[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 213 (Friday, November 2, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 55194-55195]
[FR Doc No: 2018-23923]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4400-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2018-0001]

Georgia; Major Disaster and Related Determinations

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This is a notice of the Presidential declaration of a major
disaster for the State of Georgia (FEMA-4400-DR), dated October 14,
2018, and related determinations.

DATES: The declaration was issued October 14, 2018.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that, in a letter
dated October 14, 2018, the President issued a major disaster
declaration under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster
Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq. (the
``Stafford Act''), as follows:

    I have determined that the damage in certain areas of the State
of Georgia resulting from Hurricane Michael during the period
October 9, 2018, and continuing, is of sufficient severity and
magnitude to warrant a major disaster declaration under the Robert
T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C.
5121 et seq. (the ``Stafford Act''). Therefore, I declare that such
a major disaster exists in the State of Georgia.
    In order to provide Federal assistance, you are hereby
authorized to allocate from funds available for these purposes such
amounts as you find necessary for Federal disaster assistance and
administrative expenses.
    You are authorized to provide Individual Assistance, assistance
for debris removal and emergency protective measures (Categories A
and B) under the Public Assistance program in the designated areas,
Hazard Mitigation throughout the State, and any other forms of
assistance under the Stafford Act that you deem appropriate subject
to completion of Preliminary Damage Assessments (PDAs).
    Consistent with the requirement that Federal assistance is
supplemental, any Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for
Public Assistance, Hazard Mitigation, and Other Needs Assistance
will be limited to 75 percent of the total eligible costs.
    Further, you are authorized to make changes to this declaration
for the approved assistance to the extent allowable under the
Stafford Act.

    The time period prescribed for the implementation of section
310(a), Priority to Certain Applications for Public Facility and Public
Housing Assistance, 42 U.S.C. 5153, shall be for a period not to exceed
six months after the date of this declaration.
    The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice
that pursuant to the authority vested in the Administrator, under
Executive Order 12148, as amended, Manny J. Toro, of FEMA is appointed
to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this major disaster.
    The following areas of the State of Georgia have been designated as
adversely affected by this major disaster:

    Baker, Decatur, Dougherty, Early, Miller, and Seminole Counties
for Individual; Assistance.
    Baker, Bleckley, Burke, Calhoun, Colquitt, Crisp, Decatur,
Dodge, Dooly, Dougherty, Early, Emanuel, Grady, Houston, Jefferson,
Jenkins, Johnson, Laurens, Lee, Macon, Miller, Mitchell, Pulaski,
Seminole, Sumter, Terrell, Thomas, Treutlen, Turner, Wilcox, and
Worth Counties for debris removal and emergency protective measures
(Categories A and B), including direct federal assistance, under the
Public Assistance program at 75 percent federal funding.
    All areas within the State of Georgia are eligible for
assistance under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.
    The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers
(CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030,
Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis
Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster
Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance
Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and
Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049,
Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing
Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially
Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other
Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants--Public Assistance

(Presidentially Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation
Grant.

Brock Long,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2018-23923 Filed 11-1-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9111-11-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 129 (Thursday, July 5, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 31436-31438]
[FR Doc No: 2018-14363]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-83554; File No. SR-NYSEArca-2018-49]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Modify the NYSE
Arca Options Fee Schedule

June 28, 2018.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the ``Act'') \2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ notice is hereby
given that, on June 27, 2018, NYSE Arca, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or
``NYSE Arca'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III below, which Items have been prepared by the self-regulatory
organization. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 15 U.S.C. 78a.
    \3\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance
of the Proposed Rule Change

    The Exchange proposes to modify the NYSE Arca Options Fee Schedule
(``Fee Schedule''). The Exchange proposes to implement the fee change
effective June 27, 2018. The proposed rule change is available on the
Exchange's website at www.nyse.com, at the principal office of the
Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization
included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the
proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the
proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at
the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared
summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most
significant parts of such statements.

A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and the
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    The purpose of this filing is to modify the Fee Schedule, effective
27, 2018, to introduce fees for the newly listed options on the NYSE
FANG+ Index (``NYSE FANG+''), which will trade under the symbol FAANG.
    The Exchange proposes that for fee purposes transactions in FAANG
options would not be treated as adding or removing liquidity, but
rather that all transactions, both manual and electronic, be charged by
account status.
    As proposed, the Exchange would charge $0.35 per contract, per side
for non-Customer and Professional Customer NYSE FANG+ transactions,
whether executed manually or electronically.\4\ However, the Exchange
would not charge a fee for any FAANG transactions (i) on behalf of
Customers or (ii) by Market Makers with an appointment in NYSE
FANG+.\5\ Market Makers that do not have an appointment in NYSE FANG+
will be subject to the same fee of $0.35 per contract, per side for
non-Customer and Professional Customer NYSE FANG+ transactions.
Further, the Exchange would not impose the Lead Market Maker Rights
Fees upon allocation in options on NYSE FANG+.\6\ The Exchange notes
that volume in NYSE FANG+ would be included in calculations to qualify
for any volume-based incentives currently being offered on the
Exchange, including (but not limited to) the Non-Customer, Non-Penny
Pilot Posting Tiers (as applicable) and the Firm and Broker Dealer
Monthly Fee Cap.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See proposed Fee Schedule, NYSE FANG+ Index (FAANG)
Transaction Fees.
    \5\ See id. The term Market Maker, as used herein, includes NYSE
Arca Options Market Makers and Lead Market Makers (or LMMs).
    \6\ See proposed Fee Schedule, Endnote 2 (providing that ``[t]he
Lead Market Maker Rights Fee does not apply to options on the NYSE
FANG+ Index (FAANG)'').
    \7\ See proposed Fee Schedule, Endnote 8 (providing that ``[a]ny
volume in options on NYSE FANG+ (FAANG) would be included in
calculations to qualify for any volume-based incentives currently
being offered on the Exchange'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes the proposed fees for NYSE FANG+ would
further the Exchange's goal of introducing new products to the
marketplace by encouraging trading in this index, in particular by
encouraging Market Makers to make a market in these products, which
would in turn, benefit market participants.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b) of the Act, in general, and furthers the objectives
of Sections 6(b)(4) and (5) of the Act, in particular, because it
provides for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and

