UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON D. C., 20460 OFFICE OF PREVENTION, PESTICIDES AND TOXIC SUBSTANCES MEMORANDUM SUBJECT: Copper ( Cu++) Alternatives Analysis for the Primary Aquatic Uses ( DP# 329640)

FROM: William Phillips, II, Ph. D., Agronomist Biological Analysis Branch Biological and Economic Analysis Division ( 7503P)

Kevin Costello, Acting Team Leader Reregistration Branch Special Review and Reregistration ( 7508P)

THRU: Arnet Jones, Chief Biological Analysis Branch Biological and Economic Analysis Division ( 7503P)

TO: Rosanna Louie, Chemical Review Manager Reregistration Branch Special Review and Reregistration ( 7508P)

PRODUCT REVIEW PANEL: June 14, 2006 SUMMARY Copper compounds are a unique group of chemicals that are used to control diseases on various terrestrial crop plants, as well as being used to control aquatic algae, weeds, and some invertebrate pests. When used in aquatic applications, copper compounds are applied directly to water bodies for use as algaecides, aquatic herbicides, molluscicides, as well as leech and tadpole shrimp controls. The use of the water bodies dictates the use of copper compounds. Aquaculture requires a very refined and detailed 2 maintenance of water quality in an effort to produce a fish that is marketable. Drinking water systems take on forms from that of large water bodies resulting from dams to almost constantly moving water in conveyance canals. Irrigation water is much like that of drinking water; however, parts of these systems are perennial in nature as the water is only needed during a peak period of the crop growing months. Quiescent water bodies such as impoundments, lakes, and ponds range from vary large recreational water bodies to small farm ponds.

As an algaecide, copper sulfate pentahydrate captured 95 99% of the total market in 2001; however, as an aquatic herbicide the primary copper compound used, copper EDA complex, captured only 5 10% of the market. The safety of the copper compounds for human health is indirectly stated in the lack of a holding period for treated potable water. In addition, use sites such as aquaculture facilities have no other compound that can be applied to water, or water margins, where fish are present.

INTRODUCTION Copper compounds are a unique group of chemicals that are used to control diseases on various terrestrial crop plants, as well as being used to control aquatic algae, weeds, and some invertebrate pests. When used in aquatic applications, copper compounds are applied directly to water bodies for use as algaecides, aquatic herbicides, molluscicides, as well as leech and tadpole shrimp controls. The rates and frequencies of application for the control of target pests in aquatic use sites is provided in BEAD's February 15, 2006 memorandum, Typical Applications Information for Copper Products for Algaecide, Aquatic Herbicide, Molluscicide, Leech, and Tadpole Shrimp Control ( DP# 324176) ( Phillips and Zinn, 2006). It is for this reason that only a cursory overview of use and use rates will be given in this memorandum. This analysis, and the aforementioned analysis, were conducted using product labels, research articles, relevant authoritative publications, and direct input from the researchers. Therefore, BEAD believes that the information provided herein is the best available at this time.

In an effort to clarify some confusing nomenclature issues, as well as maintain an already established convention for discussing chemicals such as algaecides and herbicides, it is important to point out the necessity to refer to these compounds by their active ingredients ( ai). The use of the ai as the common reference, rather than product names, will avoid much of the confusion which exists among open literature publications as well as the current product labels. Often what is mistaken for the ai in copper containing products is elemental copper and not the copper containing compound, or complex. To provide clarity, the nomenclature and calculation conventions discussed herein will be adhered to throughout this memorandum. In addition, the Agency has elected to regulate copper compounds based on the copper element, or cupric ion ( Cu++), as a strategy to uniformly assess potential copper toxicity. Therefore, all references to copper concentrations/ rates herein will be in terms of Cu++. 3 Due to different molecular weights of the copper ai, or compounds, there is often a need for them to be reflected in a common scale on which to compare compounds. While this may seem to confuse the above discussion regarding ai, it is specifically due to this point that this " standard" measure is needed. The following is an example; if copper compound " A" requires a dilution of 1.0 ppm for algae control and copper compound " B" requires 2.0 ppm, then logic would have it that there would be twice as much copper in the treated site if " B" were used. However, given the fact that molecule " B" has a molecular weight twice that of " A", this would not be so. As long as both molecules contain the same amount of copper, compound " A" at 1.0 ppm and compound " B" at 2.0 ppm result in the same concentration of elemental copper.

Application rates for the copper compounds, as expressed above, are always calculated as a measure of the concentration of the Cu++ that is in solution in the water where the treatment is made. Aquatic copper algaecide and herbicide application rates range from 0.2 to 1.0 part per million ( ppm) of elemental copper. Average copper rates for algae control are 0.5 ppm for susceptible species and 0.75  1.0 ppm for those species that are difficult to control ( Phillips and Zinn, 2006). Average copper rates for weed control are 0.2  0.5 ppm for susceptible species and up to 1.0 ppm for those species that are difficult to control ( Phillips and Zinn, 2006). In aquaculture when fish are present in the pond at the time of treatment a lower application rate range of 0.1 to 0.4 ppm Cu++ is used, with a concentration of 0.125 being the most commonly recommended. A full discussion of rates is given in the above mentioned paper by Phillips and Zinn, 2006.

Labeled copper use rates for snail control range from 1.0 ppm to as high as 2.5 ppm. Direct water application of copper sulfate pentahydrate for snail control was found to be within the 1.0 to 1.5 ppm concentration. Control of snails, leeches, and trematodes have been demonstrated to be necessary in, and around, ponds and other associated quiescent water bodies for human as well as agricultural, aquacultural, and environmental concerns. Rice production systems rely on direct water applications for the control of snails and tadpole shrimp at rates of 1.0 to 2.5 ppm concentration of Cu++.

Without diminishing the role of the pest type in the decision as to which copper compound to use, what rate to use, or when to use it; within this memo coppers will be discussed in a manner designed around water body types. The use of this design for the memo will maintain consistency with the Reregistration Eligibility Decision ( RED) document. A pest based discussion of the copper compounds can be found in Phillips and Zinn, 2006. Various water bodies are involved when discussing the use of copper compounds. Aquaculture requires a very refined and detailed maintenance of water quality in an effort to produce a fish that has acceptable flesh fit for market. Drinking water systems take on forms from that of large water bodies resulting from dams to almost constantly moving water in conveyance canals. Irrigation water is much like that of drinking water; however, parts of these systems are perennial in nature as the water is only needed during a peak period of the crop growing months. Quiescent water bodies 4 such as impoundments, lakes, and ponds range from vary large recreational water bodies to small farm ponds.

The analysis to follow in this memorandum focuses on some general characterization of the use and benefits of the copper compounds. In addition, EPA proprietary data has been used to establish the relative importance of the primarily applied copper compounds, with respect to their market competitors. Finally, a comparison of the primary copper compounds and their market competitors are presented on a standardized ( per acre foot) treatment basis for a relative cost comparison.

ANALYSIS I. Primary Algaecide Uses There are various types of copper compounds used as algaecides in quiescent and moving water bodies. Many of the water bodies where copper compounds are applied for algal control include aquaculture facilities, canals ( conveyance and irrigation), lakes, ponds, and potable water reservoirs.

As an algaecide, copper compounds captured 95% of the total market in 2004 ( Table 1). Copper compounds used as algaecides are applied to maintain water quality and/ or water flow, as well as to avoid the potential build up of harmful algal toxins. There are many copper ai labeled for these uses including chelated copper compounds, copper hydroxide, copper citrate, copper ethanolamine and copper triethanolamine. However, as stated above, copper sulfate pentahydrate and the copper complexes captured the major market share for 2004 ( Table 1).

