[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 70 (Thursday, April 13, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 17848]
[FR Doc No: 2017-07430]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4304-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2017-0001]

Kansas; Amendment No. 1 to Notice of a Major Disaster Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of Kansas (FEMA-4304-DR), dated February 24, 2017, and
related determinations.

DATES: Effective March 23, 2017.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dean Webster, Office of Response and
Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW.,
Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of Kansas is hereby amended to include the following
areas among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by
the event declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration
of February 24, 2017.

    Rice and Russell Counties for Public Assistance.

The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA)
are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community
Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling;
97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment
Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048,
Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households In
Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially
Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing Operations for
Individuals and Households; 97.050 Presidentially Declared Disaster
Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other Needs; 97.036,
Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared
Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

Robert J. Fenton,
Acting Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2017-07430 Filed 4-12-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 227 (Monday, November 25, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 70209-70211]
[FR Doc No: 2013-27920]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2013-0998; Directorate Identifier 2013-CE-047-AD;
Amendment 39-17674; AD 2013-23-19]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; XtremeAir GmbH Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for
XtremeAir GmbH Model XA42 airplanes. This AD results from mandatory
continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) issued by the aviation
authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe
condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe
condition as cracks in a weld seam between the lower left landing gear
attachment bearing and the lower engine mount to the firewall
attachment plate, which could reduce the structural integrity of the
airplane and could result in engine separation. We are issuing this AD
to require actions to address the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: This AD is effective November 25, 2013.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in the AD as of November 25,
2013.
    We must receive comments on this AD by January 9, 2014.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this AD, contact XtremeAir
GmbH, Harzstrasse 2, D-39444 Hecklingen, Germany; phone: +49 39267
60999 0; fax: +49 39267 60999 20; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Internet: http://www.xtremeair.de. You may view this referenced service
information at the FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Kansas
City, Missouri 64106. 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 by searching for and locating it in Docket No. FAA-
2013-0998; 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 street address for the Docket
Office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments
will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Karl Schletzbaum, Aerospace Engineer,
FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City,
Missouri 64106; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical
Agent

for the Member States of the European Community, has issued AD No.:
2013-0264-E, dated October 29, 2013 (referred to after this as ``the
MCAI''), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The
MCAI states:

    A crack was reported by an operator in a weld seam between the
lower left landing gear attachment bearing and the lower engine
mount to firewall attachment plate. Further investigation showed
that all engine mounts from a specific supplier may be affected.
    This condition, if not detected and corrected, could lead to
engine separation of the aeroplane and could severely affect the
structural integrity of the aeroplane.
    To address this unsafe condition, XtremeAir GmbH issued Service
Bulletin SB-2013-008-A.03 to provide inspection and replacement
instructions for the engine mount.
    For the reason described above, this AD requires repetitive
inspection of engine mounts and, in case of findings, replacement of
the engine mount.

You may examine the MCAI on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov
by searching for and locating it in Docket No. FAA-2013-0998.

Relevant Service Information

    XtremeAir GmbH has issued Mandatory Service Bulletin SB-2013-008,
Version A.03, dated October 25, 2013. The actions described in this
service information are intended to correct the unsafe condition
identified in the MCAI.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of the AD

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

FAA's Determination of the Effective Date

    An unsafe condition exists that requires the immediate adoption of
this AD. The FAA has found that the risk to the flying public justifies
waiving notice and comment prior to adoption of this rule because
cracks in a weld seam between the lower left landing gear attachment
bearing and the lower engine mount to the firewall attachment plate
affects the structural integrity of the airplane and could lead to
engine separation. Therefore, we determined that notice and opportunity
for public comment before issuing this AD are impracticable and that
good cause exists for making this amendment effective in fewer than 30
days.

Comments Invited

    This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight
safety, and we did not precede it by notice and opportunity for public
comment. We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this AD. Send your comments to an address listed under
the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2013-0998; Directorate
Identifier 2013-CE-047-AD'' at the beginning of your comments. We
specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic,
environmental, and energy aspects of this AD. We will consider all
comments received by the closing date and may amend this AD because of
those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this AD.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD will affect 1 product of U.S. registry. We
also estimate that it will take about 4 work-hours per product to
comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate
is $85 per work-hour.
    Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the AD on U.S.
operators to be $340.
    In addition, we estimate that any necessary follow-on actions will
take about 16 work-hours and require parts costing $4,057, for a cost
of $5,417 per product.
    According to the manufacturer, some of the costs of this AD may be
covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on affected
individuals. We do not control warranty coverage for affected
individuals. As a result, we have included all costs in our cost
estimate.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this AD will not have federalism implications
under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct
effect on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify 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),
    (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 AD:

2013-23-19 XtremeAir GmbH: Amendment 39-17674; Docket No. FAA-2013-
0998; Directorate Identifier 2013-CE-047-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This airworthiness directive (AD) becomes effective November 25,
2013.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to XtremeAir GmbH Model XA42 airplanes, all
serial numbers, that:
    (1) Are certificated in any category; and
    (2) have engine mount part number (P/N) XA42-7120-151
(manufactured by Szel-Tech), all serial numbers up to and including
036, installed.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association of America (ATA) Code 71: Power Plant.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by mandatory continuing airworthiness
information (MCAI) issued by the aviation authority of another
country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation
product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as cracks in a weld
seam between the lower left landing gear attachment bearing and the
lower engine mount to the firewall attachment plate. We are issuing
this AD to prevent failure of the engine mounts, which could cause
reduced structural integrity of the airplane and could result in
engine separation.

(f) Actions and Compliance

    Unless already done, do the following actions specified in
paragraphs (f)(1) through (f)(3) of this AD.
    (1) Before further flight after November 25, 2013 (the effective
date of this AD) inspect the welds on the engine mount part number
(P/N) XA42-7120-151 (manufactured by Szel-Tech) for cracks following
the Accomplishment Instructions in XtremeAir GmbH Mandatory Service
Bulletin SB-2013-008, Ausgabe (English translation: Version) A.03,
dated October 25, 2013. The replacement required in paragraph (f)(2)
or (f)(3) of this AD may be done instead of the inspection provided
it is done before further flight.
    (2) If, during the inspection required in paragraph (f)(1) of
this AD, a crack is found, before further flight, replace the engine
mount following the Accomplishment Instructions in XtremeAir GmbH
Mandatory Service Bulletin SB-2013-008, Ausgabe (English
translation: Version) A.03, dated October 25, 2013.
    (3) Unless the engine mount P/N XA42-7120-151 is replaced with a
serviceable part as specified in paragraph (f)(2) of this AD, within
the next 10 hours TIS after November 25, 2013 (the effective date of
this AD), replace the engine mount following the Accomplishment
Instructions in XtremeAir GmbH Mandatory Service Bulletin SB-2013-
008, Ausgabe (English translation: Version) A.03, dated October 25,
2013. Acrobatic flight is prohibited during these 10 hours.

