[Federal Register: July 8, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 129)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 32411-32414]
[DOCID:fr08jy09-6]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2009-0044; Directorate Identifier 2008-NM-132-AD;
Amendment 39-15953; AD 2009-14-03]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier Model CL-600-1A11 (CL-600),
CL-600-2A12 (CL-601), CL-600-2B16 (CL-601-3A, CL-601-3R, and CL-604)
Airplanes

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

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

There have been several Stick Pusher Capstan Shaft failures causing
the dormant loss or severe degradation of the stick pusher function.
* * *

Dormant loss or severe degradation of the stick pusher function could
result in reduced controllability of the airplane. We are issuing this
AD to require actions to correct the unsafe condition on these
products.

DATES: This AD becomes effective August 12, 2009.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of August 12,
2009.

ADDRESSES: You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://
www.regulations.gov or in person at the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bruce Valentine, Aerospace Engineer,
Systems and Flight Test Branch, ANE-172, FAA, New York Aircraft
Certification Office, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, New
York 11590; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 to include an AD that would apply to the specified products.
That NPRM was published in the Federal Register on February 23, 2009
(74 FR 8039). That NPRM proposed to correct an unsafe condition for the
specified products. The MCAI states:

    There have been several Stick Pusher Capstan Shaft failures
causing the dormant loss or severe degradation of the stick pusher
function. This directive is issued to revise the first flight of the
day check [in the Airplane Flight Manual] of the stall protection
system to detect a degradation of the stick pusher function. It also
introduces a new periodic maintenance task [in the Airworthiness
Limitations Section of the Instructions for Continuing
Airworthiness] to check the structural integrity of the stick pusher
capstan shaft.

Dormant loss or severe degradation of the stick pusher function could
result in reduced controllability of the airplane. You may obtain
further information by examining the MCAI in the AD docket.

Comments

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

Conclusion

    We reviewed the available data and determined that air safety and
the public interest require adopting the AD as proposed.

Differences Between This AD and the MCAI or Service Information

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

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD will affect 707 products of U.S. registry.
We also estimate that it will take about 1 work-hour per product to
comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate
is $80 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of
this AD to the U.S. operators to be $56,560, or $80 per product.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

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

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

0
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:

2009-14-03 Bombardier, Inc. (Formerly Canadair): Amendment 39-15953.
Docket No. FAA-2009-0044; Directorate Identifier 2008-NM-132-AD.

Effective Date

    (a) This airworthiness directive (AD) becomes effective August
12, 2009.

Affected ADs

    (b) None.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to the airplanes listed in Table 1 of this
AD, certificated in any category.

                         Table 1--Applicability
------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Bombardier model--                     Serial Nos.--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CL-600-1A11 (CL-600)           1004 through 1085 inclusive.
 airplanes.
CL-600-2A12 (CL-601)           3001 through 3066 inclusive.
 airplanes.
CL-600-2B16 (CL-601-3A, CL-    5001 through 5194 inclusive.
 601-3R) airplanes.
CL-600-2B16 (CL-604)           5301 thorough 5665 inclusive.
 airplanes.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Note 1: This AD requires revisions to certain operator
maintenance documents to include new inspections. Compliance with
these inspections is required by 14 CFR 91.403(c). For airplanes
that have been previously modified, altered, or repaired in the
areas addressed by these inspections, the operator may not be able
to accomplish the inspections described in the revisions. In this
situation, to comply with 14 CFR 91.403(c), the operator must
request approval for an alternative method of compliance according
to paragraph (g)(1) of this AD. The request should include a
description of changes to the required inspections that will ensure
the continued operational safety of the airplane.

Subject

    (d) Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 27: Flight
Controls.

Reason

    (e) The mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI)
states:

    There have been several Stick Pusher Capstan Shaft failures
causing the dormant loss or severe degradation of the stick pusher
function. This directive is issued to revise the first flight of the
day check [in the Airplane Flight Manual] of the stall protection
system to detect a degradation of the stick pusher function. It also
introduces a new periodic maintenance task [in the Airworthiness
Limitations Section of the Instructions for Continuing
Airworthiness] to check the structural integrity of the stick pusher
capstan shaft.

Dormant loss or severe degradation of the stick pusher function
could result in reduced controllability of the airplane.

Actions and Compliance

    (f) Unless already done, do the following actions.
    (1) Within 30 days after the effective date of this AD: Revise
the Normal Procedures section of the applicable airplane flight
manual (AFM) by inserting a copy of the applicable TR listed in
Table 2 of this AD. Thereafter, operate the airplanes per the
procedures specified in the applicable TR, except as provided by
paragraph (g)(1) of this AD. If the operator has an AFM that is not
listed in Table 2 of this AD, within 30 days after the effective
date of this AD, revise the AFM using a method approved by the FAA
or Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA) (or its delegated agent).

                                     Table 2--Temporary Revisions to the AFM
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Use Canadair                                            To the normal
       For Bombardier model--            temporary                  Dated--               procedures section of--
                                        prevision--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CL-600-1A11 (CL-600) airplanes......          600/23  January 30, 2007..................  Canadair Challenger CL-
                                                                                600-1A11 AFM.
CL-600-1A11 (CL-600) airplanes......        600-1/18  January 30, 2007..................  Canadair Challenger CL-
                                                                                600-1A11 AFM
                                                                                (Winglets).
CL-600-2A12 (CL-601) airplanes......          601/15  January 30, 2007..................  Canadair Challenger CL-
                                                                                600-2A12 AFM, PSP 601-
                                                                                1B-1.
CL-600-2A12 (CL-601) airplanes......          601/16  January 30, 2007..................  Canadair Challenger CL-
                                                                                600-2A12 AFM, PSP 601-
                                                                                1A-1.
CL-600-2A12 (CL-601) airplanes......          601/20  January 30, 2007..................  Canadair Challenger CL-
                                                                                600-2A12 AFM, PSP 601-
                                                                                1B.
CL-600-2A12 (CL-601) airplanes......          601/28  January 30, 2007..................  Canadair Challenger CL-
                                                                                600-2A12 AFM.
CL-600-2B16 (CL-601-3A and CL-601-            601/27  January 30, 2007..................  Canadair Challenger CL-
 3R) airplanes.                                                                            600-2B16 AFM, PSP
                                                                                601A-1.
CL-600-2B16 (CL-601-3A and CL-601-            601/28  January 30, 2007..................  Canadair Challenger CL-
 3R) airplanes.                                                                            600-2B16 AFM, PSP
                                                                                601A-1-1.
CL-600-2B16 (CL-604) airplanes......          604/22  January 30, 2007..................  Canadair Challenger CL-
                                                                                604 AFM, PSP 604-1.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

     (2) When information identical to that in a TR specified in
paragraph (f)(1) of this AD has been included in the general
revisions of the applicable AFM, the general revisions may be
inserted into the AFM, and the TR may be removed from that AFM.

    (3) Within 30 days after the effective date of this AD: Revise
the Airworthiness Limitations section of the Instructions for
Continued Airworthiness by incorporating the applicable task in the
TR listed in Table 3 of this AD. For all tasks identified in the
TRs, the initial compliance time starts from the later of the times
specified in paragraph (f)(3)(i) and (f)(3)(ii) of this AD.
Thereafter, except as provided by paragraph (g)(1) of this AD, no
alternative maintenance task intervals may be used.
    (i) Within the compliance time specified in the ``Check
Interval'' or ``Task Interval,'' as applicable, after the effective
date of this AD.
    (ii) Within the compliance time specified in the ``Check
Interval'' or ``Task Interval,'' as applicable, after the date of
issuance of the original Canadian airworthiness certificate or the
date of issuance of the original Canadian export certificate of
airworthiness.

