[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 149 (Wednesday, August 3, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 46626-46628]
[FR Doc No: 2011-19604]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket No. USCG-2011-0717]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone; Discovery World Private Wedding Firework Displays,
Milwaukee, WI

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone on the
waters of Milwaukee Harbor in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. This zone is
intended to restrict vessels from a portion of Milwaukee Harbor during
two separate firework displays on July 31, 2011 and August 26, 2011.
This temporary safety zone is necessary to protect spectators and
vessels from the hazards associated with these firework displays.

DATES: This rule is in the CFR on August 3, 2011 through 10:30 p.m. on
August 26, 2011. This rule is effective with actual notice for purposes
of enforcement at 9:30 p.m. on July 31, 2011.

ADDRESSES: Documents indicated in this preamble as being available in
the docket are part of docket USCG-2011-0717 and are available online
by going to http://www.regulations.gov, inserting USCG-2011-0717 in the
Docket ID box, and then clicking ``search.'' They are also available
for inspection or copying at the 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, between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this
temporary rule, contact or e-mail BM1 Adam Kraft, U.S. Coast Guard
Sector Lake Michigan, at<PHONE_NUMBER> or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you
have questions on viewing the docket, call Renee V. Wright, Program
Manager, Docket Operations, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Regulatory Information

    The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary final rule without prior
notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section
4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This
provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and
opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those
procedures are ``impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public
interest.'' Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good
cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
with respect to this rule because waiting for a notice and comment
period to run would be impracticable and contrary to the public
interest. Notice of this fireworks display was not received in
sufficient time for the Coast Guard to solicit public comments before
the start of the event. Thus, waiting for a notice and comment period
to run would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest
because it would inhibit the Coast Guard's ability to protect the
public from the hazards associated with these maritime fireworks
displays.
    Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause
exists for making this rule effective less than 30-days after
publication in the Federal Register. For the same reasons discussed in
the preceding paragraph, waiting for a 30 day notice period to run

would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest.

Background and Purpose

    The Discovery World Private Wedding fireworks are a City permitted
fireworks display that will occur twice over Milwaukee's Harbor in
Milwaukee, Wisconsin. The fireworks for these two events will be
launched from 9:30 p.m. until 10:30 p.m. on both July 31, 2011 and
August 26, 2011. The Captain of the Port, Sector Lake Michigan has
determined that these firework displays present significant hazards to
vessels and spectators in the vicinity of the launch site.

Discussion of Rule

    Because of the aforesaid hazards, the Captain of the Port, Sector
Lake Michigan has determined that a temporary safety zone is necessary
to ensure the safety of spectators and vessels during the setup,
loading, and launching of the fireworks display. Accordingly, this
temporary safety zone will encompass all waters of Milwaukee Harbor in
the vicinity of the Discovery World pier in Milwaukee Wisconsin within
a 700 foot radius from the fireworks launch site located on a land in
position 43[deg]02'11'' N, 087[deg]53'37'' W. (DATUM: NAD 83).
    All persons and vessels shall comply with the instructions of the
Coast Guard Captain of the Port, Sector Lake Michigan, or his or her
designated representative. Entry into, transiting, or anchoring within
the safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the
Port, Sector Lake Michigan, or his or her designated representative.
The Captain of the Port, Sector Lake Michigan, or his or her designated
representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16.

Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and
executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses
based on 13 of these statutes or executive orders.

Regulatory Planning and Review

    This 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.
    It is not ``significant'' under the regulatory policies and
procedures of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). We conclude
that this 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 safety zone will be relatively small in size and
will exist for only one hour on two specific days. Thus, restrictions
on vessel movement within the particular area are expected to be
minimal. Under certain conditions, moreover, vessels may still transit
through the safety zone when permitted by the Captain of the Port.

Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have
considered whether this rule will 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 rule will
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities.
    This rule will affect the following entities, some of which might
be small entities: The owners or operators of vessels intending to
transit or anchor in the affected portion of Milwaukee Harbor near
Discovery World pier in Milwaukee Wisconsin, between 9:30 p.m. and
10:30 p.m. on both July 31, 2011 and August 26, 2011.
    This temporary safety zone will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following
reasons: During each of the two displays, the zone in this regulation
will only be in effect for 60 minutes, and vessel traffic can safely
pass outside the safety zone during the event. In the event that this
temporary safety zone affects shipping, commercial vessels may request
permission from the Captain of The Port, Sector Lake Michigan, to
transit through the safety zone. The Coast Guard will give notice to
the public via a Broadcast to Mariners that the regulation is in
effect.

Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we offer to assist small
entities in understanding the rule so that they could better evaluate
its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking process.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or
action of the Coast Guard.

Collection of Information

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

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 rule under
that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for
federalism.

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 or more in any
one year. Though this rule will not result in such expenditure, we do
discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.

Taking of Private Property

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

Civil Justice Reform

    This 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.

Protection of Children

    We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection
of

Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is
not an economically significant rule and does not concern an
environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may
disproportionately affect children.

Indian Tribal Governments

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

Energy Effects

    We have analyzed this 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.

Technical Standards

    The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15
U.S.C. 272 note) 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 rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not
consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

Environment

    We have analyzed this 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 concluded
this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or
cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This
rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(g), of
the Instruction because it involves the establishment of a temporary
safety zone.
    An environmental analysis checklist and a categorical exclusion
determination are available in the docket where indicated under
ADDRESSES.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

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

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

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

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

    Authority:  33 U.S.C. 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701, 3306, 3703;
50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Pub.
L. 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security
Delegation No. 0170.1.

0
2. Add Sec.  165.T09-0717 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T09-0717  Safety Zone; Discovery World Private Party
Fireworks Display, Milwaukee, Wisconsin.

    (a) Location. The following area is a temporary safety zone: All
waters of Milwaukee Harbor, in the vicinity of the Discovery World pier
in Milwaukee Wisconsin, within a 700 foot radius from the fireworks
launch site located on land in position 43[deg]02[min]11[sec] N,
087[deg]53[min]37[sec] W.
    (b) Effective and enforcement period. This rule will be effective
and enforced from 9:30 p.m. to 10:30 p.m. on both July 31, 2011 and
again on August 26, 2011.
    (c) Regulations.
    (1) In accordance with the general regulations in section 165.23 of
this part, entry into, transiting, or anchoring within this safety zone
is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port, Sector Lake
Michigan, or his or her designated representative.
    (2) This safety zone is closed to all vessel traffic, except as may
be permitted by the Captain of the Port, Sector Lake Michigan, or his
or her designated representative.
    (3) The ``designated representative'' of the Captain of the Port,
Sector Lake Michigan, is any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant or petty
officer who has been designated by the Captain of the Port, Sector Lake
Michigan, to act on his or her behalf. The designated representative of
the Captain of the Port, Sector Lake Michigan, will be aboard either a
Coast Guard or Coast Guard Auxiliary vessel.
    (4) Vessel operators desiring to enter or operate within the safety
zone shall contact the Captain of the Port, Sector Lake Michigan, or
his or her designated representative to obtain permission to do so. The
Captain of the Port, Sector Lake Michigan, or his or her designated
representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16.
    (5) Vessel operators given permission to enter or operate in the
safety zone must comply with all directions given to them by the
Captain of the Port, Sector Lake Michigan, or his or her designated
representative.

