[Federal Register: October 12, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 197)]
[Notices]
[Page 58135-58136]
[DOCID:fr12oc07-104]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release Nos. 33-8856; 34-56624; File No. 265-24]

Advisory Committee on Improvements to Financial Reporting

AGENCY: Securities and Exchange Commission.

ACTION: Notice of Meeting of SEC Advisory Committee on Improvements to
Financial Reporting.

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

SUMMARY: The Securities and Exchange Commission Advisory Committee on
Improvements to Financial Reporting is providing notice that it will
hold a public meeting on Friday, November 2, 2007, in the Auditorium,
Room L-002, at the Commission's main offices, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC, beginning at 9:30 a.m. The meeting will be open to the
public. The meeting will be webcast on the Commission's Web site at
http://www.sec.gov. The public is invited to submit written statements for the

meeting.
    The agenda for the meeting includes consideration of comment
letters received by the Advisory Committee, consideration of reports of
the subcommittees of the Advisory Committee, discussion of any
recommendations proposed for adoption by the Advisory Committee, and
discussion of next steps and planning for the next meeting.

DATES: Written statements should be received on or before October 26,
2007.

ADDRESSES: Written statements may be submitted by any of the following
methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet submission form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/other.shtml.
); or     Send an e-mail message to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please

include File Number 265-24 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper statements in triplicate to Nancy M. Morris,
Federal Advisory Committee Management Officer, Securities and Exchange
Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
    All submissions should refer to File No. 265-24. This file number
should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To help us
process and review your statements more efficiently, please use only
one method. The Commission staff will post all statements on the
Advisory Committee's Web site (http://www.sec.gov/about/offices/oca/acifr.shtml
). Statements also will be available for public inspection

and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street,
NE., Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours
of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. All statements received will be posted without
change; we do not edit personal identifying information from
submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make
available publicly.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: James L. Kroeker, Deputy Chief
Accountant, or Shelly C. Luisi, Senior Associate Chief Accountant, at
(202) 551-5300, Office of the Chief Accountant, Securities and Exchange
Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-6561.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In accordance with Section 10(a) of the
Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. 1, Sec.  10(a), James L.
Kroeker, Designated Federal Officer of the Committee, has approved
publication of this notice.

    Dated: October 5, 2007.
Nancy M. Morris,
Committee Management Officer.
 [FR Doc. E7-20131 Filed 10-11-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


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

1. Agency/ Subagency originating request EPA, Office of Prevention, Pesticides & Toxic Substances 2. OMB control number b. G None a. 2 0 7 0  0 1 4 5 __ __ __ __

3. Type of information collection ( check one) a. G New collection b. G Revision of a currently approved collection c. O Extension of a currently approved collection d. G Reinstatement, without change, of a previously approved collection for which approval has expired e. G Reinstatement, with change, of a previously approved collection for which approval has expired f. G Existing collection in use without an OMB control number 4. Type of review requested ( check one) a. O Regular b. G Emergency  Approval requested by: / / c. G Delegated 5. Small entities Will this information collection have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? G Yes O No For b f, note item A2 of Supporting Statement Instructions 6. Requested expiration date a. O Three years from approval date b. G Other Specify: / /___

7. Title Correction of Misreported Chemical Substances on the Toxic Substances Control Act ( TSCA) Chemical Substances Inventory 8. Agency form number( s) ( If applicable) EPA Form 7710 3C; EPA ICR # 1741.03 9. Keywords: Environmental Protection; Hazardous Substances; Toxic Substances Control Act; Reporting Requirements 10. Abstract: This information collection pertains to the use of EPA Form 7710 3C (" Form C"), which is used by the chemical industry in submitting requests to EPA to correct misreported chemical identities of substances listed on the TSCA Inventory. These requests are initiated in almost all cases by the original submitter.

11. Affected public ( Mark primary with " P" and all others that apply with " X")

a. Individuals or households d. Farms b. P Business or other for profit e. Federal Government c. Not for profit institutions f. State, Local or Tribal Government 12. Obligation to respond ( Mark primary with " P" and all others that apply with " X")

a. P Voluntary b. G Required to obtain or retain benefits c. G Mandatory 13. Annual reporting and recordkeeping hour burden a. Number of respondents 200 b. Total annual responses 200 1. Percentage of these responses collected electronically c. Total hours requested 200 d. Current OMB inventory 200 e. Difference 0 f. Explanation of difference 1. Program Change 2. Adjustment 0 14. Annual reporting and recordkeeping cost burden ( in thousands of dollars)

a. Total annualized capital/ startup costs 0 b. Total annual costs ( O& M) 0 c. Total annualized cost requested 0 d. Current OMB inventory 0 e. Difference 0 f. Explanation of difference 1. Program change 2. Adjustment 15. Purpose of information collection ( Mark Primary With " P" and all others that apply with " X")

a. __ Application for benefits e. __ Program planning or management b. __ Program evaluation f. __ Research c. __ General purpose statistics g. P Regulatory or compliance d. __ Audit 16. Frequency of recordkeeping or reporting ( check all that apply) a. G Recordkeeping b. G Third party disclosure c. O Reporting 1. O On occasion 2. G Weekly 3. G Monthly 4. G Quarterly 5. G Semi annually 6. G Annually 7. G Biannually 8. G Other ( describe)

17. Statistical methods Does this information collection employ statistical methods? G Yes O No 18. Agency contact ( person who can best answer questions regarding the content of this submission) Name: Angela F. Hofmann, Director, Regulatory Coordination Staff Phone: 202 260 2922 OMB 83 I 10/ 95 RECEIVED OPPT NCIC 2003 July 25 9: 56AM OPPT 2003 0045 0001 19. Certification for Paperwork Reduction Act Submissions On behalf of this Federal agency, 1 certify that the collection of information encompassed by this request complies with 5 CFR 1320.9.

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

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

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

( b) It avoids unnecessary duplication;

( c) It reduces burden on small entities;

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Signature of Program Official Angela F. Hofmann, Director Regulatory Coordination Staff ( OPPTS) Date Signature of Senior Official or designee Oscar Morales, Director Collection Strategies Division Office of Environmental Information ( OEI) Date OMB 83 I 10/ 95


[Federal Register: February 11, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 27)]
[Notices]
[Page 6870-6873]
[DOCID:fr11fe09-37]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. PF09-1-000]

Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company; Notice of Intent To Prepare an
Environmental Assessment for the 300 Line Project, Request for Comments
on Environmental Issues, and Notice of Public Scoping Meetings

February 4, 2009.
    The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or
Commission) will prepare an environmental assessment (EA) that will
discuss the environmental impacts that could result from the
construction and operation of the 300 Line Project. The project is
planned by Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company (TGP) to expand the natural
gas transportation capacity of its existing 300 Line pipeline in
Pennsylvania and New Jersey.
    This Notice of Intent (NOI) announces the opening of the scoping
process used to gather input from the public and interested agencies on
the project. Your input will help the Commission staff determine which
issues need to be evaluated in the EA. The staff will also use the
scoping process to determine whether preparation of an environmental
impact statement is more appropriate for this project based on the
anticipated level of impacts. Please note that the scoping period will
close on March 6, 2009.
    Comments may be submitted in written or verbal form. Further
details on how to submit written comments are provided in the Public
Participation section of this notice. In lieu of or in addition to
sending written comments, we invite you to attend the public scoping
meetings scheduled as follows.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Date and time                           Location
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tuesday, February 24, 2009, 7 p.m.     Walnut Ridge Primary School, 625
 (EST).                                 County Route 517, Vernon, New
                                        Jersey.
Wednesday, February 25, 2009, 7 p.m.   Montrose High School, 50 High
 (EST).                                 School Road, Montrose,
                                        Pennsylvania.
Thursday, February 26, 2009, 7 p.m.    Mansfield University, Room G3,
 (EST).                                 Allen Hall, 135 Stadium Drive,
                                        Mansfield, Pennsylvania.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Interested groups and individuals are encouraged to attend the
meetings and to present comments on the environmental issues they
believe should be addressed in the EA. A transcript of the meetings
will be generated so that your comments will be accurately recorded.
    This notice is being sent to affected landowners; federal, state,
and local

government representatives and agencies; environmental and public
interest groups; Native American tribes; other interested parties in
this proceeding; and local libraries and newspapers. We \1\ encourage
government representatives to notify their constituents of the planned
project and encourage them to comment on their areas of concern.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ ``We'', ``us'', and ``our'' refer to the environmental staff
of the Office of Energy Projects (OEP).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    If you are a landowner receiving this notice, you may be contacted
by a pipeline company representative about the acquisition of an
easement to construct, operate, and maintain the planned facilities.
The pipeline company would seek to negotiate a mutually acceptable
agreement. However, if the project is approved by the Commission, that
approval conveys with it the right of eminent domain. Therefore, if
easement negotiations fail to produce an agreement, the pipeline
company could initiate condemnation proceedings in accordance with
state law.
    A fact sheet prepared by the FERC entitled ``An Interstate Natural
Gas Facility On My Land? What Do I Need To Know?'' is available for
viewing on the FERC Internet Web site (www.ferc.gov). This fact sheet
addresses a number of typically asked questions, including the use of
eminent domain and how to participate in the Commission's proceedings.

