[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 19 (Wednesday, January 29, 2020)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 5173-5175]
[FR Doc No: 2020-01414]

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

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

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

Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 19 / Wednesday, January 29, 2020 /
Proposed Rules

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2018-1077; Product Identifier 2018-NE-40-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Superior Air Parts, Inc. (SAP) Engines
and Lycoming Engines Reciprocating Engines With a Certain SAP
Crankshaft Assembly

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD)
for all SAP Model IO-360-series and O-360-series reciprocating engines
and certain Lycoming Engines (Lycoming) Model AEIO-360-, IO-360-, and
O-360-series reciprocating engines with a certain SAP crankshaft
assembly installed. This SAP crankshaft assembly is installed as
original equipment on the affected SAP engines and as a replacement
part under parts manufacturer approval (PMA) on the affected Lycoming
engines. This proposed AD was prompted by three crankshaft assembly
failures that resulted in the loss of engine power and immediate or
emergency landings. This proposed AD would require the removal from
service of all affected crankshaft assemblies. The FAA is proposing
this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: The FAA must receive comments on this proposed AD by March 16,
2020.

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

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2018-
1077; or in person at Docket Operations between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains
this NPRM, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other
information. The street address for Docket Operations is listed above.
Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Justin Carter, Aerospace Engineer,
Fort Worth ACO Branch, FAA, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX,
76177; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    The FAA invites you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed
under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2018-1077;
Product Identifier 2018-NE-40-AD'' at the beginning of your comments.
The FAA specifically invites comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this NPRM. The FAA will
consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this
NPRM because of those comments.
    Except for Confidential Business Information as described in the
following paragraph, and other information as described in 14 CFR
11.35, the FAA will post all comments received, without change, to
https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you
provide. The FAA will also post a report summarizing each substantive
verbal contact received about this NPRM.

Confidential Business Information

    Confidential Business Information (CBI) is commercial or financial
information that is both customarily and actually treated as private by
its owner. Under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552),
CBI is exempt from public disclosure. If your comments responsive to
this NPRM contain commercial or financial information that is
customarily treated as private, that you actually treat as private, and
that is relevant or responsive to this NPRM, it is important that you
clearly designate the submitted comments as CBI. Please mark each page
of your submission containing CBI as ``PROPIN.'' The FAA will treat
such marked submissions as confidential under the FOIA, and they will
not be placed in the public docket of this NPRM. Submissions containing
CBI should be sent to Justin Carter, Aerospace Engineer, Fort Worth ACO
Branch, FAA, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177. Any
commentary that the FAA receives which is not specifically designated
as CBI will be placed in the public docket for this rulemaking.

Discussion

    The FAA learned of three SAP crankshaft assembly failures that took
place on March 6, 2017, August 3, 2017, and October 31, 2018, that
resulted in the loss of engine power and immediate or emergency
landings. Since the FAA received these reports, the FAA determined that
the crankshaft assembly failures resulted from the manufacturing
process at SAP's crankshaft vendor during 2012 and 2014.
    The crankshaft assembly is a non-life-limited part, which should
not fail (crack or separate) through fatigue. Rather, the crankshaft
assembly is inspected during overhaul and may be replaced, on-
condition, due to wear beyond limits of the cam lobes and bearing
surfaces.
    The FAA's analysis of the process used to manufacture the failed
assemblies identified that gaseous nitrocarburization resulted in
excessive residual white layer forming on the assemblies. This white
layer is brittle and can lead to spalling or fatigue cracking of the
crankshaft assembly as a result of the normal mechanical loads during
engine operation. The FAA's analysis concluded that all three SAP
crankshaft assembly failures were the result of this fatigue cracking.
This condition, if not addressed, could result

in failure of the engine, in-flight shutdown, and loss of the airplane.
    These SAP crankshaft assemblies are installed as original equipment
on SAP Model IO-360-series and O-360-series reciprocating engines and
as a replacement part under PMA on certain Lycoming Model AEIO-360-,
IO-360-, and O-360-series reciprocating engines.
    The FAA considered alternatives that may be less burdensome than
removing the crankshaft assembly from service, including not taking AD
action and requiring periodic inspections of the crankshaft assembly.
However, these options are not acceptable because taking no action does
not correct this known unsafe condition and the crankshaft assembly
cannot be inspected without destroying it. The FAA concluded that there
is no acceptable safety alternative to the replacement of the
crankshaft assembly.

FAA's Determination

    The FAA is proposing this AD because it evaluated all the relevant
information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is
likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design.

Proposed AD Requirements

    This proposed AD would require the removal from service of all
affected crankshaft assemblies.

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,
describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
    The FAA is issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: ``General
requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing
regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator
finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within
the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition
that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this
rulemaking action.
    This AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the
Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by
FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order, issuance of ADs is
normally a function of the Compliance and Airworthiness Division, but
during this transition period, the Executive Director has delegated the
authority to issue ADs applicable to engines, propellers, and
associated appliances to the Manager, Engine and Propeller Standards
Branch, Policy and Innovation Division.

Regulatory Flexibility Determination

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-354, codified as
amended at 5 U.S.C. 601-612) (RFA) establishes ``as a principle of
regulatory issuance that agencies shall endeavor, consistent with the
objectives of the rule and of applicable statutes, to fit regulatory
and informational requirements to the scale of the businesses,
organizations, and governmental jurisdictions subject to regulation. To
achieve this principle, agencies are required to solicit and consider
flexible regulatory proposals and to explain the rationale for their
actions to assure that such proposals are given serious
consideration.'' Public Law 96-354, 2(b), Sept. 19, 1980. The RFA
covers a wide-range of small entities, including small businesses, not-
for-profit organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions.
Agencies must perform a review to determine whether a rule will have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
If the agency determines that it will, the agency must prepare a
regulatory flexibility analysis as described in the RFA. This portion
of the preamble serves as the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
(IRFA).
    Compliance cost of this proposed AD comes from the cost to remove
and replace a crankshaft assembly. The FAA estimates that this proposed
AD would affect 115 crankshaft assemblies installed on airplanes of
U.S. registry. This cost estimate does not include 77 SAP crankshafts
installed on experimental engines since these engines are not included
in the applicability of this AD. Compliance cost per crankshaft
assembly is identified below.
    Labor cost = 61 hours per crankshaft assembly replacement x $85
Hourly Wage = $5,185.
    Equipment costs per crankshaft assembly replacement = $9,636
(Source: Average of the two manufacturers).
    $5,185 labor per crankshaft assembly + $9,636 equipment costs per
crankshaft assembly replacement = $14,821 compliance cost per engine.
    The total costs to U.S. operators is $1,704,415, or $119,309 in
annualized costs. There are no additional costs after removing and
replacing the crankshaft assembly.

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

    Under Section 603(b) and (c) of the RFA, the initial analysis must
address the following six areas:
    (1) Description of reasons the agency is considering the action;
    (2) Statement of the legal basis and objectives for the proposed
rule;
    (3) Description of the record keeping and other compliance
requirements of the proposed rule;
    (4) All federal rules that may duplicate, overlap, or conflict with
the proposed rule;
    (5) Description and an estimated number of small entities to which
the proposed rule will apply; and
    (6) Describe alternatives considered.

Reasons the Agency Is Considering the Action

    This proposed AD was prompted by three crankshaft assembly failures
that resulted in the loss of engine power and immediate or emergency
landings. The FAA is proposing this AD to prevent failure of the
crankshaft assembly by requiring the removal of all affected crankshaft
assemblies from service. Failure of a crankshaft assembly, if not
addressed, could result in failure of the engine, in-flight shutdown,
and loss of the airplane.

