[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 18 (Thursday, January 27, 2022)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 4182]
[FR Doc No: 2022-01433]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 282

[EPA-R03-UST-2021-0715, FRL 8879-01-R3]

District of Columbia: Final Approval of State Underground Storage
Tank Program Revisions, Codification, and Incorporation by Reference

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Solid Waste Disposal Act of 1965, as amended
(commonly known as the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)),
the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve
revisions to the District of Columbia's Underground Storage Tank (UST)
program submitted by the District of Columbia. This action is based on
EPA's determination that these revisions satisfy all requirements
needed for program approval. This action also proposes to codify EPA's
approval of the District of Columbia's state program and to incorporate
by reference those provisions of the District of Columbia's regulations
and statutes that we have determined meet the requirements for
approval. The provisions will be subject to EPA's inspection and
enforcement authorities under sections 9005 and 9006 of RCRA Subtitle I
and other applicable statutory and regulatory provisions. In the
``Rules and Regulations'' section of this issue of the Federal
Register, EPA is approving this action by a direct final rule. If no
significant negative comment is received, EPA will not take further
action on this proposed rulemaking, and the direct final rule will be
effective 60 days from the date of publication in this Federal
Register. If you want to comment on EPA's proposed approval of District
of Columbia's revisions to its state UST program, you must do so at
this time.

DATES: Send written comments by February 28, 2022.

ADDRESSES: Submit any comments, identified by EPA-R03-UST-2021-0715, by
one of the following methods:
    1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. Follow
the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
    2. Email: [email protected].
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No.EPA-R03-UST-
2021-0715. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be available online at
https://www.regulations.gov including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through https://www.regulations.gov, or email. The federal website, https://www.regulations.gov, is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA
will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide
it in the body of your comment. If you send an email comment directly
to EPA without going through https://www.regulations.gov, your email
address will be automatically captured and included as part of the
comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the
internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you
include your name and other contact information in the body of your
comment. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties,
and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to
consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special
characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or
viruses. EPA encourages electronic submittals, but if you are unable to
submit electronically, please reach out to the EPA contact person
listed in the notice for assistance. If you need assistance in a
language other than English, or you are a person with disabilities who
needs a reasonable accommodation at no cost to you, please reach out to
the EPA contact person by email or phone.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Khalia Thompson,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
[email protected], RCRA Programs Branch; Land, Chemicals, and
Redevelopment Division; EPA Region 3, 1650 Arch Street (Mailcode
3LD30), Philadelphia, PA 19103-2029.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA has explained the reasons for this
action in the preamble to the direct final rule. For additional
information, see the direct final rule published in the ``Rules and
Regulations'' section of this issue of the Federal Register.

    Authority: This proposed rule is issued under the authority of
section 9004 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act of 1965, as amended, 42
U.S.C. 6991c.

Adam Ortiz,
Regional Administrator, EPA Region 3.
[FR Doc. 2022-01433 Filed 1-26-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 184 (Monday, September 23, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 58300]
[FR Doc No: 2013-23034]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings

    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural
Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

Filings Instituting Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: RP13-1325-000.
    Applicants: Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company.
    Description: Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company, LLC submits
tariff filing per 154.403: GSS LSS SS-2 S-2 2013 TGPL ACA Tracker
Filing to be effective 10/1/2013.
    Filed Date: 9/13/13.
    Accession Number: 20130913-5046.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/25/13.

    Docket Numbers: RP13-1326-000.
    Applicants: ANR Pipeline Company.
    Description: Removal of Section 6.33 to be effective 12/31/9998.
    Filed Date: 9/13/13.
    Accession Number: 20130913-5098.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/25/13.

    Docket Numbers: RP13-1327-000.
    Applicants: Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company.
    Description: Transco 2013 Penalty Sharing Report.
    Filed Date: 9/13/13.
    Accession Number: 20130913-5122.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/25/13.

    Docket Numbers: RP13-1328-000.
    Applicants: Alliance Pipeline L.P.
    Description: September 17-26, 2013 Auction to be effective 9/17/
2013.
    Filed Date: 9/13/13.
    Accession Number: 20130913-5124.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/25/13.

    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the
proceeding.

Filings in Existing Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: RP13-1105-003.
    Applicants: Energy West Development, Inc.
    Description: Energy West Development, Inc. submits tariff filing
per 154.203: Compliance Filing to 152 to be effective 12/1/2012.
    Filed Date: 9/13/13.
    Accession Number: 20130913-5054.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/25/13.

    Any person desiring to protest in any of the above proceedings must
file in accordance with Rule 211 of the Commission's Regulations (18
CFR 385.211) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified
comment date.
    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: September 16, 2013.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-23034 Filed 9-20-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


U. S. A. CUN2003/ 057  CHRYSANTHEMUM CUTTINGS/ ROSE PLANTS ( NURSERY)

ORNAMENTALS GROWN IN GREENHOUSE AFTER BROADCAST FUMIGATION UNDER PLASTIC TARPAULINS.

ROSES GROWN OUTDOORS AFTER BROADCAST FUMIGATION UNDER PLASTIC TARPAULINS.

TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 2 Critical Need For Methyl Bromide.................................................................................................. 2 Economic Impacts........................................................................................................................... 3 Response to Questions from MBTOC/ TEAP .................................................................................. 4 Historical Emission Reductions & Methyl Bromide Dosage Rates .................................................. 8 Virtually Impermeable Film ( VIF) Tarps ........................................................................................ 8 Definitions ...................................................................................................................................... 9 References .................................................................................................................................... 10 LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Region, Key Pests, and Critical Need for Methyl Bromide ............................................... 2 Table 2. Measures of Economic Impact.......................................................................................... 4 Table 3. Historical Use of Methyl Bromide in the Ornamental Sector ............................................ 6 Table 4. Calculation of the Nominated Amount of Methyl Bromide in the Ornamental Sector ....... 6 Page 2 INTRODUCTION The U. S. CUE request for methyl bromide in ornamental flowers is to allow one applicant adequate time to convert to steam and allow the other applicant access to methyl bromide since they are limited in their application of alternatives because of California's township caps. The applicant, the key pests and critical need are briefly described in Table 1. The economic impact of the best alternative is reported in Table 2.

CRITICAL NEED FOR METHYL BROMIDE TABLE 1. REGION, KEY PESTS, AND CRITICAL NEED FOR METHYL BROMIDE.

U. S. Region / States Key Pests Critical Need for Methyl Bromide Yoder Brothers ( CUE 02 0020) Florida Diseases: Erwinia chrysanthemi; E. carotovora; Agrobacterium tumefaciens; Fusarium oxysporum; F. solani; and other Fusarium species; Verticillium alboatrum

Nematodes: Radopholus similes; Rotolenchus reniformis; Globodera spp.; Heterodera spp.

Weeds: unspecified Conversion to steam will take several years for this applicant to complete due to the cost of capital investments. At moderate to severe pest pressure only methyl bromide can effectively control all target pests found in Florida for the certification requirements. Uses of alternatives are limited by regulatory restrictions, such as buffer zones around habited structures, which exclude the use of 1,3 dichloropropene.

California Rose Growers Rep. By the Garden Rose Council ( CUE 02 0028) Diseases: Verticillium dahlia, Pythium spp., and Agrobacterium tumefaciens Nematodes: root knot ( Meloidogyne spp), lesion ( Paratylenchus vulnus), pin ( Paratylenchus penetrans), and stubby root Weeds: Yellow nutsedge ( Cyperus esculentus L.); purple nutsedge Cyperus rotundus L.) At moderate to severe pest pressure, only 1,3 D or MB can effectively control the target pest in California roses. Use of the 1,3 D is limited by township cap regulatory restrictions. Methyl bromide applications in roses are typically made using 67: 33 with chloropicrin under plastic mulch.

For chrysanthemum propagation material production, the chemical alternatives are not technically feasible. Steam sterilization appears to be a viable alternative, from a technical standpoint. However, the applicant does not have sufficient equipment to steam all the production beds, and wants to continue to use methyl bromide on a decreasing percentage of hectares until the capital needed to purchase additional equipment can be acquired ( an additional 5 6 years are projected). A description of the applicant's research and efforts to implement alternatives is described in the attachment to this document on page 11. The standard of quality for plant material expected by this industry is very high. There is considerable risk of spreading disease into many growing facilities across the country if cuttings shipped to growers are not free of systemic ( but symptomless) infections caused by Erwinia and other pathogens. Page 3 For rose production, it appears as though, according to the available research, in sandy soils where the soil moisture can be reduced to 12% or below, combinations of 1,3 D products and metam sodium or Basamid could be used, with some loss of size ( based on results in walnut and peach and some preliminary rose research) and an increase in weed control costs. This treatment is unlikely to be completely effective to greater depths in areas where soil is compacted. While 1,3 D products can be considered at least moderately effective for most pest problems and are accepted as an alternative ( InLine with metam sodium, for example), the issue of the township caps that affect this crop must be addressed.

