[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 214 (Wednesday, November 4, 2020)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 70062-70064]
[FR Doc No: 2020-23040]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2020-0046; FRL-10012-51]

Trinexapac-ethyl; Pesticide Tolerances

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes tolerances for residues of
trinexapac-ethyl in or on sugarcane, cane and sugarcane, molasses.
Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC requested these tolerances under the
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).

DATES: This regulation is effective November 4, 2020. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received on or before January 4, 2021,
and must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40
CFR part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION).

ADDRESSES: The docket for this action, identified by docket
identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2020-0046, is available at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of Pesticide Programs Regulatory
Public Docket (OPP Docket) in the Environmental Protection Agency
Docket Center (EPA/DC), West William Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334,
1301 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001. The Public
Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public
Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number for the OPP
Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Due to public health concerns related to
COVID-19, the EPA Docket Center and Public Reading Room are closed for
the time being, although EPA staff are continuing to provide remote
assistance. Please review additional information about the docket
available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Marietta Echeverria, Registration
Division (7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-
0001; main telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

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

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

    You may access a frequently updated electronic version of EPA's
tolerance regulations at 40 CFR part 180 through the Government
Publishing Office's e-CFR site at http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?&c=ecfr&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title40/40tab_02.tpl.

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

    Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an
objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a
hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a
hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided
in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify
docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2020-0046 in the subject line on the first
page of your submission. All objections and requests for a hearing must
be in writing, and must be received by the Hearing Clerk on or before
January 4, 2021. Addresses for mail and hand delivery of objections and
hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b).
    In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the
Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of
the filing (excluding any Confidential Business Information (CBI)) for
inclusion in the public docket. Information not marked confidential
pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without
prior notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your objection or hearing
request, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2020-0046, by one of
the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Do not submit
electronically any information you consider to be CBI or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
     Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental Protection Agency Docket
Center (EPA/DC), (28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC
20460-0001.
     Hand Delivery: To make special arrangements for hand
delivery or delivery of boxed information, please follow the
instructions at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.html.
    Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along
with more information about dockets generally, is available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

II. Summary of Petitioned-For Tolerance

    In the Federal Register of March 3, 2020 (85 FR 12454) (FRL-10005-
58), EPA issued a document pursuant to FFDCA section 408(d)(3), 21
U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a pesticide petition (PP
9F8761) by Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC, P.O. Box 18300, Greensboro,
NC 27419. The petition requested that 40 CFR part 180.662 be amended by
establishing tolerances for residues of the herbicide trinexapac-ethyl,
(4-(cyclopropyl-a-hydroxy-methylene)-3,5-dioxo-cyclohexanecarboxylic
acid ethyl ester), and its primary metabolite CGA-179500 in or on
sugarcane, cane at 1.5 parts per million (ppm) and sugarcane, molasses
at 5.0 ppm. That document referenced a summary of the petition prepared
by Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC, the registrant, which is available in
the docket, http://www.regulations.gov. Comments were received on the
notice of filing. EPA's response to these comments is discussed in Unit
IV.C.
    Based upon review of the data supporting the petition, EPA is
modifying the tolerance expression and the tolerance for sugarcane,
molasses at a different level than petitioned-for. The reasons for
these are explained in Unit IV.D.

III. Aggregate Risk Assessment and Determination of Safety

    Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish a
tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a
food) only if EPA

determines that the tolerance is ``safe.'' Section 408(b)(2)(A)(ii) of
FFDCA defines ``safe'' to mean that ``there is a reasonable certainty
that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide
chemical residue, including all anticipated dietary exposures and all
other exposures for which there is reliable information.'' This
includes exposure through drinking water and in residential settings,
but does not include occupational exposure. Section 408(b)(2)(C) of
FFDCA requires EPA to give special consideration to exposure of infants
and children to the pesticide chemical residue in establishing a
tolerance and to ``ensure that there is a reasonable certainty that no
harm will result to infants and children from aggregate exposure to the
pesticide chemical residue. . . .''
    Consistent with FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), and the factors
specified in FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), EPA has reviewed the available
scientific data and other relevant information in support of this
action. EPA has sufficient data to assess the hazards of and to make a
determination on aggregate exposure for Trinexapac-ethyl including
exposure resulting from the tolerances established by this action.
    EPA published a final rule in the Federal Register on May 20, 2015
(80 FR 28843) (FRL-9926-62) establishing tolerances for residues of
trinexapac-ethyl in or on rice and rye commodities based on the
Agency's conclusion that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm
will result from aggregate exposure to trinexapac-ethyl to the general
population, including infants and children. That document contains a
summary of the toxicological profile, a reference to toxicological
endpoints, a description of EPA's position on the potential for
cumulative risk, as well as the rationale for the Agency's
determination regarding the children's safety factor. As those sections
continue to reflect the Agency's current position on those topics,
those sections are incorporated here by reference.
    EPA's exposure assessments have been updated to include the
additional exposure from the increased tolerance of trinexapac-ethyl
from use in or on sugarcane, cane and sugarcane, molasses. Those
assessments rely on tolerance-level residues, 2019 default processing
factors, and an assumption of 100% crop treated (PCT). EPA's aggregate
exposure assessment incorporated this additional dietary exposure, as
well as exposure in drinking water and from residential sources,
although those latter exposures are not impacted by the modified use on
sugarcane and thus have not changed since the last assessment.
    Acute dietary risks are below the Agency's level of concern: 2.5%
of the acute population adjusted dose (aPAD) for females 13 to 49 years
old, the population group of concern. Chronic dietary risks are below
the Agency's level of concern: 6.6% of the chronic population adjusted
dose (cPAD) for children 1 to 2 years old, the population group
receiving the greatest exposure. Aggregating chronic (or background)
dietary exposure with short- and intermediate-term exposures, EPA has
concluded that the combined food, water, and short- and intermediate-
term residential exposures result in aggregate margins of exposures
above the level of concern for all scenarios assessed and are not of
concern. Finally, EPA has concluded that trinexapac-ethyl is not
expected to pose a cancer risk, given the lack of evidence of
carcinogenicity in the database.
    Therefore, based on the risk assessments and information described
above, EPA concludes there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will
result to the general population or to infants and children from
aggregate exposure to trinexapac-ethyl residues. Further information
about EPA's risk assessment and determination of safety can be found at
http://www.regulations.gov in the document titled ``Trinexapac-ethyl.
Human Health Risk Assessment for the Petition to Amend the Pre-Harvest
Intervals on Sugarcane.'' dated July 13, 2020 in the docket ID number
EPA-HQ-OPP-2020-0046.

IV. Other Considerations

A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    Adequate enforcement methodology (Method GRM020.01A), which
utilizes high performance liquid chromatography with triple-quadrupole
mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) is available to enforce the tolerance
expression.
    The method may be requested from: Chief, Analytical Chemistry
Branch, Environmental Science Center, 701 Mapes Rd., Ft. Meade, MD
20755-5350; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
B. International Residue Limits

    In making its tolerance decisions, EPA seeks to harmonize U.S.
tolerances with international standards whenever possible, consistent
with U.S. food safety standards and agricultural practices. EPA
considers the international maximum residue limits (MRLs) established
by the Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex), as required by FFDCA
section 408(b)(4). The Codex Alimentarius is a joint United Nations
Food and Agriculture Organization/World Health Organization food
standards program, and it is recognized as an international food safety
standards-setting organization in trade agreements to which the United
States is a party. EPA may establish a tolerance that is different from
a Codex MRL; however, FFDCA section 408(b)(4) requires that EPA explain
the reasons for departing from the Codex level.
    The Codex has established an MRL for trinexapac-ethyl in or on
sugarcane at 0.5 ppm. This MRL is different than the tolerances
established for trinexapac-ethyl in the United States. The United
States is not able to harmonize its sugarcane tolerance with the Codex
MRL; based on the reduction of the preharvest interval (PHI) from 28 to
14 days on sugarcane, the field trial data indicate that use in
accordance with the label results in residues may exceed tolerances if
they were harmonized with Codex.

