                                 Placeholder
   This .zip file has been sent to the Docket Office for upload to OneDrive
                IPM Post-IRA 2022 Reference Case DAT (zip file)
Abstract:  EPA Integrated Planning Model (IPM) Post-IRA 2022 Reference Case - DAT (zip file containing .xlsx file available separately)


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 88 (Monday, May 8, 2023)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 29541-29544]
[FR Doc No: 2023-09732]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2022-0940; FRL-10871-01-OCSPP]

Aspergillus Flavus Strain AF36; Amendment to an Exemption From
the Requirement of a Tolerance

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This regulation amends the existing tolerance exemption for
residues of Aspergillus flavus strain AF36 by establishing an exemption
for use on all food and feed commodities of cotton, corn, pistachio,
almond, and fig when used in accordance with label directions and good
agricultural practices. Interregional Research Project Number 4 (IR-4)
submitted a petition to EPA under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic
Act (FFDCA), requesting to amend the existing tolerance exemption for
Aspergillus flavus strain AF36. This regulation eliminates the need to
establish a maximum permissible level for residues of Aspergillus
flavus strain AF36 under FFDCA when used in accordance with the amended
tolerance exemption.

DATES: This regulation is effective May 8, 2023. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received on or before July 7, 2023 and
must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR
part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION).

ADDRESSES: The docket for this action, identified by docket
identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2022-0940, is available at
https://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of Pesticide Programs
Regulatory Public Docket (OPP Docket) in the Environmental Protection
Agency Docket Center (EPA/DC), West William Jefferson Clinton Bldg.,
Rm. 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20004. The Public
Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public
Reading Room and OPP Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Please review the
visitor instructions and additional information about the docket
available at https://www.epa.gov/dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Frank Ellis, Biopesticides and
Pollution Prevention Division (7511M), Office of Pesticide Programs,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington,
DC 20460-0001; main telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address:
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an
agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer.
The following list of North American Industrial Classification System
(NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them.
Potentially affected entities may include:
     Crop production (NAICS code 111).
     Animal production (NAICS code 112).
     Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
     Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).

B. How can I get electronic access to other related information?

    You may access a frequently updated electronic version of 40 CFR
part 180 through the Office of the Federal Register's e-CFR site at
https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-40.

C. How can I file an objection or hearing request?

    Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a(g), any person may file
an

objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a
hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a
hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided
in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify
docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2022-0940 in the subject line on the first
page of your submission. All objections and requests for a hearing must
be in writing and must be received by the Hearing Clerk on or before
July 7, 2023. Addresses for mail and hand delivery of objections and
hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b), although EPA
strongly encourages those interested in submitting objections or a
hearing request to submit objections and hearing requests
electronically. See Order Urging Electronic Service and Filing (April
10, 2020), https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2020-05/documents/2020-04-10_-_order_urging_electronic_service_and_filing.pdf. At this
time, because of the COVID-19 pandemic, the judges and staff of the
Office of Administrative Law Judges are working remotely and not able
to accept filings or correspondence by courier, personal delivery, or
commercial delivery, and the ability to receive filings or
correspondence by U.S. Mail is similarly limited. When submitting
documents to the U.S. EPA Office of Administrative Law Judges (OALJ), a
person should utilize the OALJ e-filing system at https://yosemite.epa.gov/oa/eab/eab-alj_upload.nsf.
    Although EPA's regulations require submission via U.S. Mail or hand
delivery, EPA intends to treat submissions filed via electronic means
as properly filed submissions during this time that the Agency
continues to maximize telework due to the pandemic; therefore, EPA
believes the preference for submission via electronic means will not be
prejudicial. If it is impossible for a person to submit documents
electronically or receive service electronically, e.g., the person does
not have any access to a computer, the person shall so advise OALJ by
contacting the Hearing Clerk at<PHONE_NUMBER>. If a person is without
access to a computer and must file documents by U.S. Mail, the person
shall notify the Hearing Clerk every time it files a document in such a
manner. The address for mailing documents is U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Administrative Law Judges, Mail Code
1900R, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460.
    In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the
Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of
the filing (excluding any Confidential Business Information (CBI)) for
inclusion in the public docket. Information not marked confidential
pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without
prior notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your objection or hearing
request, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2022-0940, by one of
the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Do not submit
electronically any information you consider to be CBI or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
     Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental Protection Agency Docket
Center (EPA/DC), (28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC
20460-0001.
     Hand Delivery: To make special arrangements for hand
delivery or delivery of boxed information, please follow the
instructions at https://www.epa.gov/dockets/where-send-comments-epa-dockets.
    Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along
with more information about dockets generally, is available at https://www.epa.gov/dockets.

II. Background

    In the Federal Register of January 3, 2023, (88 FR 38) (FRL-9410-
08), EPA issued a document pursuant to FFDCA section 408(d)(3), 21
U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a pesticide tolerance
exemption petition (PP 2E8988) by IR-4, North Carolina State
University, 1730 Varsity Drive, Suite 210, Venture IV, Raleigh, NC
27606 on behalf of the Arizona Cotton Research and Protection Council,
3721 East Wier Avenue, Phoenix, AZ 85040. The petition requested that
40 CFR 180.1206 be amended to establish an amendment/expansion of the
existing tolerance exemption for the microbial pesticide Aspergillus
flavus strain AF36 to include use on all food and feed commodities of
cotton, corn, pistachio, almond, and fig. That document referenced a
summary of the petition prepared by the petitioner IR-4 and available
in the docket via https://www.regulations.gov. EPA received no comments
in response to the notice of filing.
    EPA changed the active ingredient name in the amended tolerance
exemption expression from ``Aspergillus flavus AF36'' to ``Aspergillus
flavus strain AF36.'' In addition, EPA consolidated the crops into one
paragraph; condensed the list of cotton crops by changing the
expression from ``cotton, gin byproducts; cotton, hulls; cotton, meal;
cotton, refined oil; cotton, undelinted seed'' to ``all food and feed
commodities of cotton''; condensed the list of corn crops by changing
the expression from ``corn, field, forage; corn, field, grain; corn,
field, stover; corn, field, aspirated grain fractions; corn, sweet,
kernel plus cob with husk removed; corn, sweet, forage; corn, sweet,
stover; corn, pop, grain; and corn, pop, stover'' to ``[all food and
feed commodities of] corn, field; corn, sweet; corn, pop''; and removed
the stipulation ``when applied/used as an antifungal agent.'' EPA is
also revoking the section 18 emergency exemption for residues of
Aspergillus flavus strain AF36 in or on dried figs that expired on
December 31, 2017. The reasons for these changes are explained in Unit
III.C.