Aquaculture Systems Off flavor fish from aquaculture ponds containing cyanobacteria ( blue green algae) is a problem of major importance in fish farming ( van der Ploeg et al., 2001). The off flavors in farm raised fish are due to chemical compounds produced by certain species of cyanobacteria. Unlike many other marketed animal or grain crop products, an off flavor in farm raised fish does not result in a payment penalty; it results in the rejection of all fish being sold from a farm. As a result, prophylactic full pond treatments with copper are sometimes relied upon for cyanobacteria control. An advantage to copper treatment for control is that the copper compounds can be applied directly to the water while fish inhabit the ponds. These applications have the added benefit of also controlling certain diseases in fish ( Watson and Yanong, 2002). While prophylactic measures can be used, application can occur within the month before harvest to avoid offflavors but more commonly it is undertaken as soon as fish tasting tests detect the muddy/ musty off flavors. An alternative to copper treatments would be to transfer the fish to " clean" water bodies. This transfer method would be cost prohibitive. Depending upon the size and fat content of the fish, once in a clean water environment it may take 5 less than a week for the off flavor to be purged from the fish. The less expensive route is to treat the water body with copper. In the past there have been Section 18' s granted by the Agency for the use of diuron to control cyanobacteria in catfish and hybrid striped bass ponds ( Anonymous, 2004; Anonymous, 2004). These Section 18' s were necessary due to the rejection of fish that had mud or musty flavors.

Drinking Water Systems Algae can clog water filters, reducing filter run times and requiring frequent backwashing. This can lead to greater coagulant demand and more expensive water treatment. Drinking water regulations include taste and odor ( T/ O) as secondary drinking water standards, with which water treatment plants must comply ( Anonymous, 2006). Some species of algae can cause a number of off flavors in drinking water, but cyanobacteria can produce chemicals called cyanotoxins, which lead to earthy and musty flavors. These chemicals/ flavors are more difficult and expensive to remove by water treatment. Algae can clog water filters, reducing filter run times and requiring frequent backwashing. This can lead to greater coagulant demand and more expensive water treatment. Copper compounds are used to treat source water ( e. g. lakes and reservoirs) prior to drinking water intakes. Copper compounds are labeled to be used in potable water systems up to 1.0 ppm. This use for the control of algae can be quite expensive but often necessary.

Only rarely are T/ O problems the result of the presence of toxins in the water ( Watson, 2004). The development of T/ O problems in drinking water, caused by cyanobacteria, is not consistent, but often arises quickly in the dry hot summer. Early detection and treatment of algae is preferred so as not to miss the narrow treatment window. The need for treatment varies from year to year; drought years require higher application rates than most. There still remains the controversy as to whether to control full scale algae blooms. There is the belief that this will allow the cellular toxins to be released potentially resulting in poisoning those who come in contact, or maybe those who drink the finished water. However, more recently the thinking is that this does not become the case and that control is still advised.

Irrigation Systems Regular maintenance of distribution canals is important to optimum water flow. In addition to flow, dense mats of vegetation can be a mechanical hindrance to valves and gates which divert and stop the flow of water. Cyanobacteria and filamentous algae can also lead to clogging of water intake screens in lakes and aqueducts.

It is very important to maintain irrigation and conveyance canals systems in parts of the western United States where 68% of the crops rely on surface water for irrigation. A reduction in flow can result in millions of dollars lost due to failed crops as well as upsystem flooding of areas surrounding the canal. Many who maintain irrigation waterways prefer to use the copper compounds where possible. Alternative chemicals such as dyes and colorants cannot be used in moving waters with an outflow; biocides such as acrolein and xylene can potentially pose a public health and/ or environmental threat. 6 Quiescent Waters Excess algae in quiescent, or near quiescent, water bodies can have large impacts on water quality. Simply stated, this quality can be reduced in two basic ways; physical and chemical. However, within any discussion it becomes apparent that these two are not mutually exclusive. First, latent waters can be affected by the formation of dense mats of algae. These mats can block sunlight from reaching submerged biota, and can become physical barriers as well. These two physical characteristics of algae growth lead directly to changes in the water chemistry characteristics. A water body with an algal growth problem would have some light penetration problems, with the extreme resulting in a change in water chemistry. Second, the ultimate death of the floating mats of algae would decrease the dissolved oxygen content ( DOC) as a result of microbial decay. Cyanobacteria, another important algal species, are known to produce toxins, such as hepatotoxin, which makes their control necessary as they are potentially harmful to humans and other mammals. These problems are common in many areas under the hot, dry conditions already mentioned. The waters that could be affected are lakes and ponds used for recreation and drinking water supplies. As discussed already, copper compounds are very favorable in these systems and will be discussed further in the " Primary Aquatic Herbicidal Uses" section.

Algaecide Alternatives Table 1. A comparison of the rates, costs, and characterizations of copper containing algaecides and alternative algaecides.

Algaecide1. Average Rates Cost/

Acre Foot Treatment % of Total Sales Notes Coppers 1.00 gal $ 15.00 Liquid copper complexes 3 60.00 lb $ 100.00 50 Granular copper sulfate 3.00 lb $ 1.75 45 Alternatives Diuron na na > 1.0 Others na na > 2.0 1. The list of alternatives was determined by market share and published recommendations. Market share, as reflected above was provided by EPA proprietary sources for 2004. 2 Percentages are of the total pounds of the indicated active ingredients for the United States in 2004. na= Not Available 7 II. Primary Aquatic Herbicidal Uses There are various types of copper compounds used as herbicides in quiescent and moving water bodies. Many of the water bodies where copper compounds are applied for weed control include canals ( conveyance and irrigation), lakes, ponds, and potable water reservoirs.

Copper compounds are used as aquatic herbicides for control of several invasive aquatic weeds. The major target pests are Elodea spp., Hydrilla verticillata, Potamogeton spp., Sago Pondweed ( Stukenia pectinatus), Irrigation Canal Weed ( Zannichellia), and Annual Naiads ( Najas sp.). Compounds associated with this use include copper sulfate pentahydrate, chelated copper compounds, copper citrate, copper ethylenediamine and copper ethanolamine complex.

Irrigation Systems Irrigation systems vary across the country with much of the irrigation taking place in the western United States. The portion of an irrigation system requiring treatment for aquatic weeds is the irrigation or conveyance canals. Since the water in these canals ultimately ends up on the crops, the timing and the type of herbicide is important. Aquatic weed control is essential since debris from weeds can decrease water flow. In addition, physical clogging by weed debris could cause obstructions to valves and gates which are important to turning off or diverting water flow.

Multiple herbicides would be required to replace the copper compounds in these systems. Some aquatic herbicides only control vegetation that is growing at or above the surface of the water, while others only control dicotyledonous plants ( Table 2.) In addition there are some contact herbicides that only damage the portion of the plant that they contact, which explains the need for some herbicides to have a longer exposure time ( Getsinger, K and M. Netherland, 2006). As discussed for algae control in these systems, biocides such as acrolein and xylene can potentially pose a public health and/ or environmental risk, a potential that many applicators would rather avoid.

Quiescent Waters Control of aquatic weeds in quiescent water bodies is needed to maintain recreational activities that include fishing, water sports or swimming. In addition, many of these water bodies are dual use as recreational and also as drinking water supplies. In order to maintain the safety of recreants and maintain the operation of drinking water acquisition it is important that these water bodies be treated with herbicides safely and expediently. Copper compounds and glyphosate are two fairly innocuous herbicides with respect to human safety. Glyphosate, being a systemic herbicide, meets many control requirements; however, glyphosate only controls vegetation which is above the waterline. Fluridone may be an alternative; however, due to its toxicity and the emergence of tolerant weed species, it may not be the best choice for all situations. In addition, 8 fluridone is not labeled for use in drinking water sources. Finally, for efficacious aquatic weed control, diquat mixed with copper compounds is most often effective ( Table 2).

Copper Herbicide Alternatives Table 2. A comparison of the rates, costs, and characterizations of copper containing herbicides and alternative herbicides.