(g) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
Standards Office, 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: Karl Schletzbaum, Aerospace Engineer, FAA,
Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City,
Missouri 64106; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>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.
    (2) Airworthy Product: For any requirement in this AD to obtain
corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these
actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered
FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority
(or their delegated agent). You are required to assure the product
is airworthy before it is returned to service.

(h) Special Flight Permit

    Special flight permits are prohibited for this AD.

(i) Related Information

    Refer to MCAI European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD No.:
2013-0264-E, dated October 29, 2013, for related information. You
may examine the MCAI on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov
by searching for and locating it in Docket No. FAA-2013-0998.

(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) XtremeAir GmbH Mandatory Service Bulletin SB-2013-008,
Ausgabe (English translation: Version) A.03, dated October 25, 2013.
    (ii) Reserved.
    (3) For XtremeAir GmbH service information identified in this
AD, contact XtremeAir GmbH, Harzstrasse 2, D-39444 Hecklingen,
Germany; phone: +49 39267 60999 0; fax: +49 39267 60999 20; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet: http://www.xtremeair.de.
    (4) You may view this referenced service information at the FAA,
Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106.
For information on the availability of this material at the FAA,
call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (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 Kansas City, Missouri, on November 15, 2013.
Earl Lawrence,
Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2013-27920 Filed 11-22-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


                 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                                  REGION III
	1650 Arch Street
	Philadelphia, Pennsylvania  19103

DATE:

SUBJECT:	Technical Support Document for the Revisions to the Attainment Plans for the Commonwealth of Virginia Portion of the Washington, DC-MD-VA 1990 1-Hour and 1997 8-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Areas and the Maintenance Plan for the Fredericksburg 1997 8-Hour Ozone Maintenance Area to Remove the Stage II Vapor Recovery Program

FROM:	Asrah Khadr, Environmental Engineer, EIT		/s/
 Office of Air Program Planning

TO:	File

THRU: 		Cristina Fernandez, Associate Director		/s/
Office of Air Program Planning

   I. Introduction

On March 18, 2014, the Commonwealth of Virginia (Virginia) submitted revisions to the Virginia State Implementation Plan (SIP) through the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (VADEQ) to amend the SIP-approved ozone attainment plans for the Virginia portion of the Washington, DC-MD-VA 1990 1-Hour and 1997 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) Nonattainment Areas (Northern Virginia Areas) and the maintenance plan for the Fredericksburg 1997 8-Hour ouHour fgbfOzone NAAQS Maintenance Area (Fredericksburg Area) (collectively referred to as the Virginia Areas or Areas).  The revisions also address the impact on the attainment/maintenance plans due to the removal of Virginia's Stage II vapor recovery equipment from subject gasoline dispensing facilities in the subject areas.  The SIP revisions contain a demonstration that removal of the Stage II vapor recovery program will not interfere with attainment or maintenance of the NAAQS in accordance with section 110(l) of the Clean Air Act (CAA).  The analysis in these SIP revisions also contains a demonstration that meets the requirements of section 184(b)(2) of the CAA which requires areas in the Ozone Transport Region (OTR) to implement the Stage II vapor recovery program or a comparable measure.

   II. Background

Stage II Vapor Recovery and Onboard Vapor Recovery Systems

Stage II vapor recovery (hereafter referred to as Stage II) is a means of capturing gasoline vapors displaced during transfer of gasoline from the gasoline dispensing unit to the motor vehicle fuel tank during vehicle refueling at a gasoline dispensing facility (GDF).  Stage II vapor recovery involves use of special refueling nozzles and coaxial hoses for vapor collection at each gasoline pump at a subject GDF.  Gasoline vapors belong to a class of pollutants known as volatile organic compounds (VOC).  Gasoline is made up of a number of toxic compounds, and gasoline dispensing operations emit gasoline vapor that contains air toxics (also known as "hazardous air pollutants") that can cause cancer and other serious health effects.  These include benzene, 1,3-butadiene, formaldehyde, acrolein, napththalene, and polycyclic organic matter (POM), all of which are gas-phase hydrocarbons that exist in gasoline vapor (except POM, which exists in gas and particle phases).

Stage II gasoline vapor recovery systems have been a required emission control measure in areas classified as serious, severe, and extreme for the ozone NAAQS.  With the amendment of the CAA in 1990, Stage II controls were required for moderate ozone areas, under CAA section 182(b)(3).

However, under section 202(a)(6) of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. 7521(a)(6), the requirements of section 182(b)(3) would no longer apply in moderate ozone nonattainment areas after EPA promulgation of standards for onboard refueling vapor recovery (ORVR) as part of new motor vehicles' emission control systems, and after EPA determines that ORVR is in widespread use throughout the motor vehicle fleet.  Under implementation rules issued in 2002 for the 1997 8-Hour Ozone standard, EPA retained the Stage II-related requirements under section 182(b)(3) as they applied for the 1-Hour Ozone standard (see 40 CFR 51.900(f)(5) and 40 CFR 51.916(a)).

Beginning with model year 1998, ORVR equipment has been phased in for newly manufactured light duty passenger cars and trucks, and has been required on nearly all new vehicles since 2006.  ORVR is an emission control system contained in the vehicle that captures gasoline vapors during refueling.  The gas tank and fill pipe are designed to capture refueling-related vapors and contain them in an onboard, activated carbon canister.  When the vehicle is running and warmed up, the vapors are drawn out of the canister and transferred to the engine to be combusted as fuel.  The ORVR system is very efficient and is monitored by the vehicle's on-board diagnostic system.  Unlike Stage II systems, which are geographically limited to moderate and above nonattainment areas, ORVR is applicable to all new vehicles everywhere those vehicles operate.

 Over time, non-ORVR vehicles continue to be replaced by ORVR-equipped vehicles.  On May 16, 2012, EPA issued a final rule determining that ORVR technology was in widespread use throughout the U.S. vehicle fleet and waived the requirement for states to implement Stage II vapor recovery at GDFs in nonattainment areas classified as serious or above for the ozone NAAQS (77 FR 28772).  EPA determined that emission reductions from ORVR-equipped vehicles are essentially equal to and would soon surpass the emission reductions achieved by Stage II alone.  EPA determined that a state previously required to implement a Stage II vapor recovery program may take appropriate action to remove the measure from its SIP.  77 FR 28772.  EPA hereafter refers to this action as the "widespread use determination" or the "Stage II waiver."