ECONOMIC IMPACTS In order to determine whether a proposed alternative to methyl bromide is considered to be ` economically feasible' for those situations where technically feasible alternatives exist, the United States took a ` weight of the evidence' or ` portfolio' approach. Rather than rely on a single indicator or even a series of indicators, each with a ` bright line', the situation of the applicant with respect to five measures was assessed. The five measures selected for consideration were: loss per hectare; loss per kilogram of methyl bromide; loss as a percent of gross revenue; loss as a percent of net cash returns; and change in profit margins. These measures were selected because the information was fairly readily available, they describe different aspects of potential loss and are independent of each other. In cases where information was not available for one or more of the measures, the remaining measures were used. In cases where a stream of benefits was derived from a methyl bromide application, net present value was used in the calculations.

When evaluating the case made by each application, expert economic judgment was used to determine whether each loss ( or change in profit margin) was significant, not significant, or borderline within the context of the applicant's market. Once decisions on individual measures were reached, an overall assessment was made which included the individual measures. Other impacts on the environment from the activity were also taken into consideration, at least qualitatively, where appropriate. These impacts included only those conferring significant social benefits in the form of environmental improvements which were not otherwise captured in the application. An example is the value in ensuring that pests are not transferred to areas where they have previously been unknown. Introduction of pests into areas where they are not likely to have natural checks can potentially cause a great deal of environmental harm, and this potential is likely to be high when considering nursery plants, which might be dispersed over a wide geographic area. This potential for damage, which is not reflected in the nursery's own demand for methyl bromide, is a real effect and something to be considered in determining a ' critical use' of methyl bromide.

The economics of steam sterilization in chrysanthemum production are presented in Table 2. This applicant is transitioning to steam. The United States estimates that forcing the company to convert early will result in a 2% loss of gross revenue and an 18% loss of net cash returns, because of the increased costs of steam sterilization ( Table 2). The available data indicate that steam sterilization will significantly reduce profits although profits remain positive. However, because use of steam requires a significant capital investment, reported economic impacts must be viewed with caution. Results in Table 2 do not appropriately account for the time needed to acquire the capital requirements for steam sterilization. Because of the capital requirement for steam sterilization, the applicant will need time to acquire the financial resources and purchase and install the needed equipment before being able to fully convert to steam sterilization. The California Rose Growers Page 4 using 1, 3 D will experience a 5 10% yield loss, resulting in 4 9% loss of gross revenue and 8 16% loss of net cash returns ( see Table 2).

TABLE 2. MEASURES OF ECONOMIC IMPACT.

Loss Measure Yoder Brothers ( CUE 02 0020) Steam Sterilization Compared with Methyl Bromide * California Rose Growers Rep. By the Garden Rose Council ( CUE 02 0028) 1,3 D with 5% Yield Loss Scenario ** California Rose Growers Rep. By the Garden Rose Council ( CUE 02 0028) 1,3 D with 10% Yield Loss Scenario **

Per hectare per crop cycle US$ 7,700 US$ 3,500 US$ 7,400 Per kg methyl bromide US$ 8.70 US$ 10.30 US$ 21.75 Percent of gross revenue 2 % 4 % 9 %

Percent of net cash returns 18 % 8 % 16 %

* All economic impacts are assumed to be due to the increased costs of steam sterilization. ** Impacts due primarily to yield losses.

RESPONSE TO QUESTIONS FROM MBTOC/ TEAP 1. MBTOC recommends that a reduced allocation of 14.7 tons be approved for this CUN, on the basis that feasible alternatives are available for chrysanthemum cuttings ( e. g. substrates) and adoption of reduced dosages with emission control strategies. MBTOC noted that the industry is aware of the technically available alternatives and appears to be making an effort to adopt these alternatives. From the case presented MBTOC is unable to recommend a CUE for chrysanthemums as steaming and production in substrates are technically and economically feasible.

The details of the reasoning and assumptions used to calculate the nominated amount are shown in Table 4.

This applicant is in the process of a multi year conversion to steam; therefore, a discussion of substrate as an alternative in chrysanthemum production is unnecessary. This chrysanthemum grower has already converted a large portion of the operation over to steam with a detailed plan to finish the transition in the next few years. But, in order to sell a product that meets certification and grower requirements, the capital costs, regulatory permits, and construction time involved require that additional steam capacity be phased in over the next several years. We note that CUE recommendations for France and Spain allow several years to make their transition to alternatives; it appears that the United States has not been granted this same consideration by MBTOC.

2. Roses are successfully grown in substrates worldwide.

The cut flower rose industry has determined that field grown roses are more vigorous, produce more flowers and are longer lived. Starting plants in substrate has resulted in reduced vigor, less flowers, and shorter lived plants. Therefore, the cut flower rose industry in the U. S. will only buy field grown plants. ( Personal communication with applicant) Page 5 3. The Party may wish to recalculate the nomination on the basis of use of reduced MB dosages combined with emission control technologies, and availability of alternatives.

For chrysanthemums, the company has conducted research for many years on the use of lower dosage rates ( see attached research reports). In the late 1980s, the company tried to lower the methyl bromide dosage rate but over time ( into the early 1990s) there was an increase in a disease that was damaging the propagative material. A systemic infection of Erswinia was effecting the cuttings that were going to the company's own rooting stations and were being sent to customers, with terrible losses. It took several investigations from 1991 to 1999 to identify the cause of the problem and develop a solution. Through this research, the company found that the lower methyl bromide rates were not effective at killing the Erwinia in the chrysanthemum crowns left in the soil. Since this is a nursery operation cutting and selling cuttings from the field for propagation   systemic infections cannot be tolerated and higher dosage rates of methyl bromide were the only effective way of being able to guarantee the cuttings met certification requirements.

The company growing chrysanthemums has already minimized their methyl bromide use/ emissions by converting 30% of their production to steam.

For roses, the association has made historical efforts to reduce emissions and to reduce methyl bromide dosages that are further detailed in: " Historical Emission Reductions & Methyl Bromide Dosage Rates." This section demonstrates notable success in the United States at efficiently using methyl bromide at low dosages with emission control technologies to control key pests. As the 2002 MBTOC report states, " in some countries ( e. g., the USA) the potential for reducing methyl bromide dosages for soil fumigation compared to many other countries will be less because dosages are already low."

For both chrysanthemums and roses, the growers have routinely used plastic tarpaulins since the 1980s to reduce methyl bromide emissions and maximize methyl bromide effectiveness. They have continued their efforts to try to maximize each quantity of methyl bromide, using formulations of methyl bromide plus chloropicrin with lower methyl bromide proportions and continued testing of virtually impermeable film ( VIF) tarps. The difficulties and impediments in adopting VIF tarps are being investigated in the U. S. and are described in the section below titled, " Virtually Impermeable Film ( VIF) Tarps." The U. S. CUE nomination has already accounted for the use of reduced methyl bromide dosages and emission control technologies and therefore does not need to be recalculated. Page 6 TABLE 3. HISTORICAL USE OF METHYL BROMIDE IN THE ORNAMENTAL SECTOR*.

Historical Use Year Average Use Rates ( kg/ ha) Total Amount ( kg) Area Treated ( ha)

1997 608 248,339 660 1998 608 245,979 650 1999 608 239,934 649 2000 608 257,622 693 2001 611 256,125 687 Ornamental acres planted in U. S. are not available. Request represents 90% of the chrysanthemum propagation material and 60% of roses.

TABLE 4. CALCULATION OF THE NOMINATED AMOUNT OF METHYL BROMIDE IN THE ORNAMENTAL SECTOR.

