APCD Alcan Foil VOC bubble permit conditions and LLFlex ABO Comparison

Permit Conditions
Permit Requirement
ABO Requirement
1.
The conditions and provisions of the emission bubble as described in the "SIP Revision application" shall be the applicable regulation.
No substantive permit requirements.  The relevant conditions and provisions of the "SIP Revision application" are contained in the permit conditions.
2., 1[st] par.
The nine machines 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 (formerly 13), 11, 14, 15, 16 shall be treated as one affected facility under the bubble.
Applies to these same units only.  Machine number 16 has been removed from the facility and shall not be operated.
2., 2[nd] par.
Over control by use of water-borne coatings/inks can be used for credit during baseline determination but not post-baseline calculations.  Credit can be taken for water-borne coatings/inks developed and used after the baseline period.
This provision is not needed in the ABO.  Baseline emissions were established in 1990 as 69.54 tpy. (55 FR 2842, January 29, 1990.)  The SIP, at APCD Regulation 4.1.2, does not allow reductions to be used for post-baseline calculations: "The emission reduction [for an emission reduction credit] must represent a real and permanent decrease in emissions below the applicable baseline level used in the SIP attainment demonstration."
2., 3[rd] par.
Conditions applied to machine 16, now removed.
NA
2., 4[th] par.
Conditions applied to machine 16, now removed.
NA
2., 5[th] par.
246 VOC operating days/year allowed.
No limit to VOC operating days/year allowed (365).  Approved in 1998 because daily VOC emissions allowable were adjusted accordingly.  (63 FR 1927, January 13, 1998.)
2., 6[th] par.
The company shall follow the production scheduling and recordkeeping procedures specified in the "SIP Revision application."
No substantive permit requirements.  The relevant conditions and provisions of the "SIP Revision application" are contained in the permit conditions.
3.
The company may include in the bubble 214 tpy of VOC emission reduction credits purchased from Federal Paper Board Company.
This is included in the VOC bubble limit that still applies.
4.
The company shall use daily averaging to demonstrate compliance.
Required at Conditions 6 and 7.b.

5.a.
Supply information, as required by the District, to demonstrate compliance on a daily basis.
Required at Condition 4.

5.b.
Use the compliance reporting system as specified in the "SIP Revision application."
Conditions 4 and 6 require the company to keep sufficient records and to calculate the VOC emissions daily.

Also, as stated in the District's narrative, the company is still required to report the amount and types of coatings used as well as technical material specifications sufficient to determine compliance.
5.c.
Maintain records of 1) the date, 2) machine number, 3) yards run, 4) output width, 5) output laydown rate, and 6) coating used.

5.d.
Verify accuracy of the laydown rates according to Attachment 2 of the "SIP Revision application."

5.e.
Maintain records of daily emissions.
Required at Condition 6.
5.f.
Compliance reports submitted for each calendar month.
Condition 8 requires semiannual reporting.  This is consistent with EPA's Recordkeeping and Reporting Burden Reduction rulemaking of 1999.  (64 FR 7458, February 12, 1999.)
6.
Daily VOC limit of 2,164 lb/day; annual limit of 266.1 tpy.  (2,164 lb/day x 246 days/yr = 266.1 tpy)
Condition 1 requires a more stringent daily limit and an equivalent annual limit.
Daily VOC limit of 1,458 lb/day; annual limit of 266.2 tpy.  (1,458 lb/day x 365 days/yr = 266.1 tpy)
7.
Machines shall comply with a daily RACT allowable:
  65% by weight control for solvent-based inks,
  75% water by volume in volatile portion of coatings, and
  use of high solids content coatings/inks with greater than 60% nonvolatile material.
Retained as Condition 2.

A new compliance option is added:
  All inks and coatings, as applied to the substrate, used on the affected facility shall contain no more than 0.5 pounds of VOC per pound of solids.
This new option was previously added the Jefferson County portion of the SIP as provision 3.1.3 of Rule 6.29, Section 3.  (58 FR 54,516, October 22, 1993; and 82 FR 47,376, October 12, 2017.)  In addition, LLFlex submitted documentation to show how this additional compliance option will not result in greater emissions than the existing compliance options.
8.
The company shall perform any additional compliance testing as required by the District (as specified in Regulation 1.04; Regulation 6.01, Section 4; and Regulation 6.29, Section 4).
EPA test methods 1, 2, 3, 4, 24, 24A, 25 and 25A shall be used to determine the efficiency of control devices as requested by the District.
These are SIP and federal testing requirements that the District may require pursuant to APCD Regulation 1.04, Section 2.  These are requirements of the SIP that are not needed for purposes of the VOC bubble and do not need to be included in the ABO.
9.
If additional VOC control equipment is installed, the company shall conduct a performance test within 60 days.
This is a general provision that is not needed for purposes of the bubble.  Any additional VOC control equipment installed would be required to undergo performance testing via the construction permit. (Regulation 2.03 Section 1, 1.1.)
10.a. thru 10.f.
The company shall implement a program to periodically certify accuracy of coating data. If greater than 10% variation in VOC content was found from manufacturer's specifications, the company was required to use the greater of the two for emissions calculations until the discrepancy is resolved.
Chemical contents reporting requirements were relatively new at the time the original permit was adopted in 1989.  The District is unable to find an instance where the company found greater than 10% variation.

The District believes technical specifications from the manufacturers are generally reliable today.  Manufacturer specifications, including those required in Safety Data Sheets (pursuant to OSHA's Hazard Communication Standard and EPA's Toxic Substances Control Act) are regularly relied upon by the District to enforce material VOC content requirements.
11.
Additional emission reductions may be imposed for future ozone SIPs.
Retained in the last un-numbered paragraph of the BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION section.


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 237 (Wednesday, December 10, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 73391-73393]
[FR Doc No: 2014-28960]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2000-7363; FMCSA-2002-12294; FMCSA-2006-24783; FMCSA-
2006-26066]

Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Vision

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

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

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces its decision to renew the exemptions from the
vision requirement in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations for
6 individuals. FMCSA has statutory authority to exempt individuals from
the vision requirement if the exemptions granted will not compromise
safety. The Agency has concluded that granting these exemption renewals
will provide a level of safety that is equivalent to or greater than
the level of safety maintained without the exemptions for these
commercial motor vehicle (CMV) drivers.

DATES: This decision is effective January 13, 2015. Comments must be
received on or before January 9, 2015.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments bearing the Federal Docket
Management System (FDMS) numbers: Docket No. [Docket No. FMCSA-2000-
7363; FMCSA-2002-12294; FMCSA-2006-24783; FMCSA-2006-26066], 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 or Courier: 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.
    Instructions: Each submission must include the Agency name and the
docket number 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 Federal Docket Management System (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: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits
comments from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT
posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information
the commenter provides, to www.regulations.gov, as described in the
system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at
www.dot.gov/privacy.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elaine M. Papp, R.N., Chief, Medical
Programs Division,<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:

I. Background

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may renew an exemption
from the vision requirements in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), which applies to
drivers of CMVs in interstate commerce, for a two-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.'' The procedures for requesting an exemption (including
renewals) are set out in 49 CFR part 381.

