[Federal Register: May 4, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 85)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 23568-23571]
[DOCID:fr04my10-3]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2009-1250; Directorate Identifier 2008-NM-169-AD;
Amendment 39-16276; AD 2010-09-11]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; BAE Systems (Operations) Limited Model
BAe 146-100A, -200A, and -300A Series Airplanes, and Model Avro 146-
RJ70A, 146-RJ85A, and 146-RJ100A Airplanes

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are superseding an existing airworthiness directive (AD)
for the products listed above. This AD results from mandatory
continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) originated by an aviation
authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe
condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe
condition as:

    In 1991, the UK Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) issued AD 015-08-
91 [which corresponds to FAA AD 93-01-11], requiring the
accomplishment of inspections of, and in case of crack findings,
corrective actions on, the wing top skin at rib `0' of pre-
modification HCM00851C BAe 146 series aircraft in accordance with
British Aerospace Service Bulletin (SB) 57-41 dated 26 July 1991.
Recently, BAE Systems (Operations) Ltd has determined that a revised
inspection programme for the wing top skin and joint strap at rib
`0' on all BAe 146 and AVRO 146-RJ aircraft is necessary to assure
the continued structural integrity of this area. Cracking of the
wing centre section top skin, if undetected, could lead to
structural failure and consequent loss of the aircraft.
* * * * *

We are issuing this AD to require actions to correct the unsafe
condition on these products.

DATES: This AD becomes effective June 8, 2010.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of June 8,
2010.
    On March 2, 1993 (58 FR 6081, January 26, 1993), the Director of
the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a
certain other publication listed in this AD.

ADDRESSES: You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://
www.regulations.gov or in person at the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Todd Thompson, Aerospace Engineer,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA,
1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone (425)
227-1175; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 to include an AD that would apply to the specified products.
That NPRM was published in the Federal Register on January 12, 2010 (75
FR 1563), and proposed to supersede AD 93-01-11, Amendment 39-8465 (58
FR 6081, January 26, 1993). That NPRM proposed to correct an unsafe
condition for the specified products. The MCAI states:

    In 1991, the UK Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) issued AD 015-08-
91 [which corresponds to FAA AD 93-01-11], requiring the
accomplishment of inspections of, and in case of crack findings,
corrective actions on, the wing top skin at rib `0' of pre-
modification HCM00851C BAe 146 series aircraft in accordance with
British Aerospace Service Bulletin (SB) 57-41 dated 26 July 1991.
Recently, BAE Systems (Operations) Ltd has determined that a revised
inspection programme for the wing top skin and joint

strap at rib `0' on all BAe 146 and AVRO 146-RJ aircraft is
necessary to assure the continued structural integrity of this area.
Cracking of the wing centre section top skin, if undetected, could
lead to structural failure and consequent loss of the aircraft.
    For the reasons described above, this new EASA [European
Aviation Safety Agency] AD supersedes UK CAA AD 015-08-91 and
requires repetitive high-frequency eddy current (HFEC),
radiographic, ultrasonic, and detailed visual inspections [for
cracking and corrosion] of the wing top skin and joint strap at rib
`0', the reporting of all inspection results to BAE Systems and, in
case of findings, the accomplishment of corrective actions.

The corrective actions include repairing cracking and corrosion, and
contacting BAE Systems (Operations) Limited for repair instructions and
doing the repair. You may obtain further information by examining the
MCAI in the AD docket.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD. We received no comments on the NPRM or on the determination of
the cost to the public.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the available data and determined that air safety and
the public interest require adopting the AD as proposed.

Differences Between This AD and the MCAI or Service Information

    We have reviewed the MCAI and related service information and, in
general, agree with their substance. But we might have found it
necessary to use different words from those in the MCAI to ensure the
AD is clear for U.S. operators and is enforceable. In making these
changes, we do not intend to differ substantively from the information
provided in the MCAI and related service information.
    We might also have required different actions in this AD from those
in the MCAI in order to follow our FAA policies. Any such differences
are highlighted in a NOTE within the AD.

Explanation of Change to Costs of Compliance

    After the NPRM was issued, we reviewed the figures we have used
over the past several years to calculate AD costs to operators. To
account for various inflationary costs in the airline industry, we find
it necessary to increase the labor rate used in these calculations from
$80 per work hour to $85 per work hour. The cost impact information,
below, reflects this increase in the specified hourly labor rate.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD will affect about 1 product of U.S.
registry.
    The actions that are required by AD 93-01-11 and retained in this
AD take about 4 work-hours per product, at an average labor rate of $85
per work hour. Based on these figures, the estimated cost of the
currently required actions is $340 per product.
    We estimate that it will take about 4 work-hours per product to
comply with the new basic requirements of this AD. The average labor
rate is $85 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost
of this AD to the U.S. operators to be $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 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 this AD:
    1. Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order
12866;
    2. Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and
    3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to
comply with this AD and placed it in the AD docket.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://
www.regulations.gov; or in person at the Docket Operations office
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains the NPRM, the regulatory evaluation,
any comments received, and other information. The street address for
the Docket Operations office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the
ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly
after receipt.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

0
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator,
the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by removing Amendment 39-8465 (58 FR
6081, January 26, 1993) and adding the following new AD:

2010-09-11 BAE Systems (Operations) Limited: Amendment 39-16276.
Docket No. FAA-2009-1250; Directorate Identifier 2008-NM-169-AD.

Effective Date

    (a) This airworthiness directive (AD) becomes effective June 8,
2010.

Affected ADs

    (b) The AD supersedes AD 93-01-11, Amendment 39-8465.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to all BAE SYSTEMS (Operations) Limited
Model BAe 146-100A, -200A, and -300A series airplanes, and Model
Avro 146-RJ70A, 146-RJ85A, and 146-RJ100A airplanes; certificated in
any category.

Subject

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

Reason

    (e) The mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI)
states:
    In 1991, the UK Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) issued AD 015-08-
91 [which corresponds to FAA AD 93-01-11], requiring the
accomplishment of inspections of, and in case of crack findings,
corrective actions on, the wing top skin at rib `0' of pre-

modification HCM00851C BAe 146 series aircraft in accordance with
British Aerospace Service Bulletin (SB) 57-41 dated 26 July 1991.
Recently, BAE Systems (Operations) Ltd has determined that a revised
inspection programme for the wing top skin and joint strap at rib
`0' on all BAe 146 and AVRO 146-RJ aircraft is necessary to assure
the continued structural integrity of this area. Cracking of the
wing centre section top skin, if undetected, could lead to
structural failure and consequent loss of the aircraft.
    For the reasons described above, this new EASA [European
Aviation Safety Agency] AD supersedes UK CAA AD 015-08-91 and
requires repetitive high-frequency eddy current (HFEC),
radiographic, ultrasonic, and detailed visual inspections [for
cracking and corrosion] of the wing top skin and joint strap at rib
`0', the reporting of all inspection results to BAE Systems and, in
case of findings, the accomplishment of corrective actions.

The corrective actions include repairing cracking and corrosion, and
contacting BAE Systems (Operations) Limited for repair instructions
and doing the repair.

Restatement of Requirements of AD 93-01-11, With No Changes

    (f) Unless already done, for Model BAe 146-100A, -200A, and -
300A series airplanes: Prior to the accumulation of 24,000 landings,
or within 60 days after March 2, 1993 (the effective date of AD 93-
01-11), whichever occurs later: Perform an X-ray inspection to
detect fatigue cracks in the left and right wing upper skins, joint
straps, and stringers in the vicinity of rib ``0,'' in accordance
with British Aerospace Inspection Service Bulletin 57-41, dated July
26, 1991. Doing the inspection required by paragraph (g)(1) of this
AD terminates the inspection required by this paragraph.
    (1) If cracks are found, prior to further flight, repair in
accordance with a method approved by the Manager, Standardization
Branch, ANM-113, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or the
Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane
Directorate, FAA. As of the effective date of this AD, repair in
accordance with a method approved by the Manager, International
Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA. Thereafter,
repeat the inspection required by paragraph (f) of this AD at
intervals not to exceed 9,000 landings, in accordance with British
Aerospace Inspection Service Bulletin 57-41, dated July 26, 1991,
until the initial inspection required by paragraph (g)(1) of this AD
is accomplished.
    (2) If no cracks are found, repeat the inspection required by
paragraph (f) of this AD at intervals not to exceed 9,000 landings,
in accordance with British Aerospace Inspection Service Bulletin 57-
41, dated July 26, 1991, until the initial inspection required by
paragraph (g)(1) of this AD is accomplished.