Herbicides1. Average Rates2 Cost/

Surface Acre % of Total Sales2 Notes Copper copper EDA complex3 1.00 gal $ 15.00 < 2 Alternatives 0.60 gal $ 6.50 Liquid Not effective on most monocots 2,4 D 113 lb $ 232.00 < 5 Granular Not effective on most monocots diquat dibromide 1.00 gal $ 134.00 10 15 Contact control only. Add copper for a broader spectrum of weed controlled.

1.75 gal $ 82.00 Liquid Contact control only. endothall 75 150 lb $ 167.00 $ 307.00 15 20 Granular Contact control only.

0.60 gal $ 713.00 Liquid Not for spot treatments due to prolonged exposure time requirements fluridone 22.0 lb $ 426.00 50 55 Pelleted Not for spot treatments due to prolonged exposure time requirements glyphosate 0.70 gal $ 12.00 < 3 Not effective on submerged species.

Other na na < 2 na 1. The list of alternatives was determined by market share and published recommendations. Market share as reflected above was provided by EPA proprietary sources for 2004. 2 Percentages are of the total sales of the indicated active ingredients for the United States in 2004. 3 Rate and Cost were obtained from EPA proprietary sources for 2004. na= Not Available 9 III. Aquatic Invertebrate Control Uses ( A major portion of the this section has been excerpted from the February 15, 2006 memorandum, Typical Applications Information for Copper Products for Algaecide, Aquatic Herbicide, Molluscicide, Leech, and Tadpole Shrimp Control ( DP# 324176) ( Phillips and Zinn, 2006))

Quiescent Waters The macro invertebrates that are controlled by copper sulfate pentahydrate are leeches and tadpole shrimp. Leeches are often a problem in ponds and quiescent waters under drought conditions. While most leeches are a problem for fish, humans splashing in water can become an alternate host. At the current time, copper sulfate pentahydrate is the only registered compound for leech control in open water. Tadpole shrimp are often a problem in the production of lowland/ wetland rice. These crustaceans damage rice plants primarily through their feeding on newly emerging plants. Copper sulfate pentahydrate and carbaryl are labeled for this pest, however, the use of copper sulfate pentahydrate as a control for tadpole shrimp is acceptable for organic production ( Godfrey, 2005 ).

Copper sulfate can be used to control schistosome infected snails for human health. The organism causing " Swimmers Itch" is a trematode that spends a portion of it's lifecycle in the water and a portion in the tissue of a snail. To control these snails the application of copper sulfate crystals can be applied to the shoreline or snail beds of swimming areas. Second, a direct water application can be made using broadcast methods ( to include aerial) or by using an under water dispenser.

In catfish production ponds, the trematode Bolbophorus sp. may have significant impacts on production. The first intermediate host of Bolbophorus is the Ram's Horn Snail. Copper sulfate may be used to control the snail at the pond margin. Copper sulfate is applied in a 6 foot band around the perimeter of the pond often as a mix of copper sulfate plus citric acid. Alternatives include hydrated lime and niclosamide. However, niclosamide was only available as a Section 18 in MS until 2003 ( to date there is no section 3 registration) and can only be used in ponds with no fish. Controlling aquatic vegetation not only improves chemical treatment effectiveness, but also eliminates a potential habitat for snails. This is important since there is no treatment available for affected fish ( Terhune, et al, 2003). 10 References Anonymous, 2004, Registration Numbers: 04AL01, 04AL01, 04AR06, 04AR18, 04MS02, 04MS04, 04TX03, 04TX04, 04TX10. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs Information Network ( OPPIN).

Anonymous, 2003, 2004, 2005, Registration Numbers: 05AL07, 05AL09, 05AR05, 05MS05, 05TX09. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs Information Network ( OPPIN).

Anonymous, 2006. A LC/ MS Method for the Determination of Cyanobacteria Toxins in Water. Government Performance Results Act ( GPRA) Goal # 2, Annual Performance Measure # 457. http:// www. epa. gov/ nerl/ research/ 2005/ g2 3. html Getsinger, K and M. Netherland. January 26, 2006. Email communication with William Phillips, II.

Godfrey, L. 2005. Rice Tadpole Shrimp. University of California IPM Online. Accessed February 2006, Web address: http:// www. ipm. ucdavis. edu/ PMG/ r682500111. html.

Phillips, W. and N. Zinn. 2006. Typical Applications Information for Copper Products for Algaecide, Aquatic Herbicide, Molluscicide, Leech, and Tadpole Shrimp Control ( DP# 324176).

Terhune, J., D. Wise, J. Avery, L. Khoo, and A. Goodwin, 2003, Infestations of the Trematode Bolbophorus sp. in Channel Catfish, Southern Regional Aquaculture Center, Web address: http:// srac. tamu. edu/ tmppdfs/ 9919857 1801fs. pdf van der Ploeg, M., C. Tucker, J. Steeby, and C. Weirich. 2001. Management Plan for Blue Green Off Flavors in Mississippi Pond Raised Catfish. Mississippi State University http:// msucares. com/ pubs/ publications/ p2001. htm Watson, C. and R. Yanong. 2002. Use of Copper in Freshwater Aquaculture and Farm Ponds. Fact Sheet FA 13. Florida Cooperative Extension Service, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida. http:// edis. ifas. ufl. edu/ FA008 Watson, S. 2004. Aquatic taste and odor: a primary signal of drinking water integrity. J. Toxicol Environ Health A. 26: 67( 20 22): 1779 17795


[Federal Register: September 30, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 190)]
[Notices]
[Page 56815]
[DOCID:fr30se08-47]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. OA08-62-000]

California Independent System Operator Corporation; Notice of
FERC Staff Attendance

September 23, 2008.
    The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) hereby gives
notice that on September 25, 2008, members of its staff will
participate in a meeting to be conducted by the California Independent
System Operator (CAISO) regarding the CAISO's transmission planning
standards agreement. The information and documents for the meeting can
be obtained from Judi Sanders<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Sponsored by the CAISO, this meeting is open to all market
participants, and staff's participation is part of the Commission's
ongoing outreach efforts. This meeting may discuss matters at issue in
the above captioned docket.
    For further information, contact Saeed Farrokhpay at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(916) 294-0233 or Maury Kruth at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(916) 294-0275.

Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-22860 Filed 9-29-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


			  UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

		        DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

			  OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

			          WASHINGTON, D.C.

Issued by the Department of Transportation on March 9, 2005

NOTICE OF ACTION TAKEN -- DOCKET OST-2005-20561

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________

This serves as notice to the public of the action described below, taken
by the Department official indicated (no additional confirming order
will be issued in this matter).

Applicant:  China Eastern Airlines 						Date Filed:  March 3, 2005

Relief requested: Exemption from 49 U.S.C. § 41301 to engage in
scheduled foreign air transportation of persons, property and mail
between Shenyang and Shenzen, People’s Republic of China, on the one
hand, and Los Angeles, California, on the other hand.  China Eastern
states that it will operate all these flights via Shanghai, People’s
Republic of China.

Date and citation of last action:  New authority

Applicant representative:  Thomas J. Whalen<PHONE_NUMBER>

Responsive pleadings:  None filed

	DISPOSITION

Action:  Approved								Action date:  March 9, 2005

(We acted on China Eastern’s request in less than the full 15-day
period for filing answers with the consent of all parties served. )

Effective dates of authority granted:  March 9, 2005-March 9, 2006

Basis for approval (bilateral agreement/reciprocity):  U.S.-China Air
Transport Services Agreement

Except to the extent exempted/waived, this authority is subject to the
terms, conditions, and limitations indicated:

X  Standard exemption conditions (attached) and China Eastern’s
foreign air carrier permit (Order 92-11-7)

Special conditions/Partial grant/Denial basis/Remarks:  Because Shenyang
and Shenzen have not been assessed under the Transportation Security
Administration’s Foreign Airports Assessment program, all flights from
Shenyang and Shenzen to Los Angeles must operate over Shanghai.  We note
that this is consistent with China Eastern’s operating proposal as set
forth in its application.