C. Response to Comments

    Two comments were received in response to the Notice of Filing.
Neither comment was accompanied by any substantiation nor data
supporting a conclusion that the tolerances being established in this
action do not meet the FFDCA safety standard. Although EPA recognizes
that some individuals would oppose any use of pesticides on food,
section 408 of the FFDCA authorizes EPA to set tolerances for residues
of pesticide chemicals in or on food when it determines that the
tolerance meets the safety standard imposed by that statute. Upon
review of the available information, EPA concludes that these
tolerances would be safe.

D. Revisions to Petitioned-For Tolerances

    EPA is revising the tolerance expression to include the free and
conjugated forms of the parent (trinexapac-ethyl) and acid. Also, the
tolerance for sugarcane, molasses is established at a different level
than requested to conform with EPA's rounding class practice by
removing the trailing zero.

V. Conclusion

    Therefore, EPA is increasing tolerances for residues of trinexapac-
ethyl, ethyl 4-(cyclopropylhydroxymethylene)-3,5-
dioxocyclohexanecarboxylate, including

its metabolites and degradates, in or on sugarcane, cane at 1.5 ppm,
and sugarcane, molasses at 5 ppm.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This action modifies existing tolerances under FFDCA section 408(d)
in response to a petition submitted to the Agency. The Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these types of actions from
review under Executive Order 12866, entitled ``Regulatory Planning and
Review'' (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Because this action has been
exempted from review under Executive Order 12866, this action is not
subject to Executive Order 13211, entitled ``Actions Concerning
Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or
Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) or Executive Order 13045, entitled
``Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), nor is it considered a
regulatory action under Executive Order 13771, entitled ``Reducing
Regulations and Controlling Regulatory Costs'' (82 FR 9339, February 3,
2017). This action does not contain any information collections subject
to OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501
et seq.), nor does it require any special considerations under
Executive Order 12898, entitled ``Federal Actions to Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations'' (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    Since tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis
of a petition under FFDCA section 408(d), such as the tolerance in this
final rule, do not require the issuance of a proposed rule, the
requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et
seq.), do not apply.
    This action directly regulates growers, food processors, food
handlers, and food retailers, not States or Tribes, nor does this
action alter the relationships or distribution of power and
responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions
of FFDCA section 408(n)(4). As such, the Agency has determined that
this action will not have a substantial direct effect on States or
Tribal Governments, on the relationship between the National Government
and the States or Tribal Governments, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government or between
the Federal Government and Indian Tribes. Thus, the Agency has
determined that Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR
43255, August 10, 1999) and Executive Order 13175, entitled
``Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR
67249, November 9, 2000) do not apply to this action. In addition, this
action does not impose any enforceable duty or contain any unfunded
mandate as described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
(UMRA) (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.).
    This action does not involve any technical standards that would
require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant
to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note).

VII. Congressional Review Act

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

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180

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

    Dated: September 16, 2020.
Marietta Echeverria,
Acting Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.

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

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

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

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

0
2. In Sec.  180.662, amend paragraph (a) by:
0
i. Revising the Introductory text.
0
ii. Revising the existing entries in the table for ``Sugarcane, cane''
and ``Sugarcane, molasses''.
    The revisions read as follows:

Sec.  180.662  Trinexapac-ethyl; tolerances for residues.

    (a) General. Tolerances are established for residues of the plant
growth regulator, trinexapac-ethyl, including its metabolites and
degradates, in or on the commodities in the table below. Compliance
with the tolerance levels specified below is to be determined by
measuring only the free and conjugated forms of both trinexapac-ethyl,
ethyl 4-(cyclopropylhydroxymethylene)-3,5-dioxocyclohexanecarboxylate
and trinexapac, 4-(cyclopropylhydroxymethylene)-3,5-
dioxocyclohexanecarboxylic acid, calculated as the stoichiometric
equivalent of trinexapac-ethyl, in or on the commodity.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Parts per
                         Commodity                             million
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                * * * * *
Sugarcane, cane............................................          1.5
Sugarcane, molasses........................................            5

                                * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2020-23040 Filed 11-3-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: January 17, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 12)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 3187-3190]
[DOCID:fr17ja08-3]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R03-OAR-2007-0644; FRL-8516-9]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Maryland; Revisions to Stage II Requirements

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is taking direct final action to approve revisions to the
Maryland State Implementation Plan

(SIP). The revisions will allow the Maryland Department of the
Environment to utilize inspections of Stage I and Stage II systems by a
certified inspector. EPA is approving these revisions to the Maryland
SIP in accordance with the requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA).

DATES: This rule is effective on March 17, 2008 without further notice,
unless EPA receives adverse written comment by February 19, 2008. If
EPA receives such comments, it will publish a timely withdrawal of the
direct final rule in the Federal Register and inform the public that
the rule will not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA-
R03-OAR-2007-0644 by one of the following methods:
    A. http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for

submitting comments.
    B. E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    C. Mail: EPA-R03-OAR-2007-0644, Cristina Fernandez, Chief, Air
Quality Planning Branch, Mailcode 3AP21, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103.
    D. Hand Delivery: At the previously-listed EPA Region III address.
Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of
operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of
boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R03-OAR-
2007-0644. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change, and may be made available online
at http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,

unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to
be CBI or otherwise protected through http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail.

The http://www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system,

which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information
unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-
mail comment directly to EPA without going through http://www.regulations.gov,

your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part
of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available
on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends
that you include your name and other contact information in the body of
your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read
your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the
http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some

information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available either electronically in http://www.regulations.gov or

in hard copy during normal business hours at the Air Protection
Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch
Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. Copies of the State submittal
are available at the Maryland Department of the Environment, 1800
Washington Boulevard, Suite 705, Baltimore, Maryland 21230.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Catherine L. Magliocchetti, (215) 814-
2174, or by e-mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA. This supplementary information
is arranged as follows:

I. What Action Is EPA Taking Today?
II. Why Is EPA Taking This Action?
III. How Did EPA Review the Commonwealth's Submittal?
IV. What Final Action Is EPA Taking Today?
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What Action Is EPA Taking Today?

    EPA is approving revisions to the Maryland State Implementation
Plan (SIP), which were submitted by the Maryland Department of the
Environment (MDE). These changes, which include amendments to
Regulation .01 and new Regulation .05-1 under COMAR 26.11.24 Stage II
Vapor Recovery at Gasoline Dispensing Facilities amend Maryland's
existing Stage II regulatory requirements. Specifically, the amendments
and additions will allow MDE to utilize inspections of Stage I and
Stage II systems by a certified inspector under COMAR <IP_ADDRESS>.
During one calendar year, approximately one-third of those stations
required to be inspected would be inspected by certified inspectors.
Based upon the inspections reports, MDE will be able to better target
state-conducted inspections.

II. Why Is EPA Taking This Action?

    MDE revised its Stage II requirements in order to enhance its
inspection efficiency. EPA is approving these revisions as necessary
for attainment and maintenance of the ozone standard in the State of
Maryland.

III. How Did EPA Review the State's Submittal?

    Maryland's SIP revisions (07-02) were submitted by MDE on
February 15, 2007. EPA evaluated MDE's revised Stage II requirements to
verify that the revisions were consistent with the previously approved
Stage II regulations for the State and met the requirements found in
EPA's Stage II enforcement and technical documentation. The revisions
were also reviewed for compliance with the CAA.