New Requirements of This AD

    (g) Unless already done, do the following actions.

    Note 1: The instructions of BAE Systems (Operations) Limited
Inspection Service Bulletin ISB.57-070, dated October 15, 2007,
which is the subject of this AD, are divided into two parts;
consequently, the statement in paragraph 1.C. of BAE Systems
(Operations) Limited Inspection Service Bulletin ISB.57-070, dated
October 15, 2007, that there are three parts is incorrect and can be
disregarded.

    (1) At the applicable compliance time specified in paragraph
(g)(1)(i) or (g)(1)(ii) of this AD: Do an HFEC inspection of the
front and rear spar flanges, a detailed visual inspection of the
stringers, and a detailed visual inspection of the stringer crown
fittings, all at the rib ``0'' joint strap, for cracking and
corrosion, and do all applicable corrective actions, in accordance
with ``Part 1'' of paragraph 2.C., ``Inspection,'' of BAE Systems
(Operations) Limited Inspection Service Bulletin ISB.57-070, dated
October 15, 2007. Repeat the inspections thereafter at intervals not
to exceed 4,000 flight cycles. Do all applicable corrective actions
before further flight. Accomplishment of these initial inspections
terminates the inspections required by paragraphs (f), (f)(1), and
(f)(2) of this AD.
    (i) For airplanes on which an inspection was not done in
accordance with Supplemental Structural Inspection (SSI) 57-10-101
(MPD 571001-DVI-10000-1) as of the effective date of this AD: Prior
to the accumulation of 20,000 total flight cycles, or within 4,000
flight cycles after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs
later.
    (ii) For airplanes on which an inspection was done in accordance
with SSI 57-10-101 (MPD 571001-DVI-10000-1) as of the effective date
of this AD: Within 3,000 flight cycles after the effective date of
this AD.
    (2) At the applicable compliance time specified in paragraph
(g)(2)(i) or (g)(2)(ii) of this AD: Do detailed visual and HFEC
inspections to detect cracking and corrosion of the rib ``0'' strap,
a radiographic inspection of the rib ``0'' joint, and an ultrasonic
inspection of the skin at the rib ``0'' joint strap, and do all
applicable corrective actions, in accordance with ``PART 2'' of
paragraph 2.C. ``Inspection'' of BAE Systems (Operations) Limited
Inspection Service Bulletin ISB.57-070, dated October 15, 2007. Do
all applicable corrective actions before further flight. Repeat the
inspections thereafter at intervals not to exceed 4,000 flight
cycles.
    (i) For airplanes on which an inspection was not done in
accordance with SSI 57-10-102 and 57-10-102A (MPD 571002-SDI-10000-1
and 571002-SDI-10000-2) as of the effective date of this AD: Before
the accumulation of 24,000 total flight cycles, or within 4,000
flight cycles after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs
later.
    (ii) For airplanes on which an inspection was done in accordance
with SSI 57-10-102 or 57-10-102A (MPD 571002-SDI-10000-1 or 571002-
SDI-10000-2) as of the effective date of this AD: Within 3,000
flight cycles after the effective date of this AD.
    (3) Submit a report of the findings (both positive and negative)
of the initial inspections required by paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(2)
of this AD to BAE Systems (Operations) Limited, at the applicable
time specified in paragraph (g)(3)(i) or (g)(3)(ii) of this AD. The
report must include the inspection results, a description of any
discrepancies found, the airplane serial number, and the number of
landings and flight hours on the airplane. Send reports to Customer
Liaison, Customer Support (Building 37), BAE SYSTEMS (Operations)
Limited, Prestwick International Airport, Ayrshire, KA9 2RW,
Scotland; fax +44 (0) 1292 675432; e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (i) If the inspection was done on or after the effective date of
this AD: Submit the report within 30 days after the inspection.
    (ii) If the inspection was done before the effective date of
this AD: Submit the report within 30 days after the effective date
of this AD.
    (4) Accomplishment of any repair does not constitute terminating
action for the inspection requirements of this AD.

FAA AD Differences

    Note 2: This AD differs from the MCAI and/or service information
as follows: No differences.

Other FAA AD Provisions

    (h) 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. Send information to ATTN: Todd Thompson, Aerospace Engineer,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA,
1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone
(425) 227-1175; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>. Before using any approved AMOC
on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify your principal
maintenance inspector (PMI) or principal avionics inspector (PAI),
as appropriate, or lacking a principal inspector, your local Flight
Standards District Office. The AMOC approval letter must
specifically reference this AD.
    (2) Airworthy Product: For any requirement in this AD to obtain
corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these
actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered
FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority
(or their delegated agent). You are required to assure the product
is airworthy before it is returned to service.
    (3) Reporting Requirements: For any reporting requirement in
this AD, under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has
approved the information collection requirements and has assigned
OMB Control Number 2120-0056.

Related Information

    (i) Refer to MCAI European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA)
Airworthiness Directive 2008-0168, dated September 2, 2008; British
Aerospace Inspection Service Bulletin 57-41, dated July 26, 1991;
and BAE Systems (Operations) Limited Inspection Service Bulletin
ISB.57-070, dated October 15, 2007; for related information.

Material Incorporated by Reference

    (j) You must use British Aerospace Inspection Service Bulletin
57-41, dated July 26, 1991; and BAE Systems (Operations) Limited
Inspection Service Bulletin ISB.57-070, dated October 15, 2007; as
applicable; to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD
specifies otherwise.
    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference of BAE Systems (Operations) Limited
Inspection Service Bulletin ISB.57-070, dated October 15, 2007,
under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) The Director of the Federal Register previously approved the
incorporation by reference of British Aerospace Inspection Service
Bulletin 57-41, dated July 26, 1991, on March 2, 1993 (58 FR 6081,
January 26, 1993).
    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact BAE
Systems Regional Aircraft, 13850 McLearen Road, Herndon, Virginia
20171; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Internet http://www.baesystems.com/Businesses/RegionalAircraft/
index.htm.
    (4) You may review copies of the service information at the FAA,
Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton,
Washington. For information on the availability of this material at
the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (5) You may also review copies of the service information that
is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records
Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this
material at NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to: http://
www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/
ibr_locations.html.

    Issued in Renton, Washington on April 22, 2010.
Jeffrey E. Duven,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2010-9944 Filed 5-3-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: June 6, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 110)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 32256-32258]
[DOCID:fr06jn08-18]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2008-0615; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-352-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Boeing Model 757 Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all
Boeing Model 757 airplanes. This proposed AD would require performing
repetitive operational tests of the engine fuel suction feed of the
fuel system, and other related testing if necessary. This proposed AD
results from a report of in-service occurrences of loss of fuel system
suction feed capability, followed by total loss of pressure of the fuel
feed system. We are proposing this AD to detect and correct failure of
the engine fuel suction feed of the fuel system, which could result in
dual engine flameout, inability to restart the engines, and consequent
forced landing of the airplane.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by July 21, 2008.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments 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: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this AD, contact Boeing
Commercial Airplanes, P.O. Box 3707, Seattle, Washington 98124-2207.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://
www.regulations.gov; 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 Office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in
the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket
shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sue Lucier, Aerospace Engineer,
Propulsion Branch, ANM-140S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification
Office, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone
(425) 917-6438; 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-2008-0615;
Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-352-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 because of those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this proposed AD.

Discussion

    We have received a report of in-service occurrences of loss of fuel
system suction feed capability, followed by total loss of pressure of
the fuel feed system. This condition, if not corrected, could result in
dual engine flameout, inability to restart the engines, and consequent
forced landing of the airplane.