Action taken by:   Paul L. Gretch, Director

		      Office of International Aviation

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________

Under authority assigned by the Department in its regulations, 14 CFR
Part 385, we found that (1) the applicant was qualified to perform the
proposed operations; (2) our action was consistent with Department
policy; (3) grant of the authority was consistent with the public
interest; and (4) grant of the authority would not constitute a major
regulatory action under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975.
To the extent not granted/deferred/dismissed, we denied all requests in
the referenced Docket.  We may amend, modify, or revoke the authority
granted in this Notice at any time without hearing at our discretion.

Persons entitled to petition the Department for review of the action set
forth in this Notice under the Department’s regulations, 14 CFR §
385.30, may file their petitions within seven (7) days after the date of
issuance of this Notice.  This action was effective when taken, and the
filing of a petition for review will not alter such effectiveness.

An electronic version of this document is available on the World Wide
Web at:

http://dms.dot.gov//reports/reports_aviation.asp

Attachment

In the conduct of the operations authorized, the foreign carrier
applicant(s) shall:

(1)  Not conduct any operations unless it holds a currently effective
authorization from its homeland for such operations, and it has filed a
copy of such authorization with the Department;

(2)  Comply with all applicable requirements of the Federal Aviation
Administration, including, but not limited to, 14 CFR Parts 129, 91, and
36, and with all applicable U.S. Government requirements concerning
security, including, but not limited to, 49 CFR Part 1546 or 1550, as
applicable.  To assure compliance with all applicable U.S. Government
requirements concerning security, the holder shall, before commencing
any new service (including charter flights) from a foreign airport that
would be the holder’s last point of departure for the United States,
contact its International Principal Security Inspector (IPSI) to advise
the IPSI of its plans and to find out whether the Transportation
Security Administration has determined that security is adequate to
allow such airport(s) to be served;

(3)  Comply with the requirements for minimum insurance coverage
contained in 14 CFR Part 205, and, prior to the commencement of any
operations under this authority, file evidence of such coverage, in the
form of a completed OST Form 6411, with the Federal Aviation
Administration’s Program Management Branch (AFS-260), Flight Standards
Service (any changes to, or termination of, insurance also shall be
filed with that office);

(4)  Not operate aircraft under this authority unless it complies with
operational safety requirements at least equivalent to Annex 6 of the
Chicago Convention;

(5)  Conform to the airworthiness and airman competency requirements of
its Government for international air services;

(6)  Except as specifically exempted or otherwise provided for in a
Department Order, comply with the requirements of 14 CFR Part 203,
concerning waiver of Warsaw Convention liability limits and defenses;

(7)  Agree that operations under this authority constitute a waiver of
sovereign immunity, for the purposes of 28 U.S.C. 1605(a), but only with
respect to those actions or proceedings instituted against it in any
court or other tribunal in the United States that are: (a)  based on its
operations in international air transportation that, according to the
contract of carriage, include a point in the United States as a point of
origin, point of destination, or agreed stopping place, or for which the
contract of carriage was purchased in the United States; or (b)  based
on a claim under any international agreement or treaty cognizable in any
court or other tribunal of the United States.  In this condition, the
term "international air transportation" means "international
transportation" as defined by the Warsaw Convention, except that all
States shall be considered to be High Contracting Parties for the
purpose of this definition;

(8)  Except as specifically authorized by the Department, originate or
terminate all flights to/from the United States in its homeland;

(9)  Comply with the requirements of 14 CFR Part 217, concerning the
reporting of scheduled, nonscheduled, and charter data;

(10) If charter operations are authorized, except as otherwise provided
in the applicable aviation agreement, comply with the Department's rules
governing charters (including 14 CFR Parts 212 and 380); and

(11) Comply with such other reasonable terms, conditions, and
limitations required by the public interest as may be prescribed by the
Department, with all applicable orders or regulations of other U.S.
agencies and courts, and with all applicable laws of the United States.

This authority shall not be effective during any period when the holder
is not in compliance with the conditions imposed above.  Moreover, this
authority cannot be sold or otherwise transferred without explicit
Department approval under Title 49 of the U.S. Code.

												05/2004

  China Eastern’s foreign air carrier permit (Order 92-11-7)
authorizes it to conduct scheduled combination services between Shanghai
and Los Angeles.

  China Eastern’s request was accompanied by a motion to shorten the
due date for answers.  In light of China Eastern’s having polled
interested parties and received non-objections to its request, we regard
its motion as moot.


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 146 (Thursday, July 30, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 45457-45460]
[FR Doc No: 2015-18534]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2015-2964; Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-206-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus 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
Airbus Model A319, A320, and A321 series airplanes. This proposed AD is
intended to complete certain mandated programs intended to support the
airplane reaching its limit of validity (LOV) of the engineering data
that support the established structural maintenance program. This
proposed AD would require reinforcing the forward pressure bulkhead at
a certain stringer on both the left-hand and right-hand sides, and
related investigative and corrective actions if necessary. We are
proposing this AD to prevent fatigue cracking of the forward pressure

bulkhead, which could result in reduced structural integrity of the
airplane.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by September 14,
2015.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR
11.43 and 11.45, 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, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact
Airbus, Airworthiness Office--EIAS, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte,
31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61
93 44 51; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet http://www.airbus.com. You may view this referenced service information at the
FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA.
For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call
425-227-1221.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-
2964; 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
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: Sanjay Ralhan, Aerospace Engineer,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA,
1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>;
fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address
listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2015-2964;
Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-206-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

    As described in FAA Advisory Circular 120-104 (http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/120-104.pdf), several programs
have been developed to support initiatives that will ensure the
continued airworthiness of aging airplane structure. The last element
of those initiatives is the requirement to establish a LOV of the
engineering data that support the structural maintenance program under
14 CFR 26.21. This proposed AD is the result of an assessment of the
previously established programs by the design approval holder (DAH)
during the process of establishing the LOV for Model A319, A320, and
Model A321 series airplanes. The actions specified in this proposed AD
are necessary to complete certain programs to ensure the continued
airworthiness of aging airplane structure and to support an airplane
reaching its LOV.
    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical
Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA
Airworthiness Directive 2014-0209, dated September 19, 2014 (referred
to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or
``the MCAI''), to correct an unsafe condition on all Model A319, A320,
and Model A321 series airplanes. The MCAI states:

    During the A320 fatigue test campaign for Extended Service Goal
(ESG), it was determined that fatigue damage could develop on the
forward pressure bulkhead at Frame (FR) 35 on left hand (LH) side
and right hand (RH) side.
    This condition, if not detected and corrected, could affect the
structural integrity of the aeroplane.
    To address this potential unsafe condition, a reinforcement
modification was developed, which has been published through Airbus
Service Bulletin (SB) A320-53-1268 for in-service application to
allow aeroplanes to operate up to the new ESG limit.
    For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD requires
reinforcement of the centre fuselage forward pressure bulkhead at
FR35.

    The forward pressure bulkhead reinforcement includes related
investigative actions of measuring the diameters of certain fastener
holes, and if they are not oversized, doing a rotating probe inspection
for cracking of the fastener holes.
    Required corrective actions include cold expanding crack-free holes
or repairing oversize or cracked holes by using a method approved by
the FAA, EASA, or Airbus's EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA).
    You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-
2964.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    Airbus has issued Service Bulletin A320-53-1268, Revision 02, dated
July 15, 2014. The service information describes procedures for
reinforcing the forward pressure bulkhead at frame 35, stringer 30, on
both the left-hand and right-hand sides; and repairs. The actions
described in this service information are intended to correct the
unsafe condition identified in the MCAI. This service information is
reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it
through their normal course of business or by the means identified in
the ADDRESSES section of this NPRM.