other charges among its members, issuers and other persons using its
facilities and does not unfairly discriminate between customers,
issuers, brokers or dealers.
    The Exchange believes the proposal to implement fees for options on
NYSE FANG+ is reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory for
the following reasons. The Exchange believes the proposed fees, which
apply equally to electronic and manual (open outcry) transactions, on
behalf of non-Customers and Professional Customers, on the one hand,
and Customers, on the other hand, to be reasonable and equitable
because the proposed differentiation among market participants for NYSE
FANG+ fees is consistent with the manner in which the Exchange
distinguishes among market participants for fee purposes in other
contexts.\8\ The Exchange believes that not imposing fees for NYSE
FANG+ transactions on behalf of Customers is likewise reasonable,
equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because Customer order flow
enhances liquidity on the Exchange for the benefit of all market
participants. Specifically, Customer liquidity benefits all market
participants by providing more trading opportunities, which attracts
Market Makers. An increase in the activity of Market Makers in turn
facilitates tighter spreads, which may cause an additional
corresponding increase in order flow from other market participants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See, e.g., Fee Schedule, TRANSACTION FEE FOR MANUAL
EXECUTIONS--PER CONTRACT (providing that non-Customers (i.e., NYSE
Arca Options Market Makers, Firms and Broker Dealers) and
Professional Customers are charged a total $0.25 per contract for
manual executions, while Customers are charged $0.00 per contract
for manual executions).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that applying the same fee on all non-
Customer and Professional Customer NYSE FANG+ option transactions,
other than those by Market Makers with an appointment in NYSE FANG+, is
non-discriminatory because it applies to all similarly situated
participants on an equal basis that opt to trade the product. Moreover,
the decision to transact in NYSE FANG+ (or, for Market Makers, to seek
an appointment) is voluntary. The Exchange believes that allowing
Market Makers with an appointment in NYSE FANG+ to transact in the
product free of charge is not unfairly discriminatory because Market
Makers have heightened obligations that are not applicable to other
non-Customer and Professional Customer market participants.\9\ It is
also non-discriminatory because all Market Makers may apply for an
appointment in NYSE FANG+ options. Further, encouraging Market Makers
to seek an appointment in, and thus provide continuous quotes in, NYSE
FANG+ would add liquidity to the market and provide market
participants--both Customer and non-Customer alike--increased
opportunities to trade options on NYSE FANG+. The Exchange believes
that exempting transactions in NYSE FANG+ from the monthly Rights Fees
would likewise encourage trading in NYSE FANG+ options, which increase
in the availability of such options would benefit all market
participants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See, e.g., Rules 6.82-O, 6.37A-O, 6.37B-O (setting forth
heightened quoting obligations).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Further, the proposal to include any volume in NYSE FANG+ in the
calculations to qualify for any volume-based incentives offered on the
Exchange would further the Exchange's goal of introducing new products
to the marketplace by encouraging trading in these products. To the
extent that the proposed change incentivizes any market participants to
direct their order flow to the Exchange, all market participants would
benefit from increased liquidity and trading opportunities on the
Exchange. Finally, the Exchange notes that offering market participants
incentives to trade in certain newly offered products is not new or
novel.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See, e.g., Securities Exchange Act Release No. 77294 (March
4, 2016), 81 FR 12775 (March 10, 2016) (SR-NYSEArca-2016-40)
(addressing the treatment of Binary Return Derivatives--or ByRDs--
and exempting such transactions from all Exchange fees to encourage
trading in the product).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    In accordance with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act, the Exchange does
not believe that the proposed rule change would impose any burden on
competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act. The Exchange believes the proposed transaction
fees for NYSE FANG+ would not place an unfair burden on competition as
it would apply to all similarly situated non-Customer/non-Market Maker
participants. The Exchange also believes the proposed pricing for NYSE
FANG+ is procompetitive as it would further the Exchange's goal of
introducing new products to the marketplace and encouraging Market
Makers to make a market in these products, which would in turn, benefit
market participants. Market participants that do not wish to trade in
or seek an appointment in NYSE FANG+ are not obliged to do so.
    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed change will impair
the ability of any market participants or competing order execution
venues to maintain their competitive standing in the financial markets.
Further, the fees would be applied to all similarly situated
participants (i.e., non-Customers and Professional Customers), and, as
such, the proposed change would not impose a disparate burden on
competition either among or between classes of market participants.

C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed
Rule Change Received From Members, Participants, or Others

    No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the
proposed rule change.

III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for
Commission Action

    The foregoing rule change is effective upon filing pursuant to
Section 19(b)(3)(A) \11\ of the Act and subparagraph (f)(2) of Rule
19b-4 \12\ thereunder, because it establishes a due, fee, or other
charge imposed by the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \12\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings under
Section 19(b)(2)(B) \13\ of the Act to determine whether the proposed
rule change should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of
the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to [email protected]. Please include
File No. SR-NYSEArca-2018-49 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities
and Exchange

Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.

All submissions should refer to File No. SR-NYSEArca-2018-49. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549, on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments
received will be posted without change. Persons submitting comments are
cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying
information from comment submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File No. SR-NYSEArca-2018-49, and should be submitted
on or before July 26, 2018.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-14363 Filed 7-3-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


Guideline Number: (OPPTS Guideline Currently Being Developed)

Chronic, Whole Sediment  Invertebrate Toxicity

Rationale for Requiring the Data

According to 40CFR Part 158, the use patterns, physical-chemical
properties and available toxicity data of flutolanil qualify it for a
conditionally-required chronic sediment toxicity test.  Specifically,
the anaerobic metabolism half life of flutolanil is > 13 years (far
exceeding the 10 days criterion for a chronic sediment test).  Further,
both the log KOW (3.7) and KOC (up to 1300) exceed thresholds for
chronic sediment testing (3.0 and 1000, respectively).  Finally, there
is concern over estuarine/marine benthic invertebrates due to their
demonstrated high sensitivity to flutolanil in water column tests (most
sensitive aquatic species tested; EC50 and NOAECs of 130 and 11.3 ppb,
respectively).  Therefore, results of the recommended chronic sediment
toxicity testing could reasonably be expected to have a significant
impact on the ecological risk assessment of flutolanil.  Currently, no
sediment toxicity data have been submitted for flutolanil.