                      Table 3--Temporary Revisions to the Airworthiness Limitations Section
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        Use Canadair                                       To the airworthiness
        For Bombardier model--            temporary                 Dated--              limitations section of--
                                         revision--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CL-600-1A11 (CL-600) airplanes.......           5-138  June 26, 2007...................  Canadair Challenger
                                                                                Time Limits/
                                                                                Maintenance Checks
                                                                                (TLMC), PSP 605,
                                                                                Chapter 5, Section 5-
                                                                                10-30.
CL-600-2A12 (CL-601) airplanes.......           5-226  June 26, 2007...................  Canadair Challenger
                                                                                TLMC, PSP 601-5,
                                                                                Chapter 5, Section 5-
                                                                                10-30.
CL-600-2B16 (CL-601-3A and CL-601-3R)           5-239  June 26, 2007...................  Canadair Challenger
 airplanes.                                                                               TLMC, PSP 601A-5,
                                                                                Chapter 5, Section 5-
                                                                                10-30.
CL-600-2B16 (CL-604) airplanes.......          5-2-32  May 31, 2007....................  Canadair Challenger CL-
                                                                                604 TLMC, Chapter 5,
                                                                                Section 5-10-40.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

     (4) When the information in applicable TR listed in Table 3 of
this AD has been included in the general revisions of the applicable
chapter of the Airworthiness Limitations section, the TR may be
removed from the Airworthiness Limitations section of the
Instruction for Continued Airworthiness.

FAA AD Differences

    Note 2:  This AD differs from the MCAI and/or service
information as follows: No differences.

Other FAA AD Provisions

    (g) The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, New
York Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA, has the authority to
approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found
in 14 CFR 39.19. Send information to ATTN: Bruce Valentine,
Aerospace Engineer, Systems and Flight Test Branch, ANE-172, FAA,
New York Aircraft Certification Office, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite
410, Westbury, New York 11590; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax (516)
794-5531. Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which
the AMOC applies, notify your appropriate principal inspector (PI)
in the FAA Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI,
your local FSDO.
    (2) 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.
    (3) Reporting Requirements: For any reporting requirement in
this AD, under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has approved the information
collection requirements and has assigned OMB Control Number 2120-
0056.
    (4) Special Flight Permits: Special flight permits, as described
in Section 21.197 and Section 21.199 of the Federal Aviation
Regulations (14 CFR 21.197 and 21.199), are not allowed.

Related Information

    (h) Refer to MCAI Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-2008-12,
dated February 8, 2008, and the service information listed in Table
4 of this AD, for related information.

                                        Table 4--All Service Information
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Canadair TR--                                  Dated--                           To the--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5-138.....................................  June 26, 2007.............................  Canadair Challenger
                                                                                TLMC, PSP 605, Chapter
                                                                                5, Section 5-10-30.
5-226.....................................  June 26, 2007.............................  Canadair Challenger
                                                                                TLMC, PSP 601-5,
                                                                                Chapter 5, Section 5-10-
                                                                                30.
5-239.....................................  June 26, 2007.............................  Canadair Challenger
                                                                                TLMC, PSP 601A-5,
                                                                                Chapter 5, Section 5-10-
                                                                                30.
5-2-32....................................  May 31, 2007..............................  Canadair Challenger CL-
                                                                                604 TLMC, Chapter 5,
                                                                                Section 5-10-40.
600/23....................................  January 30, 2007..........................  Canadair Challenger CL-
                                                                                600-1A11 AFM.
600-1/18..................................  January 30, 2007..........................  Canadair Challenger CL-
                                                                                600-1A11 AFM
                                                                                (Winglets).
601/15....................................  January 30, 2007..........................  Canadair Challenger CL-
                                                                                600-2A12 AFM, PSP 601-
                                                                                1B-1.
601/16....................................  January 30, 2007..........................  Canadair Challenger CL-
                                                                                600-2A12 AFM, PSP 601-
                                                                                1A-1.
601/20....................................  January 30, 2007..........................  Canadair Challenger CL-
                                                                                600-2A12 AFM, PSP 601-
                                                                                1B.
601/27....................................  January 30, 2007..........................  Canadair Challenger CL-
                                                                                600-2B16 AFM, PSP 601A-
                                                                                1.
601/28....................................  January 30, 2007..........................  Canadair Challenger CL-
                                                                                600-2A12 AFM.
601/28....................................  January 30, 2007..........................  Canadair Challenger CL-
                                                                                600-2B16 AFM, PSP 601A-
                                                                                1-1.
604/22....................................  January 30, 2007..........................  Canadair Challenger CL-
                                                                                604 AFM, PSP 604-1.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Material Incorporated by Reference

    (i) You must use the service information contained in Table 5 of
this AD to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD
specifies otherwise.
    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference of this service information under 5
U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Bombardier, Inc., 400 C[ocirc]te-Vertu Road West, Dorval,
Qu[eacute]bec H4S 1Y9, Canada; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax 514-855-
7401; e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet http://
www.bombardier.com.
    (3) You may review copies of the service information at the FAA,
Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,
Washington. For information on the availability of this material at
the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER> or<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (4) You may also review copies of the 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/code_of_federal_regulations/
ibr_locations.html.

                                   Table 5--Material Incorporated by Reference
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Canadair temporary  revision--                          Dated--                           To the--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5-138.....................................  June 26, 2007.............................  Canadair Challenger Time
                                                                                Limits/Maintenance
                                                                                Checks, PSP 605,
                                                                                Chapter 5, Section 5-10-
                                                                                30.
5-226.....................................  June 26, 2007.............................  Canadair Challenger Time
                                                                                Limits/Maintenance
                                                                                Checks, PSP 601-5,
                                                                                Chapter 5, Section 5-10-
                                                                                30.
5-239.....................................  June 26, 2007.............................  Canadair Challenger Time
                                                                                Limits/Maintenance
                                                                                Checks, PSP 601A-5,
                                                                                Chapter 5, Section 5-10-
                                                                                30.
5-2-32....................................  May 31, 2007..............................  Canadair Challenger CL-
                                                                                604 Time Limits/
                                                                                Maintenance Checks,
                                                                                Chapter 5, Section 5-10-
                                                                                40.
600/23....................................  January 30, 2007..........................  Canadair Challenger CL-
                                                                                600-1A11 Airplane
                                                                                Flight Manual.
600-1/18..................................  January 30, 2007..........................  Canadair Challenger CL-
                                                                                600-1A11 Airplane
                                                                                Flight Manual
                                                                                (Winglets).
601/15....................................  January 30, 2007..........................  Canadair Challenger CL-
                                                                                600-2A12 Airplane
                                                                                Flight Manual, PSP 601-
                                                                                1B-1.
601/16....................................  January 30, 2007..........................  Canadair Challenger CL-
                                                                                600-2A12 Airplane
                                                                                Flight Manual, PSP 601-
                                                                                1A-1.
601/20....................................  January 30, 2007..........................  Canadair Challenger CL-
                                                                                600-2A12 Airplane
                                                                                Flight Manual, PSP 601-
                                                                                1B.
601/27....................................  January 30, 2007..........................  Canadair Challenger CL-
                                                                                600-2B16 AFM Airplane
                                                                                Flight Manual PSP 601A-
                                                                                1.
601/28....................................  January 30, 2007..........................  Canadair Challenger CL-
                                                                                600-2A12 Airplane
                                                                                Flight Manual.
601/28....................................  January 30, 2007..........................  Canadair Challenger CL-
                                                                                600-2B16 Airplane
                                                                                Flight Manual, PSP 601A-
                                                                                1-1.
604/22....................................  January 30, 2007..........................  Canadair Challenger CL-
                                                                                604 Airplane Flight
                                                                                Manual, PSP 604-1.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Issued in Renton, WA, on June 11, 2009.
Ali Bahrami,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. E9-15394 Filed 7-7-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


Page 1 of 7 United States Prevention, Pesticides EPA 738 R 05 005 Environmental Protection and Toxic Substances July 13, 2006 Agency ( 7508C)

Report of the Food Quality Protection Act ( FQPA) Tolerance Reassessment and Risk Management Decision ( TRED) for Sodium Cyanide Page 2 of 7 Report of the Food Quality Protection Act ( FQPA) Tolerance Reassessment and Risk Management Decision ( TRED) for Sodium Cyanide Approved By:

___________________ Debra Edwards, Ph. D. Director, Special Review and Reregistration Division _________________________ Date Abstract Page 3 of 7 This document presents EPA's decision regarding the tolerance reassessment of the registered uses of sodium cyanide. The Agency has determined that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm to any population subgroup will result from exposure to sodium cyanide. Therefore, the one tolerance established for residues of the insecticide hydrogen cyanide as a result of application of sodium cyanide is now considered reassessed as safe under section 408( q) of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act ( FFDCA), as amended by the Food Quality Protection Act ( FQPA). EPA issued a Reregistration Eligibility Decision ( RED) for Sodium Cyanide in September 1994.

