77150 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 247 / Monday, December 27, 2004 / Proposed Rules 

address VOC reduction needs in the 

Ozone Transport Region (OTR). 

II. Summary of SIP Revision 

The District’s AIM coatings rule 

(sections 749 through 754) applies to 

any person who supplies, sells, offers 

for sale, or manufactures, applies or 

solicits the application of any AIM 

coating on or after January 1, 2005 

within the District. The rule does not 

apply to the following: (1) Any AIM 

coating that is sold or manufactured for 

use outside of the District, or for 

shipment to other manufacturers for 

reformulation or repackaging; (2) any 

aerosol coating product; or (3) any 

architectural coating that is sold in a 

container with a volume of one liter 

(1.057 quarts) or less. The rule sets 

specific VOC content limits, in grams 

per liter, for AIM coating categories with 

a compliance date of January 1, 2005. 

The rule contains administrative 

requirements for labeling and reporting 

as well as text methods for 

demonstrating compliance. The test 

methods used to test coatings must be 

the most current approved method at 

the time testing is performed. 

III. Proposed Action 

EPA is proposing to approve a 

revision to the District of Columbia SIP 

to establish a regulation for the control 

of emissions from AIM coatings 

(sections 749 through 754), and also 

section 799 containing the associated 

definitions for the AIM coatings rule. 

EPA is soliciting public comments on 

the issues discussed in this document. 

These comments will be considered 

before taking final action.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 

51735, October 4, 1993), this proposed 

action is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ and therefore is not subject to 

review by the Office of Management and 

Budget. For this reason, this action is 

also not subject to Executive Order 

13211, ‘‘Actions Concerning Regulations 

That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use’’ (66 FR 28355 (May 

22, 2001)). This action merely proposes 

to approve state law as meeting Federal 

requirements and imposes no additional 

requirements beyond those imposed by 

state law. Accordingly, the 

Administrator certifies that this 

proposed rule will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities under the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 

et seq.). Because this rule proposes to 

approve pre-existing requirements 

under state law and does not impose 

any additional enforceable duty beyond 

that required by state law, it does not 

contain any unfunded mandate or 

significantly or uniquely affect small 

governments, as described in the 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

(Public Law 104–4). This proposed rule 

also does not have a substantial direct 

effect on one or more Indian tribes, on 

the relationship between the Federal 

Government and Indian tribes, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities between the Federal 

Government and Indian tribes, as 

specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 

FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will 

it have substantial direct effects on the 

States, on the relationship between the 

national government and the States, or 

on the distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government, as specified in 

Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, 

August 10, 1999), because it merely 

proposes to approve a state rule 

implementing a Federal standard, and 

does not alter the relationship or the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities established in the Clean 

Air Act. This proposed rule also is not 

subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 

19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not 

economically significant. 

In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA’s 

role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the Clean Air Act. In this context, in the 

absence of a prior existing requirement 

for the State to use voluntary consensus 

standards (VCS), EPA has no authority 

to disapprove a SIP submission for 

failure to use VCS. It would thus be 

inconsistent with applicable law for 

EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission, 

to use VCS in place of a SIP submission 

that otherwise satisfies the provisions of 

the Clean Air Act. Thus, the 

requirements of section 12(d) of the 

National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 

272 note) do not apply. As required by 

section 3 of Executive Order 12988 (61 

FR 4729, February 7, 1996), in issuing 

this proposed rule, EPA has taken the 

necessary steps to eliminate drafting 

errors and ambiguity, minimize 

potential litigation, and provide a clear 

legal standard for affected conduct. EPA 

has complied with Executive Order 

12630 (53 FR 8859, March 15, 1988) by 

examining the takings implications of 

the rule in accordance with the 

‘‘Attorney General’s Supplemental 

Guidelines for the Evaluation of Risk 

and Avoidance of Unanticipated 

Takings’’ issued under the executive 

order. 

This proposed rule pertaining to the 

District of Columbia’s AIM coatings rule 

does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

(44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Nitrogen dioxide, 

Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Volatile organic 

compounds.

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

Dated: December 14, 2004. 

Donald S. Welsh, 

Regional Administrator, Region III.

[FR Doc. 04–28200 Filed 12–23–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION 

SAFETY BOARD 

49 CFR Part 830

Notification and Reporting of Aircraft 

Accidents or Incidents and Overdue 

Aircraft, and Preservation of Aircraft 

Wreckage, Mail, Cargo, and Records

AGENCY: National Transportation Safety 

Board (NTSB).

ACTION: Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.