III. Final Rule

A. EPA's Safety Determination

    Section 408(c)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish an
exemption from the requirement of a tolerance (the legal limit for a
pesticide chemical residue in or on a food) only if EPA determines that
the exemption is ``safe.'' Section 408(c)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines
``safe'' to mean that ``there is a reasonable certainty that no harm
will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue,
including all anticipated dietary exposures and all other exposures for
which there is reliable information.'' This includes exposure through
drinking water and in residential settings but does not include
occupational exposure. Pursuant to FFDCA section 408(c)(2)(B), in
establishing or maintaining in effect an exemption from the requirement
of a tolerance, EPA must take into account the factors set forth in
FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(C), which require EPA to give special
consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide
chemical residue in establishing a tolerance or tolerance exemption and
to ``ensure that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will
result to infants and children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide
chemical residue. . . .'' Additionally, FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D)
requires that EPA consider ``available information concerning the
cumulative effects of [a particular pesticide's] . . . residues and
other substances that have a common mechanism of toxicity.''
    EPA evaluated the available toxicological and exposure data on
Aspergillus flavus strain AF36 and considered their validity,
completeness, and reliability, as well as the relationship of this
information to

human risk. A full explanation of the data upon which EPA relied and
its risk assessment based on those data can be found within the
documents entitled ``Comprehensive Science Review: New Food Uses for a
New End Use Product (EP) Aspergillus flavus AF36 Prime (71693-G)
containing an unregistered source of the active ingredient Aspergillus
flavus strain AF36 and a petition to amend an existing tolerance
exemption (40 CFR 180.1206) to include all food and feed commodities of
any included crops'' (Human Health Risk Assessment for New Food Use of
Aspergillus flavus strain AF36) and ``Addendum to Comprehensive Science
Review: New Food Uses for a New End Use Product (EP) Aspergillus flavus
AF36 Prime (71693-G) containing an unregistered source of the active
ingredient Aspergillus flavus strain AF36 and a petition to amend an
existing tolerance exemption (40 CFR 180.1206) to include all food and
feed commodities of any included crops.'' These documents, as well as
other relevant information, are available in the docket for this action
as described under ADDRESSES.
    The toxicological profile of Aspergillus flavus strain AF36 was
previously described in the ``Biopesticides Registration Action
Document Aspergillus flavus AF36,'' available in docket EPA-HQ-OPP-
2003-0323, and ``Aspergillus flavus Interim Registration Review
Decision Case Number 6008,'' available in docket EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0281.
The toxicological profile remains unchanged, and the available data
demonstrated that, with regard to humans, Aspergillus flavus strain
AF36 is not toxic, pathogenic, or infective via the oral or inhalation
routes. The data requirement for acute intravenous toxicity/
pathogenicity was met with scientific rationale based on acute oral
toxicity and acute pulmonary toxicity/pathogenicity data, which
indicated that test animals' immune systems were intact and able to
process and clear Aspergillus flavus strain AF36. Although there is
potential for dietary and non-occupational exposure to residues of
Aspergillus flavus strain AF36, there is not a concern due to the lack
of potential for adverse effects. Because there are no threshold levels
of concern with the toxicity, pathogenicity, or infectivity of
Aspergillus flavus strain AF36, EPA determined that no additional
margin of safety is necessary to protect infants and children as part
of the qualitative assessment conducted.
    Based upon its evaluation in the Human Health Risk Assessment for
New Food Use of Aspergillus flavus strain AF36, which concludes that
there are no risks of concern from aggregate exposure to Aspergillus
flavus strain AF36, EPA concludes that there is a reasonable certainty
that no harm will result to the U.S. population, including infants and
children, from aggregate exposure to residues of Aspergillus flavus
strain AF36.

B. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    An analytical method is not required for Aspergillus flavus strain
AF36 because EPA is amending an exemption from the requirement of a
tolerance without any numerical limitation.

C. Revisions to the Requested Amendment to a Tolerance Exemption

    Four non-substantive modifications were made to the requested
tolerance exemption that do not impact the safety finding for
Aspergillus flavus strain AF36. EPA changed the active ingredient name
from ``Aspergillus flavus AF36'' to ``Aspergillus flavus strain AF36''
to align with current active ingredient naming conventions. EPA
consolidated the crops into one paragraph that includes ``all food and
feed commodities of almond; corn, field; corn, pop; corn, sweet;
cotton; fig; and pistachio'' because the requested amendment to the
tolerance exemption proposes to add ``all food and feed commodities''
for each crop in the tolerance exemption. The Agency's change creates a
more concise list that covers all crops petitioned for by the
petitioner and aligns with the Agency's food and feed commodity
vocabulary. EPA removed the stipulation for the exemption from the
requirement of a tolerance for residues of Aspergillus flavus strain
AF36 ``when applied as an antifungal agent,'' as the specification
``when used in accordance with label directions and good agricultural
practices'' adequately addresses the Agency's safety concerns with the
application methods. As a housekeeping matter, EPA also removed the
section 18 emergency exemption for residues of Aspergillus flavus
strain AF36 in or on dried figs because it expired on December 31,
2017.

D. Conclusion

    Therefore, the existing Aspergillus flavus strain AF36 tolerance
exemption is amended by establishing a tolerance exemption for residues
of the microbial pesticide Aspergillus flavus strain AF36 in or on all
food and feed commodities of almond; corn, field; corn, pop; corn,
sweet; cotton; fig; and pistachio when used in accordance with label
directions and good agricultural practices.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This action amends a tolerance exemption under FFDCA section 408(d)
in response to a petition submitted to EPA. The Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) has exempted these types of actions from review under
Executive Order 12866, entitled ``Regulatory Planning and Review'' (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Because this action has been exempted from
review under Executive Order 12866, this action is not subject to
Executive Order 13211, entitled ``Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR
28355, May 22, 2001), or Executive Order 13045, entitled ``Protection
of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997). This action does not contain any information
collections subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act,
44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., nor does it require any special considerations
under Executive Order 12898, entitled ``Federal Actions to Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations'' (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    Since tolerances and exemptions that are amended on the basis of a
petition under FFDCA section 408(d), such as the tolerance exemption in
this action, do not require the issuance of a proposed rule, the
requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.)
do not apply.
    This action directly regulates growers, food processors, food
handlers, and food retailers, not States or Tribes. As a result, this
action does not alter the relationships or distribution of power and
responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions
of FFDCA section 408(n)(4). As such, EPA has determined that this
action will not have a substantial direct effect on States or Tribal
Governments, on the relationship between the National Government and
the States or Tribal Governments, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government or between the
Federal Government and Indian Tribes. Thus, EPA has determined that
Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August 10,
1999), and Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and
Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 9,
2000), do not apply to this action. In addition, this action does not
impose any enforceable duty or contain any unfunded mandate as
described under Title II of the Unfunded

Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.).
    This action does not involve any technical standards that would
require EPA's consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant
to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act (15 U.S.C. 272 note).

