[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 1 (Tuesday, January 3, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 114-115]
[FR Doc No: 2016-31829]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0022; FRL-9956-33]

Pesticide Product Registrations; Receipt of Applications for New
Uses

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: EPA has received applications to register new uses for
pesticide products containing currently registered active ingredients.
Pursuant to the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act
(FIFRA), EPA is hereby providing notice of receipt and opportunity to
comment on these applications.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before February 2, 2017.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by the Docket
Identification (ID) Number and the EPA Registration Number of interest
as shown in the body of this document, by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Do not submit
electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted
by statute.
     Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental Protection Agency Docket
Center (EPA/DC), (28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC
20460-0001.
     Hand Delivery: To make special arrangements for hand
delivery or delivery of boxed information, please follow the
instructions at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.html. Additional
instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along with more
information about dockets generally, is available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael Goodis, Registration Division
(7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency,
1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; main telephone
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an
agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer.
The following list of North American Industrial Classification System
(NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them.
Potentially affected entities may include:
     Crop production (NAICS code 111).
     Animal production (NAICS code 112).
     Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
     Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).
    If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this
action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

B. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?

    1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through
regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark the part or all of the
information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or
CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as
CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the
specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one
complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as
CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information
claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket.
Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with
procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
    2. Tips for preparing your comments. When preparing and submitting
your comments, see the commenting tips at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/comments.html.
    3. Environmental justice. EPA seeks to achieve environmental
justice, the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of any group,
including minority and/or low-income populations, in the development,
implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and
policies. To help address potential environmental justice issues, EPA
seeks information on any groups or segments of the population who, as a
result of their location, cultural practices, or other factors, may
have atypical or disproportionately high and adverse human health
impacts or

environmental effects from exposure to the pesticides discussed in this
document, compared to the general population.

II. Registration Applications

    EPA has received applications to register new uses for pesticide
products containing currently registered active ingredients. Pursuant
to the provisions of FIFRA section 3(c)(4) (7 U.S.C. 136a(c)(4)), EPA
is hereby providing notice of receipt and opportunity to comment on
these applications. Notice of receipt of these applications does not
imply a decision by EPA on these applications. For actions being
evaluated under EPA's public participation process for registration
actions, there will be an additional opportunity for public comment on
the proposed decisions. Please see EPA's public participation Web site
for additional information on this process (http://www2.epa.gov/pesticide-registration/public-participation-process-registration-actions). EPA received the following applications to register new uses
for pesticide products containing currently registered active
ingredients:
    1. EPA Registration Numbers: 100-739, 100-1262, 100-1312, 100-1313,
100-1317, and 100-1554. Docket ID Number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0254.
Applicant: Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC, P.O. Box 18300, Greensboro,
NC 27419. Active Ingredient: Difenoconazole. Product Type: Fungicide.
Proposed Use: Cranberry; Fruit, small, vine climbing, except fuzzy
kiwifruit, subgroup 13-07F; Guava; Kohlrabi; Papaya; Crop group
conversion from Brassica, leafy greens, subgroup 5B to Brassica, leafy
greens, subgroup 4-16B; and Crop group conversion from Brassica, head
and stem, subgroup 5A to Vegetable, brassica, head and stem, group 5-
16.
    2. EPA Registration Number: 100-1481. Docket ID Number: EPA-HQ-OPP-
2016-0640. Applicant: Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC, P.O. Box 18300,
Greensboro, NC 27419. Active Ingredient: Indoxacarb. Product Type:
Insecticide. Proposed Use: Commercial ornamental plant nurseries,
pastures grazed by horses and other companion animals not used for
consumption, and sod farms.
    3. EPA Registration Numbers: 59639-139, 59639-140, and 59639-141.
Docket ID Number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0257. Applicant: Valent USA
Corporation, P.O. Box 8025, Walnut Creek, CA 94596. Active Ingredient:
Fluopicolide. Product Type: Fungicide. Proposed Use: Basil; Beans,
succulent; Fruit, citrus, crop group 10-10; Hop, dried cones; Crop
group conversion from Vegetable, fruiting, crop group 8 to Vegetable,
fruiting, crop group 8-10; and Crop group expansion from Grape to
Fruit, small, vine climbing, except fuzzy kiwifruit, subgroup 13-07F.

    Authority:  7 U.S.C. 136 et seq.

    Dated: December 20, 2016.
Robert McNally,
Director, Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention Division, Office of
Pesticide Programs.
[FR Doc. 2016-31829 Filed 12-30-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


Meeting with Syngenta on Atrazine Watershed Management Program in
Missouri

July 25, 2007

Particpants

EPA 						Syngenta

Tracy Perry/OPP/SRRD 			Dennis Tierney

Anne Overstreet/OPP/SRRD			Paul Hendley

Robert McNally/OPP/SRRD			Dan Campbell

Steve Bradbury/OPP/EFED			Janice MacFarland

Stephanie Irene/OPP/EFED

Nelson Thurman/OPP/EFED

Mark Corbin/OPP/EFED

Mary Frankenberry/OPP/EFED

Ruth Chemrys/OW/OWOW

Francoise Brasier/OW/OWOW

Heather Duncan/EPA Reg. 7 (by conference line)

Pete Davis/EPA Reg. 7 (by conference line)

Bruce Perkins/ EPA Reg. 7 (by conference line)

Syngenta presented to OPP, OW, and EPA Region 7 staff its watershed
management activities for two watersheds in Missouri which have exceeded
the screening trigger for atrazine ecological monitoring.  Although
neither site exceeds a level that would require immediate mitigation,
Syngenta is required to conduct watershed management activities that are
consistent with OW’s Total Maximum Daily Load program.  Syngenta’s
outreach activities include label education and best management practice
meetings with growers and other stakeholders in these areas.   EPA
Region 7 were keen on Syngenta’s offer to meet with Region 7 staff,
state regulatory agencies (agriculture and water), and others on their
stewardship activities sometime this fall.


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 111 (Friday, June 11, 2021)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 31109-31110]
[FR Doc No: 2021-12216]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2021-227; Airspace Docket No. 21-AGL-16]
RIN 2120-AA66

Amendment of Class E Airspace; Huron, SD

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action amends the Class E airspace at Huron Regional
Airport, Huron, SD. This action is the result of an airspace review
caused by the decommissioning of the Huron VHF omnidirectional range
(VOR) navigation aid as part of the VOR Minimum Operational Network
(MON) Program. The geographic coordinates of the airport are also being
updated to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database.

DATES: Effective 0901 UTC, August 12, 2021. The Director of the Federal
Register approves this incorporation by reference action under 1 CFR
part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.11 and
publication of conforming amendments.

ADDRESSES: FAA Order 7400.11E, 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
availability of FAA Order 7400.11E at NARA, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>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 amends the Class E surface airspace and the Class E airspace
extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Huron Regional
Airport, Huron, SD, to support instrument flight rule operations at
this airport.

History

    The FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) in the
Federal Register (86 FR 18487; April 9, 2021) for Docket No. FAA-2021-
0227 to amend the Class E airspace at Huron Regional Airport, Huron,
SD. Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking
effort by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. No
comments were received.
    Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6002 and
6005, respectively, of FAA Order 7400.11E, dated July 21, 2020, and
effective September 15, 2020, 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.

Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

    This document amends FAA Order 7400.11E, Airspace Designations and
Reporting Points, dated July 21, 2020, and effective September 15,
2020. FAA Order 7400.11E is publicly available as listed in the
ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order 7400.11E lists Class A,
B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and
reporting points.

