[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 92 (Monday, May 13, 2019)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 20843-20845]
[FR Doc No: 2019-09776]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2019-0041; FRL-9991-91]

Receipt of Several Pesticide Petitions Filed for Residues of
Pesticide Chemicals in or on Various Commodities

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of filing of petitions and request for comment.

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

SUMMARY: This document announces the Agency's receipt of several
initial filings of pesticide petitions requesting the establishment or
modification of regulations for residues of pesticide chemicals in or
on various commodities.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before June 12, 2019.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by docket identification
(ID) number and the pesticide petition number (PP) of interest as shown
in the body of this document, by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Do not submit
electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted
by statute.
     Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental Protection Agency Docket
Center (EPA/DC), (28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC
20460-0001.
     Hand Delivery: To make special arrangements for hand
delivery or delivery of boxed information, please follow the
instructions at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.html.

Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along
with more information about dockets generally, is available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael Goodis, Registration Division
(RD) (7505P), main telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>, email address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>The mailing address for each contact person is:
Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001. As part of the mailing
address, include the contact person's name, division, and mail code.
The division to contact is listed at the end of each pesticide petition
summary.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an
agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer.
The following list of North American Industrial Classification System
(NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them.
Potentially affected entities may include:
     Crop production (NAICS code 111).
     Animal production (NAICS code 112).
     Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
     Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).
    If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this
action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT for the division listed at the end of the
pesticide petition summary of interest.

B. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?

    1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through
regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark the part or all of the
information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or
CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as
CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the
specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one
complete version of the comment that

includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does
not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for
inclusion in the public docket. Information so marked will not be
disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part
2.
    2. Tips for preparing your comments. When preparing and submitting
your comments, see the commenting tips at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/comments.html.
    3. Environmental justice. EPA seeks to achieve environmental
justice, the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of any group,
including minority and/or low-income populations, in the development,
implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and
policies. To help address potential environmental justice issues, the
Agency seeks information on any groups or segments of the population
who, as a result of their location, cultural practices, or other
factors, may have atypical or disproportionately high and adverse human
health impacts or environmental effects from exposure to the pesticides
discussed in this document, compared to the general population.

II. What action is the Agency taking?

    EPA is announcing its receipt of several pesticide petitions filed
under section 408 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA),
21 U.S.C. 346a, requesting the establishment or modification of
regulations in 40 CFR part 180 for residues of pesticide chemicals in
or on various food commodities. The Agency is taking public comment on
the requests before responding to the petitioners. EPA is not proposing
any particular action at this time. EPA has determined that the
pesticide petitions described in this document contain the data or
information prescribed in FFDCA section 408(d)(2), 21 U.S.C.
346a(d)(2); however, EPA has not fully evaluated the sufficiency of the
submitted data at this time or whether the data support granting of the
pesticide petitions. After considering the public comments, EPA intends
to evaluate whether and what action may be warranted. Additional data
may be needed before EPA can make a final determination on these
pesticide petitions.
    Pursuant to 40 CFR 180.7(f), a summary of each of the petitions
that are the subject of this document, prepared by the petitioner, is
included in a docket EPA has created for each rulemaking. The docket
for each of the petitions is available at http://www.regulations.gov.
    As specified in FFDCA section 408(d)(3), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), EPA
is publishing notice of the petition so that the public has an
opportunity to comment on this request for the establishment or
modification of regulations for residues of pesticides in or on food
commodities. Further information on the petition may be obtained
through the petition summary referenced in this unit.
New Tolerance Exemptions for Inerts (Except PIPS)
    PP IN-11136. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2019-0048). Monsanto Company (1300 I
Street NW, Suite 450 East, Washington, DC 20005) requests to establish
an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of formic
acid (CAS Reg. No. 64-18-6) and sodium formate (CAS Reg. No. 141-53-7)
when used as an inert ingredient in pesticide formulations applied to
growing crops pre- and post-harvest under 40 CFR 180.910 for use as
adjuvants or pH buffering agents. The petitioner believes no analytical
method is needed because it is not required for an exemption from the
requirement of a tolerance. Contact: RD.
    PP IN-11242. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2018-0736). Arkema Inc. c/o Lewis &
Harrison, LLC, 2461 South Clark Street, Arlington, VA 22202, requests
to establish an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for
residues of 2-propenoic acid, methyl ester, polymer with ethene and
2,5-furandione (CAS Reg. No. 88450-35-5), with a minimum number average
molecular weight of 10,694 daltons, when used as an inert ingredient in
pesticide formulations under 40 CFR 180.960. The petitioner believes no
analytical method is needed because it is not required for an exemption
from the requirement of a tolerance. Contact: RD
    PP IN-11244. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2019-0099). Solvay USA Inc., c/o SciReg,
Inc., 12733 Director's Loop, Woodbridge, VA 22192, requests to
establish an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for residues
of 2-propenoic acid, ethyl ester, polymer, with sodium 2-methyl-2-[(1-
oxo-2-propen-1-yl)amino]-1-propanesulfonate (1:1), oxidized (CAS Reg.
No. 2230086-40-3) when used as a pesticide inert ingredient in
pesticide formulations under 40 CFR 180.960. The petitioner believes no
analytical method is needed because it is not required for an exemption
from the requirement of a tolerance. Contact: RD.
    PP IN-11247. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2019-0098). LNouvel, Inc., 4657 Courtyard
Trail, Plano, TX 75024, requests to establish an exemption from the
requirement of a tolerance for residues of tetraethyl orthosilicate
(CAS Reg. No. 78-10-4) when used as a pesticide inert ingredient in
pesticide formulations at a maximum of 50,000 parts per million (ppm)
under 40 CFR 180.910 and 180.930. The petitioner believes no analytical
method is needed because it is not required for an exemption from the
requirement of a tolerance. Contact: RD.
    PP IN-11248. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2019-0138). LNouvel, Inc., 4657 Courtyard
Trail, Plano, TX 75024-2114, requests to establish an exemption from
the requirement of a tolerance for residues of poly(oxy-1,2-
ethanediyl), alpha-(3-(1,3,3,3-tetramethyl-1-
((trimethylsilyl)oxy)disiloxanyl)propyl)-omega-hydroxy- (CAS Reg. No.
67674-67-3), when used as an inert ingredient in pesticide formulations
under 40 CFR 180.930. The petitioner believes no analytical method is
needed because it is not required for an exemption from the requirement
of a tolerance. Contact: RD
    PP IN-11251. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2019-0096). Keller and Heckman LLP, 1001 G
Street, NW, Suite 500 West, Washington, DC 20001 on behalf of Kuraray
Co. Ltd., requests to establish an exemption from the requirement of a
tolerance for residues of acetic acid ethenyl ester, polymer with
ethene and ethenol with a minimum number average molecular weight (in
amu), 20,000 (CAS Reg. No. 26221-27-2) when used as a pesticide inert
ingredient in pesticide formulations under 40 CFR 180.960. The
petitioner believes no analytical method is needed because it is not
required for an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance. Contact:
RD.
    PP IN-11254. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2019-0093). The Clariant Corporation, 4000
Monroe Road, Charlotte, NC, requests to amend an exemption from the
requirement of a tolerance for residues of Alkyl Alcohol Alkoxylate
(AAA) surfactants to include Oxirane, 2-methyl-, polymer with oxirane,
mono undecyl ether branched and linear (CAS Reg. No. 2222805-23-2) when
used as a pesticide inert ingredient in pesticide formulations under 40
CFR 180.910, 180.930, 180.940 and 180.960. The petitioner believes no
analytical method is needed because it is not required for an exemption
from the requirement of a tolerance. Contact: RD.

    Authority: 21 U.S.C. 346a.

    Dated: April 16, 2019.
Michael Goodis,
Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.
[FR Doc. 2019-09776 Filed 5-10-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 128 (Monday, July 6, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 38397-38400]
[FR Doc No: 2015-16506]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 100

[Docket No. USCG-2015-0457]
RIN 1625-AA08

Special Local Regulation; L'HERMIONE Parade, Upper New York Bay
and Lower Hudson River, New York, NY

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary interim rule with request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a Special Local Regulation on
the navigable waters of the Upper New York Bay and Lower Hudson River,
NY for the tall ship L'HERMIONE boat parade. This Special Local
Regulation allows the Coast Guard to enforce restrictions on all vessel
traffic through the Special Local Regulation during the L'HERMIONE boat
parade, both planned and unforeseen, that could pose an imminent hazard
to persons and vessels operating in the area. This rule is necessary to
provide for the safety of life on the navigable waters during the
parade of ships. The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule due to
the exigent circumstances and invites comments to modify or amend the
rule, as necessary.

