[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 141 (Wednesday, July 23, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 42660-42663]
[FR Doc No: 2014-17053]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2014-0308; Directorate Identifier 2014-CE-012-AD;
Amendment 39-17903; AD 2014-15-01]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; M7 Aerospace LLC Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for M7
Aerospace LLC Models SA227-AT, SA227-AC, SA227-BC, SA227-CC, and SA227-
DC airplanes equipped with a bayonet shear pin main cabin door latching
mechanism. This AD was prompted by fatigue cracks found in the internal
door surround doubler, the fuselage external skin, and the door corner
fittings at the fuselage upper forward corner of the main cabin door
cutout. This AD requires repetitively inspecting the four corners of
the main cabin door cutout for cracks, making necessary repairs, and
reporting inspection results to M7 Aerospace LLC. We are issuing this
AD to correct the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: This AD is effective August 27, 2014.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of August 27,
2014.

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this AD, contact M7
Aerospace LLC, 10823 NE Entrance Road, San Antonio, Texas 78216; phone:
(210) 824-9421; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; Internet: http://www.elbitsystems-us.com; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>You may view this referenced
service information at the FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust,
Kansas City, Missouri 64106. 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 by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2014-
0308; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and
5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket
contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and
other information. The address for the Docket Office (phone: 800-647-
5527) is Document Management Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Andrew McAnaul, Aerospace Engineer,
FAA, ASW-150 (c/o San Antonio MIDO), 10100 Reunion Place, Suite 650,
San Antonio, Texas 78216; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to M7 Aerospace LLC Models
SA227-AT, SA227-AC, SA227-BC, SA227-CC, and SA227-DC airplanes equipped
with a bayonet shear pin main cabin door latching mechanism. The NPRM
published in the Federal Register on May 14, 2014 (79 FR 27505).
    The NPRM was prompted by reports of fatigue cracking of the main
cabin door surround structure. Investigation revealed that the fatigue
cracks are related to a change in loading due to design changes in the
door surround structure and the door latching system. We are issuing
this AD to correct the unsafe condition on these products.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD. We received no comments on the NPRM (79 FR 27505, May 14,
2014) or on the determination of the cost to the public.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the relevant data and determined that air safety and
the public interest require adopting this AD as proposed except for
minor editorial. We have determined that these minor changes:
     Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the
NPRM (79 FR 27505, May 14, 2014) for correcting the unsafe condition;
and
     Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was
already proposed in the NPRM (79 FR 27505, May 14, 2014).

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 250 airplanes of U.S. registry.
    We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per       Cost on U.S.
              Action                     Labor cost            Parts cost           product         operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Threshold high frequency eddy       2.5 work-hours x $85  Not Applicable......         $212.50          $53,125
 current (HFEC)/low frequency eddy   per hour = $212.50.
 current (LFEC)/detailed visual
 inspection.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

                                               On-Condition Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per
                    Action                                Labor cost               Parts cost        product
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Repair Installation..........................  48 work-hours x $85 per hour =           $6,670          $10,750
                                                $4,080.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Paperwork Reduction Act

    A federal agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not
required to respond to, nor shall a person be subject to penalty for
failure to comply with a collection of information subject to the
requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act unless that collection of
information displays a current valid OMB control number. The control
number for the collection of information required by this AD is 2120-
0056. The paperwork cost associated with this AD has been detailed in
the Costs of Compliance section of this document and includes time for
reviewing instructions, as well as completing and reviewing the
collection of information. Therefore, all reporting associated with
this AD is mandatory. Comments concerning the accuracy of this burden
and suggestions for reducing the burden should be directed to the FAA
at 800 Independence Ave. SW., Washington, DC 20591. ATTN: Information
Collection Clearance Officer, AES-200.

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

    This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order
13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States,
on the relationship between the national government and the States, or
on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various
levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866,

    (2) Is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT Regulatory Policies and
Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
    (3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
    (4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

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

2014-15-01 M7 Aerospace LLC: Amendment 39-17903; Docket No. FAA-
2014-0308; Directorate Identifier 2014-CE-012-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective August 27, 2014.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to the M7 Aerospace LLC airplanes listed in
paragraphs (c)(1) through (c)(5) of this AD that are equipped with a
bayonet shear pin main cabin door latching mechanism and are
certificated in any category. Airplanes equipped with a ``click-
clack'' main cabin door latching mechanism are not affected by this
AD. Figure 3 of M7 Aerospace LLC SA227 Series Commuter Category
Service Bulletin CC7-53-005, and M7 Aerospace LLC SA227 Series
Service Bulletin 227-53-009, both dated November 15, 2013, is a
picture showing both styles of latching mechanisms.
    (1) Model SA227-AT airplanes, serial numbers (S/Ns) AT570
through AT631, and AT695.
    (2) Model SA227-AC airplanes, S/Ns AC570 through AC788.
    (3) Model SA227-BC airplanes, S/Ns BC762, BC764, BC766, and
BC770 through BC789.
    (4) Model SA227-CC airplanes, S/N CC827, CC829, and CC840
through CC844.
    (5) Model SA227-DC airplanes, S/Ns DC784, DC790 through DC826,
DC828, DC830 through DC839, and DC845 through DC904.

(d) Subject

    Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC)/Air Transport Association
(ATA) of America--Code 5310, Fuselage Main, Structure.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by fatigue cracks found in the internal
door surround doubler, the external skin fuselage skin, and the door
corner fittings at the fuselage upper forward corner of the main
cabin door cutout. We are issuing the AD to prevent decompression
failure with possible loss of structural integrity of the cabin
structure.

(f) Compliance

    Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified in
paragraph (g) through paragraph (k) of this AD, including all
subparagraphs, unless already done.

(g) Inspections

    (1) Do the initial inspections of the fuselage upper forward
corner and other 3 corners of the main cabin door cutout for cracks
following Table 1 in Step 2. ACCOMPLISHMENT INSTRUCTIONS of M7
Aerospace LLC SA227 Series Commuter Category Service Bulletin CC7-
53-005 or M7 Aerospace LLC SA227 Series Service Bulletin 227-53-009,
both dated November 15, 2013, as applicable. Do the inspections at
the compliance times specified in paragraphs (g)(1)(i) through
(g)(1)(iv) of this AD. For the purposes of this AD, owner/operators
who do not track total aircraft flight cycles (TAC), use a .5 to 1
conversion, e.g., 35,000 TAC is equivalent to 17,500 hours time-in-
service (TIS). For owner/operators who do not track flight cycles,
use a 1 to 1 conversion, e.g., 300 flight cycles are equivalent to
300 hours TIS.
    (i) For aircraft with more than 35,000 TAC, inspect within the
next 300 flight cycles after August 27, 2014 (the effective date of
this AD).
    (ii) For aircraft with 20,001--35,000 TAC, inspect within the
next 600 flight cycles after August 27, 2014 (the effective date of
this AD).
    (iii) For aircraft with 12,000--20,000 TAC, inspect within the
next 1,000 flight cycles after August 27, 2014 (the effective date
of this AD).
    (iv) For aircraft with less than 12,000 TAC, inspect at 12,000
flight cycles or within the next 1,000 flight cycles after August
27, 2014 (the effective date of this AD), whichever occurs later.
    (2) If no cracks are found during the inspections required by
paragraph (g)(1) of this AD, repetitively thereafter at intervals
not to exceed 2,000 flight cycles do the inspections of the fuselage
upper forward corner and other 3 corners of the main cabin door
cutout for cracks following Table 1 in Step 2. ACCOMPLISHMENT
INSTRUCTIONS of M7 Aerospace LLC SA227 Series Commuter Category
Service Bulletin CC7-53-005 or M7 Aerospace LLC SA227 Series Service
Bulletin 227-53-009, both dated November 15, 2013, as applicable.

