[Federal Register: April 14, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 71)]
[Notices]
[Page 19414-19415]
[DOCID:fr14ap10-87]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

[USCG-2009-1064]

Collection of Information Under Review by Office of Management
and Budget: OMB Control Number: 1625-0087

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Thirty-day notice requesting comments.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this
request for comments announces that the U.S. Coast Guard is forwarding
an Information Collection Request (ICR), abstracted below, to the
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) requesting an extension of its approval for
the following collection of information: 1625-0087, International Ice
Patrol Customer Survey. Our ICR describes the information we seek to
collect from the public. Review and comments by OIRA ensure we only
impose paperwork burdens commensurate with our performance of duties.

DATES: Please submit comments on or before May 14, 2010.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by Coast Guard docket
number [USCG-2009-1064] to the Docket Management Facility (DMF) at the
U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) or to OIRA. To avoid
duplication, please submit your comments by only one of the following
means:
    (1) Electronic submission. (a) To Coast Guard docket at http://
www.regulation.gov. (b) To OIRA by e-mail via: oira_
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) Mail or Hand delivery. (a) DMF (M-30), DOT, West Building
Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC
20590-0001. Hand deliver between the hours of 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays. The telephone number is 202-
366-9329. (b) To OIRA, 725 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503,
attention Desk Officer for the Coast Guard.
    (3) Fax. (a) To DMF,<PHONE_NUMBER>. (b) To OIRA at<PHONE_NUMBER>. To
ensure your comments are received in a timely manner, mark the fax,
attention Desk Officer for the Coast Guard.
    The DMF maintains the public docket for this Notice. Comments and
material received from the public, as well as documents mentioned in
this Notice as being available in the docket, will become part of the
docket and will be available for inspection or copying at room W12-140
on the West Building Ground Floor, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE.,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. You may also find the docket on the Internet
at http://www.regulations.gov.
    A copy of the ICR is available through the docket on the Internet
at http://www.regulations.gov. Additionally, copies are available from:
Commandant (CG-611), Attn Paperwork Reduction Act Manager, U.S. Coast
Guard, 2100 2nd St., SW., Stop 7101, Washington, DC 20593-7101.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Arthur Requina, Office of
Information Management, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER> or fax<PHONE_NUMBER>, for
questions on these documents. Contact Ms. Renee V. Wright, Program
Manager, Docket Operations,<PHONE_NUMBER>, for questions on the docket.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Coast Guard invites comments on whether
this ICR should be granted based on it being necessary for the proper
performance of Departmental functions. In particular, the Coast Guard
would appreciate comments addressing: (1) The practical utility of the
collections; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden of the
collections; (3) ways to enhance

the quality, utility, and clarity of information subject to the
collections; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of collections on
respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or
other forms of information technology.
    Comments to Coast Guard or OIRA must contain the OMB Control Number
of the ICR. They must also contain the docket number of this request,
[USCG-2009-1064]. For your comments to OIRA to be considered, it is
best if they are received on or before the May 14, 2010.
    Public participation and request for comments: We encourage you to
respond to this request by submitting comments and related materials.
We will post all comments received, without change, to http://
www.regulations.gov. They will include any personal information you
provide. We have an agreement with DOT to use their DMF. Please see the
``Privacy Act'' paragraph below.
    Submitting comments: If you submit a comment, please include the
docket number [USCG-2009-1064], indicate the specific section of the
document to which each comment applies, providing a reason for each
comment. We recommend you include your name, mailing address, an e-mail
address, or other contact information in the body of your document so
that we can contact you if we have questions regarding your submission.
You may submit comments and material by electronic means, mail, fax, or
delivery to the DMF at the address under ADDRESSES; but please submit
them by only one means. If you submit them by mail or delivery, submit
them in an unbound format, no larger than 8\1/2\ by 11 inches, suitable
for copying and electronic filing. If you submit them by mail and would
like to know that they reached the Facility, please enclose a stamped,
self-addressed postcard or envelope. In response to your comments, we
may revise the ICR or decide not to seek an extension of approval for
this collection. The Coast Guard and OIRA will consider all comments
and material received during the comment period.
    Viewing comments and documents: Go to http://www.regulations.gov to
view documents mentioned in this Notice as being available in the
docket. Click on the ``read comments'' box, which will then become
highlighted in blue. In the ``Keyword'' box insert ``USCG-2009-1064''
and click ``Search.'' Click the ``Open Docket Folder'' in the
``Actions'' column. You may also visit the DMF in room W12-140 on the
West Building Ground Floor, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington,
DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays.
    Privacy Act: Anyone can search the electronic form of all comments
received in dockets by the name of the individual submitting the
comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an
association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review the Privacy
Act statement regarding our public dockets in the January 17, 2008
issue of the Federal Register (73 FR 3316).

Previous Request for Comments

    This request provides a 30-day comment period required by OIRA. The
Coast Guard published the 60-day notice (75 FR 1068, January 8, 2010)
required by 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2). That Notice elicited no comments.

Information Collection Request

    Title: International Ice Patrol Customer Survey.
    OMB Control Number: 1625-0087.
    Type of Request: Extension of a currently approved collection.
    Respondents: Owners and operators of vessels transiting the North
Atlantic.
    Abstract: In accordance with Executive Order 12862, the U.S. Coast
Guard is directed to conduct surveys (qualitative and quantitative) to
determine the kind/quality of services our customers want and expect,
as well as their satisfaction with USCG's existing services. This
survey will be limited to data collections soliciting strictly
voluntary opinions; it will not collect required or regulated
information.
    Forms: None.
    Burden Estimate: The estimated burden remains at 120 hours a year.
    Authority: The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C. Chapter
35, as amended.

    Dated: April 7, 2010.
M.B. Lytle,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Acting Assistant Commandant for Command,
Control, Communications, Computers and Information Technology.
[FR Doc. 2010-8474 Filed 4-13-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 167 (Wednesday, August 30, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 59896-59899]
[FR Doc No: 2023-18644]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP23-519-000]

Rio Bravo Pipeline Company, LLC; Notice of Scoping Period
Requesting Comments on Environmental Issues for the Proposed Rio Bravo
Pipeline Route Amendment

    The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or
Commission) will prepare an environmental document that will discuss
the environmental impacts of the Rio Bravo Pipeline Route Amendment
(Route Amendment), which involves four minor route adjustments to the
previously authorized pipeline alignment, as well as a pipe thickness
design modification to use an alternative maximum allowable operating
pressure (MAOP) calculation, as compared to the previously authorized
Rio Bravo Pipeline Project, which was approved by the Commission on
November 22, 2019, in Docket No. CP16-455-000.\1\ Please note that the
previously approved Rio Bravo Pipeline Project and Rio Bravo Pipeline
Project Amendment are not under re-consideration in this Route
Amendment. The Commission will use the environmental document referred
to in this notice in its decision-making process to determine whether
the four minor route adjustments and alternative MAOP proposed in the
Route Amendment are in the public convenience and necessity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The Rio Bravo Pipeline Project was amended, as approved by
the Commission on April 21, 2023, in docket no. CP20-481-000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This notice announces the opening of the scoping process the
Commission will use to gather input from the public and interested
agencies regarding the Route Amendment. As part of the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) review process, the Commission takes
into account concerns the public may have about proposals and the
environmental impacts that could result from its action whenever it
considers the issuance of a Certificate of Public Convenience and
Necessity. This gathering of public input is referred to

as ``scoping.'' The main goal of the scoping process is to focus the
analysis in the environmental document on the important environmental
issues. Additional information about the Commission's NEPA process is
described below in the NEPA Process and Environmental Document section
of this notice.
    By this notice, the Commission requests public comments on the
scope of issues to address in the environmental document. To ensure
that your comments are timely and properly recorded, please submit your
comments so that the Commission receives them in Washington, DC on or
before 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on September 22, 2023.
    Comments may be submitted in written form. Further details on how
to submit comments are provided in the Public Participation section of
this notice.
    Your comments should focus on the potential environmental effects,
reasonable alternatives, and measures to avoid or lessen environmental
impacts specifically related to the modifications proposed in the Route
Amendment, which are detailed further below. Your input will help the
Commission staff determine what issues they need to evaluate in the
environmental document. Commission staff will consider all written
comments during the preparation of the environmental document.
    This notice is being sent to the Commission's current environmental
mailing list for this Route Amendment. State and local government
representatives should notify their constituents of this proposed Route
Amendment and encourage them to comment on their areas of concern.
    If you are a landowner receiving this notice, a Rio Bravo Pipeline
Company, LLC (Rio Bravo) representative may contact you about the
acquisition of an easement to construct, operate, and maintain the
facilities proposed in the Route Amendment. The company would seek to
negotiate a mutually acceptable easement agreement. You are not
required to enter into an agreement. However, if the Commission
approves the Route Amendment, the Natural Gas Act conveys the right of
eminent domain to the company. Therefore, if you and the company do not
reach an easement agreement, the pipeline company could initiate
condemnation proceedings in court. In such instances, compensation
would be determined by a judge in accordance with state law. The
Commission does not subsequently grant, exercise, or oversee the
exercise of that eminent domain authority. The courts have exclusive
authority to handle eminent domain cases; the Commission has no
jurisdiction over these matters.
    Rio Bravo provided landowners with a fact sheet prepared by the
FERC entitled ``An Interstate Natural Gas Facility On My Land? What Do
I Need To Know?'' which addresses typically asked questions, including
the use of eminent domain and how to participate in the Commission's
proceedings. This fact sheet along with other landowner topics of
interest are available for viewing on the FERC website (www.ferc.gov)
under the Natural Gas, Landowner Topics link.