DATES: This rule is effective and will be enforced from 6 a.m. to 3
p.m. on July 4, 2015.
    Comments and related material may be received by the Coast Guard
throughout the effective period.
    Requests for public meetings must be received by the Coast Guard on
or before July 27, 2015.

ADDRESSES: Documents mentioned in this preamble are part of Docket
Number USCG-2015-0457. To view documents mentioned in this preamble as
being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type
the docket number in the ``SEARCH'' box and click ``SEARCH.'' Click on
``Open Docket Folder'' on the line associated with this rulemaking. You
may also visit the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the
ground floor of the Department of Transportation West Building, 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    You may submit comments, identified by docket number, using any one
of the following methods:
    (1) Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
    (2) Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (3) Mail or Delivery: 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. Deliveries
accepted between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except
federal holidays. The telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    See the ``Public Participation and Request for Comments'' portion
of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below for further instructions
on submitting comments. To avoid duplication, please use only one of
these three methods.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  If you have questions on this rule,
contact Lieutenant Douglas Neumann, Waterways Management Division at
Coast Guard Sector New York, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER> or email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have questions on viewing or
submitting material to the docket, call Ms. Cheryl Collins, Program
Manager, Docket Operations, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Acronyms

COTP Captain of the Port
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

A. Public Participation and Request for Comments

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

1. Submitting Comments

    If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which
each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or
recommendation. You may submit your comments and material online at
http://www.regulations.gov, or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but
please use only one of these means. If you submit a comment online, it
will be considered received by the Coast Guard when you successfully
transmit the comment. If you fax, hand deliver, or mail your comment,
it will be considered as having been received by the Coast Guard when
it is received at the Docket Management Facility. We recommend that you
include your name and a mailing address, an email address, or a
telephone number in the body of your document so that we can contact
you if we have questions regarding your submission.
    To submit your comment online, go to http://www.regulations.gov,
type the docket number in the ``SEARCH'' box and click ``SEARCH.''
Click on ``Submit a Comment'' on the line associated with this proposed
rulemaking.
    If you submit your comments by mail or hand delivery, submit them
in an unbound format, no larger than 8\1/2\ by 11 inches, suitable for
copying and electronic filing. If you submit

comments by mail and would like to know that they reached the Facility,
please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard or envelope. We will
consider all comments and material received during the comment period
and may change the rule based on your comments.

2. Viewing Comments and Documents

    To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble
as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov,
type the docket number (USCG-2015-0457) in the ``SEARCH'' box and click
``SEARCH.'' Click on Open Docket Folder on the line associated with
this rulemaking. You may also visit the Docket Management Facility in
Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the Department of Transportation
West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590,
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays.

3. Privacy Act

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

4. Public Meeting

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

B. Regulatory History and Information

    The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary interim rule without
prior notice through an NPRM pursuant to authority under section 4(a)
of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This
provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and
opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those
procedures are ``impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public
interest.'' Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good
cause exists for not publishing an NPRM with respect to this rule
because the event sponsors were late in submitting the marine event
application. The Coast Guard will, however, consider comments in
issuing a subsequent temporary interim rule or temporary final rule.
    This late submission did not give the Coast Guard enough time to
publish an NPRM, take public comments, and issue a final rule before
the parade, since the final submission was received on May 13, 2015. It
would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest to delay
promulgating this rule, as it is necessary to protect the safety of
waterway users. At any time, the Coast Guard may publish an amended
rule if necessary to address public concerns.
    For the same reasons mentioned above, under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the
Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective
less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register.

C. Basis and Purpose

    Under the Ports and Waterways Safety Act, 33 U.S.C. 1231, 1233; 50
U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6 and 160.5; Department of
Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1, the Coast Guard has the
authority to establish Special Local Regulations in defined water areas
that are determined to have hazardous conditions and in which vessel
traffic can be regulated in the interest of safety.
    This rule is prompted by the navigation safety situation created by
highly concentrated boat parade through a highly-trafficked harbor.
    The purpose of this rulemaking is to provide for safety on the
navigable waters in the regulated area during the parade.

D. Discussion of the Interim Rule

    The Coast Guard is establishing a Special Local Regulation on the
navigable waters of the Upper New York Bay and Lower Hudson River. This
Special Local Regulation allows the Coast Guard to enforce restrictions
on all vessel traffic through the parade route during the L'HERMIONE
Parade, both planned and unforeseen, that could pose an imminent hazard
to persons and vessels operating in the area. All vessels participating
in the parade must proceed at five knots and display a flag that is
blue in color. Parade vessels are required to be power driven. Sailing
vessels may hoist sails, but are required to be power driven. All
vessels must have the ability to communicate of VHF Frequency channel
8. Parade vessels must keep a distance of 50 yards from the L'HERMIONE
at all times, unless authorized by the COTP or a designated
representative. All vessels not participating in the parade but viewing
the parade must keep a distance of 250 yards from the parade
participants and not interfere with marine traffic. Human-powered
vessels, such as kayaks and canoes, will not be considered participants
in the parade, nor will they be allowed to enter the formation of the
parade.

E. Regulatory Analyses

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

1. Regulatory Planning and Review

    This proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action under
section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review,
as supplemented by Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and
Regulatory Review, and does not require an assessment of potential
costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of Executive Order 12866 or
under section 1 of Executive Order 13563. The Office of Management and
Budget has not reviewed it under those Orders.
    The Coast Guard determined that this rulemaking will not be a
significant regulatory action for the following reasons: vessel traffic
will only be restricted for limited durations and the Special Local
Regulation covers only a small portion of the navigable waterway.
Advanced public notifications will also be made to local mariners
through appropriate means, which could include, but would not be
limited to, Local Notice to Mariners and Broadcast Notice to Mariners.

2. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The Coast Guard
certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
This rule will affect the following entities, some of which may be
small entities: the owners or operators of vessels intending to enter
or transit within the parade route during a vessel restriction period.
    The Special Local Regulation would not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following
reasons: the Special Local Regulation would be of limited size and any
waterway closure of short duration. Additionally before the effective
period of a waterway closure, advanced public notifications will be

made to local mariners through appropriate means, which could include,
but would not be limited to, Local Notice to Mariners and Broadcast
Notice 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.

3. Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your
small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have
questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please
contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT,
above.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or
action of the Coast Guard.

4. Collection of Information

    This rule will not call for a new collection of information under
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520.).

5. Federalism

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on 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. We have analyzed this proposed rule under that Order and
determined that this rule does not have implications for federalism.

6. Protest Activities

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

7. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

8. Taking of Private Property

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

9. Civil Justice Reform

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

10. Protection of Children From Environmental Health Risks

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

11. Indian Tribal Governments

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

12. Energy Effects

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

13. Technical Standards

    This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not
consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

14. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which
guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA)(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined
that this action is one of a category of actions that do not
individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human
environment. This rule involves restricting vessel movement within an
area. This rule is categorically excluded from further review under
paragraph 34(h) of Figure 2-1 of the Commandant Instruction. An
environmental analysis checklist supporting this determination and a
Categorical Exclusion Determination are available in the docket where
indicated under ADDRESSES. We seek any comments or information that may
lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this
rule.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 100

    Safety of life in the regatta or marine parade area.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends
33 CFR part 100 as follows:

PART 100--SAFETY OF LIFE ON NAVIGABLE WATERS

0
1. The authority citation for Part 100 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  33 U.S.C. 1233.