II. Exemption Decision

    This notice addresses 6 individuals who have requested renewal of
their exemptions in accordance with FMCSA procedures. FMCSA has
evaluated these 6 applications for renewal on their merits and decided
to extend each exemption for a renewable two-year period. They are:

David S. Brumfield (KY)
Robert R. Buis (KY)
Arthur A. Sappington (IN)
David W. Skillman (WA)
William H. Smith (AL)
Edward C. Williams (AL)

    The exemptions are extended subject to the following conditions:
(1) That each individual has a physical examination every year (a) by
an ophthalmologist or optometrist who attests that the vision in the
better eye continues to meet the requirements in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10),
and (b) by a medical examiner who attests that the individual is
otherwise physically qualified under 49 CFR 391.41; (2) that each
individual provides a copy of the ophthalmologist's or optometrist's
report to the medical examiner at the time of the annual medical
examination; and (3) that each individual provide a copy of the annual
medical certification to the employer for retention in the driver's
qualification file and retains a copy of the certification on his/her
person while driving for presentation to a duly authorized Federal,
State, or local enforcement official. Each exemption will be valid for
two years unless rescinded earlier by FMCSA. The exemption will be
rescinded if: (1) The person fails to comply with the terms and
conditions of the exemption; (2) the exemption has resulted in a lower
level of safety than was maintained before it was granted; or (3)
continuation of the exemption would not be consistent with the goals
and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315.

III. Basis for Renewing Exemptions

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31315(b)(1), an exemption may be granted for no
longer than two years from its approval date and may be renewed upon
application for additional two year periods. In accordance with 49
U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, each of the 6 applicants has satisfied the
entry conditions for obtaining an exemption from the vision
requirements (65 FR 45817; 65 FR 77066; 67 FR 46016; 67 FR 57267; 67 FR
71610; 69 FR 71098; 71 FR 32183; 71 FR 41310; 71 FR 63379; 72 FR 1050;
72 FR 1054; 73 FR 75806; 73 FR 78421; 75 FR 79079; 77 FR 76166). Each
of these 6 applicants has requested renewal of the exemption and has
submitted evidence showing that the vision in the better eye continues
to meet the requirement specified at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10) and that the
vision impairment is stable. In addition, a review of each record of
safety while driving with the respective vision deficiencies over the
past two years indicates each applicant continues to meet the vision
exemption requirements. These factors provide an adequate basis for
predicting each driver's ability to continue to drive safely in
interstate commerce. Therefore, FMCSA concludes that extending the
exemption for each renewal applicant for a period of two years is
likely to achieve a level of safety equal to that existing without the
exemption.

IV. Public Participation and Request for Comments

    FMCSA encourages you to participate by submitting comments and
related materials.

Submitting Comments

    If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
notice (FMCSA-2000-7363; FMCSA-2002-12294; FMCSA-2006-24783; FMCSA-
2006-26066), indicate the specific section of this document to which
each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or
recommendation. You may submit your comments and material online or by
fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only one of these means.
FMCSA recommends that you include your name and a mailing address, an
email address, or a phone number in the body of your document so the
Agency can contact you if it has questions regarding your submission.
    To submit your comment online, got to http://www.regulations.gov
and put the docket number, ``FMCSA-2000-7363; FMCSA-2002-12294; FMCSA-
2006-24783; FMCSA-2006-26066'' in the ``Keyword'' box, and click
``Search.'' When the new screen appears, click on ``Comment Now!''
button and type your comment into the text box in the following screen.
Choose whether you are submitting your comment as an individual or on
behalf of a third party and then submit. If you submit your comments by
mail or hand delivery, submit them in an unbound format, no larger than
8\1/2\ by 11 inches, suitable for copying and electronic filing. If you
submit comments by mail and would like to know that they reached the
facility, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard or
envelope. FMCSA will consider all comments and material received during
the comment period and may change this notice based on your comments.

Viewing Comments and Documents

    To view comments, as well as any documents mentioned in this
preamble as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov and in the search box insert the docket number,
``FMCSA-2000-7363; FMCSA-2002-12294; FMCSA-2006-24783; FMCSA-2006-
26066'' in the ``Keyword'' box and click ``Search.'' Next, click ``Open
Docket Folder'' button choose the document listed to review. If you do
not have access to the Internet, you may view the docket online by
visiting the

Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the
DOT West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590,
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., e.t., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays.

    Issued on: December 1, 2014.
Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2014-28960 Filed 12-9-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register: July 14, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 134)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 40726]
[DOCID:fr14jy10-4]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket No. USCG-2010-0613]

Safety Zones: Annual Events Requiring Safety Zones in the Captain
of the Port Buffalo Zone

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of enforcement of regulation.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard will enforce the safety zones for annual
fireworks displays in the Captain of the Port Buffalo Zone from July 2,
2010 through July 31, 2010. This action is necessary to protect the
safety of life and property on navigable waters during these events.
During the enforcement period, no person or vessel may enter the safety
zones without the permission of the Captain of the Port Buffalo.

DATES: This notice provides information about enforcement of safety
zones in 33 CFR Part 165.939 enforced from July 2, 2010 at 9:30 p.m.
through July 25, 2010 at 10 p.m.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this notice,
call or e-mail MST2 Jessica Seguin, Marine Events Coordinator, Coast
Guard Sector Buffalo, 1 Fuhrmann Blvd., Buffalo, NY 14203; Coast Guard
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    The Coast Guard will enforce the following safety zones listed in
33 CFR 165.939:
    1. Boldt Castle 4th of July Fireworks on the St. Lawrence River,
Heart Island, NY in 33 CFR 165.939(a)(1) on July 4, 2010 from 9 p.m. to
10 p.m.
    2. French Festival Fireworks on the St. Lawrence River, Cape
Vincent, NY in 33 CFR 165.939(a)(3) on July 10, 2010 from 9:30 p.m. to
10:30 p.m.
    3. Brewerton Fireworks on Oneida River near Lake Ontario,
Brewerton, NY in 33 CFR 165.939(a)(4) on July 3, 2010 from 9:30 p.m. to
10 p.m.
    4. Seneca River Days on the Seneca River, Baldwinsville, NY in 33
CFR 165.939(a)(7) on July 9, 2010 from 9 p.m. to 10 p.m.
    5. Oswego Harborfest on Lake Ontario, Oswego, NY in 33 CFR
165.939(a)(8) on July 24, 2010 from 9:30 p.m. to 10 p.m.
    6. Village Fireworks on Sodus Bay, Sodus Point, NY in 33 CFR
165.939(a)(9) on July 3, 2010 from 10 p.m. to 10:30 p.m.
    7. City of Syracuse Fireworks Celebration on Onondaga Lake,
Syracuse, NY in 33 CFR 165.939(a)(10) on July 2, 2010 from 9:30 p.m. to
10:30 p.m.
    8. Tom Graves Memorial on Port Bay, Wolcott, NY in 33 CFR
165.939(a)(11) on July 3, 2010 from 9:30 p.m. to 10 p.m.
    9. North Tonawanda Fireworks Display on the East Niagara River,
North Tonawanda, NY in 33 CFR 165.939(a)(13) on July 4, 2010 from 9
p.m. to 10 p.m.
    10. Tonawanda's Canal Fest Fireworks, on the East Niagara River,
Tonawanda, NY in 33 CFR 165.393(a)(14) on July 25, 2010 from 9:30 p.m.
to 10 p.m.
    11. Fairport Harbor Mardi Gras Fireworks on Lake Erie, Fairport
Harbor Beach, OH in 33 CFR 165.939(a)(17) on July 5, 2010 from 10 p.m.
to 10:30 p.m.
    12. Mentor Harbor Yacht Club Fireworks Celebration on Lake Erie,
Mentor Harbor, OH in 33 CFR 165.939(a)(19) on July 3, 2010 from 10 p.m.
to 10:30 p.m.
    13. City of Cleveland 4th of July Fireworks in Cleveland Harbor and
Lake Erie, Cleveland, OH in 33 CFR 165.939(a)(21) on July 4, 2010 from
10 p.m. to 10:20 p.m.
    14. Lorain 4th of July Celebration in Lorain Harbor, Lorain, OH in
33 CFR 165.939(a)(25) on July 4, 2010 from 10 p.m. to 11 p.m.