    Dated: July 21, 2011.
M.W. Sibley,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port, Sector Lake Michigan.
[FR Doc. 2011-19604 Filed 8-2-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 212 (Thursday, November 3, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 66297-66298]
[FR Doc No: 2022-23926]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OA-2022-0053; FRL-10358-01-OA]

National Environmental Justice Advisory Council; Notification of
Public Meeting

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notification for a public meeting.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) hereby provides notice that
the National Environmental Justice Advisory Council (NEJAC) will meet
on the dates and times described below. The meeting is open to the
public. For additional information about registering to attend the
meeting or to provide public comment, please see ``REGISTRATION'' under
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION. Pre-Registration is required.

DATES: The NEJAC will convene a hybrid in-person public meeting with a
virtual option. The public meeting will start on Tuesday, November 29,
2022, at approximately 2:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m., Eastern Time. The NEJAC
meeting continues Wednesday, November 30, 2022, from approximately 9:00
a.m. to 7:00 p.m., through Thursday, December 1, 2022, from
approximately 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Eastern Time. The meeting
discussions will focus on several topics including, but not limited to,
workgroup activity, final recommendations for council consideration,
and charges created through collaborations with various EPA national
program offices. A public comment period relevant to the way in which
environmental justice (EJ) and equity are incorporated into finance and
investments at the Environmental Protection Agency will be considered
by the NEJAC at the meeting (see SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION). Members of
the public who wish to participate during the public comment period
must register by 11:59 p.m., Eastern Time, November 23, 2022.

ADDRESSES: The NEJAC meeting will be held at The Westin Alexandria Old
Town, 400 Courthouse Square, Alexandria, Virginia, USA, 22314-5700.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paula Flores-Gregg, NEJAC Designated
Federal Officer, U.S. EPA; email: [email protected]; telephone number:
(214) 665-8123. Additional information about the NEJAC is available at
https://www.epa.gov/environmentaljustice/national-environmental-justice-advisory-council.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Charter of the NEJAC states that the
advisory committee ``will provide independent advice and
recommendations to the Administrator about broad, cross-cutting issues
related to environmental justice. The NEJAC's efforts will include
evaluation of a broad range of strategic, scientific, technological,
regulatory, community engagement and economic issues related to
environmental justice.''

I. Registration

    Individual registration is required for the public meeting. No two
individuals can share the same registration link. Information on how to
register is located at https://www.epa.gov/environmentaljustice/national-environmental-justice-advisory-council-meetings. Registration
to attend the meeting is available through the scheduled meeting days.
The deadline to sign up to speak during the public comment period will
close at 11:59 p.m., Eastern Time, November 23, 2022. When registering,
please provide your name, organization, city and state, and email
address. Please also indicate whether you would like to provide oral
public comment during the meeting, or whether you are submitting
written comments at time of registration.

A. Public Comment

    The NEJAC is interested in receiving public comments on several
topics including, but not limited to, the way in which environmental
justice (EJ) and equity are incorporated into finance and investments
at the Environmental Protection Agency. The NEJAC would also like
feedback on the related topics of measuring demonstrable outcomes;
prioritizing resources in legacy communities; addressing harmful air,
soil, water; and other environmental impacts in U.S. states,
territories, and tribal nations. Every effort will be made to hear from
as many registered oral public commenters during the time specified on
the agenda. Individuals or groups making remarks during the oral public
comment period will be limited to three (3) minutes. Please be prepared
to briefly describe your comments; including your recommendations on
what you want the NEJAC to advise the EPA to do. Submitting written

comments for the record are strongly encouraged. You can submit your
written comments in three different ways, (1.) by using the webform at
https://www.epa.gov/environmentaljustice/forms/national-environmental-justice-advisory-council-nejac-public-comment, (2.) by sending comments
via email to [email protected] and (3.) by creating comments in the Docket
ID No. EPA-HQ-OA-2022-0053 at http://www.regulations.gov. Written
comments can be submitted through December 14, 2022.

B. Information About Services for Individuals With Disabilities or
Requiring English language Translation Assistance

    For information about access or services for individuals requiring
assistance, please contact Paula Flores-Gregg, at<PHONE_NUMBER> or via
email at [email protected]. To request special accommodations for a
disability or other assistance, please submit your request at least
fourteen (14) working days prior to the meeting, to give EPA sufficient
time to process your request. All requests should be sent to the email
or phone number listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

Matthew Tejada,
Deputy Assistant Administrator for Environmental Justice, Office of
Environmental Justice and External Civil Rights.
[FR Doc. 2022-23926 Filed 11-2-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 61 (Tuesday, March 31, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 17136-17137]
[FR Doc No: 2015-07324]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

RIN 2120-AA66

Record of Decision To Adopt U.S. Air Force Final Environmental
Impact Statement for the Powder River Training Complex

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of record of decision.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with Section 102 of the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (``NEPA''), the Council on Environmental Quality's
(``CEQ'') regulations implementing NEPA (40 CFR parts 1500-1508), and
other applicable authorities, including FAA Order 1050.1E,
Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures, paragraph 518h, and FAA
Order JO 7400.2K, ``Procedures for Handling Airspace Matters,''
paragraph 32-2-3, the FAA has conducted an independent review and
evaluation of the Air Force's Final Environmental Impact Statement
(FEIS) for the proposed expansion of airspace for the Powder River
Training

Complex (PRTC), dated November 28, 2014. As a cooperating agency with
responsibility for approving special use airspace under 49 U.S.C.
40103(b)(3)(A), the FAA provided subject matter expertise and closely
coordinated with the Air Force during the environmental review process,
including preparation of the Draft EIS and the FEIS. Based on its
independent review and evaluation, the FAA has determined the FEIS,
including its supporting documentation, as incorporated by reference,
adequately assesses and discloses the environmental impacts of the
proposed expansion of airspace for PRTC, and that adoption of the FEIS
by the FAA is authorized under 40 CFR 1506.3, Adoption.
    Accordingly, the FAA adopts the FEIS, and takes full responsibility
for the scope and content that addresses the proposed expansion of
airspace for PRTC.

DATES: Effective date: March 31, 2015.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: William Burris, Airspace Policy and
Regulations Group, Office of Airspace Services, Federal Aviation
Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591;
telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    In August 2010, in accordance with the National Environmental
Policy Act and its implementing regulations, the Air Force released a
Draft EIS. The Draft EIS presented the potential environmental
consequences of the Air Force's proposal to improve training for
primarily bomber aircrews assigned to Ellsworth Air Force Base (AFB)
and Minot AFB.
    As a result of public, agency, and tribal comments during the 100-
day public comment period on the Draft EIS, and the FAA aeronautical
review process, the Air Force, FAA, other federal and state agencies,
and tribal governments have consulted to mitigate concerns while
continuing to meet national defense training requirements. The Air
Force participated in continued communication, consultation, and/or
meetings with state agencies and tribal representatives from 2008
through 2014. Consultation and coordination on potential environmental
and related impacts will continue after completion of the FEIS. The Air
Force is the proponent for the PRTC and is the lead agency for the
preparation of the FEIS. The FAA is a cooperating agency responsible
for approving special use airspace as defined in 40 CFR 1508.5.