SUMMARY: The NTSB is proposing to 

amend 49 Code of Federal Regulations

(CFR) Part 830, ‘‘Notification and 

Reporting of Aircraft Accidents or 

Incidents and Overdue Aircraft, and 

Preservation of Aircraft Wreckage, Mail, 

Cargo, and Records,’’ to include certain 

events that are not currently covered by 

the regulations. This amendment is 

intended to enhance aviation safety by 

providing the NTSB direct notification 

of these events so that we can 

investigate and take corrective actions 

in a timely manner.

DATES: Submit comments on or before 

February 25, 2005.

ADDRESSES: Mail comments concerning 

this proposed rule to Deepak Joshi, Lead 

Aerospace Engineer (Structures), 

National Transportation Safety Board, 

Room 5235, 490 L’Enfant Plaza, SW., 

Washington, DC 20594.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Deepak Joshi, (202) 314–6348.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Proposed Revision to § 830.2, 

Definitions 

Part 830 requires that an event that 

results in substantial damage to a civil 

or public aircraft not operated by the 

Armed Forces or an intelligence agency 

be reported to the NTSB. We are 

proposing to modify the current 

definition of substantial damage in 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 247 / Monday, December 27, 2004 / Proposed Rules 77151

§ 830.2 by removing reference to ground 

damage to helicopter rotor blades from 

the list of exclusions. We believe this 

revision is necessary because the main 

rotor blades of a helicopter are the 

lifting surfaces of the aircraft and are 

considered to be equivalent to the wings 

of an airplane. The tail rotor blades of 

a helicopter provide yaw control and are 

analogous to the rudder control surface 

of an airplane. Any damage to main or 

tail rotor blades—regardless of how it 

occurs—will likely adversely affect the 

performance of the aircraft and, if so, 

should be considered substantial 

damage. Therefore, we are proposing to 

bring events involving ground damage 

to main or tail rotor blades within the 

definition of an accident and clearly 

make them reportable events. 

Proposed Revision to § 830.5, 

Immediate Notification 

The NTSB is proposing that the 

following events be added to the current 

list of events requiring immediate NTSB 

notification: 

(a) Failure of any internal turbine 

engine component that results in the 

escape of debris other than out the 

exhaust path.

Currently, § 830.5(a)(3) excludes the 

failure of compressor and turbine blades 

and vanes from required NTSB 

notification. Although the NTSB 

requires notification of such an event if 

one of these components escapes and 

results in substantial damage to the 

aircraft or an in-flight fire, we believe 

that the failure of any internal turbine 

engine component that results in the 

escape of debris other than out the 

exhaust path warrants immediate NTSB 

notification because the high energy 

levels of exiting fragments pose a 

significant safety hazard to the aircraft 

and its occupants. The importance of 

protecting the aircraft from high-energy 

engine fragments is reflected in the 

Federal Aviation Regulations (notably 

§ 23.903(b)(1), and § 33.19), which 

explicitly require design precautions to 

minimize hazards to the aircraft in the 

event of an engine rotor failure. In 

addition, § 33.75 requires that the 

engine’s cases provide for the 

containment of damage from rotor blade 

failure. 

The NTSB will investigate engine 

failures when the debris escapes 

through a path other than the exhaust 

regardless of whether such failures 

result in substantial damage to the 

airplane because of the safety 

implications. However, to initiate an 

investigation in these instances, we 

have to rely on the Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), the operator, or 

the engine manufacturer to notify us. 

Such notifications are not required and 

often are not provided. If notification is 

provided, it may not be timely. 

Accordingly, the NTSB proposes that 

§ 830.5(a)(3) be revised to require that 

the failure of any internal turbine engine 

component that results in the escape of 

debris other than out the exhaust path 

be a reportable event (debris that exits 

the exhaust path and causes substantial 

damage or serious injury is reportable as 

an accident under § 830.5(a)(6)).

(b) Structural failure of a propeller 

resulting in the release of all or a 

portion of a propeller blade from an 

aircraft, excluding release caused solely 

by ground contact.

The current notification regulations 

do not ensure that the failure of a 

propeller blade resulting in the release 

of all or a portion of a blade from an 

aircraft will be reported to the NTSB. In 

some cases, the NTSB has been notified 

of an accident in which a structural 

failure of a propeller blade was an 

initiating event but only because the 

failure resulted in substantial damage or 

reportable injuries as defined in Part 

830. If no substantial aircraft damage 

and no reportable injuries to the 

occupants have occurred because of 

such a failure and an uneventful landing 

is made, there is no requirement to 

notify the NTSB. Although substantial 

damage or serious injury may not result 

from a propeller blade failure, there may 

be airworthiness and safety issues that 

should be addressed. 