Summary of the Proposed Project

    TGP is requesting authorization to construct, own, and operate the
facilities necessary to increase natural gas delivery capacity to the
northeast region of the United States by approximately 300,000
dekatherms per day. In addition to increasing natural gas delivery
capacity in the region, TGP would also upgrade certain existing
compressor units to improve overall system reliability.
    The 300 Line Project would consist of the following facilities:
     Installation of approximately 128.4 miles of new 30-inch-
diameter pipeline in seven separate looping \2\ segments ranging in
length from 14.6 miles to 22.5 miles in Potter, Tioga, Bradford,
Susquehanna, Wayne, and Pike Counties, Pennsylvania; and Sussex and
Passaic Counties, New Jersey;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ A loop is a segment of pipeline that is usually installed
adjacent to an existing pipeline and connected to it at both ends.
The loop allows more gas to be moved through the system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Construction of a new 15,000 horsepower (hp) compressor
station (Station 303) in Venango County, Pennsylvania;
     Construction of a new 15,400 hp compressor station
(Station 310) in McKean County, Pennsylvania;
     Modification to an existing meter station in Bergen
County, New Jersey;
     Modifications to seven existing compressor stations in
Potter (Station 313), Tioga (Station 315), Bradford (Station 317 and
319), Susquehanna (Station 321), and Pike Counties (Station 323),
Pennsylvania, and Sussex County (Station 325), New Jersey, resulting in
increased hp at five of the seven existing stations; and
     Installation of associated appurtenant aboveground
facilities including mainline valves and pig \3\ launchers and
receivers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ A pig is an internal tool that can be used to clean and dry
a pipeline and/or to inspect it for damage or corrosion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The location of the project facilities is shown in Appendix 1.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The appendices referenced in this notice are not being
printed in the Federal Register. Copies of all appendices, other
than Appendix 1 (maps), are available on the Commission's Web site
at the ``eLibrary'' link or from the Commission's Public Reference
Room, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, or call (202)
502-8371. For instructions on connecting to eLibrary refer to the
last page of this notice. Copies of the appendices were sent to all
those receiving this notice in the mail.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Land Requirements for Construction

    Construction of the 300 Line Project would require about 2,091.7
acres of land including pipeline, aboveground facilities, appurtenant
facilities, and pipe storage and contractor yards. Following
construction, about 1,149.9 acres would be used for operation of the
project facilities. The area disturbed during construction but not
required for operation would generally be allowed to revert to pre-
construction condition.
    The planned pipeline loops would be located within and directly
adjacent to the existing 300 Line right-of-way and at a typical offset
of 25 feet from the existing pipeline to the extent practicable.
Construction and operation of the two new compressor stations would
occur within larger land tracts to be acquired by TGP, and the proposed
modifications to existing compressor stations would occur within the
existing fenceline of the facilities.

The EA Process

    The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires the
Commission to take into account the environmental impacts that could
result from an action whenever it considers the issuance of a
Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity. NEPA also requires us
to discover and address concerns the public may have about proposals.
This process is referred to as ``scoping.'' The main goal of the
scoping process is to focus the analysis in the EA on the important
environmental issues. By this NOI, the Commission staff requests public
comments on the scope of the issues to address in the EA. All comments
received will be considered during the preparation of the EA. State and
local government representatives are encouraged to notify their
constituents of this proposed action and encourage them to comment on
their areas of concern.
    In the EA we will discuss impacts that could occur as a result of
the construction and operation of the planned project under these
general headings:
     Geology and soils;
     Land use;
     Water resources, fisheries, and wetlands;
     Cultural resources;
     Vegetation and wildlife;
     Air quality and noise;
     Endangered and threatened species; and
     Public safety.
    We will also evaluate possible alternatives to the planned project
or portions of the project, and make recommendations on how to lessen
or avoid impacts on the various resource areas.
    Although no formal application has been filed, we have already
initiated our NEPA review under the Commission's Pre-Filing Process.
The purpose of the Pre-Filing Process is to encourage early involvement
of interested stakeholders and to identify and resolve issues before an
application is filed with the FERC. As part of our Pre-Filing Process
review, we have begun to contact some federal and state agencies to
discuss their involvement in the scoping process and the preparation of
the EA. In addition, representatives from the FERC participated in
public open houses sponsored by TGP in the project area in December
2008 and January 2009, to explain the environmental review process to
interested stakeholders.
    Our independent analysis of the issues will be in the EA. Depending
on the comments received during the scoping process, the EA may be
published and mailed to federal, state, and local agencies; public
interest groups; interested individuals; affected landowners;
newspapers; libraries; and the Commission's official service list for
this proceeding. A comment period will be allotted for review if the EA
is published. We will consider all comments on the EA before we make
our recommendations to the

Commission. To ensure your comments are considered, please carefully
follow the instructions in the Public Participation section below.
    With this NOI, we are asking federal, state, and local agencies
with jurisdiction and/or special expertise with respect to
environmental issues to formally cooperate with us in the preparation
of the EA. These agencies may choose to participate once they have
evaluated the proposal relative to their responsibilities. Additional
agencies that would like to request cooperating agency status should
follow the instructions for filing comments provided under the Public
Participation section of this NOI.

Currently Identified Environmental Issues

    We have already identified several issues that we think deserve
attention based on a preliminary review of the planned facilities,
comments made to us at TGP's open houses, preliminary consultations
with other agencies, and the environmental information provided by TGP.
This preliminary list of issues may be changed based on your comments
and our analysis:
     Compatibility with the Wallkill River National Wildlife
Refuge in Sussex County, New Jersey, where proposed Loop 325 would
cross the refuge for approximately 0.8 mile;
     Compatibility of the planned Loop 325 on lands under
jurisdiction of the New Jersey Highlands Council;
     Potential impacts on nearby residences including wells and
septic systems, land use restrictions, and property values;
     Aesthetic impacts, including the loss of trees in
residential areas;
     Potential impacts on threatened or endangered species
including the Indiana bat and the Bog turtle;
     Noise concerns associated with the new compressor stations
(Stations 303 and 310); and
     Assessment of alternatives including alternatives that
would avoid or reduce impacts on the Wallkill River National Wildlife
Refuge and Long Pond Iron Works State Park, and alternative compressor
station locations.

Public Participation

    You can make a difference by providing us with your specific
comments or concerns about the 300 Line Project. Your comments should
focus on the potential environmental effects, reasonable alternatives,
and measures to avoid or lessen environmental impacts. The more
specific your comments, the more useful they will be. To ensure that
your comments are timely and properly recorded, please send in your
comments so that they will be received in Washington, DC on or before
March 6, 2009.
    For your convenience, there are three methods you can use to submit
your written comments to the Commission. In all instances please
reference the project docket number PF09-1-000 with your submission.
The Commission encourages electronic filing of comments and has
dedicated eFiling expert staff available to assist you at<PHONE_NUMBER>
or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (1) You may file your comments electronically by using the Quick
Comment feature, which is located on the Commission's internet Web site
at www.ferc.gov under the link to Documents and Filings. A Quick
Comment is an easy method for interested persons to submit text-only
comments on a project;
    (2) You may file your comments electronically by using the eFiling
feature, which is located on the Commission's internet Web site at
www.ferc.gov under the link to Documents and Filings. eFiling involves
preparing your submission in the same manner as you would if filing on
paper, and then saving the file on your computer's hard drive. You will
attach that file as your submission. New eFiling users must first
create an account by clicking on ``Sign up'' or ``eRegister.'' You will
be asked to select the type of filing you are making. A comment on a
particular project is considered a ``Comment on a Filing;'' or
    (3) You may file your comments via mail to the Commission by
sending an original and two copies of your letter to: Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First St., NE.,
Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426.
    Label one copy of the comments for the attention of Gas Branch 1,
PJ-11.1.