IV. What Final Action Is EPA Taking Today?

    EPA is approving a SIP revision request submitted by MDE that
allows for use of third party inspectors of Stage I and Stage II
systems.
    We are publishing this rule without prior proposal because the
Agency views this as a non-controversial amendment and anticipates no
adverse comment. However, in the ``Proposed Rules'' section of today's
Federal Register, EPA is publishing a separate document that will serve
as the proposal to approve the SIP revision if adverse comments are
filed. This rule will be effective on March 17, 2008 without further
notice unless EPA receives adverse comment by February 19, 2008. If EPA
receives adverse comment, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal in the
Federal Register informing the public that the rule will not take
effect. EPA will address all public comments in a subsequent final rule
based on the proposed rule. EPA will not institute a second comment
period on this action. Any parties interested in commenting must do so
at this time.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. General Requirements

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this
action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and therefore is not
subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this
reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211,
``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply,

Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This action merely
approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes no
additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. Accordingly,
the Administrator certifies that this rule will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the
Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because this rule
approves pre-existing requirements under state law and does not impose
any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by state law, it
does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely
affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform
Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4). This rule also does not have tribal
implications because it will 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, as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
This action also does not have Federalism implications because it does
not have substantial direct effects 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,
as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999).
This action merely approves a state rule implementing a Federal
requirement, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of
power and responsibilities established in the CAA. This rule also is
not subject to Executive Order 13045 ``Protection of Children from
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23,
1997), because it approves a state rule implementing a Federal
standard.
    In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve State
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. In this
context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the State
to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to
disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be
inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP
submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise
satisfies the provisions of the CAA. Thus, the requirements of section
12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995
(15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This rule does not impose an
information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).

B. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other
required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. This rule is not a
``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

C. Petitions for Judicial Review

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by March 17, 2008. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial review nor does
it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be
filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action.
This action, approving revisions to Maryland's Stage II regulations,
may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements.
(See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Ozone, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: January 8, 2008.
Donald S. Welsh,
Regional Administrator, Region III.

0
40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

Subpart V--Maryland

0
2. In Sec.  52.1070, the table in paragraph (c) is amended by revising
the entry for COMAR <IP_ADDRESS> and adding an entry for COMARS
<IP_ADDRESS>-1 to read as follows:

Sec.  52.1070  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *

                                  EPA-Approved Regulations in the Maryland SIP
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Additional
 Code of Maryland administrative                       State  effective                          explanation/
  regulations (COMAR)  citation      Title/subject           date          EPA approval date  citation at 40 CFR
                                                                                52.1100
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
26.11.24........................             Stage II vapor recovery at gasoline dispensing facilities
<IP_ADDRESS>.....................  Definitions.......  1/29/07...........  1/17/08 [Insert     Addition of
                                                                           page number where   ``Certified
                                                                           the document        Inspector'' and
                                                                           begins].            ``Vapor Recovery
                                                                                System.''

                                                  * * * * * * *
<IP_ADDRESS>-1...................  Inspections by a    1/29/07...........  1/17/08 [Insert
                                   Certified                               page number where
                                   Inspector.                              the document
                                                                           begins].

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
[FR Doc. E8-579 Filed 1-16-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 107 (Tuesday, June 4, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 33453-33454]
[FR Doc No: 2013-13245]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Sunshine Act Meeting

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the
Government in the Sunshine Act, Public Law 94-409, that the Securities
and Exchange Commission will hold a Closed Meeting on Thursday, June 6,
2013 at 2:00 p.m.
    Commissioners, Counsel to the Commissioners, the Secretary to the
Commission, and recording secretaries will attend the Closed Meeting.
Certain staff members who have an interest in the matters also may be
present.
    The General Counsel of the Commission, or her designee, has

certified that, in her opinion, one or more of the exemptions set forth
in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(3), (5), (7), 9(B) and (10) and 17 CFR
200.402(a)(3), (5), (7), 9(ii) and (10), permit consideration of the
scheduled matters at the Closed Meeting.
    Commissioner Gallagher, as duty officer, voted to consider the
items listed for the Closed Meeting in a closed session.
    The subject matter of the Closed Meeting will be: institution and
settlement of injunctive actions; institution and settlement of
administrative proceedings; consideration of amicus participation; and
other matters relating to enforcement proceedings.
    At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in
the scheduling of meeting items.
    For further information and to ascertain what, if any, matters have
been added, deleted or postponed, please contact the Office of the
Secretary at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: May 30, 2013.
Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-13245 Filed 5-31-13; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


Peconic Estuary Program C H A P T E R T E N 10 1 C H A P T E R TEN POST CCMP MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVES 1) Create a stable and effective management structure for CCMP implementation.

2) Ensure widespread public agency participation/ representation and use existing authorities to the maximum extent possible.

3) Develop and implement an integrated long term monitoring plan for water quality and habitats/ living resources issues with a coordinated data management strategy.

4) Track the progress of CCMP implementation ( commitments, outcomes, and environmental effects), providing routine reporting and allowing for refining of management approaches. Peconic Estuary Program CCMP C H A P T E R T E N 10 2 MEASURABLE GOALS The Peconic Estuary Program's measurable goals with respect to post CCMP management and implementation are:

  Implement the Peconic Estuary Program Environmental Monitoring Plan. [ See Action M 2]

  Produce status reports. [ See Action M 3]

  Update municipal officials. [ See Action M 4]

  Develop sub watershed implementation plans ( as measured by the number of subwatershed plans initiated). [ See Action M 5] Peconic Estuary Program CCMP C H A P T E R T E N 10 3 INTRODUCTION The ultimate success of any National Estuary Program management conference can be measured by implementation of its Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan ( CCMP). Plan implementation requires a clear understanding among all participating entities concerning their responsibilities for actions recommended in the CCMP ( Battelle et al., 1995).

The Peconic Estuary Program has recognized the need for establishing a long term framework for Peconic Estuary management, as shown by the PEP goals and objectives at the beginning of this chapter. In light of the significance placed upon post CCMP management and monitoring by Congress, the EPA, and the PEP Management Conference, the PEP Management Conference directed that a separate section of this Management Plan specifically deal with the issue of long term management. Accordingly, this chapter of the CCMP includes not only a discussion on the critical issue of long term institutional and organizational framework, but also a summary of other important parameters such as long term monitoring, mechanisms for measuring progress, and data management.

INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK The PEP has selected a long term institutional framework for post CCMP management, which is to continue the existing management structure. Various alternatives were proposed in the Draft CCMP. These alternatives served as a starting point for the public as well as agencies and resource managers in the decision making process. During the public comment period for the draft Management Plan, the PEP Management Conference sought input from interested parties regarding a final long term institutional framework for post CCMP management.

The three alternative frameworks proposed in the draft CCMP were:

1. Continuation of Existing Management Conference Structure ( Policy Committee; Management Committee; Citizens, Technical, and Local Government Advisory Committees; Natural Resources Subcommittee; and Program Office);

2. Formation of a Regional Advisory Commission ( formal, non regulatory commission of East End town and village representatives); and,

3. Formation of the Pine Barrens Maritime Reserve Commission ( Modification of the Pine Barrens Maritime Reserve Act as a mechanism to involve State, County, and local governments in a regional implementation process).

For the foreseeable future, the Management Conference will continue the existing Management Conference structure ( see Appendix B). The PEP Program Office at the SCDHS Office of Ecology will continue to be a critical coordinating, management, and administrative body.

Continuation of Existing Management Conference Structure At the core of the existing PEP Management Conference structure are the Management Committee and Program Office. ( See Figure 10 1) The Program Office is located in the SCDHS Office of Ecology. The Management Committee consists of voting representatives from EPA, the NYSDEC, Suffolk County, local government, chairs of Citizens and Technical Advisory Committees, and Peconic Estuary Program CCMP C H A P T E R T E N 10 4 several other advisory members. ( See Appendix B for a full discussion of the Management Conference Structure.)