V. Congressional Review Act

    Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.),
EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required
information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and
the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of
the rule in the Federal Register. This action is not a ``major rule''
as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: April 28, 2023.
Frank Ellis,
Acting Director, Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention Division,
Office of Pesticide Programs.

    Therefore, for the reasons stated in the preamble, EPA is amending
40 CFR chapter I as follows:

PART 180--TOLERANCES AND EXEMPTIONS FOR PESTICIDE CHEMICAL RESIDUES
IN FOOD

0
1. The authority citation for part 180 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371.

0
2. Revise Sec.  180.1206 to read as follows:

Sec.  180.1206  Aspergillus flavus strain AF36; exemption from the
requirement of a tolerance.

    An exemption from the requirement of a tolerance is established for
residues of the microbial pesticide Aspergillus flavus strain AF36 in
or on all food and feed commodities of almond; corn, field; corn, pop;
corn, sweet; cotton; fig; and pistachio when used in accordance with
label directions and good agricultural practices.

[FR Doc. 2023-09732 Filed 5-5-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 157 (Tuesday, August 16, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 50347]
[FR Doc No: 2022-17551]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4658-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2022-0001]

Minnesota; Major Disaster and Related Determinations

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This is a notice of the Presidential declaration of a major
disaster for the State of Minnesota (FEMA-4658-DR), dated July 8, 2022,
and related determinations.

DATES: The declaration was issued July 8, 2022.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dean Webster, Office of Response and
Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW,
Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that, in a letter
dated July 8, 2022, the President issued a major disaster declaration
under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and
Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq. (the ``Stafford
Act''), as follows:

    I have determined that the damage in certain areas of the State
of Minnesota resulting from severe storms, straight-line winds,
tornadoes, and flooding during the period of May 8 to May 13, 2022,
is of sufficient severity and magnitude to warrant a major disaster
declaration under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and
Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq. (the ``Stafford
Act''). Therefore, I declare that such a major disaster exists in
the State of Minnesota.
    In order to provide Federal assistance, you are hereby
authorized to allocate from funds available for these purposes such
amounts as you find necessary for Federal disaster assistance and
administrative expenses.
    You are authorized to provide Public Assistance in the
designated areas and Hazard Mitigation throughout the State.
Consistent with the requirement that Federal assistance be
supplemental, any Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for
Public Assistance and Hazard Mitigation will be limited to 75
percent of the total eligible costs.
    Further, you are authorized to make changes to this declaration
for the approved assistance to the extent allowable under the
Stafford Act.

    The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice
that pursuant to the authority vested in the Administrator, under
Executive Order 12148, as amended, Brian F. Schiller, of FEMA is
appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this major
disaster.
    The following areas of the State of Minnesota have been designated
as adversely affected by this major disaster:

    Aitkin, Big Stone, Cass, Chippewa, Cottonwood, Douglas, Grant,
Kandiyohi, Lac qui Parle, Lincoln, Morrison, Nobles, Pope, Redwood,
Renville, Stearns, Stevens, Swift, Todd, Traverse, Wadena, Wilkin,
and Yellow Medicine Counties for Public Assistance.
    All areas within the State of Minnesota are eligible for
assistance under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.

    The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA)
are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community
Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling;
97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment
Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048,
Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households In
Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially Declared
Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing Operations for Individuals and
Households; 97.050, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance to
Individuals and Households--Other Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants--
Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard
Mitigation Grant.

Deanne Criswell,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2022-17551 Filed 8-15-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 234 (Tuesday, December 6, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 87920-87921]
[FR Doc No: 2016-29220]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP17-14-000]

UGI LNG, Inc.; Notice of Application

    Take notice that on November 14, 2016, UGI LNG, INC. (UGI LNG) One
Meridian Boulevard, Suite 2C01, Wyomissing, Pennsylvania 19610, filed
in Docket No. CP17-14-000, an application pursuant to section 7(c) of
the Natural Gas Act and Part 157 of the Commission's regulations, for a
certificate of public convenience and necessity to construct and
operate its Temple Truck Rack Expansion Project at UGI LNG's Temple
liquefied natural gas (LNG) storage facility located in Berks County,
Pennsylvania. Specifically, UGI LNG requests to operate two new trailer
loading and unloading racks at UGI LNG's Temple LNG storage facility.
The project will be installed within the Temple Facility's existing
footprint, and will consist of two racks with scales, trailer loading
skid, pump skid, transfer piping and associated equipment. In addition,
UGI LNG will also construct a new, approximately 1,500-foot driveway
connecting the expansion to Willow Creek Road. The project will enable
UGI LNG to provide more reliable service to its customers by allowing
increased flexibility, coordination, and throughput of intra-tank
transfers, all as more fully set forth in the application, which is on
file with the Commission and open to public inspection. The filing may
also be viewed on the web 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. For assistance, contact
FERC at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call toll-free,<PHONE_NUMBER> or
TTY,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Any questions regarding this application should be directed to
Frank H. Markle, 460 N. Gulph Road, King of Prussia, PA 19406, or phone
by:<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Pursuant to section 157.9 of the Commission's rules, 18 CFR 157.9,
within 90 days of this Notice the Commission staff will either:
Complete its environmental assessment (EA) and place it into the
Commission's public record (eLibrary) for this proceeding; or issue a
Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review. If a Notice of Schedule
for Environmental Review is issued, it will indicate, among other
milestones, the anticipated date for the Commission staff's issuance of
the final environmental impact statement (FEIS) or EA for this
proposal. The filing of the EA in the Commission's public record for
this proceeding or the issuance of a Notice of Schedule for
Environmental Review will serve to notify federal and state agencies of
the timing for the completion of all necessary reviews, and the
subsequent need to complete all federal authorizations within 90 days
of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's FEIS or EA.
    There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of
this project. First, any person wishing to obtain legal status by
becoming a party to the proceedings for this project should, on or
before the comment date stated below, file with the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, a
motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or
385.211) and the Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.10). A person
obtaining party status will be placed on the service list maintained by
the Secretary of the Commission and will receive copies of all
documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties. A party must
submit 7 copies of filings made with the Commission and must mail a
copy to the applicant and to every other party in the proceeding. Only
parties to the proceeding can ask for court review of Commission orders
in the proceeding.
    However, a person does not have to intervene in order to have
comments considered. The second way to participate is by filing with
the Secretary of the Commission, as soon as possible, an original and
two copies of comments in support of or in opposition to this project.
The Commission will consider these comments in determining the
appropriate action to be taken, but the filing of a comment alone will
not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. The Commission's
rules require that persons filing comments in opposition to the project
provide copies of their protests only to the party or parties directly
involved in the protest.
    Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of
this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments
to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commentors will be
placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive
copies of the environmental documents, and will be notified of meetings
associated with the Commission's environmental review process.
Environmental commentors will not be required to serve copies of filed
documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commentors will
not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by
the Commission (except for the mailing of environmental documents
issued by the Commission) and will not have the right to seek court
review of the Commission's final order.