Practical Utility of the Data

How will the data be used?

Of all of the aquatic toxicity studies, estuarine/marine shrimp were by
far the most sensitive (by 1-2 orders of magnitude).  The availability
of chronic sediment toxicity data for estuarine species will allow the
Agency to evaluate risks to this group of aquatic organisms that inhabit
sediments.  The toxicity data will be used in conjunction with predicted
concentrations of flutolanil in sediment and sediment pore water to
determine the potential risks to benthic invertebrates. Chronic sediment
toxicity data for marine/estuarine crustaceans would allow the Agency to
refine the screening level risk assessment for registration review and
any future new uses proposed for this compound.  By refining the
assessment, the Agency would be able to determine more precisely the
appropriate mitigation measures for flutolanil, should potential risks
be found.

How could the data impact the Agency’s future decision-making?

If the data indicates that flutolanil poses significant risks to
sediment invertebrates inhabiting marine/estuarine water bodies, the
Agency may explore additional decision options to minimize the risk of
flutolanil marine/estuarine sediment-dwelling invertebrates.

The lack of these data will limit the flexibility the Agency and
registrants have in coming into compliance with the Endangered Species
Act and could result in use restrictions for flutolanil that may be
unnecessary.

Guideline Number:  Non-Guideline Study

Study Title: Measurement of Octanol-Air Partition Coefficient (KOA)

Rationale for Requiring the Data

Recent peer-reviewed studies in the scientific literature indicate that
KOA is an important factor in assessing the potential of organic
chemicals to bioaccumulate and biomagnify in terrestrial food chains
(e.g., Armitage and Gobas, 2007; Kelly et al., 2007; Czub and McLachlan,
2004; Kelly and Gobas, 2003; Sharp and Mackay, 2000; McLachlan, 1996).
No measured data on the KOA of flutolanil were found.  However,
model-predicted log KOA for flutolanil is very high (10.6) based on the
Agency’s EPIsuite program, ver. 3.20.  In absence of a measured KOA
value, a model-estimated value has been used in this problem
formulation. Therefore, measured data on KOA are being requested in
order to confirm model-predicted values of KOA, which may be uncertain.
Given the extremely high model-derived estimates of log KOA (10.6), it
is possible that it may overestimate KOA compared to measured values.
As a result, the potential bioaccumulation of flutolanil may be
overestimated without a measured value of KOA.  This measurement is very
important in evaluating the potential for flutolanil to bioaccumulate in
terrestrial food chains.

How will the data be used?

Measured data on KOA would be used in combination with available
bioaccumulation models to estimate the potential bioaccumulation of
flutolanil in terrestrial food webs.  If predicted bioaccumulation is
found to pose risks to terrestrial organisms, additional information
(e.g., monitoring studies, terrestrial bioaccumulation studies, and/or
mitigation measures) might be requested.

How could the data impact the Agency’s future decision-making?

Measured data on KOA could affect the Agency’s future decision-making
in various ways.  If predicted bioaccumulation in terrestrial food webs
is found to be a concern to the Agency using model-derived values of
KOA, then measured data could either confirm or refute these
predictions.  In this case, requests for additional information and/or
risk mitigation measures could be highly sensitive to data on KOA.
Since existing terrestrial bioaccumulation models largely depend on KOA,
values, such information would be extremely important for addressing
uncertainty in the forthcoming risk assessment.

Guideline Number: 850.4100

Study Title: Seedling emergence, Tier I

Guideline Number: 850.4150

Study Title: Vegetative vigor, Tier I

Rationale for Requiring the Data

Currently, no data are available on the toxicity of flutolanil to
terrestrial plants.  Screening (Tier I) studies are being recommended to
address uncertainty regarding the potential impacts of flutolanil on
non-target terrestrial plants.  Such studies are required as outlined in
40CFR Part 158 and are required in order to assess risks associated with
flutolanil uses on terrestrial plants.  These results are also needed
for endangered species assessment for flutolanil.

Practical Utility of the Data

How will the data be used?

Data from Tier I terrestrial plant toxicity studies will be used to
estimate potential risks to non-target plants associated with uses of
flutolanil.  The data will reduce uncertainties associated with the
current risk assessment for terrestrial plants and will improve our
understanding of the potential effects of flutolanil on plants.

How could the data impact the Agency’s future decision-making?

Because plants form the basis of most habitats and significantly
contribute to overall environmental quality, a solid understanding of
the potential risks to terrestrial plants is essential for sound
environmental management.  Without terrestrial plant growth data for
flutolanil, the Agency cannot determine the levels of flutolanil that
result in effects to terrestrial plants.  If the data indicates that
registered flutolanil usage may pose a risk of adverse effects to
non-target terrestrial plants above the Agency Level of Concern, the
Agency may explore decision options to mitigate this risk.  The lack of
these data will limit the flexibility the Agency and registrants have in
coming into compliance with the Endangered Species Act, and could result
in use restrictions for flutolanil which may otherwise be avoided, or
which are unnecessarily severe.

Guideline Number: 835-4200

Study Title: Anaerobic Soil Metabolism

Guideline Number:  (No Guideline Available)

Study Title:   Environmental Chemical Methods (ECM)/Independent
Laboratory Validation (ILV)

Rationale for Requiring the Environmental Fate Studies Performed in the
Laboratory

EPA requires a series of individual laboratory studies to assess the
behavior and fate of a pesticide in the environment. Controlled
environmental fate and transport laboratory studies are used to
determine the persistence and mobility potential of a pesticide active
ingredient and its major degradates. The studies offer information on
how, or by what mechanism, the pesticide degrades or dissipates, the
rate at which it degrades or dissipates, where it goes, and what
transformation products are formed. Data from these studies are used as
inputs to exposure models. These models estimate the expected
environmental concentrations of the pesticide and its degradates under
various environmental and use conditions.