The Rule

    This amendment to 14 CFR part 71:
    Amends the Class E surface airspace to within a 4.2-mile (decreased
from a 4.5-mile) radius of Huron Regional Airport, Huron, SD; and
updates the geographic coordinates of the airport to coincide with the
FAA's aeronautical database;
    And amends the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet
above the surface at Huron Regional Airport by removing the Huron
VORTAC, Beady NDB, and all extensions from the airspace legal
description as they are no longer required; and updates the geographic
coordinates of the airport to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical
database.
    This action is necessary due to an airspace review caused by the
decommissioning of the Huron VOR, which provided navigation information
for the instrument procedures this airport, as part of the VOR MON
Program.
    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 only affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified that this rule, when promulgated, does not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the
criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Environmental Review

    The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical
exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance
with FAA Order 1050.1F, ``Environmental Impacts: Policies and
Procedures,'' paragraph 5-6.5.a. This airspace action is not expected
to cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no
extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an
environmental assessment.

Lists of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

Adoption of the Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration amends 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 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 7400.11E,
Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated July 21, 2020, and
effective September 15, 2020, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 6002 Class E Airspace Areas Designated as a Surface Area.

* * * * *

AGL SD E2 Huron, SD [Amended]

Huron Regional Airport, SD
    (Lat. 44[deg]23'07'' N, long. 98[deg]13'43'' W)

    Within a 4.2-mile radius of Huron Regional Airport.

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

* * * * *

AGL SD E5 Huron, SD [Amended]

Huron Regional Airport, SD
    (Lat. 44[deg]23'07'' N, long. 98[deg]13'43'' W)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 6.7-mile radius of the Huron Regional Airport.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on June 7, 2021.
Martin A. Skinner,
Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, ATO Central Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2021-12216 Filed 6-10-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


                            ENGINEERING EVALUATION

Date: 5/16/18				Project Number: 18-144
Facility Name: Trustile Doors of Iowa				Facility ID: 98-01-006
Engineer: Danjin Zulic				FO: 2
Permit Number(s): 03-A-1027-S2, 03-A-1028-S2, 03-A-1029-S2, 03-A-1030-S2, 03-A-1031-S2, 03-A-1032-S2, 03-A-1033-S2, 03-A-1034-S2, 03-A-1035-S3, 03-A-1036-S1, 04-A-526-S2, 04-A-527-S2, 04-A-528-S2, and 13-A-371-S1
Project Description:
       Trustile Doors of Iowa (Trustile) is a wood door manufacturing facility located in Northwood, IA. The facility, which was previously owned by Woodharbor, manufactures various types of doors for residential and office settings. Trustile submitted an application to lower potential VOC emissions below the Title V major source threshold (100 TPY) and to limit SHAP and THAP emissions below the NESHAP area source thresholds (10 TPY and 25 TPY, respectively). As an area source of HAP, the facility would like to no longer be subject to NESHAP Subpart QQQQ. Previously, any facility subject to a major source NESHAP standard, such as Subpart QQQQ, would not be allowed to get out of the subpart, even if they became an area source of HAP. However, EPA released a memo on this so-called "once in, always in" on January 25, 2018. EPA determined that the "once in, always in" policy is not the intent of the language in the Clean Air Act and is no longer valid. Shortly thereafter, the IDNR management made a decision to follow the EPA guidance and allow companies to take HAP area source limits and get out of any applicable major source NESHAP subparts. Therefore, Trustile is able to get out NESHAP Subpart QQQQ if it takes appropriate and enforceable HAP limits. As a result of this project, this facility is no longer a major source of HAP, no longer a major source for the purposes of Title V, and no longer subject to NESHAP Subpart QQQQ.
       As a result of this project, Trustile does not anticipate an increase in HAP emissions. In fact, as shown in Figure 1, the actual HAP (and VOC) emissions over the past 15 years have not been close to the major source thresholds. There are no concerns that the facility will increase its HAP emissions at this time.

   Figure 1: Actual HAP and VOC Emissions
       Figure 2 shows the facility-wide PTE. As shown in the figure, the facility-wide PTE is below the Title V and PSD major source thresholds. Therefore, this facility is a minor source for the purposes of PSD and Title V at this time.

Figure 2: Facility-wide PTE
       SPARS data entry: No updates necessary at this time.
SIC/NAICS: 2431/321918

Compliance Status:
    There are no compliance issues at this facility at this time.

Applicability Determination:
 One Source Determination:
          Is there another operation that is considered part of this facility? 	No.

 NSR-PSD-NAA:
          Attainment?:							Yes.  This facility is located in Northwood.
          Twenty-eight listed source?:					No. This facility manufactures wood doors, which is not a 28-listed source. The major source threshold for the purposes of PSD is 250 TPY per pollutant.
          PSD nested sources?						No.
          "Major" source?						No. As shown in Figure 2, the facility-wide PTE of each pollutant is below 250 TPY. Therefore, this facility is a minor source for the purposes of PSD at this time.

 Title V:
 "Major" source?:						No. The Title V major source thresholds for this facility are 10 TPY for SHAP, 25 TPY for THAP, and 100 TPY for all other criteria pollutants. As shown in Figure 2, the facility-wide PTE for all criteria pollutants is now below the Title V major source thresholds. Therefore, this facility is a minor source for the purposes of Title V at this time.

 NSPS:
          These emission units are not subject to any NSPS subparts at this time as there are no applicable subparts for their source categories.

 NESHAP:
          This facility is of the source category for Subpart QQQQ (National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Surface Coating of Wood Building Products; 40 CFR §63.4680  -  §63.4781).  However, this facility is not subject because the facility is an area source of HAP at this time. Subpart QQQQ is only applicable to major sources of HAP.
          This facility is of the source category for Subpart HHHHHH (National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Paint Stripping and Miscellaneous Surface Coating Operations at Area Sources; 40 CFR §63.11169  -  §63.11180). However, this facility is not subject because the facility does not apply any coating to any metal or plastic surface. Per 40 CFR §63.11170, the facility is not subject to the Subpart.

 Iowa Administrative Code (IAC):
          567 IAC 22.1(1)		Permit required for construction of any equipment
          567 IAC 23.4(13)		Particulate matter limit
          567 IAC 23.3(2)"d"		Opacity limit
          567 IAC 25.1(7)		Stack testing requirements

Dispersion Modeling:
       Facility-wide PM10 dispersion modeling was completed in PN 04-283. The predicted concentration was not within 1 SIL of the NAAQS. There are no increases in particulate matter as a result of this project. Therefore, dispersion modeling is not required at this time.

Compliance Demonstration:
 The facility is required to track actual SHAP and THAP emissions from all non-combustion sources on a rolling 12-month basis. The facility is also required to track VOC material usage from the spray booths and putty application and actual VOC emissions from the adhesive application. The calculated potential particulate matter emissions are below the established emission limits. Therefore, no additional compliance demonstrations are necessary at this time.