These regulations can be found in 73 Fed. Reg. 28704 (May 19, 2008).
    Under the provisions of 33 CFR 165.23, entry into, transiting, or
anchoring within these safety zones is prohibited unless authorized by
the Captain of the Port Buffalo or his designated representative.
Vessels that wish to transit through the safety zones may request
permission from the Captain of the Port Buffalo. Requests must be made
in advance and approved by the Captain of Port before transits will be
authorized. Approvals will be granted on a case-by-case basis. The
Captain of the Port may be contacted via U.S. Coast Guard Sector
Buffalo on channel 16, VHF-FM. The Coast Guard will give notice to the
public via a Broadcast to Mariners that the regulation is in effect.
    This notice is issued under authority of 33 CFR 165.939 and 5
U.S.C. 552 (a). If the District Commander, Captain of the Port, or
other official authorized to do so, determines that the regulated area
need not be enforced for the full duration stated in this notice, he or
she may use a Broadcast Notice to Mariners to grant general permission
to enter the safety zone.

    Dated: June 28, 2010.
R.S. Burchell,
Captain, U. S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Buffalo.
[FR Doc. 2010-17168 Filed 7-13-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register: June 11, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 113)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 32987-32988]
[DOCID:fr11jn08-2]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2008-0306; Directorate Identifier 2008-CE-014-AD;
Amendment 39-15544; AD 2008-12-01]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Cessna Aircraft Company Model 525
Airplanes

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain
Cessna Aircraft Company (Cessna) Model 525 airplanes. This AD requires
you to inspect for missing firewall sealant between the aft firewall
assembly and seal assembly; and, if you find that firewall sealant is
missing, seal with firewall sealant between the aft firewall assembly
and seal assembly. This AD results from a report that firewall sealant
may not have been applied between the aft firewall assembly and seal
assembly during manufacture of certain Model 525 airplanes. We are
issuing this AD to detect and correct missing firewall sealant between
the aft firewall assembly and seal assembly, which could result in
failure of the fire extinguishing system to prevent the spread of fire
through the firewall gap. This failure could lead to an uncontrolled
fire.

DATES: This AD becomes effective on July 16, 2008.
    On July 16, 2008, the Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this AD.

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this AD, contact
Cessna Aircraft Company, Product Support, P.O. Box 7706, Wichita,
Kansas 67277; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    To view the AD docket, go to U.S. Department of Transportation,
Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200
New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, or on the Internet at
http://www.regulations.gov. The docket number is FAA-2008-0306;
Directorate Identifier 2008-CE-014-AD.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: James Galstad, Aerospace Engineer,
Wichita Aircraft Certification Office, 1801 Airport Road, Room 100,
Wichita, Kansas 67209; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    On March 7, 2008, we issued a proposal to amend part 39 of the
Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) to include an AD that
would apply to certain Cessna Model 525 airplanes. This proposal was
published in the Federal Register as a notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM) on March 13, 2008 (73 FR 13486). The NPRM proposed to require
you to inspect for missing firewall sealant between the aft firewall
assembly and seal assembly; and, if you find that firewall sealant is
missing, seal with firewall sealant between the aft firewall assembly
and seal assembly.

Comments

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

Conclusion

    We have carefully reviewed the available data and determined that
air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD as proposed
except for minor editorial corrections. We have determined that these
minor corrections:
     Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the
NPRM for correcting the unsafe condition; and
     Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was
already proposed in the NPRM.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 45 airplanes in the U.S. registry.
    We estimate the following costs to do the inspection:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Total cost per   Total cost on
                  Labor cost                               Parts cost                airplane     U.S. operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 work-hour x $80 per hour = $80..............  Not Applicable..................             $80          $3,600
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We estimate the following costs to do any necessary repairs that
would be required based on the results of the inspection. We have no
way of determining the number of airplanes that may need this repair:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          Total cost per
               Labor cost                   Parts cost       airplane
------------------------------------------------------------------------
4 work-hours x $80 per hour = $320......             $30            $350
------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 AD.

Regulatory Findings

    We have determined that this AD will not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a
substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between
the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
    1. Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order
12866;
    2. Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and

    3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    We prepared a summary of the costs to comply with this AD (and
other information as included in the Regulatory Evaluation) and placed
it in the AD Docket. You may get a copy of this summary by sending a
request to us at the address listed under ADDRESSES. Include ``Docket
No. FAA-2008-0306; Directorate Identifier 2008-CE-014-AD'' in your
request.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

0
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator,
the Federal Aviation Administration amends part 39 of the Federal
Aviation Regulations (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. FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new AD:

2008-12-01 Cessna Aircraft Company: Amendment 39-15544; Docket No.
FAA-2008-0306; Directorate Identifier 2008-CE-014-AD.

Effective Date

    (a) This AD becomes effective on July 16, 2008.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to Model 525 airplanes, serial numbers 525-
0600 through 525-0662, that are certificated in any category.

Affected ADs

    (b) None.

Unsafe Condition

    (d) This AD results from a report that firewall sealant may not
have been applied between the aft firewall assembly and seal
assembly during manufacture of certain Model 525 airplanes. We are
issuing this AD to detect and correct missing firewall sealant
between the aft firewall assembly and seal assembly, which could
result in failure of the fire extinguishing system to prevent the
spread of fire through the firewall gap. This failure could lead to
an uncontrolled fire.