As an insecticide, sodium cyanide is used in California as a source of hydrocyanic gas for quarantine fumigation of surface pests on citrus bound for Arizona. Sodium cyanide is also used in mining, metal finishing and organic chemical industries. For this reason, the Agency also evaluated potential exposure and risk from cyanide in drinking water sources in Arizona.

This TRED addresses the FQPA requirement for reassessment of the tolerance for hydrogen cyanide and provides an assessment of worker exposure associated with the use of sodium cyanide as a source of hydrocyanic gas for fumigation of surface pests on citrus. Although a TRED typically does not include an occupational assessment, this document addresses occupational exposures that were not addressed in the September 1994 RED.

The Agency is issuing this TRED document for sodium cyanide as announced in a Notice of Availability published in the Federal Register. The Agency is providing a 60 day period for stakeholders to comment on the risk assessment and respond to this risk management decision. If substantive information is received during the comment period that indicates a need to reconsider the decisions presented in this document, EPA may modify these decisions as appropriate through an amendment.

I. Introduction This is the Environmental Protection Agency's ( hereafter referred to as EPA or the Page 4 of 7 Agency) " Report of the Food Quality Protection Act ( FQPA) Tolerance Reassessment and Risk Management Decision for Sodium Cyanide." This document is also known as a Tolerance Reassessment Eligibility Decision, or TRED. EPA issued a Reregistration Eligibility Decision ( RED) in 1994. This TRED reassesses the tolerance associated with sodium cyanide to ensure the pesticide meets the standards of FQPA.

The Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act ( FFDCA), as amended by FQPA, requires EPA to reassess all the tolerances for registered chemicals in effect on the day before enactment of the FQPA on August 3, 1996. In reassessing these tolerances, the Agency must consider, among other things, aggregate risks from non occupational sources of pesticide exposure, whether there is increased susceptibility to infants and children, and the cumulative effects of pesticides with a common mechanism of toxicity. When a safety finding has been made that aggregate risks are not of concern, and that there is no common mechanism of toxicity with other pesticides, the tolerances are considered reassessed. The existing tolerance associated with sodium cyanide must be reassessed in accordance with FFDCA, as amended by FQPA.

II. Background Sodium cyanide is not currently registered for any food or feed uses; however, there is one Special Local Needs ( SLN) food/ feed use registration under Section 24( C) for sodium cyanide. As an insecticide, sodium cyanide is used in California as a source of hydrocyanic gas for quarantine fumigation of surface pests to control red scale on fresh market citrus bound for Arizona. The SLN end use product is formulated as a granular containing 98% sodium cyanide as the active ingredient. It is applied by professional applicators only. A tolerance for residues of the insecticide hydrogen cyanide which result from post harvest fumigation as a result of application of sodium cyanide is established at 50 ppm in or on citrus fruit under 40 CFR § 180.130. There are no products available for residential application.

The Agency also evaluated the potential exposure and risk from cyanide in drinking water sources in Arizona since it is used for mining, metal finishing, and organic chemical industries. The Agency obtained monitoring data on total cyanide levels in public ground and surface drinking water systems throughout the State of Arizona from the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality ( ADEQ). These data and follow up conversations with State officials indicate that total cyanide concentrations are non detectable throughout a 13 year period, from January 1993 through June 2006. Based on this information, drinking water exposure is expected to be negligible and was therefore not quantitatively assessed for this TRED.

Sodium cyanide is used as a predacide/ rodenticide and as an insecticide. As a predacide/ rodenticide, it is used as a single dose poison in the M 44 ejector device to control animals that prey upon livestock and threatened or endangered species or that are vectors of communicable disease. This product is limited to use only by trained and certified applicators under the direct supervision of a government agency.

This TRED also provides an assessment of and risk management decision for worker exposure associated with the use of sodium cyanide as a source of hydrocyanic gas for fumigation Page 5 of 7 of surface pests on citrus which was not addressed in the 1994 RED. No additional mitigation measures are required for workers since the Agency's occupational assessment resulted in MOEs that are below the Agency's level of concern.

III. Links to the Sodium Cyanide Assessments Please refer to the human health and drinking water risk assessments for Sodium Cyanide, dated July 10, 2006 and February 7, 2006, respectively, for details on the risks associated with the use of Sodium Cyanide. These documents are also available in the public docket EPA HQ OPP 2006 0352 located on line in FDMS at http:// www. regulations. gov.

IV. Regulatory Determinations A. FQPA Assessment Supporting Tolerance Reassessment Decision The FFDCA, as amended by FQPA, directs the Agency to use an additional tenfold ( 10X) safety factor to take into account potential pre and post natal toxicity and completeness of the data with respect to exposure and toxicity to infants and children. FFDCA authorizes the Agency to modify the tenfold safety factor only if reliable data demonstrates that the resulting level of exposure would be safe for infants and children.

An uncertainty factor ( UF) of 100 was applied to the acute RfD based on application of a 10X for intraspecies variation, and 10X for lack of a LOAEL, steep dose response curve, and severity of toxic effect. The conventional UF of 10X for interspecies extrapolation was not applied because the endpoint selected for the risk assessment was from a human study.

The Agency concluded that no FQPA Safety Factor is necessary to protect the safety of infants and children in assessing sodium cyanide exposure and risks because there was no quantitative increased susceptibility in postnatal offspring toxicity and there is a low degree of concern for residual uncertainties for pre and/ or post natal susceptibility.

There are no residual uncertainties identified in the exposure databases and the Agency's conservative assessments will not underestimate the potential exposure to infants and children resulting from the use of sodium cyanide. Therefore, the FQPA Safety Factor is 1X for the hydrogen cyanide risk assessment.

EPA has evaluated the dietary, drinking water, residential, and occupational risks from the supported registered uses of sodium cyanide and has determined that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm to any population subgroup will result from exposure to sodium cyanide. The acute dietary exposure estimates for food for the U. S. population and all population subgroups are < 100 % of the acute Population Adjusted Dose ( aPAD) and are below the Agency's level of concern at the 99.9th percentile of exposure. The highest estimated exposure was to children 1 2 years old at 37% of the aPAD. A chronic dietary exposure assessment was not performed since cyanide is extremely acutely toxic at doses lower than those at which chronic toxicity occurs. Therefore, the tolerance for hydrogen cyanide established at 40 CFR § 180.300 is now considered reassessed Page 6 of 7 under Section 408 ( q) of FFDCA.

EPA has determined that risk from exposure to sodium cyanide is within its own " risk cup." In other words, EPA is able to conclude that the tolerance residues of the insecticide hydrogen cyanide from post harvest fumigation as a result of application of sodium cyanide meets the FQPA safety standards. In reaching this determination, the Agency has considered the available information on the potential sensitivity of infants and children, as well as potential aggregate exposure and risk. Because there are no residential uses and exposure through drinking water is negligible, aggregate exposure is equal to exposure through food.

