    (v) Date and location of last LCTA overhaul,
    (vi) LCTA repairs since last LCTA overhaul,
    (vii) LCTA condition when removed,
    (viii) LCTA reports of failures or degraded functions,
    (ix) LCTA part replacements,
    (x) Point of contact information for additional information,
    (xi) Any additional notes or comments, and
    (xii) Pictures, if available.

(h) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Seattle ACO Branch, FAA, has the authority to
approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found
in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request
to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District
Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the
manager of the certification office, send it to the attention of the
person identified in paragraph (i) of this AD. Information may be
emailed to: [email protected].
    (2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate
principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager
of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding
district office.

(i) Related Information

    For more information about this AD, contact David Herron,
Aerospace Engineer, Systems & Equipment Section, Seattle ACO Branch,
FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; phone and fax:
(206) 231-3554; email [email protected].

(j) Material Incorporated by Reference

    None.

    Issued on December 6, 2021.
Lance T. Gant,
Director, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2021-27539 Filed 12-16-21; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 79 (Tuesday, April 24, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 24436-24440]
[FR Doc No: 2012-9811]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R05-OAR-2011-0347; FRL-9662-9]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Wisconsin; Milwaukee-Racine Nonattainment Area; Determination of
Attainment for the 2006 24-Hour Fine Particle Standard

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to determine that the Milwaukee-Racine,
Wisconsin area has attained the 2006 24-hour fine particle
(PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS). This
proposed determination is based upon quality assured, quality
controlled, and certified ambient air monitoring data, from the 2008-
2010 monitoring period, supplemented by statistical analysis of these
data, showing that the area has monitored attainment of the 2006 24-
hour PM2.5 NAAQS. Data available to date for 2011 are
consistent with continued attainment. On March 7, 2011, the Wisconsin
Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) requested that EPA approve its
request for a determination that the Milwaukee-Racine area has attained
the standard. If EPA finalizes this proposed determination, the
requirement for the State of Wisconsin

to submit an attainment demonstration, associated reasonably available
control measures (RACM) to include reasonably available control
technology (RACT), a reasonable further progress (RFP) plan,
contingency measures, and other planning State Implementation Plan
(SIP) revisions related to attainment of the standard shall be
suspended for so long as the area continues to attain the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before May 24, 2012.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-
OAR-2011-0347, by one of the following methods:
    1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
    2. Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    4. Mail: Douglas Aburano, Chief, Attainment Planning and
Maintenance Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604.
    5. Hand Delivery: Douglas Aburano, Chief, Attainment Planning and
Maintenance Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604.
Such deliveries are only accepted during the Regional Office normal
hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for
deliveries of boxed information. The Regional Office official hours of
business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding
Federal holidays.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R05-OAR-
2011-3047. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,
unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to
be CBI or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov or email. The
www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system, which
means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you
provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email comment
directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov your email
address will be automatically captured and included as part of the
comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the
Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you
include your name and other contact information in the body of your
comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional
instructions on submitting comments, go to Section I of the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
in www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Environmental Protection
Agency, Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 77 West Jackson
Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. This facility is open from 8:30
a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding Federal holidays.
We recommend that you telephone Gilberto Alvarez, Environmental
Scientist, at<PHONE_NUMBER> before visiting the Region 5 office.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gilberto Alvarez, Environmental
Scientist, Attainment Planning and Maintenance Section, Air Programs
Branch (AR-18J), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West
Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA. This supplementary information
section is arranged as follows:

I. What action is EPA taking?
II. What is the background for this action?
III. What is EPA's analysis of the Relevant Air Quality Data?
IV. How did EPA address missing data?
V. Proposed Action
VI. What is the effect of this action?
VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What action is EPA taking?

    EPA is proposing to determine that the Milwaukee-Racine area has
attained the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. This proposed
determination is based upon quality-assured, quality controlled, and
certified ambient air monitoring data, from the 2008-2010 monitoring
period, supplemented by an analysis of whether two sites that were shut
down at the end of 2009 would likely have shown attainment had they
continued operating. Data in the EPA Air Quality System database
available for 2011 are consistent with continued attainment.