(h) Repair Cracks and Repetitively Inspect

    (1) If any cracks are found during any inspection required in
paragraph (g) through paragraph (i) of this AD, before further
flight after the inspection in which a crack is found, repair or
replace the cracked structure following Step 3. REPAIR OF CRACKED
INNER DOUBLE, Step 4. REPAIR OF CRACKED FUSELAGE SKIN, and/or Step
5. REPAIR OF CRACKED CORNER FITTING of M7 Aerospace LLC SA227 Series
Commuter Category Service Bulletin CC7-53-005, or M7 Aerospace LLC
SA227 Series Service Bulletin 227-53-009, both dated November 15,
2013, as applicable.
    (2) If you made the repairs required in paragraph (h)(1) of this
AD by installing repair kit drawing 27K24191-001, do the threshold
and repeat inspections following Table 2 in Step 2. ACCOMPLISHMENT
INSTRUCTIONS of M7 Aerospace LLC SA227 Series Commuter Category
Service Bulletin CC7-53-005, dated November 15, 2013; or M7
Aerospace LLC SA227 Series Service Bulletin 227-53-009, dated
November 15, 2013, as applicable.
    (3) If you made the repairs required in paragraph (h)(1) of this
AD by replacing the fuselage skin by installing repair kit drawing
27K24191-003, or if the corner fitting was replaced and no other
cracks are present, repetitively thereafter inspect following Table
1 in Step 2. ACCOMPLISHMENT INSTRUCTIONS of M7 Aerospace LLC SA227
Series Commuter Category Service Bulletin CC7-53-005, or M7
Aerospace LLC SA227 Series Service Bulletin 227-53-009, both dated
November 15, 2013, as applicable.

(i) Extend Repetitive Inspection Intervals

    After any inspection required in paragraph (g)(1) and (g)(2) of
this AD and if no damage, defects, or cracks are found, you may
install repair kit drawing 27K24191-001 following Step 6. ADDITION
OF KIT DRAWING REPAIR MEMBERS AS PREVENTATIVE ACTION of M7 Aerospace
LLC SA227 Series Commuter Category Service Bulletin CC7-53-005, or
M7 Aerospace LLC SA227 Series Service Bulletin 227-53-009, both
dated November 15, 2013, as applicable, to extend the inspection
intervals. After installing repair kit drawing 27K24191-001, do the
threshold and repeat inspections following Table 3 of Step 2.
ACCOMPLISHMENT INSTRUCTIONS of M7 Aerospace LLC SA227 Series
Commuter Category Service Bulletin CC7-53-005, or M7 Aerospace LLC
SA227 Series Service Bulletin 227-53-009, both dated November 15,
2013, as applicable.

(j) Reporting Requirement

    Within 30 days after any inspection required by paragraph (g)
through paragraph (i) of this AD where a crack or any other damage
is found, report the results of that inspection to M7 Aerospace LLC
following the instructions specified in Step 2.I. of the
ACCOMPLISHMENT INSTRUCTIONS of M7 Aerospace LLC SA227 Series
Commuter Category Service Bulletin CC7-53-005, dated November 15,
2013; or Step 2.J. of the ACCOMPLISHMENT INSTRUCTIONS of M7
Aerospace LLC SA227 Series Service Bulletin 227-53-009, dated
November 15, 2013, as applicable.

(k) Credit for Previous Repairs

    As of August 27, 2014 (the effective date of this AD), owner/
operators who had the an

inspection and any resulting repairs done before the effective date
of this AD using procedures different from those specified in M7
Aerospace LLC SA227 Series Commuter Category Service Bulletin CC7-
53-005, dated November 15, 2013; and M7 Aerospace LLC SA227 Series
Service Bulletin 227-53-009, dated November 15, 2013, may apply for
an alternative method of compliance (AMOC) following the
instructions in paragraph (m) of this AD.

(l) Paperwork Reduction Act Burden Statement

    A federal agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not
required to respond to, nor shall a person be subject to a penalty
for failure to comply with a collection of information subject to
the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act unless that
collection of information displays a current valid OMB Control
Number. The OMB Control Number for this information collection is
2120-0056. Public reporting for this collection of information is
estimated to be approximately 5 minutes per response, including the
time for reviewing instructions, completing and reviewing the
collection of information. All responses to this collection of
information are mandatory. Comments concerning the accuracy of this
burden and suggestions for reducing the burden should be directed to
the FAA at: 800 Independence Ave. SW., Washington, DC 20591, Attn:
Information Collection Clearance Officer, AES-200.

(m) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Fort Worth Airplane Certification Office, FAA,
has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using
the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR
39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight
Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information
directly to the manager of the ACO, send it to the attention of the
person identified in the Related Information section of this AD.
    (2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate
principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager
of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding
district office.

(n) Related Information

    For more information about this AD, contact Andrew McAnaul,
Aerospace Engineer, FAA, ASW-150 (c/o San Antonio MIDO), 10100
Reunion Place, Suite 650, San Antonio, Texas 78216; phone: (210)
308-3365; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
(o) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed
in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) M7 Aerospace LLC SA227 Series Commuter Category Service
Bulletin CC7-53-005, dated November 15, 2013.
    (ii) M7 Aerospace LLC SA227 Series Service Bulletin 227-53-009,
dated November 15, 2013.
    (3) For M7 Aerospace LLC service information identified in this
AD, contact M7 Aerospace LLC, 10823 NE Entrance Road, San Antonio,
Texas 78216; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; Internet:
http://www.m7aerospace.com; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (4) You may view this service information at FAA, Small Airplane
Directorate, 901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. For
information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call
816-329-4148.
    (5) You may view this service information that is incorporated
by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA). For information on the availability of this material at
NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on July 14, 2014.
Kelly A. Broadway,
Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2014-17053 Filed 7-22-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: October 1, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 190)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 60611-60614]
[DOCID:fr01oc10-7]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2010-0478; Directorate Identifier 2008-NM-090-AD;
Amendment 39-16451; AD 2010-20-16]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Model A300 B4-600, B4-600R, and
F4-600R Series Airplanes, and Model A300 C4-605R Variant F Airplanes
(Collectively Called A300-600 Series Airplanes); and Model A300 and
A310 Series 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:
* * * * *
    Two cases of complete nose landing gear (NLG) shock absorber
bolts failure were reported to the manufacturer. In both cases, the
crew was unable to retract the gear and was forced to an In Flight
Turn Back. In one case, the aircraft experienced a low speed runway
excursion. The root cause of the bolts failure has been identified
being due to a bolt(s) over-torque. The investigation has
highlighted that the design of the NLG shock absorber was not
tolerant to the over-torque, and an inspection plan has been
developed to track any NLG shock absorber-to-main barrel attachment
bolts status. * * *
* * * * *
We are issuing this AD to require actions to correct the unsafe
condition on these products.

DATES: This AD becomes effective November 5, 2010.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of November 5,
2010.

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: Dan Rodina, Aerospace Engineer,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA,
1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone (425)
227-2125; 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 May 19, 2010 (75 FR
27956). That NPRM proposed to correct an unsafe condition for the
specified products. The MCAI states:
* * * * *
    Two cases of complete nose landing gear (NLG) shock absorber
bolts failure were reported to the manufacturer. In both cases, the
crew was unable to retract the gear and was forced to an In Flight
Turn Back. In one case, the aircraft experienced a low speed runway
excursion. The root cause of the bolts failure has been identified
being due to a bolt(s) over-torque. The investigation has
highlighted that the design of the NLG shock absorber was not
tolerant to the over-torque, and an inspection plan has been
developed to track any NLG shock absorber-to-main barrel attachment
bolts status. The preliminary inspection plan, required by DGAC
France Airworthiness Directive (AD) F-2004-075 and F-2004-076, has
allowed limiting the number of findings: High at the initial
inspection, it has decreased following the repetitive inspections.
    This new [European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA)] AD retains the
requirements of those ADs, which are superseded, and requires a
repetitive torque check of the NLG shock absorber-to-main barrel
attachment bolts with new thresholds and intervals. This new AD also
refers to an optional modification as terminating action.
* * * * *
The optional modification involves modifying the shock absorber-to-
barrel attachment to increase over-torque tolerances. The actions to
address the unsafe condition also include inspecting the NLG shock
absorber-to-main barrel attachment bolts and doing corrective actions.
The corrective actions include replacing bolts, screws, nuts, washers,
and cotter pins; contacting Airbus for repair and doing the repair; and
modifying the shock absorber; as applicable. The inspection of the NLG
shock absorber-to-main barrel attachment bolts is repeated at intervals
not to exceed 400 flight hours or 1,000 flight cycles, depending on the
inspection results and corrective actions performed. 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 considered the comment received.