0
2. Add Sec.  100.35T01-0457 to read as follows:

Sec.  100.35T01-0457  Special Local Regulation; L'HERMIONE Parade,
Upper New York Bay and Lower Hudson River, New York, NY

    (a) Location. The following area is a Special Local Regulation: All
navigable waters, from the Verrazano Bridge North to the East side of
the Statue of Liberty and north to Pier 92 on the Hudson River.
    (b) Regulations. (1) The provisions of the general regulations for
regulated navigation areas contained in 33 CFR 165.11 and 165.13 apply
to the parade route specified in this Special Local Regulation.
    (2) In accordance with the general regulations, entry into or
movement within this zone, during periods of enforcement, is prohibited
unless authorized by the COTP Sector New York or a designated
representative.
    (3) Persons and vessels may request permission to enter the parade
route by contacting the COTP or one of the COTP's on-scene
representatives on VHF-16 or via phone at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (4) During periods of enforcement, all vessels participating in the
parade must proceed at five knots or at such speed dictated by the
event organizers. Vessels participating in the parade must display a
flag that is blue in color and are required to be power driven. Sailing
vessels may hoist sails, but are required to be power driven and must
maneuver as power driven vessels. All vessels must have the ability to
communicate on VHF Frequency channel 8. Vessels must keep a distance of
50 yards from the L'HERMIONE at all times unless authorized by the COTP
or a designated representative. All vessels not participating in the
parade but viewing the parade must keep a distance of 250 yards from
the parade participants and not interfere with marine traffic. Human
power vessels, such as kayaks and canoes will not be considered
participants in the parade, nor will they be allowed to enter the
formation of the parade.
    (5) Vessels must comply with all directions given to them by the
COTP or one of the COTP's on-scene representatives. The ``on-scene
representative'' of the COTP is any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant
or petty officer who has been designated by the COTP to act on the
COTP's behalf. An on-scene representative may be on a Coast Guard
vessel, private vessel, or may be on shore and communicating with
vessels via VHF-FM radio or loudhailer. Members of the Coast Guard
Auxiliary may be present to inform vessel operators of this regulation.
    (6) Upon being hailed by a U.S. Coast Guard vessel by siren, radio,
flashing light or other means, the operator of the vessel must proceed
as directed.
    (7) All other relevant regulations, including but not limited to
the Rules of the Road (33 CFR 84--Subchapter E, Inland Navigational
Rules) remain in effect within the regulated area and must be strictly
followed at all times.
    (c) Enforcement period. This regulation is enforceable from 6 a.m.
on July 4, 2015 until 3 p.m. on July 4, 2015.
    (1) Prior to commencing or suspending enforcement of this
regulation, the COTP will give notice by appropriate means to inform
the affected segments of the public, to include dates and times. Such
means of notification will include constructive notice by publication
in the Federal Register, actual notice, as well as Broadcast Notice to
Mariners and Local Notice to Mariners.
    (2) Violations of this Special Local Regulation may be reported to
the COTP at<PHONE_NUMBER> or on VHF-Channel 16.

    Dated: June 8, 2015.
G. Loebl,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port New York.
[FR Doc. 2015-16506 Filed 7-2-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 121 (Monday, June 24, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 37713]
[FR Doc No: 2013-14953]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket No. USCG-2013-0020]

Safety Zone; Chicago Air and Water Show; Lake Michigan; Chicago,
IL

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of enforcement of regulation.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard will enforce the safety zone on Lake Michigan
near Chicago, Illinois for the Chicago Air and Water Show. This zone
will be enforced from 8:30 a.m. until 5 p.m. on each day of August 14,
15, 16, 17, and 18, 2013. This action is necessary and intended to
ensure safety of life on the navigable waters during the 2013 Chicago
Air and Water Show. During the aforementioned periods, the Coast Guard
will enforce restrictions upon, and control movement of, vessels in the
safety zone. No person or vessel may enter the safety zone while it is
being enforced without permission of the Captain of the Port, Lake
Michigan.

DATES: This regulation will be enforced at the dates and times listed
in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this notice.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this notice,
call or email MST1 Joseph McCollum, Prevention Department, Coast Guard
Sector Lake Michigan, Milwaukee, WI at<PHONE_NUMBER>, email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Coast Guard will enforce the safety zone
listed in 33 CFR 165.929(a)(63) as well as the general regulations in
33 CFR 165.929, Safety Zones; Annual events requiring safety zones in
the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan zone, for the Chicago Air and
Water Show. This zone will be enforced from 8:30 a.m. until 5 p.m. on
each day of August 14, 15, 16, 17, and 18, 2013.
    All vessels must obtain permission from the Captain of the Port,
Lake Michigan, or his or her on-scene representative to enter, move
within, or exit the 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, Lake Michigan, or a designated representative.
Vessels that wish to transit through the safety zones may request
permission from the captain of the Port Lake Michigan. Requests must be
made in advance and approved by the Captain of the Port before transits
will be authorized. Approvals will be granted on a case by case basis.
While within the safety zone, all vessels shall operate at the minimum
speed necessary to maintain a safe course.
    This notice is issued under authority of 33 CFR 165.929(a)(63),
Safety Zones; Annual events requiring safety zones in the Captain of
the Port Lake Michigan zone and 5 U.S.C. 552(a). In addition to this
notice in the Federal Register, the Coast Guard will provide the
maritime community with advance notification of this event via
Broadcast Notice to Mariners or Local Notice to Mariners. If the
captain of the Port determines that the enforcement of these safety
zones need not occur as stated in this notice, he or she might suspend
such enforcement and notify the public of the suspension via a
Broadcast Notice to Mariners. The Captain of the Port, Lake Michigan,
or his or her on-scene representative may be contacted via VHF Channel
16.

    Dated: June 3, 2013.
M.W. Sibley,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port, Lake Michigan.
[FR Doc. 2013-14953 Filed 6-21-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register: October 15, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 199)]
[Notices]
[Page 63489]
[DOCID:fr15oc10-93]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2009-N-0380]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Announcement of Office
of Management and Budget Approval; Product Jurisdiction: Assignment of
Agency Component for Review of Premarket Applications

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that a
collection of information entitled ``Product Jurisdiction: Assignment
of Agency Component for Review of Premarket Applications'' has been
approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jonna Capezzuto, Office of Information
Management, Food and Drug Administration, 1350 Piccard Dr., PI50-400B,
Rockville, MD 20850,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the Federal Register of March 17, 2010
(75 FR 12758), the agency announced that the proposed information
collection had been submitted to OMB for review and clearance under 44
U.S.C. 3507. 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 OMB control number. OMB has now approved the
information collection and has assigned OMB control number 0910-0523.
The approval expires on August 31, 2013. A copy of the supporting
statement for this information collection is available on the Internet
at http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain.

    Dated: October 8, 2010.
Leslie Kux,
Acting Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2010-25975 Filed 10-14-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 138 (Thursday, July 18, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 42997]
[FR Doc No: 2013-17254]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Membership Availability in the National Parks Overflights
Advisory Group Aviation Rulemaking Committee

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The National Park Service (NPS) and the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), as required by the National Parks Air Tour
Management Act of 2000, established the National Parks Overflights
Advisory Group (NPOAG) in March 2001. The NPOAG was formed to provide
continuing advice and counsel with respect to commercial air tour
operations over and near national parks. This notice informs the public
of two vacancies on the NPOAG [now the NPOAG Aviation Rulemaking
Committee (ARC)] for members representing commercial air tour operators
(one vacancy) and environmental concerns (one vacancy) and invites
interested persons to apply to fill the vacancies.