FAA's Conclusions

    We have determined that it is necessary to require an operational
test of the engine fuel suction feed of the fuel system, and other
related testing, as applicable. Procedures for doing the operational
test can be found in the maintenance manual. The other related testing
is for airplanes on which one or both of the engines stop idling in
less than five minutes after starting the test. Failure of the engine
fuel suction feed of the fuel system could result in the unsafe
condition described previously.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD

    We are proposing this AD because we have evaluated all pertinent
information and identified an unsafe condition that is likely to exist
or develop on other airplanes of this same type design. This proposed
AD would require performing repetitive operational tests of the engine
fuel suction feed of the fuel system, and other related testing if
necessary.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD would affect 673 airplanes of
U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would take 1 work-hour per
product, per test, to comply with this proposed AD. The average labor
rate is $80 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost
of this proposed AD to the U.S. operators to be $53,840, or $80 per
product, per test.

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), and
    3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    You can find our regulatory evaluation and the estimated costs of
compliance in the AD Docket.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, 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

    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]

    2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new AD:

Boeing: Docket No. FAA-2008-0615; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-
352-AD.

Comments Due Date

    (a) We must receive comments by July 21, 2008.

Affected ADs

    (b) None.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to all Boeing Model 757-200, -200PF, -200CB,
and -300 series airplanes, certificated in any category.

Unsafe Condition

    (d) This AD results from a report of in-service occurrences of
loss of fuel system suction feed capability, followed by total loss
of pressure of the fuel feed system. We are issuing this AD to
detect and correct failure of the engine fuel suction feed of the
fuel system, which could result in dual engine flameout, inability
to restart the engines, and consequent forced landing of the
airplane.

Compliance

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

Operational Test/Other Related Testing

    (f) Within 7,500 flight hours after the effective date of this
AD, perform an operational test of the engine fuel suction feed of
the fuel system, and perform all other related testing, as
applicable, before further flight, according to a method approved by
the Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA. One
approved method is the operational test in Section 28-22-00, titled
``Engine Fuel Feed System--Description/Operation,'' of the Boeing
757 Maintenance Manual; and Boeing 757 Task Card 28-013-01, titled
``Engine Fuel Suction Feed System,'' dated September 28, 2007.
Repeat the operational test thereafter at intervals not

to exceed 7,500 flight hours. Thereafter, except as provided in
paragraph (g) of this AD, no alternative procedure or repeat test
intervals will be allowed.

Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (g)(1) The Manager, Seattle ACO, FAA, ATTN: Sue Lucier,
Aerospace Engineer, Propulsion Branch, ANM-140S, 1601 Lind Avenue,
SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax
(425) 917-6590, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if
requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.
    (2) To request a different method of compliance or a different
compliance time for this AD, follow the procedures in 14 CFR 39.19.
Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC
applies, notify your appropriate principal inspector (PI) in the FAA
Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local
FSDO.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on May 16, 2008.
Ali Bahrami,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. E8-12749 Filed 6-5-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


0
Notes:

Nationwide population and demographic percentages are based on Census' 2015-2019 ACS 5-year block group averages. Total population count is based on 2010 Decennial Census block population.
To avoid double counting, the "Hispanic or Latino" category is treated as a distinct demographic category. A person who identifies as Hispanic or Latino is counted as Hispanic or Latino, regardless of race.
The number of facilities represents facilities with a cancer MIR above level indicated. When the MIR was located at a user assigned receptor at an individual residence and not at a census block centroid, we were unable to estimate population and demographics for that facility.
The sum of individual populations with a demographic category may not add up to total due to rounding.

 Coke Oven Whole-Facility Demographics
      As described in section IV.B.5 of this preamble, we assessed the facility-wide (or "whole-facility") risks for 14 coke oven facilities in order to compare the Coke Ovens: Pushing, Quenching, and Battery Stacks NESHAP source category risk to the whole facility risks. This whole-facility demographic analysis characterizes the risks communities face from all HAP sources at coke oven facilities both before and after implementation of the controls proposed in this action that result in reduction of actual emissions. The whole facility risk assessment includes all sources of HAP emissions at each facility (described in section III.C.7 of this preamble). Note, no reduction in actual emissions or risk is expected at the whole facility level apart from the reduction in actual emissions and risk estimated for the proposed standards for the Coke Ovens: Pushing, Quenching, and Battery Stacks NESHAP source category.
      The whole-facility demographic analysis is an assessment of individual demographic groups in the total population living within 10 km (~6.2 miles) and 50 km (~31 miles) of the facilities. In this preamble, we focus on the 10 km radius for the demographic analysis because it encompasses all the facility MIR locations and captures 99 percent of the population with baseline cancer risks greater than or equal to 1-in-1 million from the Coke Ovens: Pushing, Quenching, and Battery Stacks NESHAP source category emissions. The results of the whole-facility demographic analysis for populations living within 50 km are included in the document titled Analysis of Demographic Factors for Populations Living Near Coke Oven Facilities, which is available in the docket for this action.
      The whole-facility demographic analysis post-control results are shown in Table 11 of this preamble. This analysis focused on the populations living within 10 km of the coke oven facilities with estimated whole-facility post-control cancer risks greater than or equal to 1-in-1 million. The risk analysis indicated that all emissions from the coke oven facilities, after the proposed reductions, expose a total of about 575,000 people living within 10 km of the 14 facilities to a cancer risk greater than or equal to 1-in-1 million. About 83 percent of these 575,000 people with a cancer risk greater than or equal to 1-in-1 million live within 10km of 3 facilities  -  2 in Alabama and 1 in Pennsylvania. The population with cancer risks greater than or equal to 1-in-1 million living within 10 km of the two facilities in Alabama is 56 percent African American, which is significantly higher than the national average of 12 percent. Note that, in the baseline, there are only 26 people with post-control risks greater than 50-in-1 million within 10 km of the coke oven facilities, therefore, the demographics of this population is not discussed.
      When the coke oven whole-facility populations are compared to the Coke Ovens: Pushing, Quenching, and Battery Stacks NESHAP source category populations in the post-control scenarios, 573,000 additional people are estimated to have risks greater than or equal to 1-in-1 million. The maximum lifetime individual cancer risk posed by the 14 modeled facilities based on whole facility emissions is 50-in-1 million, with COE from coke oven doors (a regulated source in the Coke Oven Batteries source category) driving the whole facility risk.
      While the pre-control and post-control Coke Ovens: Pushing, Quenching, and Battery Stacks source category population with risks >= 1-in-1 million (shown in Table 10) is disproportionately White, the pre-control and post-control whole-facility population with risks >= 1-in-1 million (shown in Table 11) is disproportionately African American. Specifically, the pre-control and post-control whole-facility population with risk greater than 1-in-1 million is 26 percent African American compared to the national average of 12 percent. In addition, the percentage of the pre-control and post-control whole-facility population with risks >= 1-in1 million that is below the poverty level (17 percent) is above the national average (13 percent).
TABLE 11. WHOLE-FACILITY: PRE-CONTROL AND POST-CONTROL DEMOGRAPHICS OF POPULATIONS LIVING WITHIN 10 KM OF FACILITIES WITH CANCER RISK GREATER THAN OR EQUAL TO 1-IN-1 MILLION FROM COKE OVEN WHOLE-FACILITY EMISSIONS COMPARED TO THE NATIONAL AVERAGE AND PROXIMITY DEMOGRAPHICS
                               Demographic Group
                       Nationwide Average for Reference
Baseline Proximity Analysis for Pop. Living within 10 km of Coke Oven Facilities
      Cancer Risk >=1-in-1 Million within 10 km of Coke Oven Facilities

                             Pre-Control Baseline
                                 Post-Control
Total Population
                                     328M
                                     1.4M
                                     575K
                                     573K
Number of Facilities
                                       -
                                      14
                                       9
                                       9
                Race and Ethnicity by Percent/Number of People
White
                                      60%
                                      58%
                                      66%
                                      66%

                                     197M
                                     805K
                                     379K
                                     377K
African American
                                      12%
                                      27%
                                      26%
                                      26%

                                      40M
                                     381K
                                     151K
                                     151K
Native American
                                     0.7%
                                     0.2%
                                     0.2%
                                     0.2%

                                     2.2M
                                     2.5K
                                      900
                                      900
Hispanic or Latino (includes white and nonwhite)
                                      19%
                                      12%
                                      4%
                                      4%

                                      62M
                                     166K
                                      25K
                                      25K
Other and Multiracial
                                      8%
                                      3%
                                      3%
                                      3%