Request To Remove Reporting Requirement

    UPS requests that we remove the requirement to submit a report
after each inspection that results in re-torque or replacement of
bolts. UPS contends that Airbus has had sufficient time to gather
enough data to determine the root cause of the over-torqued bolts. UPS
has done the inspections of the NLG in accordance with Airbus All
Operator Telex A300-32A6093, dated April 22, 2004, since it was
published. UPS states that Airbus has been collecting data from
airlines that operate under EASA regulations. UPS also points out that,
although it has been doing the inspections for 6 years, it would need
to do an additional inspection within 30

days to document the findings and complete the inspection report. UPS
believes this reporting requirement places an unnecessary burden on the
operator.
    We agree with the request for the reasons stated above. Airbus no
longer needs this information from operators. We have removed paragraph
(k) of the NPRM and have re-identified subsequent paragraphs in this AD
accordingly.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the available data, including the comment received, and
determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting the
AD with the change described previously. We determined that this change
will not increase the economic burden on any operator or increase the
scope of the AD.

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 229 products of U.S. registry.
We also estimate that it will take about 2 work-hours per product to
comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate
is $85 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of
this AD to the U.S. operators to be $38,930, or $170 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:

    2010-20-16 Airbus: Amendment 39-16451. Docket No. FAA-2010-0478;
Directorate Identifier 2008-NM-090-AD.

Effective Date

    (a) This airworthiness directive (AD) becomes effective November
5, 2010.

Affected ADs

    (b) None.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to Airbus Model A300 B2-1A, B2-1C, B4-2C,
B2K-3C, B4-103, B2-203, and B4-203 airplanes; Model A300 B4-601, B4-
603, B4-620, B4-622, B4-605R, B4-622R, F4-605R, F4-622R, and C4-605R
Variant F airplanes; and Model A310-203, -204, -221, -222, -304, -
322, -324, and -325 airplanes; all certified models, all serial
numbers, certificated in any category; except airplanes on which
Airbus Modification 13212 has been done in production or Airbus
Service Bulletin A300-32-0453, A310-32-2135, or A300-32-6099 has
been done in service.

Subject

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

Reason

    (e) The mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI)
states:
    Two cases of complete nose landing gear (NLG) shock absorber
bolts failure were reported to the manufacturer. In both cases, the
crew was unable to retract the gear and was forced to an In Flight
Turn Back. In one case, the aircraft experienced a low speed runway
excursion. The root cause of the bolts failure has been identified
being due to a bolt(s) over-torque. The investigation has
highlighted that the design of the NLG shock absorber was not
tolerant to the over-torque, and an inspection plan has been
developed to track any NLG shock absorber-to-main barrel attachment
bolts status. The preliminary inspection plan, required by DGAC
France Airworthiness Directive (AD) F-2004-075 and F-2004-076, has
allowed limiting the number of findings: High at the initial
inspection, it has decreased following the repetitive inspections.
    This new [European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA)] AD retains the
requirements of those ADs, which are superseded, and requires a
repetitive torque check of the NLG shock absorber-to-main barrel
attachment bolts with new thresholds and intervals. This new AD also
refers to an optional modification as terminating action.
* * * * *
The optional modification involves modifying the shock absorber-to-
barrel attachment to increase over-torque tolerances. The actions to
address the unsafe condition also include inspecting the NLG shock
absorber-to-main barrel attachment bolts and corrective actions. The
corrective actions include replacing bolts, screws, nuts, washers,
and cotter pins; contacting Airbus

for repair and doing the repair; and modifying the shock absorber;
as applicable.

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 Corrective Action

    (g) At the applicable time specified in paragraph (g)(1),
(g)(2), or (g)(3) of this AD: Do a visual inspection to detect
operational condition (i.e., free of corrosion and not deformed) and
inspect rotation/torque of the NLG shock absorber-to-main barrel
attachment bolts and do all applicable corrective actions, in
accordance with the applicable Airbus all operators telex (AOT)
identified in Table 1 of this AD. Do all applicable corrective
actions before further flight. Thereafter, repeat the inspection at
the applicable intervals, depending on inspection results and the
corrective actions performed, as specified in the applicable Airbus
AOT identified in Table 1 of this AD.
    (1) For airplanes on which the NLG has been overhauled (the
bolts have been removed) as of the effective date of this AD: Within
30 days or 1,000 flight cycles on the NLG after the effective date
of this AD, whichever occurs later.
    (2) For airplanes on which, as of the effective date of this AD,
the NLG has accumulated less than 1,000 total flight cycles, and has
not been overhauled (the bolts have never been removed), since
manufacture of the NLG: Before the accumulation of 1,000 total
flight cycles on the NLG, or within 30 days after the effective date
of this AD, whichever occurs later.
    (3) For airplanes on which, as of the effective date of this AD,
the NLG has accumulated 1,000 or more total flight cycles, and has
not been overhauled since new (the bolts have never been removed):
Within 30 days after the effective date of this AD.

                  Table 1--Airbus All Operator Telexes
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  Use airbus all
          For model--            operator telex--         Dated--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
A300 series airplanes.........  A300-32A0447.....  April 22, 2004.
A300 B4-600, B4-600R, and F4-   A300-32A6093.....  April 22, 2004.
 600R Series Airplanes, and
 Model A300 C4[dash]605R
 Variant F airplanes
 (Collectively called A300-600
 series airplanes).
A310 series airplanes.........  A310-32A2132.....  April 22, 2004.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Torque Load Inspection and Corrective Action

    (h) At the latest of the compliance times specified in
paragraphs (h)(1), (h)(2), and (h)(3) of this AD, do an inspection
of the torque load of the nuts of the NLG shock absorber-to-main
barrel attachment bolts in accordance with the Accomplishment
Instructions of the applicable Airbus service bulletin listed in
Table 2 of this AD. Depending on the torque load value found during
the inspection, before further flight: Retighten the bolt(s) or
replace the discrepant bolt(s), or replace all bolts, in accordance
with the applicable Airbus service bulletin listed in Table 2 of
this AD. Thereafter, repeat the torque load inspection at intervals
not to exceed 3,200 flight cycles or 30 months time-in-service
accumulated by the NLG, whichever occurs first.
    (1) Within 3,200 flight cycles or 30 months since NLG's first
flight, whichever occurs first.
    (2) Within 3,200 flight cycles or 30 months accumulated by the
NLG since installation of new bolts, whichever occurs first.
    (3) Within 3,200 flight cycles or 30 months after the effective
date of this AD, whichever occurs first.

                                  Table 2--Service Information for Inspections
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   Use airbus
                 For model--                    mandatory service   Revision                Dated--
                                                   bulletin--       level--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A300 series airplanes........................        A300-32-0447         01  June 1, 2007.
A300-600 series airplanes....................        A300-32-6093         01  June 1, 2007.
A310 series airplanes........................        A310-32-2132         01  June 1, 2007.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

     (i) After accomplishment of the initial inspection in
accordance with paragraph (h) of this AD, as applicable, the
repetitive inspections of paragraph (g) of this AD are no longer
required.

Optional Terminating Action

    (j) For airplanes on which the modification of the shock
absorber-to-barrel attachment has been done in accordance with the
applicable service bulletin listed in Table 3 of this AD, the
requirements of this AD are no longer required, as long as that
modification remains installed.

      Table 3--Service Information for Optional Terminating Action
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Use airbus
           For model--                 service             Dated--
                                     bulletin--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
A300 series airplanes...........      A300-32-0453  June 1, 2007.
A300-600 series airplanes.......      A300-32-6099  June 1, 2007.
A310 series airplanes...........      A310-32-2135  June 1, 2007.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

FAA AD Differences

    Note 1: This AD differs from the MCAI and/or service information
as follows: No Differences.

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: Dan
Rodina, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport
Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington
98057-3356; telephone (425)

227-2125; 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 EASA Airworthiness Directive 2008-0052R1,
dated June 30, 2008; and the service information identified in
Tables 1, 2, and 3 of this AD; for related information.