III.  Stage II As A Control Measure in the Attainment/Maintenance Plans

Stage II vapor recovery was originally required by the CAA in 1990 in two Virginia ozone nonattainment areas.  Virginia adopted and published its Stage II vapor recovery regulations as Rule 4-37 of VR 120-01, entitled "Emission Standards for Petroleum Liquid Storage and Transfer Operations" in the November 2, 1992 edition of the Virginia Register of Regulations (Vol 9, Issue 3), effective January 1, 1993.  Virginia's Stage II rules applied to the Northern Virginia and Richmond VOC Emission Control Areas, as defined under 9 VAC 5-40-5200(B)(2) and 9 VAC 5-20-206.

Virginia submitted its Stage II regulation to EPA as a SIP revision on November 5, 1992.  EPA approved Virginia's Stage II SIP revision on June 23, 1994 (59 FR 32353).

Stage II and the Virginia portion of the Washington, DC-MD-VA 1990 and 1997 Ozone NAAQS Nonattainment Areas Attainment Plans

Under the 1990 1-Hour Ozone NAAQS, EPA originally designated the OTR portion of Virginia as serious nonattainment as a part of the Washington, DC-MD-VA 1990 Ozone NAAQS Nonattainment Area.  The Virginia portion of the OTR include the following areas: Stafford County, Arlington County, Fairfax County, Loudon County, City of Alexandria, City of Falls Church, City of Manassas, and City of Manassas Park.  On December 19, 1997, the District of Columbia, Maryland and Virginia (the three states), submitted an attainment plan for the Washington, DC-MD-VA 1990 Ozone NAAQS Nonattainment Area.  On April 17, 2003 (68 FR 19106), EPA gave the attainment plan conditional approval.  On November 13, 2002 (67 FR 68805), EPA reclassified the area as severe nonattainment; to meet the requirements of this classification, a severe area attainment plan was submitted on February 24, 2004.  This attainment plan was approved on May 13, 2005 (70 FR 25688).  The 1990 ozone NAAQS was then revoked on June 15, 2005.

On July 18, 1997 (62 FR 38856), EPA promulgated the 1997 Ozone NAAQS.  On April 30, 2004 (69 FR 23941), EPA designated the Washington, DC-MD-VA Area as moderate nonattainment.  The Virginia portion of this area includes Arlington County, Fairfax County, Loudon County and Prince William County as well as the City of Alexandria, City of Fairfax, City of Falls Church, City of Manassas, and City of Manassas Park.  On June 12, 2007, the three states submitted an attainment plan which was proposed for approval by EPA on March 20, 2013 (78 FR 17161).  On February 28, 2012 (77 FR 11739), EPA determined that the Washington, DC-MD-VA area was attaining the 1997 Ozone NAAQS and published a clean data determination as well as a determination that the area attained the 1997 Ozone NAAQS by its statutory attainment date. The attainment plan was approved by EPA on April 10, 2015 (80 FR 19206).

Stage II and the Fredericksburg 1997 Ozone Maintenance Area Maintenance Plan

On April 30, 2004 (69 FR 23941), EPA designated Stafford County, Spotsylvania County, and the city of Fredericksburg as the Fredericksburg 1997 Ozone Nonattainment Area.  Since the air quality in the Fredericksburg 1997 Ozone Nonattainment Area met the 1997 ozone NAAQS, a redesignation request and maintenance plan were submitted by Virginia on September 28, 2005; EPA approved the redesignation request and maintenance plan on December 23, 2005 (70 FR 76165).

Even though the 1990 1-Hour Ozone NAAQS was revoked on June 15, 2005, EPA's subsequent implementation rules for the 1997 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS retained the Stage II-related requirements under section 182(b)(3), but only as they applied to the Area for the Area's classification for the 1-Hour Ozone NAAQS at designation for the 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS (see 40 CFR 51.900(f)). Therefore the attainment plan for the Washington, DC-MD-VA 1997 Ozone NAAQS Nonattainment Area and the maintenance plan for the Fredericksburg 1997 Ozone NAAQS Nonattainment Area also contain Stage II as a control measure, in addition to the attainment plan for the Washington, DC-MD-VA 1990 Ozone NAAQS Nonattainment Area.

At the time of the development of the Washington, DC-MD-VA 1990 ozone NAAQS attainment plan SIP, Stage II was still a mandatory measure for areas classified as moderate ozone nonattainment under section 182(b)(3) of the CAA.  Although EPA had adopted ORVR rules for light-duty vehicles in April 1994, ORVR vehicles were not introduced for sale until model year 1998, with nearly all new gasoline-powered vehicles being equipped with ORVR by model year 2006.  Under section 202(a)(6) of the CAA, Stage II requirements for areas classified as moderate "shall not apply" upon EPA's promulgation of ORVR rules, and determination of widespread use of ORVR throughout the motor vehicle fleet. Although after ORVR promulgation Stage II was no longer a mandatory measure under the CAA, Virginia had relied upon reductions from Stage II in its ozone plans.  Although Virginia was no longer obligated to retain Stage II as a mandatory measure under the CAA, the Commonwealth is required under section 110(l) of the CAA to demonstrate that a SIP revision to remove Stage II would not interfere with the applicable requirements to attain the NAAQS.

IV.  EPA Evaluation of Virginia's SIP Revisions to Remove Stage II Vapor Recovery

A.  Requirements

The removal of Stage II gasoline vapor control programs from the SIP has to meet certain requirements.  Any SIP revision that may relax the SIP must meet the requirements of section 110(l) of the Clean Air Act.  Section 110(l) requires a demonstration proving that the SIP would not be relaxed if the measure in question is removed.  Additionally, and specific to the removal of Stage II, certain areas must meet the requirements of CAA sections 184(b)(2) and 193.  CAA section 184(b)(2) applies to areas that are in the Northeast Ozone Transport Region (OTR); these areas in the OTR are required to implement Stage II or another program with comparable emissions reductions referred to as the "comparable measures" requirement.  Additionally, CAA section 193, also referred to as the "general savings clause," requires areas trying to modify control measures approved prior to November 15, 1990 to prove that modification of the control measure "insures equivalent or greater emissions reductions." The Area did not have Stage II approved into its SIP prior to November 15, 1990, therefore CAA section 193 does not apply.  The Area is a part of the OTR, therefore CAA section 184(b)(2) does apply.  These SIP revisions demonstrate compliance with CAA sections 110(l) and 184(b)(2).

B.  State Submittal

VADEQ submitted an analysis to satisfy the requirements of CAA sections 110(l) and 184(b)(2).  VADEQ used the EPA guidance document Guidance on Removing Stage II Gasoline Vapor Control Programs from State Implementation Plans and Assessing Comparable Measures in developing its analysis to meet the requirements of CAA sections 110(l) and 184(b)(2).