Legal Basis and Objectives for the Proposed Rule

    The FAA's legal basis for this proposed AD is discussed in detail
under the ``Authority for this Rulemaking'' section.

Description and an Estimated Number of Small Entities to Which the
Proposed Rule Would Apply

    This proposed AD would apply to all SAP Model IO-360-series and O-
360-series reciprocating engines and certain Lycoming Model AEIO-360-,
IO-360-, and O-360-series reciprocating engines with a certain SAP
crankshaft assembly installed. This SAP crankshaft assembly is
installed as original equipment on the affected SAP engines and as a
replacement part under PMA on the affected Lycoming engines. These
engines are installed on airplanes performing various activities
including, but not limited to, flight training, charter flights, and
agriculture.
    Under the RFA, the FAA must determine whether a proposed rule
significantly affects a substantial number of small entities. The FAA
uses the Small Business Administration (SBA) criteria for determining
whether an affected entity is small. For aircraft/engine manufacturers,
aviation operators, and any business using an aircraft, the SBA
criterion is 1,500 or

fewer employees. The FAA estimates that this proposed AD would affect
115 crankshaft assemblies installed on airplanes of U.S. registry. The
FAA does not have any information or data on whether these entities are
small businesses according to the definition established by the SBA.
The FAA requests comment and data that would allow us to more
accurately assess the number of employees and sales revenues of the
affected entities.

Record-Keeping and Other Compliance Requirements of the Proposed Rule

    There are no record-keeping costs associated with this proposed
rule.

Duplicative, Overlapping, or Conflicting Federal Rules

    There are no relevant Federal rules that may duplicate, overlap, or
conflict with this proposed rule.

Alternatives to the Proposed AD

    As part of the IRFA, the FAA is required to consider regulatory
alternatives that may be less burdensome. The FAA considered the
following alternatives:
    Do nothing: This option is not acceptable because the risk of
additional failures of these crankshaft assemblies constitutes a known
unsafe condition.
    Periodic inspections: This option is not possible as the crankshaft
assembly cannot be inspected without destroying it.
    There is no direct safety alternative to the replacement of the
crankshaft assembly. The replacement addresses a safety issue aimed at
preventing the failure of the crankshaft assembly.
    Therefore, this proposed rulemaking may have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities. The FAA invites
public comments regarding this determination.

Regulatory Findings

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Proposed Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

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

Superior Air Parts, Inc.: Docket No. FAA-2018-1077; Product
Identifier 2018-NE-40-AD.

(a) Comments Due Date

    The FAA must receive comments by March 16, 2020.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to the reciprocating engine models identified in
paragraphs (c)(1) and (2) of this AD with a Superior Air Parts, Inc.
(SAP) crankshaft assembly, part number (P/N) SL36500-A20 or P/N
SL36500-A31, with serial numbers 82976-01; 82976-02; SP12-0003
through SP12-0089, inclusive; SP13-0034 through SP13-0150,
inclusive; or SP14-0151 through SP14-0202, inclusive; installed.
    (1) With SAP crankshaft assembly, P/N SL36500-A20, installed:
    (i) SAP Model IO-360-series and O-360-series reciprocating
engines.
    (ii) Lycoming Engines (Lycoming) Model IO-360-B2F, IO-360-L2A,
O-360, O-360-A2A, O-360-A2D, O-360-A2E, O-360-A2F, O-360-A2G, O-360-
B2A, O-360-C2A, O-360-C2C, O-360-C2D, O-360-C2E, O-360-D2A, and O-
360-D2B reciprocating engines.
    (2) With SAP crankshaft assembly, P/N SL36500-A31, installed:
    (i) SAP Model IO-360-series and O-360-series reciprocating
engines.
    (ii) Lycoming Model AEIO-360-H1A, IO-360-B1A, IO-360-B1B, IO-
360-B1D, IO-360-B1E, IO-360-B1F, IO-360-M1A, O-360, O-360-A1A, O-
360-A1C, O-360-A1D, O-360-A2A, O-360-C1A, O-360-C1G, O-360-C1C, O-
360-C1E, and O-360-C1F reciprocating engines.

    Note 1 to paragraph (c) of this AD: This SAP crankshaft assembly
may be installed as a replacement part under parts manufacturer
approval on the affected Lycoming engines.

(d) Subject

    Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC) Code 8520, Reciprocating
Engine Power Section.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by three crankshaft assembly failures that
resulted in the loss of engine power and immediate or emergency
landings. The FAA is issuing this AD to prevent failure of the
crankshaft assembly. The unsafe condition, if not addressed, could
result in failure of the engine, in-flight shutdown, and loss of the
airplane.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Required Action

    Within 25 engine operating hours after the effective date of
this AD, remove the crankshaft assembly from service.

(h) Special Flight Permit

    A one-time special flight permit may be issued to fly the
aircraft to a maintenance facility to perform the actions of this AD
with the following limitations: No passengers, visual flight rules
(VFR) day conditions only, and avoid areas of known turbulence.

(i) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

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

(j) Related Information

    For more information about this AD, contact Justin Carter,
Aerospace Engineer, Fort Worth ACO Branch, FAA, 10101 Hillwood
Parkway, Fort Worth, TX, 76177; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax: 817-222-
5245; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on January 23, 2020.
Karen M. Grant,
Acting Manager, Engine and Propeller Standards Branch, Aircraft
Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2020-01414 Filed 1-28-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: April 29, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 81)]
[Notices]
[Page 19555]
[DOCID:fr29ap09-68]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. OR09-7-000]

Frontier Oil and Refining Company, Complainant v. Platte Pipe
Line Company, Respondent; Notice of Complaint

April 22, 2009.
    Take notice that on April 17, 2009, Frontier Oil and Refining
Company (Frontier) filed a complaint against Platte Pipe Line Company
(Platte) pursuant to sections 9, 13(1), 1(4), 1(6), 3(1), 15(1), and
16(1) of the Interstate Commerce Act (ICA), 49 U.S.C. 9, 13(1), 1(4),
1(6), 3(1), 15(1), 16(1), 18 CFR 343.2(c)(3), and 18 CFR 385.206,
alleging that Platte has failed to implement its prorationing policy as
stated in its Supplement No. 13 to Tariff No. 1456, filed with the
Commission on November 13, 2007 in Docket No. IS08-39-000, and that
Platte's prorationing procedures as applied in March 2009 violate
sections 1(4), 1(6), and 3(1) of the ICA.
    Frontier certifies that copies of the complaint were served on the
contacts for Platte as listed on the Commission's list of Corporate
Officials.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. The Respondent's
answer and all interventions, or protests must be filed on or before
the comment date. The Respondent's answer, motions to intervene, and
protests must be served on the Complainants.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://
www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an
original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on May 7, 2009.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-9710 Filed 4-28-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


FILE NAME:   Valent.doc  (October 8, 2008)

EPA Registration Division contact: Laura Nollen<PHONE_NUMBER>)

Interregional Research Project Number 4 (IR-4)

PP# 8E7462

 Summary of Petitions

EPA has received a pesticide petition, PP 8E7462, from   SEQ CHAPTER \h
\r 1 IR-4, 500 College Road East, Suite 201 W, Princeton, NJ  08450,
proposing, pursuant to section 408(d) of the Federal Food, Drug, and
Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d), to amend 40 CFR part 180, by
establishing a tolerance for residues of the herbicide flumioxazin,
2-[7-fluoro-3,4-dihydro-3-oxo-4-(2-propynyl)-2H-1,4-benzoxazin-6-yl]-4,5
,6,7-tetrahydro-1H-isoindole-1,3(2H)-dione, in or on the raw
agricultural commodities cucurbit vegetables, group 9 at 0.03 parts per
million (ppm), leaf petioles, subgroup 4B at 0.02 ppm, and hops, dried
cones at 0.07 ppm. The petitioner is also proposing revocation of the
existing tolerance for residues of flumioxazin in or on the raw
agricultural commodity almonds, because a tolerance on nut, tree, group
14 has been established and deletion of the existing tolerance for
melon, subgroup 9A since it will be superseded by the proposed tolerance
for cucurbit group 9.   EPA has determined that the petition contains
data or information regarding the elements set forth in section
408(d)(2) of the FFDCA; however, EPA has not fully evaluated the
sufficiency of the submitted data at this time or whether the data
supports granting of the petition.  Additional data may be needed before
EPA rules on the petition.