Public Participation

    There are three methods you can use to submit your comments to the
Commission. Please carefully follow these instructions so that your
comments are properly recorded. The Commission encourages electronic
filing of comments and has staff available to assist you at (866) 208-
3676 or [email protected].
    (1) You can file your comments electronically using the eComment
feature, which is located on the Commission's website (www.ferc.gov)
under the link to FERC Online. Using eComment is an easy method for
submitting brief, text-only comments on a project;
    (2) You can file your comments electronically by using the eFiling
feature, which is located on the Commission's website (www.ferc.gov)
under the link to FERC Online. With eFiling, you can provide comments
in a variety of formats by attaching them as a file with your
submission. New eFiling users must first create an account by clicking
on ``eRegister.'' You will be asked to select the type of filing you
are making; a comment on a particular project is considered a ``Comment
on a Filing''; or
    (3) You can file a paper copy of your comments by mailing them to
the Commission. Be sure to reference the project docket number (CP23-
519-000) on your letter. Submissions sent via the U.S. Postal Service
must be addressed to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Room 1A, Washington, DC
20426. Submissions sent via any other carrier must be addressed to:
Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,
12225 Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, MD 20852.
    Additionally, the Commission offers a free service called
eSubscription which makes it easy to stay informed of all issuances and
submittals regarding the dockets/projects to which you subscribe. These
instant email notifications are the fastest way to receive notification
and provide a link to the document files which can reduce the amount of
time you spend researching proceedings. Go to https://www.ferc.gov/ferc-online/overview to register for eSubscription.
    The Commission's Office of Public Participation (OPP) supports
meaningful public engagement and participation in Commission
proceedings. OPP can help members of the public, including landowners,
environmental justice communities, Tribal members and others, access
publicly available information and navigate Commission processes. For
public inquiries and assistance with making filings such as
interventions, comments, or requests for rehearing, the public is
encouraged to contact OPP at<PHONE_NUMBER> or [email protected].

Summary of the Proposed Route Amendment

    The four proposed route adjustments are specific to Willacy and
Cameron Counties, Texas, as detailed below:
     adjust the certificated route between approximate milepost
(MP) 69.8 to approximate MP 79.4 in Willacy County to conform to the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's Biological Opinion issued for the Rio
Bravo Pipeline Project and to minimize impacts on potential ocelot
habitat (the ``U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Route Adjustment'');
     adjust the certificated route between approximate MP 92.4
and MP 93.0 in Willacy County to accommodate requirements of the
International Boundary and Water Commission and landowner requests (the
``North Floodway Route Adjustment'');
     adjust the certificated route between approximate MP 99.7
and MP 100.5 in Willacy and Cameron Counties to accommodate a landowner
request (the ``Arroyo Colorado Route Adjustment'');
     relocate a meter station and extend the approved Rio Bravo
Pipeline route approximately 0.6 mile in Cameron County from the
currently certificated terminus site to the meter station within the
fence line of the approved Rio Grande LNG Terminal site (the ``Terminus
Adjustment'');
     modify the design (pipe wall thickness) of a majority of
the route located in Class 1 areas to use an ``alternative MAOP,''
which would maintain the currently authorized MAOP of 1,825 pounds per
square inch gauge, decrease the pipe wall thickness of the 48-inch-
diameter pipeline from 0.87 inch to 0.78 inch, decrease the pipe wall
thickness of the 42-inch-diameter

pipeline from 0.761 inch to 0.682 inch, and change the pipeline design
factor from 0.72 to 0.80, each as consistent with and approved by the
U.S. Department of Transportation's Pipeline and Hazardous Materials
Safety Administration regulations specified in title 49 of the Code of
Federal Regulations Part 192.620; and
     increase the proposed wall thickness of the pipeline
system for certain Class 2 areas and bore locations.
    The general locations of the Route Amendment facilities are shown
in appendix 1.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The appendices referenced in this notice will not appear in
the Federal Register. Copies of the appendices were sent to all
those receiving this notice in the mail and are available at
www.ferc.gov using the link called ``eLibrary.'' For instructions on
connecting to eLibrary, refer to the last page of this notice. At
this time, the Commission has suspended access to the Commission's
Public Reference Room. For assistance, contact FERC at
[email protected] or call toll free,<PHONE_NUMBER> or TTY
(202) 502-8659.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Land Requirements for Construction

    Commission staff is currently assessing the relative increases and/
or decreases in impacts on land that would result from the Route
Amendment compared to the project as certificated. Apart from the four
discrete route adjustment locations, the Rio Bravo Pipeline facilities
and activities will be located and constructed within workspaces as
reflected in FERC's final EIS issued under Docket No. CP16-454-000, as
updated in the Amendment EA issued under Docket No. CP20-481-000.
According to Rio Bravo, the Route Amendment would affect less wetland,
forest land, and prime farmland soil acreage compared to the project as
currently authorized.

NEPA Process and the Environmental Document

    Any environmental document issued by the Commission will discuss
impacts that could occur as a result of the construction and operation
of the four route adjustment locations proposed in the Route Amendment
under the relevant general resource areas:

 geology and soils;
 water resources and wetlands;
 vegetation and wildlife;
 threatened and endangered species;
 cultural resources;
 land use;
 environmental justice;
 air quality and noise; and
 reliability and safety.

    Commission staff will also evaluate reasonable alternatives to the
proposed Route Amendment or portions of the Route Amendment and make
recommendations on how to lessen or avoid impacts on the various
resource areas. Your comments will help Commission staff identify and
focus on the issues that might have an effect on the human environment
and potentially eliminate others from further study and discussion in
the environmental document.
    Following this scoping period, Commission staff will determine
whether to prepare an environmental assessment (EA) or an environmental
impact statement (EIS). The EA or the EIS will present Commission
staff's independent analysis of the issues. If Commission staff
prepares an EA, a Notice of Schedule for the Preparation of an
Environmental Assessment will be issued. The EA may be issued for an
allotted public comment period. The Commission would consider timely
comments on the EA before making its decision regarding the proposed
Route Amendment. If Commission staff prepares an EIS, a Notice of
Intent to Prepare an EIS/Notice of Schedule will be issued, which will
open up an additional comment period. Staff will then prepare a draft
EIS which will be issued for public comment. Commission staff will
consider all timely comments received during the comment period on the
draft EIS and revise the document, as necessary, before issuing a final
EIS. Any EA or draft and final EIS will be available in electronic
format in the public record through eLibrary \3\ and the Commission's
natural gas environmental documents web page (https://www.ferc.gov/industries-data/natural-gas/environment/environmental-documents). If
eSubscribed, you will receive instant email notification when the
environmental document is issued.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ For instructions on connecting to eLibrary, refer to the
last page of this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With this notice, the Commission is asking agencies with
jurisdiction by law and/or special expertise with respect to the
environmental issues of this Route Amendment to formally cooperate in
the preparation of the environmental document.\4\ Agencies that would
like to request cooperating agency status should follow the
instructions for filing comments provided under the Public
Participation section of this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The Council on Environmental Quality regulations addressing
cooperating agency responsibilities are at title 40, Code of Federal
Regulations, section 1501.8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Consultation Under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation
Act

    In accordance with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's
implementing regulations for section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act, the Commission is using this notice to initiate
consultation with the Texas State Historic Preservation Office, and to
solicit their views and those of other government agencies, interested
Indian tribes, and the public on the project amendment's potential
effects on historic properties.\5\ The environmental document for this
Route Amendment will document findings on the impacts on historic
properties and summarize the status of consultations under section 106.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's regulations
are at title 36, Code of Federal Regulations, part 800. Those
regulations define historic properties as any prehistoric or
historic district, site, building, structure, or object included in
or eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic
Places.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Environmental Mailing List

    The environmental mailing list includes federal, state, and local
government representatives and agencies; elected officials;
environmental and public interest groups; Native American Tribes; other
interested parties; and local libraries and newspapers.
    This list also includes all landowners affected by the four
proposed route adjustment locations (as defined in the Commission's
regulations) who are potential right-of-way grantors, whose property
may be used temporarily for project purposes, or who own homes within
certain distances of aboveground facilities, and anyone who submits
comments on the Route Amendment and includes a mailing address with
their comments. Commission staff will update the environmental mailing
list as the analysis proceeds to ensure that Commission notices related
to this environmental review are sent to all individuals,
organizations, and government entities interested in and/or potentially
affected by the proposed Route Amendment.
    If you need to make changes to your name/address, or if you would
like to remove your name from the mailing list, please complete one of
the following steps:
    (1) Send an email to [email protected] stating your
request. You must include the docket number CP23-519-000 in your
request. If you are requesting a change to your address, please be sure
to include your name and the correct address. If you are requesting to
delete your address from the mailing list, please include your name and
address as it appeared on this notice. This email address is unable to
accept comments.
    OR

    (2) Return the attached ``Mailing List Update Form'' (appendix 2).