The EPA guidance document, Guidance on Removing Stage II Gasoline Vapor Control Programs from State Implementation Plans and Assessing Comparable Measures provides direction to states on the calculations necessary for the analysis of the emissions impact of Stage II removal. To analyze the emissions impact of Stage II removal, the area wide impact on the VOC inventory must be calculated. As recommended by the guidance document, there are several methods that can be used to demonstrate compliance with the requirements of CAA section 110(l); the method to be used depends on how the removal of Stage II would affect the area in question.  The first method replaces Stage II with a new control measure that would offset any emissions increases that would result from the removal of Stage II.  The second method involves substituting Stage II with excess emissions reductions not accounted for in the SIP.  In the event that the removal of Stage II does cause an emissions increase, reductions in the VOC inventory since the previously approved SIP inventory can be used to offset any potential emissions increases resulting from the removal of Stage II. The third method does not involve substitution for any emissions increases in the event of an increase in VOC emissions from Stage II removal; this method allows the Area to provide a phase-out plan that would allow a minuscule amount of emissions increases that decreases rapidly as ORVR continues to increase in the vehicle fleet. This minuscule amount of emissions increases would be too small to interfere with attainment or progress towards attainment. This noninterference can be demonstrated in several ways.  The area can provide its most recent air quality data showing attainment of the NAAQS; if the NAAQS has yet to be attained, air quality projections showing attainment can be provided.  Additional air quality analyses showing that the removal of Stage II does not interfere with attainment or maintenance of the NAAQS will also be considered.  To meet the requirements of CAA section 184(b)(2) comparability must be demonstrated by the State.  In removing Stage II and trying to prove comparability, EPA believes that it is reasonable for states to demonstrate that the removal of Stage II has no impact on VOC emissions or has de minimis (minimal) impact on VOC emissions.  EPA has defined de minimis impact as any additional incremental control achieved by Stage II beyond ORVR that is less than 10 percent (%) of the are wide VOC inventory.

To calculate the area wide VOC inventory impact, two important equations must be used.  Equation 1, presented below, provides the overall Stage II-ORVR increment.  This increment provides the percentage impact on the annual area-wide emissions control gain from Stage II as ORVR is phased into the vehicle fleet.  Equation 2, also presented below, calculates the emissions benefits of Stage II on the VOC inventory in tons per year (tpy).  Equations 3 and 4 provide the variables necessary to calculate the Stage II impact on the VOC inventory, these equations are also provided below.

Equation 1: incrementi = (QSII)(1-QORVRi)(ηiuSII) - (QSIIva)(CFi)

Incrementi:  The increment percentage impact on the annual area-wide emissions control gain from Stage II as ORVR is phased into the vehicle fleet
QSII:  Fraction of gasoline throughput covered by Stage II
QORVRi:  Fraction of annual gallons of highway motor gasoline dispensed to ORVR-equipped vehicles
ηiuSII:  In-use Stage II control efficiency
QSIIva:  Fraction of gasoline throughput covered by Stage II
CFi:  Compatibility factor

Equation 2:  Tonsi = (Incrementi)(GCi)(EF)

Tonsi:  VOC emissions benefit of Stage II (tons)
Incrementi:  The increment percentage impact on the refueling inventory from removing Stage II
GCi: The projected gasoline consumption (gal)
EF:  The uncontrolled displacement refueling emissions factor (g/gal)

Equation 3:  EF (g/gal) = exp[-1.2798 - 0.0049(ΔT) + 0.0203(Td) + 0.1315(RVP)]

EF:  The uncontrolled displacement refueling emissions factor (g/gal)
ΔT:  Values for this variable are area specific and are located in Appendix A-2 of the EPA guidance document (degrees fahrenheit)
Td:   Values for this variable are area specific and are located in Appendix A-3 of the EPA guidance document (degrees fahrenheit)
RVP:  Reid Vapor Pressure of the gasoline used for the area (pounds per square inch (psi))

VA DEQ submitted an analysis quantifying the VOC emissions benefits of Stage II.  Equation 1 was utilized to yield the increments provided in Tables 1 and 2. The calculations in Table 1 assumed a Stage II control efficiency of 77% while the calculations in Table 2 assumed a Stage II control efficiency of 56%.  Negative increment values are indicative of when excess emissions from non ORVR compatible Stage II systems overwhelm the emissions benefits of implementing Stage II.  Table 1 presents calculated increment values which show that the Area will no longer see emissions benefits from Stage II after 2012.  Table 2 presents calculated increment values which show that the Area will no longer see emissions benefits from Stage II after 2011.  VADEQ used the more conservative Stage II efficiency estimate of 77% to determine the date when there will be no emissions benefits from Stage II; therefore, the Area will no longer see emissions benefits from Stage II after 2012.

         Table 1.  Increment Calculations for 77% Stage II Efficiency
Year
Increment
                                                                           2008
                                                                        0.13760
                                                                           2009
                                                                        0.10597
                                                                           2010
                                                                        0.07168
                                                                           2011
                                                                        0.04235
                                                                           2012
                                                                        0.01821
                                                                           2013
                                                                       -0.00128
                                                                           2014
                                                                       -0.01632
                                                                           2015
                                                                       -0.02785
                                                                           2016
                                                                       -0.03673
                                                                           2017
                                                                       -0.04335
                                                                           2018
                                                                       -0.04817
                                                                           2020
                                                                       -0.05428
                                                                           2030
                                                                       -0.06204

         Table 2.  Increment Calculations for 56% Stage II Efficiency
Year
Increment
                                                                           2008
                                                                        0.08684
                                                                           2009
                                                                        0.06302
                                                                           2010
                                                                        0.03732
                                                                           2011
                                                                        0.01534
                                                                           2012
                                                                       -0.00275
                                                                           2013
                                                                       -0.01736
                                                                           2014
                                                                       -0.02862
                                                                           2015
                                                                       -0.03725
                                                                           2016
                                                                       -0.04390
                                                                           2017
                                                                       -0.04886
                                                                           2018
                                                                       -0.05245
                                                                           2020
                                                                       -0.05702
                                                                           2030
                                                                       -0.06279

The emissions benefits of Stage II were calculated using Equations 2 and 3.  Using the more conservative increments produced by using the 77% Stage II efficiency estimate, the emissions benefits were calculated and the values tabulated in Table 3, below. The calculations also prove that there will be no emissions benefits from Stage II implementation past 2012.

    Table 3.  Stage II Emissions Reductions in the Area-Wide VOC Inventory
Year
Emissions Reductions (tpd VOC)
                                                                           2008
                                                                           0.58
                                                                           2009
                                                                           0.46
                                                                           2010
                                                                           0.31
                                                                           2011
                                                                           0.19
                                                                           2012
                                                                           0.08
                                                                           2013
                                                                          -0.01
                                                                           2014
                                                                          -0.07
                                                                           2015
                                                                          -0.13
                                                                           2016
                                                                          -0.17
                                                                           2017
                                                                          -0.20
                                                                           2018
                                                                          -0.22
                                                                           2020
                                                                          -0.24

In addition to increment and area wide VOC inventory calculations, VADEQ submitted additional analyses to support its removal of Stage II from the Virginia SIP.  VADEQ included an analysis which calculated the non-ORVR compatible Stage II benefit on a gasoline basis and a vehicle miles travelled (VMT) basis and compared the analysis to the Stage II benefit calculated with the use of the Motor Vehicle Emission Simulator (MOVES2010a).  This comparison is provided below in Table 4, and shows that incompatibility excess emissions, which are the emissions that arise from the interaction of a Stage II vapor recovery system (VRS) with ORVR, exceed Stage II benefits in the 2014 time frame.

