[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 243 (Monday, December 19, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 78730-78731]
[FR Doc No: 2011-32460]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

[Docket Number FRA-2011-0085]

Petition for Waiver of Compliance

    In accordance with part 211 of Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR), notice is hereby given that the Federal Railroad Administration
(FRA) has received a request for a waiver of compliance from certain
requirements of its safety standards. The individual petition is
described below, including the party seeking relief, the regulatory
provisions involved, the nature of the relief being requested, and the
petitioner's arguments in favor of relief. The petition has been
assigned Docket Number FRA-2011-0085.
    The BNSF Railway Company (BNSF) hereby petitions FRA for a waiver
from 49 CFR Section 213.109(d)(6) to allow for the use of concrete
crossties with one shoulder broken off where, if turned end for end,
every other crosstie is

fastened 100 percent on both rails. BNSF claims they have used these
``three-quarter'' (\3/4\) crossties in Class 1 and 2 track for many
years, and have demonstrated that this method is safe and results in a
stronger track structure in comparison with wood crossties under
similar train operations. BNSF proposes that FRA grant BNSF a waiver of
compliance that will effectively ``grandfather'' BNSF's continued use
of these types of crossties at various locations throughout the BNSF
operating system. BNSF also claims that: (1) The performance of \3/4\
crossties has not resulted in any derailments due to gage or crossties
defects in over 20 years of use; (2) FRA has taken no exception to
BNSF's use of \3/4\ concrete crosstie condition in the past; (3) it is
unreasonable to expect BNSF to acquire and install approximately 33,000
wood or concrete crossties at an estimated cost of $6,600,000 by the
mandated compliance date of November 8, 2011; (4) the removal of
service of the existing tracks would cause an adverse impact to
customers and operations; (5) the Gage Restraint Measurement System
(GRMS) testing of the concrete crossties has confirmed that the
installation of \3/4\ crossties meets the conditions contained in 49
CFR Section 213.110; (6) the \3/4\ crossties are environmentally sound;
(7) BNSF will identify and inventory locations where \3/4\ crossties
are currently installed, and when crosstie replacement is performed
through normal maintenance cycles (identified locations will comply
with 49 CFR Sections 213.109 and 213.127, accordingly); and (8) walking
inspections of \3/4\ crosstie locations will be performed annually,
except where GRMS testing is performed.
    Interested parties are invited to participate in these proceedings
by submitting written views, data, or comments. FRA does not anticipate
scheduling a public hearing in connection with these proceedings since
the facts do not appear to warrant a hearing. If any interested party
desires an opportunity for oral comment, they should notify FRA, in
writing, before the end of the comment period and specify the basis for
their request.
    All communications concerning these proceedings should identify the
appropriate docket number (e.g., Waiver Petition Docket Number FRA-
2011-0085) and may be submitted by any of the following methods:
     Web site: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Docket Operations Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., W12-140, Washington, DC
20590.
     Hand Delivery: 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room W12-140,
Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal Holidays.
    Communications received within 45 days of the date of this notice
will be considered by FRA before final action is taken. Comments
received after that date will be considered as far as practicable. All
written communications concerning these proceedings are available for
examination during regular business hours (9 a.m.-5 p.m.) at the above
facility. All documents in the public docket are also available for
inspection and copying on the Internet at the docket facility's Web
site at http://www.regulations.gov.
    Anyone is able to search the electronic form of any written
communications and comments received into any of our dockets by the
name of the individual submitting the document (or signing the
document, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor
union, etc.). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in
the Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 70;
Pages 19477-78), or online at http://www.dot.gov/privacy.html.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on December 14, 2011.
Robert C. Lauby,
Deputy Associate Administrator for Regulatory and Legislative
Operations.
[FR Doc. 2011-32460 Filed 12-16-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-06-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 131 (Friday, July 8, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 40288-40291]
[FR Doc No: 2011-17267]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2011-0652; Directorate Identifier 2010-NM-045-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Model MD-90-30
Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all
Model MD-90-30 airplanes. This proposed AD would require repetitive
eddy current high frequency (ETHF) inspections for cracking on the aft
side of the left and right wing rear spar lower caps at station Xrs =
164.000, further ETHF inspections if cracks are found, and repair if
necessary. This proposed AD would also require repetitive post-repair
inspections and repair if necessary. This proposed AD was prompted by
reports of cracks of the wing rear spar lower cap at the outboard flap,
inboard drive hinge at station Xrs = 164.000. We are proposing this AD
to detect and correct cracking of the left and right rear spar lower
caps, which could result in fuel leaks and damage to the wing skin or
other structure, and consequent loss of the structural integrity of the
wing.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by August 22, 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 W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management,
3855 Lakewood Boulevard, MC D800-0019, Long Beach, California 90846-
0001; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, extension 2; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.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 Management Facility
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory
evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street
address for the Docket Office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the
ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly
after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Roger Durbin, Airframe Branch, ANM-
120L, FAA, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 3960
Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, California 90712-4137; phone (562) 627-
5233; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
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-2011-0652;
Directorate Identifier 2010-NM-045-AD'' at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposed AD because of those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this proposed AD.

Discussion

    We have received reports of cracks of the wing rear spar lower cap
at the outboard flap, inboard drive hinge at station Xrs = 164.000, on
Model MD-80 airplanes. It has been determined that these cracks are the
result of material fatigue from normal flap operating loads. This
condition, if not corrected, could result in fuel leaks and damage to
the wing skin or other structure, and consequent loss of the structural
integrity of the wing.
    The subject area on Model MD-90-30 airplanes is almost identical to
that on Model MD-80 airplanes. Therefore, Model MD-90-30 airplanes may
be subject to the unsafe condition revealed on Model MD-80 airplanes.

Relevant Service Information

    We have reviewed Boeing Alert Service Bulletin MD90-57A026,
Revision 1, dated February 23, 2011. This service bulletin describes
procedures for repetitive eddy current high frequency (ETHF)
inspections for cracks on the left and right rear spar lower caps at
station Xrs=164.000, further ETHF inspections if cracks are found,
optional and non-optional repairs, and repetitive post-repair
inspections.

FAA's Determination

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

Proposed AD Requirements

    This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions specified
in the service information described previously, except as discussed
under ``Differences Between the Proposed AD and the Service
Information.''

Differences Between the Proposed AD and the Service Information

    Boeing Alert Service Bulletin MD90-57A026, Revision 1, dated
February 23, 2011, does not specify corrective actions if cracking is
found during any inspection of repaired areas, but this proposed AD
would require repairing those conditions in one of the following ways:
     In accordance with a method that we approve; or
     Using data that meet the certification basis of the
airplane, and that have been approved by the Boeing Commercial
Airplanes Organization Designation Authorization (ODA) whom we have
authorized to make those findings.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD would affect 17 airplanes of U.S.
registry.
    We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:

                                                                     Estimated Costs
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Action                            Labor cost            Parts cost      Cost per product                Cost on U.S. operators
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inspection............................  4 work-hours x $85 per hour =          N/A  $340 per inspection       $5,780 per inspection cycle.
                                         $340 per inspection cycle.                  cycle.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Proposed Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

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

The Boeing Company: Docket No. FAA-2011-0652; Directorate Identifier
2010-NM-045-AD.

Comments Due Date

    (a) We must receive comments by August 22, 2011.

Affected ADs

    (b) None.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to all The Boeing Company Model MD-90-30
airplanes, certificated in any category.

Subject

    (d) Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 57: Wings.

Unsafe Condition

    (e) This AD was prompted by reports of cracks of the wing rear
spar lower cap at the outboard flap, inboard drive hinge at station
Xrs = 164.000. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct cracking
of the left and right rear spar lower caps, which could result in
fuel leaks and damage to the wing skin or other structure, and
consequent loss of the structural integrity of the wing.

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.