Emission Limits:
 The following emission limits were established:
 Spray Booths 1  -  5:
 PM  -  0.01 gr/scf [567 IAC 23.4(13)]
 Opacity  -  40% [567 IAC 23.3(2)"d"]
 SHAP  -  9.0 TPY, THAP  -  24.0 TPY established in this project in order for the facility to become an area source for the purposes of NESHAP
 Pump Vent Rooms 1  -  4:
 No emission limits established

 Woodworking 1  -  3:
 PM  -  5.91 lb/hr [5.74 lb/hr for woodworking 2 and 3] and 0.01 gr/dscf established in PN 04-283 to limit PTE below the major source threshold for the purposes of PSD. The facility wanted to retain the 0.01 gr/dscf limit from previous permits even though a less stringent limit (0.1 gr/dscf based on the state standard) was proposed. The hourly PTE from each of these baghouses was estimated assuming 0.01 gr/dscf grain loading.
 Adhesive Application:
 VOC  -  10.0 TPY established in this project to limit PTE below the Title V major source threshold
 SHAP  -  9.0 TPY, THAP  -  24.0 TPY established in this project in order for the facility to become an area source for the purposes of NESHAP
 Putty Application:
 SHAP  -  9.0 TPY, THAP  -  24.0 TPY established in this project in order for the facility to become an area source for the purposes of NESHAP

Operating Limits, Monitoring and Recordkeeping:
 The following operating limits were established:
 Spray Booths 1  -  5:
 Spray Booth 1 (EU 1), Spray Booth 2 (EU 2), Spray Booth 3 (EU 3), Spray Booth 4 (EU 4), and Spray Booth 5 (EU 5) shall not use more than 16,000 gallons of surface coating materials (stain, primer, sealer, solvent, etc) per rolling 12-month period. The VOC content of any surface coating material used in these spray booths (EU 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5) shall not exceed 10.0 pounds per gallon. The solids content of any surface coating material used in these spray booths (EU 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5) shall not exceed 27.7 pounds per gallon. These limits were established to limit the VOC and PM emissions from these sources.
 The owner or operator shall not emit more than 9.0 tons of single HAP from all non-combustion sources at this facility per rolling 12-month period. The owner or operator shall not emit more than 24.0 tons of total HAP from all non-combustion sources at this facility per rolling 12-month period. These limits were established to limit HAP emissions below the area source HAP limits.
 The owner or operator shall maintain the Dry Filters according to the facility's maintenance schedule. These limits were established to ensure that the control equipment is functioning properly.
 Pump Vent Rooms 1  -  4:
 Paint is mixed in these rooms. The VOC and HAP emissions from these rooms is accounted in the spray booth permits. Therefore, no operating limits are required at this time.
 Woodworking 1  -  3:
 The pressure drop across the Baghouses shall be between 0.5 and 10.0 inches of water. The owner or operator shall maintain the Baghouses according to the manufacturer's specifications and maintenance schedule. These limits were established to ensure that the control equipment is functioning properly.
 Adhesive Application:
 The owner or operator shall not emit more than 10.0 tons of VOC from the Adhesive Application Process (EU 14) per rolling 12-month period. This limit was established to limit VOC emissions below the Title V major source threshold.
 The owner or operator shall not emit more than 9.0 tons of single HAP from all non-combustion sources at this facility per rolling 12-month period. The owner or operator shall not emit more than 24.0 tons of total HAP from all non-combustion sources at this facility per rolling 12-month period. These limits were established to limit HAP emissions below the area source HAP limits.

 Putty Application:
 The Putty Application Process (EU 15) shall not use more than 900 gallons of material per rolling 12-month period. The VOC content of any material used in the Putty Application Process (EU 15) shall not exceed 6.73 pounds per gallon. This limit was established to limit VOC emissions below the Title V major source threshold.
 The owner or operator shall not emit more than 9.0 tons of single HAP from all non-combustion sources at this facility per rolling 12-month period. The owner or operator shall not emit more than 24.0 tons of total HAP from all non-combustion sources at this facility per rolling 12-month period. These limits were established to limit HAP emissions below the area source HAP limits.

Emission Calculations:
 Trustile will track actual HAP emissions from all non-combustion sources at this facility. The facility will also track actual VOC emissions from the adhesive application process. Potential VOC and PM emissions from the spray booths were calculated using the solids/VOC content and material usage limits. Potential VOC emissions from the putty application process were calculated using the VOC content and material usage limits. Particulate matter emissions from the woodworking processes were calculated assuming that each of the baghouses is able to meet a grain loading limit of 0.01 gr/dscf. This calculation methodology was used in previous projects in lieu of estimating emissions using other more onerous methodologies. The facility is required to maintain the pressure drop across each of the baghouses between 0.5 and 10.0 inches water column to ensure that  the baghouses are operating properly.

Draft Permits:

Draft Permit(s) sent to Facility?	Yes
Draft Permit(s) sent to Title V?	No. There is no Title V application currently being reviewed for this facility.

Significant Comments:

Attachments to Evaluation:
   X	Emission Calculations
   X	Facility Wide Emissions Calculations
   	Dispersion Modeling Memo
   X	Correspondence (emails or letters)
   X	Phone log(s)
   	Process Research
   	Timeline
   	Regulations
   	Stack Test(s)
   X		Other Supporting Documentation
   	Compliance Work Request


[Federal Register: May 28, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 103)]
[Notices]
[Page 30045-30046]
[DOCID:fr28my10-106]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2010-N-0001]

Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee; Notice of Meeting

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

    This notice announces a forthcoming meeting of a public advisory
committee of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The meeting will
be open to the public.
    Name of Committee: Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee.
    General Function of the Committee: To provide advice and
recommendations to the agency on FDA's regulatory issues.
    Date and Time: The meeting will be held on July 20, 2010, from 8
a.m. to 3 p.m.
    Location: Hilton Washington DC North/Gaithersburg, The Ballrooms,
620 Perry Pkwy., Gaithersburg, MD. The hotel telephone number is 301-
977-8900.
    Contact Person: Nicole Vesely, c/o Melanie Whelan, Food and Drug
Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 51, rm. 6100, Silver
Spring, MD 20993-0002, FAX:<PHONE_NUMBER>, to reach by telephone before
June 8, 2010, please call<PHONE_NUMBER>; to reach by telephone after
June 8, 2010, please call<PHONE_NUMBER>, e-mail:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or FDA Advisory Committee Information Line,
1-800-741-8138<PHONE_NUMBER> in the Washington, DC area), code
3014512542. Please call the Information Line for up-to-date information
on this meeting. A notice in the Federal Register about last minute
modifications that impact a previously announced advisory committee
meeting cannot always be published quickly enough to provide timely
notice. Therefore, you should always check the agency's Web site and
call the appropriate advisory committee hot line/phone line to learn
about possible modifications before coming to the meeting.
    Agenda: On July 20, 2010, the committee will discuss supplemental
biologics license applications (sBLAs) 125085/191 and 192 for AVASTIN
(bevacizumab), manufactured by Genentech, Inc. The two proposed
indications (uses) for this product are: (1) First-line treatment of a
subgroup of women with metastatic breast cancer known as HER2-negative
breast cancer, in combination with the chemotherapy drug docetaxel; and
(2) first-line treatment of HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer in
combination with one of two classes of chemotherapy drugs, known as
taxanes and anthracyclines, or with the chemotherapy drug,
capecitabine. In addition to the discussion of these two indications,
the committee will also consider the impact of the submitted studies on
the conversion from accelerated to regular approval of the indication
for the treatment, in combination with the chemotherapy drug
paclitaxel, of patients who have not received chemotherapy for their
locally recurrent or metastatic HER2 negative breast cancer.
    FDA intends to make background material available to the public no
later than 2 business days before the meeting. If FDA is unable to post
the background material on its Web site prior to the meeting, the
background material will be made publicly available at the location of
the advisory committee meeting, and the background material will be
posted on FDA's Web site after the meeting. Background material is
available at http://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/Calendar/
default.htm. Scroll down to the appropriate advisory committee link.
    Procedure: Interested persons may present data, information, or
views, orally or in writing, on issues pending before the committee.
Written submissions may be made to the contact person on or before July
6, 2010. Oral presentations from the public will be scheduled between
approximately 12:30 p.m. to 1:30 p.m. Those desiring to make formal
oral presentations should

notify the contact person and submit a brief statement of the general
nature of the evidence or arguments they wish to present, the names and
addresses of proposed participants, and an indication of the
approximate time requested to make their presentation on or before June
25, 2010. Time allotted for each presentation may be limited. If the
number of registrants requesting to speak is greater than can be
reasonably accommodated during the scheduled open public hearing
session, FDA may conduct a lottery to determine the speakers for the
scheduled open public hearing session. The contact person will notify
interested persons regarding their request to speak by June 28, 2010.
    Persons attending FDA's advisory committee meetings are advised
that the agency is not responsible for providing access to electrical
outlets.
    FDA welcomes the attendance of the public at its advisory committee
meetings and will make every effort to accommodate persons with
physical disabilities or special needs. If you require special
accommodations due to a disability, please contact Nicole Vesely at
least 7 days in advance of the meeting.
    FDA is committed to the orderly conduct of its advisory committee
meetings. Please visit our Web site at http://www.fda.gov/
AdvisoryCommittees/AboutAdvisoryCommittees/ucm111462.htm for procedures
on public conduct during advisory committee meetings.
    Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory
Committee Act (5 U.S.C. app. 2).