A. Residue Chemistry

	1. Plant metabolism. The metabolism of flumioxazin is adequately
understood for the purpose of granting the proposed tolerances.

	2.  Analytical method.  Practical analytical methods for detecting and
measuring levels of flumioxazin have been developed and validated in/on
all appropriate agricultural commodities and respective processing
fractions.  The LOQ of flumioxazin in the methods is 0.02 ppm which will
allow monitoring of food with residues at the levels proposed for the
tolerances.

3. Magnitude of residues.  Residue data has been submitted which
adequately support the requested tolerances.

B. Toxicological Profile

The toxicological profile for flumioxazin which supports this petition
for tolerances was published in the Federal Register on March 31, 2004
(69 FR 16823)(FRL-7351-2).

C. Aggregate Exposure

1. Dietary exposure.  Acute and chronic dietary analyses were conducted
to estimate exposure to potential flumioxazin residues in/on the
following crops and food items: peanuts; soybeans; cottonseed oil;
grapes; sugarcane; vegetable, tuberous and corm (Subgroup 1C); mint;
strawberry; pistachio; fruit, pome (Group 11); and fruit, stone (Group
12); asparagus, vegetable, bulb (Group 3); dried shelled peas and beans
(Subgroup 6C); vegetables, fruiting (Group 8); vegetables, cucurbit
(Group 9); bush berries (Subgroup 13B); nut, tree (Group 14), meat,
poultry, and dairy products.  The Cumulative and Aggregate Risk
Evaluation System (CARES) Version 2.2 was used to conduct these
assessments.  This Tier III assessment used actual residue data,
experimentally obtained processing factors, and an estimation of percent
crop treated.  No adjustments were made for common washing, cooking or
preparation practices. Exposure estimates for water were made based upon
a Tier II modeling program (PRZM-EXAMS).

i. Food.  a. Acute- The acute dietary exposure estimate of flumioxazin
residues in food at the 99.9th percentile for females 13-49 years old
was calculated to be, at most, 0.70% of the acute Population Adjusted
Dose (a-PAD) with a Margin of Exposure (MOE) of 14,284.  This is the
only population subgroup with an identified acute toxicity endpoint. The
a-PAD was defined as the NOEL from an oral developmental study in rats
and includes an uncertainty factor of 100 to account for intra- and
inter-species variation (NOEL = 3 mg/kg bw/day, a-PAD = 0.03 mg/kg/day).

b.  Chronic-The chronic dietary exposure estimate of flumioxazin
residues in food was calculated to be, at most, 1.19% of the chronic
Population Adjusted Dose (c-PAD) with a MOE of 8,662.  The population
subgroup with the highest exposure was children 1-2 years old.  The
c-PAD was defined as the NOEL from a rat two-year chronic/oncogenicity
study and includes an uncertainty factor of 100 to account for intra-
and inter-species variation  (NOEL = 2 mg/kg bw/day, c-PAD = 0.02
mg/kg/day).

ii. Drinking water.   Tier II PRZM-EXAMS modeling was used to quantify
potential exposure from drinking water. This modeling was conducted
using the EPA Platform Pe4(v02) and 28 EPA EFED standard scenarios for
the Standard Index Reservoir.  The Index reservoir scenario with the
highest predicted water concentration was used to obtain a daily
concentration time series for the simulated years.  The scenario with
the highest predicted water concentrations was PA apples (26 years of
weather data).  The 26-year daily time series was imported to the CARES
water module to conduct the drinking water exposure analysis.

2. Non-dietary exposure.  Flumioxazin is proposed only for agricultural
uses and no  homeowner or turf uses. Thus, no non-dietary risk
assessment is needed.

D. Cumulative Effects

Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) requires that the Agency must consider
"available information" concerning the cumulative effects of a
particular pesticide's residues and "other substances that have a common
mechanism of toxicity." Available information in this context include
not only toxicity, chemistry, and exposure data, but also scientific
policies and methodologies for understanding common mechanisms of
toxicity and conducting cumulative risk assessments. Although the Agency
has some information in its files that may turn out to be helpful in
eventually determining whether a pesticide shares a common mechanism of
toxicity with any other substances, EPA does not at this time have the
methodologies to resolve the complex scientific issues concerning common
mechanism of toxicity in a meaningful way for most registered
pesticides.

E. Safety Determination

1. U.S. population. i.  Acute Risk.  The potential acute exposure from
food to females 13-49 years old will utilize at most 0.70% of the a-PAD.
 This is the only population subgroup with an identified acute toxicity
endpoint.  Addition of dietary exposure from water increases this
exposure at the 99.9th percentile to 0.74% of the a-PAD.  The Agency has
no cause for concern if total acute residue contribution is less than
100% of the a-PAD, because the PAD represents the level at or below
which daily aggregate exposure over a lifetime will not pose appreciable
risk to human health.  Therefore, it can be concluded that there is a
reasonable certainty that no harm will result to the overall U.S.
Population from aggregate, acute exposure to flumioxazin residues.

ii.  Chronic Risk.  The potential chronic exposure from food to the U.S.
Population and various non-child/infant population subgroups will
utilize at most 0.21% of the c-PAD.  Addition of dietary exposure from
water has no effect on this exposure.  The Agency has no cause for
concern if total chronic residue contribution is less than 100% of the
c-PAD, because the PAD represents the level at or below which daily
aggregate exposure over a lifetime will not pose appreciable risk to
human health.  Therefore, it can be concluded that there is a reasonable
certainty that no harm will result to the overall U.S. Population from
aggregate, chronic exposure to flumioxazin residues.

2. Infants and children.  i. Safety Factor for Infants and Children. EPA
has determined that the special 10x SF to protect infants and children
should be removed [Federal Register of March 31, 2004 (69 FR 16823)
(FRL-7351-2)].  The FQPA factor has been removed because developmental
toxicity and offspring toxicity NOAELs/LOAELs are well characterized;
there is a well-defined dose-response curve for the cardiovascular
effects; and the endpoints of concern used for overall risk assessments
are appropriate for the route of exposure and population subgroups.

ii. Acute Risk. No acute endpoint has been identified for infants and
children. Therefore, no assessment of acute exposure from food to this
subgroup is required.

iii.  Chronic Risk.  The potential chronic exposure from food to
children 1-2 years old (the most highly exposed child/infant subgroup)
will utilize at most 1.19% of the c-PAD.  Addition of dietary exposure
from water increases this exposure to 1.2% of the c-PAD.  Therefore, it
can be concluded that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will
result to infants and children from aggregate, chronic exposure to
flumioxazin residues.

F. International Tolerances   Flumioxazin has not been evaluated by the
JMPR and there are no Codex Maximum Residue Limits (MRL) for
flumioxazin.