Additional Information

    Additional information about the Route Amendment is available from
the Commission's Office of External Affairs, at (866) 208-FERC, or on
the FERC website at www.ferc.gov using the eLibrary link. Click on the
eLibrary link, click on ``General Search'' and enter the docket number
in the ``Docket Number'' field. Be sure you have selected an
appropriate date range. For assistance, please contact FERC Online
Support at [email protected] or<PHONE_NUMBER>, or for TTY,
contact<PHONE_NUMBER>. The eLibrary link also provides access to the
texts of all formal documents issued by the Commission, such as orders,
notices, and rulemakings.
    Any public sessions or site visits will be posted on the
Commission's calendar located at https://www.ferc.gov/news-events/events along with other related information.

    Dated: August 23, 2023.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-18644 Filed 8-29-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


 EPA REGISTRATION DIVISION - COMPANY NOTICE OF FILING FOR PESTICIDE PETITION

EPA Registration Division contact: Sidney Jackson,<PHONE_NUMBER>

Interregional Research Project Number 4 (IR-4)

Pesticide Petition Number: PP# 4E8241

 EPA has received a pesticide petition (PP# 4E8241) from Interregional Research Project Number 4 (IR-4), 500 College Road East, Princeton, NJ 08540 proposing, pursuant to section 408(d) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d), to amend 40 CFR part 180 by establishing a tolerance for residues of  novaluron in or on the raw agricultural commodities Avocado at 0.60 parts per million (ppm), Carrot at 0.05 ppm, Bean at 0.60 ppm, Vegetable, fruiting, group 8-10 at 1.0 ppm, Fruit, pome, group 11-10 at 2.0 ppm, Cherry subgroup 12-12A at 8.0 ppm, Peach subgroup 12-12B at 1.9 ppm, and Plum subgroup 12-12C at 1.9 ppm.  In addition, the petitioner proposes based upon the establishment of new tolerances above, removal of existing tolerances at 40 CFR 180.598 on Bean, succulent, snap at 0.60 ppm, Bean,  dry, seed at 0.30 ppm, Cherry at 8.0 ppm, Fruit, pome, group 11 at 2.0 ppm, Fruit, stone, group 12, except cherry at 1.9 ppm, Vegetable, fruiting, group 8 at 1.0 ppm, cocona at 1.0 ppm, African  eggplant at 1.0 ppm, pea eggplant at 1.0 ppm, scarlet eggplant at 1.0 ppm, goji berry at 1.0 ppm, garden huckleberry at 1.0 ppm, martynia at 1.0 ppm, naranjilla at 1.0 ppm, okra at 1.0 ppm, roselle at 1.0 ppm, sunberry at 1.0 ppm, bush tomato at 1.0 ppm, currant tomato at 1.0 ppm, and  tree  tomato at 1.0 ppm.

EPA has determined that the petition contains data or information regarding the elements set forth in section 408 (d)(2) of the FDDCA; however, EPA has not fully evaluated the sufficiency of the submitted data at this time or whether the data support granting of the petition. Additional data may be needed before EPA rules on the petition.

A. Residue Chemistry

	1. Plant and Livestock metabolism. The qualitative nature of the residue of novaluron in plants is adequately understood based on acceptable plant metabolism studies reflecting its uses on apples, cabbage, cotton, and potatoes. These plant metabolism studies have demonstrated that novaluron does not metabolize and is non-systemic (does not translocate within the plant). The results observed in the plant and livestock metabolism studies show similar metabolic pathways. The residue of concern, which should be regulated, is the parent compound, novaluron only.

	2. Analytical method. An adequate analytical enforcement method, gas chromatography/electron capture detector (GC/ECD) and a high performance liquid chromatography/ultraviolet method (HPLC/UV) for enforcing tolerances of novaluron residues in or on different matrices are available, as published in the Federal Register of January 27, 2010 (Volume 75, Number  17; FRL-8807-2).

A method validation was conducted both prior to sample analysis and concurrently with sample analysis determining that the method recoveries were in the proper range. For avocado the LOD for the method was calculated to be 0.00839 ppm and the LOQ was calculated to be 0.0252 ppm. For carrot the LOD for the method was calculated to be 0.0175 ppm and the LOQ was calculated to be 0.0524 ppm. For bean, the LOD for the method was calculated to be 0.013 ppm and the LOQ was calculated to be 0.039 ppm. For cucumber the LOD for the method was calculated to be 0.0091 ppm and the LOQ was calculated to be 0.027 ppm. The lowest level of method validation (LLMV) for these commodities was 0.05 ppm.

	3. Magnitude of residues. Residue trials were conducted to support the tolerances requested above including the following:

   oo Avocado: A total of 6 field trials were conducted in NAFTA Regions.     oo Carrot: A total of 8 field trials were conducted in NAFTA Regions.     oo Bean: A total of 6 field trials were conducted in NAFTA Regions.    oo Greenhouse grown cucumber: A total of 4 field trials were conducted in NAFTA Regions.

B. Toxicological Profile

	1. Acute toxicity. In an acute oral toxicity study in rats, novaluron had an LD50  >5,000 mg/kg. A dermal toxicity study in rats resulted in an LD50  greater than 2,000 mg/kg. The LC50 for acute inhalation in rats was great.er than 5.15 mg/I. In rabbits, novaluron is not a skin irritant, but it is a mild eye irritant. Novaluron is not a sensitizer in guinea pigs.

	2. Genotoxicty. The mutagenic potential of novaluron was investigated in several in vivo and in vitro studies. Results in two Ames assays, an in vivo mouse micronucleus assay, an in vitro unscheduled DNA synthesis (UDS) assay, an in vitro cell mutation assay, and an in vitro human lymphocyte clastogenicity test were negative. Novaluron is therefore considered to have no potential to induce mutagenicity.

	3. Reproductive and developmental toxicity. i. A two generation rat reproduction study was conducted with dose levels of 1,000, 4,000, and 12,000 ppm (74.2, 297.5, 894.9 mg/kg/day, and 84, 336.7, 1,009.8 mg/kg/day for males and females, respectively). Maternal and offspring toxicity was evidenced by increased absolute and relative spleen weights, whereas reproductive toxicity was observed only in males at 297.5 mg/kg/day (LOAEL) based on decreased epididymal sperm counts and increased age at preputial separation in the F1 generation. The no observed adverse effect level (NOAC) in males was 1,000 ppm (74.2 mg/kg/day) and in females it was 12,000 ppm (109.8 mg/kg/day).

ii. Teratology studies were conducted in the rat and rabbit. No treatment related mortalities were observed in either study. No effect on survival, development or growth of fetuses was noted in either species in either study. No maternal or developmental toxicity was observed up to and including the limit dose of 1,000 mg/kg/day (NOAEL). These two studies demonstrate that novaluron was not teratogenic in either rats or rabbits.

	4. Subchronic toxicity. Rats, mice and dogs all show the same toxicological response. Generally, novaluron induces small increases in methemoglobin; red cells are sequestered; and, compensatory hematopoiesis occurs. The severity of these changes is well within the physiological capacity of the animals and is judged not adverse.

Rats treated topically with novaluron in a 28-day study at 0, 75, 400 and 1,000 mg/kg/day did not show signs of systemic toxicity. Small treatment-related increases in methemoglobin were seen in both sexes at 1,000 mg/kg/day and in females at 400 mg/kg/day. The highest methemoglobin value seen in females was 1.28% compared with 0.86% in controls. Organ weights, macroscopic and microscopic examination of organs and tissues did not reveal any treatment-related changes.