    Dated: May 25, 2010.
Jill Hartzler Warner,
Acting Associate Commissioner for Special Medical Programs.
[FR Doc. 2010-12870 Filed 5-27-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-S


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 128 (Tuesday, July 3, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 31050-31052]
[FR Doc No: 2018-14269]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket No. USCG-2018-0641]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone: City of Benicia Fourth of July Fireworks Display,
Carquinez Straight, Benicia, CA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone in the
navigable waters of San Francisco Bay near Carquinez Strait in support
of the City of Benicia Fourth of July Fireworks Display on July 4,
2018. This safety zone is established to ensure the safety of
participants and spectators from the dangers associated with
pyrotechnics. Unauthorized persons or vessels are prohibited from
entering into, transiting through, or remaining in the safety zone
without permission of the Captain of the Port or their designated
representative.

DATES: This rule is effective on July 4, 2018, from 9 a.m. through
10:30 p.m.

ADDRESSES: Documents mentioned in this preamble are part of docket
USCG-2018-0641. To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type the
docket number in the ``SEARCH'' box and click ``SEARCH.'' Click on Open
Docket Folder on the line associated with this rulemaking.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or email Lieutenant Emily Rowan, U.S.

Coast Guard Sector San Francisco; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER> or email at
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Acronyms

APA Administrative Procedure Act
COTP U.S. Coast Guard Captain on the Port
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
PATCOM U.S. Coast Guard Patrol Commander
U.S.C. United States Code

II. Background Information and Regulatory History

    The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary final rule without prior
notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section
4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This
provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and
opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those
procedures are ``impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public
interest.'' Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good
cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
with respect to this rule. Since the Coast Guard received final details
of this event on June 25, 2018, notice and comment procedures would be
impracticable in this instance.
    For similar reasons as those stated above, under 5 U.S.C.
553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this
rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal
Register.

III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

    The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 33 U.S.C.
1231. The Captain of the Port (COTP) San Francisco has determined that
potential hazards associated with the planned fireworks display on July
4, 2018, will be a safety concern for anyone within a 100-foot radius
of the fireworks barge and anyone within a 1,000-foot radius of the
fireworks firing site. This rule is needed to protect spectators,
vessels, and other property from hazards associated with pyrotechnics.

IV. Discussion of the Rule

    This rule establishes a temporary safety zone during the loading
and transit of the fireworks barge, until after completion of the
fireworks display. During the loading of the pyrotechnics onto the
fireworks barge, scheduled to take place from 9:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. on
July 4, 2018, at Pier 50 in San Francisco, CA, the safety zone will
encompass the navigable waters around and under the fireworks barge
within a radius of 100 feet.
    The fireworks barge will remain at Pier 50 until the start of the
transit to the display location. Towing of the barge from Pier 50 to
the display location is scheduled to take place from 3:30 p.m. to 8:00
p.m. on July 4, 2018, where it will remain until the conclusion of the
fireworks displays.
    At 9:00 p.m. on July 4, 2018, 30 minutes prior to the commencement
of the 20-minute fireworks display, the safety zone will increase in
size and encompass the navigable waters around and under the fireworks
barge within a radius of 1,000 feet in approximate position
38[deg]02'49'' N, 122[deg]10'02'' W (NAD 83) for the City of Benicia
Fourth of July Fireworks Display. The safety zone shall terminate at
10:30 p.m. on July 4, 2018.
    The effect of the temporary safety zone are to restrict navigation
in the vicinity of the fireworks loading, transit, and firing site.
Except for persons or vessels authorized by the COTP or the COTP's
designated representative, no person or vessel may enter or remain in
the restricted area. This regulation is needed to keep spectators and
vessels away from the immediate vicinity of the fireworks firing site
to ensure the safety of participants, spectators, and transiting
vessels.

V. Regulatory Analyses

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

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits. Executive Order 13771 directs agencies to control
regulatory costs through a budgeting process. This rule has not been
designated a ``significant regulatory action,'' under Executive Order
12866. Accordingly, this rule has not been reviewed by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB), and pursuant to OMB guidance it is exempt
from the requirements of Executive Order 13771.
    This regulatory action determination is based on the limited
duration and narrowly tailored geographic area of the safety zone.
Although this rule restricts access to the waters encompassed by the
safety zone, the effect of this rule will not be significant because
the local waterway users will be notified via public Broadcast Notice
to Mariners to ensure the safety zone will result in minimum impact.
The entities most likely to be affected are waterfront facilities,
commercial vessels, and pleasure craft engaged in recreational
activities.

B. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities.
    This rule may affect the following entities, some of which may be
small entities: owners and operators of waterfront facilities,
commercial vessels, and pleasure craft engaged in recreational
activities and sightseeing, if these facilities or vessels are in the
vicinity of the safety zone at times when this zone is being enforced.
This rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities for the following reasons: (i) This rule will
encompass only a small portion of the waterway for a limited period of
time, and (ii) the maritime public will be advised in advance of this
safety zone via Broadcast Notice to Mariners.
    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your
small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have
questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please
contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you

wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-
REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against
small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy
or action of the Coast Guard.

C. Collection of Information

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

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have
determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism
principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order
13132.
    Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive
Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on
one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If
you believe this rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes,
please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section above.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

F. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.1D, which
guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that
this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or
cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This
rule involves a safety zone of limited size and duration. It is
categorically excluded from further review under Categorical Exclusion
L60(a) of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01,
Rev. 01. A Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this
determination is available in the docket where indicated under
ADDRESSES.

G. Protest Activities

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

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

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

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

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

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

    Authority:  33 U.S.C 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1,
6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No.
0170.1.

0
2. Add Sec.  165.T11-938 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T11-938  Safety Zone; City of Benicia 4th of July Fireworks
Display, Carquinez Strait, Benicia, CA.

    (a) Location. The following area is a safety zone: all navigable
waters of San Francisco Bay within 100 feet of the fireworks barge
during loading at Pier 50, as well as transit and arrival to launching
location in Carquinez Strait, Benicia, CA. From 9:00 a.m. until
approximately 2:00 p.m. on July 4, 2018, the fireworks barge will be
loading at Pier 50, San Francisco, CA. The safety zone will expand to
all navigable waters around and under the firework barge within a
radius of 1,000 feet in approximate positions 38[deg]02'49'' N,
122[deg]10'02'' W (NAD 83), 30 minutes prior to the start of the 20-
minute fireworks display, scheduled to begin at 9:30 p.m. on July 4,
2018.
    (b) Enforcement period. The zone described in paragraph (a) of this
section will be enforced from 9:00 a.m. until approximately 10:30 p.m.
on July 4, 2018. The Captain of the Port San Francisco (COTP) will
notify the maritime community of periods during which this zone will be
enforced via Broadcast Notice to Mariners in accordance with Sec.
165.7.
    (c) Definitions. As used in this section, ``designated
representative'' means a Coast Guard Patrol Commander, including a
Coast Guard coxswain, petty officer, or other officer on a Coast Guard
vessel or a Federal, State, or local officer designated by or assisting
the COTP in the enforcement of the safety zone.
    (d) Regulations. (1) Under the general regulations in subpart C of
this part, entry into, transiting or anchoring within this safety zone
is prohibited unless authorized by the COTP or the COTP's designated
representative.
    (2) The safety zone is closed to all vessel traffic, except as may
be permitted by the COTP or a designated representative.
    (3) Vessel operators desiring to enter or operate within the safety
zone must contact the COTP or a designated representative to obtain
permission to do so. Vessel operators given permission to enter or
operate in the safety zone must comply with all directions given to
them by the COTP or a designated representative. Persons and vessels
may request permission to enter the safety zone on VHF-23A or through
the 24-hour Command Center at telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: June 27, 2018.
Anthony J. Ceraolo,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port, San Francisco.
[FR Doc. 2018-14269 Filed 7-2-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