[Federal Register: June 2, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 104)]
[Notices]
[Page 26461-26464]
[DOCID:fr02jn09-128]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket ID. FMCSA-2009-0121]

Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Vision

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of applications for exemptions; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces receipt of applications from 23 individuals
for exemption from the vision requirement in the Federal Motor Carrier
Safety Regulations. If granted, the exemptions would enable these
individuals to qualify as drivers of commercial motor vehicles (CMVs)
in interstate commerce without meeting the Federal vision standard.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before July 2, 2009.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments bearing the Federal Docket
Management System (FDMS) Docket ID FMCSA-2009-0121 using any of the
following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for submitting
comments.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building Ground
Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery: West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140,
1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
    Each submission must include the Agency name and the docket ID for
this Notice. Note that DOT posts all comments received without change
to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
included in a comment. Please see the Privacy Act heading below.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments, go to http://www.regulations.gov at any time or Room W12-140
on the ground level of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE.,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. The FDMS is available 24 hours each day, 365
days each year. If you want acknowledgment that we received your
comments, please include a self-addressed, stamped envelope or postcard
or print the acknowledgement page that appears after submitting
comments on-line.
    Privacy Act: Anyone may search the electronic form of all comments
received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or of the person signing the comment, if
submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.).
You may review the DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal
Register published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19476). This information is
also available at http://Docketsinfo.dot.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Mary D. Gunnels, Director, Medical
Programs,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>FMCSA, Department of
Transportation, 1200

New Jersey Avenue, SE., Room W64-224, Washington, DC 20590-0001. Office
hours are from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except
Federal holidays.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption
for a 2-year period if it finds ``such exemption would likely achieve a
level of safety that is equivalent to, or greater than, the level that
would be achieved absent such exemption.'' FMCSA can renew exemptions
at the end of each 2-year period. The 23 individuals listed in this
notice each have requested an exemption from the vision requirement in
49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), which applies to drivers of CMVs in interstate
commerce. Accordingly, the Agency will evaluate the qualifications of
each applicant to determine whether granting the exemption will achieve
the required level of safety mandated by statute.

Qualifications of Applicants

Daniel F. Albers

    Mr. Albers, age 40, has complete loss of vision due to a traumatic
injury sustained in 1996. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20.
Following an examination in 2009, his optometrist noted, ``In my
medical opinion, Mr. Albers has sufficient vision to perform the tasks
required to operate a commercial vehicle.'' Mr. Albers reported that he
has driven straight trucks for 18 years, accumulating 675,000 miles,
and tractor-trailer combinations for 4 years, accumulating 100,000
miles. He holds a Class A CDL from California. His driving record for
the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving
violations in a CMV.

Robert L. Brown

    Mr. Brown, 62, has loss of vision in his left eye due to a
traumatic injury sustained in 1955. The best corrected visual acuity in
his right eye is 20/20 and in his left eye, count-finger vision.
Following an examination in 2008, his ophthalmologist noted, ``Mr.
Brown has sufficient vision to perform the driving tasks required to
operate a commercial vehicle.'' Mr. Brown reported that he has driven
straight trucks for 11 years, accumulating 275,000 miles. He holds a
Class C operator's license from Illinois. His driving record for the
last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations
in a CMV.

Nicholas Cafaro

    Mr. Cafaro, 60, has a prosthetic right eye due to a traumatic
injury sustained as a child. The visual acuity in his left eye is 20/
20. Following an examination in 2009, his ophthalmologist noted, ``In
my medical opinion, he has sufficient vision to perform the driving
tasks required to operate a commercial vehicle.'' Mr. Cafaro reported
that he has driven straight trucks for 3 years, accumulating 168,000
miles, tractor-trailer combinations for 2 years, accumulating 110,000
miles. He holds a Class A CDL from New York. His driving record for the
last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations
in a CMV.

Barry G. Church

    Mr. Church, 47, has had a macular scar in his left eye since
childhood. The best corrected visual acuity in his right eye is 20/15
and in his left eye, 20/400. Following an examination in 2009, his
optometrist noted, ``In my professional opinion, you have sufficient
visual abilities to perform the driving tasks required to operate a
commercial vehicle.'' Mr. Church reported that he has straight trucks
for 7 years, accumulating 560,000 miles, and buses for 7 years,
accumulating 140,000 miles. He holds a Class D operator's license from
Ohio. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no
convictions for moving violations in a CMV.

David J. Comeaux

    Mr. Comeaux, 48, has had a prosthetic left eye since childhood. The
visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20. Following an examination in
2009, his optometrist noted, ``Mr. Comeaux has been driving
commercially for years and I do not see any new problems with his
vision or the health of his right eye. I feel he is capable of
performing driving tasks.'' Mr. Comeaux reported that he has driven
straight trucks for 30 years, accumulating 450,000 miles, and tractor-
trailer combinations for 30 years, accumulating 450,000 miles. He holds
a Class A CDL from Louisiana. His driving record for the last 3 years
shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.

Timothy D. Courtney

    Mr. Courtney, 48, has had parafoveal telangiectasia since 2001. The
best corrected visual acuity in his right eye is 20/60 and in his left
eye, 20/30. Following an examination in 2009, his optometrist noted,
``It is my medical opinion that Mr. Courtney has sufficient vision to
perform the driving tasks required to operate a commercial vehicle.''
Mr. Courtney reported that he has driven straight trucks for 5 years,
accumulating 200,000 miles, and tractor-trailer combinations for 19
years, accumulating 1.5 million miles. He holds a Class A CDL from
Oregon. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no
convictions for moving violations in a CMV.

John J. Davis

    Mr. Davis, 46, has optical nerve damage and retinal scarring in his
right eye due to a traumatic injury sustained as a child. The best
corrected visual acuity eye in his right eye is light perception, and
in the left, 20/20. Following an examination in 2009, his optometrist
noted, ``Mr. Davis' vision is sufficient for commercial license and has
sufficient vision to perform the driving tasks required to operate a
commercial vehicle.'' Mr. Davis reported that he has driven straight
trucks for 22 years, accumulating 121,000 miles. He holds a Class B CDL
from South Carolina. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no
crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.

Robert R. Donoho

    Mr. Donoho, 58, has had amblyopia in his left eye since birth. The
best corrected visual acuity in his right eye is 20/100 and in the
left, 20/20. Following an examination in 2009, his ophthalmologist
noted, ``It is my opinion that he has vision sufficient to perform the
driving tasks required to operate a commercial vehicle.'' Mr. Donoho
reported that he has driven straight trucks for 9 years, accumulating
225,000 miles, and tractor-trailer combinations for 12 years,
accumulating 870,000 miles. He holds a Class A CDL from Texas. His
driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions
for moving violations in a CMV.

Steven L. Forristall

    Mr. Forristall, 50, has complete loss of vision in his right eye
due to a traumatic injury to his cornea sustained in 1980. The best
corrected visual acuity in his left eye is 20/20. Following an
examination in 2009, his ophthalmologist noted, ``In my opinion, Mr.
Forristall has sufficient vision to perform the driving tasks required
to operate a commercial vehicle.'' Mr. Forristall reported that he has
driven straight trucks for 31 years, accumulating 310,000 miles. He
holds a Class B CDL from Wisconsin. His driving record for the last 3
years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a
CMV.

Rocky D. Gysberg

    Mr. Gysberg, 34, has had amblyopia in his left eye since childhood.
The best corrected visual acuity in his right eye is 20/15 and in his
left eye, 20/400. Following an examination in 2008, his optometrist
noted, ``In my opinion, Rocky is visually capable of safely performing
all required driving tasks required to operate a commercial motor
vehicle.'' Mr. Gysberg reported that he has driven straight trucks for
2 months, accumulating 1000 miles, and tractor-trailer combinations for
8 years, accumulating 704,000 miles. He holds a Class A CDL from
Minnesota. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and
no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.