Calculation of Nominated Amount 0018   California Cut Flower Commission Application Withdrawn 0020   Yoder Brothers 0028   California Rose Growers Rep. By the Garden Rose Council Hectares ( ha)   35 680 % of Regional hectares ( ha)( A)   N/ A N/ A Applicant Request for 2005 Kilograms ( kg) of MB   31,593 235,868 Double Counted hectares ( ha)( B)   0 0 Growth / Increasing Production ( ha)( C)   ( 6) 34 Quarantine and Pre Shipment hectares ( ha)( D)   28 581 Adjustments to Request Adjusted Hectares Requested ( ha)( E)   7 65 Key Pest Impacts (%)( F)   100 0 Regulatory Impacts (%)( G)   0 100 ( Q)

Soil Impacts (%)( H)   0 0 Impacts to Adjusted Hectares Total Combined Impacts (%)( I)   100 100 Qualifying Area ( ha)( J)   7 65 Use Rate ( kg/ ha)( K)   892 347 CUE Amount Nominated ( kg)( L)   6,319 22,393 % Reduction from Initial Request ( M)   80 90 Sum of all CUE Nominations in Sector ( kg)( N) 28,711 Multiplier for Margin of Error ( O) 1.0244 Total U. S. Sector Nomination ( kg)( P) 29,412 Page 7 Footnotes for Table 4:

Values may not sum exactly due to rounding.

A. Percent of Regional Hectares is the area in the applicant's request divided by the total area planted in that crop in the region covered by the request. B. Double counted hectares is the area counted in more than one application or rotated within one year of an application to a crop that also uses methyl bromide. C. Growth / increasing production hectares is the amount of area requested by the applicant that is greater than that historically treated or treated at a higher use rate. Values in parentheses indicate negative values and are shown to demonstrate a trend, but are not used in further calculations. D. Quarantine and pre shipment ( QPS) hectares is the area in the applicant's request subject to QPS treatments. E. Adjusted hectares requested is the hectares in the applicant's request minus the acreage affected by double counting, growth / increasing production, and quarantine and pre shipment. F. Key pest impacts is the percent (%) of the requested area with moderate to severe pest problems. Key pests are those that are not adequately controlled by methyl bromide alternatives. G. Regulatory impacts is the percent (%) of the requested area where alternatives cannot be legally used ( e. g., township caps). H. Soil impacts is the percent (%) of the requested area where alternatives cannot be used due to soil type ( e. g., heavy clay soils may not show adequate performance). I. Total combined impacts is the percent (%) of the requested area where alternatives cannot be used due to key pest, regulatory, or soil impacts. In each case the total area impacted is the area that is impacted by one or more of the individual impacts. For each application, the assessment was made by biologists familiar with the specific situation and able to make judgments about the extent of overlap of the impacts. For example, in some situations the impacts are mutually exclusive   in heavy clay soils 1,3D will not be effective because it does not penetrate these soils evenly, but none of the heavy soil areas will be impacted by township ( regulatory) caps because no one will use 1,3D in this situation, so this soils impact must be added to the township cap regulatory impact in a California application. In other words there is no overlap. In other situations one area of impact might be a subset of another impact. In these cases, the combined impact is equal to the largest individual impact. J. Qualifying area is calculated by multiplying the adjusted hectares requested by the total combined impacts. K. Use rate is the requested use rate for 2005. This rate is typically based on historical averages. In some cases, the use rate has been adjusted downward to reflect current conditions. L. CUE amount nominated is calculated by multiplying the qualifying area by the use rate. M. Percent reduction from initial request is the percentage of the initial request that did not qualify for the CUE nomination. N. Sum of all CUE nominations in sector. Self explanatory. O. Multiplier for margin of error. This amount is one percentage point of the original ( 1991) baseline amount. This factor is intended to compensate for the compounding influence of using the low end of the range for all input parameters in the calculation of the US nomination ( i. e., using the lowest percent impact on the lowest number of acres at the lowest dosage is likely to result in values that are unrealistically too small). The U. S. nominated included some sectors for 100% of the amount requested, therefore the portion of the multiplier from these sectors were added equally across all other sectors resulting in a final multiplier of 1.0244, or a 2.44% increase from the calculated amount, to these remaining sectors. P. Total U. S. sector nomination is calculated by multiplying the summed sector nominations by the margin of error multiplier. Q. The exact California regulatory impacts are not known precisely, but in Kern County alone 1732 hectares will be over the township cap ( 185342 kg over Kern cap / 107 kg/ ha nursery rate = 1732 hectares potentially over cap for all crops) from Carpenter et al 2001. Page 8 HISTORICAL EMISSION REDUCTIONS & METHYL BROMIDE DOSAGE RATES For California rose growers , the methyl bromide dosage rate under HDPE tarped beds in 1997 was 33 g/ m2. By 2002, the methyl bromide dosage rate under HDPE tarped beds had dropped to 31 g/ m2. The MB+ Pic formulations are generally injected about 25 centimeters below the soil surface in a broadcast application before the area is tarped. The success in lowering the dosage rate is due principally to a switch from a 98: 2 formulation to a lower formulations, such as 75: 25 and 67: 33 and to lower overall application rates of these formulations.

VIRTUALLY IMPERMEABLE FILM ( VIF) TARPS Although many sectors are continuing to test VIF tarps in trials throughout the country, at this time VIF tarps are generally not technically and economically feasible for the following reasons ( U. S. EPA, January 26, 1998):

Disposal Issues

Landfill disposal of VIF and VIF burning have come under increasing restrictions in some jurisdictions ( e. g., California, Department of Pesticide Regulation, 00 001; Florida   62 256.300 F. A. C.)

Both landfilling and burning are labor intensive and costly.

Ingredients in VIF limit recycling into end use products.

Cost

Average cost of VIF tarps is $ 580/ acre, whereas average cost of low density polyethylene ( LDPE) tarps is $ 275/ acre, and high density polyethylene ( HDPE) tarps is $ 393/ acre.

Farmers in some regions report VIF tarp removal and disposal costs of more than $ 240 per acre compared to removal and disposal costs of approximately $ 60 per acre for tarps used in flat fumigation.

Environmental Consequences

Inorganic bromide residues in soil are higher when VIF tarps are used; further, the hydrolysis of methyl bromide in water may result in the accumulation of bromide ions, thus increasing the chances for groundwater contamination.

Evidence suggests that VIF tarping could actually lead to increased levels of emissions when the tarps are removed, thus increasing exposure to workers and nearby structures.

VIF Supply & Demand Logistics

VIF tarps are currently manufactured only in Europe, and current VIF tarp production capacity in Europe is not high enough to meet U. S. demands.

VIF tarps manufactured in Europe do not meet U. S. application size and criteria.

European firms are unlikely to make the investment necessary to ensure a viable supply of Page 9 adequate VIF tarps to U. S. farmers before the 2005 phaseout date.

VIF Challenges to Agricultural Practices

A glue to join sheets of VIF is still not available.

Increasing cover times with VIF to between 10 20 days can disrupt double cropping schedules and cause growers to miss optimum marketing windows.

Photo degradation of VIF makes it brittle and ineffective at controlling weeds over months of double cropping systems ( current non VIF tarps remain on beds for 12 15 months after one methyl bromide fumigation)

DEFINITIONS THAT MAY BE RELEVANT TO THIS CUN Source of yield loss estimates Where published studies of yield losses under conditions of moderate to severe key pest pressure were not available ( the situation for which the U. S. is requesting continued use of methyl bromide), the U. S. developed such estimates by contacting university professors conducting experiments using methyl bromide alternatives in the appropriate land grant institutions. The experts were asked to develop such an estimate based on their experience with methyl bromide and with alternatives. The results of this process were used when better data were not available.

Source of buffer restriction implications for methyl bromide use Estimates of the impact of buffers required when using some methyl bromide alternatives on the proportion of acreage where such alternatives could be used were developed from confidential information submitted to EPA in support of a registration application for a methyl bromide alternative. Because at the time of the analysis, a request to reduce the size of the required buffer for some alternatives was under consideration, a smaller buffer was selected for the analysis. Since that time the size of the regulatory buffer has been reduced so that it now conforms to the buffer selected for this analysis.

Source of area impacted by key pests estimates One of the important determinants of the amount of methyl bromide requested has been the extent of area infested with ` key pests', that is, pests which cannot be controlled by alternatives to methyl bromide when such pests are present at moderate to severe levels. Because there are few surveys that cover substantial portions of the areas for which methyl bromide is requested, we have relied on a variety of sources in addition to the surveys. These sources include websites of land grant universities; discussions with researchers, both those employed by USDA in the Agricultural Research Service ( ARS) and those at land grant universities; discussions with growers whose operations cover widely different locations encompassing different incidences of key pests; information from pesticide applicators; and, information taken from the applications themselves.

Source of area impacted by regulations estimates There are two main sources used to develop the estimate of area impacted by regulations. First, for the impact of Township caps in California we have used a series of papers by Carpenter, Lynch, and Trout, cited below, supplemented by discussions with Dr. Trout to ensure that any Page 10 recent regulatory changes have been properly accounted for. Second, the estimate of the area impacted by buffers, is described above.