        Table 4.  Excess and Benefit VOC Emissions Calculations Results
Year
                       Excess Vent Emissions  (tpd VOC)
                          Stage II Benefit (tpd VOC)
                Stage II Benefit with respect to ORVR (tpd VOC)

Gasoline Basis
VMT Basis

Gasoline Basis
VMT Basis
                                                                           2008
                                                                         0.5768
                                                                         0.5790
                                                                          1.937
                                                                          1.360
                                                                          1.358
                                                                           2009
                                                                         0.6218
                                                                         0.6271
                                                                          1.616
                                                                          0.996
                                                                          0.991
                                                                           2010
                                                                         0.6669
                                                                         0.6696
                                                                          1.343
                                                                          0.676
                                                                          0.673
                                                                           2011
                                                                         0.7040
                                                                         0.7042
                                                                          1.309
                                                                          0.605
                                                                          0.605
                                                                           2012
                                                                         0.7496
                                                                         0.7479
                                                                          1.072
                                                                          0.323
                                                                          0.325
                                                                           2013
                                                                         0.7755
                                                                         0.7721
                                                                          0.885
                                                                          0.110
                                                                          0.113
                                                                           2014
                                                                         0.7933
                                                                         0.7883
                                                                          0.730
                                                                         -0.063
                                                                         -0.058
                                                                           2015
                                                                         0.8071
                                                                         0.8008
                                                                          0.605
                                                                         -0.202
                                                                         -0.196
                                                                           2016
                                                                         0.8189
                                                                         0.8115
                                                                          0.505
                                                                         -0.313
                                                                         -0.306
                                                                           2017
                                                                         0.8211
                                                                         0.8129
                                                                          0.434
                                                                         -0.388
                                                                         -0.379
                                                                           2018
                                                                         0.8204
                                                                         0.8113
                                                                          0.378
                                                                         -0.442
                                                                         -0.433
                                                                           2020
                                                                         0.8184
                                                                         0.8081
                                                                          0.307
                                                                         -0.511
                                                                         -0.501
                                                                           2030
                                                                         0.8055
                                                                         0.7926
                                                                          0.249
                                                                         -0.556
                                                                         -0.544

Additionally, VADEQ submitted work completed by the Georgia Institute of Technology (Georgia Tech) for the Association for Southeastern Integrated Planning project.  Georgia Tech completed emissions sensitivity analyses utilizing the Community Multiscale Air Quality (CMAQ) model, for the sensitivity of ozone concentrations with respect to NOx and VOC emissions.  Three sensitivity analyses were conducted to gauge the sensitivity of ozone formation with respect to a 30% decrease in anthropogenic VOC, ground level NOx and point source NOx in the applicable Virginia areas.  It was found that Ozone concentrations were most sensitive to decreases in point source NOx.  The sensitivity to point source NOx is 100 to 1,000 times greater than ozone concentration sensitivity to anthropogenic VOC. The results indicate that NOx has a much larger impact on Ozone concentrations than VOC.

Through the CMAQ modeling utilized for the sensitivity analyses, the effect of Stage II on ozone concentrations was calculated at the monitor in the Virginia Areas.  Table 5, below, presents the Stage II benefit in terms of the change of ozone concentration.  The results presented show that Stage II has a very minuscule effect on ozone concentrations in the Virginia Areas.

               Table 5.  Stage II Effect on Ozone Concentration
Area
Monitor
Stage II Benefit to Ozone Concentrations (parts per billion (ppb))
Virginia Areas
Arlington
 -1.72x10-4 to -2.87x10[-4]

C.  EPA Evaluation and Conclusion

EPA thoroughly evaluated the submittal made by Virginia through VADEQ.  EPA's detailed review has led EPA to conclude that VADEQ properly addressed the recommended increment and VOC inventory calculations which prove when Stage II no longer provides a benefit for the Virginia Areas.  EPA agrees with VADEQ that withdrawal of the Stage II requirement is appropriate on January 1, 2014.  EPA also reviewed additional data provided by VADEQ showing ozone formation in the Virginia Areas is much more NOx dependent.  In conclusion, EPA agrees with Virginia's recommendation that the Stage II requirement be removed on January 1, 2014, since at that point in time, the Virginia Areas will no longer see any emissions benefits from the implementation of Stage II.  Also, at that point in time, the Virginia Areas will have met and exceeded the de minimus requirement for removing Stage II.  EPA is approving the removal of Stage II from the attainment and maintenance plans for the Virginia Areas because the submitted analysis demonstrates that Stage II removal will not interfere with the attainment or maintenance of the NAAQS in accordance with section 110(l) of the CAA and meets the requirements of section 184(b)(2) of the CAA.


[Federal Register: January 14, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 9)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 2206-2208]
[DOCID:fr14ja08-22]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2008-0015; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-328-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; McDonnell Douglas Model DC-10-10, DC-
10-10F, DC-10-15, and MD-10-10F Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for
certain McDonnell Douglas Model DC-10-10, DC-10-10F, DC-10-15, and MD-
10-10F airplanes. This proposed AD would require repetitive inspections
for the presence of stray nickel or chrome plating deposits on the air
filler valve bore of certain main landing gear (MLG) shock strut
cylinders, and if necessary, related investigative and corrective
actions. Doing the corrective action would terminate the repetitive
inspections. This proposed AD results from a report of a left MLG
collapse

during landing rollout. We are proposing this AD to detect and correct
stray nickel and chrome plating deposits, corrosion, and cracking of
the air filler valve bore on the MLG cylinder, which could result in
landing gear failure, significant damage to the airplane, and injury to
personnel.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by February 28,
2008.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov.
 Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this AD, contact Boeing
Commercial Airplanes, Long Beach Division, 3855 Lakewood Boulevard,
Long Beach, California 90846, Attention: Data and Service Management,
Dept. C1-L5A (D800-0024).

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov
; or in person at the Docket Management Facility

between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory
evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street
address for the Docket Office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the
ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly
after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Maureen Moreland, Aerospace Engineer,
Airframe Branch, ANM-120L, FAA, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification
Office, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, California 90712-4137;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address
listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2008-0015;
Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-328-AD'' at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposed AD because of those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov
, including any personal information you provide. We

will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this proposed AD.