Metabolism studies include anaerobic soil metabolism. The soil microbial
metabolism study determines the persistence of the pesticide when it
interacts with soil microorganisms under anaerobic conditions. The study
also identifies the significant degradates that result from biological
degradation. Currently no acceptable studies have been submitted.

The ECM are the analytical methods that are used to generate data
associated with terrestrial field dissipation study (835.6100), aquatic
dissipation study (835.6200), forestry dissipation (835.6300), ground
water monitoring (835.7100), and aquatic non-target organism field
dissipation (850.1950) studies.  The ECM must include results of a
successful confirmation method trial by and independent laboratory
(ILV).  Currently no acceptable studies have been submitted.

Practical Utility of the Data

How will the data be used?

The anaerobic soil metabolism study would facilitate a better
understanding of flutolanil’s degradation under anaerobic
(oxygen-free) conditions in the laboratory.  In order to calculate
EEC’s in PRZM and assess the ecological risk and the drinking water
risk, anaerobic soil data are needed.

The Environmental Chemical Methods (ECM)/Independent Laboratory
Validation (ILV) studies would allow the Agency to use the data with
confidence in the terrestrial dissipation, aquatic dissipation, and
aquatic non-target organism field accumulation studies as well as assess
the ecological risk.

How could the data change the Agency’s decision, or impact the
Agency’s future decision-making?

If data indicate that flutolanil degrades slowly in the Anaerobic Soil,
then persistence may be a public health risk of concern and additional
use precautions and/or restrictions may be necessary.   Data from the
Environmental Chemical Methods (ECM)/Independent Laboratory Validation
(ILV) studies are very important in evaluating the validity of the
terrestrial dissipation, aquatic dissipation, and aquatic non-target
organism field accumulation studies as well as the risk assessment.

Flutolanil (Confirmatory Data Call-In)

 PAGE

 PAGE   3


[Federal Register: August 17, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 158)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 50708-50711]
[DOCID:fr17au10-7]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R05-OAR-2010-0529; FRL-9189-8]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Indiana; Transportation Conformity Consultation Requirement

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is taking direct final action to approve a revision to the
Indiana State Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted on June 4, 2010. This
revision consists of criteria and procedures related to the State's
interagency consultation and certain control and mitigation measures
addressing ``Transportation Conformity.'' This approval will meet a
requirement of the Clean Air Act (Act) and EPA's Transportation
Conformity regulations.

DATES: This direct final rule will be effective October 18, 2010,
unless EPA receives adverse comments by September 16, 2010. If adverse
comments are received, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of the
direct final rule in the Federal Register informing the public that the
rule will not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-
OAR-2010-0529, by one of the following methods:
    1. http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
    2. E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    4. Mail: Jay Elmer Bortzer, Chief, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J),
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,
Chicago, Illinois 60604.
    5. Hand Delivery: Jay Elmer Bortzer, Chief, Air Programs Branch
(AR-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson
Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. Such deliveries are only accepted
during the Regional Office normal hours of operation, and special
arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. The
Regional Office official hours of business are Monday through Friday,
8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding Federal holidays.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R05-OAR-
2010-0529. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through http://
www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site
is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without
going through http://www.regulations.gov your e-mail address will be
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of
any defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the http://
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose 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 http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 77 West
Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. This Facility is open from
8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding Federal
holidays. We recommend that you telephone Patricia Morris,
Environmental Scientist, at<PHONE_NUMBER> before visiting the Region 5
office.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Patricia Morris, Environmental
Scientist, Control Strategies Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J),
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,
Chicago, Illinois 60604,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA. This supplementary information
section is arranged as follows:

I. What is Transportation Conformity?
II. What is the Background for This Action?
III. What Did the State Submit and How Did We Evaluate It?
IV. What Action is EPA Taking?
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What is Transportation Conformity?

    Transportation Conformity is required under Section 176(c) of the
Act to ensure that Federally supported highway, transit projects, and
other activities are consistent with (conform to) the purpose of the
approved SIP. Transportation Conformity currently applies to areas that
are designated nonattainment and those areas redesignated to attainment
after 1990 (maintenance areas), with maintenance plans developed under
section 175A of the Act for the following transportation-related
criteria pollutants: Ozone, particulate matter (PM2.5 and
PM10), carbon monoxide (CO), and nitrogen dioxide
(NO2). Conformity to the purpose of the SIP means that
transportation activities will not cause new air quality violations,
worsen existing violations or delay timely attainment of the relevant
National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). The Federal
Transportation Conformity regulations (Federal Rule) are found in 40
CFR part 93 subpart A, and provisions related to conformity SIPs are
found in 40 CFR 51.390.

II. What is the Background for This Action?

    On August 10, 2005, the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient
Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) (Pub. L.
109-59) was signed into law. SAFETEA-LU revised certain provisions of
section 176(c) of the Act, related to Transportation Conformity. Prior
to SAFETEA-LU, States were required to address all of the Federal
Rule's provisions in their conformity SIPs. After SAFETEA-LU, SIPs were
required to contain all or portions of only the following three
sections of the Federal Rule, modified as appropriate to each State's
circumstances: 40 CFR 93.105 (consultation procedures); 40 CFR
93.122(a)(4)(ii) (written commitments to implement certain kinds of
control measures); and 40 CFR 93.125(c) (written commitments to
implement certain kinds of mitigation measures). Pursuant to SAFETEA-
LU, States are no longer required to submit conformity SIP revisions
that address the other sections of the Federal Rule.