II. What is the background for this action?

    On October 17, 2006 (71 FR 61144), EPA retained the 1997 annual
PM2.5 NAAQS at 15.0 [mu]g/m\3\ based on a three-year average
of annual mean PM2.5 concentrations, and promulgated a 24-
hour standard of 35 [mu]g/m\3\ based on a three-year average of the
98th percentile of 24-hour concentrations. On November 13, 2009, EPA
designated the Milwaukee-Racine area as nonattainment for the 2006 24-
hour standard (74 FR 58688). On April 25, 2007 (72 FR 20664), EPA
promulgated its PM2.5 implementation rule, codified at 40
CFR part 51, subpart Z, in which the Agency provided guidance for state
and tribal plans to implement the 1997 PM2.5 standards. This
rule, at 40 CFR 51.1004(c), specifies some of the regulatory
consequences of a determination that an area has attained the
PM2.5 standards. While 40 CFR 51.1004(c) was promulgated as
part of a set of regulations addressing PM2.5 NAAQS
promulgated in 1997, EPA believes that the same approach is warranted
with respect to the PM2.5 NAAQS promulgated in 2006.
    EPA established the standards based on significant evidence and
numerous health studies demonstrating that serious health effects are
associated with exposure to particulate matter. The process for
designating areas following promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS is
contained in section 107(d)(1) of the Clean Air Act (CAA). EPA and
state air quality agencies initiated the monitoring process for the
PM2.5 NAAQS in 1999 and began operating a full set of air
quality monitors by January 2001.
    On November 13, 2009, EPA published its air quality designations
and classifications for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS based
upon air quality monitoring data from those monitors for calendar years
2006-2008 (74 FR 58688). Those designations became effective on
December 14, 2009. The Milwaukee-Racine area was designated
nonattainment for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS (see 40 CFR
part 81). On March 7, 2011, the WDNR requested that EPA approve its
request for a determination that the area has attained the standard,
based upon data from the 2008-2010 monitoring period.

III. What is EPA's analysis of the Relevant Air Quality Data?

    Today's proposed rulemaking assesses whether the Milwaukee-Racine
PM2.5 nonattainment area is attaining the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS, based on the most recent three years of
quality-assured data. The area is defined at 40 CFR 81.350, and
comprises Milwaukee, Racine and Waukesha Counties.
    Under EPA regulations at 40 CFR 50.7, 24-hour primary and secondary
PM2.5 standards are met when the 98th percentile 24-hour
concentrations, as determined in accordance with appendix N of this
part, is less than or equal to 35 [mu]g/m\3\.

Milwaukee-Racine Air Quality

    EPA has reviewed the ambient air monitoring data for the Milwaukee-
Racine area in accordance with the provisions of 40 CFR Part 50,
appendix N. All data considered have been quality-assured, certified,
and recorded in EPA's Air Quality System database. This review
addresses air quality data collected in the three-year period from 2008
to 2010, as well as additional data representing three of four quarters
in 2011.
    The following table provides the design values (the metrics
calculated in accordance with 40 CFR part 50, appendix N, for
determining compliance with the NAAQS) for the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS for the Milwaukee-Racine nonattainment monitors
with data for the years 2008-2010.

Table 1--Milwaukee-Racine Area 24-Hour PM2.5 98th Percentile Concentrations and Design Values From 2008-2010 (in
                                                   [mu]g/m\3\)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   24-Hour 98 Percentile FRM PM2.5 concentration     Resulting
            Site name                Site No.    ------------------------------------------------  design  value
                                                       2008            2009            2010              *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Milw-DNR SERHQ..................       550790026            27.5            39.0            31.9              33
Waukesha........................       551330027            29.9            32.0            35.9              33
Milw-16th CHC...................       550790010            27.3            39.1            30.9              32
Milw-FAA/College Ave............       550790058            26.9            33.0            35.3              31
Virginia Street.................       550790043            27.4            41.7              **              35
Wells Street....................       550790099            29.0            40.3              **              35
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Design Values were developed in accordance with 40 CFR part 50 appendix N; FRM--Federal Reference Method.
** Indicates incomplete data due to monitor shut down.