Two 13-week rat studies were conducted. In one study, doses were administered at 50, 100, 200, 400 ppm (3.52, 6.93, 13.83, 27.77 mg/kg/day and 4.38, 8.64, 17.54 and 34.39 mg/kg/day for males and females, respectively). The LOAELs from the combined results were 27.77 mg/kg/day in males based on increased occurrence of extramedullary hematopoiesis and hemosiderosis in spleen; and 8.64 mg/kg/day in females based on reduction in hemoglobin, hematocrit and RBC count; increased occurrence of extramedullary hematopoiesis and hemosiderosis in spleen and liver. The NOAEL was 4.38 mg/kg/day.

A 13-week mouse study was conducted with dose levels of 30, 100, 1,000, 10,000 ppm (4.2, 12.8, 135.9, 1,391.9 and 4.7, 15.2, 135.6, 1,493.1 mg/kg/day, for males and females, respectively). The NOAEL was determined to be 100 ppm (12.8 and 15.2 mg/kg/day, male and females, respectively). The LOAEL was 1,000 ppm (135.9 and 135.6 mg/kg/day, males and females, respectively) based on increased body weight gain, low erythrocyte counts, and secondary splenic changes. There were no clinical treatment-related signs noted.

Two 13-week dog studies were conducted. One study resulted in an NOAEL of 100 mg/kg/day and a LOAEL of 300 mg/kg/day based on low erythrocyte counts and secondary splenic and liver changes. No clinical treatment-related signs were noted. Another study was conducted using only one dose level of 10 mg/kg/day. There were no clinical or histopathological treatment-related signs and the NOAEL was determined to be 10 mg/kg/day. Acute and subchronic neurotoxicity screening batteries were performed with novaluron in rats. Novaluron is not considered neurotoxic, since effects observed in the acute neurotoxicity study were observed at the limit dose only and were not reproduced at similar, repeated doses in the subchronic neurotoxicity study (0, 17.5/20.5, 174/207, 1752/2000 mg/kg/day Male/Female). No signs of neurotoxicity or neuropathology were observed following, repeated dosing in the subchronic neurotoxicity study in rats or in any other subchronic or chronic toxicity study in rats, mice or dogs.]

	5. Chronic toxicity. i. Chronic toxicity and oncogenicity was evaluated in the rat, mouse and dog. The rat chronic toxicity and oncogenicity was conducted with dose levels of 25, 700, 20,000ppm (1.1, 30.6, 884.2 and 1.4, 39.5, 1,113.5 mg/kg/day for males and females, respectively). The LOAEL in male and female rats was 30.6 and 39.5 mg/kg/day, respectively, based on evidence of erythrocyte damage and turnover resulting in a regenerative anemia in both sexes. The corresponding NOAEL was 25 ppm (1.1 and 1.4 mg/kg/day for male and female rats, respectively). There was no evidence of carcinogenicity in this study. A mouse chronic toxicity study was conducted with dose ·revels of 30, 450, 7,000 ppm (3.6, 53.4, 800.0 and 4.3, 63.3, 913.4 mg/kg/day for males and females, respectively). The LOAEL in male and female mice was 53.4 and 63.3 mg/kg/day, respectively, based on erythrocyte turnover due to hemoglobin oxidation and resulting in a compensated anemia. The corresponding NOAEL was 30 ppm (3.6 and 4.3 mg/kg/day for male and female mice, respectively). There was also no evidence of carcinogenicity in this study. Chronic toxicity was investigated in dogs using dose levels of 10, 100, 1,000 mg/kg/day. The NOAEL of 100 mg/kg/day was based on methemoglobin.

ii. The chronic reference dose (cRfD) of 0.011 mg/kg/day has been established on the basis of the chronic carcinogenicity study in rats. An uncertainty factor (UF) of 100 was applied to the NOAEL of 1.1 mg/kg/day for male rats deriving to the cRfD.

iii. In accordance with the EPA Draft Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment (July 1999), novaluron is classified as not likely to be carcinogenic to humans due to results of oncogenicity studies that show no evidence of carcinogenicity in rats and mice.

<	6. Animal metabolism. Metabolism studies in rats and goats were conducted with the parent material labeled in both the difluorophenyl and chlorophenyl moieties. Rats absorb little novaluron when it is administered orally. More than 90% of the dietary administered [chlorophenyl [14]C(U)] novaluron is recovered in the feces. When the difluorophenyl ring of the molecule is labeled, the recovered [14]C activity in the feces is lower but still above 75%. The difference is thought to reflect intestinal metabolism by microbial flora and the higher absorption of the difluorophenyl metabolites.

The parent molecule as well as its degradates are absorbed from the gastrointestinal tract. All parent material is metabolized either upon initial entry into the systemic circulation or, if sequestered to the fat, upon its depuration back to the systemic circulation. There is no intact novaluron found in the urine. Novaluron's high octanol-water partition coefficient is responsible for its preferential movement to fat. The half-life in fat calculated from the rat metabolism study is approximately 55 hours.

Two groups of metabolites are formed after oral administration of novaluron. One group is typified by the aniline metabolite 3-chloro-4-(1, 1,2-trifluoro-2-trifluoromethoxyethoxy) aniline, referred to as 3-TFA. The other group of metabolites is typified by 2,6-difluorobenzoic acid is from the difluorophenyl moiety of the molecule. Nearly all the metabolites are formed at a level of 1 % or less of the applied dose. These metbolites are rapidly excreted.

The metabolism in goats and hens mimics that seen in rats.>

	7. Metabolite toxicology. Makhteshim-Agan of North America Inc., has determined that there are no metabolites of toxicological concern and therefore, no metabolites need to be included in the tolerance expression and require regulation. The residues of concern in drinking water for purpose of risk assessment are novaluron, the chlorophenyl urea degradate (1-[3-chloro-4-(1, 1,2-trifluoro-2- trifluoromethoxyethoxy)phenyl]urea), and the chloroaniline metabolite (3-chloro-4-(1, 1,2- trifluoro-2-trifluoromethoxyethoxy)aniline).

	8. Endocrine disruption. No special studies investigating potential estrogenic or other endocrine effects of novaluron have been conducted. However, inspection of in-life data from toxicology studies indicates that novaluron is not an endocrine disruptor. Specifically, endocrine organ weights (e.g., thyroid, testes, ovaries, pituitary from the two-generation study) were not adversely affected by novaluron. Milestones of sexual development were not affected by novaluron; and, reproduction was not adversely affected. Based on these observations, novaluron does not have an adverse effect on the endocrine system.

C. Aggregate Exposure

	1. Dietary exposure. For novaluron, only chronic exposures are of interest because there is no acute toxicity endpoint of concern. The dietary exposure from the recent 2013 EPA assessment for peanut and soybean considered exposure of all existing novaluron tolerances in 40 CFR 180.598. Tolerances for bean, snap, succulent, dry, seed; for vegetable, fruiting, group 8; for fruit, pome, group 11; for cherry; and for fruit, stone, group 12, except cherry have previously been established and the updates to the crop grouping is not likely to influence assessment calculations. As well, the contribution of carrot and avocado are not likely to result in dietary exposures at a level of concern for any subpopulation. The July 2013 assessment noted the following conclusions.

i. Food. Acute Dietary Exposure. No toxicological endpoint attributable to a single exposure was identified in the available toxicology studies, including the rat and rabbit developmental studies. Therefore, the acute aggregate risk is minimal.

Chronic Dietary Exposure. In conducting the chronic dietary exposure  assessment EPA used the food consumption data from the USDA under the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, What We Eat in America (NHANES/WWEIA), 2003-2008. As to residue levels in food, EPA incorporated average percent crop treated (PCT) data for apples, cabbage, cauliflower, cotton, pears, potatoes, strawberries, and tomatoes and utilized estimates for PCT for uses for grain sorghum and sweet corn. 100 PCT was assumed for the remaining food commodities. Anticipated residues (ARs) for meat, milk, hog, and poultry commodities were calculated based on the uses and percent crop treated for grain sorghum, sweet corn, apple and cotton; and an assumption of 100 PCT for sugarcane, aspirated grain fractions (AGF), and cowpea seed.

The chronic analysis also incorporated a half-limit of quantitation (LOQ) residues for food commodities other than those covered by a higher tolerance as a result of use on growing crops from the registered use in food and feed handling establishments. Additionally, empirical processing factors for apple juice (translated to pear and stone fruit juice), cottonseed oil, dried plums, and tomato paste and pure, and Dietary Exposure Evaluation Model (DEEM) (ver. 7.81) default processing factors for the remaining processed commodities, where provided were incorporated.

The PCT was estimated: Apples at 10%; cabbage at 10%; cauliflower at < 2.5%, cotton at < 2.5%, pears at 15%, potatoes at < 2.5%, strawberries at 35%, sweet corn at 36% and grain sorghum at 2% and tomatoes at < 1%.