III. What Did the State Submit and How Did We Evaluate It?

    A public hearing on the Transportation Conformity SIP was held on
May 11, 2010 in Indianapolis, Indiana. Also, a 30-day public comment
period was announced which closed on May 14, 2010. No comments were
received from the public. EPA, however, made comments on three items
which needed clarification.
    On June 4, 2010, the Indiana Department of Environmental Management
(IDEM) submitted a revision to its SIP for Transportation Conformity
purposes. Indiana provided the requested clarifications in the cover
letter.
    The SIP revision consists of nine Metropolitan Planning
Organization (MPO) board resolutions, one MPO Memorandum of
Understanding (MOU), one State and Federal agency statewide MOU and an
interagency consultation group conformity consultation guidance
document, which will constitute the Indiana SIP for transportation
conformity purposes. The MPO board resolutions are for the Delaware-
Muncie Metropolitan Plan Commission, the Evansville Metropolitan
Planning Organization, the Indianapolis Metropolitan Planning
Organization, the Michiana Area Council of Governments, the Madison
County Council of Government, the Northeastern Indiana Regional
Coordinating Council, the Northwestern Indiana Regional Planning
Commission, the Ohio-Kentucky-Indiana Regional Council of Governments,
and the West Central Indiana Economic Development District. The
Kentuckiana Regional Planning and Development Agency is the MPO that
has a signed MOU as the consultation agreement.
    The resolutions and MOUs were executed among the State of Indiana,
the MPOs in nonattainment and maintenance areas, and the Federal
agencies which have responsibility for undertaking transportation
conformity in conjunction with transportation planning activities. The
statewide MOU adopts the individual MPO resolutions, covers rural
nonattainment and maintenance areas and provides for consultation among
and between State and Federal agencies. These resolutions and
agreements which make up the SIP revision address the three provisions
of the Federal Rule required under SAFETEA-LU: 40 CFR 93.105
(consultation procedures); 40 CFR 93.122(a)(4)(ii) (certain control
measures); and 40 CFR 93.125(c) (mitigation measures). Each of the
individual MPO resolutions and the MOUs provide detailed consultation
procedures specific to each MPO area and adopted by the participants in
that MPO area.
    Indiana has included several bi-State areas. The Louisville area is
a bi-State Indiana/Kentucky area and the MOU for this area provides for
consultation with all parties in both States. The MOU has been
submitted by Kentucky as part of the Kentucky transportation conformity
SIP, and EPA approved the SIP on April 21, 2010 (75 FR 20780). The same
MOU has been submitted by Indiana as part of the Indiana transportation
conformity SIP.
    The Cincinnati area is also a bi-State area with portions of
Indiana and Kentucky included in the Cincinnati, Ohio ozone and PM
nonattainment areas. The resolution passed by the MPO board for this
area provides for consultation between Ohio State and local agencies
and Indiana State agencies and Federal agencies in both Indiana and
Ohio. The MPO has a separate agreement for the Kentucky portion to
provide for consultation on Kentucky conformity determinations. A
separate agreement is acceptable because the SIPs provide separate
motor vehicle emissions budgets for the Kentucky portion of the
Cincinnati area. The Ohio and Indiana portions of the Cincinnati area
have combined motor vehicle emissions budgets and thus must work
together for conformity determinations.
    EPA has evaluated this SIP revision including the nine MPO board
resolutions, the one MPO MOU, and the one statewide MOU, and has
determined that the nine MPO board resolutions and the MOU for KIPDA
have met the requirements of the Federal transportation conformity
rules as described in 40 CFR Part 51, Subpart T, and 40 CFR Part 93,
Subpart A. As EPA has previously informed Indiana, there were three
wording clarifications needed for consistency between the State and
Federal agency MOU and the Conformity Rule. EPA believes that the State
of Indiana has satisfactorily addressed these concerns, as follows.
    First, the statewide MOU seemed to have inadvertently left off a
sentence in the conflict resolution section that would allow the
Governor of Indiana to delegate the decision on conflicts. In response,
IDEM has agreed to incorporate the recommended language into a future
revision of the MOU; and, in the interim, IDEM agrees to resolve
conflicts in accordance with language provided by EPA.

    In addition, the statewide MOU did not address the cost of
documents to the public (if there is a cost) in accordance with EPA's
fee schedule in 49 CFR 7.43. IDEM responded by citing Indiana's
statutory authority which it believes is consistent with the Federal
fee rule, and agreed to also clarify this matter in a future MOU
revision.
    Finally, EPA noted that IDEM had not provided sufficient detail
about the public process for ``hot spot analysis'' reviews. Indiana
responded by citing a specific policy document, the ``INDOT Public
Involvement Manual,'' which details the public participation process.
    Indiana has satisfied the public participation and comprehensive
interagency consultation requirement during development and adoption of
the resolutions at the MPO level and also with a public hearing and
public comment on the entire SIP on May 11, 2010 and public comment
period until May 14, 2010. EPA's rule requires the States to develop
their own processes and procedures to be followed by the MPO, State
Departments of Transportation (DOTs), and United States Department of
Transportation (USDOT) in consulting with the State and local air
quality agencies and EPA before making conformity determinations.
    The conformity SIP revision must also include processes and
procedures for the State and local air quality agencies and EPA to
coordinate the development of applicable SIPs with MPOs, State DOTs,
and USDOT.
    EPA has reviewed the submittal to assure consistency with the CAA
as amended by SAFETEA-LU and EPA regulations (40 CFR Part 93 and 40 CFR
51.390) governing State procedures for transportation conformity and
interagency consultation. Our review used the document ``Guidance for
Developing Transportation Conformity SIPs'' dated January 2009,
including ``Appendix A: Checklist for Developing a Conformity SIP'',
and has concluded that the submittal is approvable.

