[Federal Register: August 9, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 153)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 45492-45497]
[DOCID:fr09au06-47]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 81

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0090; FRL-8206-7]

 Final Extension of the Deferred Effective Date for 8-Hour Ozone
National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Early Action Compact Areas

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The EPA is proposing a final extension of the deferred
effective date of air quality designations for certain areas of the
country that have entered into Early Action Compacts. Early Action
Compact areas have agreed to reduce ground-level ozone pollution
earlier than the Clean Air Act (CAA) requires. On April 30, 2004, EPA
published a notice designating all areas of the country for the 8-hour
ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). In the
designation rule, EPA deferred the effective date of the nonattainment
designation for 14 areas that had entered into Early Action Compacts.
The current effective date of the nonattainment designation for these
areas is December 31, 2006. The EPA is now proposing to extend the
deferral of the effective date for all 14 Early Action compact areas
until April 15, 2008.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before September 8, 2006.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2003-0090, by one of the following methods:
     http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line

instructions for submitting comments.
     E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Attention Docket ID No.
EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0090.
     Fax: Fax your comments to<PHONE_NUMBER>, Attention Docket
ID. No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0090.
     Mail: Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0090, Environmental
Protection Agency, Mailcode: 6102T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue,
Northwest, Washington, DC 20460. Please include two copies.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver your comments to: Air Docket,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1301

Constitution Avenue, NW., Room B102, Washington, DC 20004, Attention
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0090. Such deliveries are only accepted
during the Docket's normal hours of operation, and special arrangements
should be made for deliveries of boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2003-0090. The EPA's policy is that all comments received will be
included in the public docket without change and may be made available
online at http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information

provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through http://www.regulations.gov

or e-mail. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access''

system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact
information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you
send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through
http://www.regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be automatically captured

and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket
and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic
comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact
information in the body of your comment with any disk or CD-ROM you
submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties
and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to
consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special
characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or
viruses. For further information about EPA's public docket visit the
EPA Docket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.

    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the
http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some

information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the EPA Docket Center, EPA/

DC, EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC.
The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday
through Friday, excluding legal holidays. A reasonable fee may be
charged for copying. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room
is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number for the Air Docket is (202)
566-1742.

    Note: The EPA Docket Center suffered damage due to flooding
during the last week of June 2006. The Docket Center is continuing
to operate. However, during the cleanup, there will be temporary
changes to Docket Center telephone numbers, addresses, and hours of
operation for people who wish to make hand deliveries or visit the
Public Reading Room to view documents. Consult EPA's Federal
Register notice at 71 FR 38147 (July 5, 2006) or the EPA Web site at
http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm for current information on

docket operations, locations and telephone numbers. The Docket
Center's mailing address for U.S. mail and the procedure for
submitting comments to http://www.regulations.gov are not affected by the

flooding and will remain the same.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Barbara Driscoll, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards, Mail Code C539-04, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, phone
number<PHONE_NUMBER> or by e-mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or Mr.
David Cole, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code C304-05, Research Triangle
Park, NC 27711, phone number<PHONE_NUMBER> or by e-mail at:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does This Action Apply to Me?

    This action applies only to the 14 areas that entered into Early
Action compacts and for which the effective date of the nonattainment
designation was deferred. A list of these areas is included in Table 1
below.

B. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA?

    1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through
http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly mark the part of all of the

information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or
CD ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM as
CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD ROM the
specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one
complete version of the comment that include information claimed as
CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information
claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket.
Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with
procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
    2. Tips for Preparing Your Comments. When submitting comments,
remember to:
     Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other
identifying information (subject heading, Federal Register date and
page number).
     Follow directions--The agency may ask you to respond to
specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
     Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives
and substitute language for your requested changes.
     Describe any assumptions and provide any technical
information and/or data that you used.
     If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how
you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be
reproduced.
     Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and
suggest alternatives.
     Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the
use of profanity or personal threats.
     Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period
deadline identified.

C. Where Should I Send an Additional Copy of My Comments?

    In addition, please send a copy of your comments to: Barbara
Driscoll, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards by one of the means listed:
     E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>, Attention: Barbara Driscoll.
     Mail: Barbara Driscoll, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Mail Code: C539-
04, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711.
     Hand Delivery: Barbara Driscoll, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Room:
C541C, 109 T.W. Alexander Drive, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709.
    The information presented in this preamble is organized as follows.

Outline

    The following is an outline of the preamble.

I. General Information
    A. Does this Action Apply to Me?
    B. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA?
    C. Where Should I Send an Additional Copy of My Comments?
II. What is the Purpose of this Document?
III. What Action has EPA Taken to Date for Early Action Compact
Areas?

    A. What progress are compact areas making toward completing
their milestones?
    B. What is this proposed action for compact areas?
    C. What is EPA's schedule for taking further action to continue
to defer the effective date of nonattainment designation for compact
areas?
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
    A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
    B. Paperwork Reduction Act
    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
    E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
    F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination with
Indian Tribal Governments
    G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from
Environmental Health and Safety Risks
    H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
    I. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act
    J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations

II. What Is the Purpose of This Document?

    The purpose of this document is to propose to extend the deferral
of the effective date of the 8-hour ozone nonattainment designations
for 14 participants in Early Action Compacts. Currently, the effective
designation date is December 31, 2006, and this proposal would extend
that date to April 15, 2008.

III. What Action Has EPA Taken to Date for Early Action Compact Areas?

    This section discusses EPA's actions to date with respect to
certain areas of the country that are participating in the Early Action
Compact program. On December 31, 2002, we entered into compacts with 33
communities. To receive the first deferral, these Early Action Compact
areas agreed to reduce ground-level ozone pollution earlier than the
CAA would require. The final designation rule published April 30, 2004,
(69 FR 23864), included the following actions for compact areas:
Deferred the effective date of nonattainment designation for 14 compact
areas until September 30, 2005; detailed the progress compact areas had
made toward completing their milestones; described the final action
required for compact areas; detailed EPA's schedule for taking further
action to extend the deferral of the effective date of nonattainment
designations, if appropriate; and described the consequences for
compact areas that do not meet a milestone. In the April 2004, action,
we also discussed three compact areas which did not meet the March 31,
2004, milestone; Knoxville, Memphis, and Chattanooga, Tennessee.
Knoxville and Memphis were designated nonattainment effective June 15,
2004. Chattanooga was later determined to have met the March 31, 2004,
milestone, and we deferred the designation date until September 30,
2005,(69 FR 34080). This brought the number of participating compact
areas to 31. Since then 2 additional areas, Haywood and Putnam
Counties, Tennessee have withdrawn from the program.
    On August 29, 2005, we published a final rule extending the
deferred effective date of designation from September 30, 2005, to
December 31, 2006, for the same 14 compact areas. In order to receive
the second deferral, Early Action Compact areas needed to submit a
State Implementation Plan with locally adopted measures by December 31,
2004. The EPA approved the SIP revisions as meeting the EAC Protocol
and EPA's EAC regulations at 40 CFR 81.300, and these approvals were
the basis for extending the deferred effective date until December 31,
2006. Information on local measures, SIP submittals and background on
the Early Action Compact program may be found on EPA's Web site at
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/ozone/eac/.