                                                      Summary Report of Tribal
                                         Consultation and Coordination for the
                                                                Proposed Rule:
                                                               Federal Baseline
                                                        Water Quality Standards
                                                        for Indian Reservations

                                          U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

                                                                  November 2021

Contents
Introduction	3
Consultation and Coordination	3
Information Sharing, Engagement and Coordination	4
Individual Consultation and Coordination Meetings	5
Written Comments	5
Themes Emerging from Consultation and Coordination Meetings and Comment Letters	6
Themes Emerging from Consultation Comment Letters	8
Appendix A: Notification of Consultation and Coordination Letter Sent to Tribes on June 11, 2021	11

Introduction

This consultation report was prepared to support the EPA's proposed rule Federal Baseline Water Quality Standards for Indian Reservations.

EPA initiated a 90-day pre-proposal tribal consultation and coordination period by sending a "Notification of Consultation and Coordination" letter on June 11, 2021, to all 574 federally recognized tribes as of that date. The consultation period began on June 15, 2021 and ended on September 13, 2021. EPA conducted the consultation and coordination process in accordance with the EPA Policy on Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribes (https://www.epa.gov/tribal/epa-policy-consultation-and-coordination-indian-tribes).
In addition to two national tribal listening sessions held in July and August 2021, EPA presented at 16 meetings of tribal staff and leadership, held 4 staff-level coordination/engagement meetings, and held 4 government-to-government meetings. EPA continued outreach and engagement with tribes at national and regional tribal meetings after the end of the consultation period. EPA considered all pre-proposal tribal input received as it developed the proposed rule.

This report summarizes the consultation and coordination conducted with tribal governments, tribal consortia, and other tribal organizations prior to development of the proposed rule as well as comments provided by participants at tribal government meetings and the written comments received during the pre-proposal tribal consultation period. The summary is intended to provide a description of the wide range of comments received from tribal governments and tribal organizations as part of this consultation process.
Consultation and Coordination

On June 11, 2021, EPA sent a Tribal Consultation Notification letter inviting tribal officials to participate in consultation and coordination events and provide comments to EPA. The letter (Appendix A) was sent to all 574 federally recognized tribes as of that date. EPA also notified tribes of the consultation via the Tribal Consultation Opportunities Tracking System on the EPA Tribal Portal (http://tcots.epa.gov). The letter invited tribal leaders and designated consultation representatives to participate in the tribal consultation and coordination process.

To solicit comments on the proposed rulemaking and in recognition of tribal government and tribal nation sovereignty, EPA consulted with tribes to gain an understanding of tribal views on the potential rulemaking to revise the federal water quality standards regulation to close the gap in Clean Water Act water quality standards for tribal waters.  This rulemaking is built on past work starting in 1999 with the "core standards" for Indian reservation waters and was continued from 2015-2016 with the development of the Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for Federal Baseline Water Quality Standards for Indian Reservations. These prior efforts were not completed, however, both involved extensive engagement with tribal governments, providing a strong foundation for this 2021 work effort. Due to the ongoing pandemic, EPA participated in all meetings virtually.

The consultation period ended on September 13, 2021, though EPA continued both coordination and government-to-government consultation with tribal governments after the close of the consultation period. EPA continued to accept tribal consultation comment letters after the close of the consultation period as well.

Information Sharing, Engagement and Coordination
EPA engaged with tribes at 16 tribal consortia and regional tribal operations committees (RTOC) meetings and held 2 national listening sessions for tribal representatives. Table 1 below lists the title and date of each information sharing meeting EPA participated in.

Table 1: Information Sharing and Tribal Engagement Meetings

Date
 Event
July 8, 2021
 First National Listening Session for Tribes
July 12, 2021
 Region 2 Tribal Nations Listening Session
July 13, 2021
 Region 6 RTOC Meeting
July 13, 2021
 Washington Coordinated Tribal Water Quality Program/NWIFC
July 14, 2021
 Region 5 RTOC Meeting
July 14, 2021
 National Tribal Water Council  -  EPA Monthly Call
July 15, 2021
 Region 10 RTOC Meeting
July 21, 2021
 Region 7 RTOC Meeting
July 22, 2021
 Region 9 RTOC Meeting
August 4, 2021
 Region 4 RTOC Meeting
August 4, 2021
 EPA National Tribal Caucus
August 11, 2021
 Region 1 RTOC Meeting
August 11, 2021
 National Tribal Water Council
August 25, 2021
 Tribal Environmental Coalition in Oklahoma
August 26, 2021
 Region 8 RTOC Meeting
August 31, 2021
 Second National Listening Session for Tribes
September 22, 2021
 EPA Tribal Wetlands Workshop
November 17, 2021
 Oregon Tribal Environmental Forum

EPA provided the same background information at each meeting via PowerPoint presentation except the September 27 National Tribal Caucus Office of Water 1-on-1, where background was summarized verbally. Representative copies of the presentations are available in the docket for this proposed rule.

Staff from EPA's Office of Water, Region 10, Office of International and Tribal Affairs, and the respective EPA Regional offices participated in these meetings.

Individual Consultation and Coordination Meetings
A total of 7 tribes requested individual consultation or staff-level coordination. Table 2 below lists the staff-level coordination meetings that EPA held, and Table 3 below lists the government-to-government meetings that EPA held.

In two instances, EPA was unable to schedule consultation meetings where the tribe did not follow up after multiple outreach attempts.

Table 2: Staff-Level Coordination Meetings

Date
Tribe
August 12, 2021
Buena Vista Rancheria of Me-Wuk Indians
September 1, 2021
Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe
October 25, 2021
Squaxin Island Tribe
December 7, 2021
Buena Vista Rancheria of Me-Wuk Indians

Table 3:  Government-to-Government Meetings

Date
Tribal Nation
September 16, 2021
Pokagon Band of Potawatomi Indians
September 16, 2021
Summit Lake Paiute Tribe
September 20, 2021
Little River Band of Ottawa Indians
September 28, 2021
Nez Perce Tribe

EPA provided the same background information at each meeting via PowerPoint presentation. Representative copies of the presentations are available in the docket for this proposed rule.

Staff from EPA's Office of Water, Region 10, Office of International and Tribal Affairs, and the respective EPA Regional offices participated in these meetings. Staff from the Office of General Counsel also participated in some government-to-government meetings. Following each government-to-government meeting EPA sent tribal leadership a follow-up letter thanking the tribe for consulting with EPA and summarizing the tribe's comments during the discussion.

Written Comments
EPA received pre-proposal comment letters from the following tribes and tribal organizations:
 August 13, 2021  -  Region 10 Regional Tribal Operations Committee
 August 24, 2021  -  Nez Perce Tribe of Idaho
 September 10, 2021  -  National Tribal Water Council
 September 13, 2021  -  Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe
 September 13, 2021  -  Seneca Nation of Indians
 September 13, 2021  -  Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe
 September 22, 2021  -  Onondaga Nation
 September 27, 2021  -  Snoqualmie Indian Tribe
 October 28, 2021  -  Nez Perce Tribe of Idaho
 October 28, 2021  -  Buena Vista Rancheria of Me-Wuk Indians

All letters submitted are available in the docket for this rulemaking at Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0405.