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 these
same type designs.

Explanation of ``RC'' Procedures and Tests in Service Information

    The FAA worked in conjunction with industry, under the
Airworthiness Directives Implementation Aviation

Rulemaking Committee (AD ARC), to enhance the AD system. One
enhancement was a new process for annotating which procedures and tests
in the service information are required for compliance with an AD.
Differentiating these procedures and tests from other tasks in the
service information is expected to improve an owner's/operator's
understanding of crucial AD requirements and help provide consistent
judgment in AD compliance. The actions specified in the service
information identified previously include procedures and tests that are
identified as RC (required for compliance) because these procedures
have a direct effect on detecting, preventing, resolving, or
eliminating an identified unsafe condition.
    As specified in a NOTE under the Accomplishment Instructions of the
specified service information, procedures and tests that are identified
as RC in any service information must be done to comply with the
proposed AD. However, procedures and tests that are not identified as
RC are recommended. Those procedures and tests that are not identified
as RC may be deviated from using accepted methods in accordance with
the operator's maintenance or inspection program without obtaining
approval of an alternative method of compliance (AMOC), provided the
procedures and tests identified as RC can be done and the airplane can
be put back in a serviceable condition. Any substitutions or changes to
procedures or tests identified as RC will require approval of an AMOC.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 48 airplanes of U.S.
registry.
    We also estimate that it would take about 21 work-hours per product
to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. The average
labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate
the cost of this proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $85,680, or $1,785
per product.
    According to the manufacturer, some of the costs of this proposed
AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on
affected individuals. We do not control warranty coverage for affected
individuals. As a result, we have included all costs in our cost
estimate.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this 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

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

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

Airbus: Docket No. FAA-2015-2964; Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-
206-AD.

(a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by September 14, 2015.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to the Airbus airplanes identified in paragraphs
(c)(1), (c)(2), and (c)(3) of this AD, certificated in any category,
all manufacturer serial numbers.
    (1) Airbus Model A319-111, -112, -113, -114, -115, -131, -132,
and -133 airplanes.
    (2) Airbus Model A320-211, -212, -214, -231, -232, and -233
airplanes.
    (3) Airbus Model A321-111, -112, -131, -211, -212, -213, -231,
and -232 airplanes.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 53, Fuselage.

(e) Reason

    This AD is intended to complete certain mandated programs
intended to support the airplane reaching its limit of validity
(LOV) of the engineering data that support the established
structural maintenance program. We are issuing this AD to prevent
fatigue cracking of the forward pressure bulkhead, which could
result in reduced structural integrity of the airplane.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Reinforcement, Related Investigative Actions, and Corrective
Actions

    Before the accumulation of 48,000 total flight cycles or 96,000
total flight hours, whichever occurs first: Reinforce the forward
pressure bulkhead at frame 35, stringer 30, on both the left-hand
and right-hand sides; and do all applicable related investigative
and corrective actions; in accordance with the Accomplishment
Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1268, Revision 02,
dated July 15, 2014, except as provided by paragraph (h) of this AD.
Do all corrective actions before further flight.

(h) Exception to Service Information Specifications

    Although Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1268, Revision 02,
dated July 15, 2014, specifies to contact Airbus for repair
instructions, and specifies that action as ``RC'' (Required for
Compliance), this AD requires repair before further flight using a
method approved by the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116,
Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or the European Aviation Safety
Agency (EASA); or Airbus's EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA).

(i) Credit for Previous Actions

    This paragraph provides credit for actions required by paragraph
(g) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective
date of this AD using Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1268, dated
January 8, 2013; or Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1268, Revision
01, dated July 23, 2013. This service

information is not incorporated by reference in this AD.

(j) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, 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 International Branch, send it to ATTN: Sanjay
Ralhan, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport
Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-
3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>. Information may be
emailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>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.
    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD
to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer, the action must be
accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, International
Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or EASA; or
Airbus's EASA DOA. If approved by the DOA, the approval must include
the DOA-authorized signature.
    (3) Required for Compliance (RC): Except as required by
paragraph (h) of this AD, if any service information contains
procedures or tests that are identified as RC, those procedures and
tests must be done to comply with this AD; any procedures or tests
that are not identified as RC are recommended. Those procedures and
tests that are not identified as RC may be deviated from using
accepted methods in accordance with the operator's maintenance or
inspection program without obtaining approval of an AMOC, provided
the procedures and tests identified as RC can be done and the
airplane can be put back in a serviceable condition. Any
substitutions or changes to procedures or tests identified as RC
require approval of an AMOC.

(k) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information
(MCAI) EASA AD 2014-0209, dated September 19, 2014, for related
information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the Internet
at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket
No. FAA-2015-2964.
    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Airbus, Airworthiness Office--EIAS, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte,
31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5
61 93 44 51; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet http://www.airbus.com. You may view this service information at the FAA,
Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA.
For information on the availability of this material at the FAA,
call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on July 17, 2015.
Michael Kaszycki,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2015-18534 Filed 7-29-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 158 (Friday, August 14, 2020)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 49610-49611]
[FR Doc No: 2020-17760]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2020-0730; Airspace Docket No. 20-ASO-20]
RIN 2120-AA66

Proposed Amendment of the Class E Airspace; Hartford, KY

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: This action proposes to amend the Class E airspace extending
upward from 700 feet above the surface at Ohio County Airport,
Hartford, KY. The FAA is proposing this action as the result of an
airspace review due to the decommissioning of the Central City VHF
omnidirectional range (VOR) navigation aid as part of the VOR Minimum
Operational Network (MON) Program. The geographic coordinates of the
airport would also be updated to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical
database.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before September 28, 2020.

ADDRESSES: Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590; telephone
(202) 366-9826, or<PHONE_NUMBER>. You must identify FAA Docket No.
FAA-2020-0730/Airspace Docket No. 20-ASO-20, at the beginning of your
comments. You may also submit comments through the internet at https://www.regulations.gov. You may review the public docket containing the
proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in
the Dockets Office between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through
Friday, except federal holidays.
    FAA Order 7400.11D, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and
subsequent amendments can be viewed online at https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. For further information, you can contact the
Airspace Policy Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-
8783. The Order is also available for inspection at the National
Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the
exception occurred on : 2020-17760.htm
exception occurred on : 2020-17760.htm
availability of FAA Order 7400.11D at NARA, email fedreg.le[email protected]
or go to https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeffrey Claypool, Federal Aviation
Administration, Operations Support Group, Central Service Center, 10101
Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. 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. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described
in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section,
the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of
airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient
use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority
as it would amend the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet
above the surface at Ohio County Airport, Hartford, KY, to support
instrument flight rule operations at this airport.

Comments Invited

    Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed
rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as
they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the
views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing
reasoned regulatory

decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited on the
overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-
related aspects of the proposal. Communications should identify both
docket numbers and be submitted in triplicate to the address listed
above. Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their
comments on this notice must submit with those comments a self-
addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made:
``Comments to Docket No. FAA-2020-0730/Airspace Docket No. 20-ASO-20.''
The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.
    All communications received before the specified closing date for
comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule.
The proposal contained in this notice may be changed in light of the
comments received. A report summarizing each substantive public contact
with FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the
docket.

Availability of NPRMs

    An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the
internet at https://www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking
documents can also be accessed through the FAA's web page at https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/airspace_amendments/.
    You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any
comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets
Office (see the ADDRESSES section for the address and phone number)
between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except federal
holidays. An informal docket may also be examined during normal
business hours at the Federal Aviation Administration, Air Traffic
Organization, Central Service Center, Operations Support Group, 10101
Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177.

Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

    This document proposes to amend FAA Order 7400.11D, Airspace
Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 8, 2019, and effective
September 15, 2019. FAA Order 7400.11D is publicly available as listed
in the ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order 7400.11D lists
Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and
reporting points.