Compliance

    (e) To address this problem, you must do the following, unless
already done:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Actions                 Compliance            Procedures
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Inspect between the       Within the next 60    Follow Cessna
 6352225 aft firewall          hours time-in-        Aircraft Company
 assembly and 6352226 seal     service (TIS) after   Citation Service
 assembly for missing          July 16, 2008 (the    Letter SL525-71-05,
 firewall sealant.             effective date of     Revision 1, dated
                               this AD) or within    February 6, 2008.
                               60 days after July
                               16, 2008 (the
                               effective date of
                               this AD), whichever
                               occurs first.
(2) If, as a result of the    Before further        Follow Cessna
 inspection required by        flight after the      Aircraft Company
 paragraph (e)(1) of this      inspection required   Citation Service
 AD, you find there is         by paragraph (e)(1)   Letter SL525-71-05,
 missing firewall sealant      of this AD.           Revision 1, dated
 between the 6352225 aft                             February 6, 2008.
 firewall assembly and
 6352226 seal assembly, seal
 with U000117S firewall
 sealant in the gap between
 the 6352225 aft firewall
 assembly and 6352226 seal
 assembly.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (f) The Manager, Wichita Aircraft Certification Office (ACO),
FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested
using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send information to
ATTN: James Galstad, Aerospace Engineer, Wichita ACO, 1801 Airport
Road, Room 100, Wichita, Kansas 67209; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>. Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane
to which the AMOC applies, notify your appropriate principal
inspector (PI) in the FAA Flight Standards District Office (FSDO),
or lacking a PI, your local FSDO.

Material Incorporated by Reference

    (g) You must use Cessna Aircraft Company Citation Service Letter
SL525-71-05, Revision 1, dated February 6, 2008, to do the actions
required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference of this service information under 5
U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Cessna Aircraft Company, Product Support, P.O. Box 7706, Wichita,
Kansas 67277; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (3) You may review copies at the FAA, Central Region, Office of
the Regional Counsel, 901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; or at
the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For
information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-
741-6030, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_
of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html.

    Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on May 27, 2008.
David R. Showers,
Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
 [FR Doc. E8-12305 Filed 6-10-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


To:	Maureen Ruskin (OSHA)
From:	Chuck Schwartz, Ph.D., DABT
Principal Consulting Toxicologist - TOXDOC1, LLC
Date:	14 April 2010
RE:  	Assessment of OSHA's Proposed Adoption of GHS Serious Eye Damage /Eye Irritation Criteria; Critique by NIEHS
On 30 September 2009, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) published proposed revisions to their current Hazard Communication Standard (HCS) in the Federal Register.  The effect of this proposal was to modify the HCS to conform with the United Nations' (UN) Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labelling of Chemicals (GHS).  On 29 December 2009, the National Toxicology Program Interagency Center for the Evaluation of Alternative Toxicological Methods (NICEATM) submitted comments stating that if OSHA were to adopt the GHS-based system for Classification and Categorization of Serious Eye Damage /Eye Irritation as part of their revisions to HCS, many substances currently classified as eye irritants under the current OSHA Hazard Communication Standard (HCS) would no longer be classified as such.  TOXDOC1 has been asked to assist in the assessment of these comments submitted to the Docket (No. OSHA - H022K - 2006 - 0062).
Using as its reference a publically-available database of 149 chemicals for which there are detailed data from in vivo Draize eye irritation studies, NICEATM stated that of the 81 chemicals in the ECETOC database now classified as eye irritants under OSHA's current FHSA-based criteria, at least fourteen substances would be "Not Classified" for eye irritation hazards under the proposed GHS-based HCS classification criteria.  Detailed examination of the referenced data in the ECETOC report reveals that while there is some question about the exact numbers to be used if a formal statistical analysis were to be done, the bottom line on NICEATM`s assessment appears to be correct:  12 of the 13 unique chemicals identified by NICEATM as irritants under FHSA but not GHS are confirmed to have been correctly classified.  At least one other in the data set, cellosolve acetate, also appears to be a FHSA irritant but not a GHS irritant.  In one instance, the same chemical (methyl amyl ketone) appears to have been counted twice by NICEATM from the ECETOC database; it was seen to be an FHSA irritant both times but a GHS irritant neither time.  There is also one instance where a chemical (xylene) appears twice in the database but was counted once by NICEATM (it was a FHSA irritant in one set of data but not in the other, and a GHS irritant in neither case).  Another of the 13 (sodium lauryl sulfate) that are FHSA but not GHS irritants appears in the database as a 3% dilution.  Data for higher strength solutions of the same surfactant that also appear in the database (10% and 30%) clearly demonstrate that the material is an irritant at higher concentrations.  As for the single discordant substance, the data cited by NICEATM purporting myristyl myristate to be an FHSA irritant could not be verified.  In the ECETOC database, it appears to be neither a FHSA nor GHS irritant.
Among the 12 (14 including myristyl myristate and cellosolve acetate) chemicals in question, all appear to be of relevance to OSHA's mandate of assuring workplace safety.  They consist of a variety of chemical types (aromatic solvents, surfactants, alcohols, ketones, acetates, esters, heterocyclics, (meth)acrylates, sulfur-containing materials, etc.), all with occupational relevance.
In all cases examined, the irritant effects reported in the in vivo data set were transient; all animals returned to normal (Draize Score "0") within 3 to 10 days.  Indeed, animals usually returned to normal or sub-irritation threshold readings (cornea, iris = 0; conjunctival erythema/edema = 0 or 1) within 72 hours.  (NOTE:  Timing for Onset of Positive Response under FHSA-based criteria and time to display Reversibility (return to "sub-positive response") appear in the attached data spreadsheet.  As the GHS-based criteria are based on an averaging of scores for the 24-, 48- and 72-hr readings, such parameters are not relevant.)
It appears that the major difference between the FHSA-based classification and the GHS-based classification lies in this transience.  FHSA uses a classification rubric in which any single "positive" reading at 24, 48, or 72 hours for any of the four parameters examined (corneal opacity, iritis, conjunctival erythema, conjunctival edema) causes an animal to be considered "positive" for irritation.  If 4 of 6 animals tested indicate a positive response, the substance is considered to be an irritant.  In contrast, the GHS-based rubric takes the per-animal average irritation score over these same 24-, 48-, and 72-hour readings and compares it to a slightly higher cut-off to determine if the animal had a "positive" reaction.  If the single sentinel animal tested in an abbreviated assay, or 2 of the 3 animals tested in a full assay, indicate a positive response, the substance is again considered to be an irritant.  Obviously, if the scores indicate that the reactions seen are both borderline and transient, this averaging procedure may take the overall response below the criteria threshold resulting in a "non-positive" response for the animal.
In order to compensate for this difference in approaches, OSHA has proposed to also adopt the GHS concept of "pronounced variability".  Under this concept, for those chemicals where there is pronounced variability among animal responses, such information may be taken into account in determining the classification.  As discussed specifically under OSHA's proposed criteria for Classification and Categorization of Skin Corrosion/Irritation, but only mentioned in passing under Serious Eye Damage /Eye Irritation, this notion would allow for classification in cases where there are very definite, positive irritant effects related to chemical exposure in a single animal, but the overall data set does not support classification.  In cases where the response is borderline but persistent or severe but transient, the Assessor would likely classify a substance as irritating.  It is noted that there are at least two chemicals among those under examination where "pronounced variability" would likely cause the Assessor to classify them as irritants (see data for ethyl thioglycolate and glycidyl methacrylate; fomesafen, 2,2-dimethyl-3-pentanol, and cellosolve acetate might also be classified as irritants under this concept).
Finally, a quick search of secondary and tertiary sources available on-line indicates that 12 of the 14 chemicals in question would be classified as hazardous materials under both the current and proposed classification criteria.  Those that would not be classified are N,N-dimethylguanidine sulfate (sub-EU classification eye and skin irritation responses; not a sensitizer; no other data found); and tetraaminopyrimidine sulfate (not an acute or chronic toxicant; identified as non-irritating by EU Scientific Committee on Cosmetic Products and Non-Food Products intended for Consumers (SCCNFP))
CSS.
cc:	Arlene Levin (ERG)