Themes Emerging from Consultation and Coordination Meetings and Comment Letters

This section summarizes the key themes of comments received through the tribal consultation process, including feedback provided by tribes during information sharing and engagement, staff-level coordination and government-to-government consultation meetings as well as written feedback provided in comment letters. The majority of commenters were supportive of the potential rule in concept. EPA considered all pre-proposal tribal input in developing the proposed rule.

 Questions about schedule and process
      - Some tribal government representatives wanted to understand EPA's plan to reach out to states on this proposed rulemaking.
      - Some tribal government representatives wanted EPA to ensure that tribal governments are given proper options for government-to-government consultation on this proposed rulemaking.
 Baseline Water Quality Standards
      - Many tribal government representatives provided comments to EPA to ensure that federal baseline water quality standards address tribal fish consumption rates and include cultural and traditional designated uses as well as tribal subsistence fishing.
      - Some tribal government representatives asked how EPA will use data for the narrative to numeric translation.
      - Some tribal government representatives expressed concern that EPA will adopt lower water quality standards and not protect tribal waters.
      - Some tribal government representatives expressed concern and asked that EPA pay attention to consistency with tribe-adopted/non-CWA water quality standards.
      - Some tribal government representatives requested that EPA include protection of groundwater, ephemeral waters, springs, and adjacent wetlands as a designated use.
      - Some tribal government representatives requested that EPA address emerging contaminants such as PFAS, personal care products, pharmaceuticals, and radionuclides.
 Opt - Out Approach
      - Some Tribal government representatives requested that EPA conduct a government-to-government consultation process for tribes who want to "opt out" of coverage of federal baseline water quality standards.
      - Some Tribal government representatives requested that EPA not have time limits for tribes to "opt out."
 Opt-In Approach
      -  Some tribal government representatives requested that EPA consider an "opt-in" approach regarding coverage of federal baseline water quality standards.
 Implementation Issues
      - Some tribal government representatives requested a clearer understanding on the impact of CWA section 401 water quality certifications.
      - Some tribal government representatives requested clarification if EPA will change how federally-issued NPDES permits for discharges to Indian reservation waters are developed and if consultation will be required for NPDES permits.
      - Some tribal government representatives requested information on how baseline water quality standards will affect tribes that are at headwaters of streams.
      - Some tribal government representatives requested information on how EPA will address adverse impacts on downstream WQS.
      - Some tribal government representatives requested information on how EPA will provide enforcement for baseline water quality standards.
      -  Some tribal government representatives wanted to understand how they can use antidegradation requirements to protect high quality waters.
      - Some tribal government representatives requested information regarding how EPA will address changes in the definition of "waters of the United States" if that definition is changed through subsequent rulemaking
      - Some tribal government representatives requested that EPA ensure there is a process to address any future inconsistencies between state and baseline water quality standards.
      - Some tribal government representatives requested information to understand how EPA will work with tribal governments to coordinate NPDES permit development.
      - Some tribal government representatives requested information on how EPA will address any future changes in EPA's CWA section 304(a) criteria recommendations and/or WQS guidance.
 Concern about how a national rulemaking can address regional differences and needs
      - Some tribal government representatives requested information on how local data documenting fish consumption rates and other regional specific information can be incorporated in baseline WQS.
      - Some tribal government representatives requested information on how EPA will address Pacific Northwest water temperature issues.
 Treatment in a Similar Manner as States (TAS)
      - Many tribal government representatives requested that EPA provide increased support and resources for tribal governments to accelerate TAS work efforts.
      - Many tribal government representatives wanted a clear understanding of how tribes would be removed from coverage by baseline water quality standards once they receive TAS authority to administer a WQS program and obtain EPA approval of tribe-adopted WQS.
 Increased funding needs for Tribes
      - Many tribal government representatives requested that EPA provide increased 106 funding.
      - Some tribal government representatives requested that EPA increase funding to tribes to work with EPA in NPDES permit development.
 Jurisdictional issues
      - Some tribal government representatives requested that EPA ensure trust lands are included in the scope of baseline water quality standards coverage.
      - Some tribal government representatives requested more information on how EPA will address off-reservation allotments.
      - Some tribal government representatives requested more information on how EPA will address reservations with checkerboard land jurisdictions.
      - Some tribal government representatives expressed concern about the impact of this proposed rulemaking on tribes in Oklahoma and asked EPA to provide language in the preamble to prevent unintended consequences of this rulemaking.
      - Some tribal government representatives requested that EPA develop a pathway for Alaska Native Villages to establish water quality standards.
      - Some tribal government representatives requested information from EPA on how EPA will address tribal sovereignty for tribes in Maine and requested that EPA develop a process for water quality standards to apply to tribes in Maine.
 Boundary Issues
      - Some tribal government representatives expressed concerns about boundary disputes with neighboring states.
      - Some tribal government representatives expressed concerns regarding how baseline water quality standards would apply to upstream and downstream waters.
 Government to Government Consultation
- Some tribal government representatives requested government to government consultation prior to a final rule.

Themes Emerging from Consultation Comment Letters

Region 10 RTOC  -  August 13, 2021
 The promulgation of baseline water quality standards must be region specific.
 Proposed water quality standards for EPA Region 10 must include designated uses to protect for fish, shellfish, and other cultural resources.
 Proposed water quality standards for EPA Region 10 must include appropriate fish consumption rates.

Nez Perce Tribe of Idaho  -  August 24, 2021
 Expressed strong support for the rulemaking.
 EPA should take steps to reinstate the water quality criteria for human health it promulgated for Washington State in 2016.
 EPA has an obligation to uphold treaty rights including during the promulgation and adoption of water quality in state waters.
National Tribal Water Council  -  September 10, 2021
 Tribes should be able to account for PFAS while tailoring the baseline water quality standards to their waters given that these compounds bioaccumulate in plants and animals that are integral to tribal subsistence, cultural, and ceremonial practices.
 The NTWC-TPWG recommends that the baseline water quality standards include numeric criteria for PFAS chemicals to ensure protection of designated uses.
Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe  -  September 13, 2021
 Baseline water quality standards should be presumed to serve both cultural and traditional beneficial uses.
 The baseline water quality standards should protect consumptive uses presuming drinking water as beneficial use and that water will be consumed, purposefully, intentionally and with no distinction as to seasonality of such uses.
 The most stringent standards should be imposed to protect all waters as water that will be ingested/consumed/drinking water and be recognized for traditional and cultural uses.
 EPA will need to describe all the reservation waters to which the standards will apply and all the waters which the standards will not apply.
 Tribes should not have to "opt-out" of coverage of baseline water quality standards, it should be an "opt-in" decision for the tribe.
Seneca Nation of Indians  -  September 13, 2021
 Tribes that want to obtain TAS and develop water quality standards on their own should have an easier process, and funding should not be competitive for tribes because it can leave them vulnerable.
 Native Nations should be protected from upstream dischargers in the same manner as states.
 Native Nations should be the sole owner of data obtained from within their boundaries.
 Native Americans may view this as a direct threat to their health, culture, traditions, and spiritual well-being, and may view this as a violation of treaty rights.
Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe  -  September 13, 2021
 Optimistic about the baseline water quality standards but EPA should encourage tribes to gain TAS in order to develop their own tribal water quality standards.
 Standards need to be developed at the individual reservation level to address potential issues related to fish consumption rates and the natural background conditions of reservation waters.
 EPA needs to be explicit about the process to "opt-out" of coverage by this rule.
Onondaga Nation  -  September 22, 2021
 EPA may not impose its regulations or its procedural standards on sovereign indigenous nations acting within their own territories.
 The proposed federal BWQS should be focused on upstream discharges and protecting Native Nation water quality goals.
 EPA should limit its use of baseline water quality standards to regulating upstream waters.
 EPA should develop "baseline standards" that incorporate all designated or legally protected uses of Nation waters.
Snoqualmie Indian Tribe  -  September 27, 2021
 The Tribe requests another opportunity for consultation on a proposed draft rule, prior to any EPA decision to publish a draft rule for comment.
 EPA should provide sufficient resources to tribes, including Snoqualmie Tribe, for implementation and enforcement of WQS consistent with tribal priorities.
 It will be critical for EPA to provide a way to tailor the baseline WQS based on regional differences.
 EPA must establish mechanisms to update the baseline WQS when new guidance needs to be incorporated.
Nez Perce Tribe of Idaho  -  October 28, 2021
 The Tribe has consistently emphasized the importance for fish for the Nez Perce people for vital ceremonial, subsistence, commercial needs, and the tribes desire for healthy, harvestable fish runs to support Nez Perce Treaty Reserve Rights and the Nez Perce fishing economy.
 The Tribe has also worked closely with EPA to collect data on Nez Perce fish consumption through the 1994 CRITFC Fish Consumption Study and the 2016 Idaho Tribal Fish Consumption Study. Both Surveys demonstrated that Nez Perce Tribal people consumed fish at levels that exceed both the general population and EPA's default fish consumption rate.
 The Tribe asks EPA to use these rulemakings to fulfill treaty and trust responsibilities to uphold tribal treaty rights by protecting the water resources which tribes and tribal members rely.
 The Nez Perce Tribe supports this rulemaking to help ensure tribal participation and the realization of tribal goals in the management upon reservation water quality.
 The Tribe supports regulations where EPA would work with tribes to implement water quality standards in a flexible manner.
 The Tribe expects EPA to administer the Clean Water Act until such time as tribes choose to pursue Treatment as State.