A. What progress are compact areas making toward completing their
milestones?

    In general, the remaining 29 compact areas have made satisfactory
progress toward timely completion of their milestones. All compact
areas were required to submit two progress reports, one by December 30,
2005, and the other by June 30, 2006. In these progress reports, the
States provided information on progress towards implementing local
control measures that were incorporated in their SIPs. Each of the EAC
areas submitted these reports, and after review by EPA, all were
determined to be in compliance with the requirements of the EAC
Protocol and the individual State Implementation Plans. Progress
reports for each area are posted at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/ozone/eac/
.

    The EAC areas have one remaining milestone which is to demonstrate
attainment with the 8-hour ozone NAAQS by December 31, 2007.

B. What is this proposed action for compact areas?

    Today, we are proposing to extend the deferred effective date of
the nonattainment designation for the 14 compact areas. These 14 areas
have met all compact milestones through the June 30, 2006, submission.
We are proposing to extend until April 15, 2008, the deferral of the
effective date of the 8-hour ozone nonattainment designation for the
compact area counties listed in Table 1. If this extension is
finalized, we will revise 40 CFR part 81 in the final rule to reflect
this extension.

              Table 1.--Compact Areas Which Qualify for a Deferred Effective Date of April 15, 2008
                     [Name of designated 8-hour ozone nonattainment area is in parentheses]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Counties with        Counties which are part of
              State                     Compact area        designation deferred to  compacts and are designated
                                      (Designated area)          April 15, 2008       unclassifiable/ attainment
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  EPA--Region 3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
VA..............................  Northern Shenandoah       Winchester City,
                                   Valley Region,            Frederick County.
                                   (Frederick County, VA),
                                   adjacent to Washington,
                                   DC-MD-VA.
VA..............................  Roanoke Area, (Roanoke,   Roanoke County,
                                   VA).                      Botetourt County,
                                                             Roanoke City, Salem
                                                             City.
MD..............................  Washington County,        Washington County......
                                   (Washington County
                                   (Hagerstown, MD),
                                   adjacent to Washington,
                                   DC-MD-VA.

WV..............................  The Eastern Pan Handle    Berkeley County,
                                   Region, (Berkeley &       Jefferson County.
                                   Jefferson Counties,
                                   WV), Martinsburg area.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  EPA--Region 4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NC..............................  Unifour (Hickory-         Catawba County,
                                   Morganton-Lenoir, NC).    Alexander County,
                                                             Burke County (part),
                                                             Caldwell County (part).
NC..............................  Triad, (Greensboro-       Randolph County,         Surry County, Yadkin
                                   Winston-Salem-High        Forsyth County, Davie    County, Stokes County.
                                   Point, NC).               County, Alamance
                                                             County, Caswell
                                                             County, Davidson
                                                             County, Guilford
                                                             County, Rockingham
                                                             County.
NC..............................  Cumberland County,        Cumberland County......
                                   (Fayetteville, NC).
SC..............................  Appalachian--A,           Spartanburg County,      Cherokee County, Pickens
                                   (Greenville-Spartanburg-  Greenville County,       County, Oconee County.
                                   Anderson, SC).            Anderson County.
SC..............................  Central Midlands--I,      Richland County (part),  Newberry County, Fairfield
                                   Columbia area.            Lexington County         County.
                                                             (part).
TN/GA...........................  Chattanooga,              Hamilton County, TN,     Marion County, TN, Walker
                                   (Chattanooga, TN-GA).     Meigs County, TN,        County, GA.
                                                             Catoosa County, GA.
TN..............................  Nashville, (Nashville,    Davidson County,         Robertson County, Cheatham
                                   TN).                      Rutherford County,       County, Dickson County.
                                                             Williamson County,
                                                             Wilson County, Sumner
                                                             County.
TN..............................  Johnson City-Kingsport-   Sullivan Co, TN,         Washington Co, TN, Unicoi
                                   Bristol Area, (TN         Hawkins County, TN.      County, TN, Carter County,
                                   portion only).                                     TN, Johnson County, TN.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  EPA--Region 6
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TX..............................  San Antonio.............  Bexar County, Comal      Wilson County.
                                                             County, Guadalupe
                                                             County.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  EPA--Region 8
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CO..............................  Denver, (Denver-Boulder-  Denver County, Boulder
                                   Greeley-Ft. Collins-      County, (includes part
                                   Love, CO).                of Rocky Mtn. Nat.
                                                             Park), Jefferson
                                                             County, Douglas
                                                             County, Broomfield,
                                                             Adams County, Arapahoe
                                                             County, Larimer County
                                                             (part), Weld County
                                                             (part).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. What is EPA's schedule for taking further action to continue to
defer the effective date of nonattainment designation for compact
areas?

    With this action, we are proposing to extend the deferred effective
date of the nonattainment designation for compact areas which have met
their obligations through April 15, 2008. No later than December 31,
2007, each area must attain the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. If the area has
attained the standard by December 31, 2007, EPA will withdraw the
deferred nonattainment designation and designate the area as
attainment. If the area fails to attain by this date, the nonattainment
designation will become effective on April 15, 2008. For any area for
which the nonattainment designation becomes effective, pursuant to the
terms of the compact, the State must submit a revised attainment
demonstration SIP for the nonattainment area by December 31, 2008.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This action proposes to extend the deferral of the effective date
of the nonattainment designation for 14 compact areas until April 15,
2008.

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review

    This action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under the
terms of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and is
therefore not subject to review under the EO.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This action does not impose an information collection burden under
the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.
This proposal does not require the collection of any information.
    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.
    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 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an Agency
to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to
notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative
Procedures Act or any other statute unless the Agency certifies the
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses,
small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions.
    For purposes of assessing the impacts of today's proposed rule on
small entities, small entity is defined as:
    1. A small business that is a small industrial entity as defined in
the Small Business Administration's (SBA) regulations at 13 CFR
121.201;
    2. A small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a
city, county, town, school district or special district with a
population of less than 50,000; and
    3. A small organization that is any not-for-profit enterprise which
is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.
    After considering the economic impacts of today's proposed rule on
small entities, I certify that this rule will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This
proposed rule will not impose any requirements on small entities.
Rather, this rule would extend the deferral of the effective date of
the nonattainment designation for areas that implement control measures
and achieve emissions reductions earlier than otherwise required by the
CAA in order to attain the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. We continue to be
interested in the potential impacts of the proposed rule on small
entities and welcome comments on issues related to such impacts.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public
Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal
governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA
generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit
analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``Federal mandates'' that
may result in expenditures to State, local, and tribal governments, in
the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any
1 year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement
is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to identify
and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt
the least costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative
that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205
do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover,
section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least
costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative if the
Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation why that
alternative was not adopted. Before EPA establishes any regulatory
requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small
governments, including tribal governments, it must have developed under
section 203 of the UMRA a small government agency plan. The plan must
provide for notifying potentially affected small governments, enabling
officials of affected small governments to have meaningful and timely
input in the development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant
Federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and
advising small governments on compliance with the regulatory
requirements.
    Today's rule contains no Federal mandates (under the regulatory
provisions of Title II of the UMRA) for State, local, or tribal
governments or the private sector. The EPA has determined that this
rule contains no regulatory requirements that might significantly or
uniquely affect small governments. Today's rule defers to a later date
requirements associated with nonattainment area status for areas that
have voluntarily entered into Early Action Compacts with EPA. The rule
imposes no enforceable duty on any State, local or tribal governments
or the private sector. Thus, today's proposed rule is not subject to
the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August
10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure
``meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.''
``Policies that have federalism implications'' is defined in the
Executive Order to include regulations that 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.''
    This proposed rule 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,
as specified in Executive Order 13132. The CAA establishes the scheme
whereby States take the lead in developing plans to meet the NAAQS.
This proposed rule would not modify the relationship of the States and
EPA for purposes of developing programs to implement the NAAQS. Thus,
Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this proposed rule.
    In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, and consistent with EPA
policy to promote communications between EPA and State and local
governments, EPA specifically solicits comment on this proposed rule
from State and local officials.