Material Incorporated by Reference

    (m) You must use the applicable service information contained in
Table 4 of this AD to do the actions required by this AD, unless the
AD specifies otherwise. If you accomplish the optional terminating
actions specified by this AD, you must use the applicable service
information identified in Table 5 of this AD to perform those
actions, 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
Airbus SAS--EAW (Airworthiness Office), 1 Rond Point Maurice
Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96;
fax +33 5 61 93 44 51; e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Internet: http://www.airbus.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>.
    (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 4--Material Incorporated by Reference for Actions Required in This
                                   AD
------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Document                  Revision               Date
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Airbus All Operator Telex       Original.........  April 22, 2004.
 A300[dash]32A0447.
Airbus All Operator Telex       Original.........  April 22, 2004.
 A300[dash]32A6093.
Airbus All Operator Telex       Original.........  April 22, 2004.
 A310[dash]32A2132.
Airbus Mandatory Service        01...............  June 1, 2007.
 Bulletin A300-32-0447,
 excluding Appendix 01.
Airbus Mandatory Service        01...............  June 1, 2007.
 Bulletin A300-32-6093,
 excluding Appendix 01.
Airbus Mandatory Service        01...............  June 1, 2007.
 Bulletin A310-32-2132,
 excluding Appendix 01.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Table 5--Material Incorporated by Reference for the Optional Terminating
                            Action in This AD
------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Airbus service bulletin--                     Dated--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
A300-32-0453.............................  June 1, 2007.
A300-32-6099.............................  June 1, 2007.
A310-32-2135.............................  June 1, 2007.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on September 16, 2010.
Robert D. Breneman,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.

[FR Doc. 2010-24257 Filed 9-30-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


Public Comments on Proposed Significant New Use Rule (18-1)
and EPA Responses  -  Public Docket EPA-HQ-OPPT-2018-0627

EPA received public comments from three identifying entities on the proposed rule.  The Agency's responses are described below.  In addition, EPA received three anonymous comments.  They were general in nature and did not pertain to the proposed rule; therefore, no response is required.
Inconsistencies with 5(e) Order and SNUR
A commenter noted the following inconsistencies between certain proposed SNURs and underlying 5(e) Order restrictions:
Comment: For P-17-24 and P-17-25, the Order requires that the substance not be manufactured or processed "involving a method that generates a vapor, mist, aerosol, or dust," whereas the proposed SNUR do not designate as a significant new use any manufacture, processing or use that would result in inhalation exposures to dust.
Response: The regulatory text of the SNURs at 40 CFR 721.11159 and 40 CFR 721.11160 have been revised to include the dust exposure.
Comment: For P-17-24 and P-17-25, the Order states that the chemical substances should not be manufactured, processed, or used for "consumer use" or for "commercial use" when the saleable good could introduce the chemical substance into consumer settings. The SNUR does not include the additional restriction on "commercial use when the saleable good could introduce the chemical substance into consumer settings."
Response: The regulatory text of the SNURs at 40 CFR 721.11159 and 40 CFR 721.11160 have been revised to specify a significant new use as commercial use when saleable goods or service could introduce the PMN substances into a consumer setting.
Comment: The consent order for P-14-627 has concentration limits that differ by use but are not listed in the SNUR. The SNUR does cite EPA's general regulations at 40 C.F.R. § 721.80(k), however designates as significant new uses only the uses themselves.
Response:  The regulatory text of the SNUR at 40 CFR 721.11150 has been revised to specify the non-confidential uses as identified in the Consent Order.
Isocyanates
One commenter commented on proposed SNURs for aromatic isocyanate, polymer with alkyloxirane polymer with oxirane ether with alkyldiol (2:l) and alkyloxirane polymer with oxirane ether with alkyltriol (3:l) (generic) (PMN P-17-24, 40 CFR 721.11159), and aromatic isocyanate polymer with alkyloxirane, alkyloxirane polymer with oxirane ether with alkanetriol and oxirane (generic), (PMN P-17-25, 40 CFR 721.11160).
Comment:  The commenter stated that EPA should clarify the proposed SNURs to the extent it is basing them on concerns with excess or residual isocyanate monomers in mixture with an isocyanate-based polymer or prepolymer SNUR chemicals. The commenter also stated that EPA has not transparently identified those monomers as being subject to the proposed SNURs and, besides, EPA may not use its SNUR authority to address ongoing uses of the existing isocyanate monomers and must use its TSCA section 6 authority instead.
Response:  EPA is concerned about the health effects of any residual monomer as well as unreacted isocyanate groups on a polymer when assessing the risks for new chemical substances. EPA has the authority under section 5 of TSCA to address any risks associated with the manufacture, processing, and use of the new chemical substances. The SNUR applies to activities associated with the new chemical substances. Activities associated with the new chemical substance are not ongoing activities of the existing chemical substance. EPA did not receive specific, quantitative information that demonstrates the chemical substance subject to the proposed SNUR exhibit a lower potential for the hazards and potential risks or that they will specifically replace a chemical substance with a higher potential for hazards and risks. EPA is issuing the SNUR as proposed to provide the Agency with the opportunity to review any new uses for potential unreasonable risks. The diisocyanates, MDI and TDI, are well-known dermal and inhalation sensitizers in the workplace and have been documented to cause asthma, lung damage, and in severe cases, fatal reactions. EPA is concerned about potential health effects that may result from exposures of consumers or self-employed workers while using products containing uncured (unreacted) MDI and TDI and its related polyisocyanates (e.g., spray- applied foam sealants, adhesives, and coatings) or incidental exposures to the general population. Due to the nature of the potential risk posed by this chemical, EPA believes it is prudent to emphasize its concern through respiratory protection requirements where there is potential for inhalation exposure, in addition to proposing significant new uses such as consumer use and application method. Accordingly, the regulatory actions for new diisocyanates reflects EPA's policy of consistent treatment of the entire class of potentially hazardous chemicals, regardless of their statutory status as "new" or "existing" chemicals. EPA continues to work to lessen the apparent inequity between regulations of new and existing chemicals.
Comment:  The same commenter stated that EPA should clarify its basis for the imposed limitations on total residual isocyanates, because varying limitations on residual isocyanates appear in the regulatory text for this SNUR at greater than: 0.1% residual isocyanate.
Response:  For each PMN substance, where there is potential risk from residual chemicals or lower molecular weights if the polymer is manufactured differently, EPA attempts to minimize exposure based on information in the notification. This PMN contained information that the polymer was manufactured containing a certain residual isocyanate level. EPA included restrictions for residual isocyanate in the Order and the proposed SNUR to prevent potential health risks.
Comment:  The same commenter stated that EPA should delete the provisions incorporating the recordkeeping requirements in 40 CFR 721.125, as it did in the proposed TDI SNUR, 80 Fed. Reg. 2068 (Jan. 15, 2015), and some others.
Response: The SNURs cited by the commenter are existing chemical SNURs where EPA determined recordkeeping was not needed. For example, when the significant new use for an existing chemical is "any use" there is typically no recordkeeping required because there are no records to be maintained that would inform EPA inspection or enforcement. Because the SNURs in this current rule are new chemical SNURs, EPA will continue to require recordkeeping for all new chemical SNURs to better allow EPA to inspect and enforce SNUR requirements at facilities where chemicals subject to SNURs are manufactured and processed.
Deviation from EPA's PBT Policy
Comment:  One commenter suggests that EPA has deviated from its Persistent, Bioaccumulative, and Toxic (PBT) New Chemical Substances Testing Policy (see final policy statement at 64 FR 60194; November 4, 1999) and failed to explain those deviations.  Comments relate to the chemical substance described in PMN P-17-205 which met criteria identified in the 1999 Policy Statement for persistence, bioaccumulation potential, and toxicity that would indicate they should be controlled more stringently, up to a ban on commercialization pending development of certain testing.
Response: These comments constitute challenges to certain TSCA section 5(a)(3) determinations rather than to the basis for or the content of the SNUR. EPA is not responding to these comments in this notice and declines to withdraw the SNURs on the basis of these comments, since they are not relevant to this rulemaking. The 1999 policy statement, which is not a rule, provides guidance criteria for persistence, bioaccumulation, and toxicity for new chemicals and advises the industry about our regulatory approach for chemicals meeting the criteria.  Establishment of a PBT category alerts potential PMN submitters to possible assessment or regulatory issues associated with PBT new chemicals review.  It also provides a vehicle by which the Agency may gauge the flow of PBT chemical substances through the TSCA New Chemicals Program and measure the results of its risk screening and risk management activities for PBT new chemical substances; as such, it is a major element in the Agency's overall strategy to further reduce risks from PBT pollutants.
      The Order for this PMN does state that EPA estimates that the substances will persist in the environment for more than two months and estimates a bioaccumulation factor of greater than or equal to 1,000.  The policy statement notes that even for "very" P (persistence in the environment for more than six months) and "very" B cases (bioaccumulation factor of greater than 5,000), where "because of the increased concern, more stringent control action would be a likely outcome,...it would not be appropriate to automatically trigger a "ban pending testing" at these cutoffs given the uncertainties about substance properties, release, and environmental behavior that normally characterize PMN review." Accordingly, the Agency evaluates each PMN based on the use, exposure and release information submitted, and makes a case by case risk management decision.   The proposed SNUR terms for this substance reflect the Agency's determination under the Order, that the controls stipulated in this Order are protective or human health and environment, pending submission of further information that is identified in the Order.