Discussion

    We received a report that one McDonnell Douglas Model MD-10-10
airplane experienced a left main landing gear (MLG) collapse during
landing rollout, which was caused by combined fatigue and stress
corrosion cracking failure of the MLG shock strut cylinder assembly.
Metallurgical analysis has determined that the origin of the fracture
was located in the bore of the air filler valve port located on the aft
side of the MLG cylinder. The primary crack initiation point was in an
area of stray nickel plating deposits on the bore. A secondary
origination of the crack was initiated from a shallow corrosion pit
located at the opposite side of the bore to the primary initiation
point. Stray nickel or chrome plating deposits, corrosion, or cracking
in the air filler valve bore of the MLG cylinder, if not corrected,
could result in landing gear failure, significant damage to the
airplane, and injury to personnel.

Relevant Service Information

    We have reviewed Boeing Alert Service Bulletin DC10-32A259, dated
October 30, 2007. The service bulletin describes procedures for
repetitive video probe inspections to detect the presence of stray
nickel or chrome plating deposits on the air filler valve bore of
certain main landing gear (MLG) shock strut cylinders, and if
necessary, related investigative and corrective actions. The related
investigative actions include a video probe inspection for corrosion of
the air filler valve bore in the MLG shock strut cylinder and an eddy
current inspection for cracking of the air filler valve bore. The
corrective actions include repair of the air filler valve bore of the
MLG shock strut cylinder, removal of corrosion, and replacement of the
MLG cylinder. The service bulletin specifies that doing the repair or
replacement ends the repetitive inspections for that MLG shock strut
cylinder only.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD

    We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all relevant
information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is
likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design.
This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions specified in
the service information described previously.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD would affect 75 airplanes of U.S.
registry. The following table provides the estimated costs for U.S.
operators to comply with this proposed AD.

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Number of U.S.-
            Action               Work hours     Average labor  Cost per product    registered       Fleet cost
                                                rate per hour                       airplanes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inspection...................               4             $80  $320, per                     75  $24,000, per
                                                                inspection                        inspection
                                                                cycle.                            cycle.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or
develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety.

The Proposed Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

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

McDonnell Douglas: Docket No. FAA-2008-0015; Directorate Identifier
2007-NM-328-AD.

Comments Due Date

    (a) We must receive comments by February 28, 2008.

Affected ADs

    (b) None.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to McDonnell Douglas Model DC-10-10, DC-10-
10F, DC-10-15, and MD-10-10F airplanes, certificated in any
category; as identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin DC10-
32A259, dated October 30, 2007.

Unsafe Condition

    (d) This AD results from a report of a left main landing gear
(MLG) collapse during landing rollout. We are issuing this AD to
detect and correct stray nickel and chrome plating deposits,
corrosion, and cracking of the air filler valve bore on the MLG
cylinder, which could result in landing gear failure, significant
damage to the airplane, and injury to personnel.

Compliance

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

Inspections and Corrective Actions

    (f) At the applicable time specified in paragraph (f)(1),
(f)(2), or (f)(3) of this AD, do a video probe inspection for the
presence of stray nickel or chrome plating deposits on the air
filler valve bore of the MLG shock strut cylinders, and before
further flight, do all applicable related investigative and
corrective actions, in accordance with the Accomplishment
Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin DC10-32A259, dated
October 30, 2007. Repeat the video probe inspection thereafter at
intervals not to exceed 2,400 flight cycles or 20 months, whichever
occurs first. Accomplishment of the repair specified in Part 2 of
the Accomplishment Instructions of the service bulletin or the
replacement specified in Part 3 of the Accomplishment Instructions
of the service bulletin terminates the repetitive inspections for
that MLG shock strut cylinder.
    (1) For passenger airplanes: Within 24 months after the
effective date of this AD.
    (2) For freighter airplanes with MLG cylinders that have
accumulated fewer than 7,200 flight cycles in a freighter
configuration as of the effective date of this AD: Within 24 months
after the effective date of this AD.
    (3) For freighter airplanes with MLG cylinders that have
accumulated 7,200 flight cycles or more in a freighter configuration
as of the effective date of this AD: Within 6 months after the
effective date of this AD.

Parts Installation

    (g) As of the effective date of this AD, no person may install a
MLG shock strut cylinder assembly, part number ARG7002-1, -501, -
503, or -505, on any airplane, unless the air filler valve bore hole
has been oversized and closing action has been accomplished in
accordance with Boeing Alert Service Bulletin DC10-32A259, dated
October 30, 2007, and the MLG shock strut cylinder assembly has been
permanently identified with part number SB10320259-3 adjacent to the
existing ARG7002 part number.

Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (h)(1) The Manager, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office
(ACO), FAA, ATTN: Maureen Moreland, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe
Branch, ANM-120L, FAA, Los Angeles ACO, 3960 Paramount Boulevard,
Lakewood, California 90712-4137; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax (562)
627-5210; has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if
requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.
    (2) To request a different method of compliance or a different
compliance time for this AD, follow the procedures in 14 CFR 39.19.
Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC
applies, notify your appropriate principal inspector (PI) in the FAA
Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local
FSDO.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on December 26, 2007.
Ali Bahrami,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. E8-385 Filed 1-11-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: November 24, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 227)]
[Notices]
[Page 71009-71010]
[DOCID:fr24no08-111]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2008-D-0592]

Draft Guidance for Industry on the Contents of a Complete
Submission for the Evaluation of Proprietary Names; Availability

AGENCY:  Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION:  Notice.

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

SUMMARY:  The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the
availability of a draft guidance for industry entitled ``Contents of a
Complete Submission for the Evaluation of Proprietary Names.'' This
draft guidance provides recommendations to industry regarding the
submission of a complete package that FDA intends to use to assess the
safety of proposed proprietary drug and biological product names and
other factors that, in association with the name, can contribute to
medication errors. In addition, FDA intends to use this information in
the assessment of promotional aspects of proposed proprietary names.

DATES:  Although you can comment on any guidance at any time (see 21
CFR 10.115(g)(5)), to ensure that the agency considers your comment on
this draft guidance before it begins work on the final version of the
guidance, submit written or electronic comments on the draft guidance
by January 23, 2009.