Source of area impacted by soil type estimates First, for the area impacted by karst topography, estimates were developed and mapped by he Florida Department of Environmental Protection. The area of California used for agriculture and which is made of clay soils unsuitable for pest control with a methyl bromide alternative has been determined by discussions with agricultural researchers and agricultural extension agents in California, and discussion with other knowledgeable individuals such as pesticide applicators. The estimates for California understate the areas in which alternatives to methyl bromide are not suitable because no effort was made to estimate the extent of hilly terrain where currently available substitutes cannot be applied at uniform dosages.

Source of area impacted by combined impacts estimate Combined impacts were determined on a case by case basis for each specific crop/ location combination after consultation with individuals knowledgeable with the specific circumstances. The nature of the individual impacts is such that in some situations they are independent of each other, in some they are mutually exclusive, and in some cover identical areas. It was not, therefore, possible to have a formula that would arrive at an appropriate estimate of combined impacts. A more complete description is found in the footnotes to the ` calculation' table REFERENCES Carpenter, Janet, Lori Lynch and Tom Trout. 2001. Township Limits on 1,3 D will Impact Adjustment to Methyl Bromide Phase out. California Agriculture, Volume 55, Number 3. Page 11 Attachment regarding Yoder Brothers Application This document summarizes the research and investments conducted by this applicant, a large horticultural firm specializing in the production of starter plants, to transition to steam sterilization. The applicant submitted a detailed attachment that the United States will forward to MBTOC if more information is required. In the interest of brevity we have summarized that information here.

Currently the facility uses steam on 30% of its acreage, but because of high investment and capital costs associated with this methyl bromide alternative, it is estimated that the transition will take approximately 5 6 years. This plan is consistent with the Technical and Economic Assessment Panel's Handbook on Critical Use Exemptions for Methyl Bromide; Section 3.1.1, no. 17, which requires a " Plan to switch to alternatives: Provide a plan to switch to non MB alternatives in the near future for MB use for which a critical exemption is sought."

During the 1990s, Erwinia soft rot had severely damaged the quality of chrysanthemum cuttings. Between 1994 95, Erwinia incidence ranged from 30% 100%, according to data provided by the company based on internal audits. Plant pathology researchers eventually learned that the primary source of infection was infested crop debris, and the problem has successfully been controlled through the appropriate use of methyl bromide or steam sterilization to decontaminate debris that remains in ground beds when a crop is discarded.

Reduced Dosage Rates of Methyl Bromide The applicant has attempted to reduce the formulation of active ingredient methyl bromide from 99.5:. 5 to 75: 25 ( chloropicrin). The following summarizes the research trials conducted to achieve a lower dosage rate while controlling the target pests. However, the applicant is unable to use 25% chloropicrin because of:   The high rate of chloropicrin needed to control soilborne fungi ( 125 lbs/ acre) causes unacceptable injury to crops in adjacent production areas.   Severe phytotoxicity resulted in adjacent untreated fields.   Worker safety was compromised, as several employees sought first aid treatment after working in non treated areas near the 25% application.   Chloropicrin does not provide effective control of nematodes and many U. S. states require stock be certified as nematode free.

Date Results 1/ 25/ 99 Damage up to 12 beds away ( 19meteres) 2/ 11/ 99 Damage up to 14 beds away ( 23meteres) 2/ 18/ 99 Damage up to 17 beds away ( 28meteres) 3/ 1/ 99 Damage up to 18 beds away ( 31meteres) 3/ 18/ 99 Damage 7 beds away ( 11 meteres)

The significant damage to other beds outside the treatment area, and worker protection issues, render further dilution infeasible. Page 12 Investments made in alternatives to methyl bromide In addition to research efforts directed at dosage reduction, the company has also made significant investments in its planned transition to steam sterilization. The following is a list of investments made for the transition to steam sterilization, from 1992 present.

Type of Equipment Cost ( USD) Boilers $ 629,322 Blankets/ hood $ 92,560 Pipes/ hoses $ 10,000 Additional equipment ( locks, chains, etc.) $ 19,200 Fuel $ 61,800 Labor $ 166,400 TOTAL: $ 981,502 Other alternative trial work:

Alternative Cost ( USD) Basamid $ 4,000 MC 25 $ 5,000 Sectagon $ 1,000 VIF $ 1,000 MIDAS $ 1,000 TOTAL: $ 12,000 This brings the applicant's total investment in methyl bromide alternatives to $ 1,005,502.00. An additional investment of $ 1.1 million USD in capital equipment is required to expand steam technology to the entire production area, and time is needed to raise monies for this venture. In addition, operating costs are expected to rise by as much as 45%. Nonetheless, the applicant remains committed to this transition, but needs interim availability of some methyl bromide in order to successfully complete the change.


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 102 (Friday, May 25, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 24362-24364]
[FR Doc No: 2018-11226]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-83296]

Order Granting Application by NYSE National, Inc. for an
Exemption Pursuant to Section 36(a) of the Exchange Act From the Rule
Filing Requirements of Section 19(b) of the Exchange Act With Respect
to Certain Rules Incorporated by Reference

May 21, 2018.
    NYSE National, Inc. (``NYSE National'' or ``Exchange'') has filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') an
application for an exemption under Section 36(a)(1) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Exchange Act'') \1\ from the rule filing
requirements of Section 19(b) of the Exchange Act \2\ with respect to
certain rules of the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc.
(``FINRA'') that the Exchange seeks to incorporate by reference.\3\
Section 36 of the Exchange Act authorizes the Commission to
conditionally or unconditionally exempt any person, security, or
transaction, or any class thereof, from any provision of the Exchange
Act or rule thereunder, if necessary or appropriate in the public
interest and consistent with the protection of investors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78mm(a)(1).
    \2\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b).
    \3\ See Letter from Elizabeth K. King, General Counsel and
Corporate Secretary, New York Stock Exchange, to Brent J. Fields,
Secretary, Commission, dated May 18, 2018 (``Exemptive Request'').
The Exchange submitted the Exemptive Request in connection with a
proposed rule change, in connection with the re-launch of trading on
NYSE National on the Pillar trading platform. The proposal, as
amended by Amendment No. 1, which was filed by the Exchange on May
16, 2018, includes: (1) Amendments to Article V, Sections 5.01 and
5.8 of the Fourth Amended and Restated Bylaws of NYSE National
(``Bylaws''); (2) new rules based on the rules of the Exchange's
affiliates relating to (a) trading securities on an unlisted trading
privileges basis (Rule 5), (b) trading on the Pillar trading
platform (Rules 1 and 7), (c) disciplinary rules (Rule 10), and (d)
administration of the Exchange (Rules 3, 12 and 13); (3) rule
changes that renumber and update current Exchange rules relating to
(a) membership (Rule 2), (b) order audit trail requirements (Rule
6), and (c) trading practices (Rule 11); and (4) deletion of
Chapters I-XVI and the rules contained therein.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On May 17, 2018, the Commission approved the Exchange's proposed
rule change that would delete the Exchange's current rules and replace
them with rules to accommodate the re-launch of trading on the Exchange
through the Pillar platform.\4\ Among other things, the new rules
include rules relating to the obligations and business conduct of the
Exchange's members, referred to as ETP Holders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 83289 (May 17,
2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NYSE National has requested, pursuant to Rule 0-12 under the
Exchange Act,\5\ that the Commission grant the Exchange an exemption
from the rule filing requirements of Section 19(b) of the Act for
changes to those Exchange rules that are effected solely by virtue of a
change to a cross-referenced FINRA rule, including FINRA rules
designated as NASD rules.\6\ Specifically, the Exchange requests that
it be permitted to incorporate by reference changes made to each FINRA
rule (or series of rules, in the case of FINRA's Code of Arbitration
Procedure) that is cross-referenced in the following