Ad Hoc Testing Policy Change
Comment:  EPA has instituted an ad hoc testing policy change without acknowledging it has done so and without meeting TSCA's requirements.  With these proposed SNURs, EPA has implemented a significant departure from past policy and practice by ceasing to include any testing requirements or identifying any recommended testing. Instead, each chemical-specific description in Unit IV of the direct final rule now only identifies "potentially useful information" that EPA indicates is only being "provided for informational purposes."  EPA has not defined what it means for information to be only potentially useful and why EPA does not identify the information as actually useful or necessary. Moreover, EPA provides no explanation for why it no longer identifies testing as "recommended testing," as it previously did, and instead only describes the associated information as "potentially useful."
Response:  The comment pertains to the preambles of each SNUR, which are not requirements for testing.
      EPA has modified language in its regulatory documents to ensure consistency with TSCA section 4(h) requirements to reduce testing on vertebrates to the extent practicable. Section 5(e) Consent Orders will now contain a statement of need that explains the basis for any decision that requires the use of vertebrate animals.
      In addition, EPA is modifying language in its legal documents describing test requirements to reflect a preference for tiered testing and use of non-vertebrate testing strategies first and using that test data to inform whether higher tiered testing (including testing of vertebrates) is necessary. Similarly, EPA is modifying language in its SNURs to more generally describe the information EPA believes would help characterize chemical properties, fate and/or the potential human health and environmental effects associated with a significant new use of the chemical substance, rather than list specific recommended tests. EPA is encouraging companies to consult with the Agency on the potential for use of alternative test methods and strategies (also called New Approach Methodologies, or NAMs) to generate data to inform risk assessment. EPA encourages dialogue with Agency representatives to help determine how best the submitter can meet both the data needs and the objective of TSCA section 4(h).
Generic Chemical Names Must Comply with the Requirements of TSCA and EPA's Guidance
Comment: One commenter noted that prior to finalizing the SNUR for certain chemical substances identified, EPA must ensure that the generic names for these chemicals comply with the law and conform to EPA's Generic Name Guidance (83 FR 30173; June 27, 2018).  The commenter continued that despite TSCA's requirement for generic names to be specific as practicable, and EPA's stated preference in its guidance for masking only a single structural element, there are a number of generic names covered by proposed SNURs that are or appear to be far from sufficiently specific. The specific chemical substances identified in this batch proposed SNUR were P-10-366: carbon nanomaterial, P-14-627: cyclic amide, P-15-734: polymeric sulfide, P-16-0356: quaternary ammonium salts, P-16-357: quaternary ammonium salts, P-16-572: polyamine polyacid adducts and P-16-573: polyamine polyacid adducts.
Response: The statute, regulations, and guidance do stipulate that generic names should be as specific as practicable and reveal the specific chemical identity to the maximum extent possible.  See TSCA section 14(c)(1)(C), 40 CFR 720.85(a)(2-3), and "Guidance for Creating Generic Names for Confidential Chemical Substance Identity Reporting under TSCA" (see 83 FR 30173; June 27, 2018).  EPA declares PMNs incomplete if they include generic names for confidential substances that are overly generic.  However, EPA more thoroughly examines generic names provided after commencement of manufacture or import (i.e., in a Notice of Commencement, or NOC), in accordance with 40 CFR 720.85(b)(6).  Because this may occur after finalization of a SNUR, a generic name provided in a SNUR may be improved upon regarding its specificity at a later date when the NOC is submitted to the Agency.  Persons should also keep in mind that they do not have the benefit of seeing the full chemical identities of confidential substances which is necessary for determining the acceptability of generic names for such substances.  Generic names that may appear overly generic may be acceptable for simple chemical substances that have very few functional groups or structural features.
Generic Use Descriptions
Comment:  One commenter noted that despite EPA having provided PMN submitters instructions to the contrary, many of these generic use descriptions are overly broad or vague.
The commenter provided these examples in this batch proposed SNUR: P-10-366: printing application; P-16-356 and P-16-357: wellbore additives; P-16-396: specialty chemical for processing additive; P-16-572 and P-16-573: adhesive for coatings; P-17-24 and P-17-25: urethane component; P-17-174: plastic additive; and P-17-205: monomer for high performance polymer. The commenter stated that these generic use descriptions do not comply with EPA's own 2015 "Instruction Manual for Reporting under the TSCA §5 New Chemicals Program," which calls for the generic use description to include both (1) a description of the category of use, which "should reveal the intended category of use to the maximum extent possible;" and (2) a characterization of the "degree of containment," with examples cited such as "destructive use" or "open, non-dispersive use." Both components are needed; EPA's manual states: "a generic use description that solely describes the degree of containment such as `open, non-dispersive use' is not acceptable." While a few of the examples cited above come closer than others, the commenter concludes, none of them comply with the instructions.
Response:  EPA notes the generic use description issue, with regards to PMN reporting. However, this comment does not pertain to the findings or requirements of the proposed SNURs. Accordingly, EPA is not making any changes to the final SNURs based on these comments.