IV. How did EPA address missing data?

    Appendix N of 40 CFR part 50 sets forth data handling conventions
and computations necessary for determining whether areas have met the
PM2.5 NAAQS, including requirements for data completeness. A
monitor meets data completeness requirements when at least 75 percent
of the scheduled sampling days of each quarter have valid data. The use
of less than complete data is subject to the approval of EPA, which may
consider factors such as monitoring site closures/moves, monitoring
diligence, and nearby concentrations in determining whether to use such
data as set forth at 40 CFR part 50, appendix N, section 4.1(c).
    As part of their annual monitoring network review and to save
resources, WDNR discontinued two monitoring sites (Site Numbers
550790043 and 550790099) on December 31, 2009, resulting in incomplete
data for those two sites for 2010. Data from Milwaukee area monitors
are shown in Table 1. When Wisconsin requested to shut down two
monitors, four of the six monitors within the Milwaukee-Racine area
were violating the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, including the
two sites WDNR requested to shut down. In 2010, the remaining two
violating sites in Milwaukee had data showing that they attained the
2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS for the 2008-2010 monitoring
period. However, because the two sites which were shut down at the end
of 2009 were also violating, EPA needed to determine if those two sites
would likely have met the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS if they
had continued operating. The approach summarized in this section, and
further described in the Technical Support Document (TSD), may or may
not be appropriate for other areas with less than complete data. EPA
will evaluate the appropriateness of this analytical approach for each
area with less than complete data on a case-by-case basis. The analysis
described below is similar to analyses conducted for other areas, such
as the West Virginia/Kentucky/Ohio Huntington-Ashland Nonattainment
Area, except that the analysis presented here is addressing the 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS as opposed to the annual PM2.5 NAAQS
(76 FR 27290).

Monitoring Network

    EPA has determined that the 2006 PM2.5 monitoring
network for Milwaukee-Racine nonattainment area is adequate, even
though two monitors have been shut down. The area currently has four
monitoring locations. Under 40 CFR part 58, appendix D, a minimum of
three monitors is required. While the area meets the minimum
requirements, EPA and the State recognize that more monitors are often
necessary to adequately characterize air quality. Therefore, EPA has
requested that WDNR re-establish one monitor (Site Number 550790099).
This monitor has been placed back into service as of January 2012.
Nevertheless, EPA believes that sufficient data are currently available
to determine whether the Milwaukee-Racine area is attaining the
standard.

Methodology

    In situations like those in Milwaukee, where there are missing or
incomplete data due to monitor shutdown or other factors, EPA believes
that it is often appropriate to use historical data along with
statistical techniques to impute missing data, use those imputed data
to estimate the three-year design value that would likely have occurred
if complete data had been obtained, and thereby determine if the
monitor in question would likely have met the NAAQS.
    The statistical technique in this case required comparing the two
monitoring sites with missing 2010 data against a comparison monitor
which is in the general vicinity of the sites with missing data. The
comparison monitor is usually the highest correlated site based on
historical data. For this reason, the two sites which were shut down
(Site Numbers 550790043 and 550790099) were compared with an active
monitoring site (Site Number 550790026). These monitors are located
within 3 miles and 2 miles, respectively, of the comparison monitor.
    A review of historical data for the four monitors that were
violating the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS in the area shows that the

98th percentiles from the two discontinued monitors generally tracked
the other two violating monitors well, in that all four sites had 98th
percentiles that rose and fell with each other, especially during the
period from 2007 and continuing through 2009. If this pattern continued
into 2010, there is a strong statistical likelihood, as discussed
below, that the two discontinued monitors would have had 98th
percentile values that would have been less than those seen in 2009. If
2010 were consistent with 2007 through 2009, the 98th percentile
concentrations for the two missing monitors would be below the design
value, which would have resulted in the two sites showing attainment.
    As part of the analysis of the missing data, a set of statistical
regression techniques were used to provide further information
regarding the two discontinued monitors' attainment status. The method
used to determine the design value for the two discontinued monitors
involves establishing a statistical relationship between data for those
two monitors (Site Numbers 550790043 and 550790099) and for the monitor
which was best correlated with these monitors and remained in operation
(in this analysis, Site Number 550790026). A regression equation was
used to estimate values to fill in for the missing data from the
discontinued monitors. This analysis provided a ``best estimate''
design value for the two sites without 2010 data.
    The estimated design values were then analyzed using a
bootstrapping statistical method, intended to assess the 2010
concentrations that would have been expected at the sites without 2010
monitoring data had there been random observed associations between the
shutdown sites and the comparison site according to the pre-2010 data
base. Bootstrapping involves the use of regression residuals and
repeating the regression analysis 1,000 times. EPA accepts a monitor as
meeting the standard when at least 90% of the bootstrapped design
values meet the standard. After extensive statistical analysis, the
percentage of bootstrapping results that met the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS of 35 [mu]g/m\3\ were consistently at or above
90%.
    Therefore, EPA proposes to conclude that both discontinued monitors
would have attained the NAAQS, along with the two monitors which
remained in operation. Data available to date for 2011 are consistent
with continued attainment.