proposed NYSE National Rules, without the need for the Exchange to file
separately the same proposed rule changes pursuant to Section 19(b) of
the Act: \7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 17 CFR 240.0-12.
    \6\ See Exemptive Request, supra note 3, at 1-2.
    \7\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Rule 2.2 (Obligations of ETP Holders and the Exchange)
cross-references NASD Rule 1032(f)(1),
     Rule 6.7440 (Recording of Order Information) cross-
references FINRA Rule 7740,
     Rule 6.7450 (Order Data Transmission Requirements) cross-
references FINRA Rule 7450,
     Rule 11.2111 (Suitability) cross-references FINRA Rule
2111,
     Rule 11.2210 (Communications with the Public) cross-
references FINRA Rule 2210 (except FINRA Rule 2210(c)),
     Rule 11.2232 (Customer Confirmations) cross-references
FINRA Rule 2232,
     Rule 11.3310 (Anti-Money Laundering Compliance Program)
cross-references FINRA Rule 3310,
     Rule 11.5320 (Prohibition Against Trading Ahead of
Customer Orders) cross-references FINRA Rule 5310,
     Rule 11.5320 Commentary .01 (Large Orders and
Institutional Account Exceptions) cross-references FINRA Rule 4512(c),
and
     Rule 12 (Code of Arbitration Procedure for Customer and
Industry Disputes) cross-references the 12000 and the 13000 Series of
the FINRA Code of Arbitration and FINRA Rule 2268.
    The Exchange states that the direct incorporations by reference of
FINRA rules, certain of which are regulatory in nature,\8\ are intended
to be a comprehensive integration of the relevant FINRA rules into NYSE
National's rules.\9\ The Exchange represents that, as a condition to
the requested exemption from Section 19(b) of the Act, the Exchange
agrees to provide written notice to its members whenever FINRA proposes
a change to a cross-referenced rule.\10\ Such notice will alert
Exchange members to the proposed rule change and give them an
opportunity to comment on the proposal. The Exchange further represents
that it will inform members in writing when the Commission approves any
such proposed rule changes.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The Exchange represents that the FINRA rules proposed to be
incorporated by reference are not trading rules. In addition, the
Exchange notes that several other self-regulatory organizations
(``SROs'') incorporate by reference certain regulatory rules of
another SRO and have received from the Commission similar exemptions
from Section 19(b) of the Exchange Act. See Exemptive Request, supra
note 3, at 2, n. 5.
    \9\ See Exemptive Request, supra note 3, at 2-3.
    \10\ See Exemptive Request, supra note 3, at 3. The Exchange
represents that it will provide such notice via a posting on the
same website location where the Exchange will post its own rule
filings pursuant to Rule 19b-4(1) within the time frame required by
such Rule. The website posting will include a link to the location
on FINRA's website where the applicable proposed rule change is
posted. Id.
    \11\ See Exemptive Request, supra note 3, at 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    According to the Exchange, this exemption is necessary and
appropriate because it would result in the Exchange's rules being
consistent with the relevant cross-referenced FINRA rules at all times,
thus ensuring identical regulation of joint members of the Exchange and
FINRA with respect to such rules. Without such an exemption, joint
members of the Exchange and FINRA could be subject to two different
standards.\12\ Moreover, the Exchange believes that by incorporating
the above-referenced FINRA rules in the Exchange's rulebook as rules of
the Exchange, the exemption would ensure consistent regulation of
Exchange ETP Holders that are not FINRA members and Exchange ETP
Holders that are FINRA members.\13\ In addition, the Exchange believes
that the exemption would ensure consistency between certain Exchange
and FINRA rules that are covered by the Exchange's regulatory services
agreement (``RSA'') with FINRA, which would facilitate FINRA's
provision of services to the Exchange under the RSA within the scope of
those rules.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See Exemptive Request, supra note 3, at 2.
    \13\ Id.
    \14\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission has issued exemptions similar to the Exchange's
request.\15\ In granting one such exemption in 2010, the Commission
repeated a prior, 2004 Commission statement that it would consider
similar future exemption requests from other SROs, provided that:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See, e.g., Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 83040
(April 12, 2018), 75 FR 17198 (April 18, 2018)(order granting MIAX
PEARL, LLC's exemptive request relating to rules of the Miami
International Securities Exchange, LLC incorporated by reference);
76998 (January 29, 2016), 81 FR 6066, 6083-84 (February 4, 2016)
(order granting application for registration as a national
securities exchange of ISE Mercury, LLC (now known as Nasdaq MRX,
LLC) and exemptive request relating to rules of the International
Securities Exchange, LLC (now known as Nasdaq ISE, LLC) (``ISE'')
incorporated by reference, including index options rules); 70050
(July 26, 2013), 78 FR 46622, 46642 (August 1, 2013) (order granting
application for registration as a national securities exchange of
Topaz Exchange, LLC (now known as Nasdaq GEMX, LLC) and exemptive
request relating to rules of ISE incorporated by reference,
including index options rules); 61152 (December 10, 2009), 74 FR
66699, 66709-10 (December 16, 2009) (order granting application for
registration as a national securities exchange of C2 Options
Exchange, Incorporated (``C2'') and exemptive request relating to
rules of the Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated (``CBOE'')
incorporated by reference, including index options rules). See also,
e.g., Securities Exchange Act Release No. 61534 (February 18, 2010),
75 FR 8760 (February 25, 2010) (order granting BATS Exchange, Inc.'s
exemptive request relating to rules incorporated by reference by the
BATS Exchange Options Market rules) (``BATS Options Market Order'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     An SRO wishing to incorporate rules of another SRO by
reference has submitted a written request for an order exempting it
from the requirement in Section 19(b) of the Exchange Act to file
proposed rule changes relating to the rules incorporated by reference,
has identified the applicable originating SRO(s), together with the
rules it wants to incorporate by reference, and otherwise has complied
with the procedural requirements set forth in the Commission's release
governing procedures for requesting exemptive orders pursuant to Rule
0-12 under the Exchange Act;\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See 17 CFR 240.0-12 and Securities Exchange Act Release No.
39624 (February 5, 1998), 63 FR 8101 (February 18, 1998)
(``Commission Procedures for Filing Applications for Orders for
Exemptive Relief Pursuant to Section 36 of the Exchange Act; Final
Rule'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     The incorporating SRO has requested incorporation of
categories of rules (rather than individual rules within a category)
that are not trading rules (e.g., the SRO has requested incorporation
of rules such as margin, suitability, or arbitration); and
     The incorporating SRO has reasonable procedures in place
to provide written notice to its members each time a change is proposed
to the incorporated rules of another SRO.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See BATS Options Market Order, supra note 15 (citing
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 49260 (February 17, 2004), 69 FR
8500 (February 24, 2004) (order granting exemptive request relating
to rules incorporated by reference by several SROs) (``2004
Order'')).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission believes that the Exchange has satisfied each of
these conditions. The Commission also believes that granting the
Exchange an exemption from the rule filing requirements under Section
19(b) of the Exchange Act will promote efficient use of Commission and
Exchange resources by avoiding duplicative rule filings based on
simultaneous changes to identical rule text sought by more than one
SRO.\18\ The Commission therefore finds it appropriate in the public
interest and consistent with the protection of investors to exempt the
Exchange from the rule filing requirements under Section 19(b) of the
Exchange Act with respect to the above-described rules it has
incorporated by reference. This exemption is conditioned upon the
Exchange

promptly providing written notice to its members whenever FINRA changes
a rule that the Exchange has incorporated by reference.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See BATS Options Market Order, supra note 15, 75 FR at
8761; see also 2004 Order, supra note 17, 69 FR at 8502.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Accordingly, it is ordered, pursuant to Section 36 of the Exchange
Act,\19\ that the Exchange is exempt from the rule filing requirements
of Section 19(b) of the Exchange Act solely with respect to changes to
the rules identified in its request that incorporate by reference
certain FINRA rules that are the result of changes to such FINRA rules,
provided that the Exchange promptly provides written notice to its
members whenever FINRA proposes to change a rule that the Exchange has
incorporated by reference.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ 15 U.S.C. 78mm.
    \20\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(76).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\20\
Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-11226 Filed 5-24-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 96 (Monday, May 18, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 29781-29782]
[FR Doc No: 2020-10592]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2019-0184]

Hours of Service of Drivers: PTS Worldwide, Inc.; Application for
Exemption

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

ACTION: Notice of final disposition; denial of application for
exemption.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces its decision to deny the exemption request
from PTS Worldwide, Inc. (PTS). PTS sought an exemption from the hours-
of-service (HOS) requirement for drivers utilizing the sleeper-berth
(S/B) exception. PTS transports highly sensitive cargo for the
Department of Defense (DOD) and proposes that its team drivers be
permitted to obtain 10 hours in the S/B in two periods, neither less
than 4 hours long. This would allow the driver to split the required 10
hours into segments of 4/6, 5/5, or 6/4 hours. FMCSA analyzed the
exemption application and public comments, and determined that the
application lacked evidence that would ensure an equivalent level of
safety or greater would be achieved absent such exemption.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Richard Clemente, FMCSA Driver and
Carrier Operations Division; Office of Carrier, Driver and Vehicle
Safety Standards; Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>. Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you
have questions on viewing or submitting material to the docket, contact
Docket Services, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Public Participation