B. Cumulative Assessment Unlike other pesticides for which EPA has followed a cumulative risk approach based on a common mechanism of toxicity, EPA has not made a common mechanism of toxicity finding as to hydrogen cyanide and any other substances, and, hydrogen cyanide does not appear to produce a toxic metabolite produced by other substances which have tolerances in the U. S. For the purposes of this tolerance reassessment action, therefore, EPA has not assumed that hydrogen cyanide has a common mechanism of toxicity with other substances. For information regarding EPA's efforts to determine which chemicals have a common mechanism of toxicity and to evaluate the cumulative effects of such chemicals, see the policy statements released by EPA's Office of Pesticide Programs concerning common mechanism determinations and procedures for cumulating effects from substances found to have a common mechanism on EPA's website at http:// www. epa. gov/ pesticides/ cumulative/.

C. Endocrine Disruptor Effects EPA is required under the FFDCA, as amended by FQPA, to develop a screening program to determine whether certain substances ( including all pesticide active and other ingredients) " may have an effect in humans that is similar to an effect produced by a naturally occurring estrogen, or other such endocrine effects as the Administrator may designate." Following recommendations of its Endocrine Disruptor and Testing Advisory Committee ( EDSTAC), EPA determined that there was a scientific basis for including, as part of the program, the androgen and thyroid hormone systems, in addition to the estrogen hormone system. EPA also adopted EDSTAC's recommendation that the Program include evaluations of potential effects in wildlife. For pesticide chemicals, EPA will use FIFRA and, to the extent that effects in wildlife may help determine whether a substance may have an effect in humans, FFDCA authority to require the wildlife evaluations. As the science develops and resources allow, screening of additional hormone systems may be added to the Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program ( EDSP).

In the available toxicity studies on hydrogen cyanide, there was no estrogen or androgen, mediated toxicity. Thyroid effects in the presence of liver toxicity were seen in both sexes at the highest dose tested in the chronic dog study. When additional appropriate screening and/ or testing protocols being considered under the Agency's EDSP have been developed, hydrogen cyanide may be subjected to further screening and/ or testing to better characterize effects related to endocrine disruption. Page 7 of 7 D. Tolerance Reassessment Summary The tolerance for residues of hydrogen cyanide in/ on plant commodities that is currently established under 40 CFR § 180.130 is summarized below. The tolerance is expressed in terms of hydrogen cyanide per se.

Tolerance Reassessment Summary for Hydrogen Cyanide Commodity Established Tolerance ( ppm) Recommended Tolerance ( ppm) Comment/ Correct Commodity Definition Tolerances listed under 40 CFR § 180.130 Fruit, citrus 50 50 Fruit, citrus, group 10 Codex Harmonization Use of sodium cyanide as a fumigant is limited to citrus treated in California bound for Arizona and not for export. Codex maximum residue limits ( MRLs) do not currently exist for hydrogen cyanide.

V. Data Requirements Residue Chemistry Data Requirements The required data for the Sodium Cyanide TRED are as follows:

  860.1380   Storage stability data for citrus   860.1650   Analytical standards for sodium and hydrogen cyanide are not currently available in the National Pesticide Standards Repository. Analytical Reference standards of sodium and hydrogen cyanide must be supplied and supplies replenished as requested by the Repository.

  860.1500   Crop Field Trial Residue data from two additional studies are required along with residue data on whole oranges. A detailed explanation of the modifications to EPA's analytical report number 335.2 along with validation of this method at the reported LOD of 0.01 ppm is required.

Product Chemistry Data Requirements   830.7050   Ultraviolet/ visible Absorption


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 90 (Tuesday, May 10, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 28857-28859]
[FR Doc No: 2016-10967]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RM16-12-000; Docket No. RM15-21-000]

Review of Generator Interconnection Agreements and Procedures--
American Wind Energy Association; Supplemental Notice of Technical
Conference

    As announced in the Notice of Technical Conference issued on March
29, 2016 \1\ and the Supplemental Notice of Technical Conference issued
on April 13, 2016 \2\ in the above-captioned proceedings, Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) staff will hold a technical
conference on May 13, 2016 to discuss select issues related to a
petition for rulemaking submitted by the American Wind Energy
Association (Docket No. RM15-21-000).\3\ In addition, the conference
will explore other generator interconnection issues, including
interconnection of electric storage resources. The conference will be
held from 9:00 a.m. to 4:55 p.m. (EDT) (a time change from prior Notice
of Technical Conference) in the Commission Meeting Room at Commission
headquarters, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426. Members of
the Commission may attend the conference, which will also be open for
the public to attend. Advance registration is not required, but is
encouraged. Attendees may register at the following Web page: https://www.ferc.gov/whats-new/registration/05-13-16-form.asp.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Review of Generator Interconnection Agreements and
Procedures, Docket No. RM16-12-000 and American Wind Energy
Association, Docket No. RM15-21-000 (Mar. 29, 2016) (Notice of
Technical Conference).
    \2\ Review of Generator Interconnection Agreements and
Procedures, Docket No. RM16-12-000 and American Wind Energy
Association, Docket No. RM15-21-000 (Apr. 13, 2016) (Supplemental
Notice of Technical Conference).
    \3\ The comments filed in Docket No. RM15-21-000 will be
incorporated into Docket No. RM16-12-000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    An agenda with a list of selected speakers is attached and will be
available in the Commission Calendar of Events at http://www.ferc.gov.
    Discussions at the conference may involve issues raised in
proceedings that are currently pending before the Commission. These
proceedings include, but are not limited to:
    Northern Indiana Public Service Company, Docket No. EL13-88-000;
    E.ON Climate & Renewables North America LLC, Pioneer Trail Wind
Farm, LLC, Settlers Trail Wind Farm, LLC v. Northern Indiana Public
Service Company, Docket No. EL14-66-002;
    Internal MISO Generators v. Midcontinent Independent System
Operator, Inc., Docket No. EL15-99-000 and EL16-12;
    Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc., Docket No. ER16-
675-000;
    California Independent System Operator Corporation, Docket No.
ER16-693-000;
    ISO New England, Inc., Docket No. ER16-946-000;
    California Independent System Operator Corporation, Docket No.
ER16-1085-000;
    Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc., Docket No. ER16-
1120-000;
    Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc., Docket No. ER16-
1211-000;
    Southwest Power Pool, Inc., Docket No. ER16-1350-000; and
    Southern California Edison Company, Docket No. ER16-1459-000.
    The conference will be transcribed and webcast. A link to the
webcast of this event will be available in the Commission Calendar of
Events at http://www.ferc.gov. Transcripts of the technical conference
will be available for a fee from Ace-Reporting<PHONE_NUMBER>). The
Capitol Connection provides technical support for the webcasts and
offers the option of listening to the conferences via phone-bridge for
a fee. For additional information, visit www.CapitolConnection.org or
call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Commission conferences are accessible under section 508 of the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973. For accessibility accommodations, please
send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call toll free (866) 208-
3372 (voice) or<PHONE_NUMBER> (TTY), or send a FAX to<PHONE_NUMBER>
with the required accommodations.
    For more information about the technical conference, please contact
Tony Dobbins<EMAIL_ADDRESS>202-502-6630) or Adam Pan
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>202-502-6023). For information related to
logistics, please contact Sarah McKinley<EMAIL_ADDRESS>202-
502-8368).