The existing Management Conference structure remains intact. The Local Government Committee, Technical Advisory Committee, and Citizens Advisory Committee will continue to be integral to the long term management process. The Citizens Advisory Committee will continue to maintain a vigorous public education and outreach program. The Technical Advisory Committee and the Natural Resources Subcommittee will provide technical guidance regarding long term monitoring and assessment projects, technical implementation projects, and CCMP assessment and goal attainment. Local governments will be crucial to the implementation process itself with regard to issues such as land use, zoning, and implementation of nonpoint source control programs.

Both the Management Committee and Local Government Committee currently report to the Policy Committee. Under the Post CCMP structure, both will continue to report to the Policy Committee, which will review and approve progress reports on implementation and sanction major new policy initiatives.

The Program Office will continue its management, coordination, and administration functions, as they are applicable to post CCMP management, and as resources allow. Several responsibilities and functions outlined in the PEP Management Conference Agreement ( June 1993) which will still be applicable to the post CCMP period are noted as follows:

Management Responsibilities   Communicate regularly with all PEP participants about activities and issues to ensure consensus and that all views are fairly represented in work products;

  Coordinate activities among Federal, State, County, and local agencies as well as the public sector to obtain program objectives;

  Manage the preparation of annual workplans and reports, in cooperation with all PEP participants;

  Coordinate conference activities in identifying and seeking alternative sources of funding for activities associated with the estuary system; and,

  Implement the CCMP.

Technical Responsibilities   Oversee and assist in coordinating the planning, development, and implementation of all phases of the PEP; and   Identify, participate in, and ensure the transfer of scientific/ engineering information to PEP participants. Peconic Estuary Program CCMP C H A P T E R T E N 10 5 Figure 10 1. Peconic Estuary Program Post CCMP Management Structure. POLICY COMMITTEE Members: A representative from EPA, NYSDEC,

Suffolk County, and Local Government.

Purpose: To oversee and ultimately approve fund disbursement and project progress. MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE Members: A representative from EPA,

NYSDEC, Suffolk County, the Chairperson of the Technical Advisory Committee, the Local Government Committee, the Citizens Advisory Committee, and several non voting advisory members.

Purpose: To develop goals, approve workplans,

and oversee the project.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMITTEE Members: Representatives of each East End town and village.

Purpose: To provide oversight on development, zoning,

planning, and other local issues; to provide guidance for effective decisionmaking and financial planning to develop an implementation strategy. PROGRAM OFFICE Member: Suffolk County Dept. of Health Services, Office of Ecology.

Purpose: To serve as the functional arm of the Management Committee in conducting day to day management of technical,

administrative, and editorial tasks and advisory committee support.

CITIZENS' ADVISORY COMMITTEE Members: Representatives from citizens' groups, including but not limited to farmers, fishermen, environmental organizations,

and business and industry.

Purpose: To integrate citizens' concerns and guidance into evaluation and decision making processes; to conduct public education and outreach.

TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE Members: Scientists, engineers, planners, and managers from various Federal, State, and local institutions, as well as from universities and private organizations.

Purpose: To provide technical guidance; to recommend and oversee scientific studies, investigations, and sampling, modeling,

and monitoring programs. POST CCMP MANAGEMENT STRUCTURE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE Peconic Estuary Program CCMP C H A P T E R T E N 10 6 Program Administration   Manage development of Requests for Proposals;

  Oversee the administration and performance of contracts and grants;

  Facilitate the convening of conferences and meetings;

  Prepare routine PEP status reports and program information. The Program Office and Suffolk County maintain the PEP worldwide web site and the Program Office library that contains a collection of program documents, reports, and maps; and,

  Prepare and distribute a periodic newsletter on the Peconic Estuary Program.

Administrative Support   Routinely attend meetings of major committees;

  Ensure the transfer of all PEP materials ( e. g., work products, reports, meeting minutes, etc.) to the appropriate persons and locations; and,

  Receive and respond to requests for technical information and assistance regarding the PEP from the public, elected officials, EPA Headquarters, and others.

Benefits of Continuing the Existing Management Conference Structure   The structure relies on a pre existing framework that has been successful in integrating concerns and building consensus in an often complex and contentious process;

  The structure effectively involves numerous stakeholders closely in the management process;

  The Program Office, which benefits from decades of institutional environmental management continuity in eastern Suffolk County, is at the heart of the administration and management process;

  The NYSDEC ( which administers State Bond Act funding) and EPA ( which provides post CCMP funding) will have active roles; and,

  The structure would not involve any new or major institutional expenditures and therefore would be relatively low cost ( provided that all Committee representatives will continue to participate actively in committee activities without compensation and that staff from the SCDHS Office of Ecology can continue to dedicate a portion of their time to program coordination, as well as long term monitoring and data management). Peconic Estuary Program CCMP C H A P T E R T E N 10 7 Drawbacks of Continuing the Existing Management Conference Structure The following drawbacks of continuing the existing management conference structure were identified in the draft CCMP and will need to be considered and addressed in the implementation phase:

  The Management Conference structure is centered around the Management Committee that does not itself implement many of the recommended actions in the draft CCMP. This drawback may be overcome by close and active coordination with advisory committees and workgroups. Additional committees, such as a Habitat Restoration Work Group and the proposed Financing Work Group, can be integrated and can report directly to the Management Committee, or, in some cases, other committees, such as the Local Government Committee, as needed;

  The structure has no ability to raise revenues. This can be overcome by a coupling with a non profit arm with fund raising ability; and,

  The Management Conference structure does not have any direct regulatory or enforcement authority. Several Management Conference members have, on numerous occasions, expressed the opinion that a lack of direct regulatory or enforcement authority is highly desirable and is in the spirit of the consensus building approach of the PEP Management Conference. Also, agencies that sit on the Management Conference do, of course, have regulatory authorities.

LONG TERM MONITORING Monitoring during CCMP implementation is needed to gather information on the changing state of the estuary system. This information can be used to prioritize activities and measure the success of management actions. Specific details regarding PEP post CCMP monitoring efforts are included in the various main chapters of this draft management plan and the monitoring plan presented in Appendix I. The overall strategy for long term monitoring is summarized below. Monitoring plan elements are summarized in Table 10 1.

A diagram of some of the major long term monitoring topics for the PEP is shown in Figure 10 2. It is critical to emphasize that the PEP is a management program rather than primarily a research effort. Therefore, all monitoring efforts directly undertaken, coordinated, or overseen by the PEP must be primarily management oriented. For example, the PEP would probably not perform a long term zooplankton study merely to determine shifts in regional species composition abundance, but to ultimately enable evaluation of possible linkages to causal factors. PEP projects must be more determinate in terms of hypotheses and probable management utility. An appropriate research project would be to perform synoptic zooplankton and nutrient monitoring to determine whether changes in nutrient loading are adversely affecting that trophic level, in terms of abundance or species composition. More than just an academic or semantic issue, the clear definition of project objectives and management utility will have profound impacts on project types.

This is not to discount PEP involvement in long term research projects. The PEP, as part of the CCMP, will continue to identify long term research efforts necessary to characterize and understand basic processes and parameters. The PEP will also seek to procure sources of funding to support such research. In the case of Brown Tide, the PEP will actively participate in the Brown Tide Steering Committee. Peconic Estuary Program CCMP C H A P T E R T E N 10 8 Several of the PEP monitoring program topics in Figure 10 2 will be performed as part of preexisting programs ( point source discharge data through SPDES permits; groundwater monitoring programs through the SCDHS, the Suffolk County Water Authority, NYSDEC, and other entities; coliform/ shellfish sanitation program through NYSDEC, surface water monitoring program through SCDHS; etc.). Also, the NYSDEC will continue its finfish trawl surveys, and landings data for finfish and scallops will provide some indication of fisheries resources. Finally, Brown Tide research will be addressed through the Brown Tide Steering Committee, in which the PEP will continue to participate actively. Several possible funding sources are outlined in the Brown Tide chapter.

