MEMO FOR THE RECORD TO: Docket No. OAR 2002 0076 FROM: Mark Evangelista, Chief June 14, 2005 Applied Modeling Branch NOAA Air Resources Laboratory In Partnership with U. S. EPA In conjunction with the document " CALPUFF Analysis in Support of the June 2005 Changes to the Regional Haze Rule," this memo is in support of the June 2005 revisions to the Regional Haze Rule and the Guidelines for Best Available Retrofit Technology ( BART) Determinations under the Regional Haze Rule. This memo documents the development of estimated emission limits based upon simulations using the CALPUFF dispersion model for assessing visibility impairment associated with prototypical BART eligible EGUs and industrial boilers. As described in the CALPUFF Analysis, we conducted 23 CALPUFF simulations to inform conclusions and decisions contained in the Regional Haze Rule and the Guidelines for Best Available Retrofit Technology ( BART) Determinations under the Regional Haze Rule. In this memo, we describe a method for using the results of some of those 23 CALPUFF simulations to evaluate the reasonableness of establishing presumptive emissions and distance factors to govern the need for further source specific modeling. Results from these CALPUFF simulations were used to derive tables of estimated emission rates to result in an impact of 0.5 delta deciviews ( ddv) at distances of 50, 100, and 200 kilometers. These values are only estimates and are relative indicators of the relationship between visibility impacts expressed in ddv and emission rates specific to each table. However, interpretation of these results, when considered with the margin of safety within both the CALPUFF modeling and the method for estimating emission limits described in this memo, should allow reasonable confidence that resultant emission limits can be established and technically supported. The CALPUFF model simulations conducted for the BART analysis are described in detail in the " CALPUFF Analysis in Support of the June 2005 Changes to the Regional Haze Rule." The estimated values of emission limits determined from specific model simulations chosen from the 23 CALPUFF simulations ( referred to as Run 1, Run 2, etc.) reasonably represent the emission and source scenarios analyzed and described within the Regional Haze Rule and supporting documents. The simulations chosen from the 23 CALPUFF simulations are listed in this table with reasons for selection listed below Pollutant to Estimate SO2 NOx EGU   East Run 3 Run 3 EGU   West Run 4 Run 4 Industrial Boiler   East Run 16 Run 18 Industrial Boiler  West Run 17 Run 20 Selection of EGU simulations for SO2 and NOx: We selected Run 3 and Run 4 to serve as the basis for estimating the relationship between SO2 emission rates ( tpy) and visibility impact ( ddv), as well as of the relationship between NOx emission rates ( tpy) and visibility impact ( ddv). These estimates will be used to evaluate the reasonableness of establishing presumptive emissions and distance factors to govern the need for further source specific modeling for the emission scenarios for which Run 3 and Run 4 were conducted, namely, EGU sources of SO2 and NOx for the Eastern and Western domains. Each domain utilized separate meteorological data, background ammonia concentrations, and natural background visibility conditions. Run 3 and Run 4 differed in NOx emission rates, but used identical emission rates for SO2 and primary PM 2.5. This difference in NOx is due to the different ratios of NOx to SO2 applied to the Eastern and Western domains in the CAPLUFF model simulations. As described in the CALPUFF Analysis, these ratios were selected to best represent a prototypical relationship between primary pollutant emissions in East and West for the EGU modeling in Runs 1 6. ( NOx emissions were treated as a function of SO2 emissions for Runs 1 and 2; those NOX emission values remained unchanged while SO2 varied from 10,000 to 1,000 tpy in Runs 3 6.) Runs 1, 3, and 5 varied SO2 emission rates from 10,000 to 1,000 while holding the NOx emission rate to 3,500 tpy for all three runs for the Eastern domain. Similarly Runs 2, 4, and 6 varied SO2 emission rates from 10,000 to 1,000 while holding the NOx emission rate to 6,250 tpy for all three runs for the Western domain. Resulting visibility impacts in ddv from the three runs for each domain appeared linear when plotted together against emission rate and distance. To determine the estimated emission limits for EGU scenarios, we selected Run 3 and Run 4. They represented the midpoints of the linear relationship with SO2 emission rates of 5,000 tpy. Selection of non EGU simulations for NOx: Unlike EGUs, non EGUs were in a very diverse mix of emission rates; no ratio was apparent. In fact, many potential BART non EGU sources only listed emissions of one pollutant. Additionally, there were no instances of more than two model run scenarios similar enough to determine linear or other relationships by plotting the results on a common axis. In these non EGU cases, we chose individual runs for their individual emission information, with a preference for CALPUFF runs in which one pollutant was modeled in much greater quantities than the other pollutants. We were fortunate to have Run 18 and Run 20, which simulated industrial boilers with zero SO2 emissions and 1000 tpy NOx emissions. Selection of non EGU simulations for SO2 : While we desired runs in which emissions of 1000 tpy SO2 and zero NOx were simulated , no CALPUFF runs were conducted with zero NOx emissions. We therefore selected Runs 16 and 17, which modeled 900 tpy SO2 and 300 tpy NOx, as the closest approximations to 1000 tpy SO2 and zero NOx. We believe that it is reasonable for the purposes of this analysis to treat the combination of visibility impacts of such emissions of these pollutant as roughly equivalent to that of 1000 tpy of SO2. Given the total SO2 and NOx emissions of 1200 tpy, visibility impacts of Run 16 and Run 17 were thus utilized in the estimation method as having been derived from 1000 tpy SO2 and zero NOx. Calculation of estimated emission limits: Once we identified the best runs to use for the estimation, we recorded the 5 year average visibility impact values for each run, for 50, 100, and 200 km.. To determine the estimated emission limits, we estimated the emission rate needed to result in a visibility impact of .5 ddv at 50, 100, and 200 km by using a simple ratio:

Target Emission Rate / 0.5 ddv = Modeled Emission Rate / Modeled Visibility Impact This converts to

Target Emission Rate = Modeled Emission Rate / ( 2 * Modeled Visibility Impact)

The Modeled Emission Rate is taken from the input parameters for the particular CALPUFF model simulation. We selected the Modeled Visibility Impact as the 98th and 99th percentiles from the results of each CALPUFF simulation. These results are tabulated for each of the 23 CALPUFF simulations and are included in a spreadsheet file in docket OAR 2002 0076 under separate cover, titled within the spreadsheet as " Ten Highest ddv Values for Each Distance." The 99th percentile was calculated as the midpoint value of visibility impact in ddv between the 3rd and 4th highest values in the table. The 98th percentile was taken as the 7th highest value in the same table. The 98th and 99th percentile values were recorded for 50, 100, and 200 km. The target emission rates were estimated using the expression above and rounded to the lower hundred value.

For example, the SO2 emission rate estimated to result in a 98th percentile 0.5 ddv impact at 50 km ( the target emission rate) for an EGU in the Eastern domain ( Run 3) is calculated

Target = 5000 / ( 2 * 0.86 ddv) Target = 2900 ( rounded from 2906)

Again, with notice that these values are estimates only, the table of values is attached:

Estimated Emission Rates ( tpy) to Result in .5 ddv  Eastern Domain Source Pollutant Distance ( km) 98th percentile 99th percentile EGU NOx 200 3500 2400 EGU NOx 100 2500 1800 EGU NOx 50 2000 1300 EGU SO2 200 5100 3500 EGU SO2 100 3500 2500 EGU SO2 50 2900 1900 Ind. Boiler NOx 200 6200 4100 Ind. Boiler NOx 100 2600 1900 Ind. Boiler NOx 50 1300 900 Ind. Boiler SO2 200 6200 3500 Ind. Boiler SO2 100 3300 2200 Ind. Boiler SO2 50 1700 1200 Estimated Emission Rates ( tpy) to Result in .5 ddv  Western Domain Source Pollutant Distance ( km) 98th percentile 99th percentile EGU NOx 200 4200 2600 EGU NOx 100 2200 1700 EGU NOx 50 1400 1100 EGU SO2 200 3300 2100 EGU SO2 100 1800 1300 EGU SO2 50 1100 800 Ind. Boiler NOx 200 4100 2700 Ind. Boiler NOx 100 1900 1300 Ind. Boiler NOx 50 700 600 Ind. Boiler SO2 200 6200 4100 Ind. Boiler SO2 100 3300 2000 Ind. Boiler SO2 50 1300 900 Interpretation and Conclusions: The emission rates in the tables above may be interpreted as emission limits that would, at those limits, result in a visibility impact of 0.5 ddv for the emission, source, and CALPUFF model parameters associated with the model simulations from which the target emission rate, and therefore the emission limit, had been estimated. We may reasonably interpret any emission rate less than a particular emission limit as resulting in a visibility impact less than 0.5 ddv for the emission, source, and CALPUFF model parameters associated with the model simulations from which that same target emission rate, and therefore the emission limit, had been estimated. However, we cannot as reasonably interpret an emission rate greater than the respective emission limit to result in a visibility impact equal to or greater than 0.5ddv. This discontinuity is due to the margin of safety in the CALPUFF simulations and the emission limit estimation method. The safety factors inherent in both the CALPUFF model simulations and the emission limit estimating method create a margin of safety in the calculations that gives us high confidence that we may establish an effective emission limit as long as that limit is less than the estimated emission limit determined here. Several factors add to a cumulative margin of safety in the calculations: the chemistry processing and dispersion calculation within CALPUFF tends to overpredict impacts in the type of simulations we performed; the estimation of the linear relationship among CALPUFF Runs 1 6, which was used for estimating emission limits for the EGU runs, is generalized and rounds to the higher impact; the prototypical input parameters for the illustrative CALPUFF simulations were rounded to greater values; the use of ddv, which is the product of a non linear calculation, as the operand in the estimation method carries full weight of natural background light extinction, and therefore results in slightly higher estimates; and lastly, the results of the estimation were rounded to the lower one hundreds value. Considered individually, each of these safety margins can only result in a marginal increase in confidence, however, their sum allows us a high level of confidence that any emission rate less than the emission limit estimated by this method would not result in a visibility impact equal to or greater than 0.5 ddv. We have used the information in this memo to evaluate the reasonableness of establishing presumptive emissions and distance factors to govern the need for further source specific modeling. The results of this review support our conclusion that it would be reasonable to exempt from further modeling sources with the following combinations of emissions and distance to the nearest Class I area: a) emissions of SOx at a rate less than 500 tons per year, or emissions of NOx less than 500 tons per year, or combined emissions of both pollutants less than 500 tons per year, and with a distance from the nearest Class I areas 50 km or greater; b) emissions of SOx at a rate less than 1000 tons per year, or emissions of NOx less than 1000 tons per year, or combined emissions of both pollutants less than 1000 tons per year, and with a distance from the nearest Class I areas 100 km or greater. For the same given distances, the presumptive emission limits mentioned in this paragraph are less than any of the emission limits estimated by the method described here. Given this relationship, and given the added confidence of the margin of safety in our calculations, we have a high level of confidence that any modeling of sources with emission rates less than the presumptive limits for the same distance would result in impacts less than 0.5ddv, and therefore such modeling would be unnecessary to satisfy our certainty that no impact greater than 0.5 ddv would occur. Of course, our confidence remains high as long as any source considered against the presumptive limits is, in its source parameters, its geographic scenario, and its relationship to the Class I areas, reasonably similar to the scenarios and parameters utilized in the CALPUFF simulations upon which the estimations of emission limits are based. Caution is strongly suggested in applying the presumption to a source without such similarity, a source located in a unique terrain that would affect advection of pollutant to a Class I area, for example. As always, conducting a source specific CALPUFF modeling simulation would eliminate any question in such a case.


CLEAN AIR INTERSTATE RULE DOCKETING FORM NAME OF GROUP: Crow Tribe, Westmoreland Coal Company MEETING___ XX__ SPEECH_____ PHONE CALL_____

DATE: September 24, 2004 LOCATION OF MEETING/ SPEECH/ PHONE CALL: EPA, Washington DC, Ariel Rios North Building PURPOSE OF MEETING/ SPEECH/ PHONE CALL:

The purpose of the this meeting was to discuss potential impacts of CAIR on the Absaloka Mine, which is operated by the Crow Tribe through mineral leases with Westmoreland Resources Incorporated ( a subsidiary of Westmoreland Coal), the mine's owners.

ATTENDEES: EPA: Jeff Holmstead, Benjamin Hengst, Sarah Dunham, Sharyn Lie Carl Vexine, Crow Tribe Tom Rossetto, Westmoreland Resources Todd Myers, Westmoreland Coal Co.

COMMENTS:

ATTACHMENTS ( HANDOUTS): None


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 167 (Monday, August 29, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Page 59260]
[FR Doc No: 2016-20568]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Proposed Collection; Comment Request

Upon Written Request Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of FOIA Services, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC
20549-2736.

Extension: Form 15F
    SEC File No. 270-559, OMB Control No. 3235-0621

    Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') is soliciting comments on the collection of
information summarized below. The Commission plans to submit this
existing collection of information to the Office of Management and
Budget for extension and approval.
    Form 15F (17 CFR 249.324) is filed by a foreign private issuer when
terminating its Exchange Act reporting obligations pursuant to Exchange
Act Rule 12h-6 (17 CFR 240.12h-6). Form 15F requires a foreign private
issuer to disclose information that helps investors understand the
foreign private issuer's decision to terminate its Exchange Act
reporting obligations and assists the Commission staff in determining
whether the filer is eligible to terminate its Exchange Act reporting
obligations pursuant to Rule 12h-6. Rule 12h-6 provides a process for a
foreign private issuer to exit the Exchange Act registration and
reporting regime when there is relatively little U.S. investor interest
in its securities. Rule 12h-6 is intended to remove a disincentive for
foreign private issuers to register their securities with the
Commission by lessening concerns that the Exchange Act registration and
reporting system would be difficult to exit once an issuer enters it.
We estimate that Form 15F takes approximately 30 hours to prepare and
is filed by approximately 30 issuers. We estimate that 25% of the 30
hours per response (7.5 hours per response) is prepared by the filer
for a total annual reporting burden of 225 hours (7.5 hours per
response x 30 responses).
    Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether this proposed
collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of
the functions of the agency, including whether the information will
have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of
the burden imposed by the collection of information; (c) ways to
enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected;
and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on
respondents, including through the use of automated collection
techniques or other forms of information technology. Consideration will
be given to comments and suggestions submitted in writing within 60
days of this publication.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid control number.
    Please direct your written comment to Pamela Dyson, Director/Chief
Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Remi
Pavlik-Simon, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549 or send an email
to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Dated: August 23, 2016.
Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-20568 Filed 8-26-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 9 (Friday, January 13, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 2060-2062]
[FR Doc No: 2012-614]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-9618-3; EPA-HQ-OEI-2011-0551]

Amendment of the System of Records for Records of Pesticide
Applicators Certified Under EPA-Administered Certification Plans (EPA-
59)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the provisions of the Privacy Act of 1974 (5
U.S.C. 552a), the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Office of
Pesticide Programs, Field and External Affairs Division, is giving
notice that it proposes to amend an existing system of records that
contains personally identifiable information (PII) which is collected
in the process of certifying individuals to apply restricted use
pesticides (RUPs) as private or commercial applicators. This amendment
gives notice that the Agency plans to make the name of the applicator
and information pertaining to the certification granted by EPA publicly
available on an EPA Web site.

DATES: Effective Dates: Persons wishing to comment on this system of
records notice must do so by February 22, 2012.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OEI-2011-0551, by one of the following methods:
     www.regulations.gov: Follow the online instructions for
submitting comments.
     Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: OEI Docket, Environmental Protection Agency,
Mailcode: 2822T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460.
     Hand Delivery: OEI Docket, EPA/DC, EPA West Building, Room
B102, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. 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-HQ-OEI-
2011-0551. EPA's policy is that all comments

received will be included in the public docket without change and may
be made available online at www.regulations.gov, including any personal
information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed
to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information for
which disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information
that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through
www.regulations.gov. The 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 email comment directly to EPA without going through
www.regulations.gov your email 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. For additional information about EPA's public docket visit the
EPA Docket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
for which disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material,
such as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard
copy. Publicly available docket materials are available either
electronically in www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the OEI
Docket, EPA/DC, EPA West Building, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave.
NW., Washington, DC. 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 OEI Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nicole Zinn, Office of Pesticide
Programs, Field & External Affairs Division, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Mail Code 7506P, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW.,
Washington, DC 20460; telephone number<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

    The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has created a Privacy Act
system of records to document the Agency's decisions on applications
filed requesting certification to apply restricted use pesticides (RUP)
under certification plans administered by EPA regional offices or the
Office of Pesticide Programs, as described in 75 FR 49489 (August 13,
2010). This system of records, entitled ``Records of Pesticide
Applicators Certified Under EPA-Administered Certification Plans,''
covers the following types of information: (1) Contact information
(e.g., name, address, telephone number, email address); (2)
identification information (e.g., birth date, proof of identification
(e.g., driver's license no.)), physical description (e.g., height,
weight, gender, race)); (3) certification information (e.g., EPA
certified applicator number, certification type (private or
commercial), certification categories (e.g., aerial, aquatic,
fumigation), certification issuance and expiration dates, and (4)
information regarding qualifications (e.g., scores from EPA
certification examinations; records of training and continuing
education; state, tribal or other federal agency certification
number(s), types, categories, issuance and expiration dates; records of
compliance with federal, state and tribal pesticide laws). This
information is provided by the pesticide applicators applying for EPA
certification or it is generated during the certification process.
    Records covered by this system of record notice are subject to
Agency-wide security requirements governing all Privacy Act database
systems at EPA. As described in the August 13, 2010 FR notice, system
administrators may disclose certain personal information (e.g., names,
addresses, EPA certification numbers, categories of certification) upon
request as described in the section describing routine uses of records
maintained in the system. The Tribal Pesticide Program Council and
other tribes requested EPA to make certain information available online
to facilitate their ability to confirm private and commercial
certifications. The Agency plans to publish only the name, zip code and
certification information for private applicators.