The Proposal

    The FAA is proposing an amendment to Title 14 Code of Federal
Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 by amending the Class E airspace extending
upward from 700 feet above the surface to within a 6.5-mile radius
(increased from a 6.4-mile radius) of Ohio County Airport, Hartford,
KY; and updating the geographic coordinates of the airport to coincide
with the FAA's aeronautical database.
    This action is the result of an airspace review caused by the
decommissioning of the Central City VOR, which provided navigation
information for the instrument procedures at this airport, as part of
the VOR MON Program.
    Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005 of
FAA Order 7400.11D, dated August 8, 2019, and effective September 15,
2019, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E
airspace designations listed in this document will be published
subsequently in the Order.
    FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is
published yearly and effective on September 15.

Regulatory Notices and Analyses

    The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current, is
non-controversial and unlikely to result in adverse or negative
comments. It, therefore: (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action''
under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under
DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26,
1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation
as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter
that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified that this rule, when promulgated, would not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Environmental Review

    This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in
accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, ``Environmental Impacts: Policies
and Procedures'' prior to any FAA final regulatory action.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

The Proposed Amendment

    Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, the Federal
Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

PART 71--DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR
TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS

0
1. The authority citation for 14 CFR part 71 continues to read as
follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O.
10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

Sec.  71.1   [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.11D,
Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 8, 2019, and
effective September 15, 2019, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas Extending Upward From 700
Feet or More Above the Surface of the Earth.

* * * * *

ASO KY E5 Hartford, KY [Amdended]

Ohio County Airport
    (Lat. 37[deg]27'31'' N, long. 86[deg]50'59'' W)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet or more above the
surface within a 6.5-mile radius of Ohio County Airport.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on August 10, 2020.
Steven T. Phillips,
Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, ATO Central Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2020-17760 Filed 8-13-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 131 (Thursday, July 9, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 39428]
[FR Doc No: 2015-16810]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-9930-36-Region 8]

Proposed Settlement Agreement for Iron Springs Mining District
Site, Uncompahgre National Forest, San Miguel County, Colorado

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice; Request for public comment.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Comprehensive Environmental Response
Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, as amended (CERCLA), notice is
hereby given of the proposed Administrative Settlement between the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Department of Agriculture
Forest Service (USFS) (collectively the ``Agencies''), and Union Oil
Company of California, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as ``the Settling
Party''). The Settling Party will pay within 30 days after the
effective date of this Proposed Agreement ($403,300) to the EPA,
($14,573) to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, and ($357,677) to the
USFS for past response costs. The covenants provided by the Agencies to
the Settling Party are conditioned upon the satisfactory performance by
Settling Party of its obligations under this Settlement Agreement. The
payments made by Settling Party in accordance with this Settlement
Agreement do not constitute an admission of any liability by Settling
Party.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before August 10, 2015.

ADDRESSES: The proposed agreement is available by appointment for
public inspection at the EPA Superfund Record Center, 1595 Wynkoop
Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129, during normal business hours.
Appointments for review may be made by calling the EPA Superfund
Records Center at<PHONE_NUMBER>. Comments and requests for a copy of
the proposed agreement should be addressed to Michael Rudy, Enforcement
Specialist, Environmental Protection Agency--Region 8, Mail Code 8ENF-
RC, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129, and should
reference the Iron Springs Mining District Site, the EPA Docket No.
CERCLA-08-2015-0005.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael Rudy, Enforcement Specialist,
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 8, Mail Code 8ENF-ENF, at the
above address,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: June 16, 2015.
Kelcey Land,
Director, Technical Enforcement Program, Office of Enforcement,
Compliance, and Environmental Justice, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Region 8.
[FR Doc. 2015-16810 Filed 7-8-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 186 (Tuesday, September 25, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 48363-48366]
[FR Doc No: 2018-20802]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2017-0867; Product Identifier 2017-CE-021-AD; Amendment
39-19411; AD 2018-19-11]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Viking Air Limited Airplanes

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all
Viking Air Limited Models DHC-2 Mk. I, DHC-2 Mk. II, and DHC-2 Mk. III
airplanes. This AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness
information (MCAI) issued 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 cracking found in the wing rear
spar web at the wing station where the flap outboard hinge is attached.
We are issuing this AD to require actions to address the unsafe
condition on these products.

DATES: This AD is effective October 30, 2018.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of October 30,
2018.

ADDRESSES: You may examine the AD docket on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2017-
0867; or in person at Document

Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.
    For service information identified in this AD, contact Viking Air
Limited Technical Support, 1959 De Havilland Way, Sidney, British
Columbia, Canada, V8L 5V5; telephone: (North America)<PHONE_NUMBER>;
fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email: [email protected]; internet:
http://www.vikingair.com/support/service-bulletins. You may view this
referenced service information at the FAA, Policy and Innovation
Division, 901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. For information on
the availability of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. It
is also available on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by
searching for Docket No. FAA-2017-0867.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Aziz Ahmed, Aerospace Engineer, FAA,
New York ACO Branch, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, New York
11590; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (SNPRM) to
amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to all Viking Air
Limited Models DHC-2 Mk. I, DHC-2 Mk. II, and DHC-2 Mk. III airplanes.
The SNPRM published in the Federal Register on May 7, 2018 (83 FR
19983). We preceded the SNPRM with a notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM) that published in the Federal Register on September 8, 2017 (82
FR 42489). The NPRM proposed to require inspecting the wing rear spar
and flap/aileron support brackets within 400 hours time-in-service
(TIS) and reporting the results to the manufacturer. The NPRM was based
on mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) originated by
Transport Canada, the aviation authority for Canada. The MCAI states:

    It was reported that a crack was found in the wing rear spar
web, part number C2W1007, at wing station 123.5 where the flap
outboard hinge is attached. An aileron hinge bracket has also been
found cracked. Viking Air Ltd. analysis shows that similar cracks
may develop on the wing rear spar web and flap/aileron hinge arm
support brackets at the other flap/aileron hinge attachment
locations.
    Undetected cracking of the wing rear spar or flap/aileron hinge
bracket may lead to the failure of the component with consequent
loss of aeroplane control.

    The MCAI requires inspecting the left-hand and right-hand wing rear
spar and the flap/aileron hinge air support brackets for cracks,
damage, or discrepancies and repairing or replacing any parts with
cracks, damage, or discrepancies. The MCAI can be found in the AD
docket on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=FAA-2017-0867-0002.
    The SNPRM proposed to revise the compliance times to require the
inspections within 400 hours TIS or 6 months, whichever occurs first,
to match the compliance times in the MCAI.

Comments

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

Conclusion

    We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comment received, and
determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting
this AD as proposed except for minor editorial changes. We have
determined that these minor changes:
     [Agr]re consistent with the intent that was proposed in
the SNPRM for correcting the unsafe condition; and
     Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was
already proposed in the SNPRM.
    We also determined that these changes will not increase the
economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of this AD.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    Viking Air Limited has issued Viking DHC-2 Beaver Service Bulletin
Number: V2/0009, Revision A, dated February 10, 2017. The service
information describes procedures for inspecting the left-hand and
right-hand wing rear spars, the flap/aileron hinge brackets, and the
exterior store support bracket for cracks, damage, and discrepancies.
The service information also specifies repairing or replacing any parts
that have cracks, damage, or discrepancies. This service information is
reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it
through their normal course of business or by the means identified in
the ADDRESSES section.