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 213 (Monday, November 6, 2023)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 76114-76117]
[FR Doc No: 2023-24387]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2023-1717; Project Identifier MCAI-2023-00728-A;
Amendment 39-22578; AD 2023-21-06]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Embraer S.A. Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for
certain Embraer S.A. (Embraer) Model EMB-505 airplanes. This AD was
prompted by analysis of certain monuments (the right-hand refreshment
center and left-hand forward cabinet) that identified the need for
installing structural reinforcements and replacing certain floor
support rivets. This AD requires installing structural reinforcements
on certain monuments and replacing certain floor support rivets, as
specified in an Ag[ecirc]ncia Nacional de Avia[ccedil][atilde]o Civil
(ANAC) AD, which is incorporated by reference. The FAA is issuing this
AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: This AD is effective December 11, 2023.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of December 11,
2023.

ADDRESSES:
    AD Docket: You may examine the AD docket at regulations.gov under
Docket No. FAA-2023-1717; or in person at Docket Operations between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD
docket contains this final rule, the mandatory continuing airworthiness
information (MCAI), any comments received, and other information. The
address for Docket Operations is U.S. Department of Transportation,
Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.
    Material Incorporated by Reference:
     For the service information identified in this final rule,
contact ANAC, Continuing Airworthiness Technical Branch (GTAC), Rua
Doutor Orlando Feirabend Filho, 230--Centro Empresarial Aquarius--Torre
B -Andares 14 a 18, Parque Residencial Aquarius, CEP 12.246-190--
S[atilde]o Jos[eacute] dos Campos--SP, Brazil; phone: 55 (12) 3203-
6600; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

website: anac.gov.br/en/. You may find this material on the ANAC
website at sistemas.anac.gov.br/certificacao/DA/DAE.asp.
     You may view this material at the FAA, Airworthiness
Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 901 Locust, Kansas City,
MO 64106. For information on the availability of this material at the
FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. It is also available in the AD docket at
regulations.gov under Docket No. FAA-2023-1717.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jim Rutherford, Aviation Safety
Engineer, FAA, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590;
phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14
CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain serial-numbered
Embraer Model EMB-505 airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal
Register on August 24, 2023 (88 FR 57907). The NPRM was prompted by AD
2023-05-03, effective June 2, 2023, issued by ANAC, which is the
aviation authority for Brazil (ANAC AD 2023-04-01) (also referred to as
the MCAI), to correct an unsafe condition for certain serial-numbered
Embraer Model EMB-505 airplanes. The MCAI states that analysis
identified certain monuments (the right-hand refreshment center and
left-hand forward cabinet) that might not withstand the loads expected
for specific emergency landing conditions, which may cause the
detachment of mass items and result in injuries to the airplane
occupants. To address this unsafe condition, the MCAI specifies
installing structural reinforcements on certain monuments and replacing
applicable floor support rivets.
    In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to require installing structural
reinforcements on certain monuments and replacing certain floor support
rivets, as specified in ANAC AD 2023-04-01. The FAA is issuing this AD
to address the unsafe condition.
    You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket at regulations.gov under
Docket No. FAA-2023-1717.

Discussion of Final Airworthiness Directive

Comments

    The FAA received no comments on the NPRM or on the determination of
the costs.

Conclusion

    These products have been approved by the aviation authority of
another country and are approved for operation in the United States.
Pursuant to the FAA's bilateral agreement with this State of Design
Authority, it has notified the FAA of the unsafe condition described in
the MCAI referenced above. The FAA reviewed the relevant data and
determined that air safety requires adopting this AD as proposed.
Accordingly, the FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition
on these products. This AD is adopted as proposed in the NPRM.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    ANAC AD 2023-05-03 specifies procedures for installing structural
reinforcements on certain monuments and replacing applicable fasteners
on the floor support.
    This material is reasonably available because the interested
parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by
the means identified in ADDRESSES.

Differences Between This AD and the MCAI

    The service information specified in ANAC AD 2023-05-03 allows the
use of alternative or similar parts in place of the ones specified in
the kits, provided these alternative or similar parts are approved by
Embraer, but this AD requires approval from either the Manager,
International Validation Branch, FAA; ANAC; or ANAC's authorized
Designee.

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this AD affects 208 airplanes of U.S.
registry.
    The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                              Cost per          Cost on U.S.
              Action                      Labor cost         Parts cost        product           operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Airplane groups 1 and 2--install    21.50 work-hours x             $1,600       $3,427.50  $239,925 (70
 structural reinforcements.          $85 per hour =                                         airplanes).
                                     $1,827.50.
Airplane groups 3, 4, 5, and 10--   13.50 work-hours x               $600       $1,747.50  $214,942.50 (123
 install structural reinforcements   $85 per hour =                                         airplanes).
 and replace floor fasteners.        $1,147.50.
Airplane groups 6 and 8--install    25.50 work-hours x             $2,000       $4,167.50  $37,507.50 (9
 structural reinforcements and       $85 per hour =                                         airplanes).
 replace floor fasteners.            $2,167.50.
Airplane group 7--install           19.50 work-hours x             $1,600       $3,257.50  $16,287.50 (5
 structural reinforcements.          $85 per hour =                                         airplanes).
                                     $1,657.50.
Airplane group 9--install           13.50 work-hours x             $1,600       $2,747.50  $2,747.50 (1
 structural reinforcements.          $85 per hour =                                         airplane).
                                     $1,147.50.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FAA estimates the following costs for operators that did the
actions in the original version of Embraer Service Bulletin SB505-25-
0046, dated March 31, 2021. The agency has no way of determining the
number of airplanes that might need these actions:

                                               On-Condition Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   Action                              Labor cost               Parts cost      Cost per product
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inspect floor fasteners....................  8.50 work-hours x $85 per                    $50            $772.50
                                              hour = $722.50.
Replace floor fasteners....................  1 work-hour x $85 per hour =                 $50               $135
                                              $85.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FAA has included all known costs in its cost estimate.
According to the manufacturer, however, all of the costs of this AD may
be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on affected
operators.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

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

2023-21-06 Embraer S.A.: Amendment 39-22578; Docket No. FAA-2023-
1717; Project Identifier MCAI-2023-00728-A.