Implementation

    As a result of the public comments received, the aeronautical
studies, environmental analysis, and the USAF using agency and FAA
controlling agency concurrence on mitigation measures to address public
issues and aeronautical impacts, the FAA is establishing the PRTC MOAs
as circularized to the public from February through May 2014, with two
minor boundary adjustments. The adjustments include a larger cutout in
the southern boundary of the PR-2 Low and High MOAs for arrivals and
departures into Hulett, WY, and an adjustment of the southern
boundaries of the Gap B and Gap C MOAs to avoid the Gap B MOAs
extending across VOR Federal airway V-491.
    The legal descriptions for the PRTC MOAs being established, as
noted in this notice, will be published in the NFDD with a September
17, 2015 effective date.
    Activating or scheduling the Powder River PR-1A-D Low, PR-3 Low,
Gap A Low, and Gap B Low MOAs is not authorized until communication
coverage is established by the USAF for these areas. This ensures the
ability to recall airspace for civil IFR use. The following conditions
must be accomplished prior to FAA approval for activating or scheduling
the Low MOAs:
    1. The USAF must notify Manager, Airspace Policy and Regulations
when the communications capability mitigation described in the FEIS is
established.
    2. The FAA must accept that the communications capability
established by the USAF complies with the mitigation described in the
FEIS. If no validation information is provided with the USAF notice,
the FAA will request it. The communication capability acceptance is to
be accomplished by the Airspace Policy and Regulations Group in concert
with the Central Service Center Operations Support Group (OSG).
    3. The FAA controlling agencies and USAF using agency must
establish MOA recall procedures which will enable controlling agencies
to recall the low MOA airspace whenever necessary to allow IFR aircraft
access to and from public use airports underlying the MOA.
    4. The USAF must accomplish public outreach to all known aviation
interested persons, organizations, and offices within 50 miles of the
PRTC 60-days prior to the first planned scheduling and use of the PRTC
Low MOAs once the conditions above are accomplished.
    Upon completion of the conditions established above for the
scheduling and activating of the PRTC Low MOAs identified, the USAF
will be authorized to schedule and use all PRTC MOAs consistent with
their designated purpose.
    A copy of the FAA Record of Decision is available on the FAA Web
site.
    Right of Appeal: The Adoption/ROD for the expansion of PRTC
constitutes a final order of the FAA Administrator and is subject to
exclusive judicial review under 49 U.S.C. 46110 by the U.S. Circuit
Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia or the U.S. Circuit Court
of Appeals for the circuit in which the person contesting the decision
resides or has its principal place of business. Any party having
substantial interest in this order may apply for review of the decision
by filing a petition for review in the appropriate U.S. Court of
Appeals no later than 60 days after the date of this notice in
accordance with the provisions of 49 U.S.C. 46110. Any party seeking to
stay implementation of the action as stated in the ROD must file an
application with the FAA prior to seeking judicial relief as provided
in Rule 18(a) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on March 25, 2015.
Jacqueline R. Jackson,
Acting Manager, Airspace Policy and Regulations Group.
[FR Doc. 2015-07324 Filed 3-30-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 24 (Friday, February 5, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Page 6259]
[FR Doc No: 2016-02311]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-9941-98-Region 4]

Availability of FY 13 Grantee Performance Evaluation Reports for
the Eight States of EPA Region 4 and 17 Local Agencies

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of availability; Clean Air Act Section 105 grantee
performance evaluation reports.

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

SUMMARY: EPA's grant regulations (40 CFR 35.115) require the Agency to
evaluate the performance of agencies which receive grants. EPA's
regulations for regional consistency (40 CFR 56.7) require that the
Agency notify the public of the availability of the reports of such
evaluations. EPA performed end-of-year evaluations of eight state air
pollution control programs (Alabama Department of Environmental
Management; Florida Department of Environmental Protection; Georgia
Department of Natural Resources; Commonwealth of Kentucky Energy and
Environment Cabinet; Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality;
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources; South
Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control; and Tennessee
Department of Environment and Conservation) and 17 local programs (City
of Huntsville Division of Natural Resources, AL; Jefferson County
Department of Health, AL; Broward County Environmental Protection and
Growth Management Department, FL; City of Jacksonville Environmental
Quality Division, FL; Hillsborough County Environmental Protection
Commission, FL; Miami-Dade County Air Quality Management Division, FL;
Orange County Environmental Protection Division, FL; Palm Beach County
Health Department, FL; Pinellas County Parks and Conservation
Resources, FL; Louisville Metro Air Pollution Control District, KY;
Forsyth County Environmental Affairs Department, NC; Mecklenburg County
Land Use and Environmental Services Agency, NC; Western North Carolina
Regional Air Quality Agency, NC; Chattanooga-Hamilton County Air
Pollution Control Bureau, TN; Shelby County Health Department, TN; Knox
County Department of Air Quality Management, TN; and Metropolitan
Government of Nashville and Davidson County Public Health Department,
TN). The 25 evaluations were conducted to assess the agencies' Fiscal
Year 2011 performance under the grants awarded by EPA under authority
of section 105 of the Clean Air Act. EPA Region 4 has prepared reports
for each agency identified above and these reports are now available
for public inspection.

ADDRESSES: The reports may be examined at the EPA's Region 4 office, 61
Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303, in the Air, Pesticides and
Toxics Management Division. The Regional Office's official hours of
business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding federal
holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gwendolyn Graf<PHONE_NUMBER> for
information concerning the states and local agencies of Alabama;
Tennessee and the state agency of South Carolina; Angela Isom (404)
562-9092 for the state and local agencies of Florida; Mary Echols (404)
562-9053 for the state agency of Georgia; and Shantel Shelmon (404)
562-9817 for the state and local agencies of North Carolina and
Kentucky and the state agency of Mississippi. They may be contacted at
the Region 4 address mentioned in the previous section of this notice.
    Identification of document: Notice of availability of FY 2013
grantee performance evaluation reports as required by the Clean Air Act
Section 105.

    Dated: November 2, 2015.
Heather McTeer Toney,
Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. 2016-02311 Filed 2-4-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


Notice of Filing of Pesticide Petition 8E7411 by Interregional Research Project #4 (IR-4), 500 College Road East, Suite 201, Princeton, NJ  08540

EPA Registration Division contact: Susan Stanton ;<PHONE_NUMBER>

	EPA has received a pesticide petition (petition number  8E7411) from Interregional Research Project #4 (IR-4), 500 College Road East, Suite 201, Princeton, NJ  08540 proposing, pursuant to section 408(d) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d), to amend 40 CFR part 180. 565 by establishing a tolerance for residues of thiamethoxam {3-[(2-chloro-5-thiazolyl)methyl]tetrahydro-5-methyl-N-nitro-4H-1,3,5-oxadiazin-4-imine}(CAS Reg. No. 153719-23-4) and its metabolite [N-(2-chloro-thiazol-5-ylmethyl)-N'-methyl-N'-nitro-guanidine] in or on vegetable, root, subgroup 1A (0.04 ppm), avocado (0.2 ppm), black sapote (0.2 ppm), canistel (0.2 ppm), mamey sapote (0.2 ppm), mango (0.2 ppm), papaya (0.2 ppm), sapodilla (0.2 ppm), star apple (0.2 ppm). In addition, IR-4 is requesting the tolerance expression for the Berry Crop Group 13 be revised to become the Berry and Small Fruit Crop Group 13 as per the Pesticide Tolerance Crop Grouping Program published in the Federal Register vol. 72, No. 235, Dec. 7, 2007. The proposed new tolerance expressions for the Berry and Small Fruit Crop group 13 are as follows: Caneberry subgroup 13-07A (0.35 ppm), Bushberry subgroup 13-07B, (0.2 ppm), Fruit, small, vine climbing subgroup 13-07F, except fuzzy kiwifruit (0.2 ppm), Low growing berry subgroup 13-07G except cranberry (0.3 ppm).  The existing tolerance on cranberry at 0.02 ppm will not be changed.   Also, IR-4 is requesting the following tolerance be deleted: Vegetable, root, except sugar beet, subgroup 1B (0.02 ppm), Caneberry subgroup 13A (0.35 ppm), Bushberry subgroup 13B (0.20 ppm), Grape (0.20 ppm), Strawberry (0.30 ppm), Lingonberry (0.20 ppm), Juneberry (0.20 ppm), Salal (0.20 ppm). EPA has determined that the petition contains data or information regarding the elements set forth in section 408 (d)(2) of  FDDCA; however, EPA has not fully evaluated the sufficiency of the submitted data at this time or whether the data supports granting of the petition. Additional data may be needed before EPA rules on the petition.