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments

    Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination
with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful
and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory
policies that have tribal implications.'' This proposed rule does not
have ``Tribal implications'' as specified in Executive Order 13175. It
does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian Tribes,
since no Tribe has implemented a CAA program to attain the 8-hour ozone
NAAQS at this time or has participated in a compact.
    The EPA specifically solicits additional comment on this proposed
rule from Tribal officials.

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health and Safety Risks

    Executive Order 13045: ``Protection of Children From Environmental
Health and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies to any
rule that (1) is determined to be ``economically significant'' as
defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental
health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have
disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets
both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health or
safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the
planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and
reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency.
    The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those
regulatory actions that are based on health or safety risks, such that
the analysis required under section 5-501 of the Order has the
potential to influence the regulation. This proposal is not subject to
Executive Order 13045 because it does not establish an environmental
standard intended to mitigate health or safety risks.

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use

    This proposed rule is not a ``significant energy action'' as
defined in Executive Order 13211, ``Actions That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use,'' (66 FR 28355; May 22, 2001)
because it is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the
supply, distribution, or use of energy.

I. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer Advancement Act
of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law No. 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272
note) directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS) in its
regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with
applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards
are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods,
sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed or
adopted by VCS bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress,
through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use available
and applicable VCS.
    This proposed rulemaking does not involve technical standards.
Therefore, EPA is not considering the use of any VCS.
    The EPA will encourage States that have compact areas to consider
the use of such standards, where appropriate, in the development of
their SIPs.

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

    Executive Order 12898 requires that each Federal agency make
achieving environmental justice part of its mission by identifying and
addressing, as appropriate, disproportionate high and adverse human
health or environmental effects of its programs, policies, and
activities on minorities and low-income populations.
    The EPA believes that this proposed rule should not raise any
environmental justice issues. The health and environmental risks
associated with ozone were considered in the establishment of the 8-
hour, 0.08 ppm ozone NAAQS. The level is designed to be protective with
an adequate margin of safety.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 81

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control.

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7408; 42 U.S.C. 7410; 42 U.S.C. 7501-7511f;
42 U.S.C. 7601(a)(1).

    Dated: August 3, 2006.
Stephen L. Johnson,
Administrator.

    40 CFR part 81 is proposed to be amended as follows:

PART 81--[AMENDED]

    1. The authority citation for part 81 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart C--Section 107 Attainment Status Designations

    2. Section 81.300 is amended by revising paragraphs (e)(3)(i) and
(e)(3)(ii)(B) to read as follows:

Sec.  81.300  Scope.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *
    (3) * * *
    (i) General. Notwithstanding clauses (i) through (iv) of section
107(d)(1)(B) of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7407(d)(1)(B)), the
Administrator shall defer until April 15, 2008, the effective date of a
nonattainment designation of any area subject to a compact that does
not meet (or that contributes to ambient air quality in a nearby area
that does not meet) the 8-hour ozone national ambient air quality
standard if the Administrator determines that the area subject to a
compact has met the requirements in paragraphs (e)(2)(i) through (v) of
this section.
    (ii) * * *
    (B) Prior to expiration of the deferred effective date on April 15,
2008, if the Administrator determines that an area or the State subject
to a compact has not met the requirement in paragraph (e)(2)(vi) of
this section, the nonattainment designation shall become effective as
of the deferred effective date, unless EPA takes affirmative rulemaking
action to further extend the deadline.
* * * * *
 [FR Doc. E6-12960 Filed 8-8-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 97 (Thursday, May 19, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Page 31629]
[FR Doc No: 2016-11841]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL 9946-65-OGC]

Intent To Grant a Co-Exclusive Patent License

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of intent to grant a co-exclusive license; request for
public comment.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 207 (Patents) and 37 CFR part 404 (U.S.
Government patent licensing regulations), EPA hereby gives notice of
its intent to grant an exclusive, royalty-bearing, revocable license to
practice the invention described and claimed in the U.S. patent number
7,279,103 entitled, PROCESS FOR THE PURIFICATION OF ACIDIC METAL-
BEARING WASTE WATERS TO PERMISSABLE DISCHARGE LEVELS WITH RECOVERY OF
MARKETABLE METAL PRODUCTS, filed September 13, 2005 and issued October
9, 2007, to PRD Tech, Incorporated, Cincinnati, Ohio.
    The proposed exclusive license will contain appropriate terms,
limitations, and conditions to be negotiated in accordance with 35
U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR 404.5 and 404.7 of the U.S. Government patent
licensing regulations.
    EPA will negotiate the final terms and conditions and grant the
exclusive license, unless within 30 days from the date of this notice
EPA receives, at the address below, written objections to the grant,
together with supporting documentation. The documentation from
objecting parties having an interest in practicing the above patent
should include an application for an exclusive or nonexclusive license
with the information set forth in 37 CFR 404.8.
    The EPA Patent Attorney and other EPA officials will review all
written responses and then make recommendations on a final decision to
the Director or Deputy Director of the National Risk Management
Research Laboratory who have been delegated the authority to issue
patent licenses under EPA Delegation 1-55.

DATES: Comments must be received by June 20, 2016.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments to Laura Scalise, Patent Attorney,
Office of General Counsel (Mail Code 2377A), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460;
telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Laura Scalise, Patent Attorney, Office
of General Counsel (Mail Code 2377A), Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, DC 20460, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: May 6, 2016.
Wendy Blake,
Associate General Counsel, General Law Office.
[FR Doc. 2016-11841 Filed 5-18-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 151 (Tuesday, August 8, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 53492-53494]
[FR Doc No: 2023-16925]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration
[Docket No. FDA-2023-N-2894]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection;
Comment Request; Good Laboratory Practice Requirements for Nonclinical
Laboratory Studies

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is announcing
an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain
information by the Agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
(PRA), Federal Agencies are required to publish notice in the Federal
Register concerning each proposed collection of information and to
allow 60 days for public comment in response to the notice. This notice
solicits comments on information collection applicable to the Good
Laboratory Practice Requirements for Nonclinical Laboratory Studies
established in Agency regulations.

DATES: Either electronic or written comments on the collection of
information must be submitted by October 10, 2023.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments as follows. Please note that late,
untimely filed comments will not be considered. The https://www.regulations.gov electronic filing system will accept comments until
11:59 p.m. Eastern Time at the end of October 10, 2023. Comments
received by mail/hand delivery/courier (for written/paper submissions)
will be considered timely if they are received on or before that date.

Electronic Submissions

    Submit electronic comments in the following way:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments. Comments submitted
electronically, including attachments, to https://www.regulations.gov
will be posted to the docket unchanged. Because your comment will be
made public, you are solely responsible for ensuring that your comment
does not include any confidential information that you or a third party
may not wish to be posted, such as medical information, your or anyone
else's Social Security number, or confidential business information,
such as a manufacturing process. Please note that if you include your
name, contact information, or other information that identifies you in
the body of your comments, that information will be posted on https://www.regulations.gov.
     If you want to submit a comment with confidential
information that you do not wish to be made available to the public,
submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner
detailed (see ``Written/Paper Submissions'' and ``Instructions'').