                                      27M
                                      45K
                                      19K
                                      19K
                      Income by Percent/Number of People
Below Poverty Level
                                      13%
                                      22%
                                      17%
                                      17%

                                      44M
                                     310K
                                     100K
                                     100K
Above Poverty Level
                                      87%
                                      78%
                                      83%
                                      83%

                                     284M
                                     1.1M
                                     475K
                                     474K
                     Education by Percent/Number of People
Over 25 and without a High School Diploma
                                      12%
                                      15%
                                      10%
                                      9%

                                      40M
                                     206K
                                      55K
                                      54K
Over 25 and with a High School Diploma
                                      88%
                                      85%
                                      90%
                                      91%

                                     288M
                                     1.2M
                                     520K
                                     519K
              Linguistically Isolated by Percent/Number of People
Linguistically Isolated
                                      5%
                                      3%
                                      1%
                                      1%

                                      18M
                                      44K
                                      6K
                                      6K
Notes:

Nationwide population and demographic percentages are based on Census' 2015-2019 ACS 5-year block group averages. Total population count is based on 2010 Decennial Census block population.
To avoid double counting, the "Hispanic or Latino" category is treated as a distinct demographic category. A person who identifies as Hispanic or Latino is counted as Hispanic or Latino, regardless of race.
The number of facilities represents facilities with a cancer MIR above level indicated. When the MIR was located at a user assigned receptor at an individual residence and not at a census block centroid, we were unable to estimate population and demographics for that facility.
The sum of individual populations with a demographic category may not add up to total due to rounding.