    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments,
protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link
at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should
submit an original and 5 copies of the protest or intervention to the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington,
DC 20426.
    There is an ``eSubscription'' link on the Web site that enables
subscribers to receive email notification when a document is added to a
subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service,
please email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll
free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: December 20, 2016.

    Dated: November 29, 2016.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-29220 Filed 12-5-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 129 (Wednesday, July 7, 2010)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 38953-38956]
[FR Doc No: 2010-16519]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2010-0673; Directorate Identifier 2009-NM-208-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; BAE Systems (OPERATIONS) LIMITED Model
BAe 146 and Avro 146-RJ Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for the
products listed above that would supersede an existing AD. This
proposed 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: In June 2000, prompted by a
crack found at the top of the NLG [nose landing gear] oleo, BAE Systems
(Operations) Ltd issued Inspection Service Bulletin (SB) 32-158. This
SB was classified mandatory by the UK [United Kingdom] Civil Aviation
Authority under AD number 002-06-2000, requiring repetitive non-
destructive testing (NDT) inspections for cracking on the upper end of
the NLG oleo. The AD also provided an optional terminating action for
the repetitive inspections, by embodiment of Messier-Dowty SB.146-32-
150. As part of a recent accident investigation, the examination of a
fractured NLG main fitting showed that Messier-Dowty [M-D] SB.146-32-
150 had not been accomplished, although the records indicated that it
had been. BAE Systems has determined that more NLG units could be
similarly affected. These NLG units have been overhauled at Messier
Services in Sterling, Virginia, in the United States. This condition,
if not corrected, could result in NLG failure. Subsequently,
investigation and analysis by M-D has identified the need for a
reduction of the inspection threshold and the repetitive inspection
interval for the affected NLG units and has replaced M-D SB 146-32-149
with M-D SB 146-32-174. The unsafe condition is cracking of the NLG,
which could adversely affect the airplane's safe landing. The proposed
AD would require actions that are intended to address the unsafe
condition described in the MCAI.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by August 23, 2010.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-40, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For BAE SYSTEMS (Operations) Limited service information identified
in this proposed AD, contact BAE Systems (Operations) Ltd, Customer
Information Department, Prestwick International Airport, Ayrshire, KA9
2RW, Scotland, United Kingdom; telephone +44 1292 675704; e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet http://www.baesystems.com/Businesses/RegionalAircraft/index.htm. For Messier-Dowty, contact
Messier Services Americas, Customer Support Center, 45360 Severn Way,
Sterling, Virginia 20166-8910; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax 703-404-
1621; Internet https://techpubs.services.messier-dowty.com. You may
review copies of the referenced service information at the FAA,
Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,
Washington. For information on the availability of this material at the
FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Examining the AD Docket

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Todd Thompson, Aerospace Engineer,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA,
1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone (425)
227-1175; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address
listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2010-0673;
Directorate Identifier 2009-NM-208-AD'' at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposed AD based on those comments.
    We have lengthened the 30-day comment period for proposed ADs that
address MCAI originated by aviation authorities of other countries to
provide adequate time for interested parties to submit comments. The
comment period for these proposed ADs is now typically 45 days, which
is consistent with the comment period for domestic transport ADs.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this proposed AD.

Discussion

    On February 6, 2002, we issued AD 2002-03-10, Amendment 39-12651
(67 FR 6855, February 14, 2002). That AD required actions intended to
address an unsafe condition on the products listed above.
    Since we issued AD 2002-03-10, investigation and analysis by
Messier-Dowty has identified the need for a reduction of the inspection
threshold and the repetitive inspection interval for the affected nose
landing gear (NLG) units, and has replaced Messier-Dowty Service
Bulletin 146-32-149, dated April 17, 2000, with Messier-Dowty Service
Bulletin 146-32-174, Revision 1, dated September 2, 2009. The European
Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the
Member States of the European Community, has issued EASA Airworthiness
Directive 2010-0001-E, dated January 4, 2010 (referred to after this as
``the MCAI''), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified
products. The MCAI states:

    In June 2000, prompted by a crack found at the top of the NLG
oleo, BAE Systems (Operations) Ltd issued Inspection Service
Bulletin (SB) 32-158.
    This SB was classified mandatory by the UK [United Kingdom]
Civil Aviation Authority under AD number 002-06-2000, requiring
repetitive non-destructive testing (NDT) inspections for cracking on
the upper end of the NLG oleo. The AD also provided an optional
terminating action for the repetitive inspections, by embodiment of
Messier-Dowty SB.146-32-150.
    As part of a recent accident investigation, the examination of a
fractured NLG main fitting showed that Messier-Dowty SB.146-32-150
had not been accomplished, although the records indicated that it
had been. BAE Systems has determined that more NLG units could be
similarly affected. These NLG units have been overhauled at Messier
Services in Sterling, Virginia, in the United States. This
condition, if not corrected, could result in NLG failure.
    To address this situation, EASA issued Emergency AD 2009-0043-E
to require repetitive NDT inspections of each affected NLG unit and,
if cracks are found, replacement with a serviceable unit, in
accordance with the instructions of BAE Systems (Operations) Limited
Alert Inspection Service Bulletin ISB.A32-180 and Messier-Dowty (M-
D) SB 146-32-149.
    Subsequently, investigation and analysis by M-D identified the
need for a reduction of the inspection threshold and the repetitive
inspection interval for the affected NLG units and replaced M-D SB
146-32-149 with M-D SB 146-32-174. Consequently, BAE Systems SB 32-
158 was withdrawn and superseded by BAE Systems Alert ISB.A32-180
Revision 1, which was mandated by EASA Emergency AD 2009-0197-E.
    As further information became available BAE Systems saw a need
to clarify the compliance instructions in the ISB and have now
issued Revision 2 of Alert Service Bulletin ISB.A32-180. The layout
of Revision 2 is no longer compatible with the instructions in EASA
Emergency AD 2009-0197-E.
    For the reasons described above, this Emergency AD retains the
requirements of EASA Emergency AD 2009-0197-E, which is superseded,
requires repetitive NDT inspections of each affected NLG unit and,
if cracks are found, replacement with a serviceable unit and reduces
the threshold and interval of the repetitive NDT inspections.