IV. What Action is EPA Taking?

    For the reasons set forth above, EPA is taking action under section
110 of the Act to approve the Indiana SIP revision for Transportation
Conformity, which was submitted on June 4, 2010.
    We are publishing this action without prior proposal because we
view this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipate no adverse
comments. However, in the proposed rules section of this Federal
Register publication, we are publishing a separate document that will
serve as the proposal to approve the State plan if relevant adverse
written comments are filed. This rule will be effective October 18,
2010 without further notice unless we receive relevant adverse written
comments by September 16, 2010. If we receive such comments, we will
withdraw this action before the effective date by publishing a
subsequent document that will withdraw the final action. All public
comments received will then be addressed in a subsequent final rule
based on the proposed action. EPA will not institute a second comment
period. Any parties interested in commenting on this action should do
so at this time. If we do not receive any comments, this action will be
effective October 18, 2010.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Act, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve State choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the Act. Accordingly, this
action merely approves State law as meeting Federal requirements and
does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by State
law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Act; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, this rule does not have Tribal implications as specified
by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the
SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the State,
and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on
Tribal governments or preempt Tribal law.
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Act, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by October 18, 2010. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor
does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may
be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or
action. Parties with objections to this direct final rule are
encouraged to file a comment in response to the parallel notice of
proposed rulemaking for this action published in the proposed rules
section of today's Federal Register, rather than file an immediate
petition for judicial review of this direct final rule, so that EPA can
withdraw this direct final rule and address the comment in the proposed
rulemaking. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,

Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen
dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: August 5, 2010.
Bharat Mathur,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5.

0
40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

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

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

Subpart P--Indiana

0
2. Part 52 is amended by adding a new Sec.  52.799 to read as follows:

Sec.  52.799  Transportation conformity.

    On June 4, 2010, Indiana submitted the Transportation Conformity
Consultation SIP consisting of Metropolitan Planning Organization
resolutions and Memorandums of Understanding to address interagency
consultation and enforceability of certain transportation related
control measures and mitigation measures. EPA is approving the
Transportation Conformity SIP from Indiana.

[FR Doc. 2010-20180 Filed 8-16-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 239 (Friday, December 12, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 73808-73812]
[FR Doc No: 2014-28923]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2013-1029; Directorate Identifier 2013-NM-177-AD;
Amendment 39-18042; AD 2014-25-01]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier, Inc. Airplanes

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are superseding Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2010-13-04 for
certain Bombardier, Inc. Model DHC-8-400 series airplanes. AD 2010-13-
04 required modifying the nose landing gear (NLG) trailing arm. This
new AD requires installing a new pivot pin retention mechanism. This
new AD also adds airplanes to the applicability. This AD was prompted
by a report of several missing or damaged pivot pin retention bolts. We
are issuing this AD to prevent failure of the pivot pin retention bolt,
which could result in a loss of directional control or loss of a NLG
tire during take-off or landing.

DATES: This AD becomes effective January 16, 2015.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of January 16,
2015.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain other publication listed in this AD as of July
28, 2010 (75 FR 35622, June 23, 2010).

ADDRESSES: You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=FAA-2013-1029; or in person at the
Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC.
    For service information identified in this AD, contact Bombardier,
Inc., Q-Series Technical Help Desk, 123 Garratt Boulevard, Toronto,
Ontario M3K 1Y5, Canada; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet http://www.bombardier.com. You may view this referenced service information at
the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton,
WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA,
call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ricardo Garcia, Aerospace Engineer,
Airframe and Mechanical Systems Branch, ANE-171, FAA, New York Aircraft
Certification Office, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY
11590; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 to supersede AD 2010-13-04, Amendment 39-16335 (75 FR 35622,
June 23, 2010). AD 2010-13-04 applied to certain Bombardier, Inc. Model
DHC-8-400 series airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register
on December 24, 2013 (78 FR 77615).

    Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the aviation
authority for Canada, has issued Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-
2009-29R1, dated August 14, 2013 (referred to after this as the
Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or ``the MCAI''), to
correct an unsafe condition on certain Bombardier, Inc. Model DHC-8-400
series airplanes. The MCAI states:

    Two in-service incidents have been reported on DHC-8 Series 400
aircraft in which the nose landing gear (NLG) trailing arm pivot pin
retention bolt (part number NAS6204-13D) was damaged. One incident
involved the left hand NLG tire which ruptured on take-off.
Investigation determined that the retention bolt failure was due to
repeated contact of the castellated nut with the towing device
including both the towbar and the towbarless rigs. The loss of the
retention bolt allowed the pivot pin to migrate from its normal
position and resulted in contact with and rupture of the tire. The
loss of the pivot pin could compromise retention of the trailing arm
and could result in a loss of directional control due to loss of
nose wheel steering. The loss of an NLG tire or the loss of
directional control could adversely affect the aircraft during take
off or landing.
    To prevent the potential failure of the pivot pin retention
bolt, Bombardier Aerospace has developed a modification which
includes a new retention bolt, a reverse orientation of the
retention bolt and a rework of the weight on wheel (WOW) proximity
sensor cover to provide clearance for the re-oriented retention
bolt.
    Since the original issue of this [Canadian] AD [which
corresponds to AD 2010-13-04, Amendment 39-16335 (75 FR 35622, June
23, 2010)], there have been several reports of pivot pin retention
bolts found missing or damaged. Additional investigation determined
that the failures were caused by high contact stresses on the
retention bolt due to excessive frictional torque on the pivot pin
and an adverse tolerance condition at the retention bolt.
    Revision 1 of this [Canadian] AD mandates the installation of a
new pivot pin retention mechanism.

    You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FAA-2013-1029-0002.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD. The following presents the comments received on the NPRM (78
FR 77615, December 24, 2013) and the FAA's response to each comment.

Request To Revise Required Actions of Paragraph (h) of the Proposed AD
(78 FR 77615, December 24, 2013)

    Horizon Air requested that we revise paragraph (h) of the proposed
AD (78 FR 77615, December 24, 2013) to refer to only the specific
section of the Accomplishment Instructions of the service information
that specifies the steps that correct the unsafe condition and exclude
the steps related to the set-up and close-out actions. Horizon Air
stated that only Part B. of the Accomplishment Instructions of
Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-32-110, Revision A, dated April 8, 2013,
contains any corrective actions.
    We agree with the commenter's request and rationale for excluding
the ``Job Set-Up'' and ``Close Out'' sections of Bombardier Service
Bulletin 84-32-110, Revision A, dated April 8, 2013. We have revised
paragraph (h) of this AD to require accomplishment of paragraph 3.B.,
``Procedure,'' of the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Service
Bulletin 84-32-110, Revision A, dated April 8, 2013.