    Dated: January 3, 2012.
Malcom D. Jackson,
Assistant Administrator and Chief Information Officer.
EPA-59

System Name:
    Records of Pesticide Applicators Certified Under EPA-Administered
Certification Plans

System Location:
    USEPA, Office of Pesticide Programs, Field & External Affairs
Division, Mail Code 7506P, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC
20460, and other EPA offices authorized by the Field & External Affairs
Division to maintain portions of the system.

Categories of Individuals Covered by the System:
    Persons certified or seeking certification to apply restricted use
pesticides (RUPs) under Certification Plans administered by EPA.

Categories of Records in the System:
    (a) Contact information (e.g., name, address, telephone number,
email address).
    (b) Identification information (e.g., birth date, proof of
identification (e.g., driver's license no.), physical description
(e.g., height, weight, gender, race)).
    (c) Data generated by EPA in the processing of the EPA
certification (e.g., EPA certified applicator number, certification
type (private or commercial), certification categories (e.g., aerial,
aquatic, fumigation), certification issuance and expiration dates).
    (d) Information regarding qualifications (e.g., scores from EPA
certification examinations; records of training and continuing
education; state, tribal or other federal agency certification
number(s), types, categories, issuance and expiration dates; records of
compliance with federal, state and tribal pesticide laws).

Authority for Maintenance of the System (Includes Any Revisions or
Amendments):
    Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) Section
11(a)(1) provides for the certification of RUP applicators. 40 CFR
171.11 further describes certification procedures including the
completion and submission of certification applications to EPA,
issuance/revocation of certificates, monitoring of certifications, and
applicator recordkeeping requirements. Title 7 United States Code,
section 136i(a)(1) authorizes the collection of this information.

Purpose(s):
    The primary purpose of the system is to track RUP applicator
certifications issued by EPA under pesticide applicator certification
plans, including the initial applications/issuance and any renewals,
denials, or revocations of certifications. Certified applicators are
subject to RUP recordkeeping requirements under FIFRA, section 11 and
40 CFR part 171. The system may also be used to contribute to the
development of inspection targeting schemes to verify compliance with
recordkeeping requirements for RUPs.

Routine Uses of Records Maintained in the System, Including Categories
of Users, and the Purposes of Such Uses:
    RUPs may not be distributed, sold, or made available to persons
other than certified applicators. The system will be used to record the
identity and certification status of pesticide applicators certified by
EPA. Certain personal information contained in the system (e.g., date
of birth, drivers' license numbers) will be protected from general
disclosure under the Privacy Act. However, many of the records will be
subject to general routine uses, particularly routine uses A, B, C, F,
G, H, K, and L. (See http://www.epa.gov/privacy/notice/general.htm).
Routine uses include disclosures to RUP retailers and dealers in order
to verify the status of persons claiming to be certified by EPA, and to
state or tribal officials intending to grant certifications based upon
EPA's prior certification. Information from this system also may be
disclosed for law enforcement purposes to federal, state, and tribal
officials responsible for pesticide enforcement. Disclosure will assist
in determining compliance and non-compliance with Federal, State, and
tribal requirements of certified applicators. EPA may also post certain
information about certified applicators (name, contact information, and
certification information) to an EPA Web site in order to enable
interested persons to identify applicators certified by EPA in various
categories. The Agency will only publish name, zip code and
certification information for private applicators.

Policies and Practices for Storing, Retrieving, Accessing, Retaining,
and Disposing of Records in the System:
     Storage: Records will be stored using the Agency's
standard database system (e.g., Lotus Notes) and managed by system
administrators and Pesticide Office personnel.
     Retrievability: Data will be retrieved by the applicator's
name and certification action (e.g., new, recertification, duplicate).
     Safeguards:
    --Standard Agency-wide protections for internal databases.
    --The access control list is limited to Agency system
administrators, individuals responsible for evaluating applications and
issuing the EPA certifications and program personnel responsible for
data entry. No other EPA personnel have access to the database(s).
Program personnel are trained to protect sensitive and confidential
information submitted under FIFRA. No external access to the system is
provided.
     Retention and Disposal: Records stored in this system are
subject to Schedule 090.
     System Manager(s) and Address: Nicole Zinn, Office of
Pesticide Programs, Field and External Affairs Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code 7506P, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Notification Procedures:
    Requests to determine whether this system of records contains a
record pertaining to you must be sent to the Agency's Freedom of
Information Office. The address is: U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency; 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Room 6416 West; Washington, DC
20460;<PHONE_NUMBER>; Email: (hq.foia@epa.gov); Attn: Privacy Act
Officer.

Record Access Procedures:
    Persons seeking access to their own personal information in this
system of records will be required to provide adequate identification
(e.g., driver's license, military identification card, employee badge
or identification card) and, if necessary, proof of authority.
Additional identity verification procedures may be required as
warranted. Requests must meet the requirements of EPA regulations at 40
CFR part 16.

Contesting Records Procedures:
    Requests for correction or amendment must identify the record to be
changed and the corrective action sought. Complete EPA Privacy Act
procedures are set out at 40 CFR part 16.

Record Source Categories:
    There are three sources of data for records stored in the system:
    (1) State, tribal or other Federal certification data upon which
the EPA certification is based.
    (2) Data provided by the requesting applicator at the time of its
request for EPA certification.
    (3) Data generated by EPA in the processing of the EPA
certification.

System exempted from certain provisions of the Privacy Act:
    None.

[FR Doc. 2012-614 Filed 1-12-12; 8:45 a.m.]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 216 (Tuesday, November 8, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 78683-78684]
[FR Doc No: 2016-26954]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

RTCA Program Management Committee Meeting

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

ACTION: RTCA Program Management Committee Meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is issuing this notice to advise the public of a
meeting of RTCA Program Management Committee Meeting.

DATES: The meeting will be held December 15, 2016 08:30 a.m.-04:30 p.m.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at: RTCA Headquarters, 1150 18th
Street NW., Suite 910, Washington, DC 20036.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Karan Hofmann at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or
202-330-0680, or The RTCA Secretariat, 1150 18th Street NW., Suite 910,
Washington, DC 20036, or by telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>, fax at (202)
833-9434, or Web site at http://www.rtca.org.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal
Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 5 U.S.C., App.), notice is
hereby given for a meeting of the RTCA Program Management Committee.
The agenda will include the following:

Thursday, December 15, 2016--8:30 a.m.-4:30 p.m.