Randy L. Huelster

    Mr. Huelster, 38, has complete loss of vision in his left eye due
to a traumatic injury sustained in 2001. The visual acuity in his right
eye is 20/15. Following an examination in 2009, his ophthalmologist
noted, ``I certify in my best medical opinion that Randy Huelster has
sufficient vision to perform the driving tasks required to operate a
commercial vehicle and any other vehicle of his choice.'' Mr. Huelster
reported that he has driven straight trucks for 9 years, accumulating
585,000 miles. He holds a Class D operator's license from Oklahoma. His
driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and one conviction
for a moving violation, speeding in a CMV. He exceeded the speed limit
by 18 mph.

Robert D. Kimmel

    Mr. Kimmel, 46, has optic nerve atrophy in his right eye since
childhood. The best corrected visual acuity in his right eye is 20/800
and in his left eye, 20/40. Following an examination in 2008, his
optometrist noted, ``In my opinion, Mr. Kimmel is visually capable of
operating a commercial vehicle at this time.'' Mr. Kimmel reported that
he has driven straight trucks for 18 years, accumulating 450,000 miles,
and tractor-trailer combinations for 18 years, accumulating 540,000
miles. He holds a Class A CDL from Iowa. His driving record for the
last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations
in a CMV.

Charles H. Lefew

    Mr. Lefew, 37, has loss of vision in his left eye due to a
traumatic injury sustained since childhood. The visual acuity in his
right eye is 20/20 and in his left eye, 20/400. Following an
examination in 2009, his optometrist noted, ``Has sufficient functional
vision required to operate commercial vehicle.'' Mr. Lefew reported
that he has driven straight trucks for 5 years, accumulating 150,000
miles, and tractor-trailer combinations for 1 year, accumulating 30,000
miles. He holds a Class A CDL from Virginia. His driving record for the
last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations
in a CMV.

Steve J. Morrison

    Mr. Morrison, 43, has complete loss of vision due to a congenital
cataract. The best corrected visual acuity in his left eye is 20/20.
Following an examination in 2009, his optometrist noted, ``It is my
opinion that he does have sufficient visual abilities to continue to
perform driving and operating a commercial vehicle in interstate
commerce.'' Mr. Morrison reported that he has driven straight trucks
for 26 years, accumulating 520,000 miles, and buses for 1 year,
accumulating 1,500 miles. He holds a Class D operator's license from
Idaho. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no
convictions for moving violations in a CMV.

Joseph B. Peacock

    Mr. Peacock, 30, has loss of vision in his left eye due to a
traumatic injury sustained in 1995. The best corrected visual acuity in
his right eye is 20/20 and in his left eye, 20/60. Following an
examination in 2009, his optometrist noted, ``Based on the eye
examination, I feel that Mr. Peacock has more than adequate visual
acuity and peripheral vision to safely operate a commercial vehicle at
this time.'' Mr. Peacock reported that he has driven straight trucks
for 8 years, accumulating 56,000 miles, and tractor-trailer
combinations for 8 years, accumulating 4,000 miles. He holds a Class A
CDL from North Carolina. His driving record for the last 3 years shows
no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.

Mark A. Pirl

    Mr. Pirl, 45, has had amblyopia in his left eye since birth. The
best corrected visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20 and in his left
eye, 20/200. Following an examination in 2009, his ophthalmologist
noted, ``In my medical opinion, this patient has sufficient vision to
perform the driving tasks required to operate a commercial vehicle.''
Mr. Pirl reported that he has driven tractor-trailer combinations for
17 years, accumulating 850,000 miles. He holds a Class A CDL from North
Carolina. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and
no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.

Frank Price, Jr.

    Mr. Price, 50, has had amblyopia in his right eye since childhood.
The best corrected visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20 and in his
left eye, 20/200. Following an examination in 2009, his optometrist
noted, ``In my opinion, Mr. Price has sufficient vision to perform the
driving tasks required to operate a commercial vehicle.'' Mr. Price
reported that he has driven tractor-trailer combinations for 15 years,
accumulating 1.6 million miles. He holds a Class A CDL from North
Carolina. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and
no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.

Terry L. Pruitt

    Mr. Pruitt, 58, has had amblyopia in his left eye since birth. The
best corrected visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20 and in his left
eye, 20/60. Following an examination in 2008, his optometrist noted,
``Mr. Pruitt's ocular hypertension or amblyopia does not affect his
ability to operate a commercial vehicle.'' Mr. Pruitt reported that he
has driven tractor-trailer combinations for 36 years, accumulating 4.5
million miles. He holds a Class A CDL from Kentucky. His driving record
for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving
violations in a CMV.

Joseph E. Salter

    Mr. Salter, 50, has had amblyopia in his left eye since birth. The
best corrected visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20 and in his left
eye, 20/100. Following an examination in 2009, his optometrist noted,
``In my medical opinion, he has sufficient vision to perform the
driving tasks required to operate a commercial vehicle and he should
have no restrictions relating to his vision and driving.'' Mr. Salter
reported that he has driven straight trucks for 6 years, accumulating
123,498 miles, and tractor-trailer combinations for 5\1/2\ years,
154,781 miles. He holds a Class A CDL from Tennessee. His driving
record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for
moving violations in a CMV.

Charles A. Terry

    Mr. Terry, 61, has had amblyopia in his right eye since childhood.
The best corrected visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20 and in his
left eye, 20/80. Following an examination in 2009, his optometrist
noted, ``I, Dr. Dubose do attest that in my medical opinion, Mr. Terry
does have sufficient vision to

perform the necessary tasks that are required to operate a commercial
vehicle.'' Mr. Terry reported that he has driven straight trucks for 3
years, accumulating 120,000 miles, and tractor-trailer combinations for
22 years, 1.6 million miles. He holds a Class A CDL from Alabama. His
driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and one conviction
for a moving violation, speeding in a CMV. He exceeded the speed limit
by 12 mph.

Steven L. Thomas

    Mr. Thomas, 51, has endophthalmitis in his left eye after cataract
surgery in 1997. The best corrected visual acuity in his right eye is
20/15 and in the left, 20/400. Following an examination in 2009, his
optometrist noted, ``Mr. Thomas has sufficient vision to drive and
operate a commercial vehicle.'' Mr. Thomas reported that he has driven
straight trucks for 15 years, accumulating 150,000 miles, and tractor-
trailer combinations for 22 years, accumulating 770,000 miles. He holds
a Class A CDL from Indiana. His driving record for the last 3 years
shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.

Daniel A. Wescott

    Mr. Wescott, 56, has had amblyopia in his left eye since birth. The
best corrected visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20 and in his left
eye, 20/400. Following an examination in 2009, his optometrist noted,
``The result of his vision exam does in my medical opinion qualify him
to drive a commercial vehicle.'' Mr. Wescott reported that he has
driven straight trucks for 10 years, accumulating 130,000 miles, and
tractor-trailer combinations for 26 years, accumulating 780,000 miles.
He holds a Class A CDL from Colorado. His driving record for the last 3
years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a
CMV.

Donald J. Zuza

    Mr. Zuza, 62, has central retinal artery occlusion in his right
eye. The best corrected visual acuity in his right eye is count-finger
vision and in his left eye, 20/25. Following an examination in 2009,
his ophthalmologist noted, ``In my medical opinion, Donald Zuza has
sufficient vision to perform driving tasks required to operate a
commercial vehicle.'' Mr. Zuza reported that he has driven straight
trucks for 33 years, accumulating 330,000 miles. He holds a Class D
operator's license from New Jersey. His driving record for the last 3
years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a
CMV.