    Dated: May 4, 2016.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN10MY16.000

Review of Generator Interconnection Agreements and Procedures Technical
Conference

Docket Nos. RM16-12-000 and RM15-21-000

May 13, 2016, Washington, DC

9:00 a.m.-9:20 a.m. Welcome and Commission Staff Opening Remarks

9:20 a.m.-10:20 a.m. The Current State of Generator Interconnection
Queues

    Panelists should be prepared to discuss the following topics:
    1. How well generator interconnection queues are working, the
metrics that are used to evaluate queue performance, and whether there
are clear areas in which improvement is needed.
    2. Whether projects in the queue contributing most significantly to
queue backlogs are geographically dispersed or concentrated. Whether
there are queue solutions that might adequately account for the
geographic characteristics of projects contributing to queue
congestion.
    3. Queue management practices and whether there are best practices
that should be incorporated across regions.
    4. The extent to which regions have pursued changes to the
generator interconnection process that could be implemented without
requiring tariff changes, as noted by the Commission in the 2008 order
on interconnection queue practices.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Interconnection Queueing Practices, 122 FERC ] 61,252, at P
10 (2008). As guidance in this order, the Commission stated that
reforms made without tariff changes could include: increasing the
staff available to work on interconnection studies; adopting more
efficient modeling for feasibility studies or system impact studies;
and performing a single system impact study for a cluster of
interconnection requests.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    5. The primary considerations that should be taken into account
when developing solutions for each region's individual interconnection
queue issues.

Panelists:

 Tim Aliff, Director of Reliability Planning, Midcontinent
Independent System Operator, Inc.

 David Gabbard, Director, Electric Generation Interconnection,
Pacific Gas and Electric Company

 Dean Gosselin, Vice President of Business Management
Transmission Services, NextEra Energy Resources LLC

 Alan McBride, Director, Transmission Strategy and Services,
ISO New England, Inc.

 Steven Naumann, Vice President, Exelon Corporation

 Rick Vail, Vice President, Transmission, PacifiCorp

10:20 a.m.-10:30 a.m.: Break

10:30 a.m.-12:00 p.m.: Transparency and Timing in the Generator
Interconnection Study Process

    Panelists should be prepared to discuss the following topics:
    1. The length of time it takes to complete the interconnection
process, causes of variances in receiving study results, causes of
variations in length of time in the queue, and how delays (and their
causes) are reported to interconnection customers.
    2. How study costs are determined, how consistent these costs are
between markets and regions, whether (and how) interconnection
customers are made aware of study costs in advance of requesting
interconnection service.
    3. The information (models, assumptions, cost estimates, etc.) to
which interconnection customers currently have access and the stage in
the interconnection process when such access is provided (pre-request,
study stage, etc.). Whether additional information (historical and/or
projected curtailment or pricing information, etc.) should be available
to interconnection customers to assist them in planning projects, and
the challenges and/or barriers to providing this information.
    4. How the capacity factor used for variable generation modeling is
determined (in general terms) and shared with interconnection
customers.
    5. The triggers for restudy, how they are determined, and whether
they are stated in the tariff. The possible effect that limiting the
number of restudies would have on reliability or cost estimates,
allocations, or assignments.

Panelists:

 David Angell, Customer Operations Planning Manager, Idaho
Power

 Jennifer Ayers-Brasher, Director, Transmission & Market
Analysis, E.ON Climate & Renewables NA

 Joshua Bohach, Senior Development Manager, EDP Renewables
North America

 David Egan, Manager--Interconnection Projects, PJM
Interconnection, L.L.C.

 Charles Hendrix, Manager, Generation Interconnection Studies,
Southwest Power Pool, Inc.

 Randall Oye, Transmission Access Analyst, Xcel Energy

 Stephen Rutty, Director of Grid Assets, California Independent
System Operator, Inc.

 Kris Zadlo, Senior Vice President, Invenergy LLC

12:00 p.m.-1:00pm Break for Lunch

1:00 p.m.-2:10 p.m. Certainty in Cost Estimates and Construction Time

    Panelists should be prepared to discuss the following topics:
    1. The manner in which disputes regarding interconnection
configurations or direct assignment and network upgrade costs are
typically resolved and how such disputes could be avoided. The
frequency of such disputes.
    2. When cost and construction schedule estimates are provided to
interconnection customers and the accuracy of these estimates compared
to actual results. Whether early cost estimates are sufficient to allow
customers to make decisions whether to move forward with a project. The
process changes necessary to provide more accurate estimates earlier to
interconnection customers.

    3. The factors that affect accuracy of cost and schedule estimates
and how estimate variances can be reduced.
    4. How other queued facilities that may impact an interconnection
customer's request are identified and when interconnection customers
are made aware of such facilities (e.g., a lower-queued project being
informed that the withdrawal of a specific higher-queued project may
affect it). The challenges of identifying those facilities that may
impact an interconnection request.

Panelists:

 Tim Aliff, Director of Reliability Planning, Midcontinent
Independent System Operator, Inc.

 Dean Gosselin, Vice President of Business Management
Transmission Services, NextEra Energy Resources LLC

 Paul Kelly, Director, Federal Regulatory Policy, Northern
Indiana Public Service Company

 Omar Martino, Director, Transmission, EDF Renewable Energy

 Alan McBride, Director, Transmission Strategy and Services,
ISO New England, Inc.

 Stephen Rutty, Director of Grid Assets, California Independent
System Operator, Inc.

 Rick Vail, Vice President, Transmission, PacifiCorp

2:10 p.m.-2:20 p.m. Break

2:20 p.m.-3:30 p.m. Other Interconnection Queue Coordination and
Management Issues

    Panelists should be prepared to discuss the following topics:
    1. Coordinating interconnection requests with affected systems \2\
and the challenges associated with affected system coordination and
areas for improvement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ As defined in the pro forma LGIA and pro forma LGIP,
Affected System refers to an electric system other than the
transmission provider's transmission system that may be affected by
the proposed interconnection. Order No. 2003-A, FERC Stats. & Regs.
] 31,160 at App. 6 (Standard Large Generator Interconnection
Agreement), art. 1, order on reh'g, Order No. 2003-B, FERC Stats. &
Regs. ] 31,171 (2004), order on reh'g, Order No. 2003-C, FERC Stats.
& Regs. ] 31,190 (2005), aff'd sub nom. Nat'l Ass'n of Regulatory
Util. Comm'rs v. FERC, 475 F.3d 1277 (D.C. Cir. 2007), cert. denied,
552 U.S. 1230 (2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    2. The types of changes to a project that should be allowed without
changing the project's position in the queue, i.e., determining an
appropriate threshold for modifications to a project before it should
lose its place in the queue.
    3. How to manage the effects of project withdrawals from the
interconnection queue and possible best practices to keep the queue
moving despite project withdrawal. The appropriate balance between
attempts to prevent speculative projects from entering the queue and
the recognition that the study process is designed to iteratively
provide information that project developers will use to decide whether
to proceed or withdraw (possibly causing restudies).
    4. How transmission providers, transmission owners, and
interconnection customers coordinate during the interconnection
process, and possible areas for improvement.
    5. Technologies, tools, or administrative processes that could
improve the accuracy of cost and time estimates, reduce the processing
time, or increase the efficiency of the interconnection queue process.

Panelists:

 Tim Aliff, Director of Reliability Planning, Midcontinent
Independent System Operator, Inc.

 David Angell, Customer Operations Planning Manager, Idaho
Power

 Jennifer Ayers-Brasher, Director, Transmission & Market
Analysis, E.ON Climate & Renewables NA

 Daniel Barr, Principal Engineer, ITC Holdings

 Charles Hendrix, Manager, Generation Interconnection Studies,
Southwest Power Pool, Inc.

 Paul Kelly, Director, Federal Regulatory Policy, Northern
Indiana Public Service Company

 Omar Martino, Director, Transmission, EDF Renewable Energy

 Steven Naumann, Vice President, Exelon Corporation

3:30 p.m.-4:45 p.m. Interconnection of Electric Storage Resources

    Panelists should be prepared to discuss the following topics:
    1. Whether existing small and large pro forma interconnection
agreements and procedures are sufficient to accommodate the
interconnection of electric storage resources.
    2. Modeling of electric storage resources for interconnection
studies, including potential means for interconnection studies to
better reflect the intended operation of electric storage devices.
    3. Interconnection of combined storage and generation facilities,
including (i) the appropriate level of interconnection service for the
combined facility; (ii) the operational understanding, telemetry, and
metering of the combined facility; and (iii) the appropriate
interconnection process for adding storage to an existing generation
facility.
    4. Potential processes to facilitate the interconnection of
electric storage resources.
    5. Interconnection of distribution-level and aggregated electric
storage resources that participate in the RTO and ISO markets.