DATES: Persons interested in serving on the NPOAG ARC should contact
Mr. Keith Lusk in writing and postmarked or emailed on or before August
16, 2013.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Keith Lusk, AWP-1SP, Special Programs
Staff, Federal Aviation Administration, Western-Pacific Region
Headquarters, P.O. Box 92007, Los Angeles, CA 90009-2007, telephone:
(310) 725-3808, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The National Parks Air Tour Management Act of 2000 (the Act) was
enacted on April 5, 2000, as Public Law 106-181. The Act required the
establishment of the advisory group within 1 year after its enactment.
The advisory group was established in March 2001, and is comprised of a
balanced group of representatives of general aviation, commercial air
tour operations, environmental concerns, and Native American tribes.
The Administrator of the FAA and the Director of NPS (or their
designees) serve as ex officio members of the group. Representatives of
the Administrator and Director serve alternating 1-year terms as
chairman of the advisory group.
    The advisory group provides ``advice, information, and
recommendations to the Administrator and the Director--
    (1) On the implementation of this title [the Act] and the
amendments made by this title;
    (2) On commonly accepted quiet aircraft technology for use in
commercial air tour operations over a national park or tribal lands,
which will receive preferential treatment in a given air tour
management plan;
    (3) On other measures that might be taken to accommodate the
interests of visitors to national parks; and
    (4) At the request of the Administrator and the Director, safety,
environmental, and other issues related to commercial air tour
operations over a national park or tribal lands.''
    Members of the advisory group may be allowed certain travel
expenses as authorized by section 5703 of Title 5, United States Code,
for intermittent Government service.
    By FAA Order No. 1110-138, signed by the FAA Administrator on
October 10, 2003, the NPOAG became an Aviation Rulemaking Committee
(ARC). FAA Order No. 1110-138, was amended and became effective as FAA
Order No. 1110-138A, on January 20, 2006.
    The current NPOAG ARC is made up of one member representing general
aviation, three members representing the commercial air tour industry,
four members representing environmental concerns, and two members
representing Native American tribal concerns. Current members of the
NPOAG ARC are: Heidi Williams representing general aviation; Alan
Stephen, and Mark Francis representing commercial air tour concerns;
Michael Sutton, Gregory Miller, and Dick Hingson representing
environmental interests; Rory Majenty and Martin Begaye, representing
Native American tribes.
    In order to retain balance within the NPOAG ARC, the FAA and NPS
invite persons interested in serving on the ARC to represent commercial
air tour operators and environmental concerns to contact Mr. Keith Lusk
(contact information is written above in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT).
    Requests to serve on the ARC must be made to Mr. Lusk in writing
and postmarked or emailed on or before August 16, 2013. The request
should indicate whether or not you are a member of an association or
group representing commercial air tours or environmental concerns, or
have another affiliation with issues relating to aircraft flights over
national parks. The request should also state what expertise you would
bring to the NPOAG ARC as related to the vacancy you are seeking to
fill (e.g., environmental concerns). The term of service for NPOAG ARC
members is 3 years.
    On June 18, 2010, President Obama signed a Presidential Memorandum
directing agencies in the Executive Branch not to appoint or re-appoint
federally registered lobbyists to advisory committees and other boards
and commissions. Therefore, before appointing an applicant to serve on
the NPOAG, the FAA and NPS will require the prospective candidate to
certify that they are not a federally registered lobbyist.

    Issued in Hawthorne, CA, on July 11, 2013.
Keith Lusk,
Program Manager, Special Programs Staff, Western-Pacific Region.
[FR Doc. 2013-17254 Filed 7-17-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 70 (Thursday, April 11, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 21650-21651]
[FR Doc No: 2013-08472]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-69325; File No. SR-NYSEArca-2013-17]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Order Granting
Approval of Proposed Rule Change Amending Its Rules To Reflect the
Merger of NYSE Arca Holdings, Inc., An Intermediate Holding Company,
Into and With NYSE Group, Inc., Thereby Eliminating NYSE Arca Holdings,
Inc. From the Ownership Structure of the Exchange

April 5, 2013.

I. Introduction

    On February 7, 2013, NYSE Arca, Inc. (``NYSE Arca'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\
proposed rule changes to reflect the merger of NYSE Arca Holdings, Inc.
(``NYSE Arca Holdings''), an intermediate holding company, into and
with NYSE Group, Inc. (``NYSE Group''), thereby eliminating NYSE Arca
Holdings from the ownership structure of the Exchange (the ``Merger'').
The proposed rule changes were published for comment in the Federal
Register on February 26, 2013.\3\ The Commission received no comment
letters on the proposal. The Commission has reviewed carefully the
proposed rule changes and finds that the proposed rule changes are
consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and
regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange.\4\
This order approves the proposed rule changes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 68959 (February 20,
2013), 78 FR 13103 (``Notice'').
    \4\ In approving the proposed rule changes, the Commission has
considered their impact on efficiency, competition, and capital
formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description

    NYSE Euronext intends to merge NYSE Arca Holdings with and into
NYSE Group, effective following approval of the proposed rule
changes.\5\ According to the Exchange, the reason for the Merger is to
eliminate an unnecessary intermediate holding company.\6\ Following the
Merger, the Exchange would be wholly-owned by NYSE Group (as its two
affiliate exchanges, New York Stock Exchange LLC (``NYSE'') and NYSE
MKT LLC (``NYSE MKT''), are), which in turn would be wholly-owned by
NYSE Euronext.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Currently, NYSE Arca Holdings, Inc. owns all of the equity
interest of the Exchange. NYSE Group owns all of the equity interest
of NYSE Arca Holdings. NYSE Euronext owns all of the equity interest
of NYSE Group.
    \6\ See Notice, supra note 3, at 13103.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange has submitted its proposal to (i) delete in its
entirety the Second Amended and Restated Certificate of NYSE Arca
Holdings (the ``NYSE Arca Holdings Certificate''), (ii) delete in its
entirety the Amended and Restated Bylaws of NYSE Arca Holdings (``NYSE
Arca Holdings Bylaws''); (iii) amend the rules of NYSE Arca, Inc.
(``NYSE Arca''); (iv) amend the Bylaws of NYSE Arca (``NYSE Arca
Bylaws''); and (v) file the resolution (the ``Resolution'') of the
Board of Directors of NYSE Arca (the ``NYSE Arca Board'') in connection
with the Merger.
    Section 19(b) of the Act and Rule 19b-4 thereunder require a self-
regulatory organization (``SRO'') to file proposed rule changes with
the Commission. Although NYSE Arca Holdings is not an SRO, the NYSE
Arca Holdings Certificate and NYSE Arca Holdings Bylaws, along with
other corporate documents, are rules of the Exchange \7\ and must be
filed with the Commission pursuant to Section 19(b)(4) of the Act and
Rule 19b-4 thereunder. Accordingly, the Exchange filed the NYSE Arca
Holdings Certificate and NYSE Arca Holdings Bylaws with the Commission,
along with other corporate governance documents.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Section 3(a)(27) of the Act, 15 U.S.C. 78c(a)(27).
    \8\ The Exchange proposes to delete the entirety of the Second
Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation of NYSE Arca
Holdings and the Amended and Restated Bylaws of NYSE Arca Holdings,
attached as Exhibit A and Exhibit B, respectively, to the Notice.
The Exchange also filed the proposed rule changes to its rules as
the proposed Amended and Restated NYSE Arca Bylaws and rules,
attached as Exhibit C and Exhibit D, respectively, to the Notice.
The Exchange also filed the Resolution as Exhibit E to the Notice.
These exhibits are available on the Commission's Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml) and at the Commission's Public
Reference Room.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule changes reflect the elimination of NYSE Arca
Holdings from the Exchange's ownership structure and delete duplicative
or obsolete text. For example, the Exchange proposes to replace
references to NYSE Arca Holdings in Sections 2.01 and 3.13 of the NYSE
Arca Bylaws with references to NYSE Group.\9\ The Exchange also
proposes to delete Sections 2.02, 2.04 and 2.05 of the NYSE Arca Bylaws
which relate to scheduling meetings of the Holding Member. The Exchange
states that the Second Amended and Restated Bylaws of NYSE Group
already include provisions for meetings of NYSE Group's stockholders
and Board of Directors.\10\ The Exchange also represents that the
operating agreements of the Exchange's affiliated SROs, the NYSE and
NYSE MKT, do not contain provisions relating to annual meetings of NYSE
Group.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ As a result of this change NYSE Group will replace NYSE Arca
Holdings as the ``Holding Member'' for purposes of the NYSE Arca
Bylaws.
    \10\ See Notice, supra note 3, at 13104.
    \11\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to amend Section 3.02(f) of the NYSE Arca
Bylaws to provide that, except as otherwise provided in the NYSE Arca
Bylaws or rules, the Holding Member shall nominate directors for
election at the Holding Member's annual meeting.\12\ The Exchange notes
that the NYSE Arca Bylaws and rules do not have any other provisions
concerning the nomination of non-fair representation directors.\13\
Accordingly, this proposed rule change will not have any impact on the
current process for the nomination and selection of fair representation
directors of the Exchange and NYSE Arca Equities, Inc. (``NYSE Arca
Equities'').\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Currently, Section 3.02(f) provides that ``[e]xcept as
otherwise provided in these Bylaws or the Rules, the Nominating
Committee of NYSE Arca Holdings, Inc. Holding Member shall nominate
directors for election at the annual meeting of the Holding
Member.''
    \13\ See Notice, supra note 3, at 13104.
    \14\ See Notice, supra note 3 at 13104.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Discussion