Written/Paper Submissions

    Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
     Mail/Hand Delivery/Courier (for written/paper
submissions): Dockets Management Staff (HFA-305), Food and Drug
Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.
     For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets
Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any
attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified,
as confidential, if submitted as detailed in ``Instructions.''
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket No.
FDA-2023-N-2894 for ``Agency Information Collection Activities;
Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Good Laboratory Practice
Requirements for Nonclinical Laboratory Studies.'' Received comments,
those filed in a timely manner (see ADDRESSES), will be placed in the
docket and, except for those submitted as ``Confidential Submissions,''
publicly viewable at https://www.regulations.gov or at the Dockets
Management Staff between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, 240-
402-7500.
     Confidential Submissions--To submit a comment with
confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly
available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You
should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information
you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states
``THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.'' The Agency will
review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in
its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the
claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be
available for public viewing and posted on https://www.regulations.gov.
Submit both copies to the Dockets Management Staff. If you do not wish
your name and contact information to be made publicly available, you
can provide this information on the cover sheet and not in the body of
your comments and you must identify this information as
``confidential.'' Any information marked as ``confidential'' will not
be disclosed except in accordance with 21 CFR 10.20 and other
applicable disclosure law. For more information about FDA's posting of
comments to public dockets, see 80 FR 56469, September 18, 2015, or
access the information at: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2015-09-18/pdf/2015-23389.pdf.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
the electronic and written/paper comments received, go to https://www.regulations.gov and insert the docket number, found in brackets in
the heading of this document, into the ``Search'' box and follow the
prompts and/or go to the Dockets Management Staff, 5630 Fishers Lane,
Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Domini Bean, Office of Operations,
Food and Drug Administration, Three White Flint North, 10A-12M, 11601
Landsdown St., North Bethesda, MD 20852,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521), Federal
Agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor.
``Collection of information'' is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR
1320.3(c) and includes Agency requests or requirements that members of
the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a
third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A))
requires Federal Agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the Federal
Register concerning each proposed collection of information before
submitting the collection to OMB for approval. To comply with this
requirement, FDA is publishing notice of the proposed collection of
information set forth in this document.
    With respect to the following collection of information, FDA
invites comments on these topics: (1) whether the proposed collection
of information is necessary for the proper performance of FDA's
functions, including whether the information will have practical

utility; (2) the accuracy of FDA's estimate of the burden of the
proposed collection of information, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality,
utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways
to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents,
including through the use of automated collection techniques, when
appropriate, and other forms of information technology.

Good Laboratory Practice Requirements for Nonclinical Laboratory
Studies--21 CFR Part 58

OMB Control No. 0910-0119--Extension

    Sections 409, 505, 512, and 515 of the Federal Food, Drug, and
Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 348, 355, 360b, and 360e) and related statutes
require manufacturers of food additives, human drugs and biological
products, animal drugs, and medical devices to demonstrate the safety
and utility of their product by submitting applications to FDA for
research or marketing permits. Such applications contain, among other
important items, full reports of all studies done to demonstrate
product safety in man and/or other animals. In order to ensure adequate
quality control for these studies and to provide an adequate degree of
consumer protection, the Agency issued good laboratory practice (GLP)
regulations for nonclinical laboratory studies in part 58 (21 CFR part
58). The regulations specify minimum standards for the proper conduct
of safety testing and contain sections on facilities, personnel,
equipment, standard operating procedures (SOPs), test and control
articles, quality assurance, protocol and conduct of a safety study,
records and reports, and laboratory disqualification, and include
information collection provisions.
    Part 58 requires testing facilities engaged in conducting
toxicological studies to retain, and make available to regulatory
officials, records regarding compliance with GLPs. Records are
maintained on file at each testing facility and examined there
periodically by FDA inspectors. The GLP regulations require that, for
each nonclinical laboratory study, a final report be prepared that
documents the results of quality assurance unit inspections, test and
control article characterization, testing of mixtures of test and
control articles with carriers, and an overall interpretation of
nonclinical laboratory studies. The GLP regulations also require
written records pertaining to: (1) personnel job descriptions and
summaries of training and experience; (2) master schedules, protocols
and amendments thereto, inspection reports, and SOPs; (3) equipment
inspection, maintenance, calibration, and testing records; (4)
documentation of feed and water analyses and animal treatments; (5)
test article accountability records; and (6) study documentation and
raw data.
    Description of Respondents: Respondents to the collection of
information are sponsors of nonclinical laboratory studies that support
or are intended to support applications for research or marketing
permits for products regulated by FDA.
    We estimate the burden of the information collection as follows:

                                 Table 1--Estimated Annual Reporting Burden \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Number of
                                                  Number of    responses      Total       Average
                  21 CFR part                    respondents      per         annual     burden per  Total hours
                                                               respondent   responses     response
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
58.35(b)(7); Quality assurance unit............          300        60.25       18,075            1       18,075
58.185; Reporting of nonclinical laboratory              300        60.25       18,075        27.65      499,774
 study results.................................
                                                ----------------------------------------------------------------
    Total......................................  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........      517,849
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of
  information.

                               Table 2--Estimated Annual Recordkeeping Burden \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   Number of                     Average burden
          21 CFR part              Number of      records per    Total annual          per          Total hours
                                 recordkeepers   recordkeeper       records       recordkeeping
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
58.29(b); Personnel...........             300              20           6,000  .21 (13 mins.)..           1,260
58.35(b)(1)-(6), and (c);                  300          270.76          81,228  3.36............         272,926
 Quality assurance unit.
58.63(b) and (c); Maintenance              300              60          18,000  .09 (5 mins.)...           1,620
 and calibration of equipment.
58.81(a)-(c); SOPs............             300          301.80          90,540  .14 (8 mins.)...          12,676
58.90(c) and (g); Animal care.             300           62.70          18,810  .13 (8 mins.)...           2,445
58.105(a) and (b); Test and                300               5           1,500  11.8............          17,700
 control article
 characterization.
58.107(d); Test and control                300               1             300  4.25............           1,275
 article handling.
58.113(a); Mixtures of                     300           15.33           4,599  6.8.............          31,273
 articles with carriers.
58.120; Protocol..............             300           15.38           4,614  32.7............         150,878
58.195; Retention of records..             300          251.50          75,450  3.9.............         294,255
                               ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.....................  ..............  ..............  ..............  ................         786,308
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of
  information.

    Based on an evaluation of the information collection, we are
retaining the currently approved estimates. Our assumptions made
regarding the time needed for the respective activities is based on our
experience with the information collection and informal communications
with respondents.

    Dated: August 3, 2023.
Lauren K. Roth,
Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2023-16925 Filed 8-7-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 74 (Monday, April 18, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 21660-21662]
[FR Doc No: 2011-9342]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

44 CFR Part 65

[Docket ID FEMA-2011-0002; Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-B-1186]

Changes in Flood Elevation Determinations

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Interim rule.

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

SUMMARY: This interim rule lists communities where modification of the
Base (1% annual-chance) Flood Elevations (BFEs) is appropriate because
of new scientific or technical data. New flood insurance premium rates
will be calculated from the modified BFEs for new buildings and their
contents.

DATES: These modified BFEs are currently in effect on the dates listed
in the table below and revise the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) in
effect prior to this determination for the listed communities.
    From the date of the second publication of these changes in a
newspaper of local circulation, any person has ninety (90) days in
which to request through the community that the Deputy Federal
Insurance and Mitigation Administrator reconsider the changes. The
modified BFEs may be changed during the 90-day period.