ADDRESSES:  Submit written requests for single copies of the draft
guidance to the Division of Drug Information (HFD-240), Center for Drug
Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New
Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 51, rm. 2201, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002; or
the Office of Communication, Training, and Manufacturers Assistance
(HFM-40), Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER), Food and
Drug Administration, 1401 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852-1448. The
draft guidance may also be obtained by mail by calling CBER at 1-800-
835-4709 or<PHONE_NUMBER>. Send one self-addressed adhesive label to
assist that office in processing your requests. Submit written comments
on the draft guidance to the Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305),
Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1061, Rockville,
MD 20852. Submit electronic comments to http://www.regulations.gov. See
the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for electronic access to the
draft guidance document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Carol Holquist, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug
Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 22, rm. 4416, Silver
Spring, MD 20993-0002,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or
Stephen Ripley, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (HFM-17),
Food and Drug Administration, 1401 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852-
1448,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    FDA is announcing the availability of a draft guidance for industry
entitled ``Contents of a Complete Submission for

the Evaluation of Proprietary Names.'' In performance goals agreed to
under the September 27, 2007, reauthorization of the Prescription Drug
User Fee Act (PDUFA IV), FDA agreed to implement various measures to
reduce medication errors related to look-alike and sound-alike
proprietary names, unclear label abbreviations, acronyms, dose
designations, and error-prone label and packaging designs. Among these
measures, FDA agreed to publish guidance on the contents of a complete
submission package for a proposed proprietary name for a drug/
biological product. FDA also agreed to performance goals for review of
proprietary names submitted during the investigational new drug
application (IND) phase or with a new drug application (NDA) or
biologics license application (BLA); the goals stipulate that a
complete submission is required to begin the review clock. (See section
IX.A at http://www.fda.gov/oc/pdufa4/pdufa4goals.html).
    This draft guidance, when finalized, is intended to promote
prevention of medication errors by assisting industry in the submission
of complete product information that will help FDA to evaluate the
safety of proposed proprietary drug and biological product names,
taking into account other factors that, in association with the name,
can contribute to medication errors. In addition, FDA intends to use
this information in the assessment of promotional aspects of proposed
proprietary names.
    This draft guidance applies to prescription drug products,
including biologics, that are the subject of an IND, NDA, or
abbreviated new drug application (ANDA); nonprescription drug products
that are the subject of an NDA or ANDA; and biological products that
are the subject of a BLA.
    The draft guidance does not address other performance goals under
PDUFA IV, including developing FDA internal policies and procedures to
ensure that proprietary name review goals are met; developing guidance
on best practices for naming, labeling, and packaging drugs and
biologics to reduce medication errors; guidance on proprietary name
evaluation best practices; and developing and implementing a pilot
program for evaluating proposed proprietary names.
    This draft guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good
guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The draft guidance, when
finalized, will represent the agency's current thinking on the contents
of a complete submission for the evaluation of proprietary names. It
does not create or confer any rights for or on any person and does not
operate to bind FDA or the public. An alternative approach may be used
if such approach satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes
and regulations.

II. Comments

    Interested persons may submit to the Division of Dockets Management
(see ADDRESSES) written or electronic comments regarding this document.
Submit a single copy of electronic comments or two paper copies of any
mailed comments, except that individuals may submit one paper copy.
Comments are to be identified with the docket number found in brackets
in the heading of this document. Received comments may be seen in the
Division of Dockets Management between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday
through Friday.
    Please note that on January 15, 2008, the FDA Division of Dockets
Management Web site transitioned to the Federal Dockets Management
System (FDMS). FDMS is a Government-wide, electronic docket management
system. Electronic comments or submissions will be accepted by FDA only
through FDMS at http://www.regulations.gov.

III. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    This draft guidance refers to previously approved collections of
information found in FDA regulations. These collections of information
are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). The
collections of information in 21 CFR part 312 and FDA Form 1571 have
been approved under OMB control number 0910-0014. The collections of
information in 21 CFR part 314 have been approved under OMB control
number 0910-0001. The collections of information in 21 CFR part 601 and
FDA Form 356h have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0338.

IV. Electronic Access

    Persons with access to the Internet may obtain the document at
either http://www.fda.gov/cder/guidance/index.htm, http://www.fda.gov/
cber/guidelines.htm, or http://www.regulations.gov.

    Dated: November 17, 2008.
Jeffrey Shuren,
Associate Commissioner for Policy and Planning.
[FR Doc. E8-27896 Filed 11-21-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4160-01-S


[Federal Register: June 11, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 113)]
[Notices]
[Page 33096-33097]
[DOCID:fr11jn08-64]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2008-N-0324]

Summaries of Medical and Clinical Pharmacology Reviews of
Pediatric Studies; Availability

AGENCY:  Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION:  Notice.

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

SUMMARY:  The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the
availability of summaries of medical and clinical pharmacology reviews
of pediatric studies submitted in supplements for ABILIFY
(aripiprazole), ANDROGEL (testosterone), and DIOVAN (valsartan). These
summaries are being made available consistent with the Best
Pharmaceuticals for Children Act, enacted in 2002, (the 2002 BPCA). For
all pediatric supplements submitted under the 2002 BPCA, the 2002 BPCA
required FDA to make available to the public, including by publication
in the Federal Register, a summary of the medical and clinical
pharmacology reviews of the pediatric studies conducted for the
supplement.

ADDRESSES:  Submit written requests for single copies of the summaries
to the Division of Drug Information, Center for Drug Evaluation and
Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg.
51, rm. 2201, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002. Please specify by product
name which summary or summaries you are requesting. Send one self-
addressed adhesive label to assist that office in processing your
requests. See the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for electronic
access to the summaries.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  Grace Carmouze, Center for Drug
Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New
Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 22, rm. 6460, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-
796-0700, e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    FDA is announcing the availability of summaries of medical and
clinical

pharmacology reviews of pediatric studies conducted for ABILIFY
(aripiprazole), ANDROGEL (testosterone), and DIOVAN (valsartan). The
summaries are being made available consistent with section 9 of the
2002 BPCA (Public Law 107-109). Enacted on January 4, 2002, the 2002
BPCA reauthorized, with certain important changes, the pediatric
exclusivity program described in section 505A of the Federal Food,
Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the act) (21 U.S.C. 355a). Section 505A of the
act permits certain applications to obtain 6 months of marketing
exclusivity if, in accordance with the requirements of the statute, the
sponsor submits requested information relating to the use of the drug
in the pediatric population.
    One of the provisions the 2002 BPCA added to the pediatric
exclusivity program pertains to the dissemination of pediatric
information. Specifically, for all pediatric supplements submitted
under the 2002 BPCA, the 2002 BPCA required FDA to make available to
the public, including by publication in the Federal Register, a summary
of the medical and clinical pharmacology reviews of pediatric studies
conducted for the supplement within 180 days of study submission to FDA
(21 U.S.C. 355a(j)(1)).
    The pediatric exclusivity program described in section 505A of the
act again was reauthorized on September 27, 2007, in title V of the
Food and Drug Administration Amendments Act (FDAAA) (Public Law 110-
85). FDAAA revised the public dissemination provision previously found
in 21 U.S.C. 355a(j)(1). As revised, not later than 210 days after the
date of submission of a report on a pediatric study conducted under the
pediatric exclusivity program, FDA must make available to the public
the medical, statistical, and clinical pharmacology reviews of the
pediatric studies (21 U.S.C. 355a(k)(1)). Under FDAAA, publication in
the Federal Register is no longer required. FDA currently posts these
reviews on the Internet at http://www.fda.gov/cder/pediatric/BpcaPrea_
full_review.htm.
    The three sets of summaries being announced in this issue of the
Federal Register are the last summaries of reviews of supplements
subject to the 2002 BPCA dissemination provision. Because publication
in the Federal Register is no longer required, this will be the last
notice announcing the availability of summaries of medical and clinical
pharmacology reviews of pediatric studies conducted under the pediatric
exclusivity program. FDA has posted on the Internet at http://
www.fda.gov/cder/pediatric/index.htm summaries of medical and clinical
pharmacology reviews of pediatric studies submitted in supplements for
ABILIFY (aripiprazole), ANDROGEL (testosterone), and DIOVAN
(valsartan). Copies are also available by mail (see ADDRESSES).