(a) Effective Date

    This airworthiness directive (AD) is effective December 11,
2023.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Embraer S.A. Model EMB-505 airplanes, as
identified in Ag[ecirc]ncia Nacional de Avia[ccedil][atilde]o Civil
(ANAC) AD 2023-05-03, effective June 2, 2023 (ANAC AD 2023-05-03),
certificated in any category.

(d) Subject

    Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC) Code 2500, Cabin
Equipment/Furnishings.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by analysis of certain monuments (the
right-hand refreshment center and left-hand forward cabinet) that
identified the need for installing structural reinforcements and
replacing applicable floor support rivets. The FAA is issuing this
AD to address the unsafe condition. The unsafe condition, if not
addressed, could result in a monument not withstanding the loads
expected for specific emergency landing conditions, which may cause
the detachment of mass items and result in injuries to the airplane
occupants.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Required Actions

    Except as specified in paragraphs (h) and (i) of this AD: Comply
with all required actions and compliance times specified in, and in
accordance with, ANAC AD 2023-05-03.

(h) Exceptions to ANAC AD 2023-05-03

    (1) Where ANAC AD 2023-05-03 refers to its effective date, this
AD requires using the effective date of this AD.
    (2) The service information referenced in ANAC AD 2023-05-03
allows the use of alternative or similar parts in place of the ones
specified in the kits, provided that these alternative or similar
parts are approved by Embraer. This AD requires approval from either
the Manager, International Validation Branch, FAA; ANAC; or ANAC's
authorized Designee. If approved by the ANAC Designee, the approval
must include the Designee's authorized signature.
    (3) Where the service information referenced in ANAC AD 2023-05-
03 specifies discarding parts, this AD requires removing those parts
from service.
    (4) This AD does not adopt paragraph (d) of ANAC AD 2023-05-03.

(i) No Reporting Requirement

    Although the service information referenced in ANAC AD 2023-05-
03 specifies to submit certain information to the manufacturer, this
AD does not include that requirement.

(j) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    The Manager, International Validation 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 International Validation Branch, mail
it to the address identified in paragraph (k) of this AD or email
to: [email protected]. If mailing information, also submit
information by email. 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.

(k) Additional Information

    For more information about this AD, contact Jim Rutherford,
Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410,
Westbury, NY 11590; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
[email protected].

(l) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference 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) Ag[ecirc]ncia Nacional de Avia[ccedil][atilde]o Civil (ANAC)
AD 2023-05-03, effective June 2, 2023.
    (ii) [Reserved]
    (3) For ANAC AD 2023-05-03, contact ANAC, Continuing
Airworthiness Technical Branch (GTAC), Rua Doutor Orlando Feirabend
Filho, 230--Centro Empresarial Aquarius--Torre B--Andares 14 a 18,
Parque Residencial Aquarius, CEP 12.246-190--S[atilde]o Jos[eacute]
dos Campos--SP, Brazil; phone: 55 (12) 3203-6600; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>website: anac.gov.br/en/. You may find this
material on the ANAC website at sistemas.anac.gov.br/certificacao/
DA/DAE.asp.
    (4) You may view this service information at the FAA,
Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 901
Locust, Kansas City, MO 64106. For information on the availability
of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (5) You may view this material at the National Archives and
Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability
of this material at NARA, visit www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations or email [email protected].

    Issued on October 26, 2023.
Caitlin Locke,
Director, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2023-24387 Filed 11-3-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: June 30, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 126)]
[Notices]
[Page 37567-37568]
[DOCID:fr30jn06-68]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 2698-033--North Carolina, East Fork Hydroelectric Project]

Duke Power Company LLC; Notice of Revised Restricted Service List
for a Programmatic Agreement for Managing Properties Included in or
Eligible for Inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places

June 23, 2006.
    On May 12, 2006, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
(Commission) issued notice of a proposed restricted service list for
the preparation of a programmatic agreement for managing properties
included in, or eligible for inclusion in, the National Register of
Historic Places at the East Fork Hydroelectric Project No. 2698. Rule
2010(d)(1) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR
2010(d)(1) (2005), provides for the establishment of such a list for a
particular phase or issue in a proceeding to eliminate unnecessary
expense or improve administrative efficiency. Under Rule 2010(d)(4),
persons on the official service list are to be given notice of any
proposal to establish a restricted service list and an opportunity to
show why they should also be included on the restricted service list or
why a restricted service list should not be established.
    On May 30, 2006, Jackson County, North Carolina; Macon County,
North Carolina; the Town of Franklin, North Carolina; the Friends of
Lake Glenville Association, Inc.; and the Dillsboro Inn and TJ Walker
(jointly) filed a joint response to the notice, requesting that: (1)
They be included in the development of the programmatic agreement; (2)
the Commission not establish a restricted service list; and (3) the
Commission establish a protocol to protect cultural resource
information during the development of the programmatic agreement.
    Under Rule 2010(d)(2), any restricted service list will contain the
names of each person on the official service list, or the person's
representative, who, in the judgment of the decisional authority
establishing the list, is an active participant with respect to the
phase or issue in the proceeding for which the list is established. The
joint filers have identified an interest in issues relating to the
management of historic properties at the East Fork Project. Therefore,
they and their representatives will be added to the restrictive service
list.
    The joint filers assert that they have a direct interest in
ensuring that the decision-making process is open for public review.
Apart from this, they have not identified a reason why a restrictive
service list should not be established. A restricted service list
facilitates consultation under section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act by ensuring that only those parties who are actively
participating in this phase of the proceeding are included, thus
improving administrative efficiency and eliminating unnecessary
expense. However, the establishment of a restricted service list does
not restrict public access to information concerning the consultation.
All filings and correspondence leading to the development of the
programmatic agreement, as well as the agreement itself, will be placed
in the docket for this proceeding and, thus, will be publicly
available. In addition, Commission regulations provide procedures for
protecting sensitive cultural resource information, such as the
location of historic properties, and parties to the restricted service
list must follow these procedures. Therefore, there is no need to
establish protocols for the protection of this information. See 18 CFR
388.112.
    Accordingly, the restricted service list issued on May 12, 2006,
for the East Fork Project No. 2698 is revised to add the following
persons:

Thomas J. Walker, Dillsboro Inn, 146 North River Road, P.O. Box 270,
Dillsboro, NC 28725.
Joe Collins, Mayor, Town of Franklin, 188 W Main St, Franklin, NC
28734-2949.
Philip M. Marston, Marston Law, 218 N. Lee Street, Suite 300,
Alexandria, VA 22314.
Carol Adams, President, Friends of Lake Glenville, P.O. Box 493,
Glenville, NC 28736-0493.
Paul V. Nolan, 5515 17th Street North, Arlington, VA 22205-2722.