Becoming an Intervenor

    Once TGP formally files its application with the Commission, you
may want to become an ``intervenor,'' which is an official party to the
proceeding. Intervenors play a more formal role in the process and are
able to file briefs, appear at hearings, and be heard by the courts if
they choose to appeal the Commission's final ruling. An intervenor
formally participates in a Commission proceeding by filing a request to
intervene. Instructions for becoming an intervenor are included in the
User's Guide under the ``eFiling'' link on the Commission's Web site.
Please note that you may not request intervenor status at this time;
you must wait until the formal application is filed with the
Commission.

Environmental Mailing List

    An effort is being made to send this notice to all individuals,
organizations, and government entities interested in and/or potentially
affected by the planned project. This includes all landowners who are
potential right-of-way grantors, whose property may be used temporarily
for project purposes, or who own homes within distances defined in the
Commission's regulations of certain aboveground facilities.
    If you do not want to send comments at this time but still want to
remain on our mailing list, please return the Information Request
(Appendix 2). If you do not return the Information Request, you will be
taken off the mailing list.

Availability of Additional Information

    Additional information about the project is available from the
Commission's Office of External Affairs, at 1-866-208-FERC or on the
FERC Internet Web site (www.ferc.gov) using the eLibrary link. Click on
the eLibrary link, click on ``General Search'' and enter the docket
number excluding the last three digits in the Docket Number field. Be
sure you have selected an appropriate date range. For assistance,
please contact FERC Online Support at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or
toll free at 1-866-208-3676, or for TTY, contact<PHONE_NUMBER>. The
eLibrary link also provides access to the texts of formal documents
issued by the Commission, such as orders, notices, and rulemakings.
    In addition, the Commission now offers a free service called
eSubscription which allows you to keep track of all formal issuances
and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time
you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with
notification of these filings, document summaries and direct links to
the documents. Go to www.ferc.gov/esubscribenow.htm.
    Public meetings or site visits will be posted on the Commission's
calendar located at www.ferc.gov/EventCalendar/EventsList.aspx along
with other related information.
    Finally, to request additional information on the project or to
provide comments directly to the project sponsor, you can contact TGP
directly be calling toll free at 1-866-208-3676. Also, TGP has
established an Internet Web site at www.elpaso.com/TGP300LineExpansion/
default.shtm. The Web site includes a description of the Project, an
overview map of the

proposed facilities, and links to related documents. TGP will update
the Web site as the environmental review of its project proceeds.

 Kimberly D. Bose,
 Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E9-2865 Filed 2-10-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


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

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

MEMORANDUM

TO:	ELG Planning Record  -  Landfills Preliminary Category Review
FROM:	Julie Bridstrup, ERG
	Jill Lucy, ERG
DATE:	September 7, 2021
SUBJECT: Data for the Landfills Industry Profile
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As part of EPA's preliminary review of the effluent limitations guidelines and standards (ELGs) for landfills regulated under 40 CFR Part 445, ERG reviewed publicly available information for an industry profile. ERG reviewed information to identify changes to the landfills industry since the initial rulemaking in 2000. The Landfills Category ELGs (40 CFR Part 455) includes two subparts with the following applicability:
 Subpart A -- RCRA Subtitle C Hazardous Waste Landfill. Applies to discharges of wastewater from landfills subject to the provisions of 40 CFR part 264, Standards for Owners and Operators of Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities, Subpart N-(Landfills); and 40 CFR part 265, Interim Status Standards for Owners and Operators of Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities, Subpart N-(Landfills).
 Subpart B  -- RCRA Subtitle D Non-Hazardous Waste Landfill. Applies to discharges of wastewater from landfills subject to the provisions of 40 CFR part 258, Criteria for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills; and 40 CFR part 257, Criteria for Classification of Solid Waste Disposal Facilities and Practices.
The Landfills Category ELGs applicability specifically excludes 1) discharges of contaminated ground water or wastewater from recovery pumping wells and 2) most discharges from landfills operated in conjunction with other industrial or commercial operations.
Industry Profile Data Sources
ERG gathered data to begin developing a profile of the landfills industry using facility data from EPA's Enforcement and Compliance History Online (ECHO) database and information in the 2000 Development Document for Final Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Landfills Point Source Category (EPA, 2000).
The ECHO database (available at https://echo.epa.gov/) allows users to query the database using defined criteria and provides facility-specific output results. ERG used the "Facility Search" page and the following criteria to query ECHO and identify facilities that may be subject to the requirements at 40 CFR Part 445:
 North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes 562211 (Hazardous Waste Treatment and Disposal) and 562212 (Solid Waste Landfill).
 Active and nonactive facilities.
The results include 12,299 facilities and their data including facility identification (e.g., name, address, state); applicable NAICS codes; and EPA program information.ERG conducted further data review to identify potential in-scope facilities for the Landfills Category ELGs (see Section 1.2).
ERG used data from EPA (2000) to identify the total number of landfills (at the time of the rulemaking) and number of landfills generating in-scope wastestreams.
EPA's 2020 Preliminary Review of Industrial Point Source Categories (EPA, 2021) presents the status and preliminary results, including the industry profile, of the Landfills Category review.
Industry Profile Data Review
As part of its review of the ECHO data, ERG used the following assumption and identified the following limitations of the data sources:
ERG assumed NAICS Codes and Part 445 Subpart applicability can be directly correlated (see Table 1).
NAICS 562211 includes non-landfill hazardous waste treatment facilities (e.g., combustors, incinerators); therefore, ECHO data results include facilities that are out of scope (i.e., not landfills).
Part 445 excludes landfills co-located at commercial and industrial sites; therefore, ECHO data results include facilities that are out of scope of the ELGs.
ECHO data do not provide information on landfill wastestreams (i.e., to identify all in-scope landfills, specifically indirect dischargers and zero- discharge facilities). ECHO data do include NPDES permit identification details for direct dischargers.

Table 1. Correlation Between 40 CFR Part 445 Subparts and NAICS Codes
40 CFR Part 445 Subpart
Corresponding NAICS Code Definition
Subpart A -- RCRA Subtitle C Hazardous Waste Landfill
NAICS 562211  -  "establishments primarily engaged in (1) operating treatment and/or disposal facilities for hazardous waste or (2) the combined activity of collecting and/or hauling of hazardous waste materials within a local area and operating treatment or disposal facilities for hazardous waste" (U.S. Census Bureau, 2021). In addition to landfills, this code includes combustors, incinerators, and other hazardous waste treatment plants.
Subpart B  -- RCRA Subtitle D Non-Hazardous Waste Landfill
NAICS 562212  -  "establishments primarily engaged in (1) operating landfills for the disposal of nonhazardous solid waste or (2) the combined activity of collecting and/or hauling nonhazardous waste materials within a local area and operating landfills for the disposal of nonhazardous solid waste. These establishments may produce byproducts, such as methane" (U.S. Census Bureau, 2021).