1. Welcome and Introductions
2. Review/Approve
    A. Meeting Summary September 22, 2016
    B. Administrative Special Committee TOR Revisions
3. Publication Consideration/Approval
    A. Final Draft, New Document--Minimum Aviation System Performance
Standards for Aeronautical Information/Meteorological Data Link
Services, prepared by SC-206
    B. Final Draft, New Document--Guidance for the Development of
Portable Electronic Devices (PED) Tolerance for Civil Aircraft,
prepared by SC-234
    C. Final Draft, Revised Document, DO-307--Aircraft Design and
Certification for Portable Electronic Device (PED) Tolerance, prepared
by SC-234
    D. Final Draft, Revision to DO-343--Minimum Aviation System
Performance Standard for AMS(R)S Data and Voice Communications
Supporting Required Communications Performance (RCP) and Required
Surveillance Performance (RSP) in Procedural Airspace, prepared by SC-
222
    E. Final Draft, New Document--Detect and Avoid Minimum Operational
Performance Standards Phase I (DAA MOPS), prepared by SC-228
    F. Final Draft, New Document--Minimum Operational Performance
Standards (MOPS) for Air-to-Air Radar Detect and Avoid (DAA) Systems
Phase 1, prepared by SC-228
    G. Final Draft, Revision to DO-229D with Change 1- Minimum
Operational Performance Standards for Global Positioning System/
Satellite-Based Augmentation System Airborne Equipment, prepared by SC-
159
4. Integration and Coordination Committee (ICC)
    A. Suggested Changes to MOPS/MASPS Drafting Guides--Update
5. Past Action Item Review
    A. Boeing/ARINC Winds Work Update--Presentation
    B. Cross Cutting Committee Membership--Update
    C. EUROCAE Harmonization Work with SC-223 and WG-82--Update
    D. PBN, Speed, Spacing Task Group Final Report--Presentation
    E. Response to Transportation Safety Board of Canada Letter--Update
6. Discussion
    A. SC-159--Navigation Equipment Using the Global Positioning
System--Discussion--Ligado Letter
    B. SC-159--Navigation Equipment Using the Global Positioning
System--Discussion--Revised TOR
    C. SC-206--Aeronautical Information Services (AIS) and
Meteorological Data Link Services--Discussion--Revised TOR
    D. SC-225--Rechargeable Lithium Batteries and Battery Systems--
Discussion--Update on DO-311 Revision
    E. SC-213--Enhanced Flight Vision Systems/Synthetic Vision
Systems--Discussion--Revised TOR
    F. SC-223--Internet Protocol Suite (IPS) and Aeronautical Mobile
Airport Communication System--Discussion--Revised TOR
    G. NAC--Status Update
    H. TOC--Status Update
    I. DAC--Status Update
    J. FAA Actions Taken on Previously Published Documents--Report
    K. Special Committees--Chairmen's Reports and Active Inter-Special
Committee Requirements Agreements (ISRA)--Review
    L. European/EUROCAE Coordination--Status Update
7. Other Business
8. Schedule for Committee Deliverables and Next Meeting Date
9. New Action Item Summary

    Attendance is open to the interested public but limited to space
availability. With the approval of the chairman,

members of the public may present oral statements at the meeting.
Persons wishing to present statements or obtain information should
contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section. Members of the public may present a written statement to the
committee at any time.

    Issued in Washington, DC on November 3, 2016.
Mohannad Dawoud,
Management & Program Analyst, Partnership Contracts Branch, ANG-A17,
NextGen, Procurement Services Division, Federal Aviation
Administration.
[FR Doc. 2016-26954 Filed 11-7-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


Record for the Final Metal Product and Machinery Rule Sensitivity Analysis for Child Lead Benefits Based on a 7 Percent Discount Rate Child Lead Benefits, Weighted Estimates ( Proposed/ NODA Option) Category Type Reduced Cases Annual Benefits ( 2001$) Neo Natal Mortality Sport 1.1395 $ 7,406,485.65 Neo Natal Mortality Sub 0.4633 $ 3,011,295.40 Avoided IQ Loss Sport 796.2802 $ 1,446,841.15 Avoided IQ Loss Sub 282.1024 $ 512,580.02 Reduced IQ < 70 Sport 2.7764 $ 102,256.27 Reduced IQ < 70 Sub 0.9471 $ 34,883.35 Reduced Pb > 20 Sport 0.0000 $ 0.00 Reduced Pb > 20 Sub 0.0000 $ 0.00 Total $ 12,514,341.83 Child Lead Benefits, Weighted Estimates ( Directs + 413 to 433 Upgrade Option) Category Type Reduced Cases Annual Benefits ( 2001$) Neo Natal Mortality Sport 0.1089 $ 707,719.99 Neo Natal Mortality Sub 0.0443 $ 287,909.51 Avoided IQ Loss Sport 0.0000 $ 0.00 Avoided IQ Loss Sub 31.9909 $ 58,127.52 Reduced IQ < 70 Sport 0.0000 $ 0.00 Reduced IQ < 70 Sub 0.1144 $ 4,213.47 Reduced Pb > 20 Sport 0.0000 $ 0.00 Reduced Pb > 20 Sub 0.0000 $ 0.00 Total $ 1,057,970.50 Child Lead Benefits, Weighted Estimates ( Directs + All to 433 Upgrade Option) Category Type Reduced Cases Annual Benefits ( 2001$) Neo Natal Mortality Sport 0.1213 $ 788,516.07 Neo Natal Mortality Sub 0.0494 $ 320,778.28 Avoided IQ Loss Sport 0.0000 $ 0.00 Avoided IQ Loss Sub 36.1869 $ 65,751.63 Reduced IQ < 70 Sport 0.0000 $ 0.00 Reduced IQ < 70 Sub 0.1293 $ 4,762.44 Reduced Pb > 20 Sport 0.0000 $ 0.00 Reduced Pb > 20 Sub 0.0000 $ 0.00 Total $ 1,179,808.43 February 14, 2003 Page 1 of 1 exlchld. xls  Child Lead


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 76 (Wednesday, April 20, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 22064-22067]
[FR Doc No: 2011-9534]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket No. USCG-2011-0265]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone; Michigan Bankers Association Fireworks, Lake Huron,
Mackinac Island, MI

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to establish a temporary safety zone
in the Captain of the Port Sault Sainte Marie zone. This proposed rule
is intended to establish a safety zone that will restrict vessels from
certain portions of water areas within Sector Sault Sainte Marie
Captain of the Port zone, as defined by 33 CFR 3-45.45. This temporary
safety zone is necessary to protect spectators and vessels from the
hazards associated with fireworks displays.

DATES: Comments and related material must be received by the Coast
Guard on or before May 20, 2011.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-
2011-0265 using any one of the following methods:
    (1) Federal Rulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
    (2) Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (3) Mail: Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S. Department of
Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001.
    (4) Hand delivery: Same as mail address above, between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The telephone
number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    To avoid duplication, please use only one of these four methods.
See the ``Public Participation and Request for Comments'' portion of
the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below for instructions on
submitting comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this proposed
rule, call or e-mail BMC Gregory Ford, Prevention Department, Coast
Guard, Sector Sault Sainte Marie, MI, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have questions on viewing or submitting
material to the docket, call Renee V. Wright, Program Manager, Docket
Operations, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Public Participation and Request for Comments

    We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting
comments and related materials. All comments received will be posted
without change to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any
personal information you have provided.

Submitting Comments

    If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
rulemaking (USCG-2011-0265), indicate the specific section of this
document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each
suggestion or recommendation. You may submit your comments and material
online (via http://www.regulations.gov) or by fax, mail, or hand
delivery, but please use only one of these means. If you submit a
comment online via http://www.regulations.gov, it will be considered
received by the Coast Guard when you successfully transmit the comment.
If you fax, hand deliver, or mail your comment, it will be considered
as having been received by the Coast Guard when it is received at the
Docket Management Facility. We recommend that you include your name and
a mailing address, an e-mail address, or a telephone number in the body
of your document so that we can contact you if we have questions
regarding your submission.
    To submit your comment online, go to http://www.regulations.gov,
click on the ``submit a comment'' box, which will then become
highlighted in blue. In the ``Document Type'' drop down menu select
``Proposed Rule'' and insert ``USCG-2011-0265'' in the ``Keyword'' box.
Click ``Search'' then click on the balloon shape in the ``Actions''
column. If you submit your comments by mail or hand delivery, submit
them in an unbound format, no larger than 8\1/2\ by 11 inches, suitable
for copying and electronic filing. If you submit comments by mail and
would like to know that they reached the Facility, please enclose a
stamped, self-addressed postcard or envelope. We will consider all
comments and material received during the comment period and may change
the rule based on your comments.

Viewing Comments and Documents

    To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble
as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov,
click on the ``read comments'' box, which will then become highlighted
in blue. In the ``Keyword'' box insert ``USCG-2011-2065'' and click
``Search.'' Click the ``Open Docket Folder'' in the ``Actions'' column.
You may also visit the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on
the ground floor of the Department of Transportation West Building,
1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. We have an
agreement with the Department of Transportation to use the Docket
Management Facility.

Privacy Act

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

Public Meeting

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

Background and Purpose

    From June 21, 2011 through June 24, 2011, the Michigan Bankers
Association's will celebrate its 125th anniversary. The celebration
will take place on and around on Mackinac Island. On the evening of
June 24, 2011, the celebration will include a fireworks display to be
launched from a water location. The Captain of the Port Sault Sainte
Marie has determined that the fireworks event poses various hazards to
the public, including obstructions to the navigable channel, explosive
dangers associated with fireworks, and debris falling into the water.
To minimize these and other hazards, this proposed rule will establish
a temporary safety zone around the fireworks display.