A. Residue Chemistry

	1. Plant metabolism.  [The primary metabolic pathways of thiamethoxam in plants (corn, rice, pears, and cucumbers) were similar to those described for animals, with certain extensions of the pathway in plants.  Parent compound and CGA-322704 were the major residues in all crops.  The metabolism of thiamethoxam in plants and animals is understood for the purposes of the proposed tolerance.  Parent thiamethoxam and the metabolite, CGA-322704, are the residues of concern for tolerance setting purposes.]

	2. Analytical method. [Syngenta Crop Protection, Inc. has submitted practical analytical methodology for detecting and measuring levels of thiamethoxam in or on raw agricultural commodities.  This method is based on crop specific cleanup procedures and determination by liquid chromatography with either UV or MS detections.  The limit of detection (LOD) for each analyte of this method is 1.25 ng injected for samples analyzed by UV and 0.25 ng injected for samples analyzed by MS, and the limit of quantification (LOQ) is 0.005 ppm for milk and juices, and 0.01 ppm for all other substrates]

	3. Magnitude of residues. [Syngenta Crop Protection, Inc. has submitted complete residue data for thiamethoxam on avocado (representing the tropical fruit subgroup containing avocado, black sapote, canistel, mamey sapote, mango, papaya, sapodilla, and star apple) and thiamethoxam on sugar beets (representing sugar beet roots, refined sugar, molasses and dried pulp)]

B. Toxicological Profile

	1. Acute toxicity.  [The acute oral LD50 for thiamethoxam in the rat is 1563 mg/kg body weight.  The acute dermal LD50 of thiamethoxam is >2000 mg/kg body weight.  Thiamethoxam is non-toxic at atmospheric concentrations of 3.72 mg/l.  Thiamthoxam is minimally irritating to the eye, non-irritaing to skin and is not a dermal sensitizer.

In an acute neurotoxicity study in rats (OPPTS 870.6200a), the NOAEL was 100 mg/kg/day with a NOAEL of 500 mg/kg/day based on drooped palpebral closure, decrease in rectal temperature and locomotor activity and increase in forelimb grip strenght (males only).  At higher dose levels, mortality, abnormal body tone, ptosis, impaired respiration, tremors, longer latency to first step in the open field, crouched over posture, gait impairment, hypo-arousal, decreased number of rears, uncoordinated landing during the righting reflex test, slight lacrimation (females only) and higher mean average input stimulus value in the auditory startle response test (males only).]

	2. Genotoxicty. [In gene mutation studies with S. typhimurium and E. coli (OPPTS 870.5100 and 870.5265, there was no evidence of gene mutation when tested up to 5000 g/plate and there was no evidence of cytoxicity.

In a gene mutation study with chinese hamster V79 cells at HGPRT focus (OPPTS 870.5300) there was no evidence of gene mutation when tested up to the solubility limit.

In a CHO cell cytogenetics study (OPPTS 870.5375) there was no evidence of chromosomal aberrations when tested up to cytotoxic or solubility limit concentrations.

An in vivo mouse bonemarrow micronucleus study (OPPTS 870.5395) was negative when tested upto levels of toxicity in whole animals; however, no evidence of target cell cytoxicity.  A UDS assay (OPPTS 870.5550) was negative when tested up to precipitating concentrations.]

	3. Reproductive and developmental toxicity. [A prenatal developmental study in the rat (OPPTS 870.3700a) resulted in Maternal and Developmental NOAELs of 30 mg/kg/day and 200 mg/kg/day, respectively.  The maternal LOAEL is 200 mg/kg/day based on decreased body weight, body weight gain and food consumption.  The developmental LOAEL was 750 mg/kg/day based on decreased fetal body weight and an increased incidenceof skeletal anomalies.

A prenatal developmental study in the rabbit (OPPTS 870.3700b) resulted in maternal and developmental NOAELs of 50 mg/kg/day.  The maternal and develomental LOAEL is 150 mg/kg/day.  The maternal LOAEL is based on maternal deaths, hemorrhagic discharge, decreased body weight and food intake during the dosing period.  The developmental LOAEL is based on decreased fetal body weights, increased incidence of post-implantation loss and a slight increase in the incidence of skeletal anomalies/variations.

In a reproduction and fertility effects study in rats (OPPTS 870.3800) the Parental/sytemic NOAEL is 1.84 (males), 202.06 (females) mg/kg/day; the reproductive NOAEL is 0.61 (males), 202.06 (females) mg/kg/day and the offspring NOAEL is 61.25 (males), 79.20 (females) mg/kg/day.  The parental /sytemic LOAEL is 61.25 (males), not determined (females) mg/kg/day based on inscreased incidence of hyaline change in renal tubules in F0 and F1 males.  The reproductive LOAEL is 1.84 (males), not determined (females) mg/kg/day based on increased incidence and severity of tubular atrophy observed in testes of the F1 generation males.  The offspring LOAEL is 158.32 (males), 202.06 (females) mg/kg/day based on reduced body weight gain during lactation period in all litters.]

	4. Subchronic toxicity. [A 90 day oral toxicity study in rats (OPPTS 870.3100) resulted in a NOAEL of 1.74 (males, 92.5 (females) mg/kg/day.  The LOAEL is 17.4 (male), 182.1 (female) mg/kg/day based on increased incidence of hyaline change or renal tubules epithelium (males), fatty change in adrenal gland of females, liver changes in females, all at the LOAEL. A 90 day oral toxicity in mice (OPPTS 870.3100) resulted in a NOAEL of 1.41 (males, 19.2 (females) mg/kg/day.  The LOAEL was 14.3 (male) 231 (female) mg/kg/day based on increased incidence of hepatocellular hpertrophy.  At higher dose levels: decrease in body weight and body weight gain, necrosis of individual hepatocytes, pigmentation of Kupffer cells, and lymphocytic infiltration of the liver in both sexes; slight hematologic effects and decreased absolute and erlative kidney weights in males; and ovarion atrophy, decreased ovary and spleen weights and increased liver weights in females.

In a 90 day oral toxicity in dogs (OPPTS 870.3150), the NOAEL is 8.23 (males), 9.27 (females) mg/kg/day.  The LOAEL is 32.0 (male), 33.9 (female) mg/kg/day based on slightly prolonged prothrombin times and decreased plasma albumin and A/G ration (both sexes; decreased calcium levels and ovary weights and delayed maturation in the ovaries (female); decreased cholesterol and phospholipid levels, testis weights, spermatogenesis, and spermatic giant cells in testes (male).

In a 28 day dermal study in rats (OPPTS 870.3200) the NOAEL was 250 (male), 60 (female) mg/kg/day.  The LOAEL was 1000 (male), 250 (female) mg/kg/day based on increased plasma glucose, triglyceride levels, and alkaline phosphatase activity and inflammatory cell infiltration in the liver and necrosis if single hepatocyts in females and hhaline change in renal tubules and a very slight reduction in body weight in males.  At higher dose levels in females, chronic tubular lesions in the kidneys and inflammatory cell infiltration in the adrenal cortex were observed.