Repetitive Inspections, Further Inspections if Cracking Found, Repair,
and Repetitive Post-Repair Inspections

    (g) Before the accumulation of 30,000 total flight cycles, or
within 10,000 flight cycles after the effective date of this AD,
whichever occurs later, do an eddy current high frequency (ETHF)
inspection for cracking on the aft side of the left and right wing
rear spar lower caps at station Xrs = 164.000, in accordance with
the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin
MD90-57A026, Revision 1, dated February 23, 2011. If no cracking is
found on the left or right wing rear spar lower cap, repeat the
inspection on the affected wing rear spar lower cap thereafter at
intervals not to exceed 2,550 flight cycles. Doing a repair of the
left or right wing rear spar lower cap required by this AD
terminates the repetitive inspection required by this paragraph for
that side only.
    (h) If, during any inspection required by paragraph (g) of this
AD, any crack is found that is two inches or less and not in the
rear spar lower cap forward horizontal leg radius: Before further
flight, do an ETHF inspection for cracking on the affected wing rear
spar upper cap at station Xrs = 164.000, in accordance with the
Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin MD90-
57A026, Revision 1, dated February 23, 2011.
    (1) If no crack is found in the rear spar upper cap during the
inspection required in paragraph (h) of this AD, do the actions
specified in paragraph (h)(1)(i) or (h)(1)(ii) of this AD.
    (i) Option 1: Before further flight, do a doubler repair of the
rear spar lower cap, in accordance with the Accomplishment
Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin MD90-57A026, Revision
1, dated February 23, 2011. Within 13,500 flight cycles after doing
the doubler repair, do an ETHF inspection for any cracking in the
repaired area of the rear spar lower cap, in accordance with the
Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin MD90-
57A026, Revision 1, dated February 23, 2011. Repeat the inspection
thereafter at intervals not to exceed 8,500 flight cycles. If any
cracking is found during any inspection required by this paragraph,
before further flight, repair in accordance with a method approved
in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (k) of this
AD.
    (ii) Option 2: Before further flight, do a splice repair of the
rear spar lower cap, in accordance with the Accomplishment
Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin MD90-57A026, Revision
1, dated February 23, 2011. Within 20,000 flight cycles after doing
the splice repair, do an eddy current low frequency (ETLF)
inspection and an ultrasonic (UT) inspection for cracking in the
repaired area of the rear spar lower cap, in accordance with the
Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin MD90-
57A026, Revision 1, dated February 23, 2011. Repeat the inspections
thereafter at intervals not to exceed 3,000 flight cycles. If any
cracking is found during any inspection required by this paragraph,
before further flight, repair in accordance with a method approved
in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (k) of this
AD.
    (2) If any crack that is two inches or less is found in the rear
spar upper cap during the inspection required by paragraph (h) of
this AD, do the actions specified in paragraph (h)(2)(i) or
(h)(2)(ii) of this AD.
    (i) Option 1: Before further flight, do a doubler repair of the
rear spar upper and lower caps, in accordance with the
Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin MD90-
57A026, Revision 1, dated February 23, 2011. Within 13,500 flight
cycles after doing the doubler repair, do an ETHF inspection for any
cracking in the repaired area of the rear spar upper and lower caps,
in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert
Service Bulletin MD90-57A026, Revision 1, dated February 23, 2011.
Repeat the inspection thereafter at intervals not to exceed 8,500
flight cycles. If any cracking is found during any inspection
required by this paragraph, before further flight, repair in
accordance with a method approved in accordance with the procedures
specified in paragraph (k) of this AD.
    (ii) Option 2: Before further flight, do a splice repair of the
rear spar upper and lower caps, in accordance with the
Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin MD90-
57A026, Revision 1, dated February 23, 2011. Within 20,000 flight
cycles after doing the splice repair, do an ETLF inspection and a UT
inspection for any cracking in the repaired area of the rear spar
lower cap, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of
Boeing Alert Service Bulletin MD90-57A026, Revision 1, dated
February 23, 2011. Repeat the inspections thereafter at intervals
not to exceed 3,000 flight cycles. If any cracking is found during
any inspection required by this paragraph, before further flight,
repair in accordance with a method approved in accordance with the
procedures specified in paragraph (k) of this AD.
    (3) If any crack that is greater than two inches is found in the
rear spar upper cap during the inspection required by paragraph (h)
of this AD, do the actions specified in paragraph (h)(3)(i) or
(h)(3)(ii) of this AD.
    (i) Option 1: Before further flight, do a splice repair of the
rear spar upper cap and a doubler repair of the rear spar lower cap,
in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert
Service Bulletin MD90-57A026, Revision 1, dated February 23, 2011.
Within 13,500 flight cycles after doing the doubler repair, do an
ETHF inspection for any cracking in the repaired area of the rear
spar lower cap, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions
of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin MD90-57A026, Revision 1, dated
February 23, 2011. Repeat the inspection thereafter at intervals not
to exceed 8,500 flight cycles. If any cracking is found during any
inspection required by this paragraph, before further flight, repair
in accordance with a method approved in accordance with the
procedures specified in paragraph (k) of this AD.
    (ii) Option 2: Before further flight, do a splice repair of the
rear spar upper and lower caps, in accordance with the
Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin MD90-
57A026, Revision 1, dated February 23, 2011. Within 20,000 flight
cycles after doing the splice repair, do an ETLF inspection and a UT
inspection for any cracking in the repaired area of the rear spar
lower cap, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of
Boeing Alert Service Bulletin MD90-57A026, Revision 1, dated
February 23, 2011. Repeat the inspections thereafter at intervals
not to exceed 3,000 flight cycles. If any cracking is found during
any inspection required by this paragraph, before further flight,
repair in accordance with a method approved in accordance with the
procedures specified in paragraph (k) of this AD.
    (i) If any crack is found during any inspection required by
paragraph (g) of this AD that is greater than two inches or is in
the rear spar lower cap forward horizontal leg radius, before
further flight, do an ETHF for cracking on the affected wing rear
spar upper cap at station Xrs = 164.000, in accordance with the
Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin MD90-
57A026, Revision 1, dated February 23, 2011.
    (1) If no crack is found in the rear spar upper cap, before
further flight, do a splice repair of the rear spar lower cap, in
accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert
Service Bulletin MD90-57A026, Revision 1, dated February 23, 2011.
Within 20,000 flight cycles after doing the splice repair, do an
ETLF and a UT inspection for any cracking of the repaired area of
the lower rear spar cap, in accordance with the Accomplishment
Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin MD90-57A026, Revision
1, dated February 23, 2011. Repeat the inspection thereafter at
intervals not to exceed 3,000 flight cycles. If any cracking is
found during any inspection required by this

paragraph, before further flight, repair in accordance with a method
approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph
(k) of this AD.
    (2) If any crack that is two inches or less is found in the rear
spar upper cap, do the actions specified in paragraph (i)(2)(i) or
(i)(2)(ii) of this AD.
    (i) Option 1: Do the actions specified in paragraphs
(i)(2)(i)(A), (i)(2)(i)(B), and (i)(2)(i)(C) of this AD.
    (A) Before further flight, do a doubler repair of the rear spar
upper cap and a splice repair of the rear spar lower cap, in
accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert
Service Bulletin MD90-57A026, Revision 1, dated February 23, 2011.
    (B) Within 13,500 flight cycles after doing the doubler repair
required by paragraph (i)(2)(i)(A) of this AD, do an ETHF inspection
for any cracking in the repaired area of the rear spar upper cap, in
accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert
Service Bulletin MD90-57A026, Revision 1, dated February 23, 2011.
Repeat the inspection thereafter at intervals not to exceed 8,500
flight cycles. If any cracking is found during any inspection
required by this paragraph, before further flight, repair in
accordance with a method approved in accordance with the procedures
specified in paragraph (k) of this AD.
    (C) Within 20,000 flight cycles after doing the splice repair
required by paragraph (i)(2)(i)(A) of this AD, do an ETLF and a UT
inspection for cracking in the repaired area of the rear spar lower
cap, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing
Alert Service Bulletin MD90-57A026, Revision 1, dated February 23,
2011. Repeat the inspections thereafter at intervals not to exceed
3,000 flight cycles. If any cracking is found during any inspection
required by this paragraph, before further flight, repair in
accordance with a method approved in accordance with the procedures
specified in paragraph (k) of this AD.
    (ii) Option 2: Before further flight, do a splice repair of the
rear spar upper and lower caps, in accordance with the
Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin MD90-
57A026, Revision 1, dated February 23, 2011. Within 20,000 flight
cycles after doing the splice repair, do an ETLF and a UT inspection
for cracking in the repaired area of the rear spar lower cap, in
accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert
Service Bulletin MD90-57A026, Revision 1, dated February 23, 2011.
Repeat the inspections thereafter at intervals not to exceed 3,000
flight cycles. If any cracking is found during any inspection
required by this paragraph, before further flight, repair in
accordance with a method approved in accordance with the procedures
specified in paragraph (k) of this AD.
    (3) If any crack that is greater than two inches is found in the
rear spar upper cap, before further flight, do a splice repair of
the rear spar upper and lower caps, in accordance with the
Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin MD90-
57A026, Revision 1, dated February 23, 2011. Within 20,000 flight
cycles after doing the splice repair, do an ETLF and a UT inspection
for cracking in the repaired area of the rear spar lower cap, in
accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert
Service Bulletin MD90-57A026, Revision 1, dated February 23, 2011.
Repeat the inspections thereafter at intervals not to exceed 3,000
flight cycles. If any cracking is found during any inspection
required by this paragraph, before further flight, repair in
accordance with a method approved in accordance with the procedures
specified in paragraph (k) of this AD.