Panelists:

 David Egan, Manager--Interconnection Projects, PJM
Interconnection, L.L.C.

 Mason Emnett, Senior Attorney, NextEra Energy, Inc.

 John Fernandes, Director, Policy & Market Development, RES
Americas

 David Gabbard, Director, Electric Generation Interconnection,
Pacific Gas and Electric Company

 Alan McBride, Director, Transmission Strategy and Services,
ISO New England, Inc.

 Stephen Rutty, Director of Grid Assets, California Independent
System Operator, Inc.

4:45 p.m.-4:55 p.m. Closing Remarks

[FR Doc. 2016-10967 Filed 5-9-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 53 (Wednesday, March 18, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 15487-15489]
[FR Doc No: 2020-05653]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

[Docket No. USCG-2020-0093]

Port Access Route Study: Seacoast of North Carolina Including
Offshore Approaches to the Cape Fear River and Beaufort Inlet, North
Carolina

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of study; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is conducting a Port Access Route Study (PARS)
to determine whether existing or additional vessel routing measures are
necessary along the seacoast of North Carolina and in the approaches to
the Cape Fear River and Beaufort Inlet (hereinafter, ``NCPARS''). The
study is focused on routes between port approaches and international
entry and departure transit areas affecting North Carolina ports. The
NCPARS will consider whether existing or additional routing measures
are necessary to improve navigation safety due to factors such as
planned or potential offshore development, current port capabilities
and planned improvements, increased vessel traffic, existing and
potential anchorage areas, changing vessel traffic patterns, weather
conditions, or navigational difficulty. The aim of vessel routing
measures are to reduce the risk of casualties. Examples of potential
measures include traffic separation schemes, two-way routes,
recommended tracks, deep-water routes, precautionary areas, and areas
to be avoided. The recommendations of the study may lead to future
rulemakings or appropriate international agreements.

DATES: Comments and related material must be received on or before May
18, 2020. Requests for a public meeting must be submitted on or before
April 17, 2020.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-
2020-0093 using the Federal eRulemaking Portal http://www.regulations.gov. See the ``Public Participation and Request for
Comments'' portion of the SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION section for further
instructions on submitting comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions about this
notice or study, call or email Mr. Jerry Barnes, Fifth Coast Guard
District (dpw), U.S. Coast Guard; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or Mr. Matt Creelman, Fifth Coast Guard
District (dpw), U.S. Coast Guard; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

ACPARS Atlantic Coast Port Access Route Study
AIS Automatic Identification System
COMDTINST Commandant Instruction
DHS Department of Homeland Security
EEZ Exclusive Economic Zone
MTS Marine Transportation System
NCPARS North Carolina Port Access Route Study
PARS Port Access Route Study
TSS Traffic Separation Scheme
USCG United States Coast Guard

II. Public Participation and Request for Comments

    We encourage you to participate in this study by submitting
comments and related materials. All comments received will be posted
without change to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any
personal information you have provided.
    A. Submitting Comments: If you submit comments to the online public
docket, please include the docket number for this a notice (USCG-2020-
0093), indicate the specific section of this document to which each
comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or
recommendation. We accept anonymous comments.
    To submit your comment online, go to http://www.regulations.gov,
and insert ``USCG-2020-0093'' in the ``search box.'' Click ``Search''
and then click ``Comment Now.'' We will consider all comments and
material received during the comment period.
    B. Public Meetings: The Coast Guard may hold public meeting(s) if
there is sufficient public interest. You must submit a request for one
on or before April 17, 2020. You may submit your request for a public
meeting online via http://www.regulations.gov. Please explain why you
believe a public meeting would be beneficial. If we determine that a
public meeting would aid in the study, we will hold a meeting at a time
and place announced by a later notice in the Federal Register.
    C. Viewing Comments and Documents: To view the comments and
documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket,
go to http://www.regulations.gov, click on the ``read comments'' box,
which will then become highlighted in blue. In the ``Keyword'' box
insert ``USCG-2020-0093'' and click ``Search.'' Click the ``Open Docket
Folder'' in the ``Actions'' column.
    D. Privacy Act: We accept anonymous comments. All comments received
will be posted without change to https://www.regulations.gov and will
include any personal information you have provided. For more about
privacy and submissions in response to this document, see DHS's
Correspondence System of Records notice (84 FR 48645, September 26,
2018). Documents mentioned in this notice as being available in the
docket, and all public comments, will be in our online docket at
https://www.regulations.gov and can be viewed by following that
website'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.

III. Background and Purpose

    A. Requirements for Port Access Route Studies: Under Section 70003
of Title 46 of the United States Code, the Commandant of the Coast
Guard may designate necessary fairways and traffic separation schemes
(TSSs) to provide safe access routes for vessels proceeding to and from
U.S. ports. The designation of fairways and TSSs recognizes the
paramount right of navigation over all other uses in the designated
areas.

    Before establishing or adjusting fairways or TSSs, the Coast Guard
must conduct a PARS, i.e., a study of potential traffic density and the
need for safe access routes for vessels. Through the study process, the
Coast Guard must coordinate with federal, state, and foreign state
agencies (as appropriate) and consider the views of maritime community
representatives, environmental groups, and other interested
stakeholders. The primary purpose of this coordination is, to the
extent practicable, to reconcile the need for safe access routes with
other reasonable waterway uses such as construction and operation of
renewable energy facilities and other uses.
    In addition to aiding the Coast Guard in establishing new or
adjusting fairways or TSSs, the NCPARS may recommend establishing or
amending other vessel routing measures. Examples of other routing
measures, among others, include two-way routes, recommended tracks,
deep-water routes (for the benefit primarily of ships whose ability to
maneuver is constrained by their draft), precautionary areas (where
ships must navigate with particular caution), and areas to be avoided
(for reasons of exceptional danger or especially sensitive ecological
and environmental factors).
    B. Previous Port Access Route Studies: The Coast Guard last studied
the approaches to the Cape Fear River and Beaufort Inlet in 2002, and
published the final results in 2004 (69 FR 18476, April 8, 2004). The
study was conducted in response to an increase in vessel size, traffic
density and channel depth and width since the initial 1981 PARS. Study
available at https://www.navcen.uscg.gov/pdf/PARS/CAPE_FEAR_RIVER_PARS.pdf.
    In 2016, the Coast Guard published a notice of its Atlantic Coast
Port Access Route Study (ACPARS) (81 FR 13307, March 14, 2016) that
analyzed the Atlantic Coast waters seaward of existing port approaches
within the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) and announced the report
as final in 2017 (82 FR 16510, April 5, 2017). This multiyear study
began in 2011, included public participation, and identified the
navigation routes customarily followed by ships engaged in commerce
between international and domestic U.S. ports. Study available at
https://navcen.uscg.gov/?pageName=PARSReports. The ACPARS analyzed
waters located seaward of existing port approaches within the EEZ along
the entire Atlantic Coast. Automatic Identification System (AIS) data
and information from stakeholders were used to identify and verify deep
draft and coastwise navigation routes that are typically followed by
ships engaged in commerce between international and domestic U.S.
ports. Additional analysis of sea space for vessels to maneuver in
compliance with the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions
at Sea led to development of marine planning guidelines and
recommendations for shipping safety fairways.
    C. Need for a New Port Access Route Study: In 2019, the Coast Guard
announced a new study of routes used by ships to access ports on the
Atlantic Coast of the United States (84 FR 9541, March 15, 2019). This
new study of routes supplements and builds on the ACPARS. As part of
the study, the Coast Guard will conduct several PARS, including the
NCPARS, to examine ports along the Atlantic coast that are economically
significant, support military operations or critical national defense
and related international entry and departure transit areas that are
integral to the safe and efficient and unimpeded flow of commerce to/
from major international shipping lanes.
    Vessel size, traffic density, and cargo volume have increased
significantly since the 2002 study. Major channel depth, width and
alignment changes are anticipated to occur in the Cape Fear River and
Port of Wilmington, NC. Potential federal navigation project
improvements under consideration by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
include deepening the existing federal navigation channel to the Port
of Wilmington, extending the ocean entrance channel farther offshore,
and widening channels in the Cape Fear River where needed.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 84 FR 48132, Sept. 12, 2019 (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
``Notice of Intent to Prepare a Draft Environmental Impact Statement
(DEIS) for the Wilmington Harbor Navigation Improvement Project
Integrated Feasibility Study and Environmental Report, New Hanover
and Brunswick Counties, NC'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The purpose of this notice is to announce commencement of the
NCPARS to examine the seacoast of North Carolina and the offshore
approaches to the Cape Fear River and Beaufort Inlet, in conjunction
with the implementation of recommendations of the ACPARS, and to
solicit public comments. Similar to the ACPARS, the NCPARS will use
automatic identification system (AIS) data and information from
stakeholders to identify and verify customary navigation routes as well
as potential conflicts involving alternative activities, such as wind
energy generation and offshore mineral exploitation and exploration. We
encourage you to participate in the study process by submitting
comments in response to this notice. Comments should address impacts to
navigation along the seacoast of North Carolina and the approaches to
the Cape Fear River and Beaufort Inlet resulting from factors such as:
Planned or potential offshore development including turbine placements
and transmission corridors, current port capabilities and planned
improvements, increased vessel traffic, changing vessel traffic
patterns, weather conditions, potential conflicts or disruptions in
uncharted or informal anchorage areas, or navigational difficulty.