Significant New Uses Should Be for Any Uses Other Than What EPA Has Evaluated
Comment: One commenter suggested that EPA should generally designate as a significant new use any use of a chemical substance other than the specific uses EPA evaluated in its PMN review and determined are not likely to present an unreasonable risk. The commenter believes that EPA must also require notification for any type of chemical intermediate use other than that which EPA has reviewed. The commenter also noted that the SNURs for P-16-375, P-16-572/573, P-17-24/25, P-17-174, P-17-205, P-17-251, P-17-296, P-17-308/309, P-17-321, P-17-327, and P-17-330 do not include designation of any use that would require notification (only process restrictions, no consumer use, application method, etc.). It is not clear that EPA examined other intermediate uses beyond the specific use identified in the PMNs.  The comment also notes that the SNUR for P-16-386 appears not to require notification for a set of uses that is broader than the specific use of the chemical substance.
Response:  The commenter suggested approach is overly broad.  TSCA requires that EPA evaluate new chemicals under their conditions of use, including the intended, known and reasonably foreseen circumstances of manufacture, processing, distribution in commerce, use and disposal.  Based upon EPA's review of the relevant PMNs, the Agency identified uses that are appropriate for designation as "significant new uses" in order to ensure that EPA has an opportunity to review those uses in a SNUN submission. TSCA §5(a)(2) does not require EPA to take the broad approach advocated by the commenter. EPA believes a more tailored approach is warranted to avoid unduly burdensome regulations.
Misleading Use of 40 CFR 721.80 Reference
Comment: One commenter noted that certain proposed SNURs state that a significant new use related to Industrial, commercial, and consumer activities is listed as "requirements as specified in § 721.80" without specifying one of the 25 possible restrictions in that section.
Response:  EPA understands the confusion and has deleted reference to 40 CFR 721.80 where no specific section is cited and simply writes the applicable significant new use, i.e., "Industrial, commercial, and consumer activities. It is a significant new use to...."
Consistency Between SNURs and Orders: General
Comment: One commenter stated that the Lautenberg Act requires that SNUR requirements conform with requirements of TSCA section 5(e) and 5(f) actions and Orders or that EPA publish a statement explaining why EPA is not doing so, and that EPA should not deviate from prior policy and practice, which correctly implements the law. The commenter then identified instances where the Order requirements were not consistent with the SNUR requirements (see the previous comments and responses for the paragraph titled "Inconsistencies with 5(e) Order and SNUR").
Response:  In general, EPA agrees that SNURs should be consistent with the underlying action or Order; however, EPA has never considered that SNURs must have exactly the same requirements. For example, when an Order requires certain testing before manufacture exceeding a certain production limit or time limit, the corresponding SNUR requires notification before exceeding that time or production volume limit. It does not require testing before exceeding the time or production volume limit. Under a TSCA section 5(e) Order; it would be problematic to require the same test from two different entities. The purpose of the SNUR requirement is for the manufacturer to notify EPA and for EPA to determine what, if any, testing should be required based on all available information available. at the time of notification. In the sections that follow, EPA has listed those instances where the commenter identified differences between the Order and the SNUR and either explained the differences or made the change.
Consistency Between Orders and SNURs: Hierarchy of Controls
Comment:  One commenter stated that the provisions in many of the proposed SNURs that address "protection in the workplace" are not consistent with the underlying Orders, and unlike the Orders, do not accurately and sufficiently invoke the Industrial Hygiene Hierarchy of Controls (HOC), which is a foundational element of OSHA and NIOSH policy. The commenter also cites 20 Orders or preambles to the SNURs for P-14-627, P-15-114, P-15-734, P-16-356, P-16-357, P-16-386, P-16-396, P-17-24, P-17-25, P-17-148, P-17-174, P-17-205, P-17-251, P-17-296, P-17-308, P-17-309, P-17-321, and P-17-330 that either fail to include language requiring preference for engineering and administrative controls over PPE or only include a general statement that encourages such controls.
Response: EPA believes that although the SNURs may not precisely mimic the language in the underlying 5(e) Orders, the SNURs do incorporate the same requirements for HOC as found in the Orders. The commenter refers to this language generally used in 5(e) Orders:
"Engineering control measures (e.g. enclosure or confinement of the operation, general and local ventilation) or administrative control measures (e.g. workplace policies and procedures) shall be considered and implemented to prevent exposure, where feasible to each person who is reasonably likely to be [dermally exposed/exposed by inhalation] in the work area to the PMN substance ***. Where engineering, work practice, and administrative controls are not feasible or, if feasible, do not prevent exposure, each person subject to this exposure must be provided with, and is required to wear, [personal protective equipment] ***"The corresponding SNUR language is shortened to this: "engineering control measures (e.g., enclosure or confinement of the operation, general and local ventilation) or administrative control measures (e.g., workplace policies and procedures) shall be considered and implemented to prevent exposure, where feasible". The language in the specific references under 40 CFR 721.63(a) incorporates both the HOC and worker protection requirements of the SNUR. EPA believes that the intent and requirements are identical between the Orders and SNURs and that adding a phrase referring to PPE where engineering controls are not feasible would not serve to further clarify this SNUR notification requirement.
SNURs Should Include Workplace Protection Provisions Under 40 CFR 721.63
Comment:  One commenter noted that many of the SNURs do not include specific provisions to incorporate requirements for protection in the workplace regulations codified at 40 CFR 721.63. Specific SNURs cited were for PMNs P-15-320, P-16-375, P-16-572, P-16-573, and P-17-327. None of the Orders contained workplace controls.
Response:  For the Orders listed, EPA achieved the necessary risk reduction in the workplace via other than specific worker protection requirements. For P-15-320, the Order prohibits use of the substance other than as a dielectric medium for medium and high voltage power generation and distribution equipment. For P-16-375, the Order prohibits domestic manufacture and use of the substance other than according to the confidential molecular weight parameters specified in the Order. For P-16-572 and P-16-573, the Order prohibits manufacture the substances in any manner other than they are not amine terminated in order to maintain water solubility levels

below 1 part per billion. For P-17-327, the Order prohibits manufacture (includes import) of the substance to have an average molecular weight of greater than 10,000 Daltons.

Deferring Workplace Protections to OSHA or NIOSH
Comment:  One commenter favored the idea that EPA should leave workplace protection to OSHA and NIOSH. Another commenter argued against that view, stating that nothing in the TSCA statute supports the assertion that EPA should rely on OSHA to regulate new chemicals in the workplace, see 15 U.S.C. § 2604(f)(5); and due to the limitations on OSHA's authority, the protections for workers would not meet TSCA's requirement to "protect against an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment." 15 U.S.C. § 2604(e).
Response: EPA believes that comments regarding worker protection conditions in Section 5(e) or 5(f) are beyond the scope of the SNUR. EPA is not responding to these comments.
EPA disagrees with the comment that, where EPA expects that worker protection requirements under other federal/state authorities would mitigate risks to workers, EPA must designate all uses without those protections as "significant new uses". TSCA section 5(a)(2) does not mandate that any specific uses be designated as significant. Instead, EPA has discretion as to which new uses to designate as significant. In designating significant new uses under TSCA section 5(a)(2), EPA expects compliance with federal and state laws, such as worker protection standards or disposal restrictions, unless case-specific facts indicate otherwise. As noted in the comments and responses in the paragraph titled "SNURs should include workplace protection provisions under 40 CFR 721.63" SNUR requirements other than PPE can also limit worker exposures and risk.
Vertebrate Testing
Comment: A commenter noted that TSCA section 4(h)(3) states: "IN GENERAL. -- Any person developing information for submission under this title on a voluntary basis and not pursuant to any request or requirement by the Administrator shall first attempt to develop the information by means of an alternative test method or strategy... before conducting new vertebrate animal testing." The commenter continued that while EPA is not required to review the means by which these submitters conducted this voluntary testing, it is authorized to do so, and that reviewing compliance with this section is an opportunity to communicate TSCA's requirement and EPA's preference for alternatives to PMN submitters. Over time, the commenter states, this would lead submitters to consider such alternatives before conducting vertebrate animal tests. They requested that EPA review compliance with TSCA section 4(h)(3) whenever the results of vertebrate animal testing are included in PMNs.
Response:  A request to review compliance with TSCA 4(h)(3) for PMNs and Orders is not relevant to the proposed SNUR. SNURs do not require testing and only suggest the type of information that could address hazards identified by EPA. They include opportunities for EPA to engage submitters considering conducting testing. For SNURs with time or production volume limits, or if a SNUN submitter is required to conduct testing EPA will include consideration of TSCA section 4(h)(3). When a company consults with EPA before submitting any SNUN as recommended, EPA will have an opportunity to consider what testing if any should be conducted including consideration of TSCA section 4(h)(3).


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 99 (Friday, May 22, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 29589-29592]
[FR Doc No: 2015-11804]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket No. USCG-2015-0084]
RIN 1625-AA00, AA11

Great Lakes--Regulated Navigation Areas and Safety Zones

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to amend its Great Lakes Regulated
Navigation Areas regulations to include two safety zones to close
designated waters for recreational ice users and three Regulated
Navigation Areas to manage vessel traffic in ice-prone waterways.
Further, the Coast Guard proposes to redefine (without changing) the
three existing regulated navigation areas in the rule as safety zones.
These proposed amendments provide needed updates to the regulations and
align the rule with existing waterway regulations. The proposed
amendments are necessary to protect waterway users, vessels, and
mariners from hazards associated with winter conditions and navigation.

DATES: Comments and related material must be received by the Coast
Guard on or before July 6, 2015.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-
2015-0084 using any one of the following methods:
    (1) Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
    (2) Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (3) Mail: Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S. Department of
Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001.
    (4) Delivery: Same as mail address above, between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The telephone
number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    See the ``Public Participation and Request for Comments'' portion
of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below for instructions on
submitting comments. To avoid duplication, please use only one of these
four methods.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or email LTJG Matthew Stroebel, Ninth Coast Guard District
Prevention; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
If you have questions on viewing or submitting material to the docket,
call Cheryl Collins, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone 202-
366-9826 or 1-800-647-5527.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Acronyms

DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
RNA Regulated Navigation Area

A. Public Participation and Request for Comments

    We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking 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.