Credit for Actions Accomplished in Accordance With Previous Service
Information

    (j) Doing an ETHF inspection for cracks, and doing a doubler
repair to the rear spar upper and lower caps in accordance with
Boeing Alert Service Bulletin MD90-57A026, dated February 11, 2010,
before the effective date of this AD, are acceptable for compliance
with the corresponding actions required by paragraphs (g), (h), and
(i) of this AD.

Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (k)(1) The Manager, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office
(ACO), FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if
requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance
with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or
local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending
information directly to the manager of the ACO, send it to the
attention of the person identified in the Related Information
section of this AD.
    (2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate
principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager
of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding
district office.
    (3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be
used for any repair required by this AD if it is approved by the
Boeing Commercial Airplanes Organization Designation Authorization
(ODA) that has been authorized by the Manager, Los Angeles ACO, to
make those findings. For a repair method to be approved, the repair
must meet the certification basis of the airplane and 14 CFR 25.571,
Amendment 45, and the approval must specifically refer to this AD.

Related Information

    (l) For more information about this AD, contact Roger Durbin,
Airframe Branch, ANM-120L, FAA, Los Angeles ACO, 3960 Paramount
Boulevard, Lakewood, California 90712-4137; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (m) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management,
3855 Lakewood Boulevard, MC D800-0019, Long Beach, California 90846-
0001; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, extension 2; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.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>.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on June 29, 2011.
Jeffrey E. Duven,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2011-17267 Filed 7-7-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 98 (Tuesday, May 21, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 23047-23049]
[FR Doc No: 2019-10564]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0525; FRL-9994-00-OAR]

Proposed Information Collection Request; Comment Request;
Registration of Fuels and Fuel Additives--Health-Effects Research
Requirements for Manufacturers; EPA ICR No. 1696.10, OMB Control No.
2060-0297

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is planning to
submit an Information Collection Request (ICR), Registration of Fuels
and Fuel Additives--Health-Effects Research Requirements for
Manufacturers, EPA ICR No. 1696.10, OMB Control No. 2060-0297, to the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in
accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). Before doing so, EPA
is soliciting public comments on specific aspects of the proposed
information collection as described below. This is a proposed extension
of the ICR, which is currently approved through November 30, 2019. 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.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before July 22, 2019.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2006-0525, online using www.regulations.gov (our preferred method), by
email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by mail to: EPA Docket Center,
Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460.
    EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the
public docket without change including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information
claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: James W. Caldwell, Compliance
Division, Office of Transportation and Air Quality, Mailcode: 6406J,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington,
DC 20460; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Supporting documents which explain in detail
the information that the EPA will be collecting are available in the
public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at
www.regulations.gov or in person at the EPA Docket Center, WJC West,
Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC. The telephone
number for the Docket Center is<PHONE_NUMBER>. For additional
information about EPA's public docket, visit http://www.epa.gov/dockets.
    Pursuant to section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, EPA is soliciting
comments and information to enable it to: (i) Evaluate whether the
proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper
performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the
information will have practical utility; (ii) evaluate the accuracy of
the Agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of
information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions
used; (iii) enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the
information to be collected; and (iv) minimize the burden of the
collection of information on those who are to respond, including
through the use of appropriate automated electronic, mechanical, or
other technological collection techniques or other forms of information
technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses. EPA
will consider the comments received and amend the ICR as appropriate.
The final ICR package will then be submitted to OMB for review and
approval. At that time, EPA will issue another Federal Register notice
to announce the submission of the ICR to OMB and the opportunity to
submit additional comments to OMB.
    Abstract: In accordance with the regulations at 40 CFR 79, subparts
A, B, C, and D, Registration of Fuels and Fuel Additives, manufacturers
(including importers) of motor-vehicle gasoline, motor-vehicle diesel
fuel, and additives for those fuels, are required to have these
products registered by the EPA prior to their introduction into
commerce. Registration involves providing a chemical description of the
fuel or additive, and certain technical, marketing, and health-effects
information. The development of health-effects data, as required by 40
CFR 79, subpart F, is the subject of this ICR. The information
collection requirements for Subparts A through D, and the supplemental
notification requirements of Subpart F (indicating how the manufacturer
will satisfy the health-effects data requirements) are covered by a
separate ICR (EPA ICR Number 309.15, OMB Control Number 2060-0150). The
health-effects data will be used to determine if there are any products
which have evaporative or combustion emissions that may pose an
unreasonable risk to public health, thus meriting further investigation
and potential regulation. This information is required for specific
groups of fuels and additives as defined in the regulations. For
example, gasoline and gasoline additives which consist of only carbon,
hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, and/or sulfur, and which involve a gasoline
oxygen content of less than 1.5 weight percent, fall into a
``baseline'' group. Oxygenated additives, such as ethanol, when used in
gasoline at an oxygen level of at least 1.5 weight percent, define
separate ``non-baseline'' groups for each oxygenate. Additives which
contain elements other than carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, and
sulfur fall into separate ``atypical'' groups. There are similar
grouping requirements for diesel fuel and diesel fuel additives.
    Manufacturers may perform the research independently or may join
with other manufacturers to share in the costs for each applicable
group. Several research consortiums (groups of manufacturers) have been
formed. The largest consortium, organized by the American Petroleum
Institute (API), represents most of the manufacturers of baseline
gasoline, baseline diesel fuel, baseline fuel additives, and the
prominent non-baseline oxygenated additives for gasoline. The research
is structured into three tiers of requirements for each group. Tier 1
requires an emissions characterization and a literature search for
information on the health effects of those emissions. Voluminous Tier 1
data for gasoline and diesel fuel were submitted by API and others in
1997. Tier 1 data have been submitted for biodiesel, water/diesel
emulsions, several atypical additives, and renewable gasoline and
diesel fuels. Tier 2 requires short-term inhalation exposures of
laboratory animals to emissions to screen for adverse health effects.
Tier 2 data have been submitted for baseline diesel, biodiesel, and
water/diesel emulsions. Alternative Tier 2 testing can be required in
lieu of standard Tier 2 testing if EPA concludes that such testing
would be more appropriate. EPA reached that conclusion with respect to
gasoline and gasoline-oxygenate blends, and alternative requirements
were established for the API consortium for baseline gasoline and six
gasoline-oxygenate blends. Alternative Tier 2 requirements have also
been established for the manganese additive MMT manufactured by the
Afton Chemical Corporation (formerly the Ethyl Corporation). Tier 3
provides for follow-up research, at EPA's discretion, when remaining
uncertainties as to the significance of observed health effects,
welfare effects, and/or emissions exposures from a fuel or fuel/
additive mixture interfere with EPA's ability to make reasonable
estimates of the potential risks posed by emissions from a fuel or
additive. To date, EPA has not imposed any Tier 3 requirements. Under

regulations promulgated pursuant to Section 211 of the Clean Air Act,
(1) submission of the health-effects information is necessary for a
manufacturer to obtain registration of a motor-vehicle gasoline, diesel
fuel, or fuel additive, and thus be allowed to introduce that product
into commerce, and (2) the information shall not be considered
confidential.
    Form Numbers: None.
    Respondents/affected entities: Manufacturers of motor-vehicle
gasoline, motor-vehicle diesel fuel, and additives for those fuels.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory per 40 CFR 79.
    Estimated number of respondents: 2.
    Frequency of response: On occasion.
    Total estimated burden: 17,600 hours per year. Burden is defined at
5 CFR 1320.03(b).
    Total estimated cost: $2.2 million per year, includes $0.6 million
annualized capital or operation & maintenance costs.
    Changes in Estimates: There is a $0.2 million increase in cost.
This increase is due to a revision in the work force labor rates.

    Dated: May 13, 2019.
Byron J. Bunker,
Director, Compliance Division, Office of Transportation and Air
Quality, Office of Air and Radiation.
[FR Doc. 2019-10564 Filed 5-20-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 8 (Thursday, January 12, 2023)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 2002-2004]
[FR Doc No: 2023-00488]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket Number USCG-2023-0002]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone; Chinese Harbor; Santa Cruz Island, California

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The U.S. Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone
for the navigable waters in Chinese Harbor of Santa Cruz Island,
California. This safety zone is needed to protect personnel, vessels,
and the marine environment from potential hazards created by ongoing
oil recovery and salvage operations relating to the grounding of a 60-
foot fishing vessel in Chinese Harbor. Entry of persons or vessels into
this safety zone is prohibited unless specifically authorized by the
Captain of the Port Los Angeles--Long Beach (COTP), or their designated
representative.

DATES: This rule is effective without actual notice from January 12,
2023 until January 23, 2023. For the purposes of enforcement, actual
notice will be used from January 5, 2023, until January 12, 2023.