ERG refined the data to address two of the ECHO data limitations. In its ECHO Data spreadsheet (ERG, 2021), ERG used the reported NAICS codes and faclity names to identify facilities that are non-landfill hazardous waste treatment facilities (e.g., combustors, incinerators) or landfills co-located at commercial and industrial sites. ERG excluded these facilities from the industry profile counts.
To refine the data, ERG added fields to the ECHO information collected to identify facilities that may be subject to the Landfills Category ELGs:
 RCRA Subtitle  -  Identifies the applicable Part 445 Subpart. ERG added "C" for facilities in NAICS code 562211, "D" for facilities in NAICS code 562212, and "C,D" for facilities with both NAICS codes listed.
 Other NAICS?  -  Yes/No field to identify if other industrial codes apply to the facility. ERG entered "No" if only NAICS code 562211 and/or 562212 are reported in ECHO and "Yes" if one or more additional NAICS code applies.
 Industry Type  -  Identifies landfills that meet the applicability criteria of 40 CFR Part 445. Based on the NAICS code and, in some cases, facility name, ERG assigned an industry type as detailed in the ECHO Data spreadsheet (ERG, 2021).
 Table 2 presents the estimated number of landfills based on the ECHO data. In general, the industry counts:
 Include all ECHO facilities with only NAICS codes 562211 and/or 562212 (Other NAICS? = "No"). Note: this may overestimate the number of landfills because NAICS 562211 includes non-landfill hazardous waste treatment facilities.
 These include facilities that list other NAICS codes 56* except for NAICS codes 562213, 562219, and 5629 which underwent further review for the industry profile.
 Include facilities that also list NAICS codes 562213 (combustor, incinerator), 562219 (other waste operation), and 5629 (remediation) if the facility name implies that waste operations include a landfill. For example, the count includes FRSID<PHONE_NUMBER>10 (Santa Maria Landfill), which lists NAICS codes 562211, 562212, and 562213. However, the count does not include FRSID<PHONE_NUMBER>99 (Pavers Supply Portable Trench Burner), which lists NAICS codes 562211 and 562213.
 Include facilities that also list NAICS codes 54 (professional, scientific, and technical Services) or 81 (other services, except public administration) if the facility name implies that the facility is a landfill. For example, the count includes FRSID<PHONE_NUMBER>40 (Reno County Landfill), which lists NAICS codes 562112, 81131, and 562212.
 Include facilities that also list NAICS codes 486 (other pipeline transportation), 71 (arts, entertainment, and recreation), or (92 (public administration) unless the facility name implies it does not conduct waste management operations. ERG assumed these NAICS codes apply to ancillary operations occurring along with the waste management. For example, the industry count includes the following:
 FRSID<PHONE_NUMBER>76 (Blue Ridge Landfill) and FRSID<PHONE_NUMBER>12 (Foothills Environmental), which lists NAICS codes 562212 and 486210.
 FRSID<PHONE_NUMBER>11 (Otter Creek Park Landfill), which lists NAICS codes 562211 and 711110. However, the count does not include FRSID<PHONE_NUMBER>98 (Titusville Municipal Marina), which lists NAICS codes 713930 and 562211.
 FRSID<PHONE_NUMBER>01 (Newport Chemical Depot Reuse Authority), which lists NAICS codes 561431, 562212, and 928110. However, the count does not include FRSID<PHONE_NUMBER>66 (Premont Trench Burner), which lists NAICS codes 562211 and 921190.
 Exclude ECHO facilities reporting other NAICS codes:

 NAICS 11 (Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing, and Hunting)
 NAICS 21 (Mining)
 NAICS 22 (Utilities)
 NAICS 23 (Construction)
 NAICS 31  -  33 (Manufacturing)
 NAICS 42 (Wholesale Trade)
 NAICS 44  -  45 (Retail Trade)
 NAICS 48  -  49 (Transportation and Warehousing), except NAICS code 486
 NAICS 51 (Information)
 NAICS 52 (Finance and Insurance)
 NAICS 53 (Real Estate and Rental and Leasing)
 NAICS 61 (Educational Services)
 NAICS 62 (Health Care and Social Assistance).

 See the Landfills ECHO Data spreadsheet (ERG, 2021) for for further details.

Table 2. Count of Landfills from 2021 ECHO Data
                                  NAICS Code
                               Part 445 Subpart
                              2021 ECHO Count[a]
             NAICS 562211: Hazardous Waste Treatment and Disposal
                 A - RCRA Subtitle C Hazardous Waste Landfills
                                  829  -  964
                      NAICS 562212: Solid Waste Landfills
               B- RCRA Subtitle D Non-Hazardous Waste Landfills
                               10,375  -  10,510
                                    TOTAL
                                    11,339
a  -  A range is presented because 135 facilities listed both NAICS codes and so may be covered under Subpart A or Subpart B.
References
 EPA. 2000. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Development Document for Final Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Landfills Point Source Category. (January). EPA-821-R-99-019. Document Control Number (DCN) PFAS00183.
 EPA. 2021. 2020 Preliminary Review of Industrial Point Source Categories (September). DCN 11104.
 ERG. 2021. Eastern Research Group, Inc. Landfills ECHO Data (spreadsheet). Downloaded June 30, 2021. (September 7). DCN PFAS00188.
 U.S. Census Bureau. North American Industry Classification System (website). https://www.census.gov/naics/

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


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 230 (Friday, December 1, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 56983-56984]
[FR Doc No: 2017-25934]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Docket ID: FEMA-2017-0036; OMB No. 1660-0068]

Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection;
Comment Request; Federal Hotel and Motel Fire Safety Declaration Form

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Emergency Management Agency, as part of its
continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites
the general public to take this opportunity to comment on a revision of
a currently approved information collection. In accordance with the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice seeks comments concerning
a list of hotels, motels, and similar places of public accommodations
meeting minimum fire-safety requirements. The information collected is
voluntary; if approved for listing, the lodging establishment may be
used by Federal employees on government related travel and for Federal
agency conferences. As the list is open to use by the public, non-
government travelers may use the list to identify lodging meeting
minimum life-safety criteria from fire.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before January 30, 2018.

ADDRESSES: To avoid duplicate submissions to the docket, please use
only one of the following means to submit comments:
    (1) Online. Submit comments at www.regulations.gov under Docket ID
FEMA-2017-0036. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
    (2) Mail. Submit written comments to Docket Manager, Office of
Chief Counsel, DHS/FEMA, 500 C Street SW., 8NE, Washington, DC 20472-
3100.
    All submissions received must include the agency name and Docket
ID. Regardless of the method used for submitting comments or material,
all submissions will be posted, without change, to the Federal
eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov, and will include any
personal information you provide. Therefore, submitting this
information makes it public. You may wish to read the Privacy Act
notice that is available via the link in the footer of
www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Teressa Kaas, Fire Program Specialist,
FEMA/U.S. Fire Administration,<PHONE_NUMBER> for additional information.
You may contact the Records Management Division for copies of the
proposed collection of information at email address: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Public Law 101-391 requires FEMA to
establish and maintain a list of hotels, motels, and similar places of
public accommodation meeting minimum requirements for protection of
life from fire; the list is known as the National Master List (NML).
This law resulted from a series of deadly fires in hotels and motels,
occurring in the late 70's and 80's, with high loss of life. The
legislative intent of this public law is to provide all travelers the
assurance of fire-safety in accommodations identified on the National
Master List. Public Law 101-391 further stipulates that Federal
employees on official travel stay in properties approved by the
authority having jurisdiction (AHJ) and listed on the current NML. For
statutory reference see Title 15 U.S.C. 2224-26.

Collection of Information

    Title: Federal Hotel and Motel Fire Safety Declaration Form.
    Type of Information Collection: Revision of a currently approved
information collection.
    OMB Number: 1660-0068.
    FEMA Form: FEMA Form 516-0-1, Federal Hotel and Motel Fire Safety
Declaration Form.
    Abstract: FEMA Form 516-0-1 collects basic information on life-
safety systems related directly to fire-safety in hotels, motels, and
similar places of accommodations applying for inclusion on the National
Master List in compliance with the Hotel and Motel Fire Safety Act of
1990 (Pub. L. 101-391). Information is published in the National Master
List and is publicly available.
    Affected Public: Business or other for-profit; State, Local or
Tribal Government.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 1,330.
    Estimated Number of Responses: 1,897.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 523 hours.
    Estimated Total Annual Respondent Cost: $22,116.82.
    Estimated Respondents' Operation and Maintenance Costs: $0.
    Estimated Respondents' Capital and Start-Up Costs: $0.
    Estimated Total Annual Cost to the Federal Government: $67,971.47.

Comments

    Comments may be submitted as indicated in the ADDRESSES caption
above. Comments are solicited to (a) evaluate whether the proposed data
collection is necessary for the proper

performance of the agency, including whether the information shall have
practical utility; (b) evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate
of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the
validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) enhance the
quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(d) minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who
are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated,
electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or
other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic
submission of responses.

    Dated: November 27, 2017.
Tammi Hines,
Acting Records Management Program Chief, Mission Support, Federal
Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland Security.
[FR Doc. 2017-25934 Filed 11-30-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-4512-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 110 (Friday, June 9, 2017)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 26758-26760]
[FR Doc No: 2017-11000]

========================================================================
Proposed Rules
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of
the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these
notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in
the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.