In a subchronic neurotoxicity screening study in rats  (OPPTS 870.6200b) the NOAEL was 95.4 (male), 216.4 (female) mg/kg/day, both at the highest dose tested.  The LOAEL was not determined.  No treatment related observations at any dose level.  LOAEL was not achieved.  May not have been tested at sufficient high dose levels; however, a new study is not required because the weight of evidence from other toxicity studies indicates no evidence of concern.]

	5. Chronic toxicity. [ In a chronic toxicity study in dogs (OPPTS 870.4100) the NOAEL was 4.05 (male), 4.49 (female) mg/kg/day.  The LOAEL was 21.0 (male), 24.6 (female) mg/kg/day based on increase in creatinine in both sexes, transient decease in food consumption in females, and occasional increase in urea levels, decrease in ALT, and atrophy of seminiferous tubules in males.

In a mouse carcinogenicity study (OPPTS 870.4200) the NOAEL was 2.63 (male), 3.68 (female) mg/kg/day.  The LOAEL was 63.8 (male), 87.6 (female) mg/kg/day based on hepatocyte hypertrophy, single cell necrosis, inflammatory cell infiltration, pigment deposition, foci of cellular alteration, hyperplasia of Kupffer cells and increased mitotic activity, also an increase in the incidence of hepatocellular adenoma (both sexes).  At higher doses, there was an increase in the incidence of hepatocellular adenocarcinoma (both sexes) and the number of animals with multiple tumors, evidence of carcinogenicity.

In a combined carcinogenicity study in rats (OPPTS 870.4300) the NOAEL was 21.0 (male), 50.3 (female) mg/kg/day.  The LOAEL was 63.0 (male), 255 (female) mg/kg/day based on the increased incidence of lymphocytic infiltration of the renal pelvis and chronic nephropathy in males and decreased body weight gain, slight increase in the severity of hemosiderosis of the spleen, foci of cellular alteration in liver and chronic tubular lesions in kidney in females.  No evidence of carcinogenicity.

In a hepatic cell proliferation study in mice, the NOAEL was 16 (male), 20 (female) mg/kg/day.  The LOAEL was 72 (male), 87 (female) mg/kg/day based on proliferative activity of hepatocytes.  At higher dose levels, increases in absolute and relative liver weights, speckled liver, haptocellular glycogenisis/fatty change, heptocellular necrosis, apoptosis and pigmentation were observed.

In a  28 day feeding study to assess replicative DNA synthesis in the amle rat, the NOAEL was 711 mg/kg/day.  The LOAEL was not established.  Immunohistochemical staining of the liver sections from control and high dose animals for proliferating cell nuclear antigen gave no indication for a treatment related increase in the fraction of DNA synthesizing hepatocytes in S-phase.  CGA-293343 did not stimulate hepatocyte cell proliferation in male rats.

In a special study to assess liver biochemistry in the mouse, the NOAEL was 17 (male), 20 (female) mg/kg/day.  The LOAEL was 74 (male), 92 (female) mg/kg/day based on marginal to slight increases in absolute and relative liver weights, a slight increase in the microsomal protein content of the livers, moderate increases in the cytochrome P450 content, slight to moderate increases in the activity of several microsomal enzymes, slight to moderate induction of cystolic glutathion S-transfer activity.  Treatment did not affect peroxisomal fatty acid -oxidation]

	6. Animal metabolism. [The metabolism of thiamethoxam in rats and livestock animals is adequately understood.  The residues of concern have been determined to be parent thiamethoxam and its metabolite [N-(2-chloro-thiazol-5-ylmethyl)-N'-methyl-N'-nitro-guanidine] expressed as thiamethoxam.]

	7. Metabolite toxicology. [For most risk assessment purposes, residues of the metabolite corrected for molecular weight are considered to be toxicologically equivalent to parent thiamethoxam.  However, EPA has determined that the metabolite should not be included in the cancer risk assessment.]

	8. Endocrine disruption. [There are no specific studies requested by the Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program (EDSP) at this time because endocrine effects have been well characterized in an acceptable 2-generation reproduction study with a clear NOAEL and LOAEL, and the chronic reference dose (cRfD) selected for thiamethoxam risk assessments is considered protective of the observed endocrine effects.]

C. Aggregate Exposure

	1. Dietary exposure. [Tier I acute, and Tier III chronic aggregate risk assessments were performed for thiamethoxam using the Dietary Exposure Evaluation Model (DEEM-FCID[TM], version 2.16) from Exponent.  All consumption data for these assessments was taken from the USDA's Continuing Survey of Food Intake by individuals (CSFII) with the 1994-96 consumption database and the Supplemental CSFII children's survey (1998) consumption database.  In the Tier I acute assessment, in addition to established tolerances (40 CFR 180.565) for the combined residues of thiamethoxam (CGA293343) and its metabolite (CGA322704) in or on a variety of raw agricultural commodities including meat and milk, these exposure assessments also included pending and proposed crop tolerances.  Pending crop tolerances for foliar use of thiamethoxam (CGA293343) and its metabolite (CGA322704) include tropical fruit (avocado, black sapote, canistel, mamey sapote, mango, papaya, sapodilla and star apple - 0.2 ppm), and for the seed treatment use on beet, sugar (0.04 ppm),  beet, sugar, roots (0.04 ppm), beet, sugar, refined sugar (0.04 ppm), beet, sugar, molasses, (0.04 ppm), beet, sugar, dried pulp (0.04 ppm).  Percent of crop treated values were conservatively estimated to be 100% for all registered, pending and proposed uses.  Field trials residue values were used in the Tier III chronic assessments where thiamethoxam was applied at the maximum intended use rate and samples were harvested at the minimum pre-harvest interval (PHI) to obtain the maximum expected residues.  Calculated and projected percent crop treated (%CT) values were incorporated in these chronic Tier III assessments.  Drinking water estimates were incorporated directly into the dietary exposure assessments using the highest estimated drinking water concentrations (EDWCs) for surface and ground water.]

	i. Food. [Acute Exposure: The thiamethoxam acute dietary (food only) risk assessment was performed for all population subgroups using an acute reference dose of 0.35 mg/kg-bw/day based upon a developmental neurotoxicity study in rats with a no observed adverse effect level (NOAEL) of 34.5 mg/kg/day and an uncertainty factor of 100X.  The 100X safety factor includes intra- and inter-species variations.  No additional FQPA safety factor was applied.  For the purpose of aggregate risk assessment, the exposure values were expressed in terms of margin of exposure (MOE), which was calculated by dividing the NOAEL by the exposure for each population subgroup.  In addition, exposure was expressed as a percent of the acute reference dose (%aRfD).  At the 95[th] percentile, acute (food only) exposure to the U.S. population resulted in a MOE of 2,569 (3.84% of the aRfD of 0.35 mg/kg-bw/day).  The most exposed sub-population was children (1-2 years old) with a MOE of 1,352 (7.29% of the aRfD of 0.35 mg/kg-bw/day).  Since the Benchmark MOE for this assessment was 100 and since the EPA generally has no concern for exposures below 100% of the aRfD, Syngenta believes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from dietary (food only) exposure to residues arising from all current and proposed uses of thiamethoxam.