II. Electronic Access

    Persons with access to the Internet may obtain the document at
http://www.fda.gov/cder/pediatric/index.htm.

    Dated: June 3, 2008.
Jeffrey Shuren,
Associate Commissioner for Policy and Planning.
[FR Doc. E8-13099 Filed 6-10-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4160-01-S


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 189 (Thursday, September 29, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 66899-66900]
[FR Doc No: 2016-23297]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R10-OAR-2016-0493: FRL-9953-03-Region 10]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Washington:
General Regulations for Air Pollution Sources

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: In reviewing past State Implementation Plan (SIP) actions, the
Washington Department of Ecology (Ecology) and the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) discovered minor typographical errors related
to the EPA's previous approvals of Chapter 173-400 Washington
Administrative Code, General Regulations for Air Pollution Sources. The
EPA is proposing to correct these errors. The proposed corrections make
no substantive changes to the SIP and impose no new requirements. In
the Final Rules section of this Federal Register, the EPA is approving
these corrections as a direct final rule without prior proposal because
the Agency views this as a noncontroversial action and anticipates no
adverse comments. A detailed rationale for the approval is set forth in
the direct final rule. If no adverse comments are received in response
to this action, no further activity is contemplated. If the EPA
receives adverse comments, the direct final rule will be withdrawn and
all public comments received will be addressed in a subsequent final
rule based on this proposed rule. The EPA will not institute a second
comment period. Any parties interested in commenting on this action
should do so at this time.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before October 31, 2016.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R10-
OAR-2016-0493 at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot
be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any
comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any
information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a
written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment
and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA
will generally not consider comments or comment contents located
outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the Web, cloud, or other
file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA
public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions,
and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeff Hunt, Air Planning Unit, Office
of Air and Waste (OAW-150), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10,
1200 Sixth Ave, Suite 900, Seattle, WA 98101; telephone number: (206)
553-0256; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For further information, please see the
information provided in the direct final action, with the same title,
that is located in the ``Rules and Regulations'' section of this
Federal Register. Please note that if the EPA receives adverse comment
on an amendment, paragraph, or section of this rule and if that
provision may be severed from the remainder of the rule, the EPA may
adopt as final those provisions of the rule that are not the subject of
an adverse comment.

    Dated: September 14, 2016.
Dennis J. McLerran,
Regional Administrator, Region 10.
[FR Doc. 2016-23297 Filed 9-28-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 210 (Wednesday, October 30, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Page 58149]
[FR Doc No: 2019-23693]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER20-136-000]

Reading Wind Energy, 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
Reading Wind Energy, 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 November 12, 2019.
    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 website 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: October 23, 2019.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-23693 Filed 10-29-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: April 29, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 83)]
[Notices]
[Page 23240-23241]
[DOCID:fr29ap08-57]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No.: 12478-002]

Gibson Dam Hydroelectric Project, LLC; Notice of Draft License
Application and Preliminary Draft Environmental Assessment (PDEA) and
Request for Preliminary Terms and Conditions

April 21, 2008.
    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been
filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection.
    a. Type of Application: Major Project--Existing Dam.
    b. Project No.: 12478-002.
    c. Date Filed: April 14, 2008.
    d. Applicant: Gibson Dam Hydroelectric Project, LLC.
    e. Name of Project: Gibson Dam Hydroelectric Project.
    f. Location: On the Sun River River, near the Towns of Fairfield
and August, Teton and Lewis and Clark Counties, Montana. The project
would occupy 132.4 acres of Forest Service lands within the Lewis and
Clark National Forest, 15 acres of lands administered by the U.S.
Bureau of Reclamation, and 69.9 acres of lands administered by the U.S.
Bureau of Land Management.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act 16 U.S.C. 791(a)--825(r)
    h. Applicant Contact: Steven C. Marmon, 3633 Alderwood Avenue,
Bellingham, WA 98225,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    i. FERC Contact: Matt Cutlip,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>    j. Status of Project: With this notice the Commission is soliciting
(1) preliminary terms, conditions, and recommendations on the
Preliminary Draft Environmental Assessment (DEA), and (2) comments on
the Draft License Application.
    k. Deadline for filing comments: July 11, 2008.
    All comments on the Preliminary DEA and Draft License Application
should be sent to the addresses noted above in Item (h), with one copy
filed with FERC at the following address: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary,
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426. All comments must include the project name and
number and bear the heading Preliminary Comments, Preliminary
Recommendations, Preliminary Terms and Conditions, or Preliminary
Prescriptions.
    Comments and preliminary recommendations, terms and conditions, and
prescriptions may be

filed electronically via the Internet in lieu of paper. The Commission
strongly encourages electronic filings. See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii)
and the instructions on the Commission's Web site (http://www.ferc.gov)
under the ``e-Filing'' link.
    l. A copy of the draft application is available for review at the
Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the
Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary''
link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the
docket number field to access the document. For assistance, contact
FERC Online Support at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll-free at 1-
866-208-3676, or for TTY,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    You may also register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/
esubscription.asp to be notified via e-mail of new filings and
issuances related to this or other pending projects. For assistance,
contact FERC Online Support.
    Gibson Dam Hydroelectric Company, LLC has electronically
distributed a copy of the Preliminary DEA and Draft License Application
to interested entities and parties. Copies of these documents are
available for review at the following locations:
    Greenfields Irrigation District, 105 W. Central Ave. Fairfield, MT
59436;
    Lewis & Clark Library, Augusta Branch, 205 Main Street Augusta, MT
59410;
    Choteau Public Library, 17 Main Avenue North, Choteau, MT 59422;
    Great Falls Public Library, 301 2nd Avenue North, Great Falls, MT
59401;
    Lewis & Clark Public Library, 120 South Last Chance Gulch, Helena,
MT 59601; or by calling Steve Marmon at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by e-mailing
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    m. With this notice, we are initiating consultation with the
Montana State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO), as required by
Section 106, National Historic Preservation Act, and the regulations of
the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, 36 CFR 800.4.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E8-9302 Filed 4-28-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P