Even though the pre existing long term efforts will be ongoing, substantial effort will be required to compile, analyze, and use some of the data. The Management Committee will continue to identify entities that will commit resources to such data analysis and use. For example, the coliform and finfish trawl data is routinely collected, but requires substantial resources to compile and report for the PEP. Similarly, groundwater programs collect substantial data at the County and State levels, but compilation and use of data represents a formidable challenge.

Figure 10 2. Long Term Monitoring Topics. Long Term Monitoring Candidates Land Use Land Cover STP Loads Groundwater Surface Water Monitoring Brown Tide Research Water Column Sediment Land Legend Existing Program PEP Candidate Benthic/ Bioindicators SAV/ Bioindicators Coliforms Finfish Trawl Surveys Finfish/ Scallop Landings Food Web Response Baitfish Fish Larvae Zoo & Phytoplankton Peconic Estuary Program CCMP C H A P T E R T E N 10 9 Table 10 1. Environmental Monitoring Plan.

Base Programs New Costs Monitoring Program One Time Annual One Time Annual Aquaculture and Transplanting Activities X $ 710,000 $ 5,000 Bay Scallops ( recruitment success and survival dynamics) $ 200,000 ( over three years) Biota ( Fish, Shellfish, Crustacean) Monitoring for Toxics X Brown Tide Research Initiative X Brown Tide Steering Committee X Coastal 2000 X Dredging $ 37,500 $ 7,500 Endangered Species Program X Federal Toxics Release Inventory X Hazardous Waste Site Monitoring X National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System ( NPDES) Program X NMFS Commercial Landings Program X Vessel Waste No Discharge Areas $ 5,000 NOAA Mussel Watch Program X NYS Pesticide Reporting Law X NYS Pollutant Discharge Elimination System ( SPDES) Program X NYS Shellfish Land Certification Program X NYSDEC Juvenile Finfish Survey X $ 645,000 NYSDEC Wetlands Inventory X $ 500,000 $ 50,000 Osprey, Terns and Waterfowl TBD Pesticide Use Monitoring X $ 25,000 Restoration Monitoring $ 35,000 $ 15,000 SCDHS Alexandrium Monitoring X $ 35,000 SCDHS Bathing Beaches and Swimming Pools Program X SCDHS Groundwater Monitoring ( for nitrogen and pesticides) X SCDHS North Creeks Study X SCDHS Pfiesteria Monitoring X $ 25,000 SCDHS Routine Point Source Monitoring X SCDHS Surface Water Quality Monitoring X SCPD Land Use Monitoring X Sediment Monitoring 25,000 Shoreline Hardening Monitoring X 35,000 Submerged Aquatic Vegetation Long Term Monitoring X $ 30,000 Suffolk County Groundwater Model X Surface Water Monitoring for Toxics X Two Stroke Marine Engine Inventory $ 10,000 Underground Storage Tank Inventory $ 50,000 $ 10,000 USFWS National Wetlands Inventory X Total $ 1,332,500 $ 922,500 Peconic Estuary Program CCMP C H A P T E R T E N 10 10 Even more difficult is procuring resources and funding sources for programs which are not preexisting For example, there is currently no mechanism to perform routine, ongoing land use and land cover monitoring. Also, there are no long term monitoring commitments related to baitfish, fish larvae, zooplankton and phytoplankton, submerged aquatic vegetation, and benthic communities. The PEP must procure commitments for carrying out and funding priority monitoring projects. This will involve a joint and cooperative effort between the Management Committee and Technical Advisory Committee.

The Management Committee will continue to evaluate costs and benefits of possible monitoring program options. Part of this analysis will include a weighing of the costs of given programs against the likelihood of success and the value of success. For example, it is possible that a prohibitively expensive program may not be possible, even though resulting data could be extremely valuable. Conversely, a project which cannot guarantee a high probability of intended results ( e. g., a usable bioindicator could still be desirable, if the possibility of success is reasonable when weighed against modest project costs and a potentially high project utility.

The selection of monitoring parameters and programs must include commitments from entities to conduct the programs and dedication of sufficient resources to enable the efforts. The final monitoring plan contained in Appendix I conforms to National Estuary Program Guidance, Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plans, Content and Approval Requirements ( EPA 1992). This guidance document emphasizes the need for clearly defined monitoring plans not only to measure the effectiveness of CCMP actions, but also to provide information necessary to redirect and refocus the CCMP. As required by EPA, the monitoring plan defines program objectives and performance criteria, describes testable hypotheses, and specifies monitoring variables and plan details.

Monitoring Priorities EPA funding for establishing a long term monitoring program is limited. Currently, the following priorities for use of PEP post CCMP monitoring monies ( NEP funded) are as follows:

Water Quality Continuation of the water quality monitoring program for purposes of establishing a long term program, with linkages not only to Brown Tide and nitrogen and DO management, but also to the tidal creeks study, the submerged aquatic vegetation monitoring program, and, possibly, other programs. This also includes integrating groundwater quality data and input rates, particularly for key subwatersheds.

Sediment Benthic mapping is needed to direct further long term monitoring of sediment communities and other environmental issues.

Submerged Aquatic Vegetation A long term submerged aquatic vegetation program is needed to capitalize upon prior efforts and to establish trends in eelgrass and macroalgae abundance and distribution. Ideally, submerged aquatic vegetation will be linked with water quality as a bioindicator. Eelgrass restoration will be considered based on the results of the PEP habitat criteria study. Peconic Estuary Program CCMP C H A P T E R T E N 10 11 Other Projects A small amount of funding will remain for additional living resources/ habitat monitoring efforts. This could include establishing a long term benthic monitoring study, possibly in conjunction with the tidal creeks study. Hopefully, prior efforts could be continued to evaluate water quality and sediment communities to support development of a meaningful bioindicator, although larger studies may be necessary to accomplish this. Another project option includes evaluating trends of baitfish abundance and distribution.

Additional Natural Resources Research and Monitoring Needs The natural resources committee has identified several projects, which would require several hundreds of thousands of dollars in funding, to conduct important long term monitoring and living resources projects. These projects include system wide studies of benthic communities, baitfish, fish larvae, zooplankton, and phytoplankton. A formal project list and justification will be prepared by the Management Committee for further evaluation and consideration and additional funding sources will be sought. Candidates for funding may include the New York State Environmental Protection Fund and possibly the Suffolk County Capital Program ($ 50,000 proposed for zooplankton and phytoplankton characterization, which would assist not only in Brown Tide research, but also in PEP long term monitoring).

Land Use Monitoring The continuing collection and analysis of land use data is, of course, a paramount long term monitoring priority. It will be critical in linking land use trends with pollution loading, water quality, and habitat and living resources. It will also be an important tool in tracking the progress of CCMP implementation.