Chronic Exposure.  The thiamethoxam chronic dietary (food only) risk assessment was performed for all population subgroups using a chronic reference dose of 0.012 mg/kg-bw/day based upon a two generation reproduction study in rats with a no observed adverse effect level (NOAEL) of 1.2 mg/kg/day and an uncertainty factor of 100X.  The 100X safety factor includes intra- and inter-species variations.  No additional FQPA safety factor was applied.  For the purpose of aggregate risk assessment, the exposure values were expressed in terms of margin of exposure (MOE), which was calculated by dividing the NOAEL by the exposure for each population subgroup.  In addition, exposure was expressed as a percent of the chronic reference dose (%RfD).  Chronic (food only) exposure to the U.S. population resulted in a MOE of 15,639 (0.6% of the RfD of 0.012 mg/kg-bw/day).  The most exposed sub-population was children (1-2 years old) with a MOE of 4,670 (2.1% of the RfD of 0.012 mg/kg-bw/day).  Since the Benchmark MOE for this assessment was 100 and since the EPA generally has no concern for exposures below 100% of the RfD, Syngenta believes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from dietary (food only) exposure to residues arising from the current and proposed uses of thiamethoxam.

Cancer.  A quantitative risk assessment using a cancer endpoint was not performed.]

	ii. Drinking water. [The EPA uses the Tier 2 model PRZM/EXAMS to estimate potential surface water concentrations and the screening model SCI-GROW to estimate potential ground water concentrations.  None of these models includes consideration of the impact that processing (mixing, dilution, or treatment) would have on the removal of pesticides from the water source prior to distribution as drinking water.  The primary use of these models is to provide a conservative approximation of the Estimated Drinking Water Concentrations (EDWCs) of specific pesticides in drinking water.  These models were used by Syngenta to provide EDWCs of thiamethoxam for proposed use on sugarbeets as a seed treatment and the proposed uses on the tropical fruits avocado, black sapote, canistel, mamey sapote, mango, papaya, sapodilla and star apple at varying maximum application rates, none greater that 0.266 lb./acre per year.  Based on these assumptions, the highest acute surface water EDWC (generated using the standard PRZM crop scenario for Florida peppers) is 12.15 parts per billion (ppb).  The highest chronic surface water EDWC, generated using the PRZM crop scenario for California lettuce, is 0.764 ppb.  The highest acute and chronic EDWC for ground water (based on an application rate of 1 x 0.266 lb./acre) is 4.12 ppb.  The highest of these values was used for the acute and chronic aggregate assessments and will be considered to be protective for all drinking water concerns.

  Acute Exposure from Drinking Water:  The acute surface water EDWC of 12.15 ppb was input directly into the DEEM-FCID(TM) software as "water, direct and indirect, all sources".  Acute exposure (water only) to the U.S. population resulted in a MOE of 131,179 (0.08% of the aRfD of 0.35 mg/kg-bw/day).  The most exposed sub-population was children (1-2 years old) with a MOE of 43,179 (0.23% of the aRfD of 0.35 mg/kg-bw/day).  Since the Benchmark MOE for this assessment was 100 and since the EPA generally has no concern for exposures below 100% of the RfD, Syngenta believes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from acute dietary (food and drinking water) exposure to residues arising from all current, pending and proposed uses of thiamethoxam.

Chronic Exposure from Drinking Water:  The chronic EDWC of 4.12 ppb (ground water) was used to calculate the chronic drinking water exposure values for the U.S. Population and population subgroups.  Chronic drinking water estimates were incorporated directly into the DEEM-FCID(TM) software as "water, direct and indirect, all sources".  Chronic exposure (water only) to the U.S. population resulted in a MOE of 13,793 (0.7% of the chronic RfD of 0.012 mg/kg-bw/day).  The most exposed sub-population was infants (<1 year old) with a MOE of 4,211 (2.4% of the chronic RfD of 0.012 mg/kg-bw/day).  Since the Benchmark MOE for this assessment was 100 and since the EPA generally has no concern for exposures below 100% of the RfD, Syngenta believes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from chronic drinking water exposure to residues arising from all current and proposed uses of thiamethoxam.]

	2. Non-dietary exposure. [A residential exposure and risk assessment was performed for thiamethoxam using the recently revised endpoints and uncertainty factors established by the EPA.  The residential exposure and risk assessment was performed for thiamethoxam uses on turf and ornamentals using the Meridian 0.33G and 25WG labels.  Based on these Meridian labels, there is a potential for residential handler exposure from consumers making applications to home lawns and ornamentals.  There is also a potential for post-application residential exposure to adults and children re-entering treated lawns and to adults playing golf on treated turf.  The following endpoints were used for these residential risk assessments:  NOAEL = 1.2 mg/kg/day (for adults, from a two generation oral reproduction study in rats) and NOAEL = 60 mg/kg/day (for children 1-6, from a short-term dermal from a 28-day dermal study in rats).  The post-application residential MOE for children (1-6 years) from turfgrass use of Meridian 25 WG is 1,347, which exceeds the residential risk arising from the turfgrass use Meridian 0.33G (MOE = 1,650).  The resultant combined short-term MOEs were 1,347 (total post-application risk) and 2,111 (combined post-application and handler risk) for children (1-6 years) and adults (20-49 years), respectively.  Both children (1-6 years) and adults (20-49 years) MOEs are above the Benchmark MOE of 100 and thus do not exceed the EPA's level of concern.]

D. Cumulative Effects

	[Cumulative Exposure to Substances with a Common Mechanism of Toxicity.  Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of FFDCA requires that, when considering whether to establish, modify, or revoke a tolerance, the Agency consider "available information" concerning the cumulative effects of a particular pesticide's residues and "other substances that have a common mechanism of toxicity".  Unlike other pesticides for which EPA has followed a cumulative risk approach based on a common mechanism of toxicity, EPA has not made a common mechanism of toxicity finding as to thiamethoxam and any other substances and thiamethoxam does not appear to produce a toxic metabolite produced by other substances.  For the purposes of this tolerance action, the EPA has not assumed that thiamethoxam has a common mechanism of toxicity with other substances.]

E. Safety Determination

	1. U.S. population. [The acute dietary exposure analysis (food plus water) showed that exposure from all established and proposed thiamethoxam tolerances would result in a MOE of 2,520 (3.91% of the aRfD of 0.35 mg/kg-bw/day) for the general U.S. population, which exceeds the Benchmark MOE of 100.  The chronic dietary exposure analysis (food plus water) showed that exposure from all registered and proposed thiamethoxam tolerances resulted in a MOE of 7,336 (1.4% of the chronic RfD of 0.012 mg/kg-bw/day) for the general U.S. population, which also exceeds the Benchmark MOE of 100.  For the short-term aggregate exposure analysis the corresponding food, water and residential MOEs were aggregated using the inverse MOE approach.  The short-term aggregate (food, drinking water, and residential) MOE was 2,039 for adults (20-49 years old), which exceeds the Benchmark MOE of 100.  Based on the completeness and reliability of the toxicity data supporting these petitions, Syngenta believes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to residues arising from all current and proposed thiamethoxam uses, including anticipated dietary exposure from food, water, and all other types of non-occupational exposures.]

	2. Infants and children. [The acute dietary exposure analysis (food plus water) showed that exposure from all established and proposed thiamethoxam uses would result in a MOE of 1,311 (7.52% of the aRfD of 0.35 mg/kg-bw/day) for the most sensitive population subgroup, children 1-2 years old, which exceeds the Benchmark MOE of 100.  The chronic aggregate dietary (food plus water) exposure analysis showed that exposure from all established, pending and proposed thiamethoxam uses would result in a MOE of 2,995 (3.3% of the chronic RfD of 0.012 mg/kg-bw/day) for the most sensitive population subgroup, children 1-2 years old, which exceeds the Benchmark MOE of 100.  For the short-term aggregate exposure analysis the corresponding food, water and residential MOEs were aggregated using the inverse MOE approach.  The short-term aggregate (food, drinking water, and residential) MOE was 1,279 for the children (1-6 years), which exceeds the Benchmark MOE of 100.  Based on the completeness and reliability of the toxicity data supporting these petitions, Syngenta believes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and children from aggregate exposure to residues arising from all current, pending and proposed thiamethoxam tolerances, including anticipated dietary exposure from food, water, and all other types of non-occupational exposures.]