The chronic population adjusted dose (cPAD) for novaluron is 0.011 mg/kg/day, upon the NOAEL of 1.1 mg/kg/day from the chronic carcinogenicity study in rats, and an UF of 100. The chronic dietary exposure (food plus drinking water) for the general U.S. population is 0.002301 mg/kg/day, or 20.9% of the cPAD. These chronic dietary exposure estimates corresponds to 14.3% to 72.4% of the cPAD (0.011 mg/kg/day). The most highly exposed subpopulation, children aged 1 to 2 years, has an estimated total novaluron exposure of 0.007963 mg/kg/day, which corresponds to 72.4% of the cPAD. Chronic dietary exposures less than 100% of the cPAD are not of concern.

Novaluron was classified as "not likely to be carcinogenic to humans." Therefore, a quantitative cancer risk assessment is unnecessary.

ii. Drinking water. Acute Exposure. Since no acute toxicity endpoint was determined, it can be concluded there is reasonable certainty of no harm from acute drinking water exposure, and therefore, a drinking water exposure assessment is unnecessary.

Chronic Exposure. Novaluron residues in drinking water were included in the dietary exposure assessment for peanut and soybean. The residues of concern in drinking water are novaluron and its chlorophenyl urea and chloroaniline degradates. The Pesticide Root Zone Model/Exposure Analysis Modeling System (PRZM/EXAMS) for estimating parent novaluron in surface water, the Tier 1 FQPA Index Reservoir Screening Tool (FIRST) model for surface water estimates for chlorophenyl urea and chloroaniline degradates, and the Screening Concentration in Ground Water (SCI-GROW) model for novaluron, chlorophenyl urea, and chloroaniline in ground water were used. These simulation models take into account data on the physical, chemical, and fate/transport characteristics.

Based on these models, the estimated drinking water concentrations (EDWCs) of novaluron, chlorophenyl urea, and chloroaniline for chronic exposures for non-cancer assessments are estimated to be 0.41 parts per billion (ppb), 0.375 ppb, and 3.301 ppb respectively, for surface water and 0.00137 ppb, 0.00149 ppb, and 0.00658 ppb respectively for ground water.

Modeled estimates of drinking water concentrations were directly entered into the dietary exposure model. The highest 1-in-10 year annual mean surface water EDWCs were combined to estimate drinking water exposures. For chronic dietary risk assessment, the water concentration of value 4.086 ppb was used to assess the contribution to drinking water.

	2. Non-dietary exposure. Novaluron has been approved for its use in and around residences including crack & crevice, spot and outdoor perimeter uses. It can be applied at a maximum dilute concentration of 0.25% novaluron (0.02 lb ai/gal). Residents may apply the product so residential handler exposures are assessed in addition to post-application exposures. Both short- and intermediate-term post- application exposures are of interest because the period of residual control for novaluron may result in exposures over a prolonged period. However handler exposures are of interest for the short-term only.

Due to the limited area treated in outdoor perimeter treatments, potential post-application exposure associated with perimeter treatments to negligible has generally been considered by EPA as negligible. Crack & crevice applications and spot treatments in residences can lead to potential novaluron exposures for residents in treated homes. Spot treatments will be made to storage areas, closets, around water pipes, behind/under refrigerators, etc., whereas crack & crevice applications will be made to baseboards, floors, ceilings, walls, etc.. Thus, exposure to residues is minimized by the application of sprays to areas that are generally inaccessible to residents. Post-application exposures to residues from crack & crevice applications may be taken as the worst-case scenario from among the novaluron uses because such applications may be made in areas residents occupy.

Based on EPA's updated Standard Operating Procedures for Residential Exposure Assessments (2012), the short-term aggregate residential MOEs (food + water, residential application and post - application) are 1,800 for adults, and 460 for children; and the intermediate-term aggregate residential MOEs are 1,200 for adults, and 420 for children, taken into consideration as the worst-case scenario the maximum dilute application rate of 0.25% novaluron {0.02 lb ai/gal). Thus, based on the crack and crevice treatment all of the route- and product-specific MOEs were greater than 100, and the aggregate MOEs were greater than 100 for all population subgroups, demonstrating a reasonable certainty of no harm.

D. Cumulative Effects

	EPA has not found novaluron to share a common mechanism of toxicity with any other substances and novaluron does not appear to produce any toxic metabolite produced by other substances. There are currently no available data or other reliable information indicating that any toxic effects produced by novaluron that would be cumulative with those of other chemical compounds.

E. Safety Determination

	1. U.S. population. No acute aggregate risk assessment was conducted because there is no toxicological endpoint attributable to a single exposure. No cancer aggregate risk assessment was conducted because novaluron has not been shown to be carcinogenic.

A chronic aggregate risk assessment was performed for the proposed peanut and soybean tolerances based on potential exposure from food and drinking water. Short- and intermediate-term aggregate risk assessments were performed based on potential exposure from food and drinking water, as well as spot, crack and crevice, and outdoor perimeter uses. The chronic dietary exposure, including drinking water, for the general U.S. population was found to be 0.002301 mg/kg/day, or 20.9% of the cPAD. The chronic dietary exposures account for 14.3% to 72.4% of the cPAD (0.011 mg/kg/day) depending on the population subgroup. The calculation for the most sensitive population subgroup (children 1 to 2 years old) was 0.007963 mg/kg/day, utilizing 72.4% of the cPAD. In view of these previous assessments, Makhteshim-Agan of North America Inc. concludes that there is reasonable certainty that no harm will result from the proposed use of novaluron with the additional uses of avocado and carrot; or the update to the noted crop groupings.

Concerning the aggregate assessment from all potential sources of exposure (food, water, residential), it has been demonstrated that the aggregate MOEs associated with the existing uses of novaluron do not exceed the Agency's level of concern. There is reasonable certainty that no harm will result to the general population or to infants and children from the additional new uses of novaluron.

	2. Infants and children. Section 408 of FFDCA provides that EPA may apply an additional safety factor for infants and children to account for prenatal and postnatal toxicity and the completeness of the database. The toxicology database for novaluron is complete including acceptable data from rat and rabbit developmental toxicity studies, and a two generation rat reproduction study that have been used to assess the potential for increased sensitivity of infants and children. The data provided no quantitative or qualitative evidence of increased susceptibility of rats or rabbits to in utero and/or postnatal exposure to novaluron. Neither maternal nor developmental toxicity was seen in the developmental studies up to the limit doses. The reproduction study demonstrated offspring and parental toxicity were similar and occurred at the same dose; reproductive effects occurred at a higher dose than the one which resulted in parental toxicity. In addition, there is no concern for developmental neurotoxicity resulting from exposure to novaluron, and a developmental neurotoxicity study is not required. Therefore, the Agency determined to reduce the FQPA Safety Factor to 1X (Federal Register of June 2, 2004; 69 FR 31013; FRL-7359-2).

With the current uses of novaluron the chronic population adjusted dose (cPAD) is determined to be 0.011 mg/kg/day and the DEEM analysis regarding the aggregate chronic exposure calculated at utilizing less than 72.4% of the cPAD for the most sensitive subgroup, children 1 to 2 years old. In addition, it is evident that short- and intermediate-term aggregate residential exposures based on the crack and crevice treatment as the worst case for post-application exposures, result in MOEs greater than 100.

Based on this information Makhteshim-Agan of North America Inc., concludes that there is reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and children from aggregate exposure to novaluron residues associated with existing and proposed uses of novaluron on avocado and carrot; or the update to the noted crop groupings.

F. International Tolerances

On December 8, 2010, the Federal Register published a final rule with revisions to the fruiting vegetables crop group and the pome fruit crop group. Tolerances for novaluron have previously been established for both of these crop groups, at 1.0 ppm for Vegetable, fruiting, group 8 (and also for various commodities that are now part of the updated crop group), and 2.0 ppm for Fruit, pome, group 11. The IR-4 Project proposes new tolerances for novaluron for the updated crop groups at the same levels as the current tolerances.

At present, no Canadian, Mexican, or CODEX maximum residue limits (MRLs) are established for novaluron on avocado, carrot, or lima beans.

No Canadian or Mexican maximum residue limits (MRLs) are established for novaluron on the fruiting vegetable group 8-10, although CODEX maintains a novaluron MRL of 0.7 on "fruiting vegetables other than cucurbits and sweet corn." The residues of novaluron on tomatoes and peppers in the IR-4 studies that supported the original tolerance were <0.5 ppm, thus it is unlikely that fruiting vegetables with novaluron residues >0.7 ppm will be produced and become a trade irritant even if the current tolerance level is maintained.

Codex maintains a novaluron MRL of 3 set on "pome fruit", however a lower US MRL will not impact exports. The residues of novaluron on pome fruit in the studies (not sponsored by IR-4) that supported the original tolerance resulted in a calculated tolerance of 2.0 ppm, thus it is extremely unlikely that pome fruit with novaluron residues >3.0 ppm will be produced and become a trade irritant even if the current tolerance level is maintained.