Request for Comments

    In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA requests
public comment from all interested persons on the exemption petitions
described in this notice. The Agency will consider all comments
received before the close of business July 2, 2009. Comments will be
available for examination in the docket at the location listed under
the ADDRESSES section of this notice. The Agency will file comments
received after the comment closing date in the public docket, and will
consider them to the extent practicable.
    In addition to late comments, FMCSA will also continue to file, in
the public docket, relevant information that becomes available after
the comment closing date. Interested persons should monitor the public
docket for new material.

    Issued on: May 26, 2009.
Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy and Program Development.
[FR Doc. E9-12770 Filed 6-1-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 250 (Monday, December 30, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 79289-79292]
[FR Doc No: 2013-30469]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2013-0304; Directorate Identifier 2013-NM-005-AD;
Amendment 39-17713; AD 2013-26-04]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain
The Boeing Company Model 747-400, -400D, and -400F series airplanes.
This AD was prompted by a report of water leakage into the main deck
cargo wire integration unit (WIU). The water flowed from the main deck
floor panels, through disbonded seams in the aft main equipment center
(MEC) drip shield gutter, then onto the WIU. This AD requires cleaning
the aft MEC drip shield gutter; and doing a one-time general visual
inspection for disbonded seams, and repair if necessary. This AD also
requires installing a fiberglass reinforcement overcoat to the
underside of the bonded seams of the aft MEC drip shield gutters. We
are issuing this AD to prevent water penetration into the MEC, which
could result in the loss of flight critical systems.

DATES: This AD is effective February 3, 2014.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of February 3,
2014.

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this AD, contact
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management, P.
O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, Washington 98124-2207; telephone 206-
544-5000, extension 1; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You may view this referenced service information
at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW.,
Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the
FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=FAA-2013-0304; or in person at the
Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the
regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information.
The address for the Docket Office (phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>) is Docket
Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Francis Smith, Aerospace Engineer,
Cabin Safety and Environmental Systems Branch, ANM-150S, FAA, Seattle
Aircraft Certification Office, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-
3356; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to the specified products. The
NPRM published in the Federal Register on April 11, 2013 (78 FR 21571).
The NPRM proposed to require removing the cargo liner support; cleaning
the aft MEC drip shield gutter; and doing a one-time general visual
inspection for disbonded seams, and repair if necessary. The NPRM also
proposed to require installing a fiberglass reinforcement overcoat to
the top surface of the aft MEC drip shield gutters and installing the
cargo liner support.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD. The following presents the comments received on the proposal
(78 FR 21571, April 11, 2013) and the FAA's response to each comment.

Request To Clarify Area for Installing Fiberglass Reinforcement
Overcoat

    United Airlines (UAL), British Airways (BAB), and Boeing asked that
the area for installing the fiberglass reinforcement overcoat, as
specified in paragraph (g)(2) of the NPRM (78 FR 21571, April 11,
2013), be changed for clarification. Boeing stated that the description
of the area is not accurate. UAL stated that the location for
installing the fiberglass reinforcement overcoat ``to the top surface''
of the aft main equipment center (MEC) drip shield gutters, as
specified in paragraph (g)(2) of the NPRM, is different than the area
specified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-25A3613, dated June 22,
2012. UAL noted that the referenced service information specifies
installing the fiberglass reinforcement overcoat ``to the underside
surface'' of the aft MEC drip shield gutters. BAB stated that Figure 4,
Sheets 2 and 3 of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-25A3613, dated June
22, 2012, show the installation from underneath the aft MEC drip shield
gutter; and added that Figure 4, Step 3, Note (c) specifies to
``Install the prepared BMS 9-3 fiberglass impregnated fabric to the
underside of the bonded seams.''
    We agree with the commenters' requests to clarify the location for
installing the fiberglass reinforcement overcoat. Figure 4, Sheets 2
and 3 of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-25A3613, dated June 22,
2012, provide clarity. Therefore, we have changed the SUMMARY section
and paragraph (g)(2) of this final rule to specify the location in
Figure 4, Step 3, Note (c) for installation of the fiberglass
reinforcement overcoat to ``the underside of the bonded seams.''

Request To Clarify the Unsafe Condition

    Boeing asked that we clarify the second sentence of the reason for
the unsafe condition, as specified in the SUMMARY section and paragraph
(e) of the NPRM (78 FR 21571, April 11, 2013), from ``The water flowed
from the drip shield through disbonded floor seams into the aft . . .''
to ``The water flowed from the main deck floor panels, through
disbonded seams in the aft . . ..'' Boeing stated that, as specified,
the description is not accurate based on reports received from
operators.
    We agree with the commenter's request for the reason provided. We
have clarified the reason for the unsafe condition in the SUMMARY
section and paragraph (e) of this final rule accordingly.

Request To Add a Note Allowing Different Access for Different
Structural Configurations

    UAL asked that we include a note specifying that accessing certain
areas to accomplish the actions proposed in the NPRM (78 FR 21571,
April 11, 2013) may vary due to configuration differences. UAL stated
that including such a note would save operators a lot of time dealing
with variances in the quantity of fasteners called out in the service
information versus those on the airplane. UAL noted that for AD 2012-
15-10, Amendment 39-17139 (77 FR 46943, August 7, 2012), regarding the
MEC drip shield, it already has six alternative methods of compliance
(AMOCs) due to these variances.
    We agree with the commenter's request. Boeing Alert Service
Bulletin 747-25A3613, dated June 22, 2012, does not identify all
possible structural configurations of the affected airplanes when
gaining access to the repair area. The resulting AMOC requests and
review of those requests creates a high volume of work and time, which
impacts both operators and the FAA. These deviations do not directly
impact the specified corrective actions.
    We have changed the language in the SUMMARY and Costs of Compliance
sections, as well as paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(2) of this final rule,
to remove the reference to the cargo liner support. We have also added
a sentence to the introductory text of paragraph (g) of this AD to
specify that accomplishing paragraphs 3.B.1. and 3.B.4. of the
Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-
25A3613, dated June 22, 2012, is optional.

Request To Ground All Affected Airplanes

    One anonymous commenter reiterated the actions proposed by the NPRM
(78 FR 21571, April 11, 2013), and stated that he found it troubling
that we are asking the public ``(presumably experts)'' to comment on a
safety issue with a Boeing design, yet these airplanes have not been
grounded until the notice and comment period ends. The commenter added
that The Boeing Company must comply with strict FAA guidelines, as
outlined by the Federal Aviation Act of 1958 (49 U.S.C. App. 1301 et
seq.). The commenter noted that, crucial to this particular
airworthiness directive, the FAA encourages the development of ``next
wave'' civil aeronautics, new aviation technology, and continued safety
enhancements of all domestically flown commercial airplanes. The
commenter also added that participation in the notice and comment
period is in line with the FAA's mission. The commenter concluded that
Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil airplanes
in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and
procedures.
    We infer that the commenter finds we lack sufficient information to
determine a compliance time for correcting this unsafe condition before
receiving public comment. We also infer the commenter concluded that
affected airplanes are exposed to an unacceptably high risk requiring
immediate action to remove

them from service until more information is obtained through public
comments. We do not agree. Before posting an NPRM for public comment,
we must perform an investigative review of the subject concern or
unsafe condition first obtained from operator reports. After gathering
this information from operators and the manufacturer, we make a
determination on the associated risk of the unsafe condition and
coordinate with the manufacturer on a compliance time and corrective
action for all affected airplanes. Airplanes are grounded in rare cases
where it is determined that the unsafe condition has an immediate risk
to public safety. The unsafe condition in this AD does not meet these
criteria.
    Additionally, agencies welcome and consider all relevant rulemaking
comments received from the public. The purpose of public participation
is more to obtain comments from interested parties, not necessarily
``experts'' in the aviation industry. This is in line with the
democratic, legal, and management principles behind good government and
effective rulemaking. Further information on these principles can be
found on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov, under ``docs/
Factsheet--Public--Comments--Make--a--Difference.pdf.'' We have made no
change to this final rule in this regard.