ADDRESSES: To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-
2023-0002 in the ``SEARCH'' box and click ``SEARCH.'' Click on Open
Docket Folder on the line associated with this rule.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions about this rule,
call or email LCDR Maria Wiener, Waterways Management, U.S. Coast Guard
Sector Los Angeles--Long Beach; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

CFR Code of Federal Regulations
DHS Department of Homeland Security
E.O. Executive order
FR Federal Register
LLNR Light List Number
NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
Pub. L. Public Law
Sec.  Section
U.S.C. United States Code

II. Background Information and Regulatory History

    The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule without prior notice
and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of
the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This
provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and
opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those
procedures are ``impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public
interest.'' Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good
cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
because it is impracticable. This is an emergency response to a vessel
grounding and immediate action is needed to respond to potential safety
hazards associated with the emergency oil recovery operations. It is
impracticable to publish an NPRM because we must establish this safety
zone by January 05, 2023.

    Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause
exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after
publication in the Federal Register. Delaying the effective date of
this rule would be contrary to the public interest because immediate
action is needed to ensure the safety of persons, vessels, and the
marine environment in the vicinity of Chinese Harbor during emergency
oil recovery operations.

III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

    The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 46 U.S.C.
70034 (previously 33 U.S.C. 1231) and 46 U.S.C. 70011(b)(3). The
Captain of the Port Los Angeles--Long Beach (COTP) has determined that
potential hazards associated with emergency oil recovery operations
will be a safety concern for anyone within a 500-yard radius of the
grounded fishing vessel in Chinese Harbor. This rule is needed to
protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in the navigable
waters within the safety zone while oil recovery operations take place
in the vicinity of Chinese Harbor.

IV. Discussion of the Rule

    This rule establishes a safety zone from January 05, 2023, through
January 23, 2023. The safety zone will cover all navigable waters from
the surface to the sea floor in and around Chinese Harbor from the
location of the commercial fishing vessel SPERANZA MARIE (Official
Number 643138), currently on the shoreline at 34[deg]01.87' N,
119[deg]36.25' W and extending out along a 500-yard radius from the
vessel. These coordinates are based on North American Datum of 1983. No
vessel or person will be permitted to enter the safety zone without
obtaining permission from the COTP or his designated representative.
Sector Los Angeles--Long Beach may be contacted on VHF-FM Channel 16 or
(310) 521-3801. The marine public will be notified of the safety zone
via Broadcast Notice to Mariners.
    Designated representative means a Coast Guard coxswain, petty
officer, or other officer operating a Coast Guard vessel designated by
or assisting the COTP in the enforcement of the safety zone.
    If the COTP determines that the zone need not be enforced during
this entire period, the Coast Guard will announce via Broadcast Notice
to Mariners when the zone will no longer be subject to enforcement.

V. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and
executive orders (E.O.s) related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our
analyses based on a number of these statutes and E.O.s, and we discuss
First Amendment rights of protestors.

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits. This rule has not been designated a ``significant
regulatory action,'' under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, this
rule has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB).
    This regulatory action determination is based on the size,
location, duration, and time-of-year of the safety zone. This rule
impacts an area of 500-yards during for 19 days during the month of
January 2023. Vessel traffic will be able to safely transit around this
safety zone, which will impact a small, designated area of Chinese
Harbor, Santa Cruz Island, CA.

B. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities.
    While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the
safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section
V.A. above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on
any vessel owner or operator.
    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your
small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have
questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please
call or email the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or
action of the Coast Guard.

C. Collection of Information

    This rule will not call for a new collection of information under
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has 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. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have
determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism
principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order
13132.
    Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive
Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments, because it 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.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538)
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary
regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may
result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for
inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in
such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere
in this preamble.

F. Environment

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland
Security Management Directive 023-01, Rev. 1, associated implementing
instructions, and COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), which guide the Coast
Guard in

complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C.
4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category
of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant
effect on the human environment. This rule involves a safety zone
encompassing an area extending 500-yards out from a grounded vessel in
vicinity of Chinese Harbor and will last only while oil recovery
operations are ongoing. It is categorically excluded from further
review under paragraph L60, in Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction
Manual 023-001-01, Rev. 1.

G. Protest Activities

    The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters.
Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section to coordinate protest activities so that
your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or
security of people, places, or vessels.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

    Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends
33 CFR part 165 as follows:

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

0
1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  46 U.S.C. 70034, 70051; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-
6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No.
00170.1, Revision No. 01.2. 2.

0
2. Add Sec.  165. T11-120 to read as follows:

Sec.  165. T11-120  Safety Zone; Chinese Harbor; Santa Cruz Island,
California.

    (a) Location. The following area is a safety zone: All navigable
waters from the surface to the sea floor in and around Chinese Harbor
from the vessel SPERANZA MARIE, currently on the shoreline at
34[deg]01.87' N, 119[deg]36.25' W, and extending out along a 500-yard
radius from the vessel. These coordinates are based on North American
Datum of 1983.
    (b) Definitions. As used in this section, Designated representative
means a Coast Guard coxswain, petty officer, or other officer operating
a Coast Guard vessel designated by or assisting the Captain of the Port
Los Angeles--Long Beach (COTP) in the enforcement of the safety zone.
    (c) Regulations. (1) Under the general safety zone regulations in
subpart C of this part, you may not enter the safety zone described in
paragraph (a) of this section unless authorized by the COTP or the
COTP's designated representative.
    (2) To seek permission to enter, contact the COTP or the COTP's
representative by hailing Coast Guard Sector Los Angeles--Long Beach on
VHF-FM Channel 16 or calling at<PHONE_NUMBER>. Those in the safety
zone must comply with all lawful orders or directions given to them by
the COTP or the COTP's designated representative.
    (d) Enforcement period. This section will be enforced from January
5, 2023, through January 23, 2023. If the COTP determines that the zone
need not be enforced during this entire period, the Coast Guard will
announce via Broadcast Notice to Mariners when the zone will no longer
be subject to enforcement.

    Dated: January 4, 2023.
R.D. Manning,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Sector Los Angeles--Long
Beach.
[FR Doc. 2023-00488 Filed 1-11-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 141 (Friday, July 22, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 44055-44057]
[FR Doc No: 2011-18505]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. IC-29726; 812-13910]

BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP, et al.; Notice of Application and
Temporary Order

July 18, 2011.

AGENCY: Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'').

ACTION: Temporary order and notice of application for a permanent order
under section 9(c) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (``Act'').

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

SUMMARY:  Summary of Application: Applicants have received a temporary
order exempting them from section 9(a) of the Act, with respect to an
injunction entered against BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP (``HLS'') on
May 31, 2011 by the United States District Court for the Central
District of California (the ``Injunction''), until the Commission takes
final action on an application for a permanent order. Applicants have
requested a permanent order.

Applicants: HLS, BofA Advisors, LLC (``BofA Advisors''), BofA
Distributors, Inc. (``BofA Distributors''), Bank of America Capital
Advisors LLC (``BACA''), KECALP Inc. (``KECALP''), Merrill Lynch
Ventures, LLC (``Ventures'') and Merrill Lynch Global Private Equity
Inc. (``MLGPE'') (collectively, other than HLS, the ``Fund Servicing
Applicants,'' and, together with HLS, the ``Applicants'').\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Applicants request that any relief granted pursuant to the
application also apply to any other company of which HLS is an
affiliated person or may become an affiliated person in the future
(together with the Applicants, the ``Covered Persons'').

DATES:  Filing Date: The application was filed on May 27, 2011 and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
amended it on June 1, 2011.

Hearing or Notification of Hearing: An order granting the application
will be issued unless the Commission orders a hearing. Interested
persons may request a hearing by writing to the Commission's Secretary
and serving Applicants with a copy of the request, personally or by
mail. Hearing requests should be received by the Commission by 5:30
p.m. on August 12, 2011, and should be accompanied by proof of service
on Applicants, in the form of an affidavit, or for lawyers, a
certificate of service. Hearing requests should state the nature of the
writer's interest, the reason for the request, and the issues
contested. Persons who wish to be notified of a hearing may request
notification by writing to the Commission's Secretary.