Viewing Comments and Documents

    To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble
as being available in the docket, go to www.regulations.gov and insert
the docket number, FMCSA-2019-0184 in the ``Keyword'' box and click
``Search.'' Next, click the ``Open Docket Folder'' button and choose
the document to review. If you do not have access to the internet, you
may view the docket online by visiting the Docket Management Facility
in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the DOT West Building, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
e.t., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

II. Legal Basis

    FMCSA has authority under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315 to grant
exemptions from certain Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations
(FMCSRs). FMCSA must publish a notice of each exemption request in the
Federal Register (49 CFR 381.315(a)). The Agency must provide the
public an opportunity to inspect the information relevant to the
application, including any safety analyses that have been conducted.
The Agency must also provide an opportunity for public comment on the
request.
    The Agency reviews safety analyses and public comments submitted,
and determines whether granting the exemption would likely achieve a
level of safety equivalent to, or greater than, the level that would be
achieved by the current regulation (49 CFR 381.305). The decision of
the Agency must be published in the Federal Register (49 CFR
381.315(b)) with the reasons for denying or granting the application
and, if granted, the name of the person or class of persons receiving
the exemption, and the regulatory provision from which the exemption is
granted. The notice must also specify the effective period (up to 5
years) and explain the terms and conditions of the exemption. The
exemption may be renewed (49 CFR 381.300(b)).

III. Request for Exemption

    The Agency's HOS rules (49 CFR part 395) generally require
operators of commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) transporting property to
obtain 10 consecutive hours off duty before they can drive again after
they accumulate the maximum 11 hours of driving or reach the end of the
14-hour duty period, whichever comes first (49 CFR 395.3). However,
drivers whose CMV is equipped with a qualifying sleeper berth (S/B) may
accumulate the equivalent of 10 consecutive hours off duty in two
separate periods, one of at least 8 (but less than 10) consecutive
hours in the S/B, and another of at least 2 consecutive hours off duty,
whether in the S/B, off duty, or any combination thereof. It does not
matter which of these two periods comes first. When the driver has
obtained the two qualifying periods, the S/B rule provides the driver
more on-duty and driving time.
    PTS (USDOT 1835654) transports sensitive Department of Defense
(DOD) cargo, including ammunition and explosives, in interstate
commerce. For security reasons, this transportation requires a team of
two drivers. PTS seeks by exemption to allow its team drivers to split
the equivalent of 10 hours off duty into two S/B periods, neither less
than 4 hours long. This would allow splits of 4/6, 5/5, or 6/4 hours.
The request is limited to team operations and is in no way a request to
apply any such exemption to solo driver operations.
    PTS states that its team drivers travel over 1,100 miles per 24
hours, and average 60 hours on duty per week. After 5 weeks on the
road, PTS drivers receive a week off duty at home. PTS asserts that due
to the nature of its business, these drivers would be more alert if
allowed to take shorter rest periods in the S/B. It believes that the
shorter period would allow PTS drivers to obtain nighttime hours in the
S/B and thereby minimize driver fatigue. PTS states that its vehicle
and driver safety record is better than the national average and that
it has one of the best safety, security, and service records of

all DOD arms and ammunition transporters. All power units are equipped,
and any new power units will be equipped, with on-board electronic
recorders to track driving and on-duty time, and all power units are
governed to 70 miles per hour.

IV. Method To Ensure an Equivalent or Greater Level of Safety

    To ensure an equivalent level of safety, PTS offers to split 10
off-duty hours into two periods, neither less than 4 hours long. This
would allow splits of 4/6, 5/5, or 6/4 hours. In addition, the PTS
request would be limited to team driver operations. PTS' exemption
application references a study concerning the effects on sleep that
found sleeper-berth flexibility to be a better choice than consolidated
daytime sleep when consolidated nighttime sleep is not possible. PTS
referenced additional studies that identified sleeper berth flexibility
as a contributor to normalizing sleeping patterns and reducing fatigue.
PTS requests the exemption be granted for the maximum allowable period
(5 years). A copy of PTS's application for exemption is available for
review in the docket for this notice.

V. Public Comments

    On October 16, 2019, FMCSA published notice of this application and
requested public comments (84 FR 55376). The Agency received 20
comments. The Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance (CVSA) and Boyle
Transportation strongly opposed the exemption request. CVSA commented
that ``before FMCSA makes a determination on this exemption request,
the Agency should conduct the originally planned pilot program on this
issue and consider data collected in the pilot program in the decision.
The pilot program is necessary to study the effects of various S/B
splits on driver fatigue. Without the results of a pilot program or
further study, it isn't possible for FMCSA to determine if PTS can
maintain an equivalent level of safety under the proposed exemption.''
    Boyle Transportation stated that the exemption application would
increase the risk of crashes, and that PTS has not shown how it would
ensure an equivalent level of safety if granted the exemption. Boyle
urged FMCSA to reject PTS' request because if granted it would create
an increased risk of crashes among those professional drivers who elect
to use a S/B split that affords them less than 8 hours of consolidated
sleep. Boyle further added that such a practice is unacceptable given
the inherent danger of much of the material being transported (Division
1.1, 1.2, 1.3 and 1.4 explosives) and the unsafe conditions it would
create for other professional drivers, military service members and DOD
civilians and contractors engaged in loading and unloading operations
as well as the public.
    Conversely, the Truckload Carriers Association (TCA) supported the
PTS exemption request and stated the following: ``PTS believes, as have
others studying HOS and S/B flexibility, that this would reduce fatigue
and provide safer environment on the roadways.'' TCA fully concurred
with that sentiment.
    Of the 17 other individuals who filed comments, 12 supported the
request, 4 opposed it, and one had no position either for or against
the request. One commenter stated that it would be irresponsible to
allow PTS to experiment with the S/B provision while transporting
Division 1.1, 1.2 and 1.3 explosives as the issues associated with the
lack of proper rest is exponentially compounded creating a significant
risk to the public and the drivers operating the equipment transporting
the ``sensitive'' DoD materials. A few individuals favored allowing all
segments of the trucking industry to use the S/B splits PTS requested.

VI. FMCSA Safety Analysis and Decision

    FMCSA has evaluated PTS' application and the public comments and
decided to deny the exemption. When the Agency established the rules
mandating HOS, it relied upon research indicating that the rules
improve CMV safety. These regulations put limits in place for when and
how long an individual may drive, to ensure that drivers stay awake and
alert while driving, and on a continuing basis to help reduce the
possibility of driver fatigue.
    As CVSA and Boyle Transportation indicated, the PTS application
does not provide an analysis of the safety impacts the requested
exemption from the HOS regulations may cause. It also does not provide
countermeasures to be undertaken to ensure that the exemption would
likely achieve a level of safety equivalent to, or greater than, the
level that would be achieved by the current regulations. In fact, the
countermeasures it described were simply the split S/B provisions PTS
requested.
    The Agency cannot ensure that the exemption would achieve the
requisite level of safety. The most recent research and data suggests
that the longer sleeper berth period needs to be at least seven hours
in duration, if all the other variables (e.g., daily driving time
limits, weekly driving time limits, etc.) in the HOS regime remain
unchanged. And PTS has not indicated in its application a plan to
change any of those variable. PTS' application must be judged based on
the exemption standards in 49 CFR part 381. As indicated above, PTS'
application fails to meet those standards. The application is therefore
denied.

James A. Mullen,
Acting Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2020-10592 Filed 5-15-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 66 (Wednesday, April 6, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 18960-18964]
[FR Doc No: 2011-8198]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2011-0264; Directorate Identifier 2009-NM-244-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Model A300 B4-600, B4-600R, and
F4-600R Series Airplanes, and Model C4-605R Variant F Airplanes
(Collectively Called A300-600 Series Airplanes)

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for the
products listed above that would supersede an existing AD. This
proposed AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness information
(MCAI) originated by an aviation authority of another country to
identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The
MCAI describes the unsafe condition as:

    [T]he FAA has published SFAR 88 (Special Federal Aviation
Regulation 88). * * *
    Under this regulation, all holders of type certificates for
passenger transport aeroplanes * * * are required to conduct a
design review against explosion risks. The replacement of some types
of P-clips and

improvement of the electrical bonding of the equipment in the fuel
tanks [were] are rendered mandatory * * *.
* * * * *
    Subsequently, an internal review * * * led * * * to * * * an
additional check [for blue coat] of the bonding points in the centre
tank. * * *
    More recently, another internal review [introduced] additional
work [installing bonding points] for aeroplanes under Configuration
03 * * * and additional work [bonding the fuel jettison system--
blanking plates] on the wing tanks for aeroplanes under
Configuration 07 * * *.