Buena Vista Rancheria of Me-Wuk Indians  -  October 28, 2021

 Buena Vista Rancheria would like to see EPA provide support to tribal governments to develop their own Water Quality Standards by providing funding, technical assistance, and support for tribes to develop and adopt standards internally.  If EPA moves forward with developing National Water Quality Standards on behalf of tribes, the Tribe recommends that EPA work closely with tribes to ensure that standards reflect the needs and interests of tribes.
 The Tribe recommends that EPA develop tribal uses and water quality protections for all tribal waters in the United States including waters on tribal trust land.
 The Tribe recommends that EPA develop an Opt-in provision instead of an Opt-out provision.  If EPA continues with an Opt-out provision, the Tribe recommends that EPA not place a time limit for tribes to opt-out.
 Tribal WQS should protect the diverse water bodies on tribal lands including ephemeral waters, springs, adjacent wetlands, and groundwater, which are examples of waters that the Buena Vista Rancheria relies on culturally, spiritually, ecologically, and for economic development.
 EPA should create WQS that protect the values and beneficial uses specific to tribal lifeways, cultural uses of water, and tribal subsistence fishing.
 The Tribe requests that EPA conduct Government to Government consultation with the Buena Vista Rancheria to create specific water quality standards to protect waterbodies and tribal uses.
 The Tribe recommends that EPA removes barriers for tribes to achieve Treatment as State to gain the authority to implement their water quality protection programs recognizing tribal Sovereignty and right to "Self Determination."

Appendix A: Notification of Consultation and Coordination Letter Sent to Tribes on June 11, 2021


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 102 (Thursday, May 26, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 33363-33366]
[FR Doc No: 2016-11932]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2015-2457; Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-209-AD;
Amendment 39-18525; AD 2016-10-14]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier, Inc. Airplanes

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain

Bombardier, Inc. Model CL-600-2C10 (Regional Jet Series 700, 701, &
702) airplanes, Model CL-600-2D15 (Regional Jet Series 705) airplanes,
and Model CL-600-2D24 (Regional Jet Series 900) airplanes. This AD was
prompted by a report indicating that some operators have inadvertently
removed the existing insulation blankets from the upper wing box area.
This AD requires inspecting for and replacing missing insulation
blankets in the upper wing box area. We are issuing this AD to detect
and replace missing insulation blankets from the upper wing box area,
which could result in inadequate thermal protection to prevent fuel
ignition in the event of an undetected bleed-air leak due to a cracked
or ruptured bleed-air duct.

DATES: This AD becomes effective June 30, 2016.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of June 30,
2016.

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this final rule,
contact Bombardier, Inc., 400 C[ocirc]te-Vertu Road West, Dorval,
Qu[eacute]bec H4S 1Y9, Canada; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax 514-855-
7401; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet http://www.bombardier.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<PHONE_NUMBER>. It is also available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-
2457.

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-
2457; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and
5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket
contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and
other information. The street address for the Docket Office (telephone
800-647-5527) is Docket 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 FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Morton Lee, Aerospace Engineer,
Propulsion and Services Branch, ANE-173, FAA, New York Aircraft
Certification Office (ACO), 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury,
NY 11590; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain Bombardier, Inc.
Model CL-600-2C10 (Regional Jet Series 700, 701, & 702) airplanes,
Model CL-600-2D15 (Regional Jet Series 705) airplanes, and Model CL-
600-2D24 (Regional Jet Series 900) airplanes. The NPRM published in the
Federal Register on July 7, 2015 (80 FR 38656) (``the NPRM'').
    Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the aviation
authority for Canada, has issued Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-
2014-35, dated October 3, 2014 (referred to after this as the Mandatory
Continuing Airworthiness Information, or ``the MCAI''), to correct an
unsafe condition for certain Bombardier, Inc. Model CL-600-2C10
(Regional Jet Series 700, 701, & 702) airplanes, Model CL-600-2D15
(Regional Jet Series 705) airplanes, and Model CL-600-2D24 (Regional
Jet Series 900) airplanes. The MCAI states:

    It was discovered that some operators have inadvertently removed
the existing insulation blankets from the upper wing box area while
incorporating Bombardier Service Bulletin (SB) 670BA-36-016 to
comply with [Canadian] AD CF-2012-06 [http://wwwapps3.tc.gc.ca/Saf-Sec-Sur/2/cawis-swimn/awd-lv-cs1401.asp?rand=] [which corresponds to
FAA AD 2012-12-02, Amendment 39-17081 (77 FR 36129, June 18, 2012)].
    Without insulation blankets on the upper wing box area, there
may be inadequate thermal protection to prevent fuel ignition in the
event of an undetected bleed air leak due to a cracked or ruptured
bleed-air duct.
    This [Canadian] AD mandates the inspection and rectification
[i.e., replacement], as required, of the insulation blankets in the
upper wing box area.

    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-
2457.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD. The following presents the comments received on the NPRM and
the FAA's response to each comment.

Request To Revise the Applicability

    Bombardier and Endeavor Air requested that we exclude certain
airplanes from the applicability. Bombardier stated that two airplanes,
manufacturer serial numbers 15272 and 15279, should not be included in
the applicability of the proposed AD, since these two airplanes had
Bombardier Service Bulletin 670BA-36-016, Revision A, dated October 11,
2011, incorporated during production by the manufacturer. Therefore,
Bombardier stated that those airplanes are not affected by the
potential unsafe condition. Bombardier commented that proof of
incorporation by Bombardier personnel can be provided to the FAA if
required.
    Endeavor Air stated that these airplanes accomplished Bombardier
Service Bulletin 670BA-36-016, Revision A, dated October 11, 2011,
prior to delivery to the operator.
    We agree with the commenter's request for the reasons provided
above. We have revised paragraph (c) of this AD accordingly.