V. Proposed Action

    EPA is proposing to determine that the Milwaukee-Racine
nonattainment area has attained the 2006 24-hour PM2.5
NAAQS. This proposed determination is based on the analysis presented
in the previous section, and because the 2008-2010 design value at each
monitor in the Milwaukee-Racine nonattainment area is at or less than
the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS of 35 [mu]g/m\3\. This review
addresses air quality data collected in the three-year period from 2008
to 2010, as well as additional data representing three of four quarters
in 2011.
    Pursuant to section 40 CFR 51.1004(c), applicable to the
PM2.5 standards, if EPA finalizes this proposed
determination, it will suspend the requirements for WDNR to submit for
this area an attainment demonstration and associated RACM/RACT, RFP
plan, contingency measures, and any other planning SIPs related to
attainment of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS for as long as
the area continues to attain the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.

VI. What is the effect of this action?

    Pursuant to section 40 CFR 51.1004(c), if EPA finalizes this
proposed determination for the Milwaukee-Racine nonattainment area, it
would suspend the requirements for the State to submit an attainment
demonstration and RACM (including RACT), RFP, contingency measures, and
any other planning SIPs related to attainment of the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS, and continue until such time, if any, that EPA
subsequently determines that the area has violated the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS. Furthermore, as described below, any such final
determination would not be equivalent to the redesignation of the area
to attainment based on the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.
    If this rulemaking is finalized and EPA subsequently determines,
after notice-and-comment rulemaking in the Federal Register, that the
area has violated the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, the basis
for the suspension of the specific requirements, set forth at 40 CFR
51.1004(c), would no longer exist for the pertinent area, and WDNR
would have to address the relevant requirements for that area. EPA's
proposed determination, that the air quality data show attainment of
the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, is not equivalent to the
redesignation of the area to attainment. This action would not
constitute a redesignation to attainment under 107(d)(3) of the CAA,
because EPA would not yet have an approved maintenance plan for the
area as required under 175A of the CAA, nor would it have determined
that the area has met the other requirements for redesignation. The
designation status of the area would remain nonattainment for the 2006
24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS until such time as EPA approves all
remaining requirements and determines that the area meets the CAA
requirements for redesignation to attainment.
    This action is limited to a determination that the Milwaukee-Racine
area has attained the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. The 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS, which became effective on December 18, 2006 (71
FR 61144) are set forth at 40 CFR 50.13.

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This action proposes to make a determination of attainment based on
air quality, and would, if finalized, result in the suspension of
certain Federal requirements, and it would not impose additional
requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this
proposed action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     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). In addition, this proposed 2006
24-hour PM2.5 clean NAAQS data determination for the
Milwaukee-Racine, Wisconsin area does not have tribal implications as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in
the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Particulate
matter, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.

    Dated: April 9, 2012.
Susan Hedman,
Regional Administrator, Region 5.
[FR Doc. 2012-9811 Filed 4-23-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 238 (Friday, December 11, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 76859-76860]
[FR Doc No: 2015-31232]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

21 CFR Part 73

[Docket No. FDA-2015-C-1154]

Listing of Color Additives Exempt From Certification; Mica-Based
Pearlescent Pigments; Confirmation of Effective Date

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Final rule; confirmation of effective date.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or we) is confirming the
effective date of November 2, 2015, for the final rule that appeared in
the Federal Register of September 30, 2015, and that amended the color
additive regulations to provide for the safe use of mica-based
pearlescent pigments prepared from titanium dioxide and mica as a color
additive in certain distilled spirits.