ADDRESSES: The modified BFEs for each community are available for
inspection at the office of the Chief Executive Officer of each
community. The respective addresses are listed in the table below.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Luis Rodriguez, Chief, Engineering
Management Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration,
Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC
20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or (e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The modified BFEs are not listed for each
community in this interim rule. However, the address of the Chief
Executive Officer of the community where the modified BFE
determinations are available for inspection is provided.
    Any request for reconsideration must be based on knowledge of
changed conditions or new scientific or technical data.
    The modifications are made pursuant to section 201 of the Flood
Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4105, and are in accordance
with the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq.,
and with 44 CFR part 65.
    For rating purposes, the currently effective community number is
shown and must be used for all new policies and renewals.
    The modified BFEs are the basis for the floodplain management
measures that the community is required either to adopt or to show
evidence of being already in effect in order to qualify or to remain
qualified for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program
(NFIP).
    These modified BFEs, together with the floodplain management
criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum that are required.
They should not be construed to mean that the community must change any
existing ordinances that are more stringent in their floodplain
management requirements. The community may at any time enact stricter
requirements of its own or pursuant to policies established by other
Federal, State, or regional entities. The changes in BFEs are in
accordance with 44 CFR 65.4.
    National Environmental Policy Act. This interim rule is
categorically excluded from the requirements of 44

CFR part 10, Environmental Consideration. An environmental impact
assessment has not been prepared.
    Regulatory Flexibility Act. As flood elevation determinations are
not within the scope of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-
612, a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required.
    Regulatory Classification. This interim rule is not a significant
regulatory action under the criteria of section 3(f) of Executive Order
12866 of September 30, 1993, Regulatory Planning and Review, 58 FR
51735.
    Executive Order 13132, Federalism. This interim rule involves no
policies that have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism.
    Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. This interim rule
meets the applicable standards of Executive Order 12988.

List of Subjects in 44 CFR Part 65

    Flood insurance, Floodplains, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.

    Accordingly, 44 CFR part 65 is amended to read as follows:

PART 65--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 65 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq.; Reorganization Plan No. 3 of
1978, 3 CFR, 1978 Comp., p. 329; E.O. 12127, 44 FR 19367, 3 CFR,
1979 Comp., p. 376.

Sec.  65.4  [Amended]

0
2. The tables published under the authority of Sec.  65.4 are amended
as follows:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Date and name of
         State and county           Location and case No.     newspaper where     Chief executive officer   Effective date of  modification   Community
                                                           notice was published         of community                                             No.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama: Tuscaloosa...............  City of Tuscaloosa     January 10, 2011;     The Honorable Walter       December 31, 2010..............       010203
                                     (10-04-7227P).         January 17, 2011;     Maddox, Mayor, City of
                                                            The Tuscaloosa News.  Tuscaloosa, P.O. Box
                                                                                2089, Tuscaloosa, AL
                                                                                35401.
Arizona:
    Maricopa......................  City of Surprise (10-  January 27, 2011;     The Honorable Lyn Truitt,  June 3, 2011...................       040053
                                     09-3551P).             February 3, 2011;     Mayor, City of Surprise,
                                                            The Arizona           16000 North Civic Center
                                                            Business Gazette.     Plaza, Surprise, AZ
                                                                                85734.
     Maricopa.....................  Unincorporated areas   January 27, 2011;     Mr. Andrew Kunasek,        June 3, 2011...................       040037
                                     of Maricopa County     February 3, 2011;     Chairman, Maricopa
                                     (10-09-3551P).         The Arizona           County Board of
                                                            Business Gazette.     Supervisors, 301 West
                                                                                Jefferson, 10th Floor,
                                                                                Phoenix, AZ 85003.
California: Riverside.............  City of Hemet (10-09-  December 24, 2010;    The Honorable Jerry        December 17, 2010..............       060253
                                     2521P).                December 31, 2010;    Franchville, Mayor, City
                                                            The Press-            of Hemet, 445 East
                                                            Enterprise.           Florida Avenue, Hemet,
                                                                                CA 92543.
Colorado:
     Adams........................  City of Commerce City  February 1, 2011;     The Honorable Paul         June 8, 2011...................       080006
                                     (10-08-0226P).         February 8, 2011;     Natale, Mayor, City of
                                                            The Commerce City     Commerce City, 7887 East
                                                            Sentinel Express.     60th Avenue, Commerce
                                                                                City, CO 80022.
     Douglas......................  Town of Parker (10-08- December 23, 2010;    The Honorable David        April 29, 2011.................       080310
                                     0769P).                December 30, 2010;    Casiano, Mayor, Town of
                                                            The Douglas County    Parker, 20120 East Main
                                                            News-Press.           Street, Parker, CO 80138.
    Douglas.......................  Unincorporated areas   December 23, 2010;    Mr. Steven A. Boand,       April 29, 2011.................       080049
                                     of Douglas County      December 30, 2010;    Chairman, Douglas County
                                     (10-08-0769P).         The Douglas County    Board of Commissioners,
                                                            News-Press.           100 3rd Street, Castle
                                                                                Rock, CO 80104.
Nevada:
     Washoe.......................  City of Reno (10-09-   January 4, 2011;      The Honorable Bob          December 28, 2010..............       320020
                                     3236P).                January 11, 2011;     Cashell, Mayor, City of
                                                            The Reno Gazette-     Reno, P.O. Box 1900,
                                                            Journal.              Reno, NV 89505.
    Washoe........................  City of Sparks (10-09- January 4, 2011;      The Honorable Geno         December 28, 2010..............       320021
                                     3236P).                January 11, 2011;     Martini, Mayor, City of
                                                            The Reno Gazette-     Sparks, 431 Prater Way,
                                                            Journal.              Sparks, NV 89431.
North Carolina:
     Alamance.....................  Unincorporated areas   December 16, 2010;    Mr. Craig F. Honeycutt,    April 22, 2011.................       370001
                                     of Alamance County     December 23, 2010;    Alamance County Manager,
                                     (10-04-2172P).         The Times-News.       124 West Elm Street,
                                                                                Graham, NC 27253.
    Wake..........................  City of Raleigh (10-   January 6, 2011;      The Honorable Charles      May 13, 2011...................       370243
                                     04-1146P).             January 13, 2011;     Meeker, Mayor, City of
                                                            The News & Observer.  Raleigh, P.O. Box 590,
                                                                                Raleigh, NC 27602.
Ohio:
     Lake.........................  City of Painesville    January 3, 2011;      Mr. Joseph Hada, Jr.,      January 24, 2011...............       390319
                                     (10-05-6522P).         January 10, 2011;     President, Painesville
                                                            The News-Herald.      City Council, 7 Richmond
                                                                                Street, P.O. Box 601,
                                                                                Painesville, OH 44077.
    Lake..........................  Unincorporated areas   January 3, 2011;      Mr. Raymond E. Sines,      January 24, 2011...............       390771
                                     of Lake County (10-    January 10, 2011;     President, Lake County
                                     05-6522P).             The News-Herald.      Board of Commissioners,
                                                                                105 Main Street, P.O.
                                                                                Box 490, Painesville, OH
                                                                                44077.
Tennessee: Sumner.................  City of Gallatin (10-  January 19, 2011;     The Honorable Jo Ann       May 26, 2011...................       470185
                                     04-4673P).             January 26, 2011;     Graves, Mayor, City of
                                                            The Gallatin          Gallatin, 132 West Main
                                                            Newspaper.            Street, Gallatin, TN
                                                                                37066.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. 97.022, ``Flood
Insurance.'')