H. What analysis of children's environmental health did we conduct?
      This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because the EPA does not believe the environmental health or safety risks addressed by this action present a disproportionate risk to children. The EPA's assessment of the potential impacts to human health from emissions at existing coke ovens sources in the Coke Ovens: Pushing, Quenching, and Battery Stacks source category are discussed in section IV.B and IV.C of this preamble. The proposed BTF limit for mercury at HNR waste heat stacks, described in section IV.A of this preamble, would reduce actual and allowable mercury emissions, thereby reducing potential exposure to children, including the unborn. Although we did not perform a risk assessment of the Coke Oven Batteries source category in this action, we note that COE, which is primarily emitted from this source category, has a mutagenic mode of action; therefore, changes to the standards for the Coke Oven Batteries NESHAP under the technology review could reduce the exposure of children to mutagens.
VI. Request for Comments
We solicit comments on this proposed action. In addition to general comments on this proposed action, we are also interested in specific issues, as follows:
 Additional data that may improve the risk assessments and other analyses. We are specifically interested in receiving any improvements to the data used in the site-specific emissions profiles used for risk modeling. Such data should include supporting documentation in sufficient detail to allow characterization of the quality and representativeness of the data or information. Section VII of this preamble provides more information on submitting data;
 New methods available to reduce leaks from doors, lids, and offtakes from coke oven batteries;
    The revised equation to estimate coke oven door leaks[39] discussed in section IV.D.6, above;
    The validity of the assumption of 2 for an acute factor;
    Establishing a 1-hour battery stack MACT standard, including comments regarding whether or not EPA should include such a standard in the final rule and an explanation as to why or why not;
    For fenceline monitoring, we request comment on the following:
          The suitability of selecting benzene or other HAP, including naphthalene and other PAH, as the indicator to be monitored by fenceline samplers;
          Whether it would be appropriate to require multiple HAP to be monitored at the fenceline, considering the capital and annual cost for additional monitors that are not passive/diffusion type, and if so, which pollutants should be monitored;
          Alternative approaches for making adjustments for off-site contributions to the fenceline concentration of benzene; whether it is appropriate to establish a standard time frame for compliance with actions listed in a corrective action plan and whether the approval of the corrective action plan should be performed by to state, local and tribal governments;
          The proposed approach for reducing fenceline monitoring requirements for facilities that consistently measure fenceline concentrations below the concentration action level and the measurement level that should be used to provide such relief;
          Suggestions for other ways to improve the fenceline monitoring requirements; and
          The minimum time period facilities should be required to conduct fenceline monitoring before allowed a reduction in monitoring frequency due to low fenceline concentration levels; and
          The level of performance, in terms of monitored fenceline concentrations, that would enable a facility to reduce the frequency of data collection and reporting;
    Whether we have successfully ensured that the provisions we are proposing to eliminate are inappropriate, unnecessary, or redundant in the absence of the SSM exemption;
    Whether any situations exist where separate standards, such as work practices, would be more appropriate during periods of startup and shutdown rather than the current standard;
    The content, layout, and overall design of the templates for quarterly and semiannual compliance reports;
 The use of other surrogates, practices, or techniques to determine leaks from HNR ovens, that could be applied to HNR door leaks as an alternatives to EPA Method 303A, to include alternative monitoring approaches or techniques. For those alternative techniques that could be applied to measuring HNR door leaks, we are soliciting information on equivalency studies that have been performed against EPA Method 303 and/or 303A, and any potential training requirements.
 The use of either additional pressure transducers to monitor for negative pressure inside HNR common tunnels and ovens (including comments on number and placement of monitors) or a requirement for an approved monitoring plan; or a requirement for both additional monitors and an approved plan.
 The measures or monitoring methods for limiting soaking emissions from ByP ovens (including the definition of soaking).
 Changes to Coke Oven Batteries NESHAP to require both leak monitoring and pressure monitoring instead of a choice between the two, and whether pressure monitoring should be measured at least during key points in the whole oven cycle, possibly more often.
 Other potential approaches to establish emissions standards for the HRSG main stacks and bypass stacks, including: (1) whether the EPA should consider the emission points all combined (i.e., HRSG main stack plus HRSG bypass stack emissions) and establish standards based on the best five units or best five facilities including emissions following the HRSGs and their control devices and emissions from the bypass over a period of time (e.g., per year or per month); or (2) a standard that is based in part on limiting the number of hours per year or per month that bypass stack can be used.
VII. Submitting Data Corrections
The site-specific emissions profiles used in the source category risk and demographic analyses and instructions are available for download on the source category websites at https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/coke-ovens-pushing-quenching-and-battery-stacks-national-emission, or https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/coke-ovens-batteries-national-emissions-standards-hazardous-air. The data files include detailed information for each HAP emissions release point for the facilities and sources in the source categories.
If you believe that the data are not representative or are inaccurate, please identify the data in question, provide your reason for concern, and provide any "improved" data that you have, if available. When you submit data, we request that you provide documentation of the basis for the revised values to support your suggested changes. To submit comments on the data downloaded from the RTR website, complete the following steps:
1. Within this downloaded file, enter suggested revisions to the data fields appropriate for that information.
2. Fill in the commenter information fields for each suggested revision (i.e., commenter name, commenter organization, commenter email address, commenter phone number, and revision comments).
3. Gather documentation for any suggested emissions revisions (e.g., performance test reports, material balance calculations).
4. Send the entire downloaded file with suggested revisions in Microsoft(R) Access format and all accompanying documentation to Docket ID Nos. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0085 and EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0051 (through the method described in the ADDRESSES section of this preamble).
5. If you are providing comments on a single facility or multiple facilities, you need only submit one file for all facilities. The file should contain all suggested changes for all sources at that facility (or facilities). We request that all data revision comments be submitted in the form of updated Microsoft(R) Excel files that are generated by the Microsoft(R) Access file. These files are provided on the source category websites at https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/coke-ovens-pushing-quenching-and-battery-stacks-national-emission and https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/coke-ovens-batteries-national-emissions-standards-hazardous-air.
VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
      This action is a "significant regulatory action" as defined in Executive Order 12866, as amended by Executive Order 14094. Accordingly, EPA submitted this action to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for Executive Order 12866 review. Documentation of any changes made in response to the Executive Order 12866 review is available in the docket. The EPA prepared an economic analysis of the potential impacts associated with this action. This analysis, Economic Impact Analysis for the Proposed National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Coke Ovens: Pushing, Quenching, and Battery Stacks, Residual Risk and Technology Review; National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Coke Oven Batteries Technology Review, is available in the dockets EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0085 and EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0051.
B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
      The information collection activities in this proposed rule have been submitted for approval to OMB under the PRA. The information collection request (ICR) documents that the EPA prepared have been assigned EPA ICR numbers 1995.09 and 1362.13. You can find a copy of the ICRs in the dockets for this rule, and they are briefly summarized here. The information collection requirements are not enforceable until OMB approves them.
      We are proposing amendments to Coke Ovens: Pushing, Quenching, Battery Stacks NESHAP that require compliance testing for 15 MACT and 2 BTF limits, electronic reporting; remove the SSM exemptions; and to Coke Oven Battery NESHAP that require fenceline monitoring; electronic reporting; remove the SSM exemptions. Also, we are incorporating other revisions (e.g., facility counts) that affect reporting and recordkeeping for coke oven facilities. This information would be collected to assure compliance with the CAA.
Respondents/affected entities: Coke Ovens: Pushing, Quenching, and Battery Stacks source category.
Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 63, subpart CCCCC).
Estimated number of respondents: 14 facilities.
Frequency of response: One time.
Total estimated burden of entire rule: The annual recordkeeping and reporting burden for facilities to comply with all of the requirements in the NESHAPs is estimated to be 32,500 hours (per year). Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
Total estimated cost of entire rule: The annual recordkeeping and reporting cost for all facilities to comply with all of the requirements in the NESHAPs is estimated to be $4,230,000 (per year), of which $1,060,000 (per year) is for this proposal, and $3,043,000 is for other costs related to continued compliance with the NESHAPs in addition to $125,000 for the operation and maintenance of leak detectors and continuous opacity monitors. The total rule costs reflect an overall increase of $1,280,000 (per year) from the previous ICR, increases due to the compliance with 17 additional MACT/BTF limits, transition to electronic reporting, and elimination of SSM requirements.
Respondents/affected entities: Coke Oven Batteries source category.
Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 63, subpart L).
Estimated number of respondents: 14 facilities.
Frequency of response: One time.
Total estimated burden of entire rule: The annual recordkeeping and reporting burden for facilities to comply with all of the requirements in the NESHAPs is estimated to be 63,000 hours (per year). Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
Total estimated cost of entire rule: The annual recordkeeping and reporting cost for all facilities to comply with all of the requirements in the NESHAPs is estimated to be $7,795,000 (per year), of which $530,000 (per year) is for this proposal and $7,410,000 is for other costs related to continued compliance with the NESHAPs. The total rule costs reflect an increase of $1,070,000 (per year) from the previous ICR, due to revised HNR facility counts, transition to electronic reporting, addition of fenceline monitoring, and elimination of SSM requirements.
      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 the EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. When OMB approves this ICR, the Agency will announce that approval in the Federal Register and publish a technical amendment to 40 CFR part 9 to display the OMB control number for the approved information collection activities contained in this final rule. Submit your comments on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden to the EPA using the dockets identified at the beginning of this rule. You may also send your ICR-related comments to OMB's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs via email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Attention: Desk Officer for the EPA. Since OMB is required to make a decision concerning the ICR between 30 and 60 days after receipt, OMB must receive comments no later than [INSERT DATE 30 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF PROPOSED RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. The EPA will respond to any ICR-related comments in the final rule.
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
      I certify that this action would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. Details of the analysis can be found in the document prepared for this rule titled Economic Impact Analysis for the Proposed National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Coke Ovens: Pushing, Quenching, and Battery Stacks, Residual Risk and Technology Review; National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Coke Oven Batteries Technology Review.
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
      This action does not contain any unfunded mandate of $100 million or more as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531 - 1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. While this action creates an enforceable duty on the private sector, the cost does not exceed $100 million or more.
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
      This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have substantial direct effects 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.
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments
      This action does not have tribal implications as specified in Executive Order 13175. It will not have substantial direct effects on tribal governments, on the relationship between the Federal government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal government and Indian tribes. No tribal governments own facilities subject to these NESHAP. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