The unsafe condition is cracking of the NLG, which could adversely
affect the airplane's safe landing. Corrective actions include
replacing the cracked NLG with a serviceable unit. You may obtain
further information by examining the MCAI in the AD docket.

Relevant Service Information

    Messier-Dowty has issued Service Bulletin 146-32-174, Revision 1,
including Appendix A, dated September 2, 2009; and Service Bulletin
146-32-150, dated May 22, 2000. The actions described in this service
information are intended to correct the unsafe condition identified in
the MCAI.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another
country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant
to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have
been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service
information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we
evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition
exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same
type design.

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 proposed different actions in this AD from those
in the MCAI in order to follow FAA policies. Any such differences are
highlighted in a NOTE within the proposed AD.

Costs of Compliance

    Based on the service information, we estimate that this proposed AD
would affect about 1 product of U.S. registry.
    We estimate that it would take about 1 work-hour per product to
comply with the new basic requirements of this proposed AD. The average
labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate
the cost of the proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $85.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not
have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship
between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed
regulation:
    1. Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order
12866;
    2. Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); 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 proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Proposed Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

    2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by removing Amendment 39-12651 (67 FR
6855, February 14, 2002) and adding the following new AD:

BAE Systems (Operations) Limited: Docket No. FAA-2010-0673;
Directorate Identifier 2009-NM-208-AD.

Comments Due Date

    (a) We must receive comments by August 23, 2010.

Affected ADs

    (b) The AD supersedes AD 2002-03-10, Amendment 39-12651.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to BAE Systems (Operations) Limited Model
BAe 146-100A, -200A, and -300A airplanes, and Avro 146-RJ70A, 146-
RJ85A, and 146-RJ100A airplanes; certificated in any category;
having a nose landing gear (NLG) having part number (P/N) 200876001,
P/N 200876002, P/N 200876003, P/N 200876004, or P/N 201138002; and
as specified in paragraph (c)(1) or (c)(2) of this AD; except those
airplanes having NLG P/N 201138002 and serial number (S/N) M-DG-0169
or higher.
    (1) Airplanes on which Messier-Dowty Service Bulletin 146-32-
150, dated May 22, 2000, has not been accomplished, or
    (2) Airplanes on which Messier-Dowty Service Bulletin 146-32-
150, dated May 22, 2000, has been accomplished by Messier Services,
Sterling, Virginia, United States of America.

Subject

    (d) Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 32: Landing
Gear.

Reason

    (e) The mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI)
states:
    In June 2000, prompted by a crack found at the top of the NLG
oleo, BAE Systems (Operations) Ltd issued Inspection Service
Bulletin (SB) 32-158. This SB was classified mandatory by the UK
[United Kingdom] Civil Aviation Authority under AD number 002-06-
2000, requiring repetitive non-destructive testing (NDT) inspections
for cracking on the upper end of the NLG oleo. The AD also provided
an optional terminating action for the repetitive inspections, by
embodiment of Messier-Dowty SB.146-32-150.
    As part of a recent accident investigation, the examination of a
fractured NLG main fitting showed that Messier-Dowty [M-D] SB.146-
32-150 had not been accomplished, although the records indicated
that it had been. BAE Systems has determined that more NLG units
could be similarly affected. These NLG units have been overhauled at
Messier Services in Sterling, Virginia, in the United States. This
condition, if not corrected, could result in NLG failure.
* * * * *
    Subsequently, investigation and analysis by M-D has identified
the need for a reduction of the inspection threshold and the
repetitive inspection interval for the affected NLG units and has
replaced M-D SB 146-32-149 with M-D SB 146-32-174. * * *
* * * * *
The unsafe condition is cracking of the NLG, which could adversely
affect the airplane's safe landing.

Compliance

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

Inspection and Replacement

    (g) Within 30 days after the effective date of this AD, inspect
to determine whether an affected NLG unit, as identified in
paragraph 1.A.(1) of BAE Systems (Operations) Limited Alert
Inspection Service Bulletin ISB.A32-180, Revision 2, dated October
14, 2009, is installed on the airplane. A review of airplane
maintenance records is acceptable in lieu of this inspection if the
part number of the NLG can be conclusively determined from that
review. If an affected NLG unit is installed, at the time indicated
in Table 1 of this AD, as applicable, do a special detailed
inspection for cracking on each affected NLG unit, in accordance
with the Accomplishment Instructions of Messier-Dowty Service
Bulletin 146-32-174, Revision 1, dated September 2, 2009. Repeat the
inspection thereafter at intervals not to exceed 300 flight cycles.