Discussion of Proposed Rule

    This proposed rule and temporary safety zone is necessary to ensure
the safety of spectators and vessels during the setup and launching of
fireworks in conjunction with the Michigan Bankers Association
Fireworks display. The temporary safety zone will include all waters of
Lake Huron within a 500-foot radius from the fireworks launch site,
approximately 460 yards south of Biddle Point, at position
45[deg]50'32.82'' N, 084[deg]37'03.18'' W: [DATUM: NAD 83].
    All persons and vessels will be required to comply with the
instructions of the Coast Guard Captain of the Port or the designated
on-scene representative. Entry into, transiting, or anchoring within
the safety zone will be prohibited except when authorized by the
Captain of the Port Sector Sault Sainte Marie or his on-scene
representative. The Captain of the Port or his on-scene representative
may be contacted via VHF Channel 16.

Regulatory Analyses

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

Regulatory Planning and Review

    This proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action under
section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review,
and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits
under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and
Budget has not reviewed it under that Order. It is not ``significant''
under the regulatory policies and procedures of the Department of
Homeland Security (DHS). We conclude that this proposed rule is not a
significant regulatory action because we anticipate that it will have
minimal impact on the economy, will not interfere with other agencies,
will not adversely alter the budget of any grant or loan recipients,
and will not raise any novel legal or policy issues. The safety zone
created by this proposed rule will be relatively small and enforced for
a relatively short time. Also, the safety zone is designed to minimize
its impact on navigable waters. Furthermore, the safety zone has been
designed to allow vessels to transit around it. Thus, restrictions on
vessel movement within that particular area are expected to be minimal.
Under certain conditions, moreover, vessels may still transit through
the safety zone when permitted by the Captain of the Port.

Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have
considered whether this rule would have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities. The term ``small entities''
comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are
independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields,
and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000.
    The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities.
    This rule will affect the following entities, some of which may be
small entities: The owners and operators of vessels intending to
transit or anchor in a portion of Lake Huron, Mackinac Island, Michigan
between 9 p.m. and 11 p.m. on June 23, 2011.
    This safety zone will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities for the following reasons: This
rule will be in effect for only two hours on one night. Also, vessel
traffic can safely pass outside the safety zone during the event. In
the event that this proposed safety zone affects shipping, commercial
vessels may request permission from the Captain of the Port Sault
Sainte Marie to transit through the safety zone. The Coast Guard will
give notice that the regulation is in effect to the public via a
Broadcast to Mariners.
    If you think that your business, organization, or governmental
jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have
a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see
ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what
degree this rule would economically affect it.

Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this proposed rule so that they can better
evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. If the
rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental
jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or
options for compliance, please contact BMC Gregory Ford, Prevention
Department, Coast Guard Sector Sault Sainte Marie, MI at (906) 635-
3222. The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that
question or complain about this proposed rule or any policy or action
of the Coast Guard.

Collection of Information

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

Federalism

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

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

Taking of Private Property

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

Civil Justice Reform

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

Protection of Children

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

Indian Tribal Governments

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

Energy Effects

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

Technical Standards

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

Environment

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland
Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction
M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and
have made a preliminary determination that this action is one of a
category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a
significant effect on the human environment. A preliminary
environmental analysis checklist supporting this preliminary
determination is available in the docket where indicated under
ADDRESSES. This proposed rule involves the establishment of a safety
zone, and therefore, paragraph (34)(g) of figure 2-1 applies. We seek
any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a
significant environmental impact from this proposed rule.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

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

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

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

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

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

    2. Add Sec.  165.T09-0265 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T09-0265  Safety Zone; Michigan Bankers Association
Fireworks, Lake Huron, Mackinac Island, MI.

    (a) Location. The following area is a temporary safety zone: All
waters of Lake Huron within a 500-foot radius from the fireworks launch
site, approximately 460 yards south of Biddle Point, at position
45[deg]50'32.82'' N, 084[deg]37'03.18'' W: [DATUM: NAD 83].
    (b) Effective and Enforcement period. This regulation is effective
and will be enforced from 9 p.m. until 11 p.m. on June 23, 2011.
    (1) The Captain of the Port, Sector Sault Sainte Marie may suspend
at any time the enforcement of the safety zone established under this
section.
    (2) The Captain of the Port, Sector Sault Sainte Marie, will notify
the public of the enforcement and suspension of enforcement of the
safety zone established by this section via any means that will provide
as much notice as possible to the public. These means might include
some or all of those listed in 33 CFR 165.7(a). The primary method of
notification, however, will be through Broadcast Notice to Mariners and
local Notice to Mariners.
    (c) Definitions. The following definitions apply to this section:
    (1) Designated representative means any Coast Guard commissioned,
warrant, or petty officer designated by the Captain of the Port Sault
Sainte Marie to monitor these safety zones, permit entry into these
safety zones, give legally enforceable orders to persons or vessels
within these safety zones, or take other actions authorized by the
Captain of the Port.
    (2) Public vessel means a vessel owned, chartered, or operated by
the United States or by a State or political subdivision thereof.
    (d) Regulations. (1) The general regulations in 33 CFR Sec.  165.23
apply.
    (2) All persons and vessels must comply with the instructions of
the Coast Guard Captain of the Port Sault Sainte Marie or a designated
representative. Upon being hailed by the U.S. Coast Guard by siren,
radio, flashing light or other means, the operator of a vessel shall
proceed as directed.
    (3) When the safety zone established by this section is being
enforced, all vessels must obtain permission from the Captain of the
Port Sault Sainte Marie or his designated representative to enter, move
within, or exit that safety zone. Vessels and persons granted
permission to enter the safety zone shall obey all lawful orders or
directions of the Captain of the Port or his designated representative.
While within the safety zone, all vessels shall operate at the minimum
speed necessary to maintain a safe course.
    (e) Exemption. Public vessels, as defined in paragraph (c) of this
section, are exempt from the requirements in this section.

    Dated: April 8, 2011.
J.C. McGuiness,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Sault Sainte Marie.
[FR Doc. 2011-9534 Filed 4-19-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 184 (Thursday, September 22, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 65378-65379]
[FR Doc No: 2016-22850]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Docket ID FEMA-2016-0002]

Final Flood Hazard Determinations

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Final notice.

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

SUMMARY: Flood hazard determinations, which may include additions or
modifications of Base Flood Elevations (BFEs), base flood depths,
Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) boundaries or zone designations, or
regulatory floodways on the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) and where
applicable, in the supporting Flood Insurance Study (FIS) reports have
been made final for the communities listed in the table below.
    The FIRM and FIS report are the basis of the floodplain management
measures that a community is required either to adopt or to show
evidence of having in effect in order to qualify or remain qualified
for participation in the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA's)
National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). In addition, the FIRM and FIS
report are used by insurance agents and others to calculate appropriate
flood insurance premium rates for buildings and the contents of those
buildings.

DATES: The effective date of January 20, 2017 which has been
established for the FIRM and, where applicable, the supporting FIS
report showing the new or modified flood hazard information for each
community.

ADDRESSES: The FIRM, and if applicable, the FIS report containing the
final flood hazard information for each community is available for
inspection at the respective Community Map Repository address listed in
the tables below and will be available online through the FEMA Map
Service Center at www.msc.fema.gov by the effective date indicated
above.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rick Sacbibit, Chief, Engineering
Services Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA,
400 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or (email)
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or visit the FEMA Map Information
eXchange (FMIX) online at www.floodmaps.fema.gov/fhm/fmx_main.html.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) makes the final determinations listed below for the new or
modified flood hazard information for each community listed.
Notification of these changes has been published in newspapers of local
circulation and 90 days have elapsed since that publication. The Deputy
Associate Administrator for Insurance and Mitigation has resolved any
appeals resulting from this notification.
    This final notice is issued in accordance with section 110 of the
Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104, and 44 CFR part
67. FEMA has developed criteria for floodplain management in floodprone
areas in accordance with 44 CFR part 60.
    Interested lessees and owners of real property are encouraged to
review the new or revised FIRM and FIS report available at the address
cited below for each community or online through the FEMA Map Service
Center at www.msc.fema.gov. The flood hazard determinations are made
final in the watersheds and/or communities listed in the table below.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. 97.022, ``Flood
Insurance.'')