    The Commission finds that the proposed rule changes are consistent
with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations
thereunder applicable to a national securities

exchange.\15\ Specifically, the Commission finds that the proposal is
consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\16\ which requires, among
other things, that the rules of a national securities exchange be
designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to
promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation
and coordination with persons engaged in facilitating transactions in
securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a
free and open market and a national market system, and, in general, to
protect investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ In approving this proposed rule change, the Commission has
considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition,
and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \16\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposal would accommodate the merger of NYSE Arca Holdings, an
intermediate holding company, into and with NYSE Group, thereby
eliminating NYSE Arca Holdings from the ownership structure of the
Exchange. The Commission notes that the proposed rule changes would
otherwise have no substantive impact on other rules of the Exchange,
including those concerning the nomination and selection of fair
representation directors that currently apply to the Exchange. The
Exchange would continue as an indirect wholly-owned subsidiary of NYSE
Euronext. In addition, the Commission notes that the NYSE Arca Board
made certain findings set forth in the Resolution that the proposed
rule changes to NYSE Arca's Bylaws are consistent with the restrictions
on amending NYSE Arca's Bylaws.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See Resolution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In light of these representations and findings, the Commission
believes that the proposed rule changes are consistent with the Act and
will not impair the ability of the Commission or the Exchange to
discharge their respective responsibilities under the Act.

IV. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\18\ that the proposed rule change (SR-NYSEArca-2013-17) be, and it
hereby is, approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
    \19\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\19\
Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-08472 Filed 4-10-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


Response to Comments from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and
the Federal Land Managers (FLMs) on the Rhode Island (RI) Draft Regional
Haze (RH) State Implementation Plan (SIP), dated January 26, 2009

Comment:	An executive summary would be helpful.  Section 1.0 essentially
serves this purpose, but additional specifics about Rhode Island’s
actions should be added, including specifics of the long-term strategy.
(United States Department of Agriculture (USDA))

Response:	Additional state-specific information was added to Section 1.0
in response to this comment.

Comment:	Paragraph four on page 1 should be revised as follows:  “The
Regional Haze Rule calls for each state to establish reasonable progress
goals for visibility improvements and to  formulate a long-term strategy
for meeting these goals.” (EPA)

Response:	The SIP was revised in response to this comment.

Comment:	Although RI has adopted the MANE-VU Ask as its long term
strategy, the draft SIP is unclear as to how the State will implement
the Ask.  In Section 1.0 (Introduction), RI adopts the MANE-VU Ask and
concludes that this strategy takes into account a four-factor analysis
for each control measure.  However, the four-factor analysis is not
included in the document. The draft SIP does a poor job in linking RI
actions to the MANE-VU Ask. The SIP should be revised to demonstrate
that the State is adopting the MANE-VU Ask and other measures as
reasonable progress based on, at a minimum, the four factors noted in
the RH Rule.  (Department of the Interior (DOI))  We recognize the
impacts from Rhode Island sources are relatively small, but this does
not negate the requirement that the Regional Haze SIP include all
measures deemed necessary for Rhode Island to obtain its share of
emissions reductions needed to the meet the Reasonable Progress Goals
for the Class I areas in the states listed above.   Specific information
on enforceable controls and compliance schedules for Rhode Island
sources should be provided in the SIP.  (USDA)

Response:  In response to these comments, a table outlining the results
of MANE-VU’s four factor analysis of possible control measures was
added to section 10.2.1, “Rationale for Determining Reasonable
Controls” and discussions of that analysis for the low-sulfur fuel oil
and targeted EGU strategies were added to sections 10.2.3 and 10.2.4,
respectively.  In addition, more extensive discussion of the emissions
control strategies for Rhode Island and a demonstration that those
strategies constitute Rhode Island’s fair share of emissions
reductions has been added to Section 11, “Long-term Strategy.”

Comment:	It is unclear if RI’s emissions will be decreasing over the
planning period.  Section 1.0 (Introduction) concludes that Rhode
Island’s contribution to emission reduction through its long term
strategy, along with reductions taken by other states in MANE-VU, is
sufficient to meet reasonable progress calls.  However, there is no
information provided to document how much RI’s emissions will be
reduced from 2002 to 2018.  Therefore, it is unclear if RI is meeting
its fair share of emissions reductions to meet reasonable progress under
the MANE-VU Ask. (DOI)

Response:	The tables in Section 6.4, “Summary of Emissions
Inventories,” show a 43.1% decrease in SO2 emissions in Rhode Island
between the 2002 baseline and the “Beyond On the Way” 2018 inventory
and a 78.9% decrease in emissions between the 2002 baseline and the
“Best and Final” 2018 inventory, which includes all measures in the
Ask.  In response to this comment, Section 11.9, “Rhode Island’s
Share of Emissions Reductions” was expanded and now includes a
comparison of the expected “Best and Final” reductions in Rhode
Island (78.9%) and in MANE-VU as a whole (73.5%).  This section
concludes that “This comparison indicates that Rhode Island will meet
its share of anticipated SO2 emission reductions within the region by
2018.”

Comment:	Section 1.1 (The Basics of Haze) states, “On the worst 20
percent days, visibility impairment in Northeast and Mid-Atlantic Class
I areas range from about 25 to 30 deciviews.”  EPA suggests including
the range in miles in order to give the reader a better frame of
reference.  (EPA)

Response:	The range of miles was added to Section 1.1 in response to
this comment.

Comment:	Paragraph 5 on page 4 should be revised as follows: “About
half of the worst visibility days in the New England Class I Areas occur
in the summer when meteorological conditions are more conducive to the
formation of sulfate from SO2 an to the oxidation or organic aerosols.
In addition, winter and summer transport patterns are different,
possibly leading to different contributions from upwind source regions.
As a result, The remaining worst visibility dates are divided nearly
equally among spring, winter and fall.  In addition, winter and summer
transport patterns are different, possibly leading to different
contributions from upwind source regions.”  (EPA)

Response:	Section 1.2 (Anatomy of Haze) was changed in response to this
comment.

Comment:	Section 1.4 (Class I Areas Within MANE-VU) should be revised to
read as follows:  “The MANE-VU RPO contains nine seven Class I areas
in six four states (see Figure 1.2).”  (EPA)

Response:	Section 1.4 was changed in response to this comment.

Comment:	Section 2.0 (Areas Contributing to RH), should include a better
summary of the Contribution Assessment.  Since RI Emissions are deemed
to minimally contribute to visibility impairment at all MANE-VU Class I
areas based on the MANE-VU analyses, the SIP should include graphical
information for all Class I areas, not just one. The table of percentage
mass contribution in Section 2.1 (Class I Areas Affected by Rhode
Island’s Emission Sources) does not provide a context as to the level
of RI Emissions within the region.  A summary of Contribution Assessment
would help support the argument that RI emissions are minimal. (DOI)
The discussion regarding Rhode Island’s contribution to visibility
impairment at other States’ Class I areas is very brief.  Additional
discussion should be provided to support Rhode Island’s assertion that
its impacts are “minimal.”  Section 8.2 (Contributing States and
Regions) provides additional information on RI’s contribution to
sulfate impacts.  It is suggested that at the very least, a reference to
Section 8.2 be added to Section 2.  (USDA)

Response:	The discussion in Section 2 was expanded in response to this
comment to show the impacts of Rhode Island emissions on sulfate levels
at all MANE-VU and other nearby Class I areas, calculated using several
different methods.  Rhode Island’s contributions to sulfate levels at
all Class I areas, calculated by all methods, is minimal.

Comment:	After Table 3.2, there is a section from the New Hampshire SIP
that should be removed.  (DOI)

Response:	That section has been removed.

Comment:	In Section <IP_ADDRESS> (Meeting the “Ask” –  Rhode Island),
RI adopts the MANE-VU Ask and agrees to pursue low sulfur fuel oil for
industrial, commercial and institutional (ICI) boilers, electric
generating units (EGUs) and home heating units and to decrease emissions
from outdoor wood boilers (OWBs).  In Sections 8 and 10, the draft SIP
acknowledges that BART and the targeted EGU strategy do not apply to RI.
 However, there is no discussion in either of these sections of how RI
plans to decrease emissions from OWBs.  In addition, as part of the Ask,
RI has agreed to pursue “other reasonable control measures” as
needed and the SIP should elaborate on those controls.  (DOI)

Response:	Section 11.9 has been modified to include more specific
information about Rhode Island’s emissions reduction strategies,
including planned OWB regulations.