ADDRESSES: Secretary, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F
Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090. Applicants, HLS, 6400 Legacy
Drive, Plano, TX 75024; BofA Advisors, BofA Distributors and BACA, 100
Federal Street, Boston, MA 02110; and KECALP, Ventures and MLGPE, 767
Fifth Avenue, 7th Floor, New York, NY 10153.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jaea F. Hahn, Senior Counsel, at (202)
551-6870, or Daniele Marchesani, Branch Chief, at<PHONE_NUMBER>
(Division of Investment Management, Office of Investment Company
Regulation).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The following is a temporary order and a
summary of the application. The complete application may be obtained
via the Commission's Web site by searching for the file number, or an
applicant using the Company name box, at http://www.gov/search/search.htm or by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Applicants' Representations

    1. Each of the Applicants is a direct or indirect wholly-owned
subsidiary of Bank of America Corporation (``BAC''). HLS is an entity
that services mortgage loans and provides mortgage services, including
conducting foreclosures on mortgages, on behalf of holders of
residential mortgages and mortgage loan asset-backed certificates. HLS
is not registered as a broker-dealer under the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 or as an investment adviser under the Investment Advisers Act
of 1940 (the ``Advisers Act'').
    2. BofA Advisors is a registered investment adviser that serves as
investment adviser and subadviser to certain money market funds
registered under the Act. BofA Distributors, a limited purpose broker-
dealer registered with the Commission, serves as principal underwriter
of some of the same money market funds. BACA is a registered investment
adviser that serves as investment adviser to certain closed-end
investment companies also registered under the Act.
    3. KECALP, Ventures and MLGPE each serves as investment adviser to
certain employees' securities corporations within the meaning of
section 2(a)(13) of the Act (``ESCs''). Of these three ESC advisers,
only KECALP is registered as an investment adviser under the Advisers
Act.
    4. On May 31, 2011, the United States District Court for the
Central District of

California entered the Injunction against HLS, formerly Countrywide
Home Loans Servicing LP, in a matter brought by The United States
Department of Justice (``DOJ''). The complaint filed by DOJ
(``Complaint'') alleged that, between 2006 and 2009, HLS wrongfully
foreclosed without court orders on approximately 160 properties owned
by servicemembers protected by the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act
(``SCRA''). Additionally, the Complaint alleged that HLS, from 2006
through May 31, 2009, failed to consistently determine the military
status of mortgage loan borrowers in foreclosure. Denying any
wrongdoing as alleged by the United States or otherwise, HLS consented
to the entry of the Injunction against violating the SCRA.

Applicants' Legal Analysis

    1. Section 9(a)(2) of the Act, in relevant part, prohibits a person
who has been enjoined from acting as a bank, or from engaging in or
continuing any conduct or practice in connection with such activity,
from acting, among other things, as an investment adviser or depositor
of any registered investment company, or a principal underwriter for
any registered open-end investment company, registered unit investment
trust (``UIT'') or registered face-amount certificate company. Section
9(a)(3) of the Act extends the prohibitions of section 9(a)(2) to a
company any affiliated person of which has been disqualified under the
provisions of section 9(a)(2). Section 2(a)(3) of the Act defines
``affiliated person'' to include, among others, any person directly or
indirectly controlling, controlled by, or under common control with,
the other person. Applicants state that HLS is, or may be considered to
be, under common control with and therefore an affiliated person of
each of the other Applicants. Applicants state that the entry of the
Injunction may result in Applicants being subject to the
disqualification provisions of section 9(a) of the Act because HLS is
permanently enjoined from engaging in or continuing particular conduct
or practice in connection with banking activity.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See In the Matter of Bank of America, N.A., The Office of
the Comptroller of the Currency Stipulation & Consent Order No. AA-
EC-11-12 (Apr. 13, 2011) and In the Matter of Bank of America
Corporation, The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve Consent
Order, No. 11-029-B-HC (Apr. 13, 2011). Applicants state that the
OCC Order deemed certain loan servicing activity as banking
activity, and the loan servicing activity specified in the
Injunction is a subset of the loan servicing activity deemed banking
activity by the OCC Order. Therefore, Applicants believe that HLS is
permanently enjoined from engaging in or continuing particular
conduct or practice in connection with banking activity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    2. Section 9(c) of the Act provides that the Commission shall grant
an application for exemption from the disqualification provisions of
section 9(a) if it is established that these provisions, as applied to
Applicants, are unduly or disproportionately severe or that the
Applicants' conduct has been such as not to make it against the public
interest or the protection of investors to grant the exemption.
Applicants have filed an application pursuant to section 9(c) seeking a
temporary and permanent order exempting the Applicants and the other
Covered Persons from the disqualification provisions of section 9(a) of
the Act. On June 1, 2011 the Applicants received a temporary
conditional order from the Commission exempting them from section 9(a)
of the Act with respect to the Injunction until the Commission takes
final action on an application for a permanent order or, if earlier,
July 29, 2011.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Investment Company Act Release No. 29688 (June 1, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    3. Applicants believe they meet the standard for exemption
specified in section 9(c). Applicants state that the prohibitions of
section 9(a) as applied to them would be unduly and disproportionately
severe and that the conduct of Applicants has been such as not to make
it against the public interest or the protection of investors to grant
the exemption from section 9(a).
    4. Applicants state that the conduct giving rise to the Injunction
did not involve any of the Applicants acting in the capacity as
investment adviser, sub-adviser, or principal underwriter (as defined
in section 2(a)(29) of the Act) for any registered investment companies
(``RIC'') or ESCs (together, the ``Funds''). Applicants state that to
the best of their knowledge none of the Applicants' current directors,
officers or employees who is involved in providing services as
investment adviser, subadviser or depositor for any Funds or principal
underwriter (as defined in section 2(a)(29) of the Act) for any
registered open-end company, UIT or registered face amount certificate
company (collectively, the ``Fund Servicing Activities'') (or any other
persons in such roles during the time period covered by the Complaint)
participated in the conduct alleged in the Complaint that constitutes
the violations that provide a basis for the Injunction. Applicants also
state that the alleged conduct giving rise to the Injunction did not
involve any Fund for which an Applicant provided Fund Servicing
Activities.
    5. Applicants further represent that the inability of Applicants
(except for HLS) to continue providing Fund Servicing Activities would
result in potentially severe financial hardships for both the Funds and
their shareholders. Applicants state that they will distribute written
materials, including an offer to meet in person to discuss the
materials, to the board of directors (the ``Boards'') of each Fund
(excluding the ESCs), including the directors who are not ``interested
persons,'' as defined in section 2(a)(19) of the Act, of such Fund, and
their independent legal counsel as defined in rule 0-1(a)(6) under the
Act, if any, regarding the Injunction, any impact on the Funds, and the
application. The Applicants will provide the Funds with all information
concerning the Injunction and the application that is necessary for the
Funds to fulfill their disclosure and other obligations under the
Federal securities laws.
    6. Applicants also assert that, if the Applicants were barred from
engaging in Fund Servicing Activities, the effect on their businesses
and employees would be severe. The Applicants state that they have
committed substantial resources to establishing expertise in providing
Fund Servicing Activities.
    7. Applicants also state that disqualifying KECALP, Ventures and
MLGPE from continuing to provide investment advisory services to their
ESCs is not in the public interest or in furtherance of the protection
of investors and would frustrate the expectations of eligible employees
who invest in the ESCs that the ESCs would be managed by an affiliate
of their employer.
    8. Applicants state that several Applicants and certain of their
affiliates have previously received orders under section 9(c), as
described in greater detail in the application.

Applicants' Condition

    Applicants agree that any order granting the requested relief will
be subject to the following condition:

    Any temporary exemption granted pursuant to the application
shall be without prejudice to, and shall not limit the Commission's
rights in any manner with respect to, any Commission investigation
of, or administrative proceedings involving or against, Covered
Persons, including without limitation, the consideration by the
Commission of a permanent exemption from section 9(a) of the Act
requested pursuant to the application, or the revocation or removal
of any temporary exemptions granted under the Act in connection with
the application.

Temporary Order

    The Commission has considered the matter and finds that Applicants
have

made the necessary showing to justify granting a temporary exemption.
    Accordingly,
    It is hereby ordered, pursuant to section 9(c) of the Act, that the
Applicants and the other Covered Persons are granted a temporary
exemption from the provisions of section 9(a), effective forthwith,
solely with respect to the Injunction, subject to the condition in the
application, until the date the Commission takes final action on their
application for a permanent order.

    By the Commission.
Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-18505 Filed 7-21-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY OFFICE OF PREVENTION, PESTICIDES AND TOXIC SUBSTANCES WASHINGTON, D. C. 20460 PC Code: 009001 DP Barcodes: D283667 MEMORANDUM SUBJECT: Addition of corn and canola seed treatment use to revised Lindane RED TO: B. Shackleford, Branch Chief M. Howard, Team Leader Special Review and Reregistration Division (7508C)

FROM: N. E. Federoff, Wildlife Biologist F. A. Khan, Ph. D., Environmental Scientist Environmental Risk Branch V Environmental Fate and Effects Division REVIEWED and APPROVED by: Mah Shamim, Ph. D., Branch Chief Environmental Risk Branch V Environmental Fate and Effects Division (7507C)

CANOLA AND CORN SEED ASSESSMENT EFED was asked to add canola and corn to its list of lindane treated seeds for ecological risk assessment. This document supersedes the Revised EFED RED chapter for lindane (D254764) and provides updated and revised risk information regarding canola and corn. Both a terrestrial (avian and mammalian acute and chronic) and an aquatic assessment (freshwater and marine fish and invertebrates) were performed as well as calculation of surface and groundwater EECs. The rates used were the proposed maximum 1. 456 lb ai/ 100lbs seed x 8 lbs seed/ acre = 0. 116 lbs ai/ acre for canola and a new lower rate of 0.0558 lb ai/ 100lbs seed x 14 lbs seed/ acre= 0.0078 lbs ai/ acre for corn. There are approximately 113,000 227,000 seeds per pound of canola seed and 1200 1600 seeds per pound of corn seed.