      Table 1--Compliance Time for the Special Detailed Inspection
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          Initial inspection compliance
      NLG Serial No. applicability                     time
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Serial numbers included in paragraph     Before further flight.
 1.D., Part 1, of BAE Systems
 (Operations) Limited Alert Inspection
 Service Bulletin ISB.A32-180, Revision
 2, dated October 14, 2009.
Serial numbers included in paragraph     In accordance with Table 2 of
 1.D., Part 2, of BAE Systems             this AD.
 (Operations) Limited Alert Inspection
 Service Bulletin ISB.A32-180, Revision
 2, dated October 14, 2009.
Serial numbers included in paragraph     In accordance with Table 3 of
 1.D., Part 3, of BAE Systems             this AD.
 (Operations) Limited Alert Inspection
 Service Bulletin ISB.A32-180, Revision
 2, dated October 14, 2009.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

 Table 2--Compliance Time for the Special Detailed Inspection, Excluding
          Airplanes Having NLG S/N M-DG-0158 Through M-DG-0168
------------------------------------------------------------------------
As of the effective date of this AD for
                 NLG--                          Compliance time--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Having less than 4,700 flight cycles on  Within 5,000 flight cycles on
 the NLG.                                 the NLG since new.
Having greater than or equal to 4,700    Within 300 flight cycles or 60
 flight cycles on the NLG and less than   days after the effective date
 7,700 flight cycles on the NLG.          of this AD, whichever occurs
                                          later.
Having greater than or equal to 7,700    Within 8,000 flight cycles on
 flight cycles on the NLG and less than   the NLG since new or within 30
 or equal to 8,000 flight cycles on the   days after the effective date
 NLG.                                     of this AD, whichever occurs
                                          later.
Having greater than 8,000 flight cycles  Within 300 flight cycles or 60
 on the NLG, and having less than 2,200   days after the effective date
 flight cycles since last inspection      of this AD, whichever occurs
 done in accordance with Messier-Dowty    later.
 Service Bulletin 146-32-149.
Having greater than 8,000 flight cycles  Within 2,500 flight cycles
 on the NLG, and having greater than or   since last inspection as done
 equal to 2,200 flight cycles since       in accordance with Messier-
 last inspection done in accordance       Dowty Service Bulletin 146-32-
 with Messier-Dowty Service Bulletin      49, or within 30 days after
 146-32-149.                              the effective date of this AD,
                                          whichever occurs later.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Table 3--Compliance Time for the Special Detailed Inspection for
          Airplanes Having NLG S/N M-DG-0158 Through M-DG-0168
------------------------------------------------------------------------
As of the effective date of this AD for
                 NLG--                          Compliance time--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Having less than 12,200 flight cycles    Within 12,500 flight cycles on
 on the NLG.                              the NLG since new.
Having greater than or equal to 12,200   Within 300 flight cycles or 60
 flight cycles on the NLG and less than   days after the effective date
 20,200 flight cycles on the NLG.         of this AD, whichever occurs
                                          later.

Having greater than or equal to 20,200   Within 20,500 flight cycles on
 flight cycles on the NLG and less than   the NLG since new or within 30
 or equal to 20,500 flight cycles on      days after the effective date
 the NLG.                                 of this AD, whichever occurs
                                          later.
Having greater than 20,500 flight        Within 300 flight cycles or 60
 cycles on the NLG and having less than   days after the effective date
 2,200 flight cycles since last           of this AD, whichever occurs
 inspection done in accordance with       later.
 Messier-Dowty Service Bulletin 146-32-
 149.
Having greater than 20,501 flight        Within 2,500 flight cycles
 cycles on the NLG and greater than or    since last inspection done in
 equal to 2,200 flight cycles since       accordance with Messier-Dowty
 last inspection done in accordance       Service Bulletin 146-32-149,
 with Messier-Dowty Service Bulletin      or within 30 days after the
 146-32-149.                              effective date of this AD,
                                          whichever occurs later.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

     (h) If cracking is found on any NLG unit during any inspection
required by paragraph (g) of this AD, before further flight, replace
the cracked NLG with a serviceable unit, in accordance with Messier-
Dowty Service Bulletin 146-32-174, Revision 1, dated September 2,
2009. Replacing any affected NLG unit is terminating action for the
repetitive inspections required by paragraph (g) of this AD, if the
replacement NLG unit has been modified in accordance with Messier-
Dowty Service Bulletin 146-32-150, dated May 22, 2000, or if the
replacement NLG unit has P/N 201138002 with S/N M-DG-0169 or higher.
    (i) Modifying an affected NLG unit in accordance with Messier-
Dowty Service Bulletin 146-32-150, dated May 22, 2000, is
terminating action for the repetitive inspections required by
paragraph (g) of this AD for that NLG unit.
    (j) Inspecting and replacing the NLG unit is acceptable for
compliance with the requirements of paragraph (g) of this AD, if
done before the effective date of this AD in accordance with
Messier-Dowty Service Bulletin 146-32-174, dated August 26, 2009.

FAA AD Differences

    Note 1: This AD differs from the MCAI and/or service information
as follows: While the European Aviation Safety Agency AD 2010-0001-
E, dated January 4, 2010, states that the compliance time to
determine affected NLGs is before further flight, this AD requires
the determination of the affected NLG within 30 days after the
effective date of this AD.

Other FAA AD Provisions

    (k) 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. Send information to ATTN: Todd
Thompson, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116,
Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,
Washington 98057-3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.
Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC
applies, notify your principal maintenance inspector (PMI) or
principal avionics inspector (PAI), as appropriate, or lacking a
principal inspector, your local Flight Standards 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.
    (3) Reporting Requirements: For any reporting requirement in
this AD, under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has
approved the information collection requirements and has assigned
OMB Control Number 2120-0056.

Related Information

    (l) Refer to MCAI European Aviation Safety Agency Airworthiness
Directive 2010-0001-E, dated January 4, 2010; Messier-Dowty Service
Bulletin 146-32-174, Revision 1, dated September 2, 2009; BAE
SYSTEMS (Operations) Limited Alert Inspection Service Bulletin
ISB.A32-180, Revision 2, dated October 14, 2009; and Messier-Dowty
Service Bulletin 146-32-150, dated May 22, 2000; for related
information.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on June 29, 2010.
Ali Bahrami,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2010-16519 Filed 7-6-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 47 (Friday, March 9, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 10478-10480]
[FR Doc No: 2018-04703]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0216; FRL-9975-31-OAR]
RIN 2060-AT76

Notice of Proposed Withdrawal of the Control Techniques
Guidelines for the Oil and Natural Gas Industry