Comment:	In Section 3.2.2 (Technical Ramifications of Differing
Approaches), RI implies that addressing inconsistencies with emission
inventories “caused” most states to miss the 2007 statutory
submittal date.  This statement should be reconsidered for accuracy and
possible removal. (DOI)

Response:	That statement was removed from Section 3.2.2 in response to
this comment.

Comment:	There is no mention of links to other RI programs, including
NSR and PSD permitting programs.  State RH SIPs must address the goal of
protecting the 20% best visibility days in Class I areas.  The RI SIP
should recognize the requirements of full consultation with the FLMs for
review of visibility impacts required by the NSR and PSD Programs.
Please provide information on how RI will use future permit reviews to
contribute to progress in the RH process.  (DOI)  	We request that Rhode
Island provide language in their SIP linking the Regional Haze and New
Source Review programs and continued FLM coordination between these
programs.  Currently, there is no mechanism in the SIP to ensure the
emissions from new stationary sources or major modifications of existing
sources will make reasonable progress toward the national visibility
goal (40 CFR 51.307).  This could be especially important for emissions
from new sources that were not anticipated in 2018 emission inventories.
 (USDA)

Response:	A section discussing the links between Rhode Island’s New
Source Review program and Regional Haze has been added as Section 11.12,
“Prevention of Significant Deterioration.”

Comment:	Section 5.0 (Air Monitoring Strategy) should include language
committing RI to continuing support of the IMPROVE network by stating
that RI agrees the IMPROVE is an appropriate monitoring network to track
RH progress and that RI agrees to work with neighboring states and FLMs
in meeting the goals of the IMPROVE program.  (DOI)   Section 5
discusses the monitoring strategy being used to assess visibility
conditions.  Even though Rhode Island does not have any Class I areas,
this section demonstrates the importance of continued operation of the
IMPROVE monitoring network.  We ask that Rhode Island add a statement
expressing their support for continued operation of the IMPROVE network.
 (USDA)

Response:	A statement of Rhode Island’s support of the IMPROVE network
has been added to Section 5.0.

Comment:	In Section 5.2 (Monitoring Information for Rhode Island), the
Contribution Assessment is incorrectly referenced as Appendix A.  The
reference should be to Appendix B.  (DOI)

Response:	This reference has been corrected.

Comment:	The last paragraph of Section 5.2 should be revised to read as
follows:  “Rhode Island does not contain any Class I Areas; therefore
no monitoring plan is required under Section 51.308(d)(4) or Section
51.305 of EPA’s Regional Haze rule.”  (EPA)

Response: 	Section 5.2 was changed in response to this comment.

Comment:	Section 5.3 (Monitoring Sites for MANE-VU Class I Areas) should
be revised to reflect that Moosehorn Wilderness and Roosevelt Campobello
International Park also share a monitoring site.  (DOI)

Response:	Section 5.3 was changed in response to this comment.

Comment:	In Section 6.4 (Summary of Emissions Inventories), it would be
helpful to have a state-specific discussion, including an explanation
for increases in PM2.5. PM10, NH3 and SO2 from 2002 Baseline to OTB/OTW
inventories for 2018.  (DOI)  	The discussion of emissions inventories
is generic and only explains the work done by MANE-VU and NESCAUM.  This
section should include additional discussion of how the Rhode Island
specific emissions (presented in Tables 6.1-6.4) were generated. (USDA)
Tables 6.2 and 6.3 indicate that area SO2 emissions are reduced from
5,398 tpy to 1,368 tpy from implementation of OTB/OTW strategies to BOTW
strategies.  It is not clear why there is such a large reduction in area
SO2 emissions between these two strategies.  Please include a discussion
of the measures included in BOTW that are expected to achieve this
reduction.  (EPA)

Response:	State-specific information about the source of the growth
factors used to grow 2002 emissions to 2018 has been added to Sections
<IP_ADDRESS> (non-EGU point sources) and 6.3.2 (area sources).  An
explanation of the reduction in SO2 emissions in the BOTW and Best &
Final inventories has been added to Section 6.4.

Comment:	Section 3.0 (Regional Planning and Consultation) includes a
discussion on the differing emission inventory approaches of MANE-VU,
MWRPO and VISTAS. This discussion should also be included in Section 6.0
(Emissions Inventory).  (DOI)

Response:	A reference to the discussion in Section 3.0 was added to
Section 6.1, “Baseline and Future-Year Emissions Inventories for
Modeling.”

Comment:	Section 6 should discuss which inventory was used for
performance testing of the numerous models used in developing the
MANE-VU inventory.  (DOI)

Response:	Section 6.1.1, “Baseline Inventory (2002),” includes the
following statement:

Version 3 of the MANE-VU 2002 baseline emissions inventory was used in
the regional air quality modeling simulations.  Further description of
the data sources, methods, and results for this version of the 2002
baseline inventory is presented in E.H. Pechan & Associates, Inc.,
“Technical Support Document for 2002 MANE-VU SIP Modeling
Inventories, Version 3, November 20, 2006, also known as the Baseline
Emissions Report (Attachment M).

No modifications were made in response to this comment.

Comment:	We would like Rhode Island to commit to annually tracking
emissions and reporting how the projected emissions compare to actual
emissions in 2012 and 2018. (USDA)

Response:	Section 1.3.2 of the draft document (now 1.3.3), “State
Implementation Plan” includes the following commitment:

Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(d)(4)(v), RI DEM will also make periodic
updates to the Rhode Island’s emissions inventory (see Section 6.0,
Emissions Inventory).  RI DEM proposes to complete these updates to
coincide with the progress reports.

In response to this comment, the following sentence was added to that
commitment:  “Actual emissions will be compared to projected modeled
emissions in the progress reports.”

Comment:	Section 7 (Air Quality Modeling) concludes that models were
tested and found to be adequate.  Please summarize the meteorology,
emissions and results of such evaluations in making these conclusions.
This is especially important since RI used a suite of models in making
conclusions for the draft SIP.  (DOI)  In Sections 7.1 (Meteorology) and
7.3 (Model Platforms), brief discussions of model performance would be
helpful.  (USDA)

Response:	Since Rhode Island did not perform modeling independent of
MANE-VU, the State has nothing additional to add to this discussion,
which was prepared regionally. The attachments address the modeling
methodology in more detail.

Comment:	In Section 8.1 (Fine-Particle Pollutants) the draft SIP states
that organic carbon accounts for the second largest share of the fine
particulate mass responsible for light extinction.  However, Section
11.7 (Agricultural and Forestry Smoke Management) states that organic
carbon emissions do not need to be controlled or managed.  This may be a
matter of timing for this round of SIP development and what is needed
for reasonable progress at this time.  However, RI should commit to
reviewing its position on organic carbon in the 2013 review.  (DOI)

Response:	Section 8.1, “Fine Particle Pollutants,” states the
following:

Organic carbon was found to be the next largest contributor to haze
after sulfate.  In comparison with sulfate, the emission sources of
organic carbon are diverse, variable, more diffuse, and less well
understood; and the problem of controlling organic carbon emissions is
exceedingly complex.  For these reasons, MANE-VU considered organic
carbon to be the subject of possible future control measures but not a
specific target pollutant in the initial strategy to mitigate regional
haze.

Section 8.3.2 states:

In short, further work is needed to characterize the organic carbon
contribution to regional haze in the MANE-VU states and to develop
emissions inventories that will be of greater value for visibility
planning purposes.  As pointed out in Subsection 8.1, above, organic
carbon could be the subject of future control measures to mitigate
regional haze but is not the focus of initial planning.

The following sentence was added to that section in response to this
comment: “This issue will be discussed further in the first progress
report.”

Comment:	In Section 8.2 (Contributing States and Regions), RI agrees to
pursue adoption of regional control measures, but is not specific as to
what the control measures are.  If regional control measures are not
available, please commit to addressing this issue in the 2013 review.
(DOI)

Response:	That section is referring to measures included in the Ask and
any subsequent MANE-VU actions; those measures are detailed elsewhere in
the document (e.g. sections 10.2 and 11.4).  Section 11.9 specifies
which of these measures are applicable to Rhode Island and commits to
pursuing those measures.