========================================================================

Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 110 / Friday, June 9, 2017 / Proposed
Rules

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2017-0515; Directorate Identifier 2016-NM-171-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for
certain Airbus Model A300 B4-600, B4-600R, and F4-600R series
airplanes, Model A300 C4-605R Variant F airplanes (collectively called
Model A300-600 series airplanes), and Model A310 series airplanes. This
proposed AD was prompted by reports of unreliable airspeed indications
that were caused by pitot heater resistance shorted to ground. This
proposed AD would require replacement of certain parts. We are
proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by July 24, 2017.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR
11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail address above between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this NPRM, contact Airbus
SAS, Airworthiness Office--EAW, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707
Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone: +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax: +33 5 61 93
44 51; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet: http://www.airbus.com. You may view this referenced service information at the
FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA.
For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call
425-227-1221.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2017-
0515; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and
5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket
contains this proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments
received, and other information. The street address for the Docket
Operations office (telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the ADDRESSES
section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after
receipt.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address
listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2017-0515;
Directorate Identifier 2016-NM-171-AD'' at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposed AD based on those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this proposed AD.

Discussion

    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical
Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD
2016-0195, dated September 30, 2016 (referred to after this as the
Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or ``the MCAI''), to
correct an unsafe condition for certain Airbus Model A300 B4-600, B4-
600R, and F4-600R series airplanes, Model A300 C4-605R Variant F
airplanes (collectively called Model A300-600 series airplanes), and
Model A310 series airplanes. The MCAI states:

    An operator recently reported two events of unreliable airspeed
indications. Investigations revealed that in both events, a Pitot
heater resistance was shorted to ground.
    Pitot probes are heated to prevent ice accretion. De-icing
performance of the Pitot probe might be reduced if Pitot probe
heater degrades over time. The magnitude of de-icing performance
reduction will depend on how much the heater is degraded. The Pitot
probe de-icing reduction will be hidden to the crew (the heater
current detector will not trigger a ``Heat Fault'' because in case
of short-to-case failure the resulting current variation will be
limited).
    In severe icing conditions, if de-icing performances are
significantly reduced, it may cause unreliable airspeed events, with
no cockpit effects except erroneous airspeed indication(s) displayed
on the Primary Flight Display (PFD) or the standby airspeed
indicators.
    Unreliable airspeed indications, if not recognized by the crew,
could possibly result in reduced control of the aeroplane.
    To ensure proper crew awareness of unreliable airspeed
indication(s) situation, Airbus introduced a dedicated Electronic
Centralised Aircraft Monitoring (ECAM) Warning (Indicated Airspeed
Discrepancy Warning).
    The following configuration is required to enable this ECAM
Warning:

--The Flight Warning Computer (FWC) standard S17 has to be installed
by accomplishing Service Bulletins (SB) A310-31-2144 or A300-31-
6140: This requirement was already rendered mandatory by EASA AD
2015-0174;
--The ECAM Symbol Generator Unit (SGU), standard W32, Part Number
(P/N)<PHONE_NUMBER> has to be installed, by accomplishing Service
Bulletins (SB) A310-31-2123, A300-31-6124 or SB A300-31-6113.

    For the reason described above, this [EASA] AD requires a
software standard upgrade of the ECAM SGU.

    You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for

and locating Docket No. FAA-2017-0515.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    Airbus has issued the following service information:
     Airbus Service Bulletin A300-31-6113, Revision 03, dated
July 5, 2016 (for Model A300-600 series airplanes).
     Airbus Service Bulletin A300-31-6124, Revision 01, dated
July 4, 2016 (for Model A300-600 series airplanes).
     Airbus Service Bulletin A310-31-2123, Revision 01, dated
July 1, 2016 (for Model A310 series airplanes).
    The service information describes procedures for replacement of the
ECAM SGU. These documents are distinct since they apply to different
airplane configurations. This service information is reasonably
available because the interested parties have access to it through
their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
ADDRESSES section.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another
country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant
to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have
been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service
information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we
evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition
exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of these
same type designs.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 139 airplanes of U.S.
registry. We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed
AD:

                                                                     Estimated Costs
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                          Labor cost                   Parts cost                Cost per product         Cost on U.S.  operators
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Replacement.........................  Up to 4 work-hours x $85     Up to $2,360...............  Up to $2,700...............  Up to $375,300.
                                       per hour = Up to $340.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Proposed Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13   [Amended]

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

Airbus: Docket No. FAA-2017-0515; Directorate Identifier 2016-NM-
171-AD.

(a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by July 24, 2017.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to the Airbus airplanes identified in paragraphs
(c)(1), (c)(2), (c)(3), (c)(4), and (c)(5) of this AD, certificated
in any category, all manufacturer serial numbers, except those on
which Airbus modification 12691 or 13665 has been embodied in
production.
    (1) Airbus Model A300 B4-601, B4-603, B4-620, and B4-622
airplanes.
    (2) Airbus Model A300 B4-605R and B4-622R airplanes.
    (3) Airbus Model A300 F4-605R and F4-622R airplanes.
    (4) Airbus Model A300 C4-605R Variant F airplanes.
    (5) Airbus Model A310-203, -204, -221, -222, -304, -322, -324,
and -325 airplanes.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 31, Instruments.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by reports of unreliable airspeed
indications that were caused by pitot heater resistance shorted to
ground. We are issuing this AD to ensure proper flightcrew awareness
of unreliable airspeed indications. This condition, if not
recognized by the flightcrew, could possibly result in reduced
control of the airplane.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Replacement of the Electronic Centralized Aircraft Monitoring
(ECAM) Symbol Generator Unit (SGU)

    Within 36 months after the effective date of this AD, replace
the ECAM SGU with a new ECAM SGU (standard W32), in accordance with
the Accomplishment Instructions of the service information
identified in paragraph (g)(1), (g)(2), or (g)(3), as applicable.
    (1) For Airbus Model A300 B4-601, B4-603, B4-620, and B4-622
airplanes; Model A300 B4-605R and B4-622R airplanes; and Model A300
C4-605R Variant F airplanes: Airbus Service Bulletin A300-31-6113,
Revision 03, dated July 5, 2016.

    (2) For Airbus Model A300 F4-605R and F4-622R airplanes: Airbus
Service Bulletin A300-31-6124, Revision 01, dated July 4, 2016.
    (3) For Airbus Model A310-203, -204, -221, -222, -304, -322, -
324, and -325 airplanes: Airbus Service Bulletin A310-31-2123,
Revision 01, dated July 1, 2016.

(h) Parts Installation Prohibition

    (1) As of the effective date of this AD, for any airplane that
has ECAM SGU standard W32, part number<PHONE_NUMBER>, installed, no
person may install an ECAM SGU standard prior to W32.
    (2) For any airplane that has an ECAM SGU standard prior to W32,
after modification of that airplane, no person may install an ECAM
SGU standard prior to W32.

(i) Credit for Previous Actions

    This paragraph provides credit for actions required by paragraph
(g) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective
date of this AD using the service information specified in paragraph
(i)(1), (i)(2), or (i)(3) of this AD, as applicable.
    (1) Airbus Service Bulletin A300-31-6113, Revision 02, dated
September 4, 2014.
    (2) Airbus Service Bulletin A300-31-6124, dated October 13,
2005.
    (3) Airbus Service Bulletin A310-31-2123, dated January 4, 2006.

(j) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
International Branch, ANM-116, FAA, has the authority to approve
AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR
39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your
principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as
appropriate. If sending information directly to the International
Branch, send it to the attention of the person identified in
paragraph (k)(2) of this AD. Information may be emailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Before using any approved AMOC, notify
your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal
inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district
office/certificate holding district office.
    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD
to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer, the action must be
accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, International
Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or the
European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA); or Airbus's EASA Design
Organization Approval (DOA). If approved by the DOA, the approval
must include the DOA-authorized signature.
    (3) Required for Compliance (RC): If any service information
contains procedures or tests that are identified as RC, those
procedures and tests must be done to comply with this AD; any
procedures or tests that are not identified as RC are recommended.
Those procedures and tests that are not identified as RC may be
deviated from using accepted methods in accordance with the
operator's maintenance or inspection program without obtaining
approval of an AMOC, provided the procedures and tests identified as
RC can be done and the airplane can be put back in an airworthy
condition. Any substitutions or changes to procedures or tests
identified as RC require approval of an AMOC.