Codex maintains a novaluron MRL of 7 set on "stone fruit."  On August 22, 2012, the Federal Register published a final rule with revisions to the stone fruit crop group. Tolerances for novaluron have previously been established for Cherry at 8.0 ppm and for Fruit, stone, group 12, except cherry at 1.9 ppm. The IR-4 Project proposes new tolerances for novaluron for the new Cherry subgroup 12-12A at 8.0 ppm and for the new Peach subgroup 12-12B and the new Plum subgroup 12-12C, both at 1.9 ppm.

CODEX has established an MRL of 7.0 ppm for novaluron on stone fruit. The residues of novaluron on cherries in the study (not sponsored by IR-4 but submitted with an IR-4 petition) that supported the original cherry tolerance were <4.0 ppm, thus it is extremely unlikely that cherries or other fruit in the cherry subgroup with novaluron residues >7.0 ppm will be produced and become a trade irritant even if the current tolerance level is maintained.

The residues of novaluron on peaches and plums in the respective studies that supported the original stone fruit tolerance were <2.0 ppm, thus it is extremely unlikely that peaches, plums, or other fruit in the respective subgroups with novaluron residues >7.0 ppm will be produced and become a trade irritant even if the current tolerance level is maintained for the two new subgroups. Establishing a single tolerance for Fruit, stone, group 12-12 could change the risk calculations in a way that would be detrimental to the establishment of future tolerances for this compound, thus IR-4 has proposed the separate subgroup tolerances.


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 66 (Wednesday, April 6, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 19942-19944]
[FR Doc No: 2016-07891]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 100

[Docket Number USCG-2016-0010]
RIN 1625-AA08

Special Local Regulation; Bucksport/Southeastern Drag Boat Summer
Extravaganza, Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway; Bucksport, SC

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to establish a special local
regulation on the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway in Bucksport, South
Carolina during the Bucksport/Southeastern Drag Boat Summer
Extravaganza, on July 9 and July 10, 2016. This special local
regulation is necessary to ensure the safety of participants,
spectators, and the general public during the event. This proposed
rulemaking would prohibit persons and vessels from being in the
regulated area unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Charleston
or a designated representative. We invite your comments on this
proposed rulemaking.

DATES: Comments and related material must be received by the Coast
Guard on or before May 6, 2016.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-
2016-0010 using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. See the ``Public Participation and Request for
Comments'' portion of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for further
instructions on submitting comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions about this
proposed rulemaking, call or email Lieutenant John Downing, Sector
Charleston Office of Waterways Management, Coast Guard; telephone (843)
740-3184, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

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

II. Background, Purpose, and Legal Basis

    On December 27, 2015, the Bucksport Marina notified the Coast Guard
that it will sponsor a series of drag boat races from 12 p.m. to 7 p.m.
on July 9, and July 10, 2016. The legal basis for the proposed rule is
the Coast Guard's Authority to establish special local regulations: 33
U.S.C 1233. The purpose of the proposed rule is to ensure safety of
life on the navigable water of the United States during the Bucksport/
Lake Murray Drag Boat Spring Nationals, a series of high speed boat
races.

III. Discussion of Proposed Rule

    The Coast Guard proposes to establish a special local regulation on
the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway in Bucksport, South Carolina during
the Bucksport/Southeastern Drag Boat Summer Extravaganza, on July 9 and
July 10, 2016. Approximately 75 powerboats are anticipated to
participate in the races and approximately 35 spectator vessels are
expected to attend the event. Persons and vessels desiring to enter,
transit through, anchor in, or remain within the regulated area may
contact the Captain of the Port Charleston by telephone at (843) 740-
7050, or a designated representative via VHF radio on channel 16, to
request authorization. If authorization to enter, transit through,
anchor in, or remain within the regulated area is granted by the
Captain of the Port Charleston or a designated representative, all
persons and vessels receiving such authorization must comply with the
instructions of the Captain of the Port Charleston or a designated
representative. The Coast Guard will provide notice of the special
local regulation by Local Notice to Mariners, Broadcast Notice to
Mariners, and on-scene designated representatives.

IV. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this proposed 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 the First Amendment rights of protestors.

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    E.O.s 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.
E.O. 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and
benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting
flexibility. This NPRM has not been designated a ``significant
regulatory action,'' under E.O. 12866. Accordingly, the NPRM has not
been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.
    This proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action under
section 3(f) of E.O. 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, as
supplemented by E.O. 13563, Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review,
and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits
under section 6(a)(3) of E.O. 12866 or under section 1 of E.O. 13563.
The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under those
Orders.
    The economic impact of this proposed rule is not significant for
the following reasons: (1) The special local regulation would be
enforced for only seven hours a day over a two-day period; (2) although
persons and vessels would not be able to enter, transit through, anchor
in, or remain within the regulated area without authorization from the
Captain of the Port Charleston or a designated representative, they
would be able to operate in the surrounding area during the enforcement
periods; (3) persons and vessels would still be able to enter, transit
through, anchor in, or remain within the regulated area if authorized
by the Captain of the Port Charleston or a designated representative;
and (4) the Coast Guard would provide advance notification of the
regulated area to the local maritime community by Local Notice to
Mariners and Broadcast Notice to Mariners.

B. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this
proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. We have considered the impact of
this proposed rule on small entities. This rule may affect the
following entities, some of which may be small entities: The owner or
operators of vessels intending to enter, transit through, anchor in, or
remain within the regulated area during the enforcement period. For the
reasons discussed in Regulatory Planning and Review section above, this
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities.

    If you think that your business, organization, or governmental
jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have
a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see
ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what
degree this rule would economically affect it.
    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 proposed 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. The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that
question or complain about this proposed rule or any policy or action
of the Coast Guard.

C. Collection of Information

    This proposed rule would 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 E.O. 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 proposed rule under that Order and
have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism
principles and preemption requirements described in E.O. 13132.
    Also, this proposed rule does not have tribal implications under
E.O. 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments, because it would 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 proposed 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 proposed rule would not
result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule
elsewhere in this preamble.

F. Environment

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland
Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction
M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made
a preliminary determination 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 proposed rule involves special
local regulation issued in conjunction with a regatta or marine parade.
This rule is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph
34(h) of Figure 2-1 of the Commandant Instruction. We seek any comments
or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant
environmental impact from this proposed rule.

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.

V. Public Participation and Request for Comments

    We view public participation as essential to effective rulemaking,
and will consider all comments and material received during the comment
period. Your comment can help shape the outcome of this rulemaking. If
you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which
each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or
recommendation.
    We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking
Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. If your material cannot be
submitted using http://www.regulations.gov, contact the person in the
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document for alternate
instructions.
    We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted
without change to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any
personal information you have provided. For more about privacy and the
docket, you may review a Privacy Act notice regarding the Federal
Docket Management System in the March 24, 2005, issue of the Federal
Register (70 FR 15086).
    Documents mentioned in this NPRM as being available in the docket,
and all public comments, will be in our online docket at http://www.regulations.gov and can be viewed by following that Web site's
instructions. Additionally, if you go to the online docket and sign up
for email alerts, you will be notified when comments are posted or a
final rule is published.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 100

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

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes
to amend 33 CFR part 100 as follows:

PART 100--SAFETY OF LIFE ON NAVIGABLE WATERS

0
1. The authority citation for part 100 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  33 U.S.C. 1233.

0
2. Add a temporary Sec.  100.T07-0010 to read as follows:

Sec.  100.T07-0010  Special Local Regulations; Bucksport/Southeastern
Drag Boat Summer Extravaganza, Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway,
Bucksport, SC.

    (a) Regulated area. All waters of the Atlantic Intracoastal
Waterway encompassed by a line connecting the following points: Point 1
in position 33[deg]39'13'' N., 079[deg]05'36'' W.; thence west to point
2 in position 33[deg]39'17'' N., 079[deg]05'46'' W.; thence south to
point 3 in position 33[deg]38'53'' N., 079[deg]05'39'' W.; thence east
to point 4 in position 33[deg]38'54'' N., 079[deg]05'31'' W.; thence
north back to point 1. All coordinates are North American Datum 1983.
    (b) Definition. As used in this section, ``designated
representative'' means Coast Guard Patrol Commanders, including Coast
Guard coxswains, petty officers, and other officers operating Coast
Guard vessels, and Federal, state, and local officers designated by or
assisting the Captain of the Port Charleston in the enforcement of the
regulated areas.
    (c) Regulations. (1) All persons and vessels are prohibited from
entering,

transiting through, anchoring in, or remaining within the regulated
area, except persons and vessels participating in Bucksport/
Southeastern Drag Boat Summer Extravaganza or serving as safety
vessels. Persons and vessels desiring to enter, transit through, anchor
in, or remain within the regulated area may contact the Captain of the
Port Charleston by telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or a designated
representative via VHF radio on channel 16, to request authorization.
If authorization to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within
the regulated area is granted by the Captain of the Port Charleston or
a designated representative, all persons and vessels receiving such
authorization must comply with the instructions of the Captain of the
Port Charleston or a designated representative.
    (2) The Coast Guard will provide notice of the regulated area by
Marine Safety Information Bulletins, Local Notice to Mariners,
Broadcast Notice to Mariners, and on-scene designated representatives.
    (d) Enforcement date. This rule will be enforced from 12 p.m. until
7 p.m. daily on July 9 and July 10, 2016.