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of proposed withdrawal; request for comment.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is requesting public
comment on a potential withdrawal of the Control Techniques Guidelines
(CTG) for the Oil and Natural Gas Industry. The final CTG provided
recommendations for reducing volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions
from existing oil and natural gas industry emission sources in ozone
nonattainment (NA) areas classified as Moderate or higher and states in
the Ozone Transport Region (OTR). The CTG relied upon underlying data
and conclusions made in the final rule titled ``Oil and Natural Gas
Sector: Emission Standards for New, Reconstructed, and Modified
Sources,'' published in the Federal Register on June 3, 2016 (2016 New
Source Performance Standards (NSPS)). On June 5, 2017, the EPA granted
reconsideration in regard to additional provisions of the 2016 NSPS.
Pursuant to those actions, the EPA is currently looking broadly at the
2016 NSPS. In light of the fact that the EPA is reconsidering the 2016
NSPS and because the recommendations made in the CTG are fundamentally
linked to the conclusions in the 2016 NSPS, the EPA believes it is
prudent to withdraw the CTG in its entirety. The EPA also believes that
the withdrawal will be more efficient for states in revising their
state implementation plans (SIPs). The EPA is seeking comment on a
potential withdrawal of the CTG.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before April 23, 2018.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2015-0216, at: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot
be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any
comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any
information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a
written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment
and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA
will generally not consider comments or comment contents located
outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other
file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA
public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions,
and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Jonathan Witt, Sector Policies and
Programs Division, Fuels and Incineration Group (E143-05), Office of
Air Quality Planning and Standards, Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone number: (919)
541-5645; email address: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    On October 27, 2016, the EPA published in the Federal Register the
``Release of Final Control Techniques Guidelines for the Oil and
Natural Gas Industry.'' 81 FR 74798. The CTG provided information to
state, local, and tribal air agencies to assist them in determining
reasonably available control technology (RACT) for VOC emissions from
select oil and natural gas industry emission sources. Section
182(b)(2)(A) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) requires that for ozone NA
areas classified as Moderate, states must revise their SIPs to include
provisions to implement RACT for each category of VOC sources covered
by a CTG document issued between November 15, 1990, and the date of
attainment. CAA section 182(c) through (e) extends this requirement to
states with ozone NA areas classified as Serious, Severe, and Extreme.
CAA section 184(b) further extends this requirement to states in the
OTR.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The states/areas in the OTR are: CT, DE, ME, MD, MA, NH, NJ,
NY, PA, RI, VT and the Washington, DC consolidated metropolitan
statistical area, which includes a portion of northern VA (see CAA
section 184(a)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 182(b)(2) of the CAA requires that a CTG document issued
between November 15, 1990, and the date of attainment include the date
by which states must submit their SIP revisions. In the final action
issuing the CTG, the EPA established a SIP submission deadline of
October 27, 2018, for addressing sources covered by the CTG. 81 FR
74799. According to the CTG implementation memo issued on October 20,
2016, ``[t]he emissions controls determined by the state to be RACT for
sources covered by the Oil and Gas CTG must be implemented as soon as
practicable, but in no case later than January 1, 2021.'' \2\ This
implementation period includes the 2-year period between the
publication of the CTG in the Federal Register \3\ document and the SIP
submission date of October 27, 2018. Because the October 27, 2018,
deadline is not imminent, no state has an impending RACT SIP deadline
associated with the CTG.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Implementing Reasonably Available Control Technology
Requirements for Sources Covered by the 2016 Control Techniques
Guidelines for the Oil and Natural Gas Industry. Docket ID No. EPA-
HQ-OAR-2015-0216-0238.
    \3\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The CTG relied upon underlying data and conclusions from the 2016
NSPS, as well as the final rule titled ``Oil and Natural Gas Sector:
New Source Performance Standards and National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants Reviews,'' published in the Federal Register
on August 16, 2012 (2012 NSPS). 77 FR 49490. The RACT recommendations
for VOC emission reductions contained in the final CTG were based on a
review of the 2012 NSPS and the 2016 NSPS. 81 FR 74799. In the final
CTG, the EPA states, ``[s]everal of the technical support documents
(TSDs) prepared in support of the NSPS actions for the oil and natural
gas industry include data and analyses considered in developing RACT
recommendations in this CTG.'' \4\ RACT recommendations for storage
vessels, compressors, pneumatic controllers, and equipment leaks from
natural gas processing plants were based on the 2012 NSPS TSDs, and
RACT recommendations for pneumatic pumps and fugitive emissions from
well sites and compressor stations were based on the 2016 NSPS TSDs. It
should be noted that facilities throughout the oil and natural gas
sector (e.g., well sites,

compressor stations, and natural gas processing plants) may contain
some sources subject to the 2012 NSPS and other sources subject to the
2016 NSPS. On April 18, 2017, the EPA announced in a letter that it was
convening a proceeding for reconsideration of certain core provisions
of the 2016 NSPS, and on June 5, 2017, EPA granted reconsideration in
regard to additional provisions of the 2016 NSPS. Pursuant to those
actions, EPA is currently looking broadly at the 2016 NSPS. 82 FR
25730.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Control Techniques Guidelines for the Oil and Natural Gas
Industry. October 2016. Final. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Office of Air and Radiation. Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards. Sector Policies and Programs Division. EPA-453/B-16-001.
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0216-0236.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Discussion