F. International Tolerances

	[There are currently no Maximum Residue Limits (MRLs) set for thiamethoxam for crops by the Codex Alimentarius Commission.  International MRLs for the insecticide thiamethoxam have been established for various agricultural commodities in a number of countries including Argentina, Australia, Belarus, Brazil, Canada, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Georgia, Great Britain (UK), Greece, Hungary, India, Israel, Italy, Korea (South), Latvia, Moldova, Netherlands, New Zealand, Russia, Serbia and Montenegro, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Switzerland, Taiwan, Ukraine, and United States.]


[Federal Register: April 13, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 69)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 16811-16812]
[DOCID:fr13ap09-23]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2009-0247; Directorate Identifier 2009-NE-07-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Hamilton Sundstrand Power Systems T-
62T-46C12 Auxiliary Power Units

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD)
for Hamilton Sundstrand Power Systems T-62T-46C12 auxiliary power units
(APUs). This proposed AD would require upgrading the software in the
APU full-authority digital controller (FADEC), from software version
02.01.000 to version 03.00.000. This proposed AD results from two
reports of APU compartment explosions due to over-fueling of the APU at
low rpm during the start sequence. We are proposing this AD to prevent
over-fueling of the APU during the start sequence, which could lead to
fuel explosions, injury, and damage to the APU and the airplane.

DATES: We must receive any comments on this proposed AD by June 12,
2009.

ADDRESSES: Use one of the following addresses to comment on this
proposed AD.
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://
www.regulations.gov and follow the instructions for sending your
comments electronically.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building Ground
Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail address above between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Roger Pesuit, Aerospace Engineer, Los
Angeles Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, Transport Airplane
Directorate, 3960 Paramount Blvd., Lakewood, CA 90712; e-mail:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Contact Hamilton Sundstrand Technical Publications, One Hamilton
Road, Mail Stop: 1A-3-Z63, Windsor Locks, CT 06096-1010; telephone
(860) 654-3575, for a copy of the service information identified in
this proposed AD.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send us any written relevant data, views, or
arguments regarding this proposal. Send your comments to an address
listed under ADDRESSES. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2009-0247; Directorate
Identifier 2009-NE-07-AD'' in the subject line of your comments. We
specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic,
environmental, and energy aspects of the proposed AD. We will consider
all comments received by the closing date and may amend the proposed AD
in light of those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact
with FAA personnel concerning this proposed AD. Using the search
function of the Web site, anyone can find and read the comments in any
of our dockets, including, if provided, the name of the individual who
sent the comment (or signed the comment on behalf of an association,
business, labor union, etc.). You may review the DOT's complete Privacy
Act Statement in the Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (65
FR 19477-78).

Examining the AD Docket

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

Discussion

    We received two reports of APU compartment explosions of Hamilton
Sundstrand Power Systems T-62T-46C12 APUs, related to attempted start
of the APU. In both events, the APU compartment was damaged, and the
compartment doors were blown off the airplane. The APUs are ground
operational only, and the airplanes were parked at the time of
explosion. Investigation has revealed that the APU could receive an
excessively rich fuel mixture at low rpm during the start sequence, due
to the APU FADEC version 02.01.000 software, that can allow over-
fueling of the APU during starting. This condition, if not corrected,
could result in over-fueling of the APU during the start sequence,
which could lead to fuel explosion, injury, and damage to the APU and
the airplane.

Relevant Service Information

    We have reviewed and approved the technical contents of Hamilton
Sundstrand Power Systems Service Bulletin No. 4503067-49-12, Revision
1, dated December 23, 2008, that describes procedures for upgrading the
APU FADEC software to version 03.00.000. This upgrade eliminates the
potential for over-fueling the APU during the start sequence.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of the Proposed AD

    We have evaluated all pertinent information and identified an
unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on other products
of this same type design. We are proposing this AD, which would require
upgrading the APU FADEC software to version 03.00.000. The proposed AD
would require you to use the service information described previously
to perform these actions.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD would affect 59 Hamilton
Sundstrand Power Systems T-62T-46C12 APUs installed on airplanes of
U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would take about three work-
hours per APU to perform the proposed actions, and that the average
labor rate is $80 per work-hour. There is no required part cost. Based
on these figures, we estimate the total cost of the proposed AD to U.S.
operators to be $14,160.

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 have determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not
have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship
between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify that the proposed 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. Would not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to
comply with this proposed AD. You may get a copy of this summary at the
address listed under ADDRESSES.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Proposed Amendment

    Under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the
Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as
follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

    2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new
airworthiness directive:
Hamilton Sundstrand Power Systems: Docket No. FAA-2009-0247;
Directorate Identifier 2009-NE-07-AD.

Comments Due Date

    (a) The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) must receive
comments on this airworthiness directive (AD) action by June 12,
2009.

Affected ADs

    (b) None.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to Hamilton Sundstrand Power Systems T-62T-
46C12 auxiliary power units (APUs). These APUs are installed on, but
not limited to, Bombardier Inc. DHC-8-400 series airplanes.

Unsafe Condition

    (d) This AD results from two reports of APU compartment
explosions due to over-fueling of the APU at low rpm during the
start sequence. We are issuing this AD to prevent over-fueling of
the APU during the start sequence, which could lead to fuel
explosion, injury, and damage to the APU and the airplane.

Compliance

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

Software Upgrade of the APU Full-Authority Digital Electronic
Controller (FADEC)

    (f) At the next FADEC removal, but no later than 18 months after
the effective date of this AD, upgrade the software in the APU FADEC
from software version 02.01.000 to version 03.00.000, and change the
FADEC part number (P/N) from 4503069E to 4503069F.
    (g) Use paragraphs 3.A through 3.F.(2) of the Accomplishment
Instructions of Hamilton Sundstrand Power Systems Service Bulletin
No. 4503067-49-12, Revision 1, dated December 23, 2008, to do the
software upgrade and the FADEC P/N change.

Alternative Methods of Compliance

    (h) The Manager, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office, has
the authority to approve alternative methods of compliance for this
AD if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.

Related Information

    (i) Contact Roger Pesuit, Aerospace Engineer, Los Angeles
Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate,
3960 Paramount Blvd., Lakewood, CA 90712; e-mail:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, fax<PHONE_NUMBER>,
for more information about this AD.
    (j) Contact Hamilton Sundstrand Technical Publications, One
Hamilton Road, Mail Stop: 1A-3-Z63, Windsor Locks, CT 06096-1010;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, for a copy of the service information
referenced in this AD.

    Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on April 7, 2009.
Peter A. White,
Assistant Manager, Engine and Propeller Directorate, Aircraft
Certification Service.
[FR Doc. E9-8311 Filed 4-10-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 193 (Friday, October 8, 2021)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 56217-56220]
[FR Doc No: 2021-21905]

========================================================================
Proposed Rules
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of
the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these
notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in
the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.