    Dated: August 18, 2016.
Roy E. Wright,
Deputy Associate Administrator for Insurance and Mitigation, Department
of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
    I. Non-Watershed-Based Studies:

             Jackson County, Missouri and Incorporated Areas
                        [Docket No.: FEMA-B-1524]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Community map repository
               Community                             address
------------------------------------------------------------------------
City of Blue Springs...................  City Hall, 903 West Main
                                          Street, Blue Springs, MO
                                          64015.
City of Buckner........................  Municipal Building, 315 South
                                          Hudson Street, Buckner, MO
                                          64016.
City of Grain Valley...................  City Hall, 711 Main Street,
                                          Grain Valley, MO 64029.
City of Grandview......................  City Hall, 1200 Main Street,
                                          Grandview, MO 64030.
City of Greenwood......................  City Hall, 709 West Main
                                          Street, Greenwood, MO 64034.
City of Independence...................  Public Works Department, 111
                                          East Maple Avenue,
                                          Independence, MO 64050.
City of Kansas City....................  City Hall, Planning and
                                          Development, 414 East 12th
                                          Street, 15th Floor, Kansas
                                          City, MO 64106.
City of Lake Lotawana..................  City Hall, 100 Lake Lotawana
                                          Drive, Lake Lotawana, MO
                                          64086.
City of Lake Tapawingo.................  City Hall, 144 Anchor Drive,
                                          Lake Tapawingo, MO 64015.
City of Lee's Summit...................  City Hall, 220 Southeast Green
                                          Street, Lee's Summit, MO
                                          64063.
City of Levasy.........................  City Hall, 103 Pacific Street,
                                          Levasy, MO 64066.
City of Lone Jack......................  City Hall, 207 North Bynum
                                          Road, Lone Jack, MO 64070.
City of Oak Grove......................  City Hall, 1300 South Broadway
                                          Street, Oak Grove, MO 64075.

City of Raytown........................  City Hall, 10000 East 59th
                                          Street, Raytown, MO 64133.
City of Sugar Creek....................  City Hall, 103 South Sterling
                                          Avenue, Sugar Creek, MO 64054.
Unincorporated Areas of Jackson County.  Jackson County Courthouse, 415
                                          East 12th Street, Suite 200,
                                          Kansas City, MO 64106.
Village of River Bend..................  Village Hall, 3923 North
                                          Cobbler Road, River Bend, MO
                                          64058.
Village of Sibley......................  City Hall, 208 Front Street,
                                          Sibley, MO 64088.
Village of Unity.......................  Facilities Building, 1901
                                          Northwest Blue Parkway, Unity,
                                          MO 64065.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2016-22850 Filed 9-21-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-12-P


Executive Summary, Page 1 of 5 Executive Summary A. Background In May 29  31, 1996, the Agency presented two ecological risk assessment case studies to the Scientific Advisory Panel ( SAP) for review and comment. While recognizing and generally reaffirming the utility of EPA's current deterministic assessment process, the SAP offered a number of suggestions for improvement. Foremost among their suggestions was a recommendation to move beyond the present single point assessment process by developing the tools and methodologies necessary to conduct a probabilistic assessment of effects. Such an assessment would estimate the magnitude and probability of the expected impact and define the level of certainty and variation involved in the estimate.

The recommendations of the SAP were consistent with issues that risk managers within EPA's Office of Pesticide Programs ( OPP) raised in the past, namely questions about the magnitude of the risk described for a particular pesticide, the probability of the risk occurring, and the certainty of the evaluation.

Following the recommendations of the SAP and in response to issues raised by OPP risk managers, the Agency began an initiative to refine the ecological risk assessment process for pesticides. The refined process focuses on evaluating the effects of pesticides to terrestrial and aquatic species within the context of FIFRA ( Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act), the main statutory authority for regulating pesticides at the federal level.

The key goals and objectives of EPA's initiative include the following:

° Develop a conceptual approach to refine the ecological assessment process; ° Incorporate probabilistic tools and methods to provide an estimate on the magnitude and probability of effects; ° Address the broad spectrum of responses to pesticide exposure; ° Establish more realistic actual use scenarios and field conditions; ° Build upon existing data requirements for registration; ° Utilize, wherever possible, existing data bases and create new ones from existing data sources to minimize the need to generate additional data; and ° Focus additional data requirements on reducing uncertainty in key areas.

The initiative began with the formation of The Ecological Committee on FIFRA Risk Assessment Methods ( ECOFRAM), a stakeholder workgroup, who was tasked with identifying and developing probabilistic tools and methods for terrestrial and aquatic assessments under the FIFRA regulatory framework. The conclusions and recommendations of the ECOFRAM were summarized in the draft reports, which were peer reviewed during two public workshops.

Once the reports and the peer review workshops were completed, the Agency formed the Executive Summary, Page 2 of 5 Refined Risk Assessment Implementation Team ( Implementation Team), who was charged with developing a plan to incorporate probabilistic tools and methods into the assessment process. After evaluating the ECOFRAM reports and workshop comments, the Implementation Team developed a conceptual approach for implementing changes to the current deterministic assessment process, using the reports and workshop comments as a starting point. This approach, which was evaluated and endorsed by the SAP in 2000, is based on a four level risk assessment scheme.

After proposing the four level risk assessment scheme, the Implementation Team focused on developing pilot models ( Version 1.0) and on conducting a case study. The refined aquatic risk assessment followed the approach outlined in the Agency's four level risk assessment scheme for Level II. The refined terrestrial assessment went beyond the Level II assessment and fell somewhere between a Level II and III. The case study was presented to the SAP in 2001 as a generic chemical ( Chem X).

Following the case study with ChemX, the Agency refined the models based on the SAP comments made in 2001. In addition, the terrestrial Level II model was also refined to include dermal and inhalation exposure based on recommendations from ECOFRAM. These routes of exposure were also discussed during the 2000 SAP meeting. The Level II models ( Version 2.0) are the subject of this SAP session.

B. Terrestrial Level II Model ( Version 2.0)

1. Overview The terrestrial Level II model ( Version 2.0) is a multimedia exposure/ effects model which evaluates acute mortality levels in generic or specific species over a user defined exposure window. The spatial scale is at the field level, which includes the field and surrounding area. Both areas are assumed to meet the habitat requirements for each species, and contamination of edge or adjacent habitat from drift is assumed to be zero. It is anticipated that future modifications to the assessment model will address offsite transport of pesticide residues via drift.

The major parameters addressed in the model are:

° Multimedia ( vegetation, water, and air) estimates for oral, inhalation, and dermal routes of exposure; ° Food habits of defined generic species or selected specific species that are proportioned for each food type consumed by the species; ° Hourly ingestion/ inhalation rates of food, water and air as a function of body weight, randomly assigned from species specific body weight distributions or defined generic species body weight distributions; ° Hourly dermal residue transfer rates from contaminated vegetation as a function of body weight, randomly assigned from species ( generic or specific) body weight distribution and Executive Summary, Page 3 of 5 frequency in contaminated area; ° Frequency of feeding and drinking on the sprayed field, determined in hour time steps; ° Distribution of residues on/ in vegetation, water ( dew and puddles), and air as a function of application rates; ° Degradation/ dissipation rates of pesticides residues in each environmental media considered, i. e., food, vegetation, air and drinking water; and ° Acute toxicity dose response relationship based on a specific species ( when data are available) or inter species extrapolations from distributions fit to available effects data.

For each individual bird considered in a run of the Level II model, a random selection of values is made for the major exposure input parameters to estimate an external ( ingested) oral dose equivalent for that individual that accounts for body elimination rates in hourly time steps. The estimated external oral dose equivalent is compared to a randomly assigned tolerance for the individual preselected from the log probit dose/ response distribution.

The status of this individual ( dead or not dead) for this time step is assigned by comparing the estimated oral dose equivalent to the random assigned tolerance. If the dose is greater than the tolerance, the individual is scored ` dead'. If the dose is less than or equal to the tolerance, the individual is scored ` not dead'. If scored ` not dead', the loop is continued until the dose is greater than the tolerance or the user defined model duration is reached. This procedure is repeated using Monte Carlo sampling. After multiple iterations of individuals, a probability density function of percent mortality is generated.

2. Major Modifications to the Level II Model ( Version 1.0)

The Level II model was modified based on changes suggested by the SAP in 2000 and 2001. The major changes suggested by the SAP in 2001 that have been incorporated are:

16. Establishment of generic birds that represent species that occur in and around agroenvironments The model can use generic attributes to represent the more vulnerable species yet retains the ability to address specific focal species, when appropriate,

17. Incorporation of a 1 hour exposure time step to allow the inclusion of a bimodal feeding pattern, as well as a higher resolution simulation of daily feeding behavior between treated and untreated areas,

18. Incorporation of an algorithm ( Markov Chain) to address serial correlation between sequential foraging events, and 19. Development of a new model for estimating pesticide residues in on field drinking water sources ( puddles) that accounts for a number of parameters that affect puddling after a rainfall event. These parameters include rainfall amount, rainfall duration, soil infiltration rates, evaporation, degradation and the stochastic nature of field topography and its Executive Summary, Page 4 of 5 relation to puddle formation and duration.

In addition, an inhalation and a dermal model were developed. Limited data are available regarding these routes of exposure, resulting in uncertainty in the estimates of risks. However, if these routes of exposure are ignored or assumed to be minimal, the uncertainty in risk estimates is not addressed. This is of concern because dermal and inhalation routes may contribute significantly to total dose in some situations. The incorporation of the dermal and inhalation exposure models provide an important initial step to evaluate the potential significance of these routes of exposure to the overall risk estimates.