IV. Cape Fear and Beaufort Inlet, NC PARS: Timeline, Study Area, and
Process

    The Fifth Coast Guard District and Coast Guard Sector North
Carolina will conduct this PARS. The study will commence upon
publication of this notice and may take 12 months or more to complete.
    The study area is described as an area bounded by a line connecting
the following geographic positions:

 75[deg]30' W, 35[deg]19' N;
 71[deg]16' W, 35[deg]19' N;
 74[deg] W, 32[deg] N;
 78[deg]40' W, 32[deg]52' N;
 79[deg]11' W, 33[deg]12' N;

thence along the coast line back to the origin.
    This area extends approximately 200 nautical miles seaward of Cape
Fear including the offshore area of North Carolina and South Carolina
used by commercial and public vessels transiting to and from these
ports. An illustration showing the study area is available in the
docket where indicated under ADDRESSES. Additionally, the study area is
available for viewing on the Mid-Atlantic Ocean Data Portal at http://portal.midatlanticocean.org/visualize/. See the ``Maritime'' portion of
the Data Layers section.
    The NCPARS will analyze navigation routes to/from the seacoast of
North Carolina and the approaches to the Cape Fear River and Beaufort
Inlet, to the proposed fairways outlined in the ACPARS including
international routes to/from the United States. Current capabilities
and planned improvements to handle maritime conveyances will be
considered. Analyses will be conducted in accordance with COMDTINST
16003.2B, Marine Planning to Operate and Maintain the Marine
Transportation System (MTS) and Implement National Policy. Instruction
available at https://media.defense.gov/2019/Jul/10/2002155400/-1/-1/0/CI_16003_2B.PDF.

    We will publish the results of the NCPARS in the Federal Register.
It is possible that the study may validate the status quo (no
additional fairways or routing measures) and conclude that no changes
are necessary. It is also possible that the study may recommend one or
more changes to address navigational safety and the efficiency of
vessel traffic management. The recommendations may lead to future
rulemakings or appropriate international agreements.
    This notice is published under the authority of 5 U.S.C. 552(a).

Keith M. Smith,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Fifth Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2020-05653 Filed 3-17-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 45 (Wednesday, March 10, 2021)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 13658]
[FR Doc No: 2021-04838]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R10-OAR-2020-0174, FRL-10020-98-Region 10]

Air Plan Approval; Washington: Inspection and Maintenance
Program; Correction

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule; correction.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is correcting a
final rule that appeared in the Federal Register on February 18, 2021,
and that will become effective on March 22, 2021. The EPA finalized
removal of the Inspection and Maintenance program from the active
control measure portion of Washington's State Implementation Plan. This
action corrects inadvertent typographical errors in the Federal
Register. The corrections described in this action do not affect the
substantive requirements of the final rule implementing section 110 of
the Clean Air Act.

DATES: This correction is effective on March 22, 2021.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeff Hunt, EPA Region 10, 1200 Sixth
Avenue--Suite 155, Seattle, WA 98101, at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The EPA is making the following corrections
to the final rule, ``Air Plan Approval; Washington: Inspection and
Maintenance Program'' as published in the Federal Register on February
18, 2021 (86 FR 10026). That publication contained amendatory
instruction removing the entries ``173-422-010'', ``173-422-020'',
``173-422-030'', ``173-422-031'', ``173-422-035'', ``173-422-040'',
``173-422-050'', ``173-422-060'', ``173-422-065'', ``173-422-070'',
``173-422-075'', ``173-422-090'', ``173-422-095'', ``173-422-100'',
``173-422-120'', ``173-422-145'', ``173-422-160'', ``173-422-170'',
``173-422-175'', ``173-422-090'', and ``173-422-095.'' The correct
citations for the last two entries for removal should have been ``173-
422-190'' and ``173-422-195.'' This action corrects the citations as
intended in the February 18, 2021 final rule.
    Section 553 of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C.
553(b)(B), provides that, when an agency for good cause finds that
notice and public procedure are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary
to the public interest, the agency may issue a rule without providing
notice and an opportunity for public comment. The EPA has determined
that there is good cause for making this rule final without prior
proposal and opportunity for comment because, as explained here, the
changes to the rule are minor technical corrections, are
noncontroversial in nature, and do not substantively change the
requirements of the final rule. Rather, the changes correct inadvertent
typographical errors and redundant text. Additionally, the corrections
to the regulatory text match the revisions described in the preamble to
the final rule. Thus, notice and opportunity for public comment are
unnecessary. The EPA finds that this constitutes good cause under 5
U.S.C. 553(b)(B).

Federal Register Correction

    In FR doc 2021-03033 at 86 FR 10026 in the issue of February 18,
2021, the following corrections are made:

Sec.  52.2470   [Corrected]

0
1. On page 10027, in the third column, in amendment 2.a.ii., the
instruction ``Removing the entries ``173-422-010'', ``173-422-020'',
``173-422-030'', ``173-422-031'', ``173-422-035'', ``173-422-040'',
``173-422-050'', ``173-422-060'', ``173-422-065'', ``173-422-070'',
``173-422-075'', ``173-422-090'', ``173-422-095'', ``173-422-100'',
``173-422-120'', ``173-422-145'', ``173-422-160'', ``173-422-170'',
``173-422-175'', ``173-422-090'', and ``173-422-095'''' is corrected to
read ``Removing the entries ``173-422-010'', ``173-422-020'', ``173-
422-030'', ``173-422-031'', ``173-422-035'', ``173-422-040'', ``173-
422-050'', ``173-422-060'', ``173-422-065'', ``173-422-070'', ``173-
422-075'', ``173-422-090'', ``173-422-095'', ``173-422-100'', ``173-
422-120'', ``173-422-145'', ``173-422-160'', ``173-422-170'', ``173-
422-175'', ``173-422-190'', and ``173-422-195'' ''.

    Dated: March 3, 2021.
Michelle L. Pirzadeh,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 10.
[FR Doc. 2021-04838 Filed 3-9-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: February 26, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 38)]
[Notices]
[Page 9017-9018]
[DOCID:fr26fe10-147]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Orders Limiting Scheduled Operations at John F. Kennedy
International Airport, LaGuardia Airport and Newark Liberty
International Airport; High Density Rule at Reagan National Airport

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of limited waiver of the slot usage requirement.