Request To Provide Credit for Certain Actions

    Horizon Air requested that we revise the proposed AD (78 FR 77615,
December 24, 2013) to provide credit for accomplishing Goodrich Service
Bulletin 47100-32-96. Horizon Air stated that a nose landing gear
repaired by Goodrich Landing Gear (or other repair station) using the
Goodrich service information would not have any Bombardier service
bulletin entered into the maintenance record as the service information
that was incorporated.
    We do not agree. Paragraph (h) of this AD requires incorporating
Bombardier Modsum 4-113749, which is entirely contained in Bombardier
Service Bulletin 84-32-110, dated December 21, 2012; or Revision A,
dated April 8, 2013; but not in Goodrich Service Bulletin 47100-32-96.
The full contents of Bombardier Modsum 4-113749 must be incorporated
and noted in the maintenance records. Goodrich Service Bulletin 47100-
32-96 is considered to be a portion of the Bombardier Modsum.
Bombardier developed the Modsum in consideration of the overall
structure and airworthiness of the system. Paragraph (i)(2) of this AD
addresses the acceptable service information that we have determined
may be used as credit for complying with the requirements of paragraph
(h) of this AD to incorporate the Modsum. In addition, operators may
apply for an alternative method of compliance (AMOC) under the
provisions of paragraph (j)(1) of this AD. We have not changed this
final rule in this regard.

``Contacting the Manufacturer'' Paragraph in This AD

    Since late 2006, we have included a standard paragraph titled
``Airworthy Product'' in all MCAI ADs in which the FAA develops an AD
based on a foreign authority's AD.
    The MCAI or referenced service information in an FAA AD often
directs the owner/operator to contact the manufacturer for corrective
actions, such as a repair. Briefly, the Airworthy Product paragraph
allowed owners/operators to use corrective actions provided by the
manufacturer if those actions were FAA-approved. In addition, the
paragraph stated that any actions approved by the State of Design
Authority (or its delegated agent) are considered to be FAA-approved.
    In the NPRM (78 FR 77615, December 24, 2013), we proposed to
prevent the use of repairs that were not specifically developed to
correct the unsafe condition, by requiring that the repair approval
provided by the State of Design Authority or its delegated agent
specifically refer to this FAA AD. This change was intended to clarify
the method of compliance and to provide operators with better
visibility of repairs that are specifically developed and approved to
correct the unsafe condition. In addition, we proposed to change the
phrase ``its delegated agent'' to include a design approval holder
(DAH) with State of Design Authority design organization approval
(DOA), as applicable, to refer to a DAH authorized to approve required
repairs for the proposed AD.
    No comments were provided to the NPRM (78 FR 77615, December 24,
2013) about these proposed changes. However, a comment was provided for
an NPRM having Directorate Identifier 2012-NM-101-AD (78 FR 78285,
December 26, 2013). The commenter stated the following: ``The proposed
wording, being specific to repairs, eliminates the interpretation that
Airbus messages are acceptable for approving minor deviations
(corrective actions) needed during accomplishment of an AD mandated
Airbus service bulletin.''
    This comment has made the FAA aware that some operators have
misunderstood or misinterpreted the Airworthy Product paragraph to
allow the owner/operator to use messages provided by the manufacturer
as approval of deviations during the accomplishment of an AD-mandated
action. The Airworthy Product paragraph does not approve messages or
other information provided by the manufacturer for deviations to the
requirements of the AD-mandated

actions. The Airworthy Product paragraph only addresses the requirement
to contact the manufacturer for corrective actions for the identified
unsafe condition and does not cover deviations from other AD
requirements. However, deviations to AD-required actions are addressed
in 14 CFR 39.17, and anyone may request the approval for an alternative
method of compliance to the AD-required actions using the procedures
found in 14 CFR 39.19.
    To address this misunderstanding and misinterpretation of the
Airworthy Product paragraph, we have changed the paragraph and retitled
it ``Contacting the Manufacturer.'' This paragraph now clarifies that
for any requirement in this AD to obtain corrective actions from a
manufacturer, the actions must be accomplished using a method approved
by the FAA, the TCCA, or Bombardier, Inc.'s TCCA Design Approval
Organization (DAO).
    The Contacting the Manufacturer paragraph also clarifies that, if
approved by the DAO, the approval must include the DAO-authorized
signature. The DAO signature indicates that the data and information
contained in the document are TCCA-approved, which is also FAA-
approved. Messages and other information provided by the manufacturer
that do not contain the DAO-authorized signature approval are not TCCA-
approved, unless TCCA directly approves the manufacturer's message or
other information.
    This clarification does not remove flexibility previously afforded
by the Airworthy Product paragraph. Consistent with long-standing FAA
policy, such flexibility was never intended for required actions. This
is also consistent with the recommendation of the Airworthiness
Directive Implementation Aviation Rulemaking Committee to increase
flexibility in complying with ADs by identifying those actions in
manufacturers' service instructions that are ``Required for
Compliance'' with ADs. We continue to work with manufacturers to
implement this recommendation. But once we determine that an action is
required, any deviation from the requirement must be approved as an
alternative method of compliance.
    Other commenters to the NPRM having Directorate Identifier 2012-NM-
101-AD (78 FR 78285, December 26, 2013) pointed out that in many cases
the foreign manufacturer's service bulletin and the foreign authority's
MCAI might have been issued some time before the FAA AD. Therefore, the
DOA might have provided U.S. operators with an approved repair,
developed with full awareness of the unsafe condition, before the FAA
AD is issued. Under these circumstances, to comply with the FAA AD, the
operator would be required to go back to the manufacturer's DOA and
obtain a new approval document, adding time and expense to the
compliance process with no safety benefit.
    Based on these comments, we removed the requirement that the DAH-
provided repair specifically refer to this AD. Before adopting such a
requirement, the FAA will coordinate with affected DAHs and verify they
are prepared to implement means to ensure that their repair approvals
consider the unsafe condition addressed in this AD. Any such
requirements will be adopted through the normal AD rulemaking process,
including notice-and-comment procedures, when appropriate.
    We also have decided not to include a generic reference to either
the ``delegated agent'' or ``DAH with State of Design Authority design
organization approval,'' but instead we have provided the specific
delegation approval granted by the State of Design Authority for the
DAH.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received,
and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting
this AD with the changes described previously and minor editorial
changes. We have determined that these minor changes:
     Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the
NPRM (78 FR 77615, December 24, 2013) for correcting the unsafe
condition; and
     Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was
already proposed in the NPRM (78 FR 77615, December 24, 2013).
    We also determined that these changes will not increase the
economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of this AD.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 383 airplanes of U.S. registry.
    We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per      Cost on U.S.
               Action                         Labor cost            Parts cost        product        operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Modification of the NLG trailing arm  3 work-hours x $85 per                $100            $355        $135,965
 [retained actions from AD 2010-13-    hour = $255.
 04, Amendment 39-16335 (75 FR
 35622, June 23, 2010)].
Installation of new pivot pin         2 work-hours x $85 per               (\1\)             170          65,110
 retention mechanism [new required     hour = $170.
 action].
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ None.