    The unsafe condition is damage to wiring in the wing, center, and
trim fuel tanks, due to failed P-clips used for retaining the wiring
and pipes, which could result in a possible fuel ignition source in the
wing, center, or trim fuel tanks. The proposed AD would require actions
that are intended to address the unsafe condition described in the
MCAI.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by May 23, 2011.

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 W12-40, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact
Airbus SAS--EAW (Airworthiness Office), 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte,
31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61
93 44 51; e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet http://www.airbus.com. You may review copies of the referenced service
information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind
Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington. For information on the availability of
this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov; or in person at the Docket Operations office
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory
evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street
address for the Docket Operations office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is
in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket
shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dan Rodina, Aerospace Engineer,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA,
1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone (425)
227-2125; 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-2011-0264;
Directorate Identifier 2009-NM-244-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 based on 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

    On January 18, 2008, we issued AD 2008-03-04, Amendment 39-15353
(73 FR 5731, January 31, 2008). That AD required actions intended to
address an unsafe condition on the products listed above.
    Since we issued AD 2008-03-04, internal reviews by the manufacturer
have shown that additional work is necessary on the center and wing
fuel tanks. The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the
Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has
issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2010-0074, dated April 16, 2010
(referred to after this as ``the MCAI''), to correct an unsafe
condition for the specified products. The MCAI states:

    [T]he FAA has published SFAR 88 (Special Federal Aviation
Regulation 88). In their letters referenced 04/00/02/07/01-L296,
dated 04 March 2002, and 04/00/02/07/03-L024, dated 03 February
2003, the JAA recommended the application of a similar regulation to
the National Aviation Authorities (NAA).
    Under this regulation, all holders of type certificates for
passenger transport aeroplanes with either a passenger capacity of
30 or more, or a payload capacity of 3,402 kg (7,500 lbs) or more
which have received their certification since 01 January 1958, are
required to conduct a design review against explosion risks. The
replacement of some types of P-clips and improvement of the
electrical bonding of the equipment in the fuel tasks are rendered
mandatory by this AD.
    Initially, EASA AD 2006-0325, which addressed the same unsafe
condition, also applied to A300-600 aeroplanes. Airbus subsequently
introduced additional work at Revision 1 of SB A300-28-6064 [dated
April 3, 2007] applicable to A300-600 aeroplanes. As a result, EASA
AD 2006-0325 was revised to remove A300-600 aeroplanes from the
applicability, and concurrently EASA AD 2007-0233 was issued,
applicable to A300-600 aeroplanes. Unfortunately, the
`Applicability' section of EASA AD 2007-0233 was not correctly
defined, erroneously deleting one modification in the combination
that would exclude aeroplanes from having to comply. Consequently,
the AD 2007-0283 was issued, requiring the same actions as AD 2007-
0233, which was superseded, but expanded the group of aeroplanes to
which AD 2007-0283 applied [FAA AD 2008-03-04 corresponds with EASA
AD 2007-0283].
    Subsequently, an internal review of Airbus SB A300-28-6064 led
the manufacturer to correct the figures of the SB. In particular, an
additional check [for blue coat] of the bonding points in the centre
tank was introduced in Revision 03 of Airbus SB A300-28-6064 [dated
December 15, 2008], prompting EASA to issue AD 2009-0143.
    More recently, another internal review of Airbus SB A300-28-6064
again resulted in corrected figures in the SB. Additional work on
the center tank [installing bonding points] for aeroplanes under
Configuration 03 (as defined in the SB [Service Bulletin A300-28-
6064, Revision 04, dated August 24, 2009]) and additional work
[bonding the fuel jettison system--blanking plates] on the wing
tanks for aeroplanes under Configuration 07 have been introduced in
Revision 04 of Airbus SB A300-28-6064 [dated August 24, 2009].
    For the reason described above, this new AD retains the
requirements of EASA AD 2009-0143, which is superseded, and requires
the additional work introduced in Revision 04 of Airbus SB A300-28-
6064 [dated August 24, 2009].

    The unsafe condition is damage to wiring in the wing, center, and
trim fuel tanks, due to failed P-clips used for retaining the wiring
and pipes, which could result in a possible fuel ignition source in the
wing, center, or trim fuel tanks. The required actions also include
checking the electrical bonding points of certain equipment in the
center fuel tank for the presence of a blue coat and doing related
investigative and corrective actions if necessary. The related
investigative action is to measure the electrical resistance between
the equipment and structure, if a blue coat is not present. The
corrective action is to electrically bond the

equipment, if the measured resistance is greater than 10 milliohms. You
may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD docket.
    We have also revised paragraphs (f)(4) and (f)(5) of AD 2008-03-04
(re-identified as paragraphs (g)(6) and (g)(7) in this NPRM) by
replacing the term ``service bulletin'' with the full service bulletin
citation.

Relevant Service Information

    Airbus has issued Mandatory Service Bulletins A300-28-6064,
Revision 03, dated December 15, 2008; and Revision 04, dated August 24,
2009. The actions described in this service information are intended to
correct the unsafe condition identified in the MCAI.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed 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 the State of Design Authority, we have
been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service
information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we
evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition
exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same
type design.

Differences Between This AD and the MCAI or Service Information

    We have reviewed the MCAI and related service information and, in
general, agree with their substance. But we might have found it
necessary to use different words from those in the MCAI to ensure the
AD is clear for U.S. operators and is enforceable. In making these
changes, we do not intend to differ substantively from the information
provided in the MCAI and related service information.
    We might also have proposed different actions in this AD from those
in the MCAI in order to follow FAA policies. Any such differences are
highlighted in a Note within the proposed AD.

Costs of Compliance

    Based on the service information, we estimate that this proposed AD
would affect about 125 products of U.S. registry.
    The actions that are required by AD 2008-03-04 and retained in this
proposed AD take about 632 work-hours per product, at an average labor
rate of $85 per work hour. Required parts cost about $6,870 per
product. Based on these figures, the estimated cost of the currently
required actions is $60,590 per product.
    We estimate that it would take about 9 work-hours per product to
comply with the new basic requirements of this proposed AD. The average
labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Required parts would cost about $100
per product. Where the service information lists required parts costs
that are covered under warranty, we have assumed that there will be no
charge for these costs. As we do not control warranty coverage for
affected parties, some parties may incur costs higher than estimated
here. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the proposed AD
on U.S. operators to be $108,125, or $865 per product.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this 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.
    We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to
comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Proposed Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

    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 removing Amendment 39-15353 (73 FR
5731, January 31, 2008) and adding the following new AD:

Airbus: Docket No. FAA-2011-0264; Directorate Identifier 2009-NM-
244-AD.

Comments Due Date

    (a) We must receive comments by May 23, 2011.

Affected ADs

    (b) This AD supersedes AD 2008-03-04, Amendment 39-15353.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to the airplanes identified in paragraphs
(c)(1) and (c)(2) of this AD.
    (1) Airbus Model A300 B4-601, B4-603, B4-620, and B4-622
airplanes (without trim tank), all serial numbers, certificated in
any category, except airplanes on which Airbus Modifications 12226,
12365, 12490, and 12308 have been incorporated in production, or
Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A300-28-6064, Revision 04, dated
August 24, 2009; and Airbus Service Bulletin A300-28-6068, dated
July 20, 2005; have been performed in service.
    (2) Airbus Model A300 B4-605R, B4-622R, F4-605R, and F4-622R
airplanes and A300 C4-605R Variant F airplanes (fitted with a trim
tank), all serial numbers, certificated in any category, except
airplanes on which Airbus Modifications 12226, 12365, 12490, 12308,
12294, and 12476 have been incorporated in production, or on which
the service bulletins listed in paragraphs (c)(2)(i), (c)(2)(ii),
and (c)(2)(iii) of this AD have been performed in service.
    (i) Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A300-28-6064, Revision 03,
dated December 15, 2008.
    (ii) Airbus Service Bulletin A300-28-6068, dated July 20, 2005.
    (iii) Airbus Service Bulletin A300-28-6077, dated July 25, 2005;
or A300-28-6077, Revision 01, dated October 26, 2006.

Subject

    (d) Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 28: Fuel.