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

SUMMARY: This action announces a limited waiver of the requirements to
use slots at Washington's Reagan National Airport (DCA) and Operating
Authorizations (slots) at John F. Kennedy International Airport (JFK),
LaGuardia Airport (LGA), and Newark Liberty International Airport
(EWR). This policy is effective from February 5, 2010 through February
15, 2010.

DATES: Effective upon publication.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert Hawks, Office of the Chief
Counsel, Regulations Division, Federal Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Avenues, SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-
7143; e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    Multiple snowstorms in the northeastern and mid-Atlantic United
States beginning February 5, 2010, severely disrupted aviation and
other modes of transportation. Substantial amounts of snow from these
storms resulted in numerous airport closures. Airports' capacity was
also significantly reduced due to weather, snow removal operations, and
aircraft deicing programs. Air carriers responded by cancelling flights
and combining operations, and the FAA used traffic management programs
as needed to manage traffic with available airspace and airport
capacity. Carriers instituted network operational recovery plans during
this time to position aircraft and crews needed to resume scheduled
operations.
    The degree of disruption and cancellations varied by airport and by
day, but DCA, JFK, LGA, and EWR all were affected by the storms.
However, the flight disruptions were not limited to the slot-controlled
airports. Operations at other airports in the Washington, DC, area and
throughout the eastern United States were likewise impacted. Recovery
of normal operations took several days after the initial storms and was
exacerbated by subsequent adverse weather conditions. Operations at all
airports appeared to return to normal by February 16.
    Under the FAA's High Density Rule and orders limiting scheduled
operations at the airports, slots must be used at least 80 percent of
the time. Slots not meeting the minimum usage rules will be withdrawn
or not receive historic precedence for the following scheduling season,
depending on the

airport.\1\ The FAA may grant a waiver from the minimum usage
requirements in highly unusual and unpredictable conditions that are
beyond the control of the carrier and affect carrier operations for a
period of five consecutive days or more.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 14 CFR Sec.  93.227 (DCA); 74 FR 51648 (Oct. 7, 2009) (EWR);
74 FR 51650 (Oct. 7, 2009) (JFK); 74 FR 51653 (Oct. 7, 2009) (LGA).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Statement of Policy

    The FAA has determined these unusual circumstances meet the
criteria for a limited waiver of the minimum slot usage. Accordingly,
the FAA will treat as used any slot or Operating Authorization held by
a carrier from February 5 through 15, 2010.
    The FAA does not intend to routinely grant general waivers to the
usage requirements. Rules allow for up to 20 percent nonuse, including
planned and unplanned cancellations. These rules are expected to
accommodate routine weather and other cancellations under all but the
most unusual circumstances.

    Issued in Washington, DC on February 19th, 2010.
James W. Whitlow,
Acting Chief Counsel.
[FR Doc. 2010-3958 Filed 2-25-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 143 (Thursday, July 27, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 34853-34854]
[FR Doc No: 2017-15794]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[Docket No. USCG-2017-0697]

Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Columbia River, Portland, OR and
Vancouver, WA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of deviation from drawbridge regulation.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard has issued a temporary deviation from the
operating schedule that governs the Interstate 5 (I-5) Bridges across
the Columbia River, mile 106.5, between Portland, Oregon, and
Vancouver, Washington. The deviation is necessary to facilitate the
presence of participants in the Hands Across the Bridge Project. This
deviation allows the bridges to remain in the closed-to-navigation
position during the event.

DATES: This deviation is effective from 11 a.m. to 2 p.m. on September
4, 2017.

ADDRESSES: The docket for this deviation, USCG-2017-0697 is available
at http://www.regulations.gov. Type the docket number in the ``SEARCH''
box and click ``SEARCH.'' Click on Open Docket Folder on the line
associated with this deviation.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this
temporary deviation, call or email Mr. Steven Fischer, Bridge
Administrator, Thirteenth Coast Guard District; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>,
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Oregon Department of Transportation (bridge
owner) requested a temporary deviation from the operating schedule for
the I-5 Bridges, mile 106.5, across the Columbia River between
Vancouver, WA, and Portland, OR, to facilitate safe passage of
participants in the Hands Across the Bridge Project. The I-5 Bridges
provides three designated navigation channels with vertical clearances
ranging from 39 to 72 feet above Columbia River Datum 0.0 while the
lift spans are in the closed-to-navigation position. The normal
operating schedule for the I-5 Bridges is codified at 33 CFR 117.869.
The subject bridges need not open to marine vessels during the
deviation period from 11 a.m. to 2 p.m. on September 4, 2017. The
bridge shall operate in accordance with 33 CFR 117.869 at all other
times. Waterway usage on this part of the Columbia River includes
vessels ranging from large commercial ships, tug and tow vessels to
recreational pleasure craft.
    Vessels able to pass under the bridges in the closed-to-navigation
positions may do so at anytime. The bridge will be able to open for
emergencies, and there is no immediate alternate route for vessels to
pass. The Coast Guard will also inform the users of the waterways
through our Local and Broadcast Notices to Mariners of the change in
operating schedule for the bridge so that vessels can arrange their
transits to minimize any impact caused by the temporary deviation.
    In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridges must return to
their regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the
effective period of this temporary deviation. This deviation from the
operating regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.

    Dated: July 20, 2017.
Steven Michael Fischer,
Bridge Administrator, Thirteenth Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2017-15794 Filed 7-26-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register: February 10, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 28)]
[Notices]
[Page 7081-7082]
[DOCID:fr10fe06-122]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[File No. 1-18460]

Issuer Delisting; Notice of Application of Community Capital
Corporation To Withdraw Its Common Stock, $1.00 Par Value, From Listing
and Registration on the American Stock Exchange LLC

February 2, 2006.
    On January 19, 2006, Community Capital Corporation, a South
Carolina corporation (``Issuer''), filed an application with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission''), pursuant to
section 12(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and
Rule 12d2-2(d) thereunder,\2\ to withdraw its common stock, $1.00 par
value (``Security''), from listing and registration on the American
Stock Exchange LLC (``Amex'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78l(d).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.12d2-2(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On January 18, 2006, the Board of Directors (``Board'') of the
Issuer unanimously approved resolutions to withdraw the Security from
listing and registration on Amex and to list the Security on the Nasdaq
National Market (``Nasdaq''). The Issuer stated that the following
reasons factored into the Board's decision: (i) The Board believes that
listing the Security on Nasdaq will provide visibility for the
Security, improve liquidity in the Security, and provide better
execution quality for investors; and (ii) the Board believes that more
of the Issuer's peer financial institutions are listed on Nasdaq than
listed on Amex.
    The Issuer stated in its application that it has met the
requirements of Amex Rule 18 by complying with all applicable laws in
effect in the State of South Carolina, in which it is incorporated, and
provided written notice of withdrawal to Amex.
    The Issuer's application relates solely to withdrawal of the
Security from listing on Amex and from registration under section 12(b)
of the Act,\3\ and shall not affect its obligation to be registered
under section 12(g) of the Act.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78l(b).
    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78l(g).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Any interested person may, on or before February 28, 2006, comment
on the facts bearing upon whether the application has been made in
accordance with the rules of Amex, and what terms, if any, should be
imposed by the Commission for the protection of investors. All comment
letters may be submitted by either of the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/delist.shtml.
); or     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include

the File Number 1-18460 or;

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-1090.

All submissions should refer to File Number 1-18460. This file number
should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To help us
process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one
method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's
Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/delist.shtml). Comments are

also available for public inspection and copying in the Commission's
Public Reference Room.

All comments received will be posted without change; we do not edit
personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit
only information that you wish to make available publicly.
    The Commission, based on the information submitted to it, will
issue an order granting the application after the date mentioned above,
unless the Commission determines to order a hearing on the matter.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E6-1845 Filed 2-9-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P