Conclusion

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

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 79 airplanes of U.S. registry.
    We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per      Cost on U.S.
                Action                         Labor cost           Parts cost        product        operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Clean gutter, inspect.................  1 work-hour x $85 per                 $0             $85          $6,715
                                         hour = $85.
Install fiberglass reinforcement......  1 work-hour x $85 per                100             185          14,615
                                         hour = $85.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide
cost estimates for the on-condition actions specified in this AD.

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

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

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

2013-26-04 The Boeing Company: Amendment 39-17713; Docket No. FAA-
2013-0304; Directorate Identifier 2013-NM-005-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective February 3, 2014.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to The Boeing Company Model 747-400, -400D, and
-400F series airplanes, certificated in any category, as identified
in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-25A3613, dated June 22, 2012.

(d) Subject

    Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC)/Air Transport Association
(ATA) of America Code 25: Equipment/Furnishings.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by a report of water leakage into the main
deck cargo wire integration unit (WIU). The water flowed from the
main deck floor panels, through disbonded seams in the aft main
equipment center (MEC) drip shield gutter, then onto the WIU. We are
issuing this AD to prevent water penetration into the MEC, which
could result in the loss of flight critical systems.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Removal/Cleaning/Inspection/Repair if Necessary/Installations

    Within 24 months after the effective date of this AD: Do the
actions specified in paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(2) of this AD, in
accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert
Service Bulletin 747-25A3613, dated June 22, 2012. Accomplishing
paragraphs 3.B.1. and 3.B.4. of the Accomplishment Instructions of
Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-25A3613, dated June 22, 2012, is
optional.

    (1) Clean the aft MEC drip shield gutter, and do a general
visual inspection for disbonded seams; repair before further flight
if any seam disbonding is found.
    (2) Install a fiberglass reinforcement overcoat to the underside
of the bonded seams of the aft MEC drip shield gutters.

(h) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO),
has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using
the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR
39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight
Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information
directly to the manager of the ACO, send it to the attention of the
person identified in paragraph (i) of this AD. Information may be
emailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate
principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager
of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding
district office.
    (3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be
used for any repair required by this AD if it is approved by the
Boeing Commercial Airplanes Organization Designation Authorization
(ODA) that has been authorized by the Manager, Seattle ACO, to make
those findings. For a repair method to be approved, the repair must
meet the certification basis of the airplane and the approval must
specifically refer to this AD.

(i) Related Information

    For more information about this AD, contact Francis Smith,
Aerospace Engineer, Cabin Safety and Environmental Systems Branch,
ANM-150S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, 1601 Lind
Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax: (425)
917-6590; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
(j) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed
in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-25A3613, dated June 22,
2012.
    (ii) Reserved.
    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management,
P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, WA 98124-2207; telephone 206-544-
5000, extension 1; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com.
    (4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport
Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For
information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call
425-227-1221.
    (5) You may view this 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/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on December 13, 2013.
John P. Piccola,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2013-30469 Filed 12-27-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 124 (Thursday, June 29, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 29421-29424]
[FR Doc No: 2017-13449]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R06-OAR-2013-0615; FRL-9963-41-Region 6]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; New Mexico;
Albuquerque/Bernalillo County; New Source Review (NSR) Preconstruction
Permitting Program

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Federal Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act), the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving portions of
revisions to the applicable New Source Review (NSR) State
Implementation Plan (SIP) for the City of Albuquerque-Bernalillo
County. The EPA is approving the following: The establishment of a new
Minor NSR general construction permitting program; changes to the Minor
NSR Public Participation requirements; and the addition of exemptions
from Minor NSR permitting for inconsequential emission sources and
activities. Additionally, the EPA is conditionally approving the
provisions establishing accelerated review and technical permit
revisions.

DATES: This rule is effective on July 31, 2017.

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under
Docket ID No. EPA-R06-OAR-2013-0615. All documents in the docket are
listed on the http://www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in
the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g.,
Confidential Business Information or other information whose disclosure
is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted
material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available
only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are
available either electronically through http://www.regulations.gov or
in hard copy at the EPA Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas,
Texas 75202-2733.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Aimee Wilson,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document ``we,'' ``us,'' and
``our'' means the EPA.

I. Background

    The background for this action is discussed in detail in our March
10, 2017 proposal (82 FR 13270). In that document, we proposed to
approve the revisions to the City of Albuquerque-Bernalillo County
Minor NSR permitting program submitted on July 26, 2013, as
supplemented on April 21, 2016; July 5, 2016; September 19, 2016; and
December 20, 2016, that update the regulations to be consistent with
federal requirements for Minor NSR permitting, remove a provision that
refers to obsolete ambient air standards that are unique to the
Albuquerque/Bernalillo County Air Quality Control Board, and remove the
reference to the State of New Mexico non-methane hydrocarbon standard
in 20.11.44 NMAC. We also proposed to conditionally approve severable
provisions submitted on July 26, 2013, as supplemented on April 21,
2016; July 5, 2016; September 19, 2016; and December 20, 2016, which
establish, and pertain to, the accelerated permitting procedures,
conflict of interest, and technical permit revisions.

II. Final Action

    We are approving revisions to the City of Albuquerque-Bernalillo
County Minor NSR permitting program submitted on July 26, 2013, as
supplemented on April 21, 2016; July 5, 2016; September 19, 2016; and
December 20, 2016. The revisions were adopted and submitted in
accordance with the requirements of the CAA and the EPA's regulations
regarding SIP development at 40 CFR part 51. Additionally, we have
determined that the submitted revisions to the City of Albuquerque-
Bernalillo County Minor