    Dated: March 30, 2011.
Sandra K. Knight,
Deputy Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administrator, Mitigation,
Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2011-9342 Filed 4-15-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-12-P


[Federal Register: August 5, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 150)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 47190-47194]
[DOCID:fr05au10-7]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2009-0716; Directorate Identifier 2008-NM-212-AD;
Amendment 39-16378; AD 2010-16-02]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Empresa Brasileira de Aeronautica S.A.
(EMBRAER) Model EMB-135 Airplanes; and Empresa Brasileira de
Aeronautica S.A. (EMBRAER) Model EMB-145, -145ER, -145MR, -145LR, -
145XR, -145MP, and -145EP Airplanes

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new 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:

    It has been found the occurrence of corrosion on the Auxiliary
Power Unit (APU) mounting rods that could cause the APU rod to
break, affecting the APU support structure integrity.

APU support structure failure could result in loss of power of the APU
and possible loss of control of the airplane. We are issuing this AD to
require actions to correct the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: This AD becomes effective September 9, 2010. The Director of the
Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain
publications listed in this AD as of September 9, 2010.

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 August 19, 2009 (74
FR 41807). That NPRM proposed to correct an unsafe condition for the
specified products. The MCAI states:

    It has been found the occurrence of corrosion on the Auxiliary
Power Unit (APU) mounting rods that could cause the APU rod to
break, affecting the APU support structure integrity.

APU support structure failure could result in loss of power of the APU
and possible loss of control of the airplane. The required action is
doing an external detailed inspection for corrosion of the APU
auxiliary and center mounting rods and rod ends, and corrective actions
if necessary. Corrective actions include removing corrosion, applying
anticorrosive treatment, and replacing mounting rods. 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 considered the comments received.

Request for Bridging Requirements for Previously Accomplished Actions

    American Eagle Airlines (AEA) requests that we revise the NPRM to
include ``bridging requirements.'' AEA states that it agrees with the
repetitive inspections in the NPRM; however, AEA asserts that there are
no bridging requirements to reach the repetitive inspections for
airplanes that have already accomplished EMBRAER Service Bulletin 145-
49-0034, Revision 01, dated September 8, 2008. AEA states that bridging
requirements are necessary for initializing a repetitive inspection
with the initial compliance time of 500 flight hours or 2 months after
the effective date of this AD.
    We agree with AEA that bridging requirements would be necessary
given the proposed compliance times. However, since the NPRM was
issued, we have received sufficient technical information to support an
extension of the proposed compliance time. We have determined that
changing the initial compliance time from 500 flight hours or 2 months
after the effective date of this AD to 1,500 flight hours or 180 days
after the effective date of this AD, will provide an acceptable level
of safety. The new compliance time correlates with Brazilian
Airworthiness Directive 2008-10-02, effective October 21, 2008. With
the extended compliance times, there should not be a need for bridging
requirements. If however, AEA believes that such requirements are still
necessary, it may apply for an alternative method of compliance (AMOC)
in accordance with the provisions specified in paragraph (g)(1) of this
AD.

Request To Revise the Unsafe Condition Specified in Paragraph (e) of
the NPRM

    EMBRAER states that the undetectable fire condition described in
the NPRM is not verifiable since two events must happen for APU rod
breakage to occur.
    EMBRAER states that the first event is a fire, because the rod
breakage by itself is not enough to promote sparks or overheating of
any kind. EMBRAER also states that the rod breakage has not been shown
to cause leakage of APU oil in the gearbox, or leakage of the fuel
lines in the compartment. EMBRAER states both ignition sources and
flammable fluids would be required to ignite a fire.
    EMBRAER states that for the second event to occur, a fire must
start due to the unforeseeable scenario described previously, at which
time damage to the fire detector, located in the vicinity of the
combustion chamber and accessory gearbox, could occur. EMBRAER states
that in-service experience demonstrates that the fire detector must be
punctured or extensively crushed for it to lose its capability to
detect a fire. Even if that happens, EMBRAER states that the integrity
monitoring circuitry of the fire detector is capable of warning the
flightcrew if the detector becomes inoperative. EMBRAER also states
that in the event of fire detection failure,

annunciated on the engine indication crew alert system associated with
the APU event, the flight crew is required to carry out instructions in
the airplane flight manual section ``Abnormal Procedures'' to shut down
the APU and discharge the fire extinguishing agent to put out the fire.
    From these statements we infer that EMBRAER requests that we revise
paragraph (e) of the NPRM to clarify the unsafe condition. We agree
with the scenarios EMBRAER has described previously in regards to an
undetected fire occurring in the tail cone of the airplane. Therefore,
we have changed the Summary section and paragraph (e) of this AD to
state, ``APU support structure failure could result in loss of power of
the APU and possible loss of control of the airplane.''

Request To Extend the Proposed Initial Compliance Time

    EMBRAER states that the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) and
the Ag[ecirc]ncia Nacional de Avia[ccedil][atilde]o Civil (ANAC) fleets
have accomplished the respective ADs. This resulted in an approximately
2.5 percent removal rate of the rods, including many unnecessary
removals that had no moderate or heavy corrosion at the rod, but mostly
corrosion on the rod terminal. EMBRAER states that, in total, only
eight rods were conclusively removed due to the meaning of this
inspection out of more than 2,200 rods inspected, leading to a rate of
0.35 percentage findings. EMBRAER also states that there were instances
of more than one rod removed from the same airplane, conclusively
demonstrating that the removal criterion was over-estimated. EMBRAER
states that one heavily corroded rod was found on one airplane, and
further corrosion could not be found on any other similarly installed
rods.
    EMBRAER states that with the considerations stated previously,
meaning lack of real fire in the compartment, and lack of evidence or
reports of corrosion spreading in the current Model EMB 145 fleet, the
initial compliance time of 500 flight hours or 2 months after the
effective date of the AD is too conservative of an approach. EMBRAER
states that this leads to extensive burden and labor costs on
operators, and does not lead to a real increased margin of safety
levels related to this issue. EMBRAER states that, according to
Brazilian Airworthiness Directive 2008-10-02, effective October 21,
2008; and EMBRAER Service Bulletin 145-49-0034, Revision 01, dated
September 8, 2008; an adequate approach could be taken within 1,500
flight hours or 6 months from the effective date of the AD, whichever
occurs first. EMBRAER states that the same is true for the Legacy fleet
in regards to EMBRAER Service Bulletin 145LEG-49-0008, Revision 02,
dated September 8, 2008.
    We infer that EMBRAER requests that we extend the proposed
compliance time specified in the NPRM. We agree that the proposed
compliance times are conservative. As we explained previously, since
the NPRM has been published, we have determined that the compliance
times proposed in the NPRM are no longer necessary as the inspection
reports received provided sufficient technical information to extend
the compliance time. We are changing the initial compliance time from
500 flight hours or 2 months after the effective date of this AD to
1,500 flight hours or 180 days after the effective date of this AD. The
new compliance time correlates with Brazilian Airworthiness Directive
2008-10-02, effective October 21, 2008. No additional changes to the AD
are necessary in this regard.

Request To Eliminate Repetitive Detailed Inspections in the AD

    EMBRAER states that the repetitive inspection interval currently
required by the maintenance review board (MRB) report for C-Check
(5,000 flight cycles) states:

    Zonal Inspection Task 53-Z313-214-001-A00 Internal General
Visual Inspection of the Tail Cone Fairing at C-Check (5,000 FH).
Examine the fuselage zone for loose rivets, nicks, cracks, dents,
erosion, corrosion, deteriorated protective treatment, foreign
objects, and deformation.