Kenneth L. Westmoreland, Manager, Jackson County Government, 401
Grindstaff Cove Rd, Sylva, NC 28779-3250.
Sam Greenwood, Manager, Macon County, County Manager Office, 5 West
Main Street, Franklin, NC 28734-3005.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E6-10303 Filed 6-29-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: April 14, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 70)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 17094-17097]
[DOCID:fr14ap09-8]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

44 CFR Part 64

[Docket ID FEMA-2008-0020; Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-8069]

Suspension of Community Eligibility

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This rule identifies communities, where the sale of flood
insurance has been authorized under the National Flood Insurance
Program (NFIP), that are scheduled for suspension on the effective
dates listed within this rule because of noncompliance with the
floodplain management requirements of the program. If the Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) receives documentation that the
community has adopted the required floodplain management measures prior
to the effective suspension date given in this rule, the suspension
will not occur and a notice of this will be provided by publication in
the Federal Register on a subsequent date.

DATES: Effective Dates: The effective date of each community's
scheduled suspension is the third date (``Susp.'') listed in the third
column of the following tables.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you want to determine whether a
particular community was suspended on the suspension date or for
further information, contact David Stearrett, Mitigation Directorate,
Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC
20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The NFIP enables property owners to purchase
flood insurance which is generally not otherwise available. In return,
communities agree to adopt and administer local floodplain management
aimed at protecting lives and new construction from future flooding.
Section 1315 of the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, as amended,
42 U.S.C. 4022, prohibits flood insurance coverage as authorized under
the NFIP, 42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq.; unless an appropriate public body
adopts adequate floodplain management measures with effective
enforcement measures. The communities listed in this document no longer
meet that statutory requirement for compliance with program
regulations, 44 CFR part 59. Accordingly, the communities will be
suspended on the effective date in the third column. As of that date,
flood insurance will no longer be available in the community. However,
some of these communities may adopt and submit the required
documentation of legally enforceable floodplain management measures
after this rule is published but prior to the actual suspension date.
These communities will not be suspended and will continue their
eligibility for the sale of insurance. A notice withdrawing the
suspension of the communities will be published in the Federal
Register.
    In addition, FEMA has identified the Special Flood Hazard Areas
(SFHAs) in these communities by publishing a Flood Insurance Rate Map
(FIRM). The date of the FIRM, if one has been published, is indicated
in the fourth column of the table. No direct Federal financial
assistance (except assistance pursuant to the Robert T. Stafford
Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act not in connection with a
flood) may legally be provided for construction or acquisition of
buildings in identified SFHAs for communities not participating in the
NFIP and identified for more than a year, on FEMA's initial flood
insurance map of the community as having flood-prone areas (section
202(a) of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4106(a),
as amended). This prohibition against certain types of Federal
assistance becomes effective for the communities listed on the date
shown in the last column. The Administrator finds that notice and
public comment under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) are impracticable and unnecessary
because communities listed in this final rule have been adequately
notified.
    Each community receives 6-month, 90-day, and 30-day notification
letters addressed to the Chief Executive Officer stating that the
community will be suspended unless the required floodplain management
measures are met prior to the effective suspension date. Since these
notifications were made, this final rule may take effect within less
than 30 days.
    National Environmental Policy Act. This rule is categorically
excluded from the requirements of 44 CFR part 10, Environmental
Considerations. No environmental impact assessment has been prepared.
    Regulatory Flexibility Act. The Administrator has determined that
this rule is exempt from the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility
Act because the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, as amended, 42
U.S.C. 4022, prohibits flood insurance coverage unless an appropriate
public body adopts adequate floodplain management measures with
effective enforcement measures. The communities listed no longer comply
with the statutory requirements, and after the effective date, flood
insurance will no longer be available in the communities unless
remedial action takes place.
    Regulatory Classification. This final rule is not a significant
regulatory action under the criteria of section 3(f) of Executive Order
12866 of September 30, 1993, Regulatory Planning and Review, 58 FR
51735.
    Executive Order 13132, Federalism. This rule involves no policies
that have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132.
    Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. This rule meets the
applicable standards of Executive Order 12988.
    Paperwork Reduction Act. This rule does not involve any collection
of information for purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C.
3501 et seq.

List of Subjects in 44 CFR Part 64

    Flood insurance, Floodplains.

0
Accordingly, 44 CFR part 64 is amended as follows:

PART 64--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 64 continues to read as follows:

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

Sec.  64.6  [Amended]

0
2. The tables published under the authority of Sec.  64.6 are amended
as follows:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Effective date
                                                 authorization/
                                   Community    cancellation of    Current effective map   Date certain federal
       State and location             No.        sale of flood             date            assistance no longer
                                                 insurance  in                              available in SFHAs
                                                   community
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Region III

Virginia:
    Bath County, Unincorporated        510196  September 10,      April 2, 2009.........  April 14, 2009.
     Areas.                                     1984, Emerg;
                                                September 16,
                                                1975, Reg; April
                                                14, 2009, Susp.
    Craig County,                      510313  August 12, 1975,   \*\......do...........   Do.
     Unincorporated Areas.                      Emerg; February
                                                2, 1990, Reg;
                                                April 14, 2009,
                                                Susp.
    Dendron, Town of, Surry            510300  May 22, 1975,      ......do..............   Do.
     County.                                    Emerg; July 16,
                                                1982, Reg; April
                                                14, 2009, Susp.
    New Castle, Town of, Craig         510340  N/A, Emerg;        ......do..............   Do.
     County.                                    February 22,
                                                1990, Reg; April
                                                14, 2009, Susp.
    Richmond, City of,                 510129  August 29, 1973,   ......do..............   Do.
     Independent County.                        Emerg; June 15,
                                                1979, Reg; April
                                                14, 2009, Susp.