Request To Provide Clarification of AD Actions

    Endeavor Air stated that the proposed AD would require affected
operators to inspect for missing thermal protection blankets using
Bombardier Service Bulletin 670BA-57-024 because ``. . . some operators
have inadvertently removed the existing insulation blanket from the
upper wing box area while incorporating Bombardier Service Bulletin
670BA-36-016 to comply with FAA AD 2012-12-02. . . .''
    Endeavor Air stated that the FAA did not provide any information
why this may have occurred or that the problem is widespread. Endeavor
Air also stated that Bombardier Service Bulletin 670BA-36-016 did not
include instructions for removing the insulation blankets that were
inadvertently removed by some operators. Endeavor Air therefore
concluded that the operators or their maintenance provider did not
correctly follow the instructions in Bombardier Service Bulletin 670BA-
36-016. Endeavor Air stated that it does not agree that the incorrect
accomplishment of Bombardier Service Bulletin 670BA-36-016 by some
operators should require all affected operators to perform the blanket
inspections without a clear explanation why this problem could
plausibly exist for all operators.
    We agree that clarification is necessary. Bombardier has the
service history and data showing a potential widespread problem, and
TCCA concurred. Bombardier developed Bombardier Service Bulletin 670BA-
57-024 with a different effectivity than that of Bombardier Service
Bulletin 670BA-36-016 in order to give credit to

airplanes on which the original blankets were not removed when
Bombardier Service Bulletin 670BA-36-016 was incorporated. We have
added an option to paragraph (g) of this AD to allow operators to do a
records review in lieu of the inspection.

Request To Review Compliance Method

    Endeavor Air requested the we review the last sentence in paragraph
(g)(2) of the proposed AD. Endeavor Air stated that because the
corrective action is to restore an already approved configuration by
reinstalling insulation blankets, it believes that the corrective
action using ``a method acceptable to the Manager, New York Aircraft
Certification Office,'' rather than ``a method approved by the Manager,
New York Aircraft Certification Office,'' would suffice.
    We disagree with the commenter. The word ``approved'' is part of
our standard language for describing methods of compliance in ADs. For
a method to be ``acceptable,'' it must have FAA approval. We have not
changed this AD is this regard.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received,
and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting
this AD with the changes described previously and minor editorial
changes. We have determined that these minor changes:
     Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the
NPRM for correcting the unsafe condition; and
     Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was
already proposed in the NPRM.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    We reviewed Bombardier Service Bulletin 670BA-57-024, dated July
23, 2014. This service information describes procedures for an
inspection of the insulation blankets in the upper wing box area to
find if the blankets are installed, and replacement of missing
insulation blankets. 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.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 470 airplanes of U.S. registry.
    We also estimate that it would take about 4 work-hours per product
to comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor
rate is $85 per work-hour. Required parts would cost about $0 per
product. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD on
U.S. operators to be $159,800, or $340 per product.
    In addition, we estimate that any necessary follow-on actions would
take up to 70 work-hours and require parts costing up to $665, for a
cost of up to $6,615 per product. We have no way of determining the
number of aircraft that might need this action.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

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

2016-10-14 Bombardier, Inc.: Amendment 39-18525. Docket No. FAA-
2015-2457; Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-209-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This AD becomes effective June 30, 2016.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Bombardier, Inc. Model CL-600-2C10 (Regional
Jet Series 700, 701, & 702) airplanes, Model CL-600-2D15 (Regional
Jet Series 705) airplanes, and Model CL-600-2D24 (Regional Jet
Series 900) airplanes, certificated in any category, as identified
in Bombardier Service Bulletin 670BA-57-024, dated July 23, 2014;
except airplanes having manufacturer serial numbers 15272 and 15279.

(d) Subject

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

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by a report indicating that some operators
have inadvertently removed the existing insulation blankets from the
upper wing box area. We are issuing this AD to detect and replace
missing insulation blankets from the upper wing box area, which
could result in inadequate thermal protection to prevent fuel
ignition in the event of an undetected bleed-air leak due to a
cracked or ruptured bleed-air duct.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Inspection

    Within 800 flight hours or 4 months after the effective date of
this AD, whichever occurs first: Do a general visual inspection of
the insulation blankets in the upper wing box area to determine
whether any insulation blanket is missing in specified areas, in
accordance with Part A of the Accomplishment Instructions of
Bombardier Service Bulletin 670BA-57-024, dated July 23, 2014. For
airplanes on which Bombardier Service Bulletin 670BA-36-016 has been
done: A review of airplane maintenance records is acceptable in lieu
of this inspection if it can be conclusively determined from that
review that the insulation blanket has been reinstalled after

incorporation of Bombardier Service Bulletin 670BA-36-016.
    (1) If no insulation blanket is missing, no further action is
required by this AD.
    (2) If any insulation blanket is missing, within 1,200 flight
hours or 6 months after the effective date of this AD, whichever
occurs first, replace the missing insulation blankets, in accordance
with Part B of the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Service
Bulletin 670BA-57-024, dated July 23, 2014; except, where Bombardier
Service Bulletin 670BA-57-024, dated July 23, 2014, specifies
contacting Bombardier for ``an approved disposition to complete this
service bulletin,'' this AD requires corrective action to be done
using a method approved by the Manager, New York Aircraft
Certification Office (ACO), ANE-170, FAA; or Transport Canada Civil
Aviation (TCCA); or Bombardier, Inc.'s TCCA Design Approval
Organization (DAO).

(h) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, New
York ACO, ANE-170, 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 ACO, send it to ATTN: Program
Manager, Continuing Operational Safety, FAA, New York ACO, 1600
Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone 516-228-
7300; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>. Before using any approved AMOC, notify your
appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector,
the manager of the local flight standards district office/
certificate holding district office. The AMOC approval letter must
specifically reference this AD.
    (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,
ANE-170, FAA; or TCCA; or Bombardier, Inc.'s TCCA DAO. If approved
by the DAO, the approval must include the DAO-authorized signature.

(i) Related Information

    Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI)
Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-2014-35, dated October 3, 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-2015-2457.

(j) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed
in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) Bombardier Service Bulletin 670BA-57-024, dated July 23,
2014.
    (ii) Reserved.
    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Bombardier, Inc., 400 C[ocirc]te-Vertu Road West, Dorval,
Qu[eacute]bec H4S 1Y9, Canada; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax 514-855-
7401; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet http://www.bombardier.com.
    (4) 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
425-227-1221.
    (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 Renton, Washington, on May 12, 2016.
Suzanne Masterson,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2016-11932 Filed 5-25-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 101 (Wednesday, May 27, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 30224-30225]
[FR Doc No: 2015-12712]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 14230-001]

George Wenschhof, 2C Land & Cattle Company LLC; Notice of
Transfer of Exemption

    1. By letter filed May 5, 2015, George C. Wenschhof informed the
Commission that the exemption from licensing for the Meeker Wenschhof
Hydroelectric Project, FERC No. 14230, originally issued September 14,
2011,\1\ has been transferred to 2C Land & Cattle Company LLC. The
project is located on an existing irrigation pipeline in Rio Blanco
County, Colorado. The transfer

of an exemption does not require Commission approval.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 136 FERC ] 62,224, Order Granting Exemption From Licensing
(Conduit) (2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    2. 2C Land & Cattle Company LLC is now the exemptee of the Meeker
Wenschhof Hydroelectric Project, FERC No. 14230. All correspondence
should be forwarded to: Mr. Christopher P. Collins, Manager, 2C Land &
Cattle Company LLC, 1308 Sage Ridge Road, P.O. Box 2607, Meeker, CO
81641.

    Dated: May 20, 2015.
Kimberly D. Bose,
 Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-12712 Filed 5-26-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P