EMBRAER states that inspections accomplished in accordance with EMBRAER
Service Bulletin 145-49-0034, Revision 01, dated September 8, 2008; and
EMBRAER Service Bulletin 145LEG-49-0008, Revision 02, dated September
8, 2008; revealed rods with moderate to heavy corrosion on airplanes
between 9,482 total flight hours and 21,506 total flight hours. EMBRAER
states that these findings demonstrate that the inspection interval in
the MRB is adequate to fully address the issue, or any other
operational mishap that might occur at APU removal/installation.
EMBRAER also states that a few APU rods are reportedly replaced over
time, apart from this AD, demonstrating the MRB task is effective for
the repetitive inspections. EMBRAER states that the repetitive detailed
inspection in the NPRM is more restrictive than the general visual
inspection specified in the MRB.
    From these statements, we infer that EMBRAER requests that we
eliminate the repetitive detailed inspections specified in the NPRM. We
agree with EMBRAER that the repetitive detailed inspection proposed in
the NPRM is more conservative than the inspection in the MRB. Since the
NPRM was published, we have determined that the repetitive inspections
proposed in the NPRM are no longer necessary as the inspection reports
received provided sufficient technical information to remove the
proposed requirement. The proposed repetitive inspections have been
removed from this AD.

Request To Extend the Compliance Time for the Reporting Requirement

    EMBRAER states that the EASA and ANAC ADs were issued in advance of
this proposed NPRM. EMBRAER also states that the current status of U.S.
operators that have proactively started inspecting their fleets is 55
percent of the total fleet, meaning nearly 380 airplanes have already
been inspected. EMBRAER states that since the proposed compliance time
for the initial inspection specified in the NPRM is 500 flight hours,
with the current average of 120 flight hours per month fleet usage, it
would take more than 4 months to complete the first inspection. EMBRAER
states that, since the results remain unchanged with time, it is
recommended that the 30-day reporting requirement be extended to 120
days minimum, reducing unnecessary labor burden and processing for the
operators.
    From these statements, we infer that EMBRAER requests that we
extend the compliance time for submitting the inspection results from
30 days to 120 days. We disagree with extending the compliance time for
submitting the inspection results. We also disagree that the report is
an undue burden to the operator. A reporting requirement is
instrumental in ensuring that we can gather as much information as
possible regarding the extent and nature of the problem, especially
when findings of corrosion are involved and in cases where that data
might not be available through other established means. This
information is necessary to ensure that proper corrective action will
be taken. We have not changed this AD regarding this issue.

Request To Change Proposed Compliance Time Frame

    Trans States Airlines requests a change in the proposed compliance
time for the initial inspection from 2 months to 60 days after the
effective date of the AD. Trans States Airlines states that 60 days is
an exact period where 2 months

will vary based on the months involved. Trans States Airlines also
requests that the repetitive requirements read ``1,500 flight hours, or
180 days after the effective date of this AD,'' instead of ``1,500
flight hours, or 6 months after the date of this AD,'' for the same
reason.
    We agree with Trans States Airlines' request to use number of days
instead of months. Trans States Airlines is correct in stating that
days are more definitive time than months. We also have determined that
changing the initial compliance time from 500 flight hours or 2 months
after the effective date of this AD to 1,500 flight hours or 180 days
after the effective date of this AD, will provide an acceptable level
of safety. We have changed the final rule regarding this issue.
    In regards to using days versus months for the repetitive
inspections, as we stated previously, we have determined that the
repetitive inspections proposed in the NPRM are no longer necessary and
have been removed from this AD. No further change to this AD is
necessary in this regard.

Request To Allow Additional Part Numbers

    Trans States Airlines requests that we revise the NPRM to allow
mounting rods with part number -001 or -005 as an acceptable method of
compliance for replacement of the rod as allowed in the EMBRAER EMB-
135/-145 Illustrated Parts Catalog.
    We disagree with Trans State Airlines' request to use part number -
001 or -005 as an acceptable method of compliance for replacing the
mounting rods. The illustrated parts catalog is not regulated by the
FAA, and EMBRAER did not provide us with information to ensure that
these parts adequately address the unsafe condition. However, operators
may apply to use an AMOC for this AD, as specified in paragraph (g)(1)
of this AD. Because of the unsafe condition that exists, Brazilian
Airworthiness Directive 2008-10-02, effective October 21, 2008; EMBRAER
Service Bulletin 145-49-0034, Revision 01, dated September 8, 2008; and
EMBRAER Service Bulletin 145LEG-49-0008, Revision 02, dated September
8, 2008; specify that if moderate corrosion is found, the affected
mounting rod is to be replaced with a new mounting rod having the same
part number. We have not changed this AD regarding this issue.

Request for Removal of Reporting Requirement

    Trans States Airlines states that the reporting requirement is an
undue burden on the operator. Trans States Airlines states that, of the
50 mounting rods removed for corrosion, only two were found to have
actually had corrosion. Trans States Airlines states that more than
2,000 rods have already been inspected, and it believes sufficient data
already exist to determine the need for further rulemaking.
    From these statements, we infer that Trans States Airlines is
asking that we remove the proposed reporting requirement from the NPRM.
We have obtained further information from EMBRAER regarding the
reporting requirement. EMBRAER states that the report is necessary so
that more comprehensive data can be aquired. We disagree with Trans
States Airlines in removing the reporting requirement and that the
report is an undue burden to the operator. A reporting requirement is
instrumental in ensuring that we can gather as much information as
possible regarding the extent and nature of the problem, especially in
cases where that data might not be available through other established
means. This information is necessary to ensure that proper corrective
action will be taken. We have not changed this AD regarding this issue.

Clarification of the Retention Requirements for the Reporting
Requirement

    Trans States Airlines requests clarification for the retention
requirements for the proposed reporting requirement specified in the
NPRM.
    We agree to clarify the retention requirements for the reporting
requirement specified in paragraph (g)(3) of this AD. We have obtained
further information from Trans States Airlines. Trans States Airlines
questions how long it must prove that it has complied with the
reporting requirement in the AD, since the report is not considered
part of the maintenance records.
    Only one report is required by this AD. Once the report has been
submitted, no further action is required by this AD. We have not
changed this AD regarding this issue.

Request To Add an E-Mail Address to the Reporting Address

    Trans States Airlines states that including EMBRAER's mailing
address and telephone number in paragraph (f)(3) of the NPRM, makes
those the only approved methods for reporting, and that e-mail would
not be an acceptable method for reporting inspection findings.
    From this statement, we infer that Trans States Airlines requests
that for the reporting requirement in paragraph (f)(3) of the NPRM, we
include an e-mail address in the contact information.
    We agree with Trans States Airlines' request to include an e-mail
address in the contact information. We have determined that an e-mail
is an acceptable method of compliance for reporting inspection findings
to EMBRAER. EMBRAER has provided us with an e-mail address and we have
added that address to paragraph (f)(3) of this AD.