Interim Action

    We consider this AD interim action. The inspection report required
by this AD allows us to obtain better information into the nature,
cause, and extent of the damage to the wing rear spars and flap/aileron
hinge arm support brackets and to develop final action to address the
unsafe condition. After evaluating the inspection results, we may
consider further rulemaking.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD will affect 140 products of U.S. registry.
We also estimate that it will take about 11 work-hours per product to
comply with the basic inspection requirements of this AD. The average
labor rate is $85 per work-hour.
    Based on these figures, we estimate the basic cost of this AD on
U.S. operators to be $130,900, or $935 per product.
    Reporting the inspection findings would require about 5 minutes,
for a cost of $7 per airplane and $980 for the U.S. operator fleet.
    In addition, the following is an estimate of possible necessary
follow-on replacement actions. We have no way of determining the number
of products that may need these actions.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Number of work-
                 Part No.                    Left-hand (LH) or right-              Description              Number per      Parts cost       hours to
                                                  hand (RH) wing                                             airplane                         replace
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
C2W123A..................................  Both (one per wing)........  Hinge bracket LH inboard (flap)/               2         \2\ 288          \2\ 12
                                                                         RH outboard (aileron).
C2W124A..................................  Both (one per wing)........  Hinge bracket RH inboard (flap)/               2         \2\ 288          \2\ 12
                                                                         LH outboard (aileron).
C2W143...................................  Both (four per wing).......  Hinge bracket, flap and aileron                8         \3\ 271          \3\ 12
                                                                         (common part--multiple wing
                                                                         stations (WS)).
C2W143A (Agricultural Option)............  Both (one per wing)........  Agricultural (optional                     \1\ 2         \2\ 271          \2\ 12
                                                                         configuration)--hinge bracket,
                                                                         support arm (IPC PSM 1-2-4
                                                                         Figure 128, Item 15).
C2W63....................................  LH.........................  Inboard spar, rear spar.........  ..............             277              60

C2W64....................................  RH.........................  Inboard spar, rear spar.........  ..............             277              60
C2W155...................................  Both (one per wing)........  Intermediate spar...............               2         \2\ 563          \2\ 60
C2W65A...................................  LH.........................  Spar WS 89.16 to WS 170.16......             * 1             835              60
C2W66A...................................  RH.........................  Spar WS 89.16 to WS 170.16......             * 1             835              60
C2W67A...................................  LH.........................  Outboard spar, WS 170.16 to WS               * 1             835              60
                                                                         245.75.
C2W68A...................................  RH.........................  Outboard spar, WS 170.16 to WS               * 1             835              60
                                                                         245.75.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* To replace any wing spar section takes 60 work-hours. To replace all four wing spar sections per wing takes 240 work-hours.
\1\ (If applies).
\2\ For both.
\3\ For all eight.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    A federal agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not
required to respond to, nor shall a person be subject to a penalty for
failure to comply with a collection of information subject to the
requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act unless that collection of
information displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. The OMB
Control Number for this information collection is 2120-0056. Public
reporting for this collection of information is estimated to be
approximately 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing
instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and
maintaining the data needed, completing and reviewing the collection of
information. All responses to this collection of information are
mandatory. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other
aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for
reducing this burden to: Information Collection Clearance Officer,
Federal Aviation Administration, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX
76177-1524.

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.
    This AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the
Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by
FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order, issuance of ADs is
normally a function of the Compliance and Airworthiness Division, but
during this transition period, the Executive Director has delegated the
authority to issue ADs applicable to small airplanes, gliders,
balloons, airships, domestic business jet transport airplanes, and
associated appliances to the Director of the Policy and Innovation
Division.

Regulatory Findings

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

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2017-
0867; or in person at Docket Operations between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains
the NPRM, the SNPRM, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received,
and other information. The street address for Docket Operations
(telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will
be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

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

2018-19-11 Viking Air Limited: Amendment 39-19411; Docket No. FAA-
2017-0867; Product Identifier 2017-CE-021-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This AD becomes effective October 30, 2018.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Viking Air Limited Models DHC-2 Mk. I, DHC-2
Mk. II, and DHC-2 Mk. III airplanes, all serial numbers,
certificated in any category.

(d) Subject

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

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by 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 cracking found in the wing rear
spar web at the wing station (WS) where the flap outboard hinge is
attached. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct cracks in the
wing rear spars and the flap/aileron hinge arm support brackets.
This condition, if not corrected, could result in structural failure
with consequent loss of control of the airplane.

(f) Actions and Compliance

    Unless already done, do the actions in paragraphs (f)(1) through
(5) of this AD:

    (1) Within 400 hours time-in-service (TIS) after October 30,
2018 (the effective date of this AD) or within 6 months after
October 30, 2018 (the effective date of this AD), whichever occurs
first, visually inspect the left-hand and right-hand wing rear spar
and flap/aileron hinge arm support brackets by following the
Accomplishment Instructions of Viking DHC-2 Beaver Service Bulletin
Number: V2/0009, Revision A, dated February 10, 2017 (SB V2/0009,
Revision A).
    (2) For airplanes with an agricultural configuration installed
(SOO Mod 2/984), within 400 hours TIS after October 30, 2018 (the
effective date of this AD) or within 6 months after October 30, 2018
(the effective date of this AD), whichever occurs first, inspect the
exterior store support arm bracket at WS 101.24 by following the
Accomplishment Instructions of SB V2/0009, Revision A.
    (3) If any discrepancies are found during the inspections
required in paragraphs (f)(1) and (2) of this AD, before further
flight, repair or replace using a method approved by the Manager,
New York ACO Branch, FAA; Transport Canada; or Viking Air Limited's
Transport Canada Design Organization Approval (DOA). If approved by
the DOA, the approval must include the DOA-authorized signature.
    (4) Within 30 days after completing the inspections required in
paragraphs (f)(1) and (2) of this AD, using the Operator Reply Form
on page 7 of SB V2/0009, Revision A, report the inspection results
to Viking Air Limited at the address specified in paragraph (i)(3)
of this AD.
    (5) As of October 30, 2018 (the effective date of this AD), do
not install a wing on any airplane affected by this AD unless it has
been inspected as specified in paragraphs (f)(1) of this AD and
paragraph (f)(2) of this AD, if applicable, and is found free of any
discrepancies.

(g) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, New
York ACO Branch, 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: Aziz Ahmed, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, New York
ACO Branch, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, New York
11590; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
[email protected]. Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane
to which the AMOC applies, notify your appropriate principal
inspector (PI) in the FAA Flight Standards District Office (FSDO),
or lacking a PI, your local FSDO.
    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD
to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer, the action must be
accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, New York ACO
Branch, FAA; or Transport Canada; or Viking Air Limited's Transport
Canada DOA. If approved by the DOA, the approval must include the
DOA-authorized signature.
    (3) Reporting Requirements: A federal agency may not conduct or
sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, nor shall a
person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with a
collection of information subject to the requirements of the
Paperwork Reduction Act unless that collection of information
displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. The OMB Control
Number for this information collection is 2120-0056. Public
reporting for this collection of information is estimated to be
approximately 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing
instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and
maintaining the data needed, completing and reviewing the collection
of information. All responses to this collection of information are
mandatory. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other
aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for
reducing this burden to: Information Collection Clearance Officer,
Federal Aviation Administration, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth,
TX 76177-1524.

(h) Related Information

    Refer to MCAI Transport Canada AD Number CF-2017-17, dated May
18, 2017, for related information. You may examine the MCAI on the
internet at https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=FAA-2017-0867-0002.