NSR program are consistent with the EPA's regulations at 40 CFR 51.160-
51.164 and the associated policy and guidance. Therefore, under section
110 of the Act, the EPA approves into the New Mexico SIP for the City
of Albuquerque-Bernalillo County the following revisions adopted on
July 10, 2013, and submitted to the EPA on July 26, 2013:
     Revisions to <IP_ADDRESS> NMAC, Issuing Agency;
     Revisions to <IP_ADDRESS> NMAC, Scope;
     Revisions to <IP_ADDRESS> NMAC, Statutory Authority;
     Revisions to <IP_ADDRESS> NMAC, Duration;
     Revisions to <IP_ADDRESS> NMAC, Effective Date;
     Revisions to <IP_ADDRESS> NMAC, Objective;
     Revisions to <IP_ADDRESS> NMAC, Definitions, with the
exception of <IP_ADDRESS>.J NMAC, <IP_ADDRESS>.RR NMAC, and the reference
to technical permit revisions in <IP_ADDRESS>EE NMAC, as discussed below;
     Revisions to <IP_ADDRESS> NMAC, Variances;
     Revisions to <IP_ADDRESS> NMAC, Savings Clause;
     Revisions to <IP_ADDRESS> NMAC, Severability;
     Revisions to <IP_ADDRESS> NMAC, Documents;
     Revisions to <IP_ADDRESS> NMAC, Fees for Permit
Application;
     Revisions to <IP_ADDRESS> NMAC, Application for Permit;
     Revisions to <IP_ADDRESS> NMAC, Public Participation;
     Revisions to <IP_ADDRESS> NMAC, Public Information Hearing;
     Revisions to <IP_ADDRESS> NMAC, Permit Decision and Air
Board Hearing on the Merits;
     Revisions to <IP_ADDRESS> NMAC, Basis for Permit Denial,
with the exception of <IP_ADDRESS>.F NMAC, as discussed below;
     Revisions to <IP_ADDRESS> NMAC, Applicants' Additional
Legal Responsibilities;
     Revisions to <IP_ADDRESS> NMAC, Permit Conditions;
     Revisions to <IP_ADDRESS> NMAC, Permit Cancellations,
Suspension, or Revocation;
     Revisions to <IP_ADDRESS> NMAC, Permittee's Obligations to
Inform the Department and Deliver an Annual Emissions Inventory;
     Revisions to <IP_ADDRESS> NMAC, Performance Testing;
     Revisions to <IP_ADDRESS> NMAC, Temporary Relocation of
Portable Stationary Sources;
     Revisions to remove <IP_ADDRESS> NMAC, Emergency Permits;
     Revisions to <IP_ADDRESS> NMAC, Nonattainment Area
Requirements;
     Revisions to <IP_ADDRESS> NMAC, Compliance Certification;
     Revisions to <IP_ADDRESS> NMAC, Enforcement;
     Revisions to <IP_ADDRESS> NMAC, Administrative and
Technical Permit Revisions, with the exception of provisions pertaining
to Technical Permit Revisions, as discussed below;
     Revisions to <IP_ADDRESS> NMAC, Permit Modification;
     Revisions to <IP_ADDRESS> NMAC, Permit Reopening, Revision
and Reissuance; and
     Revisions to <IP_ADDRESS> NMAC, General Construction
Permits.
    Additionally, the EPA is finalizing the conditional approval of the
severable provisions submitted on July 26, 2013, as supplemented on
April 21, 2016; July 5, 2016; September 19, 2016; and December 20,
2016, pertaining to the accelerated permitting procedures, technical
permit revisions, and the definition of conflict of interest. In a
letter dated December 22, 2016, the City of Albuquerque has committed
to addressing the concerns identified in our proposed conditional
approval within one year from the date of the EPA's final conditional
approval. Based on this commitment and the authority provided under
section 110(k)(4) of the Act, we have determined it is appropriate to
conditionally approve into the New Mexico SIP for the City of
Albuquerque-Bernalillo County the following revisions adopted on July
10, 2013, and submitted to the EPA on July 26, 2013:
     The definition of ``Conflict of Interest'' at <IP_ADDRESS>.J
NMAC;
     The references to ``technical permit revisions'' in the
definition for ``Permit'' at <IP_ADDRESS>.EE NMAC;
     The definition of ``Technical permit revision or technical
revision'' at <IP_ADDRESS>.RR NMAC;
     Revisions to <IP_ADDRESS>.F NMAC for conflict of interest;
     Revisions to <IP_ADDRESS> NMAC, pertaining to Technical
Permit Revisions; and
     Revisions to <IP_ADDRESS> NMAC, Accelerated Review of
Application.
    The City of Albuquerque committed in a letter dated December 22,
2016, to adopt specific enforceable measures and to submit these
provisions to the EPA for consideration as a SIP revision within one
year from the date of the EPA's final conditional approval. If the EPA
determines that the submitted revised enforceable measures are complete
and approvable, the EPA will take a separate action to propose approval
of the revisions. If the State does not meet its commitment within the
specified time period by (1) not adopting and submitting measures by
the date it committed to, (2) not submitting anything, or (3) EPA finds
the submittal incomplete, the approval will be converted to a
disapproval. The Regional Administrator would send a letter to the
State finding that it did not meet its commitment or that the submittal
is incomplete and that the SIP submittal was therefore disapproved. The
18-month clock for sanctions and the two-year clock for a Federal
Implementation Plan (FIP) would start as of the date of the letter.
Subsequently, a notice to that effect would be published in the Federal
Register, and appropriate language inserted in the Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR).

III. Incorporation by Reference

    In this rule, we are finalizing regulatory text that includes
incorporation by reference. In accordance with the requirements of 1
CFR 51.5, we are finalizing the incorporation by reference of the
revisions to the New Mexico, Albuquerque/Bernalillo County regulations
as described in the Final Action section above. We have made, and will
continue to make, these documents generally available electronically
through www.regulations.gov and/or in hard copy at the EPA Region 6
office.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation
land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated
that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the
rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial
direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified
by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by August 28, 2017. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of
judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for
judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness
of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in
proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen
dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: June 15, 2017.
Samuel Coleman,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 6.

    40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

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

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

Subpart GG--New Mexico

0
2. Amend Sec.  52.1620 by:
0
A. In paragraph (c), the second table ``EPA Approved Albuquerque/
Bernalillo County, NM Regulations'' is amended by revising the entry
for ``Part 41 (20.11.41 NMAC) Authority to Construct''.
0
B. In paragraph (e), the second table titled ``EPA Approved
Nonregulatory Provisions and Quasi-Regulatory Measures in the New
Mexico SIP'' is amended by adding four entries at the end of the table.
    The revision and additions read as follows:

Sec.  52.1620  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *

                           EPA Approved Albuquerque/Bernalillo County, NM Regulations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 State approval/
        State citation           Title/subject      effective      EPA approval             Explanation
                                                      date             date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
Part 41 (20.11.41 NMAC)......  Authority to           7/10/2013  6/29/2017,       The following are
                                Construct.                        [Insert          conditionally approved
                                                                  Federal          <IP_ADDRESS>.J NMAC, references
                                                                  Register         to ``technical permit
                                                                  citation].       revisions'' in 20.11.41.EE
                                                                                NMAC, 20.11.41.RR NMAC,
                                                                                <IP_ADDRESS>.F NMAC,
                                                                                <IP_ADDRESS> NMAC, and
                                                                                <IP_ADDRESS> NMAC.

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (e) * * *

            EPA Approved Nonregulatory Provisions and Quasi-Regulatory Measures in the New Mexico SIP
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          State
                                       Applicable       submittal/
     Name of SIP  Provisions         geographic or      effective    EPA approval date         Explanation
                                   nonattainment area      date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
City of Albuquerque               City of                4/21/2016  6/29/2017, [Insert   .......................
 Clarification Letter on Minor     Albuquerque--Berna                Federal Register
 NSR SIP.                          lillo County.                     citation].
City of Albuquerque               City of Albuquerque-    6/5/2016  6/29/2017, [Insert   .......................
 Clarification Letter Providing    Bernalillo County.                Federal Register
 Public Notices of Minor NSR to                                      citation].
 EPA.
City of Albuquerque Letter        City of Albuquerque-   9/19/2016  6/29/2017, [Insert   .......................
 regarding Public Notice for       Bernalillo County.                Federal Register
 Minor NSR.                                                          citation].
City of Albuquerque Minor NSR     City of Albuquerque-  12/20/2016  6/29/2017, [Insert   .......................
 Commitment Letter.                Bernalillo County.                Federal Register
                                                                     citation].
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2017-13449 Filed 6-28-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 105 (Wednesday, June 1, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Page 35006]
[FR Doc No: 2016-12768]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER16-1750-000]

Eastern Shore Solar LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-
Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204
Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of
Eastern Shore Solar LLC`s application for market-based rate authority,
with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes
a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future
issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington,
DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's
Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone
filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability, is June 13, 2016.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in
the above list. They are also available for electronic review in the
Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an
eSubscription link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive
email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s).
For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: May 23, 2016.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-12768 Filed 5-31-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P