For example, on January 12, 2002, an 

ATR–42 experienced a propeller blade 

failure during takeoff. The pilot was 

able to shut down the engine and make 

an uneventful landing. No significant 

aircraft damage was noted and no other 

factors made it a reportable event under 

§ 830.5. However, the NTSB became 

aware of the failure and issued two 

safety recommendations (A–03–13 and 

–14) relating to inspection and repair of 

propeller blades as a direct result of its 

investigation. 

Title 14 CFR 25.905 requires that 

design precautions be taken to 

minimize, among other hazards, 

airplane structural damage in the event 

of a propeller blade failure. However, 

the FAA has granted waivers to this rule 

because the airplane’s structure is 

unable to withstand the forces of 

unbalance should a propeller blade 

separate. On August 21, 1995, an 

Embraer EMB–120 crashed following 

the separation of a propeller blade that 

broke the engine’s mounts. Because the 

propeller is a critical part of the 

powerplant operation on these 

airplanes, the NTSB believes that there 

are safety benefits to be derived from 

requiring that a structural failure of a 

propeller resulting in the release of all 

or a portion of a propeller blade from an 

aircraft be included as a reportable 

event. 

(c) Loss of information from a 

majority of an aircraft’s certified 

electronic primary displays (excluding 

momentary inaccuracy or flickering 

from display systems that are certified 

installations).

Generally, in aircraft where electronic 

displays are used as primary displays, 

six or seven displays provide flight and 

engine information to flight crews. If 

one or two displays go blank, 

redundancy features allow for the 

remaining displays to be reconfigured 

and the aircraft to continue safe flight. 

However, if a majority of the displays 

malfunction, flight safety may be 

compromised. The NTSB has 

investigated two events (occurring on 

November 6, 2001, and January 24, 

2003) in which all primary flight 

information and all engine information 

were lost, leaving only standby flight 

instruments and no standby engine 

instruments available. The current use 

of electronic displays to present flight 

and engine information has resulted in 

the loss of primary flight information 

through failure mechanisms that did not 

exist when 49 CFR part 830 was 

originally written. 

(d) Any Airborne Collision and 

Avoidance System (ACAS) resolution 

advisories (RA) issued when an aircraft 

is being operated on an instrument 

flight rules (IFR) flight plan.

Because ACAS resolution advisories 

do not occur until aircraft are in 

relatively close proximity, RAs indicate 

a potential hazard in the air traffic 

control (ATC) system. Requiring that 

ACAS resolution advisories involving 

aircraft operating under IFR be subject 

to NTSB notification would assist us in 

detecting, tracking, and investigating 

these hazardous occurrences. Knowing 

about these incidents soon after they 

occur would ensure that radar and voice 

data are available when needed to 

support investigations of ACAS 

incidents.

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 830

Aircraft accidents or incidents and 

overdue aircraft notification and 

reporting, Aviation safety, Reporting 

and record-keeping requirements.

For the reasons set forth in the 

preamble, the National Transportation 

Safety Board proposes to amend 49 CFR 

Part 830 as set forth below:

77152 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 247 / Monday, December 27, 2004 / Proposed Rules 

1The Board regional offices are listed under U.S. 

Government in the telephone directories of the 

following cities: Anchorage, AK; Atlanta, GA; West 

Chicago, IL; Denver, CO; Arlington, TX; Gardena 

(Los Angeles), CA; Miami, FL; Parsippany, NJ 

(metropolitan New York City); Seattle, WA; and 

Washington, DC.

PART 830—NOTIFICATION AND 

REPORTING OF AIRCRAFT 

ACCIDENTS OR INCIDENTS AND 

OVERDUE AIRCRAFT, AND 

PRESERVATION OF AIRCRAFT 

WRECKAGE, MAIL, CARGO, AND 

RECORDS 

1. The Authority citation for Part 830 

is proposed to be revised to read as 

follows:

Authority: Independent Safety Board Act 

of 1974, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1101 et seq.); 

Federal Aviation Act of 1958, as amended (49 

U.S.C. 40101 et seq.).

2. Section 830.2 is amended by 

revising the definition of ‘‘substantial 

damage’’ to read as follows:

§ 830.2 Definitions.

* * * * *

Substantial damage means damage or 

failure which adversely affects the 

structural strength, performance, or 

flight characteristics of the aircraft, and 

which would normally require major 

repair or replacement of the affected 

component. Engine failure or damage 

limited to an engine if only one engine 

fails or is damaged, bent fairings or 

cowling, dented skin, small punctured 

holes in the skin or fabric, ground 

damage to propeller blades, and damage 

to landing gear, wheels, tires, flaps, 

engine accessories, brakes, or wingtips 

are not considered substantial damage

for the purpose of this part.