Reason

    (e) The mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI)
states:
    [T]he FAA has published SFAR 88 (Special Federal Aviation
Regulation 88). * * *
    Under this regulation, all holders of type certificates for
passenger transport aeroplanes * * * are required to conduct a
design review against explosion risks. The replacement of some types
of P-clips and improvement of the electrical bonding of the
equipment in the fuel tanks [were] are rendered mandatory * * *.
* * * * *
    Subsequently, an internal review * * * led * * * to * * * an
additional check [for blue coat] of the bonding points in the centre
tank. * * *
    More recently, another internal review [introduced] additional
work [installing bonding points] for aeroplanes under Configuration
03 * * * and additional work [bonding the fuel jettison system--
blanking plates] on the wing tanks for aeroplanes under
Configuration 07 * * *.
    The unsafe condition is damage to wiring in the wing, center,
and trim fuel tanks, due to failed P-clips used for retaining the
wiring and pipes, which could result in a possible fuel ignition
source in the wing, center, or trim fuel tanks.

Compliance

    (f) You are responsible for having the actions required by this
AD performed within the compliance times specified, unless the
actions have already been done.

Restatement of Requirements of AD 2008-03-04 With Revised Service
Information

Actions and Compliance

    (g) For airplanes identified in paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(2) of
this AD: Within 40 months after March 6, 2008 (the effective date of
AD 2008-03-04), unless already done, do the applicable actions
required by paragraphs (g)(3), (g)(4), and (g)(5) of this AD.
    (1) Airbus Model A300 B4-600 series airplanes (without trim
tank), all serial numbers, except airplanes on which Airbus
Modifications 12226, 12365, 12490, and 12308 have been incorporated
in production, or Airbus Service Bulletins A300-28-6064, Revision
01, dated April 3, 2007; and A300-28-6068, dated July 20, 2005; have
been performed in service.
    (2) Airbus Model A300 B4-600R, A300 C4-600R, and A300 F4-600R
series airplanes (fitted with a trim tank), all serial numbers,
except airplanes on which Airbus Modifications 12226, 12365, 12490,
12308, 12294, and 12476 have been incorporated in production, or on
which the service bulletins listed in paragraphs (g)(2)(i),
(g)(2)(ii), and (g)(2)(iii) of this AD have been performed in
service.
    (i) Airbus Service Bulletin A300-28-6064, Revision 01, dated
April 3, 2007.
    (ii) Airbus Service Bulletin A300-28-6068, dated July 20, 2005.
    (iii) Airbus Service Bulletin A300-28-6077, dated July 25, 2005;
or A300-28-6077, Revision 01, dated October 26, 2006.
    (3) Remove NSA5516-XXND or NSA5516-XXNJ type P-clips, used in
the wing and center fuel tanks to retain wiring and pipes, and
replace them by NSA5516-XXNF type P-clips in accordance with the
instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A300-28-6068, dated July 20,
2005.
    (4) Check the electrical bonding points in the center tank and
do all applicable related investigative and corrective actions, and
install additional bonding leads and electrical bonding points in
the wing and center fuel tanks in accordance with the instructions
of Airbus Service Bulletin A300-28-6064, Revision 01, dated April 3,
2007; Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A300-28-6064, Revision 02,
dated March 10, 2008; Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A300-28-
6064, Revision 03, dated December 15, 2008; or Airbus Mandatory
Service Bulletin A300-28-6064, Revision 04, dated August 24, 2009.
Do all applicable related investigative and corrective actions
before further flight. As of the effective date of this AD, only use
Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A300-28-6064, Revision 04, dated
August 24, 2009.
    (5) For airplanes fitted with a trim tank, in addition to the
actions defined in paragraphs (g)(3) and (g)(4) of this AD, install
bonding leads and electrical bonding points in the trim tanks, in
accordance with the instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A300-28-
6077, Revision 01, dated October 26, 2006.
    (6) Actions done before March 6, 2008, in accordance with Airbus
Service Bulletin A300-28-6064, dated July 28, 2005, for aircraft
under configuration 05, as defined Airbus Service Bulletin A300-28-
6064, dated July 28, 2005, are considered acceptable for compliance
with the requirements of paragraph (g)(4) of this AD.
    (7) Actions done before March 6, 2008, in accordance with Airbus
Service Bulletin A300-28-6077, dated July 25, 2005, for aircraft
under configuration 05, as defined in Airbus Service Bulletin A300-
28-6077, dated July 25, 2005, are considered acceptable for
compliance with the requirements of paragraph (g)(5) of this AD.

New Requirments of This AD

Additional Actions

    (h) Within 8 months after the effective date of this AD, do the
applicable actions required by paragraphs (h)(1), (h)(2), and (h)(3)
of this AD.
    (1) For airplanes that have been modified before the effective
date of this AD in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions
of Airbus Service Bulletin A300-28-6064, dated July 28, 2005;
Revision 01, dated April 3, 2007; or Airbus Mandatory Service
Bulletin A300-28-6064, Revision 02, dated March 10, 2008: Do the
additional work on the center tank specified in Airbus Mandatory
Service Bulletin A300-28-6064, Revision 03, dated December 15, 2008,
(i.e., a check for blue coat at additional bonding points and all
applicable related investigative and corrective actions), in
accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Mandatory
Service Bulletin A300-28-6064, Revision 03, dated December 15, 2008;
or Revision 04, dated August 24, 2009. Do all applicable related
investigative and corrective actions before further flight.
    (2) For configuration 03 airplanes, as defined in Airbus
Mandatory Service Bulletin A300-28-6064, Revision 04, dated August
24, 2009, that have been modified before the effective date of this
AD in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus
Service Bulletin A300-28-6064, Revision 01, dated April 3, 2007; or
Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A300-28-6064, Revision 02, dated
March 10, 2008, or Revision 03, dated December 15, 2008: Do the
additional work on the center tank (i.e., install bonding points),
in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus
Mandatory Service Bulletin A300-28-6064, Revision 04, dated August
24, 2009.
    (3) For configuration 07 airplanes, as defined in Airbus
Mandatory Service Bulletin A300-28-6064, Revision 04, dated August
24, 2009, that have been modified before the effective date of this
AD in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus
Service Bulletin A300-28-6064, dated July 28, 2005; Revision 01,
dated April 3, 2007; or Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A300-28-
6064, Revision 02, dated March 10, 2008, or Revision 03, dated
December 15, 2008: Do the additional work on the wing tanks (i.e.,
bond the fuel jettison system--blanking plates), in accordance with
the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin
A300-28-6064, Revision 04, dated August 24, 2009.

FAA AD Differences

    Note 1:  This AD differs from the MCAI and/or service
information as follows: No differences.

Other FAA AD Provisions

    (i) The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
International Branch, ANM-116, 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: Dan Rodina, Aerospace Engineer,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA,
1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone
(425) 227-2125; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>. Before using any approved AMOC,
notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal
inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district
office/certificate holding district office. The AMOC approval letter
must specifically reference this AD. AMOCs approved previously in
accordance with AD 2008-03-04 are approved as AMOCs for the
corresponding provisions of this AD.
    (2) Airworthy Product: For any requirement in this AD to obtain
corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these
actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered
FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority
(or their delegated agent). You are required to assure the product
is airworthy before it is returned to service.

Related Information

    (j) Refer to MCAI EASA Airworthiness Directive 2010-0074, dated
April 16, 2010, and the service information listed in Table 1 of
this AD, for related information.

                                          Table 1--Service Information
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Airbus service information                Revision level                           Date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A300-28- 03..........................  December 15, 2008.
 6064.
Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A300-28- 04..........................  August 24, 2009.
 6064.
Airbus Service Bulletin A300-28-6068.....  Original....................  July 20, 2005.
Airbus Service Bulletin A300-28-6077.....  01..........................  October 26, 2006.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on March 23, 2011.
Kalene C. Yanamura,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2011-8198 Filed 4-5-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 149 (Friday, August 2, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 46954]
[FR Doc No: 2013-18638]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2012-N-0536]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Announcement of Office
of Management and Budget Approval; Medical Device User Fee Cover Sheet,
Form FDA 3601

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that a
collection of information entitled ``Medical Device User Fee Cover
Sheet, Form FDA 3601'' has been approved by the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Daniel Gittleson, Office of
Information Management, Food and Drug Administration, 1350 Piccard Dr.,
PI50-400B, Rockville, MD 20850,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On February 8, 2013, the Agency submitted a
proposed collection of information entitled ``Medical Device User Fee
Cover Sheet, Form FDA 3601'' to OMB for review and clearance under 44
U.S.C. 3507. An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not
required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays
a currently valid OMB control number. OMB has now approved the
information collection and has assigned OMB control number 0910-0511.
The approval expires on April 30, 2016. A copy of the supporting
statement for this information collection is available on the Internet
at http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain.

    Dated: July 29, 2013.
Leslie Kux,
Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2013-18638 Filed 8-1-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-P