Request To Exclude Light Corrosion From the Reporting Requirement

    Expressjet Airlines requests that the light corrosion findings be
removed from the reporting requirement in the NPRM. Expressjet Airlines
states that paragraph (f)(3) of the NPRM states to send a report of the
positive findings, including level of corrosion, such as light,
moderate, or heavy, to EMBRAER. Expressjet Airlines also states that
EMBRAER Service Bulletin 145-49-0034, Revision 01, dated September 8,
2008, requires only that moderate or heavy corrosion be reported.
    We agree with Expressjet Airlines that reporting of light corrosion
is not necessary. Since the NPRM was issued, we have received
sufficient technical information to remove the reporting requirement
for light corrosion. We have revised paragraph (f)(3) of this AD to
remove light corrosion from the reporting requirement of this AD.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the available data, including the comments received,
and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting
the AD with the changes described previously. We determined that these
changes will not increase the economic burden on any operator or
increase the scope of the AD.

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 Changes to Costs of Compliance

    Since issuance of the NPRM, we have increased the labor rate used
in the Costs of Compliance from $80 per work-hour to $85 per work-hour.
The Costs of Compliance information, below, reflects this increase in
the specified hourly labor rate.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD will affect 761 products of U.S. registry.
We also estimate that it will take about 8 work-hours per product to
comply with the 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 $517,480, or $680 per product.

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 adding the following new AD:

2010-16-02 Empresa Brasileira de Aeronautica S.A. (EMBRAER):
Amendment 39-16378. Docket No. FAA-2009-0716; Directorate Identifier
2008-NM-212-AD.

Effective Date

    (a) This airworthiness directive (AD) becomes effective
September 9, 2010.

Affected ADs

    (b) None.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to Empresa Brasileira de Aeronautica S.A.
(EMBRAER) Model EMB-135BJ, -135ER, -135KE, -135KL, and -135LR
airplanes; and Model EMB-145, -145ER, -145MR, -145LR, -145XR, -
145MP, and -145EP airplanes; certified in any category; as
identified EMBRAER Service Bulletin 145-49-0034, Revision 01, dated
September 8, 2008; and EMBRAER Service Bulletin 145LEG-49-0008,
Revision 02, dated September 8, 2008.

Subject

    (d) Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 49: Airborne
Auxiliary Power.

Reason

    (e) The mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI)
states:

    It has been found the occurrence of corrosion on the Auxiliary
Power Unit (APU) mounting rods that could cause the APU rod to
break, affecting the APU support structure integrity.

APU support structure failure could result in loss of power of the
APU and possible loss of control of the airplane. The required
action is doing an external detailed inspection for corrosion of the
APU auxiliary and center mounting rods and rod ends, and corrective
actions if necessary. Corrective actions include removing corrosion,
applying anticorrosive treatment, and replacing mounting rods.

Actions and Compliance

    (f) Unless already done do the following actions:
    (1) Within 1,500 flight hours or 180 days after the effective
date of this AD, whichever occurs first, do an external detailed
inspection for corrosion of the APU, auxiliary and center mounting
rods, and rod ends. If any corrosion is found during any inspection,
before further flight, do the actions required by paragraphs
(f)(1)(i), (f)(1)(ii), and (f)(1)(iii) of this AD, as applicable. Do
all actions required by this paragraph in accordance with the
Accomplishment Instructions of EMBRAER Service Bulletin 145-49-0034,
Revision 01, dated September 8, 2008; or EMBRAER Service Bulletin
145LEG-49-0008, Revision 02, dated September 8, 2008; as applicable.
    (i) If light corrosion (characterized by discoloration or
pitting) is found on a mounting rod, remove the corrosion and apply
an anticorrosive treatment.
    (ii) If moderate corrosion (characterized by surface blistering
or evidence of scaling and flaking), or heavy corrosion
(characterized by severe blistering exfoliation, scaling and
flaking) is found, replace the affected mounting rod with a new
mounting rod having the same part number.
    (iii) If any corrosion is detected on the rod ends, remove the
corrosion and apply an anticorrosive treatment.
    (2) Accomplishing the inspection and corrective actions required
by paragraph (f)(1) of this AD before the effective date of this AD
in accordance with EMBRAER Service Bulletin 145-49-0034, dated April
18, 2008; EMBRAER Service Bulletin 145LEG-49-0008, dated April 18,
2008; or EMBRAER Service Bulletin 145LEG-49-0008, Revision 01, dated
May 26, 2008; is acceptable for compliance with the corresponding
requirements of paragraph (f)(1) of this AD.
    (3) For mounting rods with moderate or heavy corrosion, submit a
report of the positive findings (including level of corrosion such
as Moderate or Heavy; guidance is provided in EMBRAER Corrosion
Prevention Manual (CPM) 51-11-01) on the external surface of the
rods as well as the rod ends) of the inspection required by
paragraph (f)(1) of this AD to the ATTN: Mr. Antonio Claret--
Customer Support Group, EMBRAER Aircraft Holding, Inc., 276 SW. 34th
Street, Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33315; telephone

(954) 359-3826; e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>at the applicable
time specified in paragraph (f)(3)(i) or (f)(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.
    (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 accomplished prior to the effective
date of this AD: Submit the report within 30 days after the
effective date of this AD.

FAA AD Differences

    Note 1: This AD differs from the MCAI and/or service information
as follows:
    (1) Although Brazilian Airworthiness Directive 2008-10-02,
effective October 21, 2008, does not include a reporting
requirement, the service bulletins identified in paragraph (f)(1) of
this AD do specify reporting findings to EMBRAER. This AD requires
that operators report the results of the inspections to EMBRAER
because the required inspection report will help determine the
extent of the corrosion in the affected fleet, from which we will
determine if further corrective action is warranted. This difference
has been coordinated with Ag[ecirc]ncia Nacional de
Avia[ccedil][atilde]o Civil (ANAC).
    (2) Brazilian Airworthiness Directive 2008-10-02, effective
October 21, 2008, allows replacement of the affected APU mounting
rods by ``new ones bearing a new P/N [part number] approved by
ANAC.'' However, paragraph (f)(1)(ii) of this AD requires replacing
the affected mounting rod only with a new mounting rod having the
same part number. Operators may request approval of an alternative
method of compliance in order to install a new part number in
accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (g)(1) of this
AD. This difference has been coordinated with ANAC.

Other FAA AD Provisions

    (g) The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA,
has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using
the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. 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<PHONE_NUMBER>; 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.
    (4) Special Flight Permits: Special flight permits may be issued
in accordance with sections 21.197 and 21.199 of the Federal
Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.197 and 21.199) to operate the
airplane to a location where the airplane can be modified (if the
operator elects to do so), except if two or more center mounting
rods or rod ends are heavily corroded or broken, a special flight
permit is not permitted.

Related Information

    (h) Refer to MCAI Brazilian Airworthiness Directive 2008-10-02,
effective October 21, 2008; EMBRAER Service Bulletin 145-49-0034,
Revision 01, dated September 8, 2008; and EMBRAER Service Bulletin
145LEG-49-0008, Revision 02, dated September 8, 2008; for related
information.

Material Incorporated by Reference

    (i) You must use EMBRAER Service Bulletin 145-49-0034, Revision
01, dated September 8, 2008; or EMBRAER Service Bulletin 145LEG-49-
0008, Revision 02, dated September 8, 2008; 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 this service information under 5
U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Empresa Brasileira de Aeronautica S.A. (EMBRAER), Technical
Publications Section (PC 060), Av. Brigadeiro Faria Lima, 2170-
Putim-12227-901 S[atilde]o Jose dos Campos-SP-BRASIL; telephone: +55
12 3927-5852 or +55 12 3309-0732; fax: +55 12 3927-7546; e-mail:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet: http://www.flyembraer.com.
    (3) 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>.
    (4) 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 July 16, 2010.
Ali Bahrami,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2010-18398 Filed 8-4-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P