(k) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information
(MCAI) EASA AD 2016-0195, dated September 30, 2016, for related
information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the Internet
at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket
No. FAA-2017-0515.
    (2) For more information about this AD, contact Dan Rodina,
Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport
Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-
3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Airbus SAS, Airworthiness Office--EAW, 1 Rond Point Maurice
Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone: +33 5 61 93 36 96;
fax: +33 5 61 93 44 51; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Internet: http://www.airbus.com. You may view this service
information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind
Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this
material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on May 18, 2017.
Michael Kaszycki,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2017-11000 Filed 6-8-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


Nominating Party: The United States of America

FILE NAME: USA CUN13 Soil Strawberry Nursery Open Field

Brief descriptive Title of Nomination:

Methyl Bromide Critical Use Nomination for Preplant Soil Use for
Strawberry Nursery in Open Fields (Submitted in 2011 for the 2013 Use
Season)

Crop name (open field or protected): Strawberry Nursery Open Field

Quantity of methyl bromide Nominated:

Table 1. Quantity of Methyl Bromide Nominated

Year	Nomination Amount

2013	3,752 kg

NOMINATING PARTY CONTACT DETAILS:

Contact Person:	John Thompson

Title:	Division Director

Address:	Office of Environmental Policy

	U.S. Department of State

	2201 C Street, N.W. Room 2658

	Washington, D.C. 20520

	U.S.A.

Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>

Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>

E-mail:	  HYPERLINK<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Following the requirements of Decision IX/6 paragraph (a)(1) The United
States of America has determined that the specific use detailed in this
Critical Use Nomination is critical because the lack of availability of
methyl bromide for this use would result in a significant market
disruption.                  ■ Yes	            ( No

Signature			       	Name					Date

Title:

(Details on this page are requested under Decision Ex. I/4(7), for
posting on the Ozone Secretariat website under Decision Ex. I/4(8).)

In assessing nominations submitted in this format, TEAP and MBTOC will
also refer to the original nomination on which the Party’s first-year
exemption was approved, as well as any supplementary information
provided by the Party in relation to that original nomination.  As this
earlier information is retained by MBTOC, a Party need not re-submit
that earlier information.

CONTACT OR EXPERT(S) FOR FURTHER TECHNICAL DETAILS:

Contact/Expert Person:	Jack Housenger

Title:	Director

Address:	Biological and Economic Analysis Division

	Office of Pesticide Programs

	U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

	1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Mailcode 7503P

	Washington, D.C. 20460

	U.S.A.

Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>

Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>

E-mail:	  HYPERLINK<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>

LIST OF DOCUMENTS SENT TO THE OZONE SECRETARIAT IN OFFICIAL NOMINATION
PACKAGE:

1.  PAPER DOCUMENTS:

Title of paper documents and appendices	No. of pages	Date sent to Ozone
Secretariat

2.  ELECTRONIC COPIES OF ALL PAPER DOCUMENTS:

*Title of each electronic file (for naming convention see notes above)
No. of kilobytes 	Date sent to Ozone Secretariat

USA CUN13 Soil Strawberry Nursery Open Field

* Identical to paper documents

METHYL BROMIDE CRITICAL USE RENOMINATION FOR Preplant Soil Use (OPEN
FIELD OR PROTECTED ENVIRONMENT)

STRAWBERRY NURSERY

SUMMARY OF THE NEED FOR METHYL BROMIDE AS A CRITICAL USE

Methyl bromide has been the long-time standard in nurseries for the
treatment of soils to achieve pest-free certification of nursery stock.
The U.S. is nominating strawberry nurseries in California for a critical
use exemption for methyl bromide for use in 2013 (Table 1).  Currently
in California only methyl bromide and 1,3-D are specified treatments for
nursery stock certification (e.g., CDFA, 2009—NIPM #7).  By
regulation, the use of 1,3-D is limited to soils where soil moisture and
texture are amenable to nematicidal activity.  According to the
California Strawberry Nursery Association growers on sandy soils have
been able to use 1,3-D/chloropicrin mixtures as an approved treatment
but the nomination is for the critical use of methyl bromide on 19 ha
where 1,3-D is not an approved treatment, is not economically feasible
or is limited by township caps.  No other alternate strategies are
approved for certification purposes.

The U.S. Government (USG) has reviewed all factors affecting transition
rates in this sector.  Based on this assessment the transition rate has
been greatly increased for this sector.  For the area covered in this
nomination, the USG believes that the narrative discussion included in
this document is technically valid.  The USG has nominated amounts of
methyl bromide based only on those sub-sectors that cannot transition
away from methyl bromide at the accelerated rate.

2.	Summarize why key alternatives are not feasible

California nurseries currently use methyl bromide on all of their land
for transplants designated as quarantine pre-shipment (QPS), which makes
up 99% of methyl bromide use by nurseries.  For the 2013 season, methyl
bromide continues to be critical for California strawberry nurseries for
22 ha of non-QPS uses where there are regulatory restrictions on 1,3-D
and chloropicrin.

Regulations in California on the use of 1,3-D and chloropicrin restrict
their use in some locations, such as clay soils and where township caps
are in place.  Research trials in California have indicated that
iodomethane/chloropicrin, 1,3-D/chloropicrin followed by dazomet, and
chloropicrin followed by dazomet provided similar pest control in runner
nurseries when compared to methyl bromide/chloropicrin (e.g., Fennimore
et al., 2008a; Kabir et al., 2005).  The use of low permeable films has
improved efficacy of alternatives.

3.	is the use covered by A certification STANDARD?

The certification for strawberry nurseries (e.g., CDFA, 2009) located in
California includes zero tolerance for damaging diseases and
plant-parasitic nematodes in order to minimize the spread of these pests
to production fields.  State authorities may determine appropriate
measures to achieve pest-free designation.  California describes methods
to prepare field soils using methyl bromide or 1,3-D (CDFA, 2009—NIPM
#7).  California regulations (e.g., CDFA, 2009—NIPM #3) for nursery
standards (reg. 3060.2-a) include:

“All nursery stock shall be kept ‘commercially’ clean with respect
to established pests of general distribution.  Commercially clean shall
mean that pests are under effective control, are present only to a light
degree, and that only a few of the plants in any lot or block of nursery
stock or on the premises show any infestation or infection, and of these
none show more than a few individuals of any insect, animal or weed
pests, or more than a few individual infestations of any plant
disease.”

4.	If part of the crop area is treated with methyl bromide, indicate the
reason why methyl bromide is not used in the other area, and identify
what alternative strategies are used to control the target pathogens and
weeds without methyl bromide there.

All nurseries currently treat soils with methyl bromide.  This
nomination is only for approximately 1% of nursery soils not designated
as QPS and where 1,3-D is not effective or available due to regulatory
requirements of soil type, moisture, or township caps.

5.	Would it be feasible to expand the use of these methods to cover at
least part of the crop that has requested use of methyl bromide? What
changes would be necessary to enable this?

As previously stated, methyl bromide is critical for the small number of
non-QPS hectares that cannot be treated with 1,3-D due to soil type,
moisture, or township caps.  The USG has reviewed all factors affecting
transition rates in this sector.  Based on this assessment the
transition rate has been greatly increased for most portions of this
sector.  For the area covered in this nomination, the USG believes that
the narrative discussion included in this document is technically valid.
 The USG has nominated amounts of methyl bromide based only on those
sub-sectors that cannot transition away from methyl bromide at the
accelerated rate.

6.	SUMMARY OF RECENT RESEARCH

Research results for strawberry nurseries were not presented at the MBAO
meeting in 2010.  Previous research for the strawberry runner nurseries
in California (e.g., Fennimore et al., 2008a; Kabir et al., 2005) has
indicated that in research plots some alternatives appear to provide
pest management levels comparable to traditional methyl bromide
treatments.  However, restrictions or lack of efficacy of 1,3-D has
resulted in the critical need for methyl bromide for a small portion of
California nurseries.

Previous research (e.g., Larson and Shaw, 2007) suggested that
inconsistent efficacy of alternatives remains the greatest problem for
transition to alternatives by this industry (this was also the case for
nurseries in Spain; see, e.g., Garcia-Mendez et al., 2007).
Alternatives that have been evaluated in research trials over the past
several years are 1,3-D/chloropicrin, 1,3-D/chloropicrin + metam-sodium,
1,3-D and metam-sodium, and dazomet as a follow-up application to
1,3-D/chloropicrin or chloropicrin (Fennimore et al., 2008b).