DATES: Effective date of final rule published in the Federal Register
of September 30, 2015 (80 FR 58600), confirmed: November 2, 2015.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Salome Bhagan, Center for Food Safety
and Applied Nutrition (HFS-265), Food and Drug Administration, 5100
Paint Branch Pkwy., College Park, MD 20740-3835,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the Federal Register of September 30,
2015 (80 FR 58600), we amended the color additive regulations in Sec.
73.350 Mica-based pearlescent pigments (21 CFR

73.350) to increase the maximum permitted alcohol content of distilled
spirits to which mica-based pearlescent pigments may be added from 23
percent to 25 percent alcohol by volume, and to remove the current
limitation for distilled spirits mixtures containing more than 5
percent wine on a proof gallon basis.
    We gave interested persons until October 30, 2015, to file
objections or requests for a hearing. We received no objections or
requests for a hearing on the final rule. Therefore, we find that the
effective date of the final rule that published in the Federal Register
of September 30, 2015, should be confirmed.

List of Subjects in 21 CFR Part 73

    Color additives, Cosmetics, Drugs, Foods, Medical devices.

    Therefore, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21
U.S.C. 321, 341, 342, 343, 348, 351, 352, 355, 361, 362, 371, 379e) and
under authority delegated to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs, and
redelegated to the Director, Center for Food Safety and Applied
Nutrition, we are giving notice that no objections or requests for a
hearing were filed in response to the September 30, 2015, final rule.
Accordingly, the amendments issued thereby became effective November 2,
2015.

    Dated: December 4, 2015.
Susan Bernard,
Director, Office of Regulations, Policy and Social Sciences, Center for
Food Safety and Applied Nutrition.
[FR Doc. 2015-31232 Filed 12-10-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 7 (Tuesday, January 12, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Page 1468]
[FR Doc No: 2016-00429]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

[Summary Notice No. 2015-78]

Petition for Exemption; Summary of Petition Received; Neptune
Aviation Services, Inc.

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice contains a summary of a petition seeking relief
from specified requirements of Title 14 of the Code of Federal
Regulations. The purpose of this notice is to improve the public's
awareness of, and participation in, the FAA's exemption process.
Neither publication of this notice nor the inclusion or omission of
information in the summary is intended to affect the legal status of
the petition or its final disposition.

DATES: Comments on this petition must identify the petition docket
number and must be received on or before February 1, 2016.

ADDRESSES: Send comments identified by docket number FAA-2015-7261
using any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and follow the online instructions for sending your
comments electronically.
     Mail: Send comments to Docket Operations, M-30; U.S.
Department of Transportation (DOT), 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room
W12-140, West Building Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: Take comments to Docket
Operations in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Fax: Fax comments to Docket Operations at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Privacy: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments
from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT posts
these comments, without edit, including any personal information the
commenter provides, to http://www.regulations.gov, as described in the
system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at
http://www.dot.gov/privacy.
    Docket: Background documents or comments received may be read at
http://www.regulations.gov at any time. Follow the online instructions
for accessing the docket or go to the Docket Operations in Room W12-140
of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brent Hart<PHONE_NUMBER>, Office of
Rulemaking, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue
SW., Washington, DC 20591.
    This notice is published pursuant to 14 CFR 11.85.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on January 6, 2016.
Lirio Liu,
Director, Office of Rulemaking.

Petition for Exemption

    Docket No.: FAA-2015-7261.
    Petitioner: Neptune Aviation Services, Inc.
    Section(s) of 14 CFR Affected: 21.197(c).
    Description of Relief Sought: The petitioner is seeking an
exemption from Sec.  21.197(c) to provide authorization of Neptune
Aviation Services, Inc. to issue special flight permits (SFP) for the
purpose of moving company-owned aircraft to Neptune's maintenance
facilities after normal Flight Standards District Office (FSDO)
business hours.