1. Submitting Comments

    If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
rulemaking (USCG-2015-0084), indicate the specific section of this
document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each
suggestion or recommendation. You may submit your comments and material
online at http://www.regulations.gov, or by fax, mail, or hand
delivery, but please use only one of these means. If you submit a
comment online, it will be considered received by the Coast Guard when
you successfully transmit the comment. If you fax, hand deliver, or
mail your comment, it will be considered as having been received by the
Coast Guard when it is received at the Docket Management Facility. We
recommend that you include your name and a mailing address, an email
address, or a telephone number in the body of your document so that we
can contact you if we have questions regarding your submission.
    To submit your comment online, go to http://www.regulations.gov,
type the docket number [USCG-2015-0084] in the ``Search'' box and click
``Search.'' Click the ``Comment'' box on the line associated with this
supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking. If you submit your comments
by mail or hand delivery, submit them in an unbound format, no larger
than 8\1/2\ by 11 inches, suitable for copying and electronic filing.
If you submit comments by mail and would like to know that they reached
the Facility, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard or
envelope. We will consider all comments and material received during
the comment period and may change the rule based on your comments.

2. Viewing Comments and Documents

    To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble
as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov,
type the docket number USCG-2015-0084 in the ``SEARCH'' box and click
``Search.'' Click on Open Docket Folder on the line associated with
this rulemaking. You may also visit the Docket Management Facility in
Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the Department of Transportation
West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590,
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. We have an agreement with

the Department of Transportation to use the Docket Management Facility.

3. Privacy Act

    Anyone can search the electronic form of comments received into any
of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or
signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association,
business, labor union, etc.). You may review a Privacy Act notice
regarding our public dockets in the January 17, 2008, issue of the
Federal Register (73 FR 3316).

4. Public Meeting

    We do not now plan to hold a public meeting. You may submit a
request for one using one of the four methods specified under
ADDRESSES. Please explain why you believe a public meeting would be
beneficial. If we determine that one would aid this rulemaking, we will
hold one at a time and place announced by a later notice in the Federal
Register.

B. Regulatory History and Information

    There is no recent regulatory history related to 33 CFR 165.901.
The Coast Guard made a substantive amendment to the rule on August 4,
1983 (48 FR 35402) to adjust the position of the second RNA on Lake
Huron under Sec.  165.901(a)(2).

C. Basis and Purpose

    The legal basis for this rule is the Coast Guard's authority to
establish RNAs and limited access areas: 33 U.S.C. 1231; 46 U.S.C.
Chapter 3306, 3703; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6,
and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
    33 CFR 165.901 lists three Great Lakes RNAs--(1) the waters of Lake
Huron known as South Channel; (2) the waters of Lake Huron between
Mackinac Island and St. Ignace, Michigan; and (3) the waters of Lake
Michigan known as Gray's Reefs passage. Although termed RNAs, these
three areas are actually closure zones. Title 33 CFR 165.901(c) of the
rule authorizes the Captain of the Port (COTP) Sault Sainte Marie to
close and open the RNAs as ice conditions dictate. Normally, closures
take place once in the winter with openings occurring in the spring.
When closed, vessels are prohibited from navigating the RNAs without
COTP authorization.
    The Coast Guard has identified the need for two additional closure
areas on the Great Lakes, specifically, (1) designated waters of Lake
Huron on Saginaw Bay, Michigan; and (2) U.S. waters of Lake Erie in the
vicinity of the South Passage and the Erie Islands, Ohio. The specific
coordinates for these closures areas are set forth in the proposed
regulatory text under Sec.  165.901(a)(1)-(2). These areas attract
recreational ice users during winter months. Vessel traffic would
disrupt ice integrity in these areas and pose risks to these
recreational waterway users, which may include people and vehicles
falling through the ice. To mitigate these risks, the Coast Guard
proposes to establish safety zones to close these areas to vessel
traffic during the winter.
    The Coast Guard also identified the need for three vessel traffic
management areas or RNAs on the Great Lakes. These areas generally
include (1) the waters of Lake Erie known as the Maumee Bay Entrance
Channel; (2) the waters connecting Lake Huron to Lake Michigan known as
the Straits of Mackinac; and (3) the waters of Lake Michigan known as
Green Bay. Specific coordinates for these RNAs are set forth in the
proposed regulatory text under Sec.  165.901(c)(1)-(3). Vessel traffic
ply the waters in these areas during winter months; however, seasonal
ice conditions, which can worsen on short notice, pose risks to vessel
traffic in these areas. To manage these risks, the Coast Guard proposes
to establish RNAs in these areas to regulate vessel movement and
safeguard vessel traffic. During periods of ice-cover, the Coast Guard
anticipates issuing temporary vessel operating requirements, as
provided for under 33 CFR 165.11, to promote the safe passage of
vessels through the RNAs. Bases for these temporary traffic rules
include winter navigation, channel obstructions, unusual weather
conditions, or unusual water levels. Such temporary operating
requirements may include transiting the RNA with an assist tug or
standing fast until conditions permit safe passage.

D. Discussion of Proposed Rule

    In light of the foregoing discussion, the Coast Guard proposes to
amend 33 CFR 165.901 to add two safety zones to protect recreational
ice users and three RNAs to safeguard vessel traffic. In addition, the
three closure areas in the rule, presently termed RNAs, will be
redefined as safety zones. This redefinition will not affect the
position or seasonal implementation of these closure areas. These
proposed amendments will provide regulatory authority for the Coast
Guard (1) to close designated waters on the Great Lakes to vessel
traffic to protect recreational ice users during the winter season; (2)
to manage vessel traffic in designated areas to protect vessels and
mariners from dangers of ice conditions; and (3) to redefine the
existing RNAs in the rule to safety zones. Since the existing closure
areas do not involve vessel traffic management, they are more
appropriately defined as safety zones, which generally provide for the
closure of a waterway in the interest of safety.

E. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this proposed rule after considering numerous statutes
and executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our
analyses based on these statutes and executive orders.

1. Regulatory Planning and Review

    This proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action under
section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review,
and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits
under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and
Budget has not reviewed it under that Order. We conclude that this
proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action because we
anticipate that it will have minimal impact on the economy, will not
interfere with other agencies, will not adversely alter the budget of
any grant or loan recipients, and will not raise any novel legal or
policy issues. The proposed amendments involve closure areas and vessel
management areas, designed to be implemented only during winter months,
as ice conditions dictate. As to the impact of the closure area on Lake
Erie near the South Channel and the Erie Islands, OH, the Coast notes
that industry vessels have taken alternative routes bypassing the Erie
Islands when recreational ice users are present. The Coast Guard
anticipates the same practice when this area is closed. Further,
regarding the closure area on the waters of Lake Huron in Saginaw Bay,
Michigan, the Coast Guard anticipates closing the bay after giving due
consideration to industry's need to traverse the area. Moreover, under
certain circumstances, the Coast Guard may permit vessel traffic to
transit the closure areas. Regarding the three proposed vessel
management areas, they are designed to regulate the conditions of
vessel transit for safety. Overall, we expect the economic impact of
this proposed rule to be minimal and that a full Regulatory Evaluation
is unnecessary.

2. Impact on Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have
considered whether this proposed rule would have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit

organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not
dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with
populations of less than 50,000.
    The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed
rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. This proposed rule may affect the following
entities, some of which might be small entities: the owners or
operators of vessels intending to transit the proposed safety zones and
RNAs during the winter months.
    These proposed amendments will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities for the reasons cited
in the Regulatory Planning and Review section.
    If you think that your business, organization, or governmental
jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have
a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see
ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what
degree this rule would economically affect it.

3. Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this proposed rule so that they can better
evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. If the
rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental
jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or
options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT, above. The Coast Guard will not retaliate
against small entities that question or complain about this proposed
rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.

4. Collection of Information

    This proposed rule would call for no new collection of information
under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520.).

5. Federalism

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local
governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial
direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this proposed rule
under that Order and have determined that it does not have implications
for federalism.

6. Protest Activities

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

7. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

8. Taking of Private Property

    This proposed rule would not cause a taking of private property or
otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630,
Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected
Property Rights.

9. Civil Justice Reform

    This proposed rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and
3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize
litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.

10. Protection of Children

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13045,
Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and would not
create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that might
disproportionately affect children.