The Suffolk County Planning Department will be crucial to any long term land use monitoring efforts. The Planning Department has a verified Geographic Information System ( GIS) database for existing land uses at tax map scale for the Towns of Riverhead, Southold, Shelter Island, Southampton, East Hampton, and the Peconic River corridor in the Town of Brookhaven. The Planning Department also has a verified GIS database for existing zoning in this same region. Both of these databases should be updated on an annual basis to reflect conditions as of March 1 ( tax status day). The update and maintenance of the GIS databases will require coordination of activities among the Planning Department, Suffolk County Real Property Tax Service Agency ( SCRPTSA), town tax assessors and town planners. Suggested agency roles are as follows:

  Town tax assessors could provide a list to SCRPTSA of those parcels for which there has been a change in tax assessment code as of March 1. These lists could then be provided by SCRPTSA to the Planning Department for review, conversion into land use classification codes, and incorporation into the GIS land use database. The Planning Department would then make this updated land use database available to the towns for their use. This would include data in map format. Alternatively, the Planning Department could receive Real Property Transfer Reports ( RP 5217) for review to monitor land use changes; and   Town Planners could provide a list of any modifications to town zoning codes and maps to the Planning Department, which in turn would correct the GIS zoning database and provide the information to the towns for their use ( includes map format).

If one or more of these procedures is implemented, annual updates of GIS products ( i. e., databases, tabulations, trends, and maps at tax map scale) for existing land use and zoning, can be made Peconic Estuary Program CCMP C H A P T E R T E N 10 12 available for the PEP study area and towns as a whole. The databases would be maintained by the Planning Department to assure consistency in methodology application for the region.

Living Resources Monitoring Coordinator The Management Conference recommends coordinating long term monitoring program needs for field/ living resources concerns by hiring at least one full time staff person dedicated solely to conducting and, to some degree, coordinating these programs. This person would serve as an " environmental analyst," " biologist," or " marine conservation planner" and would oversee routine, limited submerged aquatic vegetation surveys, baitfish surveys, and/ or other monitoring efforts. The person would also oversee the efforts of the agencies charged with collecting data and to keep track of those agencies' commitments to compile and report on their databases. Candidate agencies for providing or housing a staff person would be the NYSDEC, Cornell Cooperative Extension, The Nature Conservancy, or the SCDHS.

Until such a position is filled, the Management Conference will continue to conduct these monitoring efforts using voluntary contribution of multiple agency resources. An interim option is to contract out long term monitoring tasks. A possible disadvantage of this approach would be a lack of institutional continuity and precarious annual funding sources.

In regard to these issues, the Management Committee will focus on sustainable, long term databases which can be used to monitor the effects of CCMP implementation, rather than substantial short term expenditures of funds to obtain limited characterizations which would not likely be useful in longterm monitoring, even though they could be of immediate scientific interest.

Living Resources Research Plan The PEP, through the present Marine Conservation Planner, has prepared a Framework for Developing a Living Resources Research and Monitoring Plan. This Framework, which has been peer reviewed, will be revised based on peer review comments and integrated with other monitoring efforts ( e. g., sediment nutrient flux and toxicity) to update the existing plan, and to identify priority research areas and topics.

M EASURING PROGRESS OF CCMP IMPLEMENTATION The PEP Management Committee evaluated various mechanisms for measuring progress of CCMP implementation, including technical/ scientific measurements ( e. g., " bay quality indices"), performance standards, and other, more citizen oriented mechanisms such as " government report cards." Reports summarizing the progress of various implementation mechanisms will be prepared by the PEP.

Dual Approach: Reports on Outputs and Outcomes Reporting the status of CCMP implementation, and redirecting effort as needed, is crucial to successful implementation of the Plan. There are two types of measures of CCMP implementation:

  Outputs   reviews to determine whether CCMP commitments have been met; and   Outcomes   reviews of progress using appropriate environmental indicators to determine whether the Peconic Estuary is responding as expected to pollution controls, and whether unanticipated environmental problems are emerging. Peconic Estuary Program CCMP C H A P T E R T E N 10 13 The CCMP provides a framework for tracking both outputs and outcomes. For outputs, each action in the CCMP identifies what is to be done, by when, and by whom. The PEP will review these commitments and recommend mid course corrections as needed. For outcomes, the Environmental Monitoring Plan includes recommendations to periodically measure and report on a number of environmental indicators of the success of CCMP implementation. These indicators will tell us whether our goals and objectives are being met. The most important indicators are those, which involve measuring the ambient environment to assess whether beneficial uses are being restored, and whether the ecosystem is healthier and more productive as a result of actions taken. Other indicators involve measuring continuing loading of pollutants to the ambient environment.

Technical Measures A variety of technical criteria or indices can be developed to assist in evaluating the outcomes of CCMP implementation and effectiveness of CCMP activities. Many of these criteria, including nonregulatory guidelines, are described in other chapters of this Management Plan, such as nitrogen guidelines and DO standards.

In developing indices, the Management Committee will emphasize integration of water quality and living resources, to the extent possible. Examples include water quality habitat criteria for submerged aquatic vegetation, and possibly use submerged aquatic vegetation as a bio indicator of water quality and habitat quality. Also, benthic communities used as integrators of watershed stresses may be valuable bioindicators. These are, of course, subject to the findings of ongoing scientific studies being conducted by the PEP.

Coordination of scoping and design of a technical report, and its elements, will be performed by the PEP Management Conference. At a minimum, this report will include parameters such as groundwater quality changes, surface water nutrient trends, dissolved oxygen violations, and alterations in land use and land cover patterns.

Non Technical Measures Non technical measures also can be used as tools for assessing CCMP implementation. Reports summarizing the progress of various implementation mechanisms will also be prepared as a mechanism for tracking progress. Implementation funding levels and appropriations will be included. New regulatory initiatives and enforcement of pre existing initiatives also will be important.

Mechanisms such as preparing environmental " report cards" and government action " check lists," as outlined in Measuring Progress of Estuary Programs, A Manual, ( EPA 1994) has been recommended. That manual also outlines a bay quality index, an aggregate index of various parameters to attempt to monitor long term changes in bay quality. The report also emphasizes the importance of surveys and public education in the progress measurement process.

CCMP Reporting Every three years, the PEP will prepare a report on the status and effectiveness of CCMP implementation, focusing on outputs, as required by EPA National Estuary Program Guidance. The report will include commitments for redirection of efforts as needed. One and one half years after the first CCMP Implementation Report, and every three years after that, the PEP will also prepare a full account of the status and effectiveness of CCMP implementation, measured by the environmental outcomes being tracked through implementation of the PEP Environmental Monitoring Plan. Peconic Estuary Program CCMP C H A P T E R T E N 10 14 DATA MANAGEMENT The December 1993 Peconic Estuary Program Data Management Strategy designated the SCDHS Office of Ecology as the repository of water quality data and most GIS data. The Program Office also became the prime repository for natural resource data on a provisional basis. Since that time, the USFWS has worked on several mapping efforts and has provided GIS coverages to the Program Office for storage and distribution. Suffolk County will continue its role as a water quality data repository and data management agency; a permanent long term habitat and living resources data repository will need to be identified. The Data Management Strategy and related policies and practices will be periodically reviewed and updated, as needed. Peconic Estuary Program CCMP C H A P T E R T E N 10 15 POST CCMP MANAGEMENT ACTIONS Within the CCMP, some steps within the actions have been identified as priorities, as indicated under the step number. The PEP will seek to implement priority actions in the near term. Priorities may be either new or ongoing, commitments or recommendations. Completing some priority actions does not require any new or additional resources, because they are being undertaken through " base programs" or with funding that has been committed. In other cases, in order to complete the priority actions, new or additional resources need to be secured by some or all of the responsible entities.

POST CCMP MANAGEMENT ACTIONS M 1. Implement a Long Term Management Structure.

M 2. Conduct Monitoring and Coordinate Research.

M 3. Produce Progress Reports and Manage Data.

M 4. Update Municipal Officials.

M 5. Develop Sub Watershed Implementation Plans.

M 6. Ensure Consistence with National and State Historic Preservation Laws and the Endangered Species Act when Implementing the CCMP. Peconic Estuary Program CCMP C H A P T E R T E N 10 16 Addresses Post CCMP Objectives 1 and 2.