========================================================================

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 193 / Friday, October 8, 2021 /
Proposed Rules

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2021-0869; Project Identifier AD-2021-00176-E]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; General Electric Company Turbofan
Engines

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD)
for certain General Electric Company (GE) CF34-8C and CF34-8E model
turbofan engines. This proposed AD was prompted by a report of a
quality escape during the manufacturing of a high-pressure turbine
(HPT) rotor stage 1 disk. This proposed AD would require removing the
HPT rotor stage 1 disk from service and replacing the HPT rotor stage 1
disk with a part eligible for installation. The FAA is proposing this
AD to the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: The FAA must receive comments on this proposed AD by November
22, 2021.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR
11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail address above between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this NPRM, contact General
Electric Company, 1 Neumann Way, Cincinnati, OH 45215; phone: (513)
552-3272; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>website: https://www.ge.com. You may view this service information at the FAA,
Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 1200
District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803. For information on the
availability of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket at https://www.regulations.gov by
searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2021-0869; or in person at
Docket Operations between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this NPRM, any comments
received, and other information. The street address for Docket
Operations is listed above.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Scott Stevenson, Aviation Safety
Engineer, ECO Branch, FAA, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803;
phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    The FAA invites you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed
under ADDRESSES. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2021-0869; Project Identifier
AD-2021-00176-E'' at the beginning of your comments. The most helpful
comments reference a specific portion of the proposal, explain the
reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. The FAA
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposal because of those comments.
    Except for Confidential Business Information (CBI) as described in
the following paragraph, and other information as described in 14 CFR
11.35, the FAA will post all comments received, without change, to
https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you
provide. The agency will also post a report summarizing each
substantive verbal contact received about this NPRM.

Confidential Business Information

    CBI is commercial or financial information that is both customarily
and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of
Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public
disclosure. If your comments responsive to this NPRM contain commercial
or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that
you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to
this NPRM, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted
comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission containing
CBI as ``PROPIN.'' The FAA will treat such marked submissions as
confidential under the FOIA, and they will not be placed in the public
docket of this NPRM. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to Scott
Stevenson, Aviation Safety Engineer, ECO Branch, FAA, 1200 District
Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803. Any commentary that the FAA receives
which is not specifically designated as CBI will be placed in the
public docket for this rulemaking.

Background

    The FAA was notified by GE of a quality escape that occurred during
the manufacturing of an HPT rotor stage 1 disk. The quality escape
occurred at a supplier that began production in August 2019. On
November 25, 2019, the supplier discovered tool gouges at the forward
chamfer of the air holes in an HPT rotor stage 1 disk. These gouges can
reduce the life of the HPT rotor stage 1 disk. This condition, if not
addressed, could result in uncontained disk release, damage to the
engine, and damage to the airplane.

FAA's Determination

    The FAA is issuing this NPRM after determining that the unsafe
condition described previously is likely to exist or develop on other
products of the same type design.

Related Service Information

    The FAA reviewed GE CF34-8C Alert Service Bulletin (ASB) 72-A0344
R01 and GE CF34-8E ASB 72-A0228 R01, both dated December 19, 2019. The
ASBs describe procedures for removing the HPT rotor stage 1 disk. The
FAA also reviewed GE Repair Document RD #150-1811-P1, dated March 17,
2020. This document describes procedures for repairing the HPT rotor
stage 1 disk.

Proposed AD Requirements in This NPRM

    This proposed AD would require removing a certain HPT rotor stage 1
disk from service and replacing the HPT rotor stage 1 disk with a part
eligible for installation.

Differences Between This Proposed AD and the Service Information

    The ASBs instruct operators to perform a visual inspection of the
HPT rotor stage 1 disk and re-mark the HPT rotor stage 1 disk, while
this proposed AD would not mandate visual inspection or re-marking. The
ASBs also instruct operators to perform an inspection of the removed
HPT rotor stage 1 disk and send it to an authorized service center for
repair, while this proposed AD would require removal of the HPT rotor
stage 1 disk from service and replacement with a part eligible for
installation.

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this AD, if adopted as proposed, would
affect 23 engines installed on airplanes of U.S. registry.
    The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this proposed
AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per      Cost on U.S.
                Action                         Labor cost           Parts cost        product        operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Remove and replace HPT rotor stage 1    812 work-hours x $85 per        $258,100        $327,120      $7,523,760
 disk.                                   hour = $69,020.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.
    The FAA is 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

    The FAA determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not
have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship
between the national government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed
regulation:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866,
    (2) Would not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
    (3) Would 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.

The Proposed Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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:

General Electric Company: Docket No. FAA-2021-0869; Project
Identifier AD-2021-00176-E.

(a) Comments Due Date

    The FAA must receive comments on this airworthiness directive
(AD) by November 22, 2021.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to General Electric Company (GE) CF34-8C5, CF34-
8C5B1, CF34-8E2, CF34-8E2A1, CF34-8E5, CF34-8E5A1, CF34-8E5A2, CF34-
8E6, and CF34-8E6A1 model turbofan engines with an installed high-
pressure turbine (HPT) rotor stage 1 disk, part number (P/N)
4125T22P04, and a serial number (S/N) listed in Figure 1 or Figure 2
to paragraph (c) of this AD.
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP08OC21.021

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP08OC21.022

(d) Subject

    Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC) Code 7250, Turbine
Section.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by a report of a quality escape during the
manufacturing of an HPT rotor stage 1 disk. The FAA is issuing this
AD to prevent failure of the HPT rotor stage 1 disk. The unsafe
condition, if not addressed, could result in uncontained disk
release, damage to the engine, and damage to the airplane.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Required Actions

    For all affected engines, at the next engine shop visit or
before the HPT rotor stage 1 disk accumulates 7,600 cycles since
new, whichever occurs first after the effective date of this AD,
remove the HPT rotor stage 1 disk from service and replace with a
part eligible for installation.

(h) Definitions

    For the purpose of this AD:
    (1) An ``engine shop visit'' is the induction of an engine into
the shop for maintenance involving the separation of pairs of major
mating engine flanges, except that the separation of engine flanges
solely for the purposes of transportation without subsequent engine
maintenance does not constitute an engine shop visit.
    (2) A ``part eligible for installation'' is an HPT rotor stage 1
disk that is not listed in Figure 1 or Figure 2 to paragraph (c) of
this AD or an HPT rotor stage 1 disk that has been repaired using an
FAA-approved repair.

    Note 1 to paragraph (h)(2):  Guidance for repairing the HPT
rotor stage 1 disk can be found in GE Repair Document RD # 150-1811-
P1, dated March 17, 2020.

(i) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, ECO Branch, 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
certification office, send it to the attention of the person
identified in paragraph (j)(1) of this AD. Information may be
emailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (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.

(j) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact Scott Stevenson,
Aviation Safety Engineer, ECO Branch, FAA, 1200 District Avenue,
Burlington, MA 01803; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact
General Electric Company, 1 Neumann Way, Cincinnati, OH 45215;
phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
website: https://www.ge.com. You may view this referenced service
information at the FAA, Airworthiness Products Section, 1200
District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803. For information on the
availability of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Issued on September 30, 2021.
Lance T. Gant,
Director, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2021-21905 Filed 10-7-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-C


MEMORANDUM

DATE:	November 20, 2014

TO:	Carbon Power Plan for Existing Power Plants; Docket ID: OAR-2013-0602

FROM:	Rob Lawrence EPA/Region 6/PD

SUBJECT:	August 21, 2014 Presentation to the Oklahoma Corporation Commission Regarding the Proposed Carbon Power Plan for Existing Power Plants

SUMMARY

      A presentation was made by EPA to the Oklahoma Corporation Commission on August 21, 2014, to discuss the proposed Carbon Power Plan for Existing Power Plants, which was proposed on June 2, 2014.  Other presentations were made by the Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality and the Southwest Power Pool.  The meeting was in Oklahoma City, OK.

ATTENDEES

Participants:	Large general audience

EPA Participant:	Rob Lawrence (Region 6 Energy Policy Advisor)