    Dated: March 29, 2016.
G.L. Tomasulo,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Charleston.
[FR Doc. 2016-07891 Filed 4-5-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 193 (Monday, October 5, 2020)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 62632]
[FR Doc No: 2020-21037]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

18 CFR Part 292

[Docket No. RM20-20-000]

Petition for Rulemaking of Bloom Energy Corporation; Correction

AGENCY:  Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

ACTION:  Petition for rulemaking; correcting amendment.

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

SUMMARY:  This document contains a correction to the Petition for
rulemaking (RM18-20-000) which published in the Federal Register on
Friday, September 18, 2020 (85 FR 58300). The docket number was
incorrect. This document corrects the docket number in this proceeding
as captioned above.

DATES:  Comments due 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on September 8, 2020.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lawrence Greenfield, Office of the
General Counsel, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street
NE, Washington, DC 20426,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On August 19, 2020, the Commission issued a
Petition for rulemaking informing that Bloom Energy Corporation
submitted a petition for rulemaking requesting that the Commission
clarify that the thermal energy output produced by a topping-cycle
facility's solid oxide fuel cell system when used to reform methane and
produce hydrogen for fuel for electricity generation by that facility
is useful thermal energy output that would enable the facility powered
by such fuel cells to be certified as a qualifying cogeneration
facility, all as more fully explained in the petition.

    Dated: August 21, 2020.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-21037 Filed 10-2-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 219 (Wednesday, November 15, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 78351-78352]
[FR Doc No: 2023-25180]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 2535-129]

Dominion Energy South Carolina, Inc.; Notice of Application
Tendered for Filing With the Commission and Soliciting Additional Study
Requests and Establishing Procedural Schedule for Relicensing and a
Deadline for Submission of Final Amendments

    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been
filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection.
    a. Type of Application: New License.
    b. Project No.: 2535-129.
    c. Date Filed: October 27, 2023.
    d. Submitted By: Dominion Energy South Carolina, Inc.
    e. Name of Project: Stevens Creek Hydroelectric Project.
    f. Location: At the confluence of Stevens Creek and the Savannah
River, in Edgefield and McCormick Counties, South Carolina, and
Columbia County, Georgia. The project occupies approximately 104 acres
of federal land administered by the U.S. Forest Service.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act 16 U.S.C. 791(a)-825(r).
    h. Applicant Contact: Amy Bresnahan, Dominion Energy South
Carolina, Inc., 220 Operation Way, Mail Code A221, Cayce, SC 29033-
3712;<PHONE_NUMBER>; [email protected].
    i. FERC Contact: Jeanne Edwards at<PHONE_NUMBER>; or email at
[email protected].
    j. Cooperating Agencies: Federal, state, local, and tribal agencies
with jurisdiction and/or special expertise with respect to
environmental issues that wish to cooperate in the preparation of the
environmental document should follow the instructions for filing such
requests described in item l below. Cooperating agencies should note
the Commission's policy that agencies that cooperate in the preparation
of the environmental document cannot also intervene. See, 94 FERC ]
61,076 (2001).
    k. Pursuant to section 4.32(b)(7) of 18 CFR of the Commission's
regulations, if any resource agency, Indian Tribe, or person believes
that an additional scientific study should be conducted in order to
form an adequate factual basis for a complete analysis of the
application on its merit, the resource agency, Indian Tribe, or person
must file a request for a study with the Commission not later than 60
days from the date of filing of the application, and serve a copy of
the request on the applicant.
    l. Deadline for filing additional study requests and requests for
cooperating agency status: December 8, 2023.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file
additional study requests and requests for cooperating agency status
using the Commission's eFiling system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support
at [email protected],<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free), or (202)
502-8659 (TTY). In lieu of electronic filing, you may submit a paper
copy. Submissions sent via the U.S. Postal Service must be addressed
to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,
888 First Street NE, Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426. Submissions sent
via any other carrier must be addressed to: Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 12225 Wilkins Avenue,
Rockville, Maryland 20852. All filings must clearly identify the
project name and docket number on the first page: Stevens Creek Project
(P-2535-129).
    m. The application is not ready for environmental analysis at this
time.
    n. The Stevens Creek Project consists of these existing facilities:
(1) a single dam with an integral powerhouse intake and lock consisting
of (a) a 102.5-foot-long non-overflow section with a top elevation of
198.54 feet National Geodetic Vertical Datum 1929 (NGVD), (b) a 2,000-
foot-long overflow spillway with a top elevation of 183.5 feet NGVD,
(c) a 1,000-foot-long, 5-foot-high flashboard section from the lock to
the center of the spillway, (d) a 1,000 foot-long, 4-foot-high steel
flashboard section from the center of the spillway to the South
Carolina abutment, (e) an 85-foot-wide, 165.5-foot-long concrete
gravity navigation lock, with a lock chamber that is 30-foot-wide, 150-
foot-long, and has a 29-foot-lift, located between the powerhouse and
spillway section, (f) a 388-foot-long powerhouse intake, integral with
the dam, protected by trashracks with 3.75-inch-clear bar spacing, and
(g) a 97-foot-long non-overflow section; (2) a 388-foot-long, 52-foot-
wide, 57-foot-high three-story brick powerhouse, integral with the dam,
containing eight vertical Francis generating units, each rated at 3,125
horsepower, a total generating capacity of 17.28 megawatts, and total
hydraulic capacity of 8,300 cubic feet per second; (3) a 2,400-acre
reservoir with a storage capacity of 23,699-acre-feet at a full pond
elevation of 187.5 feet NGVD; (4) generator leads from the powerhouse
to a switchyard located approximately 100

feet from the powerhouse; and (5) ancillary equipment.
    The Stevens Creek Project operates as a re-regulating project,
mitigating the downstream effects of the routinely wide-ranging
discharges from the upstream U.S. Army Corps of Engineers J. Strom
Thurmond hydroelectric project. The Stevens Creek reservoir normally
fluctuates between an elevation of 183.0 feet NGVD and 187.5 feet NGVD,
using available storage capacity to re-regulate flows released from
Thurmond Dam.
    o. Copies of the application may be viewed on the Commission's
website at http://www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the
docket number, excluding the last three digits in the docket number
field to access the document (P-2535). For assistance, contact FERC
Online Support at [email protected], or call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll-free) or<PHONE_NUMBER> (TTY).
    You may also register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be notified via email of new filings and issuances
related to this or other pending projects. For assistance, contact FERC
Online Support.
    p. The Commission's Office of Public Participation (OPP) supports
meaningful public engagement and participation in Commission
proceedings. OPP can help members of the public, including landowners,
environmental justice communities, Tribal members and others, access
publicly available information and navigate Commission processes. For
public inquiries and assistance with making filings such as
interventions, comments, or requests for rehearing, the public is
encouraged to contact OPP at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or [email protected].
    q. Procedural schedule and final amendments: the application will
be processed according to the following preliminary schedule. Revisions
to the schedule will be made as appropriate.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Milestone                           Target date
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Issue Deficiency Letter (if necessary)  January 2024.
Request Additional Information (if      January 2024.
 necessary).
Issue Acceptance Letter...............  May 2024.
Issue Scoping Document 1 for comments.  June 2024.
Request Additional Information (if      August 2024.
 necessary).
Issue Scoping Document 2 (if            August 2024.
 necessary).
Issue Notice of Ready for               September 2024.
 Environmental Analysis.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    r. Final amendments to the application must be filed with the
Commission no later than 30 days from the issuance date of the notice
of ready for environmental analysis.

    Dated: November 8, 2023.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-25180 Filed 11-14-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 33 (Wednesday, February 19, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 9398-9400]
[FR Doc No: 2014-02996]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2013-0791; Directorate Identifier 2012-NM-026-AD;
Amendment 39-17745; AD 2014-03-08]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Airplanes

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all
Airbus Model A318, A319, A320, and A321 series airplanes. This AD was
prompted by a report that an investigation showed that when a certain
combination of a target/proximity sensor serial number is installed on
a flap interconnecting strut, a ``target FAR'' signal cannot be
detected when it reaches the mechanical end stop of the interconnecting
strut. This AD requires an inspection to determine the part number of
the interconnecting struts installed on the wings, identifying the part
number and the serial number of the associated target and proximity
sensor if applicable, and replacing or re-identifying the flap
interconnecting strut if applicable. We are issuing this AD to detect
and correct a latent failure of the flap down drive disconnection due
to an already-failed interconnecting strut sensor, which could result
in asymmetric flap panel movement and consequent loss of control of the
airplane.