Steps M 1.1 Continue the current management conference structure. Review the effectiveness of this Priority structure during Implementation Reviews, or as needed, and make changes as appropriate.

M 1.2 Continue to use SCDHS Office of Ecology as the PEP Program Office, to provide Priority program administration, coordination, management, and technical support services.

Responsible Entities M 1.1 PEP Management Conference ( lead)

M 1.2 PEP ( lead), SCDHS M 1. Implement Long Term Management Structure. Peconic Estuary Program CCMP C H A P T E R T E N 10 17 Addresses Post CCMP Objective 3.

Steps M 2.1 Implement the PEP Environmental Monitoring Plan and integrate/ coordinate monitoring Priority with research.

M 2.2. Appoint a Living Resources Monitoring and Research Coordinator to develop and Priority oversee the long term habitat and living resources monitoring plan.

M 2.3. Continue to fund the NYSDEC coordinator, particularly to coordinate management of Priority habitat and living resources issues in the post CCMP period.

Responsible Entities M 2.1 PEP Management Conference ( lead)

M 2.2 PEP Management Conference M 2.3 NYSDEC, EPA M 2. Conduct Monitoring and Coordinate Research. Peconic Estuary Program CCMP C H A P T E R T E N 10 18 Addresses Post CCMP Objective 4.

Steps M 3.1 Produce Implementation Reports on outputs ( attainment of CCMP commitments and Priority recommendations), and reports on outcomes ( environmental conditions and indicators).

M 3.2 Update the PEP Data Management Strategy to establish SCDHS as the continuing longterm data repository for water quality related information. A permanent habitat and living resources data repository will need to be identified.

Responsible Entities M 3.1 EPA, NYSDEC, SCDHS, PEP Management Conference M 3.2 PEP Management Conference ( lead) M 3. Produce Progress Reports and Manage Data. Peconic Estuary Program CCMP C H A P T E R T E N 10 19 Addresses Post CCMP Objective 3.

Steps M 4.1 Update municipal officials on the Peconic Estuary Program. Provide educational Priority opportunities for these officials on the CCMP and technical issues.

Responsible Entities M 4.1 PEP ( lead) M 4. Update Municipal Officials. Peconic Estuary Program CCMP C H A P T E R T E N 10 20 Addresses Post CCMP Objective 2.

Steps M 5.1 Develop sub watershed implementation plans integrating actions from all CCMP Priority chapters for one waterbody, embayment, or geographic area in each town, per year.

Responsible Entities M 5.1 PEP ( lead) with local officials, businesses, non governmental organizations, and citizens M 5. Develop Sub Watershed Implementation Plans. Peconic Estuary Program CCMP C H A P T E R T E N 10 21 Addresses Post CCMP Objective 2.

While this Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan in and of itself will not have any effect on historic or prehistoric resources, there is the potential that individual actions of this plan that are subsequently implemented might. In compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, if any Federal undertaking performed as part of the CCMP has the potential to have an effect on prehistoric or historic resources as a result of ground disturbing activities, EPA will evaluate the need for the performance of an initial Stage IA cultural resources survey ( CRS) and any necessary additional stages of survey, prior to project implementation, to identify areas sensitive for the discovery of prehistoric or historic resources. Coordination of any further cultural resources investigations will be carried out by the appropriate Federal agency. To the extent that such actions are State undertakings, NYSDEC will be the lead for consulting with the State Historic Preservation Officer.

Informal consultation pursuant to Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act has been initiated with the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service. While EPA believes that the CCMP will not have a negative effect on Federally listed or proposed threatened or endangered species or their habitats, it is possible that some components of the CCMP may have to be modified based on input from these agencies. Any actions contemplated for the protection or enhancement of habitat for a Federally listed species should be implemented with the consent of the Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service.

Steps M 6.1 Ensure consistency with National and State historic preservation laws and the Endangered Species Act when implementing the CCMP Responsible Entities M 6.1 EPA, NYSDEC, PEP M 6. Ensure Consistency with National and State Historic Preservation Laws and the Endangered Species Act when Implementing the CCMP. Peconic Estuary Program CCMP C H A P T E R T E N 10 22 COSTS OF MANAGEMENT ACTIONS The total cost of all new actions proposed in the Post CCMP chapter is $ 1,525,000 in one time costs and $ 1,060,000 annually. The majority of these one time and annual costs are for implementing the PEP Environmental Monitoring Plan. ( See " Action Costs" in Chapter 1 for an explanation of how these costs were determined.)

POST CCMP MANAGEMENT ACTIONS SUMMARY TABLE Table 10 2 provides the following summary information about each of the actions presented in this chapter.

Status An action's status is designated in the table by either an " R" for " Recommendation" or a " C" for " Commitment." Actions that are commitments are being implemented because resources or funding and organizational support is available to carry them out. Actions that are " recommendations" require new or additional resources by some or all of the responsible entities. " O" refers to ongoing activities; " N" indicates new actions.

Timeframe This category refers to the general timeframe for action implementation. Some actions are ongoing or nearing completion; implementation of other actions is not anticipated until some time in the future.

Cost Information in the cost column represents the PEP's best estimate of the costs associated with action implementation. " Base Program" means that no new or additional funds will be needed outside of the responsible entity's operating budget to implement the action. Where additional funding is needed, resources to implement an action may be expressed in dollar amounts or work years or both. One full time equivalent employee or " FTE" is estimated as costing $ 75,000 per year, which includes salary, fringe benefits and indirect costs. The " Action Costs" description in both the Overview and Finance Chapters provides a expanded explanation of base programs and action costs. C H A P T E R T E N 10 23 Peconic Estuary Program CCMP Table 10 2. Post CCMP Management Actions.

Action Responsible Entity Timeframe Cost Status M 1 Implement a Long Term Management Structure. ( Objectives 1 and 2)

M 1.1 Priority Continue the current management conference structure. Review the effectiveness of this structure during Implementation Reviews or as needed, and make changes as appropriate. PEP Management Conference ( lead). Post CCMP EPA   02 FTE/ yr NYSDEC   0.2 FTE/ yr SCDHS   0.2 FTE/ yr C M 1.2 Priority Continue to use SCDHS Office of Ecology as the PEP Program Office, to provide program administration, coordination,

management, and technical support services. PEP ( lead), SCDHS. Ongoing $ 75,000/ yr, in EPA NEP Post CCMP funds. C/ O M 2 Conduct Monitoring and Coordinate Research. ( Objective 3)

M 2.1 Priority Implement the PEP Environmental Monitoring Plan and integrate/ coordinate monitoring with research PEP Management Conference ( lead). Post CCMP Some monitoring is ongoing; costs need to be specified for some new initiatives.

PEP   0.1 FTE/ yr Costs for Environmental Monitoring Plan:

Annual costs: $ 910,000 One time costs: $ 1,512,000 C/ O;

R/ N Table continued on next page C H A P T E R T E N 10 24 Peconic Estuary Program CCMP Table 10 2. Post CCMP Management Actions. ( continued)

Action Responsible Entity Timeframe Cost Status M 2.2 Priority Appoint a Living Resources Monitoring and Research Coordinator to develop and oversee the long term habitat and living resources monitoring plan. PEP Management Conference. Post CCMP $ 50,000 annually for coordinator. R M 2.3 Priority Continue to fund the NYSDEC coordinator, particularly to coordinate management of habitat and living resources issues in the post CCMP period. NYSDEC, EPA. Ongoing $ 75,000 per year, in EPA NEP post CCMP funds. C/ O M 3 Produce Progress Reports and Manage Data. ( Objective 4)

M 3.1 Priority Produce Implementation Reports on outputs ( attainment of CCMP commitments and recommendations), and reports on outcomes ( environmental conditions and indicators). EPA, NYSDEC, SCDHS,

PEP Management Conference. CCMP Implementation Reports: June 2001 and every three years thereafter Environmental Outcomes Reports: Dec 2002 and every three years thereafter EPA   0.1 FTE/ yr NYSDEC   0.1 FTE/ yr SCDHS   0.1 FTE/ yr C/ O M 3.2 Update the PEP Data Management Strategy to establish SCDHS as the continuing long term data repository for water quality related information. A permanent habitat and living resources data repository will need to be identified. PEP Management Conference ( lead). Post CCMP for data management strategy update. Base Programs for data management strategy update. Costs to be determined for long term habitat and living resources data management.