Summary Risk to birds and mammals have increased in magnitude (over 10X) for the new proposed canola use and were reduced (about 2X) for corn under the new rate scenario. However, uncertainty exists regarding actual risk to seed eating avian species due to factors associated with exposure. Seed incorporation may reduce availability of treated seed to some species and aversion and field studies (Blus et al. 1984 and 1985) suggest birds may not be consuming treated seed. These exposure factors are not applicable to small seed eating mammals that eat a large proportion of their bodyweight in seed per day. Therefore, the potential for risk to these mammals is not as uncertain. Risks to aquatic organisms did increased from the new higher rate for canola. However, the assumption for GENEEC 2 (Tier I water exposure model) that 100% of the compound will disassociate from the seed surface has likely produced highly conservative estimates and has thus may have overestimated risks. Drinking Water Assessment EFED recommends that the Health Effects Division (HED) use the groundwater (acute and chronic = 0.05 ppb) and surface water concentrations (acute = 4. 16 ppb and chronic = 1. 95 ppb) for canola presented in the table below for drinking water EECs ONLY IF the proposed canola use will be supported. IF canola will not be supported for registration, then the concentrations for wheat should be used. The drinking water EECs were based on the Tier I FIRST (surface water) and SCIGROW (groundwater) simulation models. The GENEEC model is no longer used to estimate EECs for drinking water. Therefore, surface water EECs for wheat have been revised using the Tier I FIRST model. The results are provided in the following table:

Drinking water EEC comparison for lindane wheat and canola seed treatments.

WHEAT Application Rate (lbs ai/ A) Acute Chronic Groundwater 0.051 0.011 µ g/ L 0. 011 µ g/ L Surface Water 0.051 0. 98 µ g/ L 0. 46 µ g/ L CANOLA Application Rate (lbs ai/ A) Acute Chronic Groundwater 0. 116 0.025 µ g/ L 0. 025 µ g/ L Surface Water 0.116 4.16 µ g/ L 1. 95 µ g/ L Ground Water Ground water concentrations were predicted with SCIGROW. Input parameters are summarized in the table below. The entire SCIGROW output file is located in Appendix I at the end of this memo.

SCIGROW input parameters and results for lindane.

Application Rate: Wheat Canola 1 @ 0. 051 lb/ acre 1 @ 0. 116 lb/ acre Aerobic Soil Half Life 980 days (mean Value)

Organic Carbon Partitioning Coefficient (Koc) 1367 mL/ g (median Value)

EEC: Wheat Canola 0.011 µg/ L 0.013 µg/ L Surface Water The following inputs were used for the FIRST modeling. The FIRST output file is located in Appendix I at the end of this memo.

Input Parameters for FIRST Parameter Value Application Rate and Number 0. 051 lb ai/ A x 1 application (Wheat) 0. 116 lb ai/ A x 1 application (Canola)

Organic Carbon Partitioning Coefficient 942 ml/ g lowest of 4 values (MRID 00164346)

Solubility 7 ppm Application Type Granular/ incorporated to 1. 2 inches Percent Cropped Area 56% for Wheat and 87% for Canola Aerobic Soil Half life 980 days single value (MRID 406225 01)*

Aerobic Aquatic Half life 1960 days (aerobic soil halflife x 2)

Photolysis stable (MRIDs 0016457; 001645545; 447931)

Hydrolysis stable (MRID 00161630)

*In a 336 day aerobic soil metabolism study, lindane degraded very slowly, with a registrant calculated half life of 980 days, thus the "3x" rule was not applied.

Terrestrial and Aquatic Assessments Risk to birds and mammals have increased in magnitude (over 10X) for the proposed canola use. However, uncertainty exists regarding actual risk to seed eating avian species due to factors associated with exposure. Seed incorporation may reduce availability of treated seed to some species. Aversion and field studies (Blus et al. 1984 and 1985) suggest birds may not be consuming treated seed. These exposure factors are not applicable to small seed eating mammals that eat a large proportion of their bodyweight in seed per day. Therefore, the potential for risk to these mammals is not as uncertain. Risks to aquatic organisms increased only slightly. The assumption for GENEEC 2 (Tier I water exposure model) that 100% of the compound will disassociate from the seed surface has likely produced highly conservative estimates and has thus likely overestimated the EEC's and resulting risks. EFED also believes that a seed leaching study would greatly increase certainty regarding a more realistic estimate of compound for groundwater leaching and runoff. This in turn would allow a refinement of exposure estimates and environmental concentration values (EECs). EFED has issued a guidance for this study (Memo from Denise Keehner re: Standard Method for Determining the Leachability of Pesticides from Treated Seeds, 7/ 6/ 2000). The results of the risk assessment are as follows:

Avian The labels with the highest rates (lb lindane/ 100 lb seed) were used to evaluate potential maximum consumption of lindane by terrestrial animals. The current approach uses daily food intake calculated using the relationships described in Nagy (1987 as cited in USEPA, 1993). Acute risk quotients (RQ) were then calculated based on animals receiving their full diet from lindane treated seeds for a 1 day time period. In addition, RQs were calculated using the mg ai/ kg/ seed and the dietary LC50 endpoint.

Birds may be exposed to granular pesticides and seed treatments by ingesting granules or seeds when foraging for food or grit. They also may be exposed by other routes, such as by walking on exposed granules or drinking water contaminated by granules or treated seeds. The assessment below bases acute exposure on the quantity of seeds that a bird could ingest in one day and that the bird eats only lindane treated seeds. This approach defines a risk quotient (RQ) as:

RQ= Dose/ LD50 where Dose = the amount of lindane that a bird could receive by ingesting treated seeds in a 24 hour period per bird mass (dose units in mg/ Kg). Risk is assumed to occur for any RQ value greater than 0.5.

The dose that a bird could receive by eating treated seeds can be approximated from the estimated amount of food that a bird can eat in a day. The dose can be described as:

Dose = (FI)( C)( T)/ Mbird where FI = the food ingestion rate [kg/ day] C = active ingredient concentration on seed (mg/ kg) T = relevant duration time for food consumption (assumed to be 1 day in this assessment) [day]. Mbird = mass (wet) of bird [kg].

The rate of food consumption (FI) of a bird can be estimated by the method of Nagy (1987; also see EPA, 1993). For passerines, the Nagy relationship is:

FI = 0. 141 (Mbird) 0.850 and for non passerines the relationship is:

FI = 0. 054 (Mbird) 0.751 Acute RQ results for this analysis are summarized in the table below. Small birds, which consume proportionally larger quantities of food with respect to their body weight, are at greater risk than larger birds. RQs exceeded 0.5 for the sparrow and the red winged black bird for all seed treatments. For the quail, RQ indicated risk only for the seeds with the highest application rates. However, even when RQs were calculated using the dietary LC50 for quail, risk was exceeded for all seed types. Thus it can be implied that seed eating birds with smaller body weights than the quail may be at increased risk since lindane toxicity seems to be inversely related to bodyweight.

Table Summary of RQ evaluation. RQs in bold indicate potential risk.. Lindane Seed Conc (per label) Dose (mg ai consumed per day /kg bird) RQ =Dose/ LD50 RQ= Seed concentration/ LC50 crop example label # lb ai/ 100 lb seed mg ai/ kg seed sparrow (FI = 0.00613 kg/ day) a RWBB (FI = 0.0114 kg/ day) a quail (FI = 0.0148 kg/ day) a sparrow (LD50=56 mg/ kg) RWBB (LD50=75 mg/ kg) quail (LD50=122 mg/ kg) Quail LC50=425 ppm barley 34704 658 0.0375 375 92.0 82.4 31.1 1.64 1.10 0.25 0.88 corn 71096 2 0. 125 1250 307 275 103 5.48 3.67 0.85 2.94 LOW rate corn proposed 0. 0558 558 137 122 46 2.45 1.64 0.38 1.31 oats 2935 0492 0.0313 313 76.6 68.7 25.9 1.37 0.92 0.21 0.74 rye 2935 0492 0.0328 328 80.4 72.1 27.2 1.44 0.96 0.22 0.77 sorghum 8660 53 0.0628 628 154 138 52.1 2.75 1.84 0.43 1.48 wheat 555 144 0.0426 426 104 93.5 35.3 1.86 1.25 0.29 1.00 Canola (proposed maximum rate) proposed 1. 456 14560 3570 3192 1211 63.75 42.56 9.93 34.26 Canola ½ rate proposed 0. 72 7200 1765 1578 599 31.51 21.04 4.91 16.94 a Dose = seed concentration x food intake rate, where food intake rate (FI) is based on Nagy equation (see text), assuming the following typical bird weights: Sparrow wt = 25 g; Red winged BB wt = 52 g, Bobwhite quail wt = 178 g (Clench and Leberman. 1978).