DATES: This AD becomes effective March 26, 2014.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of March 26,
2014.

ADDRESSES: You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=FAA-2013-0791; or in person at the
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.
    For service information identified in this AD, contact Airbus,
Airworthiness Office--EAS, 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<PHONE_NUMBER>.

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:

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to all Airbus Model A318,
A319, A320, and A321 series airplanes. The NPRM published in the
Federal Register on September 25, 2013 (78 FR 58975). The NPRM was
prompted by a report that an investigation showed that when a certain
combination of a target/proximity sensor serial number is installed on
a flap interconnecting strut, a ``target FAR'' signal cannot be
detected when it reaches the mechanical end stop of the interconnecting
strut. The NPRM proposed to require an inspection to determine the part
number of the interconnecting struts installed on the wings,
identifying the part number and the serial number of the associated
target and proximity sensor if applicable, and replacing or re-
identifying the flap interconnecting strut if applicable. We are
issuing this AD to detect and correct a latent failure of the flap down
drive disconnection due to an already-failed interconnecting strut
sensor, which could result in asymmetric flap panel movement and
consequent loss of control of the airplane.
    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical
Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued EASA
Airworthiness Directive 2012-0012, dated January 23, 2012 (referred to
after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or
``the MCAI''), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified
products. The MCAI states:

    The flap interconnecting strut is a safety device of the High
Lift System which acts as an alternative load path from one flap
surface to another in case of a flap drive system disconnection. In
such a failure case, the installed proximity provide information to
the slat flap control computer (SFCC) and the operation of the flap
drive system is inhibited.
    A recent engineering investigation has shown that, when a
certain combination of target/sensor serial number (s/n) is
installed on a flap interconnecting strut, a ``target FAR'' signal
cannot be detected when reaching the mechanical end stop of the
interconnecting strut.
    This condition, if not corrected, could cause a flap down drive
disconnection to remain undetected, due to an already-failed
interconnecting strut sensor, potentially resulting in asymmetric
flap panel movement and consequent loss of control of the aeroplane.
    For the reason described above, this [EASA] AD requires the
identification and replacement [or re-identifying] of struts that
have a certain target/sensor s/n combination installed.

    You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FAA-2013-0791-0002.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD. We received no comments on the NPRM (78 FR 58975, September
25, 2013) or on the determination of the cost to the public.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the relevant data and determined that air safety and
the public interest require adopting this AD as proposed. We have
determined that these minor changes:
     Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the
NPRM (78 FR 58975, September 25, 2013) for correcting the unsafe
condition; and
     Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was
already proposed in the NPRM (78 FR 58975, September 25, 2013).

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 755 airplanes of U.S. registry.
    We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost on
                  Action                              Labor cost               Parts      Cost per       U.S.
                                                                                cost      product     operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inspection and Re-identification.........  8 work-hours x $85 per hour =            $0         $680     $513,400
                                            $680 per inspection cycle.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We estimate the following costs to do any necessary replacements
that would be required based on the results of the inspection. We have
no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need these
replacements:

                                               On-Condition Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per
                    Action                                    Labor cost                 Parts cost    product
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Replacement...................................  10 work-hours x $85 per hour = $850...           $0         $850
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=FAA-2013-0791; 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 Operations office (telephone (800)
647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section.

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 AD:

2014-03-08 Airbus: Amendment 39-17745. Docket No. FAA-2013-0791;
Directorate Identifier 2012-NM-026-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This airworthiness directive (AD) becomes effective March 26,
2014.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to all Airbus Model A318-111, -112, -121, and -
122 airplanes; Model A319-111, -112, -113, -114, -115, -131, -132,
and -133 airplanes; Model A320-111, -211, -212, -214, -231, -232,
and -233 airplanes; and Model A321-111, -112, -131, -211, -212, -
213, -231, and -232 airplanes; certificated in any category; all
manufacturer serial numbers.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 27, Flight
controls.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by a report that an investigation showed
that when a certain combination of a target/proximity sensor serial
number is installed on a flap interconnecting strut, a ``target
FAR'' signal cannot be detected when reaching the mechanical end
stop of the interconnecting strut. We are issuing this AD to detect
and correct a latent failure of the flap down drive disconnection
due to an already-failed interconnecting strut sensor, which could
result in asymmetric flap panel movement and consequent loss of
control of the airplane.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Inspection To Determine the Part Number of the Interconnecting
Struts

    Within 8,000 flight hours after the effective date of this AD,
inspect to determine the part number of the interconnecting struts
installed on both the left-hand (LH) and right-hand (RH) wings of
the airplane, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of
Airbus Service Bulletin A320-27-1206, Revision 01, dated October 10,
2011. A review of the airplane maintenance records is acceptable for
determining the part number of the installed interconnecting struts,
in lieu of the inspection, if the part number of the installed
interconnecting struts, and the part number and the serial number of
the associated target and proximity sensor, can be conclusively
determined from that review.
    (1) Airplanes on which Airbus Modification 27956 has been
embodied in

production, and on which no interconnecting strut has been replaced
with a strut having a part number specified in figure 1 to paragraph
(g) of this AD since the airplane's first flight: No further work is
required by paragraph (g) of this AD.
    (2) If, during the inspection required by paragraph (g) of this
AD, any interconnecting strut is installed with a part number
specified in figure 1 to paragraph (g) of this AD: Within 8,000
flight hours after the effective date of this AD, determine the part
number and the serial number of the associated target and proximity
sensor.

Figure 1 to Paragraph (g) of This AD--Interconnecting Strut Part Numbers
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   Interconnecting strut part numbers
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
                              D5757030500000
                              D5757030500100
                              D5757030500200
                              D5757030500600
                              D5757030500800
                              D5757030501000
                              D5757030501200
                              D5757032200000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (i) For airplanes having conditions specified in paragraphs
(g)(2)(i)(A), (g)(2)(i)(B), (g)(2)(i)(C), and (g)(2)(i)(D) of this
AD: Before further flight, replace the interconnecting strut with a
serviceable unit, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions
of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-27-1206, Revision 01, dated October
10, 2011. For the purposes of this AD, a serviceable interconnecting
strut is a unit which has been determined to be in compliance with
the following requirements of this AD:
    (A) A target part number (P/N) ABS0121-13 or P/N 8-536-01; and
    (B) A target serial number lower than 1600, or a target serial
number that is unreadable; and
    (C) A proximity sensor having P/N ABS0121-31 or P/N 8-372-04;
and
    (D) A proximity sensor having a serial number between C59198 and
C59435, or a serial number (S/N) C500000 or higher.
    (ii) For a target having S/N 1600 or higher and target P/N
ABS0121-13 or P/N 8-536-01: Within 8,000 flight hours after the
effective date of this AD, re-identify the interconnecting strut, in
accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service
Bulletin A320-27-1206, Revision 01, dated October 10, 2011.

(h) Parts Installation Prohibition

    As of the effective date of this AD, no person may install an
interconnecting strut with a part number specified in figure 1 to
paragraph (g) of this AD, on any airplane, except for parts
identified in paragraph (g)(2)(ii) of this AD, provided that the
actions in paragraph (g)(2)(ii) are done.

(i) Credit for Previous Actions

    This paragraph provides credit for the actions required by
paragraph (g) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the
effective date of this AD using Airbus Service Bulletin A320-27-
1206, dated January 28, 2011, and if additional work has been
accomplished using Airbus Service Bulletin A320-27-1206, Revision
01, dated October 10, 2011. Airbus Service Bulletin A320-27-1206,
dated January 28, 2011, 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, Washington
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) Airworthy Product: For any requirement in this AD to obtain
corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these
actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered
FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority
(or their delegated agent). You are required to assure the product
is airworthy before it is returned to service.

(k) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information
(MCAI) EASA Airworthiness Directive 2012-0012, dated January 23,
2012, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD
docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FAA-2013-0791-0002.
    (2) Service information identified in this AD that is not
incorporated by reference may be viewed at the addresses specified
in paragraphs (l)(3) and (l)(4) of this AD.

(l) 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) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-27-1206, Revision 01, dated
October 10, 2011.
    (ii) Reserved.
    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Airbus, Airworthiness Office--EAS, 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.
    (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 January 22, 2014.
Jeffrey E. Duven,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2014-02996 Filed 2-18-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P