[FR Doc. 2016-00429 Filed 1-11-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: December 7, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 233)]
[Notices]
[Page 64073-64074]
[DOCID:fr07de09-887]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OECA-2009-0386; FRL-9088-4]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to OMB for
Review and Approval; Comment Request; NESHAP for Perchloroethylene Dry
Cleaning Facilities (Renewal); EPA ICR Number 1415.09, OMB Control
Number 2060-0234

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

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

DATES: Additional comments may be submitted on or before January 6,
2010.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID number EPA-HQ-
OECA-2009-0386, to (1) EPA online using http://www.regulations.gov (our
preferred method), or by e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by mail to:
EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), Environmental Protection Agency,
Enforcement and Compliance Docket and Information Center, Mail Code
28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460, and (2)
OMB at: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of
Management and Budget (OMB), Attention: Desk Officer for EPA, 725 17th
Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert C. Marshall, Jr., Office of
Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, Mail Code 2223A, Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460;
telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail
address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA has submitted the following ICR to OMB
for review and approval according to the procedures prescribed in 5 CFR
1320.12. On July 8, 2009 (74 FR 32580), EPA sought comments on this ICR
pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.8(d). EPA received no comments. Any additional
comments on this ICR should be submitted to EPA and OMB within 30 days
of this notice.
    EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under docket ID
number EPA-HQ-OECA-2009-0386, which is available for public viewing
online at http://www.regulations.gov, in person viewing at the
Enforcement and Compliance Docket in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC),
EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue, 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 Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number
for the Enforcement and Compliance Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Use EPA's electronic docket and comment system at http://
www.regulations.gov, to submit or view public comments, access the
index listing of the contents of the docket, and to access those
documents in the docket that are available electronically. Once in the
system, select ``docket search,'' then key in the docket ID number
identified above. Please note that EPA's policy is that public
comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made
available for public viewing at http://www.regulations.gov, as EPA
receives them and without change, unless the comment contains
copyrighted material, Confidential Business Information (CBI), or other
information whose public disclosure is restricted by statute. For
further information about the electronic docket, go to
www.regulations.gov.
    Title: NESHAP for Perchloroethylene Dry Cleaning Facilities
(Renewal).
    ICR Numbers: EPA ICR Number 1415.09, OMB Control Number 2060-0234.
    ICR Status: This ICR is scheduled to expire on December 31, 2009.
Under OMB regulations, the Agency may continue to conduct or sponsor
the collection of information while this submission is pending at OMB.
An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to
respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently
valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations
in title 40 of the CFR, after appearing in the Federal Register when
approved, are listed in 40 CFR part 9, and displayed either by
publication in the Federal Register or by other appropriate means, such
as on the related collection instrument or form, if applicable. The
display of OMB control numbers in certain EPA regulations is
consolidated in 40 CFR part 9.
    Abstract: Entities potentially affected by this action are the
owners or

operators of perchloroethylene dry cleaning facilities. The affected
entities are subject to the General Provisions of the NESHAP at 40 CFR
part 63, subpart A, and any changes, or additions to the General
Provisions specified at 40 CFR part 63, subpart M. Owners or operators
of the affected facilities must submit a one-time-only report of any
physical or operational changes, initial performance tests, and
periodic reports and results. Owners or operators are also required to
maintain records of the occurrence and duration of any startup,
shutdown, or malfunction in the operation of an affected facility, or
any period during which the monitoring system is inoperative. Reports,
at a minimum, are required semiannually.
    Burden Statement: The annual public reporting and recordkeeping
burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 50
hours per response. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial
resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or
disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This
includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire,
install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of
collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and
maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information;
adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable
instructions and requirements which have subsequently changed; train
personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search
data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and
transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
    Respondents/Affected Entities: Owners or operator of
perchloroethylene dry cleaning facilities.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 30,459.
    Frequency of Response: Initially, occasionally, and semiannually.
    Estimated Total Annual Hour Burden: 1,531,851.
    Estimated Total Annual Cost: $150,708,638, which includes
$149,772,225 in labor costs, annualized capital/startup costs of
$582,500, and O&M costs of $353,913.
    Changes in the Estimates: In this ICR, the burden has increased
somewhat due to a revision to the standard. However, this increase is
more than offset by a decrease in burden associated with a reduction in
the number of respondents. Therefore, the overall burden has decreased
for this renewal. There is also a reduction the capital/startup and O&M
costs. In the previous ICR which addressed a revision to the standard,
a large number of respondents were required to purchase monitoring
equipment. For this renewal, only new respondents must purchase
monitors. Therefore, the capital/startup and O&M costs are reduced.