      Executive Order 13045 directs federal agencies to include an evaluation of the health and safety effects of the planned regulation on children in federal health and safety standards and explain why the regulation is preferable to potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives. This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because the EPA does not believe the environmental health or safety risks addressed by this action present a disproportionate risk to children. Due to control of mercury and nonmercury metal HAP at waste heat stacks at nonrecovery facilities, we believe the health of children living nearby would be improved. This action's health and risk assessments for the Coke Ovens: Pushing, Quenching, and Battery Stack source category are contained in section IV of this preamble and further documented in The Residual Risk Assessment or the Coke Ovens: Pushing, Quenching, and Battery Stack Source Category in Support of the 2023 Risk and Technology Review Proposed Rule, available in the docket for this action (EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0085). However, EPA's Policy on Children's Health applies to this action.
      Although we did not perform a risk assessment of the Coke Oven Batteries source category in this action, we note that COE, which is primarily emitted from this source category, has a mutagenic mode of action; therefore, changes to the standards for the Coke Oven Batteries NESHAP under the technology review could reduce the exposure of children to mutagens.
      Information on how this policy was applied is available under "Children's Environmental Health" in the Supplementary Information section of this preamble.
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
      This action is not a "significant energy action" because it is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. We have concluded this action is not likely to have any adverse energy effects because energy use is projected to increase by only 15 million kilowatt-hours to operate control devices to achieve the proposed air emissions reductions in HAP metals (see section V. C of this preamble, "What are the other environmental impacts?").
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) and 1 CFR Part 51
      This action involves technical standards. Therefore, the EPA conducted searches for the RTR for the Coke Ovens: Pushing, Quenching, and Battery Stacks NESHAP and the NESHAP for Coke Oven Batteries through the Enhanced National Standards Systems Network Database managed by the American National Standards Institute (ANSI). We also contacted VCS organizations and accessed and searched their databases. For Coke Oven Batteries NESHAP, we conducted searches for EPA Methods EPA Methods 1, 2, 2F, 2G, 3, 3A, 3B, 4, 5, 5D, 9, 18, 22 of 40 CFR Part 60, Appendix A, EPA Methods 303, 303A of 40 CFR Part 63, Appendix A. No applicable voluntary consensus standards were identified for EPA Methods 2F, 2G, 5D, 22, 303, and 303A. For Coke Ovens: Pushing, Quenching, Battery Stacks NESHAP, searches were conducted for EPA Methods 1, 2, 2F, 2G, 3, 3A, 3B, 4, 5, 5D, 9, 23, 26, 26A, 29 of 40 CFR Part 60, Appendix A, EPA Method 160.1 in 40 CFR Part 136.3, Appendix A, EPA Methods 316 and 320 40 CFR Part 63, Appendix A. No applicable voluntary consensus standards were identified for EPA Methods 2F, 2G, 5D, 316, and 160.1.
      During the EPA's VCS search, if the title or abstract (if provided) of the VCS described technical sampling and analytical procedures that are similar to the EPA's reference method, the EPA reviewed it as a potential equivalent method. We reviewed all potential standards to determine the practicality of the VCS for this rule. This review requires significant method validation data that meet the requirements of EPA Method 301 for accepting alternative methods or scientific, engineering and policy equivalence to procedures in the EPA reference methods. The EPA may reconsider determinations of impracticality when additional information is available for a particular VCS.
      The EPA proposes to incorporate by reference the VCS ANSI/ASME PTC 19-10-1981- Part 10 (2010), "Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses." The manual procedures (but not instrumental procedures) of VCS ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10-1981 -- Part 10 (incorporated by reference -- see 40 CFR 63.14) may be used as an alternative to EPA Method 3B for measuring the oxygen or carbon dioxide content of the exhaust gas. This standard is acceptable as an alternative to EPA Method 3B and is available from ASME at http://www.asme.org; by mail at Three Park Avenue, New York, NY 10016-5990; or by telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>. This method determines quantitatively the gaseous constituents of exhausts resulting from stationary combustion sources. The gases covered in ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10 - 1981 are oxygen, carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, nitrogen, sulfur dioxide, sulfur trioxide, nitric oxide, nitrogen dioxide, hydrogen sulfide, and hydrocarbons, however the use in this rule is only applicable to oxygen and carbon dioxide.
      The EPA proposes to incorporate by reference the VCS ASTM D7520-16, "Standard Test Method for Determining the Opacity of a Plume in the Outdoor Ambient Atmosphere" is an acceptable alternative to EPA Method 9 with the following caveats:
 During the digital camera opacity technique (DCOT) certification procedure outlined in Section 9.2 of ASTM D7520-16, you or the DCOT vendor must present the plumes in front of various backgrounds of color and contrast representing conditions anticipated during field use such as blue sky, trees, and mixed backgrounds (clouds and/or a sparse tree stand).
 You must also have standard operating procedures in place including daily or other frequency quality checks to ensure the equipment is within manufacturing specifications as outlined in Section 8.1 of ASTM D7520-16.
 You must follow the record keeping procedures outlined in 40 CFR 63.10(b)(1) for the DCOT certification, compliance report, data sheets, and all raw unaltered JPEGs used for opacity and certification determination.
 You or the DCOT vendor must have a minimum of four (4) independent technology users apply the software to determine the visible opacity of the 300 certification plumes. For each set of 25 plumes, the user may not exceed 15 percent opacity of any one reading and the average error must not exceed 7.5 percent opacity.
 This approval does not provide or imply a certification or validation of any vendor's hardware or software. The onus to maintain and verify the certification and/or training of the DCOT camera, software and operator in accordance with ASTM D7520-16 and this letter is on the facility, DCOT operator, and DCOT vendor. This method describes procedures to determine the opacity of a plume, using digital imagery and associated hardware and software, where opacity is caused by PM emitted from a stationary point source in the outdoor ambient environment. The opacity of emissions is determined by the application of a DCOT that consists of a digital still camera, analysis software, and the output function's content to obtain and interpret digital images to determine and report plume opacity. The ASTM D7520-16 document is available from ASTM at https://www.astm.org or l100 Barr Harbor Drive, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959, telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>, fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER> at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>      The EPA proposes to incorporate by reference the VCS ASTM D6420-18, "Test Method for Determination of Gaseous Organic Compounds by Direct Interface Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry" is an acceptable alternative to EPA Method 18 only when the target compounds are all known and the target compounds are all listed in ASTM D6420 as measurable. Should not be used for methane and ethane because atomic mass is less than 35. ASTM D6420 should never be specified as a total VOC method. The ASTM D6420-18 document is available from ASTM at https://www.astm.org or l100 Barr Harbor Drive, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959, telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>, fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER> at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>      The EPA proposes to incorporate by reference the VCS ASTM D6784-16, "Standard Test Method for Elemental, Oxidized, Particle-Bound and Total Mercury Gas Generated from Coal-Fired Stationary Sources (Ontario Hydro 3 Method)" is an acceptable alternative to EPA Method 29 (portion for mercury only) as a method for measuring mercury, note: Applies to concentrations approximately 0.5  -  100 μg/Nm[3]. The ASTM D6784-16 document is available from ASTM at https://www.astm.org or l100 Barr Harbor Drive, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959, telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>, fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER> at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>      The EPA proposes to incorporate by reference the VCS ASTM D6348-12e1, "Determination of Gaseous Compounds by Extractive Direct Interface Fourier Transform (FTIR) Spectroscopy" is an acceptable alternative to EPA Method 320. In the 9/22/08 NTTA summary, ASTM D6348-03(2010) was determined equivalent to EPA Method 320 with caveats. ASTM D6348-12e1 is a revised version of ASTM D6348-03(2010) and includes a new section on accepting the results from direct measurement of a certified spike gas cylinder, but still lacks the caveats we placed on the D6348-03(2010) version. The voluntary consensus standard ASTM D6348-12e1 "Determination of Gaseous Compounds by Extractive Direct Interface Fourier Transform (FTIR) Spectroscopy" is an acceptable alternative to EPA Method 320 at this time with caveats requiring inclusion of selected annexes to the standard as mandatory. When using ASTM D6348-12e1, the following conditions must be met:
    The test plan preparation and implementation in the Annexes to ASTM D 6348-12e1, Sections A1 through A8 are mandatory; and
    In ASTM D6348-12e1 Annex A5 (Analyte Spiking Technique), the percent (%) R must be determined for each target analyte (Equation A5.5).
In order for the test data to be acceptable for a compound, %R must be 70 % >= R <= 130%. If the %R value does not meet this criterion for a target compound, the test data is not acceptable for that compound and the test must be repeated for that analyte (i.e., the sampling and/or analytical procedure should be adjusted before a retest). The %R value for each compound must be reported in the test report, and all field measurements must be corrected with the calculated %R value for that compound by using the following equation:
      Reported Results = (Measured Concentration in Stack)/(%R) x 100.
      The ASTM D6348-12e1 document is available from ASTM at https://www.astm.org or l100 Barr Harbor Drive, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959, telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>, fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER> at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>      Additional information for the VCS search and determinations can be found in the memorandum titled Voluntary Consensus Standard Results for Coke Ovens: Pushing, Quenching and Battery Stacks: National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants and Voluntary Consensus Standard Results for Coke Oven Batteries: National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants, available in the EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0085, EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0051 dockets for this proposed rule.
      The EPA is also incorporating by reference Quality Assurance Handbook for Air Pollution Measurement Systems, Volume IV: Meteorological Measurements, Version 2.0 (Final), March 2008 (EPA-454/B-08-002).
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations
      Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs, policies, and activities on minority populations (people of color and/or Indigenous peoples) and low-income populations.
      The EPA believes that the human health or environmental conditions that exist prior to this action result in or have the potential to result in disproportionate and adverse human health or environmental effects on people of color, low-income populations and/or indigenous peoples.
      As discussed in section V.G of this preamble, the population with risks greater than or equal to 1-in-1 million due to emissions from all sources of HAP at coke oven facilities is disproportionately (26 percent) African American compared to the national average (12 percent African American). About 83 percent of the 575,000 people with a cancer risk greater than or equal to 1-in-1 million live within 10 km of 3 facilities  -  two in Alabama and one in Pennsylvania. The population with cancer risks greater than or equal to 1-in-1 million living within 10 km of the two facilities in Alabama is 56 percent African American, which is significantly higher than the national average of 12 percent. In addition, the population with risks >= 1-in-1 million due to emissions from all sources of HAP at coke oven facilities that is below the poverty level (17 percent) is above the national average (13 percent).
      The EPA believes that this action is likely to reduce existing disproportionate and adverse effects on people of color, low-income populations and/or Indigenous peoples. The impacts of these proposed rules are to limit allowable emissions from coke ovens sources in 40 CFR part 63, subparts CCCCC and L. In addition, proposed BTF standards for HNR waste heat stacks would limit actual emissions for mercury and nonmercury metal HAP[26] from these sources.
      While the proposed measures do not significantly decrease the number of those below the poverty level and those over 25 years of age without a high school diploma who have risks greater than or equal to 1-in-1 million due to HAP emissions from pushing, quenching, and battery stacks sources (Table 10), the proposed standards for the Coke Ovens: Pushing, Quenching, and Battery Stacks source category achieve a reduction in the disparity for these groups (Table 10). Specifically, of the people living within 10 km of a coke oven facility with risk greater than or equal to 1-in-1 million due to HAP emissions from the Coke Ovens: Pushing, Quenching, and Battery Stacks source category, the percentage who are below the poverty level is estimated to decrease from 17 percent to 10 percent under the proposed standards and the percentage who are over 25 without a high school diploma is estimated to decrease from 21 percent to 7 percent under the proposed standards. The documentation for this decision is contained in section V.G. of this preamble and in the document Analysis of Demographic Factors for Populations Living Near Coke Oven Facilities located in the dockets for this rule (EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0085 and EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0051) and described above in section V.G.