11. Indian Tribal Governments

    This proposed rule does not have tribal implications under
Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments, because it would not have a substantial direct effect on
one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

12. Energy Effects

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13211,
Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a ``significant
energy action'' under that order because it is not a ``significant
regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to
have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use
of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy
action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects
under Executive Order 13211.

13. Technical Standards

    The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15
U.S.C. 272) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards in
their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress,
through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why
using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., specifications of materials, performance, design, or
operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management
systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus
standards bodies.
    This proposed rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we
did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

14. Environment

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland
Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction
M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and
have made a preliminary determination that this action is one of a
category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a
significant effect on the human environment. Because this proposed rule
involves amendments to navigation regulations and establishment of a
safety zones, it is categorically excluded under paragraph 34(g) of the
Commandant Instruction. A Categorical Exclusion Determination (CED) and
an environmental analysis checklist are available in the docket where
indicated under ADDRESSES. We seek any comments or information that may
lead to the discovery of a

significant environmental impact from this proposed rule.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

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

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

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

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

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1,
6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No.
0170.1.
0
2. Revise Sec.  165.901 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.901  Great Lakes--regulated navigation areas and safety
zones.

    (a) The following are safety zones:
    (1) Lake Erie. The U.S. waters of Lake Erie at the intersection of
the International Border at 082[deg]55'00'' W., following the
International Border eastward to the intersection of the International
Border at 082[deg]35'00'' W., moving straight south to position
41[deg]25'00'' N., 082[deg]35'00'' W., continuing west to position
41[deg]25'00'' N., 082[deg]55'00'' W., and ending north at the
International Border and 082[deg]55'00'' W.
    (2) Lake Huron. (i) The waters of Lake Huron known as South Channel
between Bois Blanc Island and Cheboygan, Michigan; bounded by a line
north from the mainland at 45[deg]39'48'' N., 84[deg]27'36'' W.; to
Bois Blanc Island at 45[deg]43'42'' N., 84[deg]27'36'' W.; and a line
north from the mainland at 45[deg]43'00'' N., 84[deg]35'30'' W.; to the
western tangent of Bois Blanc Island at 45[deg]48'42'' N.,
84[deg]35'30'' W.
    (ii) The waters of Lake Huron between Mackinac Island and St.
Ignace, Michigan, bounded by a line east from position 45[deg]52'12''
N., 84[deg]43'00'' W.; to Mackinac Island at 45[deg]52'12'' N.,
84[deg]39'00'' W.; and a line east from the mainland at 45[deg]53'12''
N., 84[deg]43'30'' W.; to the northern tangent of Mackinac Island at
45[deg]53'12'' N., 84[deg]38'48'' W.
    (iii) The waters of Lake Huron known as Saginaw Bay, Michigan;
bounded by a line from Port Austin Reef Light (LL-10275) at
44[deg]04'55'' N., 082[deg]58'57'' W.; to Tawas Light (LL-11240) at
44[deg]15'13'' N., 083[deg]26'58'' W.; to Saginaw Bay Range Front Light
(LL-10550) at 43[deg]38'54'' N., 083[deg]51'06'' W.; then to the point
of beginning.
    (3) Lake Michigan. The waters of Lake Michigan known as Gray's Reef
Passage bounded by a line from Gray's Reef Light (LL-2006) at
45[deg]46'00'' N., 85[deg]09'12'' W.; to White Shoals Light (LL-2003)
at 45[deg]50'30'' N., 85[deg]08'06'' W.; to a point at 45[deg]49'12''
N., 85[deg]04'48'' W.; then to a point at 45[deg]45'42'' N.,
85[deg]08'42'' W.; then to the point of beginning.
    (b) Regulations. The District Commander or respective Captain of
the Port (COTP) will enforce these safety zones as ice conditions
dictate. Under normal seasonal conditions, only one closing each winter
and one opening each spring are anticipated. Prior to closing or
opening these safety zones, the District Commander or respective COTP
will give the public advance notice, not less than 72 hours prior to
the closure. The general regulations in 33 CFR 165.23 apply. The
District Commander or respective COTP retains the discretion to permit
vessels to enter/transit a closed safety zone under certain
circumstances.
    (c) The following are regulated navigation areas (RNAs):
    (1) Lake Erie. The waters of Lake Erie known as the Maumee Bay
Entrance Channel between Maumee Bay Entrance Channel Light at
41[deg]49'32'' N., 083[deg]11'37'' W.; and Grassy Island at
41[deg]42'23'' N., 083[deg]26'49'' W.
    (2) Straits of Mackinac. The waters connecting Lake Huron to Lake
Michigan known as the Straits of Mackinac from Lansing Shoal Light at
45[deg]54'8'' N., 085[deg]33'25'' W. southwest to 45[deg]50'7'' N.,
085[deg]34'3'' W. to Old Mackinac Point Lighthouse at 45[deg]47'36''
N., 084[deg]44'23'' W. eastward to Bois Blanc Island at 45[deg]49'7''
N., 084[deg]34'28'' W. then northwest to Mackinaw Island at
45[deg]51'5'' N., 084[deg]36'19'' W., encompassing Round Island,
westward to the northern point of the Mackinaw Bridge at 45[deg]50'57''
N., 084[deg]43'47'' W. and returning to the beginning at Lansing Shoal
Light.
    (3) Green Bay. The waters of Lake Michigan known as Green Bay from
Rock Island Passage or Porte Des Morts Passage north to Escanaba Light
at 45[deg]44'48'' N., 087[deg]02'14'' W.; south to the Fox River
Entrance at 44[deg]32'22'' N., 088[deg]00'19'' W., to the Sturgeon Bay
Ship Canal from Sherwood Point Light at 44[deg]53'34'' N.,
087[deg]26'00'' W.; to Sturgeon Bay Ship Canal Light at 44[deg]47'42''
N., 087[deg]18'48'' W.; and then to the point of beginning.
    (d) Regulations. In the RNAs under paragraph (c) of this section,
the District Commander or respective COTP may issue orders to control
vessel traffic for reasons which include but are not limited to:
channel obstructions, winter navigation, unusual weather conditions, or
unusual water levels. Prior to issuing these orders, the District
Commander or respective COTP will provide advance notice as reasonably
practicable under the circumstances. The general regulations in 33 CFR
165.13 apply. The District Commander or respective COTP retains the
discretion to authorize vessels to operate outside of issued orders.

    Dated: May 4, 2015.
F. M. Midgette,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Ninth Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2015-11804 Filed 5-21-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register: March 31, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 62)]
[Notices]
[Page 16923]
[DOCID:fr31mr08-125]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Notice of Intent To Request Revision From the Office of
Management and Budget of a Currently Approved Information Collection
Activity, Request for Comments; Federal Aviation Administration, SWIFT
Customer Satisfaction Survey

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA invites public comments about our intention to request
the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to approve a current
information collection. This collection of information is necessary to
determine how satisfied applicants are with the automated staffing
solution.

DATES: Please submit comments by May 30, 2008.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carla Mauney on<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by
e-mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)

    Title: Federal Aviation Administration, SWIFT Customer Satisfaction
Survey.
    Type of Request: Extension of an approved collection.
    OMB Control Number: 2120-0699.
    Forms(s): There are no FAA forms associated with this collection.
    Affected Public: A total of 50,000 Respondents.
    Frequency: The information is collected on occasion.
    Estimated Average Burden Per Response: Approximately 3 minutes per
response.
    Estimated Annual Burden Hours: An estimated 2,500 hours annually.
    Abstract: This collection of information is necessary to determine
how satisfied applicants are with the automated staffing solution. The
information will enable the FAA to improve and enhance its automated
staffing process.

ADDRESSES: Send comments to the FAA at the following address: Ms. Carla
Mauney, Room 712, Federal Aviation Administration, IT Enterprises
Business Services Division, AES-200, 800 Independence Ave., SW.,
Washington, DC 20591.
    Comments are Invited On: Whether the proposed collection of
information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of
the Department, including whether the information will have practical
utility; the accuracy of the Department's estimates of the burden of
the proposed information collection; ways to enhance the quality,
utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways to
minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents,
including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of
information technology.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on March 20, 2008.
Carla Mauney,
FAA Information Collection Clearance Officer, IT Enterprises Business
Services Division, AES-200.
[FR Doc. E8-6341 Filed 3-28-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-M