For the effective production of runner plants, weeds must be kept to a
minimum.  Recently a report on weed control was published (Fennimore et
al., 2008a).  Results indicated that iodomethane/chloropicrin,
1,3-D/chloropicrin followed by dazomet, chloropicrin followed by
dazomet, and methyl bromide/chloropicrin all provided comparable weed
control with similar hand-weeding costs.  Costs of iodomethane for
California nurseries were considered uncertain since it is not currently
on the market for commercial use in California.  A cost analysis for
alternatives for California strawberry nurseries is presented in this
document.

The industry continues to refine protocols for effective alternatives,
but this requires several seasons of data gathering.  For example, the
use of 1,3-D/chloropicrin followed by dazomet or chloropicrin followed
by dazomet appeared more effective in nursery trials in California
(Kabir et al., 2005) than previous nursery trials where chloropicrin was
applied alone (Larson and Shaw, 2000).  Fennimore et al. (2008b) found
variable effects and indicated that further research is necessary to
optimize the treatment regime.  By optimizing methods identified through
research alternative strategies are being identified.

7.  ECONOMIC FEASIBILITY OF ALTERNATIVES

This study calculated net revenue as gross revenue minus operating
costs.  This is a good measure of the direct losses of income that may
be suffered by the users.  It should be noted that net revenue does not
represent net income to the users. Net income, which indicates
profitability of an operation for an enterprise, is gross revenue minus
the sum of operating and fixed costs.  Net income is smaller than the
net revenue measured in this study, often substantially so.  We did not
include fixed costs because they are difficult to measure and verify.

The economic analysis of the strawberry nursery applications compared
data on yields, crop prices, revenues and costs using methyl bromide and
using alternative pest control regimens in order to estimate the loss of
methyl bromide availability.  The alternatives identified as technically
feasible – in cases of low pest infestation – for California are
1,3-D + chloropicrin followed by metam sodium.  Iodomethane plus
chloropicrin was registered in California on December of 2010.  However,
the rates are lower than those previously tested on strawberry nursery
plants and the buffers are up to 10 times larger than the rest of the
U.S.

The economic factors that really drives the feasibility analysis for
nursery stock production uses of methyl bromide are: (1) yield losses,
referring to reductions in the quantity produced, (2) increased
production costs, which may be due to the higher-cost of using an
alternative, additional pest control requirements, and/or resulting
shifts in other production or harvesting practices (3) quality losses,
which generally affect the quantity and price received for the goods,
and (4) missed market windows due to plant back time restrictions, which
also affect the quantity and price received for the goods.

The economic reviewers then analyzed crop budgets for pre-plant sectors
to determine the likely economic impact if methyl bromide were
unavailable.  Various measures were used to quantify the impacts,
including the following:

(1) Loss per Hectare.  For crops, this measure is closely tied to
income.  It is relatively easy to measure, but may be difficult to
interpret in isolation.

(2) Loss per Kilogram of Methyl Bromide.  This measure indicates the
value of methyl bromide to crop production.

(3) Loss as a Percentage of Gross Revenue.  This measure has the
advantage that gross revenues are usually easy to measure, at least over
some unit, e.g., a hectare of land or a storage operation.  However,
high value commodities or crops may provide high revenues but may also
entail high costs.  Losses of even a small percentage of gross revenues
could have important impacts on the profitability of the activity.

(4) Loss as a Percentage of Net Operating Revenue.  We define net cash
revenues as gross revenues minus operating costs.  This is a very good
indicator as to the direct losses of income that may be suffered by the
owners or operators of an enterprise.  However, operating costs can
often be difficult to measure and verify.

(5) Operating Profit Margin.  We define operating profit margin to be
net operating revenue divided by gross revenue per hectare.  This
measure would provide the best indication of the total impact of the
loss of methyl bromide to an enterprise.  Again, operating costs may be
difficult to measure and fixed costs even more difficult, therefore
fixed costs were not included in the analysis.

These measures represent different ways to assess the economic
feasibility of methyl bromide alternatives for methyl bromide users, who
are strawberry nursery producers in this case.  Because producers
(suppliers) represent an integral part of any definition of a market, we
interpret the threshold of significant market disruption to be met if
there is a significant impact on commodity suppliers using methyl
bromide.  The economic measures provide the basis for making that
determination.

California strawberry nursery growers are not expected to see any yield
or quality impacts with 1,3-D/chloropicrin plus metam sodium (Table 2).
But, the new registration of iodomethane plus chloropicrin in California
is at a rate lower than those previously tested and may lead to yield
and quality losses.

Table 2.  California Strawberry Growers Association  : Economic Impacts
of Methyl Bromide Alternatives.

California SGA	Methyl Bromide	Iodomethane (Reg. Dec 2010)	1,3 D + PIC

fb metam

Production  Loss (%) 	0%	0%	10%

   Production per Hectare 	372	372	235

* Price per Unit (us$)	$ 110.23	$ 110.23	$ 110.23

= Gross Revenue per Hectare (us$)	$ 41,019	$ 41,019	$ 36,918

- Operating Costs per Hectare (us$)**	$ 28,585	$ 43,295	$ 44,788

= Net Revenue per Hectare (us$)	$ 12,434	$ (2,276)	$ (7,870)

Loss Measures *

1. Loss per Hectare (us$)	$ 0	$ 14,710	$ 20.305

2. Loss per Kilogram of Methyl Bromide (us$)	$ 0	$ 55.85	$ 77.09

3. Loss as a Percentage of Gross Revenue (%)	0%	36%	50%

4. Loss as a Percentage of Net Operating Revenue (%)	0%	118%	163%

5. Operating Profit Margin (%)	30%	-6%	-21%

**Note that the measures in the tables below must be interpreted
carefully.  Operating costs do not include fixed costs and net revenue
equals gross revenue minus operating costs.  Production numbers with
iodomethane and the lower use rates in California are still pending.

8.  RESULTANT CHANGES TO REQUESTED EXEMPTION QUANTITIES

Table 3:  Nomination Amount (2013)

CITATIONS

CDFA (California Department of Food and Agriculture).  2009.   HYPERLINK
"http://www.cdfa.ca.gov/phpps/PE/Nursery/NIPM.html"
http://www.cdfa.ca.gov/phpps/PE/Nursery/NIPM.html

 Regulation for nursery and seed inspection (NIPM #3),   HYPERLINK
"http://www.cdfa.ca.gov//phpps/PE/Nursery/pdfs/nipm_3_regs_nsy_sees_insp
.pdf"
http://www.cdfa.ca.gov//phpps/PE/Nursery/pdfs/nipm_3_regs_nsy_sees_insp.
pdf ;

 Approved treatment and handling procedures to ensure against nematode
pest infestation of nursery stock (NIPM #7),   HYPERLINK
"http://www.cdfa.ca.gov/phpps/PE/Nursery/pdfs/NIPM_7.pdf"
http://www.cdfa.ca.gov/phpps/PE/Nursery/pdfs/NIPM_7.pdf  ; CDFA
Strawberry Registration and Certification Program,   HYPERLINK
"http://fpms.ucdavis.edu/Strawberry/CDFAStrawRegs.html"
http://fpms.ucdavis.edu/Strawberry/CDFAStrawRegs.html

Fennimore, S. A., Haar, M. J., Goodhue, R. E., and Winterbottom, C. Q.
2008a. Weed control in strawberry runner plant nurseries with methyl
bromide alternative fumigants. HortScience 43(5):1495-1500.