Michael S. Regan,

Administrator.


[Federal Register: September 13, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 177)]
[Notices]
[Page 54039-54040]
[DOCID:fr13se06-56]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Notice of Effectiveness of Exempt Wholesale Generator or Foreign
Utility Company Status

September 7, 2006.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    Docket No.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
LSP Morro Bay, LLC (f/k/a Duke Energy     EG06-54-000
 Morro Bay LLC).
LSP South Bay, LLC (f/k/a Duke Energy     EG06-55-000
 South Bay LLC).
Bridgeport Energy LLC (f/k/a Duke Energy  EG06-56-000
 Morro Bay LLC).
LSP Moss Landing, LLC (f/k/a Duke Energy  EG06-57-000
 Moss Landing LLC).
Griffith Energy, LLC....................  EG06-58-000
LSP Arlington Valley, LLC (f/k/a Duke     EG06-59-000
 Energy Arlington Valley LLC).
Casco Bay Energy Company, LLC...........  EG06-60-000
LSP Oakland, LLC (f/k/a Duke Energy       EG06-61-000
 Oakland LLC).
Flat Rock Windpower II LLC..............  EG06-62-000
EPCOR Transmission Inc.; EPCOR Energy     FC06-7-000
 Inc.; EPCOR Distribution Inc.; EPCOR
 Energy Alberta Inc.; EPCOR Utilities
 Inc.
Babcock & Brown Infrastructure Limited;   FC06-8-000
 BBI Energy Partnership Pty Limited; BBI
 Networks (Australia) Pty Limited; BBI
 IEG Australia Holdings Pty Limited.
SUEZ S.A.; Electrabel S.A.; SUEZ Energy   FC06-9-000
 Services S.A.; Rivolam S.A.; PTT
 Natural Gas Distribution Co. Ltd.; SUEZ
 Energy Asia Co. Ltd.; Suez-Tractebel
 Energy Holding Co[ouml]peratieve U.A.;
 Zhenjiang Hongshun Thermal Power Co.
 Ltd.; SUEZ Energy International
 Luxembourg S.A.; United Power Company
 S.A.O.G.; Belgelectric Finance B.V.;
 Sohar Power Company SAOC; Sohar
 Operation and Maintenance Company LLC;
 Al Ezzel Power Company B.S.C; Al Ezzel
 Operation and Maintenance Company
 W.L.L; Al Hidd Power Company B.S.C.;
 Tractebel Bahrain W.L.L.; Tractebel
 Parts & Repairs FZE; SUEZ Energy Andino
 S.A.; Tibsa Inversora S.A.; SUEZ Energy
 South America Participacoes Ltda.;
 Energ[iacute]a del Sur S.A.; Gas
 Natural de Lima y Callao S.R.L.; SUEZ
 Energia de Mexico, S.A. de C.V.; Mexico
 Gas Tampico 1 Ltd.; Tractebel Energia
 de Monterrey Holdings B.V.; Trigen
 Energia, Inc.; Trigen Mexico, Inc.;
 6425496 Canada Inc.
FortisOntario, Inc.; Newfoundland Power   FC06-10-000
 Inc.; Maritime Electric Company,
 Limited; FortisAlberta Inc.; FortisBC
 Inc.; Belize Electricity Limited;
 Carribean Utilities Company, Ltd;
 Princeton Light and Power Company,
 Limited.
Prisma Energy Nicaragua Holdings Ltd.;     FC06-11-000
 Prisma Energy International Inc.;
 Empresa Energetica Corinto Ltd..
Brookfield Asset Management Inc.;         FC06-12-000
 Valerie Falls Limited Partnership; Lake
 Superior Power Limited Partnership;
 Mississippi Property Inc.; Superior
 Wind Blue Highlands Power Inc.;
 Superior Wind Prince Power Inc.;
 Brookfield Power Wind Prince LP; Beaver
 Power Corporation; Carmichael Limited
 Partnership; Algonquin Power (Nagagami)
 L.P.; FPS Canada, Inc.; Waltham Power
 and Company, Limited Partnership;
 Li[egrave]vre Power L.P.; Coulonge
 Power and Company, Limited Partnership;
 Powell River Energy Limited
 Partnership; Pingston Power Inc.;
 Energ[egrave]tica Rio Pedrinho S.A.;
 Centrais Hidrel[egrave]tricas Grapon
 S.A.; Energ[egrave]tica Salto Natal
 S.A.; Energ[egrave]tica Ponte Alta
 S.A.; Brascan Energ[egrave]tica Minas
 Gerais S.A..
Centrica Barry Limited; Barrow Offshore   FC06-14-000
 Wind Limited; Braes of Doune Wind Farm
 (Scotland) Limited; Centrica (DSW)
 Limited; Centrica (IDW) Limited;
 Centrica (Lincs) Limited; Centrica
 (RBW) Limited; Centrica Brigg Limited;
 Centrica KL Limited; Centrica Langage
 Limited; Centrica KPS Limited; Centrica
 PB Limited; Centrica RPS Limited;
 Centrica SHB Limited; Glens of Foudland
 Windfarm Limited; Segebel SA.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Take notice that during the month of August 2006, the status of the
above-captioned entities as Exempt Wholesale Generators or Foreign
Utility Companies became effective by operation of the Commission's
regulations. 18 CFR 366.7(a).

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E6-15172 Filed 9-12-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 102 (Tuesday, May 28, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 31840-31842]
[FR Doc No: 2013-12541]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket No. USCG-2013-0377]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone; USO Patriotic Festival Air Show, Atlantic Ocean;
Virginia Beach, VA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone on the
navigable waters of the Atlantic Ocean in Virginia Beach, VA. This
action is necessary to provide for the safety of life on navigable
waters during the USO Patriotic Festival Air Show. This action is
intended to restrict vessel traffic movement in the restricted area in
order to protect mariners from the hazards associated with air show
events.

DATES: This rule is effective from May 31, 2013, at 12 p.m. until June
2, 2013, at 3 p.m. This rule is enforced from 12 p.m. to 3 p.m. daily
between May 31, 2013, and June 2, 2013.

ADDRESSES: Documents mentioned in this preamble are part of docket
[USCG-2013-0377]. To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type the
docket number in the ``SEARCH'' box and click ``SEARCH.'' Click on Open
Docket Folder on the line associated with this rulemaking. You may also
visit the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground
floor of the Department of Transportation West Building, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or email LCDR Hector Cintron, Waterways Management Division Chief,
Sector Hampton Roads, Coast Guard; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have questions on viewing or
submitting material to the docket, call Barbara

Hairston, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Acronyms

DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

A. Regulatory History and Information

    The Coast Guard is issuing this final rule without prior notice and
opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the
Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision
authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and
opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those
procedures are ``impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public
interest.'' Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good
cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
with respect to this rule because the final details of the event were
not known to the Coast Guard until recently. Publishing an NPRM would
be impracticable because there is insufficient time to hold a comment
period and immediate action is needed to provide for the safety of life
and property on navigable waters.
    Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause
exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after
publication in the Federal Register. Delaying the effective date of
this safety zone would be impracticable and contrary to the public
interest since immediate action is needed to ensure the safety of the
event participants, spectator craft, and other vessels transiting the
event area.

B. Basis and Purpose

    From May 31, 2013, through June 2, 2013, Whisper Concerts
Entertainment, Inc. will host an air show event over the Atlantic Ocean
in Virginia Beach, VA. In recent years, there have been unfortunate
incidents involving jets and planes crashing during performances at air
shows. Additionally, there is typically a wide area of scattered debris
that could damage property and cause significant injury or death to
mariners observing the air shows. In order to protect mariners and the
public transiting the Atlantic Ocean immediately below the air show
from hazards associated with the air show, the Coast Guard will
establish a safety zone.

C. Discussion of the Final Rule

    The Coast Guard is establishing a safety zone on specified waters
of the Chesapeake Bay bounded by the following coordinates: 36[deg]-
49'-50'' N/075[deg]-58'-02'' W, 36[deg]-51'-46'' N/075[deg]-58'-33'' W,
36[deg]-51'-53'' N/075[deg]-57'-57'' W, 36[deg]-49'-57'' N/075[deg]-
57'-26'' W (NAD 1983), in the vicinity of Virginia Beach, Virginia.
This safety zone will be enforced from May 31, 2013, until June 2, 2013
between the hours of 12 p.m. and 3 p.m. each day. Access to the safety
zone will be restricted during the specified date and times. No person
or vessel may enter or remain in the safety zone except for vessels
authorized by the Captain of the Port or his Representative.