    The EPA is seeking comment on a proposed withdrawal of the CTG. If
finalized, the withdrawal would remove the mandatory RACT review
requirement for affected sources in ozone NA areas classified as
Moderate or higher and states in the OTR. The withdrawal would not
impact oil and natural gas industry sources otherwise covered by the
major source thresholds for RACT review (100 tons per year (tpy) for
Moderate areas, 50 tpy for Serious areas, 25 tpy for Severe areas, and
10 tpy for Extreme areas).\5\ The EPA notes that unless and until EPA
decides to withdraw the CTG, states remain obligated to revise their
SIPs to address RACT requirements for oil and gas sources in ozone NA
areas classified as Moderate or higher and the states in the OTR.
Moreover, withdrawal of the CTG will not hinder states from
establishing, where desired or otherwise required, emissions standards
for sources in the oil and natural gas industry, including standards
based on the recommendations contained in the withdrawn CTG. Having
said that, the withdrawal of the CTG will relieve state, local, and
tribal air agencies of the requirement to address RACT for non-major
sources in this sector (and the associated need to consider the
recommendations in the CTG for the time being).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The RACT requirements for major sources are independent of
CTG-based RACT requirements, and are defined in CAA sections
182(b)(2), 182(c), 182(d), 182(e), and 184(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA notes that after it issued the 2016 NSPS, it exercised its
discretion to issue the CTG to inform air agencies of ``determinations
as to what constitutes RACT for VOC for those oil and natural gas
industry emission sources in their particular areas.'' 81 FR 74799. The
EPA emphasized that the information contained in the CTG was ``provided
only as guidance.'' Id. The guidance did not ``change, or substitute
for, requirements specified in applicable sections of the CAA or the
EPA's regulations; nor is it a regulation itself.'' Id. The RACT
recommendations in the CTG posed no ``legally binding requirements on
any entity.'' Id. It only provided ``recommendations for air agencies
to consider in determining RACT.'' Id. The CTG noted that the
recommendations were based on ``data and information currently
available to the EPA.'' Id.
    In the final CTG, EPA provided an estimate of the costs potentially
associated with the CTG. With this action, the EPA has adjusted the
analysis of costs and emission reductions associated with the final CTG
to reflect state rules that have been finalized since the CTG was
released, to adjust compliance costs from 2012$ to 2016$, as well as to
estimate present values (PV) and equivalent annualized values (EAV) of
avoided costs. The EPA estimates these avoided costs under two
analytical perspectives, one where all states fully adopt RACT under
the CTG, but would avoid any controls in the absence of the CTG, and
another that focuses on the net change across all industries and
reflects the assumption that sources in Moderate or higher NA areas
might need to incur costs to obtain emission reductions under SIPs.
    Under the analytical perspective that assumes all states fully
adopt RACT under the CTG, but would avoid any controls in the absence
of the CTG, the avoided costs of withdrawing the CTG are reflected in
the total avoided costs of the updated analysis. Under this
perspective, the PV of avoided costs over 2021 through 2035 is
estimated to be $599 million assuming a 3-percent discount rate and
$439 million assuming a 7-percent discount rate. The EAV from this
perspective is approximately $49 million per year and $45 million per
year assuming 3-percent and 7-percent discount rates, respectively.
Under the analytic perspective that focuses on net changes across all
industries, which reflects that sources in Moderate or higher NA areas
might need to incur costs to obtain emission reductions under SIPs in
the scenario the CTG is withdrawn, the avoided costs are reflected in
the estimates of avoided costs in the OTR. Under this perspective, the
PV of avoided costs over 2021 through 2035 is estimated to be $14
million assuming a 3-percent discount rate and $16 million assuming a
7-percent discount rate. The EAV from this perspective is approximately
$1.2 million per year and $1.6 million per year assuming 3-percent and
7-percent discount rates, respectively. Given the range of avoided
costs between the two perspectives, we are soliciting comment on the
uncertainty in the range of estimates. We are asking for any
information related to state rules that would have supplanted the need
for additional requirements under the final CTG, as well as on state
actions with respect to sources that would be affected by the CTG in
the absence of the CTG. This includes information on regulations in
SIPs that would affect non-major oil and natural gas sources in the
CTG, regardless of the status of the CTG. For more information on the
estimates of avoided costs and forgone emissions reductions associated
with the potential withdrawal of the CTG, see the memorandum,
``Estimated Avoided Costs and Forgone Emission Reductions Associated
with the Potential Withdrawal of the Control Techniques Guidelines for
the Oil and Natural Gas Industry,'' located in the docket.
    In light of the fact that we are reconsidering the 2016 NSPS and
because the 2016 NSPS and CTG share certain key pieces of data and
information, the EPA believes it is prudent to withdraw the CTG in its
entirety. This includes model rule language incorporating the
recommended compliance elements that states may use as a starting point
when developing their SIPs. The deadline for incorporating the CTG-
based RACT recommendations into SIPs has not yet passed, so states may
wish to wait for the final outcome of any action related to the CTG and
the EPA's reconsideration of the NSPS before finalizing any additional
controls on oil and gas sources covered by the CTG, unless otherwise
required by the CAA's ozone NA area and OTR provisions.\6\ During the
time the EPA anticipates taking to complete the reconsideration of the
2016 NSPS, states would not have had to fully implement any new CTG-
based RACT determinations for oil and gas sources. In addition, the EPA
believes it is more efficient for states not to be required to revise
their SIPs to comply with aspects pertaining to the 2012 NSPS and then
potentially have to revise their SIPs again after reconsideration of
the 2016 NSPS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The RACT requirements for major sources are independent of
CTG-based RACT requirements, and are defined in CAA sections
182(b)(2), 182(c), 182(d), 182(e), and 184(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Withdrawing the CTG in its entirety will allow a more holistic
consideration of control options for these sources (e.g., shared
control devices).
    For the reasons outlined above, the EPA believes it is prudent to
withdraw the CTG in its entirety. The EPA is seeking comment on a
potential withdrawal of the CTG.

    Dated: March 1, 2018.
E. Scott Pruitt,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2018-04703 Filed 3-8-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


Draft

Panel Members for the Consultation Meeting of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act Scientific Advisory Panel

Pesticide Exposure Models and Climate Change

December 7, 2010

EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0761				OPP Docket Tel:<PHONE_NUMBER>

FIFRA SAP Chair

Steven Heeringa, Ph.D.

Research Scientist & Director for Statistical Design

University of Michigan Institute for Social Research

Ann Arbor, MI

FIFRA SAP Session Chair

Kenneth Portier, Ph.D.

Program Director, Statistics

American Cancer Society

National Home Office

Atlanta, GA

Designated Federal Official

Fred Jenkins, M.S.

US Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Science Coordination & Policy

FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel

EPA East Building, MC 7201M

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20460

Tel:<PHONE_NUMBER>, Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>,   HYPERLINK <EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS> FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel Members

Janice Chambers, Ph.D., DABT, ATS

William L. Giles Distinguished Professor

Director, Center for Environmental Health Sciences

College of Veterinary Medicine

Mississippi State University

Mississippi State, MS

Daniel Schlenk, Ph.D.

Professor of Aquatic Ecotoxicology & Environmental Toxicology

Department of Environmental Sciences

University of California, Riverside

Riverside, CA

FQPA Science Review Board Members

Jeffrey P. Fisher, PhD

Principal

ENVIRON

Seattle, WA

Karen Garrett, PhD

Assistant Professor

Department of Plant Pathology

Kansas State University

Manhattan, KS

Chensheng Lu, PhD

Assistant Professor

Department of Environmental Health

Exposure, Epidemiology, and Risk program

Harvard School of Public Health, Harvard University

Boston, MA

Robert Peart, PhD

Graduate Research Professor Emeritus

Department of Agricultural Engineering, University of Florida

Gainesville, FL

Tom Peterson, PhD

Chief Scientist

NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center

Asheville, NC

Thomas L. Potter, PhD

Research Chemist

USDA-Agricultural Research Service Southeast Watershed Research Laboratory

Tifton, GA

James C. Randoph, PhD

Professor and Director

School of Public and Environmental Affairs

Indiana University

Bloomington, Indiana

Geoffrey Scott, PhD

Director of NOAA, National Ocean Service

Center for Coastal Environmental Health & Biomolecular Research

Charleston, SC