    Dated: November 24, 2009.
John Moses,
Director, Collection Strategies Division.
[FR Doc. E9-28862 Filed 12-4-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 42 (Tuesday, March 4, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 12269-12270]
[FR Doc No: 2014-04283]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

Notice of Application for Special Permits

AGENCY: Office of Hazardous Materials Safety, Pipeline and Hazardous
Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), DOT.

ACTION: List of applications for special permits.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the procedures governing the application
for, and the processing of, special permits from the Department of
Transportation's Hazardous Material Regulations, notice is hereby given
that the Office of Hazardous Materials Safety has received the
application described herein. Each mode of transportation for which a
particular special permit is requested is indicated by a number in the
``Nature of Application'' portion of the table below as follows: 1--
Motor vehicle, 2--Rail freight, 3--Cargo vessel, 4--Cargo aircraft
only, 5--Passenger-carrying aircraft.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before April 3, 2014.

ADDRESSES: Send comments to: Record Center, Pipeline and Hazardous
Materials Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation,
Washington, DC 20590.
    Comments should refer to the application number and be submitted in
triplicate. If confirmation of receipt of comments is desired, include
a self-addressed stamped postcard showing the special permit number.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Copies of the applications are
available for inspection in the Records Center, East Building, PHH-30,
1200 New Jersey Avenue Southeast, Washington DC or at http://regulations.gov.
    This notice of receipt of applications for special permit is
published in accordance with Part 107 of the Federal hazardous
materials transportation law (49 U.S.C. 5117(b); 49 CFR 1.53(b)).

    Issued in Washington, DC, on February 18, 2014.
Donald Burger,
Chief, General Approvals and Permits.

                           New Special Permits
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    Regulation(s)     Nature of special
 Application No.     Applicant         affected            permit
------------------------------------------------------------------------
16046-N.........  Rohm and Haas    173.3, 173.181,  To authorize the
                   Electronic       and 173.187.     transportation in
                   Materials LLC.                    commerce of a
                                                     damaged cylinder
                                                     containing Division
                                                     4.3 and/or 4.2
                                                     materials in a
                                                     salvage cylinder.
                                                     (modes 1, 2, 3)
16067-N.........  E.I. DuPont de   171.25(c) &      To authorize the
                   Nemours.         Company, Inc..   transportation in
                                                     commerce of a
                                                     Division 2.2
                                                     compressed gas in
                                                     non-DOT
                                                     specification bulk
                                                     packaging. (modes
                                                     1, 3)
16060-N.........  Daeryuk Can      49 CFR 173.304.  To authorize the
                   Manufacturing                     manufacture,
                   Co., Ltd                          marking, sale and
                   Youngin-Myeon,                    use of non-DOT
                   Asan-Si, China.                   specification
                                                     inside containers
                                                     for transportation
                                                     of Isobutane/
                                                     Propane mixtures.
                                                     (modes 1, 2, 3)
16065-N.........  American         49 CFR           To authorize the
                   Spraytech        173.306(a)(3)(   transportation in
                   North Branch,    v).              commerce of certain
                   NJ.                               aerosols containing
                                                     a Division 2.2
                                                     compressed gas in
                                                     certain non-
                                                     refillable aerosol
                                                     containers which
                                                     are not subject to
                                                     the hot water bath
                                                     test. (mode 1)
16074-N.........  Welker Inc.      49 CFR 173.201,  To authorize the
                   Sugar Land, TX.  173.202, and     transportation in
                                    173.203.         commerce of certain
                                                     Class 3 liquids in
                                                     non-DOT
                                                     specification
                                                     cylinders. (modes
                                                     1, 2, 3, 4)
16079-N.........  Wal-Mart Stores  49 CFR 171.2(k)  To authorize the
                   East, LP                          transportation in
                   Bentonville,                      commerce of certain
                   AR.                               used cylinders
                                                     containing Helium,
                                                     compressed as fully
                                                     regulated without
                                                     first determining
                                                     that a hazardous
                                                     material is
                                                     present. (mode 1)
16081-N.........  Cabela's Inc.    49 CFR 178.602.  To authorize the
                   Sidney, NE.                       transportation in
                                                     commerce of certain
                                                     Division 1.4
                                                     primers and powders
                                                     in packaging that
                                                     has not been tested
                                                     for each specific
                                                     configuration.
                                                     (modes 1, 2, 3, 4)
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2014-04283 Filed 3-3-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4909-60-M