C. Aquatic Level II Model ( Version 2.0)

The aquatic Level II model is a two dimensional Monte Carlo risk model consisting of three main components: exposure, effects, and risk. The Version 1.0 model was presented to the SAP in 2001 and has been refined ( Version 2.0) to include a varying volume surface water fate model ( VVWM) to replace the previous fixed volume surface water fate model.

The exposure scenarios used at Level II are intended to provide estimates of vulnerable, edge of field situations across a wide range of geographical conditions under which the product is used. These surface waters are considered vulnerable because of their size and spatial relationship to the treated field. In addition, the soil series selected for use in crop scenarios are considered, based on best professional judgement, to be more vulnerable to soil erosion in the use area.

The exposure component of the model simulates field scale pesticide application, daily field run off and erosion, and fate to a surrogate surface water. Version 1.0 of the aquatic model uses the Pesticide Root Zone Model ( PRZM) to simulate temporal run off and erosion of a pesticide from an agricultural field, and Exposure Analysis Modeling System ( EXAMS) to simulate the fate of the pesticide in this run off in a fixed volume of surface water. In Version 2.0, EPA is proposing to replace EXAMS with a new surface water fate model, VVWM, which simulates the fate and temporal hydrology in a receiving water using stochastic temporal variations in weather. For both versions, the simulated daily surface water concentrations provide typical 36 year maximum annual peaks for acute and chronic exposure. After calculating these peak values, the maximum annual peak data are fit to a mixed empirical distribution function.

Thus, these surface waters would be expected to be among the highest exposure concentrations observed. However, this scenario is not unrealistic or overly conservative because these surface waters are expected to be present across the country. The challenge is to develop an aquatic exposure scenario that produces estimated environmental concentrations ( EECs) that are not worst case, do not often underestimate pesticide concentrations, and present a realistic and scientifically defensible representation for vulnerable, edge of field surface waters across a wide range of geographical conditions.

The Level II acute effects or toxicity component uses current acute toxicity tests for Executive Summary, Page 5 of 5 freshwater and saltwater fish and invertebrates required for a Level I risk assessment and includes slopes of the concentration response curves. The Level I uses a single point estimate based on the most sensitive species tested. In contrast, the Level II uses a species sensitivity distribution constructed for each group and assumed to represent the range of responses likely to be encountered. The 5th, 50th, and 95th percentiles of the distribution, representing the generic 5th, 50th, and 95th most sensitive species LC 50 ( EC 50) values, are identified.

The Level II chronic effects assessment includes current early life stage and sensitive partial and full life cycle tests. Measurement endpoints are no observable adverse effects concentrations for survival, reproduction, and growth effects for invertebrates and embryo and larval/ juvenile survival and larval/ juvenile growth effects in fish. If a test contains more than one measurement endpoint ( e. g., survival and growth), the lowest value for a given test is used. If there are sufficient chronic effects data, a species sensitivity distribution is constructed, and the 5th, 50th, and 95th percentiles are determined. However, in most cases, chronic data are limited, and the risk analyses are restricted to individual species.

The Level II risk evaluation process yields estimates of likelihood and magnitude of effects for acute exposures. For the estimate of acute risks, a distribution of estimated exposure and a distribution of lethal effects are combined through a two dimensional Monte Carlo analysis to obtain a distribution of joint probability functions. For the estimate of chronic risks, a distribution of exposure concentrations is compared to a chronic measurement endpoint. The risk analysis for chronic effects provides information only on the probability that the chronic endpoint assessed will be exceeded, not on the magnitude of the chronic effect expected. The assessment then proceeds to outline the consequences of the potential effects.


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 237 (Monday, December 12, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 75911-75914]
[FR Doc No: 2022-26971]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2022-1583; Project Identifier MCAI-2022-01486-T;
Amendment 39-22282; AD 2022-25-51]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Canada Limited Partnership (Type
Certificate Previously Held by C Series Aircraft Limited Partnership
(CSALP); Bombardier, Inc.) Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all
Airbus Canada Limited Partnership Model BD-500-1A10 and BD-500-1A11
airplanes. The FAA previously sent this AD as an emergency AD to all
known U.S. owners and operators of these airplanes. This AD was
prompted by reports of the autopilot/autothrottle system design
resulting in inadvertent engagement of the autopilot when the
flightcrew was attempting to engage the autothrottle late into the
take-off phase or when attempting to re-engage the autothrottle during
takeoff after uncommanded disconnect. This AD requires revising the
Limitations section of the existing airplane flight manual (AFM) by
revising the title of the existing autopilot AFM limitation, include a
new warning prior to the existing autopilot engagement limitations, and
include a new limitation prohibiting selecting or reselecting
autothrottle during takeoff after thrust levers are advanced to the
takeoff setting after the existing autopilot engagement limitations.
The FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these
products.

DATES: This AD is effective December 27, 2022. Emergency AD 2022-25-51,
issued on November 22, 2022, which contained the requirements of this
amendment, was effective with actual notice.
    The FAA must receive comments on this AD by January 26, 2023.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR
11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 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.
    AD Docket: You may examine the AD docket at regulations.gov under
Docket No. FAA-2022-1583; or in person at Docket Operations between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD
docket contains this final rule, the mandatory continuing airworthiness
information (MCAI), any comments received, and other information. The
street address for Docket Operations is listed above.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Steven Dzierzynski, Aerospace
Engineer, Avionics and Electrical Systems Section, FAA, New York ACO
Branch, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone
516-228-7367; email [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    The FAA invites you to send any written data, views, or arguments
about this final rule. Send your comments to an address listed under
ADDRESSES. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2022-1583; Project Identifier MCAI-
2022-01486-T'' at the beginning of your comments. The most helpful
comments reference a specific portion of the final rule, explain the
reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. The FAA
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this final rule because of those comments.
    Except for Confidential Business Information (CBI) as described in
the following paragraph, and other information as described in 14 CFR
11.35, the FAA will post all comments received, without change, to
regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. The
agency will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal
contact received about this final rule.

Confidential Business Information

    CBI is commercial or financial information that is both customarily
and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of
Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public
disclosure. If your comments responsive to this AD contain commercial
or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that
you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to
this AD, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted
comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission containing
CBI as ``PROPIN.'' The FAA will treat such marked submissions as
confidential under the FOIA, and they will not be placed in the public
docket of this AD. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to Steven
Dzierzynski, Aerospace Engineer, Avionics and Electrical Systems
Section, FAA, New York ACO Branch, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410,
Westbury, NY 11590; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email [email protected]. Any commentary that the FAA receives that is not
specifically designated as CBI will be placed in the public docket for
this rulemaking.

Background

    The FAA issued Emergency AD 2022-25-51, dated November 22, 2022
(Emergency AD 2022-25-51), to address an unsafe condition on all Airbus
Canada Limited Partnership Model BD-500-1A10 and BD-500-1A11 airplanes.
The FAA sent the emergency AD to all known U.S. owners and operators of
these airplanes. Emergency AD 2022-25-51 requires revising the
Limitations section of the existing AFM by revising the title of the
existing autopilot AFM limitation, include a new warning prior to the
existing autopilot engagement limitations, and include a new limitation
prohibiting selecting or reselecting autothrottle during takeoff after
thrust levers are advanced to the takeoff setting after the existing
autopilot engagement limitations.
    Emergency AD 2022-25-51 was prompted by Emergency AD CF-2022-64,
dated November 17, 2022 (referred to after this as the MCAI), issued by
Transport Canada, which is the aviation authority for Canada, to
correct an unsafe condition on all Airbus Canada Limited Partnership
Model BD-500-1A10 and BD-500-1A11 airplanes.
    There have been 38 in-service events, including two nearly
catastrophic events, whereby the flightcrew inadvertently engaged the
autopilot while attempting to engage the autothrottle late into the
take-off phase or when re-engaging the autothrottle. Engaging the
autopilot below 400 feet (ft) above ground level (AGL) is prohibited by
the existing AFM. However, the control panel for autothrottle and
autopilot engagement is structured in such a way that it is possible
for the flightcrew to mistakenly engage the autopilot when attempting
to re-engage the autothrottle. The autothrottle system is prone to
disconnect due to different sources for airspeed between the
autothrottle and the flight control system monitor, which can occur
during turbulence. The disconnect may also occur due to different
sources for pressure altitude between autothrottle application and
autothrottle monitor. Additionally, the autopilot engagement is not
currently inhibited during takeoff and with sufficient speed will cause
the airplane to command a pitch increase to capture the pitch target
marker, which may cause premature rotation, including at speeds below
V1 at the time of autopilot engagement. Premature airplane pitch up
will require the flightcrew to intervene immediately, and depending on
the speed, could lead to a tail strike. If the flightcrew does not
reject the takeoff, premature rotation due to autopilot engagement
below Vr may result in low-energy liftoff.
    In September 2022, there was an incident in which the autothrottle
disengaged during takeoff, and when the flightcrew attempted to re-
engage the autothrottle, they mistakenly engaged the autopilot, which
resulted in the aircraft rotating below the V1 speed. This resulted in
a low-energy takeoff, which is hazardous as it could lead to the
airplane stalling and/or impacting terrain.
    Existing procedures provide operational recommendations and
procedures to follow for autothrottle selection and in the event of an
autothrottle disconnect during takeoff. The autothrottle cannot be re-
engaged if it becomes disconnected on takeoff above 60 knots and below
400 ft AGL. Therefore, the flightcrew should not attempt to re-engage
the autothrottle if it becomes disconnected on takeoff. As previously
mentioned, trying to re-engage autothrottle below 400 ft AGL may result
in inadvertent engagement of the autopilot.
    This AD is intended to address inadvertent engagement of the
autopilot below 400 ft AGL by adopting the autopilot engagement warning
statement specified in Transport Canada Emergency AD CF-2022-64. The
intended action is to incorporate the new warning statement within the
existing Autopilot Engagement AFM limitation by placing the warning
statement just prior to the two existing limitations, ``The minimum
height for engagement of autopilot is 400 feet AGL,'' and ``The minimum
height for use of autopilot is 80 feet AGL.'' This AD differs from the
Transport Canada Emergency AD by also requiring revising the existing
AFM to include an additional limitation (below the two existing
limitations) that specifies, ``To avoid inadvertent engagement of
autopilot, during takeoff, the