Fennimore, S. A., Duniway, J. M., Browne, G. T., Martin, F. N., Ajwa, H.
A., Westerdahl, B.B., Goodhue, R. E., Haar, M., and Winterbottom, C.
2008b. Methyl bromide alternatives evaluated for California strawberry
nurseries. California Agriculture 62(2):62-67.   HYPERLINK
"http://repositories.cdlib.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3194&context=
anrcs/californiaagriculture"
http://repositories.cdlib.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3194&context=a
nrcs/californiaagriculture

Garcia-Mendez, E., De Cal, A., Melgarejo, P., Salto, T.,
Martinez-Beringola, M. L., Redondo, C., Martinez-Treceno, A., Becerril,
M., Andrade, M. A., Medina, J. J., Soria, C., Lopez-Aranda, J. M., and
Garcia-Sinovas, D. 2007. Strawberry nurseries in Spain: alternatives to
methyl bromide, 2006 results. Annual International Research Conference
on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions Reductions (2007).
HYPERLINK
"http://www.mbao.org/2007/Proceedings/063Lopez-ArandaJSpainExperimentsNu
rsery2006.pdf"
http://www.mbao.org/2007/Proceedings/063Lopez-ArandaJSpainExperimentsNur
sery2006.pdf

Kabir, Z., Fennimore, S. A., Duniway, J. M., Martin, F. N., Browne, G.
T., Winterbottom, C. Q., Ajwa, H. A., Westerdahl, B. B., Goodhue, R. E.,
and Haar, M. J.  2005.  Alternatives to methyl bromide for strawberry
runner plant production. HortScience 40(6):1709-1715.

Larson, K. D., and Shaw, D.V. 2007. Strawberry nursery soil fumigation
and runner transplant fruit production.  2007 Annual International
Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions
Reductions.   HYPERLINK
"http://www.mbao.org/2007/Proceedings/072LarsonKStrawberrynurserysoilfum
igation.pdf"
http://www.mbao.org/2007/Proceedings/072LarsonKStrawberrynurserysoilfumi
gation.pdf

Larson, K. D., and Shaw, D.V. 2000. Soil Fumigation and Runner Plant
Production: A Synthesis of 4 Yrs of Strawberry Nursery Field Trials.
HortSci 35(4):642-646.

 The USG does not request methyl bromide for use in areas of low to
moderate pest pressure.  Only cases where key pests are present at
moderate to high levels require methyl bromide for pest pressure.

USA CUN13 Soil Strawberry Nursery Open Field -CA		Page   PAGE  1  of
NUMPAGES  8


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 183 (Monday, September 22, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 56485-56486]
[FR Doc No: 2014-22340]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 25

[Docket No. FAA-2013-0900; Special Conditions No. 25-540-SC]

Special Conditions: Airbus Model A350-900 airplane; General
Limiting Requirements

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final special conditions.

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

SUMMARY: These special conditions are issued for Airbus Model A350-900
airplanes. These airplanes will have a novel or unusual design feature
associated with general limiting requirements of its flight-envelope
protection features. The applicable airworthiness regulations do not
contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for this design
feature. These special conditions contain the additional safety
standards that the Administrator considers necessary to establish a
level of safety equivalent to that established by the existing
airworthiness standards.

DATES: Effective September 22, 2014.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joe Jacobsen, FAA, Airplane and
Flightcrew Interface, ANM-111, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft
Certification Service, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington 98057-
3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; facsimile<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On August 25, 2008, Airbus applied for a type certificate for their
new Model A350-900 airplane. Later, Airbus requested, and the FAA
approved, an extension to the application for FAA type certification to
November 15, 2009. The Model A350-900 airplane has a conventional
layout with twin wing-mounted Rolls-Royce Trent XWB engines. It
features a twin aisle, 9-abreast, economy-class layout, and
accommodates side-by-side placement of LD-3 containers in the cargo
compartment. The basic Model A350-900 airplane configuration will
accommodate 315 passengers in a standard two-class arrangement. The
design cruise speed is Mach 0.85 with a maximum take-off weight of
602,000 lbs.

Type Certification Basis

    Under Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) 21.17, Airbus
must show that the Model A350-900 airplane meets the applicable
provisions of 14 CFR part 25, as amended by Amendments 25-1 through 25-
129.
    If the Administrator finds that the applicable airworthiness
regulations (i.e., 14 CFR part 25) do not contain adequate or
appropriate safety standards for the Model A350-900 airplane because of
a novel or unusual design feature, special conditions are prescribed
under Sec.  21.16.
    Special conditions are initially applicable to the model for which
they are issued. Should the type certificate for that model be amended
later to include any other model that incorporates the same or similar
novel or unusual design feature, the special conditions would also
apply to the other model under Sec.  21.101.
    In addition to the applicable airworthiness regulations and special
conditions, the Model A350-900 airplane must comply with the fuel-vent
and exhaust-emission requirements of 14 CFR part 34, and the noise-
certification requirements of 14 CFR part 36. The FAA must issue a
finding of regulatory adequacy under Sec.  611 of Public Law 92-574,
the ``Noise Control Act of 1972.''
    The FAA issues special conditions, as defined in 14 CFR 11.19,
under Sec.  11.38, and they become part of the type-certification basis
under Sec.  21.17(a)(2).

Novel or Unusual Design Features

    The Airbus Model A350-900 airplane incorporates the following novel
or unusual design features: General limiting requirements for the
flight-envelope protection system.

Discussion

    These special conditions, and the following that pertain to flight-
envelope protection, present general limiting requirements for all the
unique flight-envelope protection features of the basic Model A350
airplane's electronic flight-control system (EFCS) design. Current
regulations do not address these types of protection features. The
general limiting requirements are necessary to ensure a smooth
transition from normal flight to the protection mode and adequate
maneuver capability. The general limiting requirements also ensure that
the structural limits of the airplane are not exceeded. Furthermore,
failure of the flight-envelope protection feature must not create
hazardous flight conditions. Envelope-protection parameters include
angle of attack, normal load factor, bank angle, pitch angle, and
speed. To accomplish these envelope protections, one or more
significant changes occur in the EFCS control laws as the normal
flight-

envelope limit is approached or exceeded.
    Flight-envelope protection is the subject of several special
conditions for the A350. Each specific type of envelope protection is
addressed individually, but some requirements are common to all
limiting systems and are therefore put forth as general limiting
requirements.
    These special conditions contain the additional safety standards
that the Administrator considers necessary to establish a level of
safety equivalent to that established by the existing airworthiness
standards.

Discussion of Comments

    Notice of Proposed Special Conditions No. 25-12-08-SC for Airbus
Model A350-900 airplanes was published in the Federal Register on
January 14, 2014 (79 FR 2387). No comments were received, and the
special conditions are adopted as proposed.

Applicability

    As discussed above, these special conditions apply to Airbus Model
A350-900 airplane. Should Airbus apply later for a change to the type
certificate to include another model incorporating the same novel or
unusual design feature, the special conditions would apply to that
model as well.
    Under standard practice, the effective date of final special
conditions would be 30 days after the date of publication in the
Federal Register; however, as the certification date for the Airbus
Model A350-900 airplane is imminent, the FAA finds that good cause
exists to make these special conditions effective upon publication.

Conclusion

    This action affects only certain novel or unusual design features
on the Airbus Model A350-900 airplane. It is not a rule of general
applicability.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 25

    Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.

    The authority citation for these special conditions is as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701, 44702, 44704.

The Special Conditions

    Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the following special conditions are issued as part of
the type-certification basis for Airbus Model 350-900 airplanes.

General Limiting Requirements

    a. Onset characteristics of each flight-envelope protection feature
must be smooth, appropriate to the phase of flight and type of
maneuver, and not in conflict with the ability of the pilot to
satisfactorily change airplane flight path, speed, or attitude as
needed.
    b. Limit values of protected flight parameters (and, if applicable,
associated warning thresholds) must be compatible with the following:
    (1) Airplane structural limits,
    (2) Required safe and controllable maneuvering of the airplane, and
    (3) Margins to critical conditions. Unsafe flight characteristics/
conditions must not result if dynamic maneuvering, airframe, and system
tolerances (both manufacturing and in-service), and non-steady
atmospheric conditions, in any appropriate combination and phase of
flight, can produce a limited flight parameter beyond the nominal
design limit value.
    c. The airplane must be responsive to intentional dynamic
maneuvering to within a suitable range of the parameter limit. Dynamic
characteristics such as damping and overshoot must also be appropriate
for the flight-maneuver and limit parameter in question.
    d. When simultaneous envelope limiting is engaged, adverse coupling
or adverse priority must not result.

Failure States

    EFCS failures (including sensor) must not result in a condition
where a parameter is limited to such a reduced value that safe and
controllable maneuvering is no longer available. The crew must be
alerted by suitable means if any change in envelope limiting or
maneuverability is produced by single or multiple failures of the EFCS
not shown to be extremely improbable.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on August 27, 2014.
Jeffrey E. Duven,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2014-22340 Filed 9-19-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P