D. Regulatory Analyses

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

1. Regulatory Planning and Review

    This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f)
of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, as
supplemented by Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and
Regulatory Review, and does not require an assessment of potential
costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of Executive Order 12866 or
under section 1 of Executive Order 13563. The Office of Management and
Budget has not reviewed it under those Orders.
    We expect the economic impact of this rule to be so minimal that a
full Regulatory Evaluation is unnecessary. Although this regulation
restricts access to the safety zone, the effect of this rule will not
be significant because: (i) the safety zone will be in effect for a
limited duration; (ii) the zone is of limited size; and (iii) the Coast
Guard will make notifications via maritime advisories so mariners can
adjust their plans accordingly.

2. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities because the zone will only be in place for a limited
duration and maritime advisories will be issued allowing the mariners
to adjust their plans accordingly.
    This rule would affect the following entities, some of which might
be small entities: The owners and operators of vessels intending to
transit or anchor in that portion of the Atlantic Ocean from May 31,
2013, until June 2, 2013, between the hours of 12 p.m. and 3 p.m. each
day.

3. Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your
small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have
questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please
contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT,
above.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or
action of the Coast Guard.

4. Collection of Information

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

5. Federalism

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and determined
that this rule does not have implications for federalism.

6. Protest Activities

    The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters.
Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER

INTFORMATION CONTACT section to coordinate protest activities so that
your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or
security of people, places or vessels.

7. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

8. Taking of Private Property

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

9. Civil Justice Reform

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

10. Protection of Children

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

11. Indian Tribal Governments

    This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order
13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments,
because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more
Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and
Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities
between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

12. Energy Effects

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

13. Technical Standards

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

14. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which
guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined
that this action is one of a category of actions that do not
individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human
environment. This rule involves the establishment of a safety zone on
the navigable waters of the Atlantic Ocean in Virginia Beach, VA in
order to restrict vessel traffic movement to protect mariners from the
hazards associated with air show events. This rule is categorically
excluded from further review under paragraph 34(g) of Figure 2-1 of the
Commandant Instruction. An environmental analysis checklist supporting
this determination and a Categorical Exclusion Determination will be
available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

    Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends
33 CFR part 165 as follows:

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

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

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

0
2. Add Sec.  165.T05-0377 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T05-0377  Safety Zone; USO Patriotic Festival Air Show,
Atlantic Ocean; Virginia Beach, VA.

    (a) Regulated Area. The following area is a safety zone: specified
waters of the Captain of the Port Sector Hampton Roads zone, as defined
in 33 CFR 3.25-10, in the vicinity of the Atlantic Ocean in Virginia
Beach, VA bound by the following coordinates: 36[deg]-49'-50'' N/
075[deg]-58'-02'' W, 36[deg]-51'-46'' N/075[deg]-58'-33'' W, 36[deg]-
51'-53'' N/075[deg]-57'-57'' W, 36[deg]-49'-57'' N/075[deg]-57'-26'' W
(NAD 1983).
    (b) Definition. For the purposes of this part, Captain of the Port
Representative means any U.S. Coast Guard commissioned, warrant or
petty officer who has been authorized by the Captain of the Port,
Hampton Roads, Virginia to act on his behalf.
    (c) Regulations.
    (1) In accordance with the general regulations in Sec.  165.23 of
this part, entry into this zone is prohibited unless authorized by the
Captain of the Port, Hampton Roads or his designated representatives.
    (2) The operator of any vessel in the immediate vicinity of this
safety zone shall:
    (i) Stop the vessel immediately upon being directed to do so by any
commissioned, warrant or petty officer on shore or on board a vessel
that is displaying a U.S. Coast Guard Ensign.
    (ii) Proceed as directed by any commissioned, warrant or petty
officer on shore or on board a vessel that is displaying a U.S. Coast
Guard Ensign.
    (3) The Captain of the Port, Hampton Roads can be reached through
the Sector Duty Officer at Sector Hampton Roads in Portsmouth, Virginia
at telephone Number<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (4) The Coast Guard Representatives enforcing the safety zone can
be contacted on VHF-FM marine band radio channel 13 (165.65Mhz) and
channel 16 (156.8 Mhz).
    (d) Enforcement Period. This regulation will be enforced from May
31, 2013, until June 2, 2013, between the hours of 12 p.m. and 3 p.m.
each day.

    Dated: May 13, 2013.
John K. Little,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Hampton Roads.
[FR Doc. 2013-12541 Filed 5-24-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register: July 20, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 139)]
[Notices]
[Page 41213-41214]
[DOCID:fr20jy06-37]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-RCRA-2006-0069 FRL-8200-5]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to OMB for
Review and Approval; Comment Request; Part B Permit Application, Permit
Modifications, and Special Permits (Renewal), EPA ICR Number 1573.11,
OMB Control Number 2050-0009

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

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. This ICR is scheduled to expire on July 31, 2006.
Under OMB regulations, the Agency may continue to conduct or sponsor
the collection of information while this submission is pending at OMB.
This ICR describes the nature of the information collection and its
estimated burden and cost.

DATES: Additional comments may be submitted on or before August 21,
2006.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing docket ID number EPA-HQ-
RCRA-2006-0069, to (1) EPA online using http://www.regulations.gov (our

preferred method), or by mail to: Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act (RCRA) Docket (5305T), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460; and (2) OMB by mail to:
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and
Budget (OMB), Attention: Desk Officer for EPA, 725 17th Street, NW.,
Washington, DC 20503.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Toshia King, Office of Solid Waste,
mailcode 5303W, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave., 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 February 16, 2006 (71 FR 8301), 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
No. EPA-HQ-RCRA-2006-0069, which is available for online viewing at
http://www.regulations.gov, or in person viewing at the RCRA Docket in the EPA

Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave.,
NW., Washington, DC. The EPA/DC Public Reading Room is open from 8 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 RCRA 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, CBI, or other information whose public disclosure is
restricted by statute. For further information about the electronic
docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov.

    Title: Part B Permit Application, Permit Modifications, and Special
Permits (Renewal).
    ICR numbers: EPA ICR No. 1573.11, OMB Control No. 2050-0009.
    ICR status: This ICR is currently scheduled to expire on July 31,
2006. Under OMB regulations, the Agency may continue to conduct or
sponsor the collection of information while this submission is pending
at OMB. An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not
required to respond to, a collection of information, unless it displays
a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's
regulations in title 40 of the CFR, after appearing in the Federal
Register when approved, are listed in 40 CFR part 9, are displayed
either by publication in the Federal Register or by other appropriate
means, such as on the related collection instrument or form, if
applicable. The display of OMB control numbers in certain EPA
regulations is consolidated in 40 CFR part 9.
    Abstract: Section 3005 of Subtitle C of RCRA requires treatment,
storage or disposal facilities (TSDFs) to obtain a permit. To obtain
the permit, the TSDFs must submit an application describing the
facility's operation. There are two parts to the RCRA permit
application--Part A and Part B. Part A defines the processes to be used
for treatment, storage, and disposal of hazardous wastes; the design
capacity of such processes; and the specific hazardous wastes to be
handled at the facility. Part B requires detailed site specific
information such as geologic, hydrologic, and engineering data. In the
event that permit modifications are proposed by the applicant or EPA,
modifications must conform to the requirements under sections 3004 and
3005.
    Burden Statement: The annual public reporting and recordkeeping
burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 262
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; 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: Business or other for-profit.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 97.
    Frequency of Response: On occasion.
    Estimated Total Annual Hour Burden: 25,430.
    Estimated Total Annual Cost: $7,518,000, which includes $45,000
annualized capital/startup costs, $5,658,000 annual O&M costs and
$1,815,000 annual labor costs.

    Changes in the Estimates: There is an increase of 13,221 hours in
the total estimated burden currently identified in the OMB Inventory of
Approved ICR Burdens. This increase is due to the larger number of
affected facilities, based on the current information and reporting
requirements from the RCRAInfo database.

    Dated: July 12, 2006.
Sara Hisel McCoy,
Acting Director, Collection Strategies Division.
 [FR Doc. E6-11526 Filed 7-19-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


This directory contains the Section 114 letters and responses.  Note that some letters do not have a response.  Due to time constraints, we conducted some of our BART screening modeling at the same time as we sent out the Section 114 letters.  If a facility screened out of BART, we may have contacted that facility by email or phone and informed it that a response was not necessary.

Additional email correspondence is present in the file, "TX BART 114 email replys.pdf."