    According to the manufacturer, some of the costs of this AD may be
covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on affected
individuals. We do not control warranty coverage for affected
individuals. As a result, we have included all costs in our cost
estimate.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this AD will not have federalism implications
under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct
effect on

the States, on the relationship between the national government and the
States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the
various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
    1. Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order
12866;
    2. Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
    3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and
    4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=FAA-2013-1029; or in person at the
Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the
regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information.
The street address for the Docket Operations office (telephone 800-647-
5527) is in the ADDRESSES section.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by removing Airworthiness Directive (AD)
2010-13-04, Amendment 39-16335 (75 FR 35622, June 23, 2010), and adding
the following new AD:

2014-25-01 Bombardier, Inc.: Amendment 39-18042. Docket No. FAA-
2013-1029; Directorate Identifier 2013-NM-177-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This AD becomes effective January 16, 2015.

(b) Affected ADs

    This AD replaces AD 2010-13-04, Amendment 39-16335 (75 FR 35622,
June 23, 2010).

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Bombardier, Inc. Model DHC-8-400, -401, and -
402 airplanes, certificated in any category, serial numbers 4001
through 4435 inclusive.

(d) Subject

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

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by a report of several missing or damaged
pivot pin retention bolts. We are issuing this AD to prevent failure
of the pivot pin retention bolt, which could result in a loss of
directional control or a nose landing gear (NLG) tire during take-
off or landing.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Retained Actions and Compliance

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (f)(1) of
AD 2010-13-04, Amendment 39-16335 (75 FR 35622, June 23, 2010), with
no changes. For airplanes having serial numbers 4001, 4003, 4004,
4006, and 4008 through 4238 inclusive: Within 2,000 flight hours
after July 28, 2010 (the effective date of AD 2010-13-04), modify
the NLG trailing arm by incorporating Bombardier Modification
Summary 4-113599, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions
of Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-32-65, Revision A, dated March 2,
2009.

(h) New Requirement of This AD: Installation of a New Pivot Pin
Retention Mechanism

    For airplanes having serial numbers 4001 through 4435 inclusive:
Within 6,000 flight hours or 36 months after the effective date of
this AD, whichever occurs first, install a new pivot pin retention
mechanism by incorporating Bombardier Modification Summary 4-113749,
in accordance with paragraph 3.B., ``Procedure,'' of the
Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-32-
110, Revision A, dated April 8, 2013.

(i) Credit for Previous Actions

    (1) This paragraph provides credit for actions required by
paragraph (g) of this AD, if those actions were performed before
July 28, 2010 (the effective date of AD 2010-13-04, Amendment 39-
16335 (75 FR 35622, June 23, 2010)), using the Accomplishment
Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-32-65, dated December
17, 2008, which is not incorporated by reference in this AD.
    (2) This paragraph provides credit for actions required by
paragraph (h) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the
effective date of this AD using Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-32-
110, dated December 21, 2012, which is not incorporated by reference
in this AD.

(j) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, ANE-
170, New York Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA, has the
authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the
procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19,
send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight
Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information
directly to the ACO, send it to ATTN: Program Manager, Continuing
Operational Safety, FAA, New York ACO, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite
410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.
Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal
inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the
local flight standards district office/certificate holding district
office. The AMOC approval letter must specifically reference this
AD.
    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: As of the effective date of
this AD, for any requirement in this AD to obtain corrective actions
from a manufacturer, the action must be accomplished using a method
approved by the Manager, New York ACO, ANE-170, Engine and Propeller
Directorate, FAA; or Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA); or
Bombardier, Inc.'s TCCA Design Approval Organization (DAO). If
approved by the DAO, the approval must include the DAO-authorized
signature.

(k) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information
(MCAI) Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-2009-29R1, dated August
14, 2013, for related information. You may examine the MCAI in the
AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FAA-2013-1029-0002.
    (2) Service information identified in this AD that is not
incorporated by reference in this AD is available at the addresses
specified in paragraphs (l)(5) and (l)(6) of this AD.

(l) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed
in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise.
    (3) The following service information was approved for IBR on
January 16, 2015.
    (i) Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-32-110, Revision A, dated
April 8, 2013.
    (ii) Reserved.
    (4) The following service information was approved for IBR on
July 28, 2010 (75 FR 35622, June 23, 2010).
    (i) Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-32-65, Revision A, dated
March 2, 2009.
    (ii) Reserved.
    (5) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Bombardier, Inc., Q-Series Technical Help Desk, 123 Garratt
Boulevard, Toronto, Ontario M3K 1Y5, Canada; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>;
fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet
http://www.bombardier.com.

    (6) You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport
Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For
information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call
425-227-1221.
    (7) You may view this service information that is incorporated
by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA). For information on the availability of this material at
NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on November 28, 2014.
John P. Piccola, Jr.,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2014-28923 Filed 12-11-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P