Comment:	The reference cited for Figure 8.11 appears inaccurate.  Please
correct.  The source of the data used to generate Figures 8.12, 8.13,
8.15, 8.19, 8.20 and 8.22 should also be referenced. (EPA)

Response:	 These data were generated by the MARAMA Emissions Inventory
Project and are listed on the MARAMA website at:   HYPERLINK
"http://www.marama.org/visibility/Inventory%20Summary/2002EI-Ver3Sum.htm
l"
http://www.marama.org/visibility/Inventory%20Summary/2002EI-Ver3Sum.html
 .  That reference has been included in the SIP document.

Comment:	Section 8.3.4 (Primary Particulate Matter (PM10 and PM2.5))
concludes that emission inventories indicate that residential wood
combustion represents 25% of primary fine particle emissions in the
region.  Please provide an evaluation of control measures on sources of
residential wood combustion, especially considering that RI has agreed
to pursue such controls as part of the MANE-VU Ask/RI long term
strategy.  (DOI)  RI should include a discussion of its plans to
decrease emissions from OWB, including how the emission reductions will
be made federally enforceable.  (EPA)

Response:	As stated in Section 11.3.3, “Controls on Area Sources
Expected by 2018,” MANE-VU’s emissions projections counted the
federal woodstove New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) as OTB/OTW
control measures.  The assumptions used to project emissions reductions
in 2012 and 2018 as a result of the NSPS are detailed in Table D-3 of
MARAMA’s “Development of Emission Projections for 2009, 2012, and
2018 for NonEGU Point, Area, and Nonroad Sources in the MANE-VU Region,
Final Report,” which is Attachment N to the Rhode Island SIP.

RI DEM has included a four factor analysis of controls for residential
wood combustion in Table 10-2.  A statement of Rhode Island’s planned
OWB regulatory action has been added to Section 11.9.

Comment:	Section 8.3.4 states, “Most states showed a steady decline in
annual PM10 emissions in the years leading up to the 2002 inventory.  By
contrast, emission trends for primary PM2.5 were more variable.”  RI
should include examples of the trend data.  (EPA)

Response:	That sentence was removed from the SIP document in response to
this comment.  Rhode Island did not track PM10 and PM2.5 emissions in
the years leading up to the 2002 inventory.

Comment:	Since Rhode Island has no Class I areas, it is acceptable to
state that Rhode Island agrees with the reasonable progress goals
established by the States of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, and New
Jersey for their Class I areas.  Even though the impacts are minimal,
Section 10.0 (Reasonable Progress Goals) should also, at least,
recognize that emissions from Rhode Island sources impact Class I areas
in West Virginia and Virginia as well.  (USDA)

Response:	Impacts of Rhode Island emissions at Shenandoah National Park
(Virginia) and Dolly Sods Wilderness (West Virginia) are presented in
Table 2.1, Figure 2.2.1(d), Table 8.1, and Figures 8.1, 8.3 and 8.9.
The REMSAD estimates of Rhode Island’s sulfate impacts on those areas
are 0.01%.

Comment:	In Section 11.0 (Long-Term Strategy), RI incorporates the
MANE-VU Ask as its long term strategy and indicates that the long term
strategy has enforceable emission limits, compliance schedules and
“other measures necessary” to attain goals, but these items are not
included.  There are no links between regional emission control
strategies and RI-specific actions.  (DOI)  Section 11.0 indicates the
long term strategy includes “enforceable emissions limitations,
compliance schedules and other necessary measures” to achieve the
reasonable progress goals established by other States for their Class I
areas.   The information presented in Sections 11.1-11.4 is mostly
generic MANE-VU information that applies to other states.  Specific
information on enforceable controls and compliance schedules for Rhode
Island sources should be provided as well. (USDA)  The long-term
strategy should include specific commitments and enforceable emissions
limitations needed to demonstrate that Rhode Island is obtaining its
share of the emissions reductions needed to meet the reasonable progress
goals.  Additional information should be added to Sections 11.9 and
11.10 of the Draft SIP to demonstrate that Rhode Island is doing its
“fair share.”   (USDA)

Response:	More detail has been added to Section 11.9, “Rhode
Island’s Share of Emissions Reductions,” and 11.10,
“Enforceability of Emission Limitations and Control Measures,” in
response to these comments.

Comment:	Section 11.2 (Technical Basis for Strategy Development)
references technical reports that were used to determine the level of
emission reduction required by RI to achieve reasonable progress goals
in affected Class I areas.  Please provide a statement or summary of the
necessary reduction levels.  (DOI)

Response:	Rhode Island did not conduct these analyses and has no further
information on this subject beyond that which is in the document.  As
discussed in the document, Rhode Island sources contribute considerably
less than 2% of the sulfate at any Class I area, and thus the State has
been determined to not be a significant contributor to visibility issues
in those areas. In addition, as discussed in Section 11.2, expected SO2
emissions reductions in Rhode Island are consistent with those in
MANE-VU as a whole.

Comment:	Section 11.3.1 (Controls on EGUs Expected by 2018) should
include the permit levels for the RI EGUs, since they are enforceable
emissions limits and RI is not subject to CAIR.  (DOI)  In Section
11.3.1, more details about RI EGUs should be included, e.g. what are the
sources, what are the limits to which they are subject, and are those
limits federally enforceable.

Response:	Those levels are now listed in 11.3.1.  The section includes a
statement that the limits are federally enforceable.

Comment:	Section 11.3.2 (Controls on Non-EGU Point Sources Expected by
2018) should identify any non-EGU sources affected by the RH program.
(DOI)

Response:	Rhode Island does not have Non-EGU point sources that are
affected by the RH program, other than point sources that burn fuel oil.

Comment:	In Sections 11.3.3 (Controls on Area Sources Expected by 2018)
and 11.3.5 (Controls on Non-Road Sources Expected by 2018), please
identify what specific measures RI is taking based on MANE-VU regional
strategies.  (DOI)

Response:	References to applicable RI area source regulations have been
added to Section 11.3.3.  The non-road measures identified in 11.3.5 are
federal rules and, therefore, do not require state regulatory action.

Comment:	Section 11.4 (Additional Reasonable Measures) concludes that
adoption of the MANE-VU Ask is reasonable as RI’s long-term strategy.
However, it does not include the required four-factor analysis of each
measure in the Ask specific to RI sources. In addition, the SIP should
indicate how RI plans to satisfy each of those measures.  The long-term
strategy does not include the measures to address new source performance
standards for wood combustion that were mentioned in Section 3. The
draft SIP concludes that most wood smoke is from residential wood
combustion but lacks any analysis of control measures on this source
category, even through RI has effectively adopted such a measures under
the MANE-VU Ask in Section 3.

 (DOI)

Response:	These issues are now addressed in more detail in Section 11.9.

Comment:	In Section 6.0, the draft SIP concludes that organic carbon is
the second largest contributor to RH.  RI Does not have a smoke
management program and is not required to do so based on a technical
report developed for MANE-VU.  The MANE-VU emissions inventories
indicate that emissions from agricultural managed and prescribed burning
are very minor source categories.  However, in Section 11.7
(Agricultural and Forestry Smoke Management), RI should include a
commitment to track such in the future to help determine the level of
contribution for future planning periods.  (DOI) We agree that based on
existing inventories of smoke emissions from wildfires and prescribed
fires, they are not a significant emission source for Rhode Island or a
significant contributor to regional haze in downwind Class I areas at
this time.  It would be helpful to add a reference to the specific
sections in Attachment V which support this claim.  Also, we request
that Rhode Island commit to track smoke emissions in the future to help
determine the level of contribution for future planning periods.  (USDA)
 RI should develop a smoke management plan which addresses emissions
from prescribed burning. (EPA)

Response:	As commented by DOI and USDA, a SMP is not required for Rhode
Island because prescribed, managed and agricultural burning is an
extremely small emissions source in the State.  In response to these
comments, Rhode Island-specific emissions information, as reported in
the technical report, and a commitment to including this category in
future inventory efforts was added to Section 11.4.