    Surry County,                      510157  March 25, 1974,    ......do..............   Do.
     Unincorporated Areas.                      Emerg; November
                                                2, 1990, Reg;
                                                April 14, 2009,
                                                Susp.
            Region V

Illinois:
    Eldred, Village of, Greene         170251  June 15, 1981,     ......do..............   Do.
     County.                                    Emerg; June 15,
                                                1981, Reg; April
                                                14, 2009, Susp.
    Elsah, Village of, Jersey          170313  March 1, 1974,     ......do..............   Do.
     County.                                    Emerg; February
                                                18, 1981, Reg;
                                                April 14, 2009,
                                                Susp.
    Greene County,                     170901  April 17, 1979,    ......do..............   Do.
     Unincorporated Areas.                      Emerg; August 5,
                                                1985, Reg; April
                                                14, 2009, Susp.
    Greenfield, City of, Greene        170252  July 5, 1979,      ......do..............   Do.
     County.                                    Emerg; June 17,
                                                1986, Reg; April
                                                14, 2009, Susp.
    Jersey County,                     170312  April 1, 1974,     ......do..............   Do.
     Unincorporated Areas.                      Emerg; February
                                                1, 1984, Reg;
                                                April 14, 2009,
                                                Susp.
    Jerseyville, City of,              170315  June 17, 1981,     ......do..............   Do.
     Jersey County.                             Emerg; July 18,
                                                1985, Reg; April
                                                14, 2009, Susp.
Wisconsin:
    Cascade, Village of,               550425  January 20, 1976,  ......do..............   Do.
     Sheboygan County.                          Emerg; October
                                                15, 1981, Reg;
                                                April 14, 2009,
                                                Susp.
    Howards Grove, Village of,         550608  November 14,       ......do..............   Do.
     Sheboygan County.                          1983, Emerg;--,
                                                Reg; April 14,
                                                2009, Susp.
    Kohler, Village of,                550426  May 13, 1975,      ......do..............   Do.
     Sheboygan County.                          Emerg; April 2,
                                                1991, Reg; April
                                                14, 2009, Susp.
    Oostburg, Village of,              550427  N/A, Emerg;        ......do..............   Do.
     Sheboygan County.                          August 31, 1998,
                                                Reg; April 14,
                                                2009, Susp.
    Plymouth, City of,                 550428  February 14,       ......do..............   Do.
     Sheboygan County.                          1975, Emerg;
                                                July 5, 1983,
                                                Reg; April 14,
                                                2009, Susp.
    Random Lake, Village of,           550429  July 30, 1975,     ......do..............   Do.
     Sheboygan County.                          Emerg; April 1,
                                                1981, Reg; April
                                                14, 2009, Susp.
    Sheboygan, City of,                550430  April 23, 1971,    ......do..............   Do.
     Sheboygan County.                          Emerg; March 15,
                                                1977, Reg; April
                                                14, 2009, Susp.
    Sheboygan County,                  550424  April 4, 1973,     ......do..............   Do.
     Unincorporated Areas.                      Emerg; July 17,
                                                1978, Reg; April
                                                14, 2009, Susp.
    Sheboygan Falls, City of,          550431  June 10, 1975,     ......do..............   Do.
     Sheboygan County.                          Emerg; April 2,
                                                1991, Reg; April
                                                14, 2009, Susp.

           Region VI

Louisiana:
    Lincoln Parrish,                   230366  August 9, 1990,    ......do..............   Do.
     Unincorporated Areas.                      Emerg; March 1,
                                                1991, Reg; April
                                                14, 2009, Susp.
    Ruston, City of, Lincoln           220347  February 19,       ......do..............   Do.
     Parrish.                                   1975, Emerg;
                                                June 15, 1981,
                                                Reg; April 14,
                                                2009, Susp.

          Region VIII

Utah:
    Enterprise, City of,               490169  June 27, 1986,     ......do..............   Do.
     Washington County.                         Emerg; April 1,
                                                1987, Reg; April
                                                14, 2009, Susp.
    Hurricane, City of,                490172  August 5, 1975,    ......do..............   Do.
     Washington County.                         Emerg; February
                                                2, 1984, Reg;
                                                April 14, 2009,
                                                Susp.
    Ivins, City of, Washington         490173  October 21, 1974,  ......do..............   Do.
     County.                                    Emerg; August
                                                23, 1982, Reg;
                                                April 14, 2009,
                                                Susp.
    LaVerkin, City of,                 490174  September 3,       ......do..............   Do.
     Washington County.                         1975, Emerg;
                                                February 2,
                                                1984, Reg; April
                                                14, 2009, Susp.
    Leeds, Town of, Washington         490175  August 11, 1978,   ......do..............   Do.
     County.                                    Emerg; February
                                                2, 1984, Reg;
                                                ,April 14, 2009
                                                Susp.
    Moab, City of, Grand County        490072  September 17,      ......do..............   Do.
                                                1974, Emerg;
                                                June 4, 1980,
                                                Reg; April 14,
                                                2009, Susp.
    Santa Clara, City of,              490178  August 7, 1975,    ......do..............   Do.
     Washington County.                         Emerg; August 5,
                                                1986, Reg; April
                                                14, 2009, Susp.
    St. George, City of,               490177  August 28, 1974,   ......do..............   Do.
     Washington County.                         Emerg; August
                                                19, 1987, Reg;
                                                April 14, 2009,
                                                Susp.
    Toquerville, Town of,              490180  July 20, 1984,     ......do..............   Do.
     Washington County.                         Emerg; February
                                                9, 1986, Reg;
                                                April 14, 2009,
                                                Susp.
    Virgin, Town of, Washington        490181  June 25, 1975,     ......do..............   Do.
     County.                                    Emerg; August 5,
                                                1986, Reg; April
                                                14, 2009, Susp.
    Washington, City of,               490182  July 7, 1975,      ......do..............   Do.
     Washington County.                         Emerg; July 1,
                                                1987, Reg; April
                                                14, 2009, Susp.
    Washington County,                 490224  October 15, 1975,  ......do..............   Do.
     Unincorporated Areas.                      Emerg; March 18,
                                                1986, Reg; April
                                                14, 2009, Susp.

           Region IX

California:
    Carmel By The Sea, City of,        060196  N/A, Emerg;        ......do..............   Do.
     Monterey County.                           December 18,
                                                1997, Reg; April
                                                14, 2009, Susp.
    Del Rey Oaks, City of,             060197  June 23, 1978,     ......do..............   Do.
     Monterey County.                           Emerg; November
                                                4, 1981, Reg;
                                                April 14, 2009,
                                                Susp.
    Gonzales, City of, Monterey        060198  July 25, 1975,     ......do..............   Do.
     County.                                    Emerg; November
                                                18, 1981, Reg;
                                                April 14, 2009,
                                                Susp.
    Greenfield, City of,               060446  January 27, 1977,  ......do..............   Do.
     Monterey County.                           Emerg; August
                                                23, 1982, Reg;
                                                April 14, 2009,
                                                Susp.
    Monterey County,                   060195  March 9, 1977,     ......do..............   Do.
     Unincorporated Areas.                      Emerg; January
                                                30, 1984, Reg;
                                                April 14, 2009,
                                                Susp.
    Pacific Grove, City of,            060201  N/A, Emerg;        ......do..............   Do.
     Monterey County.                           January 12,
                                                1998, Reg; April
                                                14, 2009, Susp.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\*\do =Ditto.
Code for reading third column: Emerg.--Emergency; Reg.--Regular; Susp--Suspension.

    Dated: March 26, 2009.
Michael K. Buckley,
Acting Assistant Administrator, Mitigation Directorate, Department of
Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
 [FR Doc. E9-8379 Filed 4-10-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 9110-12-P