(i) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed
in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) Viking DHC-2 Beaver Service Bulletin Number: V2/0009,
Revision A, dated February 10, 2017.
    (ii) Reserved.
    (3) For Viking DHC-2 Beaver service information identified in
this AD, contact Viking Air Limited Technical Support, 1959 De
Havilland Way, Sidney, British Columbia, Canada, V8L 5V5; telephone:
(North America)<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
[email protected]; internet: http://www.vikingair.com/
support/service-Bulletins.
    (4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Policy and
Innovation Division, 901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. For
information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call
(816) 329-4148. In addition, you can access this service information
on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and
locating Docket No. FAA-2017-0867.
    (5) You may view this service information that is incorporated
by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA). For information on the availability of this material at
NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on September 7, 2018
Melvin J. Johnson,
Aircraft Certification Service, Deputy Director, Policy and Innovation
Division, AIR-601.
[FR Doc. 2018-20802 Filed 9-24-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 214 (Tuesday, November 7, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 76860-76861]
[FR Doc No: 2023-24515]

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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

[Docket No. OSHA-2007-0043]

TUV SUD America, Inc.: Application for Expansion of Recognition

AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In this notice, OSHA announces the application of TUV SUD
America, Inc. (TUVAM) for expansion of recognition as a Nationally
Recognized Testing Laboratory (NRTL) and presents the agency's
preliminary finding to grant the application.

DATES: Submit comments, information, and documents in response to this
notice, or requests for an extension of time to make a submission, on
or before November 22, 2023.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be submitted as follows:
    Electronically: You may submit comments, including attachments,
electronically at http://www.regulations.gov, the Federal eRulemaking
Portal. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments.
    Instructions: All submissions must include the agency's name and
the docket number for this rulemaking (Docket No. OSHA-2007-0043). All
comments, including any personal information you provide, are placed in
the public docket without change and may be made available online at
https://www.regulations.gov. Therefore, OSHA cautions commenters about
submitting information they do not want made available to the public,
or submitting materials that contain personal information (either about
themselves or others), such as Social Security numbers and birthdates.
    Docket: To read or download comments or other material in the
docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov. Documents in the docket
(including this Federal Register notice) are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index; however, some information (e.g., copyrighted
material) is not publicly available to read or download through the
website. All submissions, including copyrighted material, are available
for inspection through the OSHA Docket Office. Contact the OSHA Docket
Office at<PHONE_NUMBER> (TTY<PHONE_NUMBER>) for assistance in
locating docket submissions.
    Extension of comment period: Submit requests for an extension of
the comment period on or before November 22, 2023 to the Office of
Technical Programs and Coordination Activities, Directorate of
Technical Support and Emergency Management, Occupational Safety and
Health Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution
Avenue NW, Room N-3653, Washington, DC 20210, or by fax to (202) 693-
1644.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Information regarding this notice is
available from the following sources:
    Press inquiries: Contact Mr. Frank Meilinger, Director, OSHA Office
of Communications, U.S. Department of Labor by phone:<PHONE_NUMBER> or
email: [email protected].
    General and technical information: Contact Mr. Kevin Robinson,
Director, Office of Technical Programs and Coordination Activities,
Directorate of Technical Support and Emergency Management, Occupational
Safety and Health Administration, U.S. Department of Labor by phone:
(202) 693-1911 or email: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Notice of the Application for Expansion

    OSHA is providing notice that TUV SUD America, Inc. (TUVAM) is
applying for expansion of the current recognition as a NRTL. TUVAM
requests the addition of three test standards to their NRTL scope of
recognition.
    OSHA recognition of a NRTL signifies that the organization meets
the requirements specified in 29 CFR 1910.7. Recognition is an
acknowledgment that the organization can perform independent safety
testing and certification of the specific products covered within its
scope of recognition. Each NRTL's scope of recognition includes (1) the
type of products the NRTL may test, with each type specified by its
applicable test standard; and (2) the recognized site(s) that has/have
the technical capability to perform the product-testing and product-

certification activities for test standards within the NRTL's scope.
Recognition is not a delegation or grant of government authority;
however, recognition enables employers to use products approved by the
NRTL to meet OSHA standards that require product testing and
certification.
    The agency processes an application by a NRTL for initial
recognition and for an expansion or renewal of this recognition,
following requirements in Appendix A, 29 CFR 1910.7. This appendix
requires that the agency publish two notices in the Federal Register in
processing an application. In the first notice, OSHA announces the
application and provides its preliminary finding. In the second notice,
the agency provides the final decision on the application. These
notices set forth the NRTL's scope of recognition or modifications of
that scope. OSHA maintains an informational web page for each NRTL,
including TUVAM, which details the NRTL's scope of recognition. These
pages are available from the OSHA website at: http://www.osha.gov/dts/otpca/nrtl/index.html.
    TUVAM currently has sixteen facilities (sites) recognized by OSHA
for product testing and certification, with its headquarters located
at: TUV SUD America, Inc., 401 Edgewater Place, Suite 500, Wakefield,
MA 01880. A complete list of TUVAM's scope of recognition (including
sites recognized by OSHA) is available at: https://www.osha.gov/dts/otpca/nrtl/tuvam.html.

II. General Background on the Application

    TUVAM submitted an application, dated November 22, 2021 (OSHA-2007-
0043-0049), to expand their recognition to include three additional
test standards. OSHA staff performed detailed analysis of the
application packet and reviewed other pertinent information. OSHA did
not perform any on-site reviews in relation to this application.
    Table 1 below lists the appropriate test standards found in TUVAM's
application for expansion for testing and certification of products
under the NRTL Program.

  Table 1--Proposed List of Appropriate Test Standards for Inclusion in
                    TUVAM's NRTL Scope of Recognition
------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Test standard                     Test standard title
------------------------------------------------------------------------
UL 1973................................  Batteries for Use in
                                          Stationary, Vehicle Auxiliary
                                          Power and Light Electric Rail
                                          (LER) Applications.
UL 2054................................  Household and Commercial
                                          Batteries.
UL 2271................................  Batteries for Use in Light
                                          Electric Vehicle (LEV)
                                          Applications.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Preliminary Findings on the Application

    TUVAM submitted an acceptable application for expansion of the NRTL
scope of recognition. OSHA's review of the application file, and
pertinent documentation, indicate that TUVAM can meet the requirements
prescribed by 29 CFR 1910.7 for expanding their recognition to include
the addition of these three test standards for NRTL testing and
certification listed above. This preliminary finding does not
constitute an interim or temporary approval of TUVAM's application.
OSHA seeks comment on this preliminary determination.

IV. Public Participation

    OSHA welcomes public comment as to whether TUVAM meets the
requirements of 29 CFR 1910.7 for expansion of recognition as a NRTL.
Comments should consist of pertinent written documents and exhibits.
    Commenters needing more time to comment must submit a request in
writing, stating the reasons for the request by the due date for
comments. OSHA will limit any extension to 10 days unless the requester
justifies a longer time period. OSHA may deny a request for an
extension if it is not adequately justified.
    To review copies of the exhibits identified in this notice, as well
as comments submitted to the docket, contact the Docket Office,
Occupational Safety and Health Administration, U.S. Department of
Labor. These materials also are generally available online at https://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. OSHA-2007-0043 (for further
information, see the ``Docket'' heading in the section of this notice
titled ADDRESSES).
    OSHA staff will review all comments to the docket submitted in a
timely manner. After addressing the issues raised by these comments,
staff will make a recommendation to the Assistant Secretary of Labor
for Occupational Safety and Health on whether to grant TUVAM's
application for expansion of the scope of recognition. The Assistant
Secretary will make the final decision on granting the application. In
making this decision, the Assistant Secretary may undertake other
proceedings prescribed in Appendix A to 29 CFR 1910.7.
    OSHA will publish a public notice of the final decision in the
Federal Register.

V. Authority and Signature

    James S. Frederick, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Labor for
Occupational Safety and Health, 200 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington,
DC 20210, authorized the preparation of this notice. Accordingly, the
agency is issuing this notice pursuant to Section 29 U.S.C. 657(g)(2),
Secretary of Labor's Order No. 8-2020 (85 FR 58393; Sept. 18, 2020),
and 29 CFR 1910.7.

    Signed at Washington, DC, on November 1, 2023.
James S. Frederick,
Deputy Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health.
[FR Doc. 2023-24515 Filed 11-6-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-26-P