Chronic To determine chronic risk to birds, the concentration on the food item (seeds) was determined from the label. Chronic RQ was calculated using the following equation: RQ = Concentration on seeds / NOAEC. Results are given in the table below and suggest a potential for chronic reproductive risk to avian species from the use of lindane treated seed. RQs in bold indicate potential risk.

Lindane Seed Conc (per label) RQ =Seed Concentration/ NOAEC crop example label # lb ai/ 100 lb seed mg ai/ kg seed mallard (NOAEC= 15 mg/ kg) Quail (NOAEC = 80 mg/ kg)

barley 34704 658 0.0375 375 25.0 4.7 corn 71096 2 0. 125 1250 83.3 15.6 LOW rate corn proposed 0. 0558 558 37.2 6.9 oats 2935 0492 0.0313 313 20.8 3.9 rye 2935 0492 0.0328 328 21.9 4.1 sorghum 8660 53 0.0628 628 41.9 7.9 wheat 555 144 0.0426 426 28.4 5.3 Canola (proposed maximum rate) proposed 1. 456 14560 970.7 182.0 Canola ½ rate proposed 0. 72 7200 480.0 90.0 Mammalian Mammals may be exposed to granular pesticides ingesting granules or seeds when foraging for food or grit. They also may be exposed by other routes, such as by walking on exposed granules or drinking water contaminated by granules or treated seeds. The mammalian assessment was performed in a similar manner as for birds as given above. In addition, RQs were calculated using the mg ai/ kg/ seed and the dietary LC50 endpoint. The Nagy relationship for the general case of all mammals is:

FI = 0. 0687 (Mmammals) 0.822 where Mmammals is the mammal mass in kg. Results are summarized below. Since RQs above 0. 5 indicate potential risk, the results indicate the possibility of acute risk to seed eating mammals for all seed treatments, including canola, with smaller mammals being more vulnerable than larger mammals.

Table summary of RQ evaluation. RQs in bold indicate potential risk.. Lindane Seed Conc (per label) Dose (mg ai consumed per day /kg mammal) RQ =Dose/ LD50 RQ= Seed concentration/ LC5 Calculated dietary effect concentration crop example label # lb ai/ 100 lb seed mg ai/ kg seed 0.015 kg mammal (FI = 0.00218 kg/ day) a 0.035 kg mammal (FI = 0.00437 kg/ day) a 1 kg mammal (FI = 0.0687 kg/ day) a 0.015 kg mammal LD50=88 mg/ kg) 0.035 kg mammal (LD50=88 mg/ kg) 1 kg mammal (LD50=88 mg/ kg) 419 ppm 587 ppm 1760 ppm barley 34704 658 0.0375 375 54 47 26 0.62 0.53 0.29 0.90 0.64 0.21 corn 71096 2 0. 125 1250 181 156 86 2.1 1. 8 0.98 3.00 2.13 0.71 LOW rate corn proposed 0. 0558 558 81 70 38 0.92 0.79 0.44 1.33 0.95 0.32 oats 2935 0492 0.0313 313 45 39 21 0.51 0.44 0.24 0.75 0.53 0.18 radish 7501 16 0.0323 323 47 40 22 0.53 0.45 0.25 0.77 0.55 0.18 rye 2935 0492 0.0328 328 47 41 23 0.54 0.46 0.26 0.78 0.56 0.19 sorghum 8660 53 0.0628 628 91 78 43 1.0 0. 89 0.49 1.50 1.07 0.36 wheat 555 144 0.0426 426 62 53 29 0.70 0.60 0.33 1.02 0.73 0.24 Canola (proposed maximum rate) proposed 1. 456 14560 2116 1818 1000 24 21 11 34.75 24.80 8.27 Canola ½ rate proposed 0. 72 7200 1046 899 495 12 10 6 17.18 12.27 4.09 a Dose = seed concentration x food intake rate, where food intake rate (FI) is based on Nagy equation (see text). Weights were chosen to represent typical small mammals. All calculated LD50s andLC50s were based on the LD50 (88 mg/ kg) data for the rat. RQ = EEC (mg/ kg) LD50 (mg/ kg)/ % Body Weight Consumed where the % body weight consumed varies with body size: Granivores: 21% for 15 g wt; 15% for 35 g wt; 5% for 1000 g wt.

Chronic To determine chronic risk to mammals, the concentration on the food item (seeds) was determined from the the label. Chronic RQ was calculated using the following equation: RQ = Concentration on seeds / NOAEC. The NOAEC for the rat (20 mg/ kg) was used as an approximation for all mammals. Results are given in the table below and indicate a potential for chronic reproductive risk to mammalian species from the use of lindane treated seed.

Table summary of chronic RQ evaluation. RQs in bold indicate potential risk.. Lindane Seed Conc (per label) RQ =Seed Concentration/ NOAEC crop example label # lb ai/ 100 lb seed mg ai/ kg seed rat (NOAEC= 20 mg/ kg)

barley 34704 658 0.0375 375 19 corn 71096 2 0. 125 1250 63 LOW rate corn proposed 0. 0558 558 28 oats 2935 0492 0.0313 313 16 radish 7501 16 0.0323 323 16 rye 2935 0492 0.0328 328 16 sorghum 8660 53 0.0628 628 31 wheat 555 144 0.0426 426 21 Canola (proposed maximum rate) proposed 1. 456 14560 728 Canola ½ rate proposed 0. 72 7200 360 Aquatic Assessment EFED uses GENEEC 2 to calculate Tier I aquatic EECs and assumed that 100% of the compound will disassociate from the seed surface. A 1. 2 inch incorporation depth was used for wheat and 1 inch for canola. Input parameters and the resulting EECs for wheat and canola are tabulated below:

GENEEC 2 input parameters and results for wheat and canola.

Application Rate: wheat canola 1 x 0. 051 lb ai/ A 1 x 0. 116 lb ai/ A Aerobic Soil Half Life 980 days (single value)

Aerobic Aquatic Half Life 1960 days (aerobic soil T1/ 2 x 2)

Incorporation depth 1.2 inches for wheat and 1 inch for canola Hydrolysis stable Photolysis stable Spray Drift incorporated seed treatment = 0 Organic Carbon Partitioning Coefficient (Koc) 942 mL/ g (lowest value)

Solubility 7 mg/ L Expected EEC's Wheat Canola Peak 1.09 µg/ L 2.57 µg/ L 4 day average 1.08 µg/ L 2.56 µg/ L 21 day average 1.06 µg/ L 2.49 µg/ L 60 day average 1.00 µg/ L 2.36 µg/ L I. Freshwater Fish Acute and chronic risk quotients are tabulated below.

Risk Quotients for Freshwater Fish Based On a brown trout LC50 of 1.7 ppb and a rainbow trout NOAEC of 2.9 ppb.

Site LC50 (ppb) NOAEC (ppb) EEC Initial/ Peak (ppb) EEC 56 or 60 Day Ave. (ppb) Acute RQ (EEC/ LC50) Chronic RQ (EEC/ NOAEC)

wheat 0. 05 1. 7 2. 9 0. 94 0. 86 0.55 0.30 Canola 0.116 1.7 2. 9 2.57 2.36 1.51 0.81 An analysis of the results indicate that acute, restricted use and endangered species LOC's are exceeded for freshwater fish. No chronic LOC's are exceeded for freshwater fish.

II. Freshwater Invertebrates The acute and chronic risk quotients are tabulated below.

Risk Quotients for Freshwater Invertebrates Based On a stonefly EC50/ LC50 of 1.0 ppb and a daphnia NOAEC of 54 ppb.

Site LC50 (ppb) 21 day NOAEC (ppb) EEC Initial/ Peak (ppb) EEC 21 Day Average Acute RQ (EEC/ LC50) Chronic RQ (EEC/ NOAEC)

Wheat 0. 05 1. 0 54 0.94 0.91 0.94 0.02 Canola 0.116 1.0 54 2. 57 2. 49 2.57 0.05 An analysis of the results indicate that the acute, restricted use and endangered species LOCs are exceeded for freshwater invertebrates at maximum use rates. No chronic LOC's are exceeded for freshwater invertebrates.

III. Estuarine and Marine Fish The acute and chronic risk quotients are tabulated below.

Risk Quotients for estuarine/ marine fish based on a striped mullet LC50 of 23 ppb. No data was submitted to assess chronic risk to estuarine/ marine fish.