PEP   0.1 FTE/ yr C Table continued on next page C H A P T E R T E N 10 25 Peconic Estuary Program CCMP Table 10 2. Post CCMP Management Actions. ( continued)

Action Responsible Entity Timeframe Cost Status M 4 Update Municipal Officials. ( Objective 3)

M 4.1 Priority Update municipal officials on the Peconic Estuary Program. Provide educational opportunities for these officials on the CCMP and technical issues. PEP ( lead). Post CCMP and annually thereafter. EPA   0.1 FTE/ yr NYSDEC   0.1 FTE/ yr SCDHS   0.1 FTE/ yr C/ N M 5 Develop Sub Watershed Implementation Plans. ( Objective 2)

M 5.1 Develop sub watershed implementation plans integrating actions from all CCMP chapters for one waterbody, embayment, or geographic area in each town, per year. PEP ( lead) with local officials, businesses,

nongovernmental organizations,

and citizens. Post CCMP Estimate: $ 100,000/ yr to initiate new projects.

Technical support:

EPA   0.1 FTE/ yr NYSDEC   0.1 FTE/ yr SCDHS   0.1 FTE/ yr C/ N M 6 Ensure Consistency with National and State Historic Preservation Laws and the Endangered Species Act when Implementing the CCMP. ( Objective 2)

M 6.1 Ensure consistency with National and State historic preservation laws and the Endangered Species Act when implementing the CCMP. EPA, NYSDEC, PEP Post CCMP Base Program, as needed C/ N Peconic Estuary Program CCMP C H A P T E R T E N 10 26 This Page Intentionally Left Blank.


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 22 (Monday, February 3, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 6102-6103]
[FR Doc No: 2014-02158]

========================================================================
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. 79, No. 22 / Monday, February 3, 2014 /
Proposed Rules

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2014-0005; Directorate Identifier 2013-NM-144-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for
certain Airbus Model A310 series airplanes. This proposed AD was
prompted by a report of an electrical arc and a hydraulic haze in the
wheel bay of the left-hand main landing gear (MLG), possibly resulting
from chafing between a hydraulic high pressure hose and electrical
wiring of the green electrical motor pump (EMP). This proposed AD would
require modification of the electrical routing and replacement of the
union elbows. We are proposing this AD to prevent chafing of hydraulic
pressure hoses and electrical wiring of the green EMPs, which, in
combination with a system failure, could cause an uncontrolled and
undetected fire in the MLG bay.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by March 20, 2014.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: 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 proposed AD, contact
Airbus SAS, Airworthiness Office--EAW, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte,
31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61
93 44 51; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet http://www.airbus.com. You may view this referenced service information at the
FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton,
Washington. For information on the availability of this material at the
FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2014-
0005; 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 proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments
received, and other information. The street address for the Docket
Operations office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the ADDRESSES
section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after
receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dan Rodina, Aerospace Engineer,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA,
1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>;
fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address
listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2014-0005;
Directorate Identifier 2013-NM-144-AD'' at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposed AD based on those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this proposed AD.

Discussion

    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical
Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued EASA
Airworthiness Directive 2013-0165, dated July 25, 2013 (referred to
after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or
``the MCAI''), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified
products. The MCAI states:

    An A310 operator reported an electrical arc and a large
hydraulic haze in the Left Hand (LH) Main Landing Gear (MLG) wheel
bay that occurred during ground operation.
    The analysis of the occurrence revealed that this was likely
caused by chafing between a hydraulic high pressure hose and
electrical wiring of the Green Electrical Motor Pump (EMP).
    This condition, * * * could result in an undetected and
uncontrolled fire in the LH MLG wheel bay.
    For the reason described above, this [EASA] AD requires
modification of the electrical routing and installation of
reinforced hydraulic pipes [by replacing the union elbows to re-
route the delivery pipe at the upper EMP].

You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating it in Docket No.
FAA[dash]2014[dash]0005.

Relevant Service Information

    Airbus has issued Mandatory Service Bulletin A310-29-2103, dated
December 21, 2012. The actions described in this service information
are intended to correct the unsafe condition identified in the MCAI.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD

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

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 36 airplanes of U.S.
registry.
    We also estimate that it would take about 4 work-hours per product
to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. The average
labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Required parts would cost about $1,170
per product. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this
proposed AD on U.S. operators to be 54,360, or $1,510 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 proposed regulation is
within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe
condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in
this rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

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

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 AD:

Airbus: Docket No. FAA-2014-0005; Directorate Identifier 2013-NM-
144-AD.

(a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by March 20, 2014.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Airbus Model A310-203, -204, -221, -222, -
304, -322, -324, and -325 airplanes, certificated in any category,
all serial numbers on which Airbus modification number 04797 has
been embodied in production and those on which Airbus Service
Bulletin A310-29-2091 has been embodied in service.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 29, Hydraulic
Power.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by a report of an electrical arc and a
hydraulic haze in the wheel bay of the left-hand main landing gear
(MLG) possibly resulting from chafing between a hydraulic high
pressure hose and electrical wiring of the green electrical motor
pump (EMP). We are issuing this AD to prevent chafing of hydraulic
pressure hoses and electrical wiring of the green EMPs, which, in
combination with a system failure, could cause an uncontrolled and
undetected fire in the MLG bay.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Actions

    Within 36 months after the effective date of this AD, modify the
electrical routing of the electrical motor pump (EMP) power supply
in the hydraulic bay at frame 54 on the left-hand side and replace
the union elbows to re-route the delivery pipe at the upper EMP, in
accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Mandatory
Service Bulletin A310-29-2103, dated December 21, 2012.

(h) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
International Branch, ANM-116, FAA, has the authority to approve
AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR
39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your
principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as
appropriate. If sending information directly to the International
Branch, send it to ATTN: Dan Rodina, Aerospace Engineer,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA,
1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone (425) 227-
2125; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>. Information may be emailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Before using any approved AMOC, notify your
appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector,
the manager of the local flight standards district office/
certificate holding district office. The AMOC approval letter must
specifically reference this AD.
    (2) Airworthy Product: For any requirement in this AD to obtain
corrective actions from a manufacturer, use these actions if they
are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered FAA-approved if
they were approved by the State of Design Authority (or its
delegated agent, or the DAH with a State of Design Authority's
design organization approval). For a repair method to be approved,
the repair approval must specifically refer to this AD. You are
required to ensure the product is airworthy before it is returned to
service.

(i) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information
(MCAI) European Aviation Safety Agency Airworthiness Directive 2013-
0165, dated July 25, 2013, for related information. This MCAI may be
found in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov
by searching for and locating it in Docket No. FAA-2014-0005.
    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Airbus SAS, Airworthiness Office--EAW, 1 Rond Point Maurice
Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96;
fax +33 5 61 93 44 51; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Internet http://www.airbus.com. You may view this service
information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind
Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this
material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on January 22, 2014.
Jeffrey E. Duven,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2014-02158 Filed 1-31-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P