autothrottle must not be selected or re-selected after the thrust
levers are advanced to the takeoff setting until the aircraft is at or
above 400 feet AGL.'' Furthermore, this AD requires the title of the
existing AFM limitation to be revised from ``Autopilot Engagement'' to
``Autopilot and Autothrottle Engagement.'' Therefore, the AFM
limitation specified in figure 1 to paragraph (g) of this AD, titled
``Autopilot and Autothrottle Engagement,'' replaces the existing AFM
limitation titled ``Autopilot Engagement.'' This condition, if not
addressed, could result in premature rotation due to inadvertent
autopilot engagement, possibly leading to tail-strike, inability to
climb, and loss of control of the airplane.
    You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket at regulations.gov under
Docket No. FAA-2022-1583.

FAA's Determination

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another
country and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to
the FAA's bilateral agreement with this State of Design Authority, it
has notified the FAA of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI
described above. The FAA is issuing this AD after determining that the
unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop on
other products of the same type design.

AD Requirements

    This AD requires revising the Limitations section of the existing
AFM by revising the title of the existing AFM limitation titled
``Autopilot Engagement'', include a new warning prior to the existing
autopilot engagement limitations, and a new limitation prohibiting
selecting or reselecting autothrottle during takeoff after thrust
levers are advanced to the takeoff setting after the existing autopilot
engagement limitations.

Interim Action

    The FAA considers that this AD is an interim action. If final
action is later identified, the FAA might consider further rulemaking
then.

Justification for Immediate Adoption and Determination of the Effective
Date

    Section 553(b)(3)(B) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5
U.S.C. 551 et seq.) authorizes agencies to dispense with notice and
comment procedures for rules when the agency, for ``good cause,'' finds
that those procedures are ``impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to
the public interest.'' Under this section, an agency, upon finding good
cause, may issue a final rule without providing notice and seeking
comment prior to issuance. Further, section 553(d) of the APA
authorizes agencies to make rules effective in less than thirty days,
upon a finding of good cause.
    An unsafe condition exists that required the immediate adoption of
Emergency AD 2022-25-51 issued on November 22, 2022, to all known U.S.
owners and operators of these airplanes. Due to an autopilot/
autothrottle system design, the flightcrew has inadvertently engaged
the autopilot while attempting to engage the autothrottle during a
critical phase of flight. The most recent incident, in September 2022,
resulted in a low-energy takeoff when the flightcrew attempted to re-
engage the autothrottle but mistakenly engaged the autopilot. Such a
result is hazardous as it could lead to the aircraft stalling and/or
impacting terrain. The FAA found that the risk to the flying public
justified waiving notice and comment prior to adoption of this rule
because inadvertent autopilot engagement below 400 ft AGL could result
in premature rotation due to inadvertent autopilot engagement, possibly
leading to tail-strike, inability to climb, and loss of control of the
airplane. These conditions still exist, therefore, notice and
opportunity for prior public comment are impracticable and contrary to
the public interest pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B).
    In addition, the FAA finds that good cause exists pursuant to 5
U.S.C. 553(d) for making this amendment effective in less than 30 days,
for the same reasons the FAA found good cause to forgo notice and
comment.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) do not
apply when an agency finds good cause pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553 to adopt
a rule without prior notice and comment. Because the FAA has determined
that it has good cause to adopt this rule without notice and comment,
RFA analysis is not required.

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this AD affects 76 airplanes of U.S.
registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:

                                       Estimated Costs of Required Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per      Cost on U.S.
               Action                         Labor cost            Parts cost        product        operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AFM revision.......................  1 work-hour x $85 per hour               $0             $85          $6,460
                                      = $85.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

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

2022-25-51 Airbus Canada Limited Partnership (Type Certificate
Previously Held by C Series Aircraft Limited Partnership (CSALP);
Bombardier, Inc.): Amendment 39-22282; Docket No. FAA-2022-1583;
Project Identifier MCAI-2022-01486-T.

(a) Effective Date

    The FAA issued Emergency Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2022-25-51
on November 22, 2022, directly to affected owners and operators. As
a result of such actual notice, the emergency AD was effective for
those owners and operators on the date it was provided. This AD
contains the same requirements as the emergency AD and, for those
who did not receive actual notice, is effective on December 27,
2022.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to all Airbus Canada Limited Partnership (Type
Certificate previously held by C Series Aircraft Limited Partnership
(CSALP); Bombardier, Inc.) Model BD-500-1A10 and BD-500-1A11
airplanes, certificated in any category.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 22, Autoflight.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by reports of the autopilot/autothrottle
system design resulting in inadvertent engagement of the autopilot
when the flightcrew was attempting to engage the autothrottle late
into the take-off phase or when attempting to re-engage the
autothrottle during takeoff after uncommanded disconnect. The FAA is
issuing this AD to address inadvertent engagement of the autopilot
below 400 feet above ground level (AGL) when the flightcrew attempts
to engage autothrottle. The unsafe condition, if not addressed,
could result in premature rotation due to inadvertent autopilot
engagement, possibly leading to tail-strike, inability to climb, and
loss of control of the airplane.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Revision of Existing AFM

    Within 7 days after the effective date of this AD, revise the
Limitations section of the existing airplane flight manual (AFM) to
include the information specified in figure 1 to paragraph (g) of
this AD. This may be accomplished by inserting a copy of figure 1 to
paragraph (g) of this AD into the existing AFM. Using an AFM
revision that includes information identical to that in figure 1 to
paragraph (g) of this AD is acceptable for compliance with the
requirement of this paragraph.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR12DE22.001

(h) Additional AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, New
York ACO Branch, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this
AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In
accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal
inspector or local Flight Standards Office, as appropriate. If
sending information directly to the manager of the certification
office, send it to ATTN: Program Manager, Continuing Operational
Safety, FAA, New York ACO Branch, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410,
Westbury, NY 11590; email: [email protected], telephone 516-
228-7300. Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate
principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager
of the responsible Flight Standards Office.
    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD
to obtain instructions from a manufacturer, the instructions must be
accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, New York ACO
Branch, FAA; or Transport Canada; or Airbus Canada Limited
Partnership's Transport Canada Design Approval Organization (DAO).
If approved by the DAO, the approval must include the DAO-authorized
signature.

(i) Additional Information

    (1) Refer to Transport Canada Emergency AD CF-2022-64, dated
November 17, 2022, for related information. This Transport Canada
Emergency AD may be found in the AD docket at regulations.gov under
Docket No. FAA-2022-1583.
    (2) For more information about this AD, contact Steven
Dzierzynski, Aerospace Engineer, Avionics and Electrical Systems
Section, FAA, New York ACO Branch, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410,
Westbury, NY 11590; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email [email protected].

(j) Material Incorporated by Reference

    None.

    Issued on December 7, 2022.
Christina Underwood,
Acting Director, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, Aircraft
Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2022-26971 Filed 12-8-22; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P