Site LC50 (ppb) NOAEC (ppb) EEC Initial/ Peak (ppb) EEC 56 Day Average Acute RQ (EEC/ LC50) Chronic RQ (EEC/ NOAEC)

Wheat 0. 05 23 N/ A 0.94 0.86 0.04 N/ A Canola 0.116 23 N/ A 2. 57 2. 36 0. 11 N/ A An analysis of the results indicate that acute restricted and endangered species LOCs were exceeded for canola for estuarine/ marine fish.

IV. Estuarine and Marine Invertebrates Risk Quotients for Estuarine/ Marine Aquatic Invertebrates Based on a pink shrimp LC50/ EC50 of 0. 077 ppb. No data was submitted to assess chronic risk to estuarine/ marine invertebrates.

Site/ Application LC50 (ppb) NOAEC/ (ppb) EEC Initial/ EEC 21 Day Acute RQ (EEC/ LC50) Chronic RQ (EEC/ NOAEC)

Wheat 0. 05 0. 077 N/ A 0. 94 0. 91 12.20 N/ A Canola 0.116 0.077 N/ A 2. 57 2. 49 33.40 N/ A An analysis of the results indicate that acute, restricted use and endangered species LOC's were exceeded for estuarine/ marine invertebrates. Chronic risk to estuarine/ marine invertebrates could not be assessed due to a lack of toxicity data. APPENDIX I: Water Resource Model Results GENEEC 2 for Canola RUN No. 1 FOR Lindane ON Canola * INPUT VALUES *

RATE (#/ AC) No. APPS & SOIL SOLUBIL APPL TYPE NO SPRAY INCORP ONE( MULT) INTERVAL Koc (PPM ) (% DRIFT) (FT) (IN)

.116( .116) 1 1 942.0 7.0 GRANUL( .0) .0 1.2 FIELD AND STANDARD POND HALFLIFE VALUES (DAYS)

METABOLIC DAYS UNTIL HYDROLYSIS PHOTOLYSIS METABOLIC COMBINED (FIELD) RAIN/ RUNOFF (POND) (POND EFF) (POND) (POND)

980.00 2 N/ A .00 .00 ****** 1960.00 GENERIC EECs (IN MICROGRAMS/ LITER (PPB)) Version 2.0 Aug 1, 2001

PEAK MAX 4 DAY MAX 21 DAY MAX 60 DAY MAX 90 DAY GEEC AVG GEEC AVG GEEC AVG GEEC AVG GEEC

2.57 2.56 2.49 2.36 GENEEC 2 for Wheat RUN No. 3 FOR Lindane ON Wheat * INPUT VALUES *

RATE (#/ AC) No. APPS & SOIL SOLUBIL APPL TYPE NO SPRAY INCORP ONE( MULT) INTERVAL Koc (PPM ) (% DRIFT) (FT) (IN)

.051( .051) 1 1 942.0 7.0 GRANUL( .0) .0 1.2 FIELD AND STANDARD POND HALFLIFE VALUES (DAYS)

METABOLIC DAYS UNTIL HYDROLYSIS PHOTOLYSIS METABOLIC COMBINED (FIELD) RAIN/ RUNOFF (POND) (POND EFF) (POND) (POND)

980.00 2 N/ A .00 .00 ****** 1960.00 GENERIC EECs (IN NANOGRAMS/ LITER (PPB) Version 2.0 Aug 1, 2001

PEAK MAX 4 DAY MAX 21 DAY MAX 60 DAY MAX 90 DAY GEEC AVG GEEC AVG GEEC AVG GEEC AVG GEEC

0.941 0.937 0.914 0.864 0.829 SCI GROW for Canola (Ground Water Assessment)

RUN No. 1 FOR Lindane INPUT VALUES

APPL (#/ AC) APPL. URATE SOIL SOIL AEROBIC RATE NO. (#/ AC/ YR) KOC METABOLISM (DAYS)

0.116 1 0.116 1367.0 980.0 GROUND WATER SCREENING CONCENTRATIONS IN PPB

.024907

A= 975.000 B= 1372.000 C= 2.989 D= 3.137 RILP= 2.578 F= . 668 G= .215 URATE= .116 GWSC= .024907 First Output (Surface Water Assessment) for Wheat RUN No. 1 FOR Lindane ON Wheat * INPUT VALUES *

RATE (#/ AC) No. APPS & SOIL SOLUBIL APPL TYPE %CROPPED INCORP ONE( MULT) INTERVAL Koc (PPM ) (% DRIFT) AREA (IN)

.051( 0.051) 1 1 942.0 7.0 GRANUL( .0) 56.0 1.2 FIELD AND RESERVOIR HALFLIFE VALUES (DAYS)

METABOLIC DAYS UNTIL HYDROLYSIS PHOTOLYSIS METABOLIC COMBINED (FIELD) RAIN/ RUNOFF (RESERVOIR) (RES. EFF) (RESER.) (RESER.)

980.00 2 N/ A .00 .00 ****** 1960.00 UNTREATED WATER CONC (MICROGRAMS/ LITER (PPB)) Ver 1.0 AUG 1, 2001

PEAK DAY (ACUTE) ANNUAL AVERAGE (CHRONIC) CONCENTRATION CONCENTRATION

0.98 0.46 First Output for Canola (Surface Water Assessment)

RUN No. 1 FOR Lindane ON Canola * INPUT VALUES *

RATE (#/ AC) No. APPS & SOIL SOLUBIL APPL TYPE %CROPPED INCORP ONE( MULT) INTERVAL Koc (PPM ) (% DRIFT) AREA (IN)

.116( 0.116) 1 1 942.0 7.0 GRANUL( .0) 87.0 1.0 FIELD AND RESERVOIR HALFLIFE VALUES (DAYS)

METABOLIC DAYS UNTIL HYDROLYSIS PHOTOLYSIS METABOLIC COMBINED (FIELD) RAIN/ RUNOFF (RESERVOIR) (RES. EFF) (RESER.) (RESER.)

980.00 2 N/ A .00 .00 ****** 1960.00 UNTREATED WATER CONC (MICROGRAMS/ LITER (PPB)) Ver 1.0 AUG 1, 2001

PEAK DAY (ACUTE) ANNUAL AVERAGE (CHRONIC) CONCENTRATION CONCENTRATION

4.16 1.95


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 124 (Monday, June 29, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 36921]
[FR Doc No: 2015-15915]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket No. USCG-2015-0530]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone; Annual Events Requiring Safety Zones in the Captain
of the Port Lake Michigan Zone--Waterfront Festival Fireworks

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of enforcement of regulation.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard will enforce the safety zone on the waters of
Green Bay in Menominee, MI for the Waterfront Festival Fireworks. This
zone will be enforced from 9 p.m. until 11 p.m. on August 8, 2015. This
action is necessary and intended to ensure safety of life on navigable
waters immediately prior to, during, and immediately after the
fireworks display. During the aforementioned period, the Coast Guard
will enforce restrictions upon, and control movement of, vessels in the
safety zone. No person or vessel may enter the safety zone while it is
being enforced without permission of the Captain of the Port Lake
Michigan or a designated representative.

DATES: The regulations in 33 CFR 165.929 will be enforced for safety
zone (f)(8), Table 165.929, from 9 p.m. until 11 p.m. on August 8,
2015.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this
document, call or email MST1 Joseph McCollum, Prevention Department,
Coast Guard Sector Lake Michigan, Milwaukee, WI at<PHONE_NUMBER>,
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Coast Guard will enforce the Waterfront
Festival Fireworks safety zone listed as item (f)(8) in Table 165.929
of 33 CFR 165.929. Section 165.929 lists many annual events requiring
safety zones in the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan zone. This safety
zone will encompass all waters of Green Bay, in the vicinity of
Menominee Marina, within the arc of a circle with a 1000-foot radius
from a center position at 45[deg]06.447' N., 087[deg]35.991' W. (NAD
83). This zone will be enforced from 9 p.m. until 11 p.m. on August 8,
2015.
    All vessels must obtain permission from the Captain of the Port
Lake Michigan or the on-scene representative to enter, move within, or
exit the safety zone. Requests must be made in advance and approved by
the Captain of the Port before transits will be authorized. Approvals
will be granted on a case by case basis. Vessels and persons granted
permission to enter the safety zone must obey all lawful orders or
directions of the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan or a designated
representative.
    This document is issued under authority of 33 CFR 165.929, Safety
Zones; Annual events requiring safety zones in the Captain of the Port
Lake Michigan zone, and 5 U.S.C. 552(a). In addition to this
publication in the Federal Register, the Coast Guard will provide the
maritime community with advance notification for the enforcement of
this zone via Broadcast Notice to Mariners or Local Notice to Mariners.
The Captain of the Port Lake Michigan or an on-scene representative may
be contacted via Channel 16, VHF-FM.

    Dated: June 11, 2015.
A.B. Cocanour,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Lake Michigan.
[FR Doc. 2015-15915 Filed 6-26-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P