3. Section 830.5 is amended by 

revising the introductory paragraph, 

revising paragraphs (a), (3), (4), and (5), 

and adding paragraphs (a)(8), (9), and 

(10).

§ 830.5 Immediate notification. 

The operator of any civil aircraft, or 

any public aircraft not operated by the 

Armed Forces or an intelligence agency 

of the United States, or any foreign 

aircraft shall immediately, and by the 

most expeditious means available, 

notify the nearest National 

Transportation Safety Board (Board) 

regional office 1 when:

(a) An aircraft accident or any of the 

following listed incidents occur:

* * * * *

(3) Failure of any internal turbine 

engine component that results in the 

escape of debris other than out the 

exhaust path; 

(4) In-flight fire; 

(5) Aircraft collide in flight;

* * * * *

(8) Structural failure of a propeller 

resulting in the release of all or a 

portion of a propeller blade from an 

aircraft, excluding release caused solely 

by ground contact; 

(9) Loss of information from a 

majority of an aircraft’s certified 

electronic primary displays (excluding 

momentary inaccuracy or flickering 

from display systems that are certified 

installations); 

(10) Any Airborne Collision and 

Avoidance System (ACAS) resolution 

advisories (RA) issued when an aircraft 

is being operated on an instrument 

flight rules (IFR) flight plan.

* * * * *

Dated: December 16, 2004. 

Vicky D’Onofrio, 

Federal Register Liaison Officer.

[FR Doc. 04–28148 Filed 12–23–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7533–01–M

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; 90-Day Finding on a 

Petition To List the Kern Brook 

Lamprey as Threatened or Endangered

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior.

ACTION: Notice of petition finding.

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (Service), announce a 

90-day finding on a petition to list the 

Kern brook lamprey (Lampetra hubbsi) 

under the Endangered Species Act of 

1973, as amended. We find the petition 

and other information available did not 

present substantial scientific or 

commercial information indicating that 

listing the Kern brook lamprey may be 

warranted. Therefore, we will not be 

initiating a further status review in 

response to this petition. We ask the 

public to submit to us any new 

information that becomes available 

concerning the status of or threats to the 

species. This information will help us 

monitor and encourage the conservation 

of the species. 

The Pacific lamprey (Lampetra 

tridentata), river lamprey (Lampetra 

ayresi), and western brook lamprey 

(Lampetra richardsoni) were also 

identified in the petition. However, 

these species are addressed in a separate 

finding, prepared by the Portland Fish 

and Wildlife Office in Oregon, and are 

not addressed in this notice.

DATES: The finding announced in this 

document was made December 27, 

2004. Submit any new information 

concerning this species for our 

consideration at any time.

ADDRESSES: Comments, material, 

information, or questions concerning 

this petition and 90-day finding should 

be sent to the Field Supervisor, 

Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office, 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2800 

Cottage Way, Room W–2605, 

Sacramento, CA 95825–1846. The 

petition and supporting information are 

available for public inspection, by 

appointment, during normal business 

hours at the above address.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Wayne White, Field Supervisor, 

Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office 

(see ADDRESSES above) (telephone 916/

414–6600; facsimile 916/414–6712).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background 

Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Endangered 

Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 

U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) (Act), requires that 

we make a finding on whether a petition 

to list, delist, or reclassify a species 

presents substantial scientific or 

commercial information indicating that 

the petitioned action may be warranted. 

We are to base this finding on all 

information available to us at the time 

we make the finding. To the maximum 

extent practicable, we are to make this 

finding within 90 days of our receipt of 

the petition, and publish our notice of 

this finding promptly in the Federal 

Register. 

Our standard for substantial 

information within the Code of Federal 

Regulations (CFR) with regard to a 90-

day petition finding is ‘‘that amount of 

information that would lead a 

reasonable person to believe that the 

measure proposed in the petition may 

be warranted’’ (50 CFR 424.14(b)). If we 

find that substantial information was 

presented, we are required to promptly 

commence a review of the status of the 

species, if one has not already been 

initiated, under our internal candidate 

assessment process. 

In making this finding, we relied on 

information provided by the petitioners 

and evaluated that information in 

accordance with 50 CFR 424.14(b). This 

finding summarizes information 

included in the petition and information 

available to us at the time of the petition 

review. Our process of coming to a 90-

day finding under section 4(b)(3)(A) of 

the Act and section 424.14(b) of our 

regulations is limited to a determination 

of whether the information in the