Comment:	Section 11.9 (Rhode Island’s Share of Emission Reductions)
should detail the emissions reductions needed and anticipated by RI to
demonstrate that RI will achieve its fair share of emissions reductions.
 (DOI)

Response:	Section 11.9 has been augmented in response to comments.

Comment:	In Section 11.4, RI fully adopts the MANE-VU Ask, yet Section
11.9 states that RI is continuing to evaluate the control measures in
the strategy to determine whether they are reasonable to adopt.  The SIP
should identify emissions control strategies being adopted now and those
slated for future adoption.  In addition, RI should commit to address
any measures still being considered in the 2013 review.  (DOI)  In
Section 11.4, Rhode Island indicates it will be relying on the MANE-VU
“Ask” in its long term strategy.  However, there is little
information provided about specific actions that will be taken by Rhode
Island to meet the “Ask.”  Specifically, in regards to the
“low-sulfur fuel oil strategy,” Rhode Island only commits to review
the details of this strategy in five years to determine whether
requiring low-sulfur fuel “remains a viable option for implementation
by 2018.”  (USDA)  Section 11.4.2 (Low-Sulfur Oil Strategy), states
that RI will review in low-sulfur fuel oil strategy in five years, “to
ascertain that requiring the use of low-sulfur fuel remains viable for
implementation by 2018.”  This appears inconsistent with the MANE0VU
Ask for the other zone which calls for #2 distillate oil to be reduced
to 500 ppm sulfur by  no later than 2014.   (EPA)

Response:	Sections 11.4 and 11.9 have been altered in response to these
comments.  RI DEM is committing to adopt the low-sulfur fuel strategy
with the caveat that Phase II limits will be further evaluated for
viability by 2018 in the first progress report.  RI DEM is also
committing to address any additional measures still under consideration
in the first progress report.

Comment:	Section 11.4.2 includes a discussion of possible logistical
issues that may impact implementation of the low-sulfur oil strategy in
the northern New England states.  The SIP should either explain how this
might be relevant to RI’s ability to enact the MANE-VU low sulfur fuel
oil strategy or delete the discussion.  (EPA)

Response:	That discussion, which was not relevant to Rhode Island, has
been deleted.

Comment:	Table 11.2 in Section 11.5 (Source Retirement and Replacement
Schedules) lists sources that were shut down after 2002.  Are there any
other sources that are planning to shut down before 2018?  If
information is available for any other sources that are expected to shut
down before 2018, it should be discussed in this section.  (USDA)

Response:	RI DEM does not have definitive information about planned shut
down of additional facilities.

Comment:	A short discussion of the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) and
the recent court rulings would be helpful to provide the full breadth of
consultation issues and uncertainties experienced by MANE-VU.  (DOI)
Section 11.3.1 should include a brief description of the CAIR remand
(EPA)

Response:	A discussion of CAIR was added in as Section 11.3.2.

Comment:	The numbering of footnotes throughout the document needs to be
checked (e.g., the text on page 65 refers to notes 11 and 12, but they
are numbered as 13 and 14).  On page 88, there is a reference to Figure
11.6.  The document does not contain a Figure 11.6.  (USDA)  RI should
fix the footnote numbering in Section 11.3.1 (EPA)

Response:	The references and numbering have been corrected.

 PAGE

 PAGE   9


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 174 (Friday, September 9, 2022)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 55328-55331]
[FR Doc No: 2022-19397]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2022-0978; Project Identifier AD-2022-00460-E]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; General Electric Company Turbofan
Engines

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD)
for certain General Electric Company (GE) GEnx-1B and GEnx-2B model
turbofan engines. This proposed AD was prompted by a manufacturer
investigation that revealed that certain high-pressure turbine (HPT)
stage 2 disks, forward seals, and stages 6-10 compressor rotor spools
were manufactured from powder metal material suspected to contain iron
inclusion. This proposed AD would require the replacement of the
affected HPT stage 2 disks, forward seals, and stages 6-10 compressor
rotor spools. The FAA is proposing this AD to address the unsafe
condition on these products.

DATES: The FAA must receive comments on this proposed AD by October 24,
2022.

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

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket at https://www.regulations.gov by
searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2022-0978; or in person at
Docket Operations between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this NPRM, any comments
received, and other information. The street address for Docket
Operations is listed above.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Alexei Marqueen, Aviation Safety
Engineer, ECO Branch, FAA, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803;
phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    The FAA invites you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed
under ADDRESSES. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2022-0978; Project Identifier
AD-2022-00460-E'' at the beginning of your comments. The most helpful
comments reference a specific portion of the proposal, explain the
reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. The FAA
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposal because of those comments.
    Except for Confidential Business Information (CBI) as described in
the following paragraph, and other information as described in 14 CFR
11.35, the FAA will post all comments received, without change, to
https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you
provide. The agency will also post a report summarizing each
substantive verbal contact received about this NPRM.

Confidential Business Information

    CBI is commercial or financial information that is both customarily
and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of
Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public
disclosure. If your comments responsive to this NPRM contain commercial
or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that
you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to
this NPRM, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted
comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission containing
CBI as ``PROPIN.'' The FAA will treat such marked submissions as
confidential under the FOIA, and they will not be

placed in the public docket of this NPRM. Submissions containing CBI
should be sent to Alexei Marqueen, Aviation Safety Engineer, ECO
Branch, FAA, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803. Any commentary
that the FAA receives which is not specifically designated as CBI will
be placed in the public docket for this rulemaking.

Background

    The FAA was notified by the manufacturer of the detection of iron
inclusion in an HPT stage 2 disk manufactured from the same powder
metal material used to manufacture certain HPT stage 2 disks, forward
seals, and stages 6-10 compressor rotor spools for GEnx-1B64, GEnx-
1B64/P1, GEnx-1B64/P2, GEnx-1B67, GEnx-1B67/P1, GEnx-1B67/P2, GEnx-
1B70, GEnx-1B70/75/P1, GEnx-1B70/75/P2, GEnx-1B70/P1, GEnx-1B70/P2,
GEnx-1B70C/P1, GEnx-1B70C/P2, GEnx-1B74/75/P1, GEnx-1B74/75/P2, GEnx-
1B76/P2, GEnx-1B76A/P2 (GEnx-1B) and GEnx-2B67, GEnx-2B67B, and GEnx-
2B67/P (GEnx-2B) model turbofan engines. Further investigation by the
manufacturer determined that the iron inclusion is attributed to
deficiencies in the manufacturing process. The investigation by the
manufacturer also determined that certain GEnx-1B and GEnx-2B HPT stage
2 disks, forward seals, and stages 6-10 compressor rotor spools made
from billets manufactured using the same process may have reduced
material properties and a lower fatigue life capability due to iron
inclusion, which may cause premature fracture and uncontained failure.
As a result of its investigation, the manufacturer published service
information that specifies procedures for the removal and replacement
of certain HPT stage 2 disks, forward seals, and stages 6-10 compressor
rotor spools installed on GEnx-1B and GEnx-2B model turbofan engines.
This condition, if not addressed, could result in uncontained debris
release, damage to the engine, and damage to the aircraft.

FAA's Determination

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

Related Service Information

    The FAA reviewed GE GEnx-1B Service Bulletin 72-0505, Revision 02,
dated April 5, 2022. The FAA also reviewed GE GEnx-2B Service Bulletin
72-0444, Revision 02, dated April 5, 2022. This service information
describes procedures for removing the HPT stage 2 disk, forward seal,
and stages 6-10 compressor rotor spool. These documents are distinct
since they apply to different engine models.

Proposed AD Requirements in This NPRM

    This proposed AD would require the removal of certain HPT stage 2
disks, forward seals, and stages 6-10 compressor rotor spools and
replacement with parts eligible for installation.

Differences Between This Proposed AD and the Service Information

    GE GEnx-1B Service Bulletin 72-0505, Revision 02, dated April 5,
2022, uses the term ``HPT rotor stage 2 disk,'' while this proposed AD
uses the term ``HPT stage 2 disk.''

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this AD, if adopted as proposed, would
affect 3 engines installed on airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA
estimates that 0 engines installed on airplanes of U.S. registry would
require replacement of the forward seal or HPT stage 2 disk.
    The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this proposed
AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per      Cost on U.S.
              Action                      Labor cost             Parts cost           product        operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Replace stages 6-10 compressor      8 work-hours x $85     $846,519 (average pro-       $847,199      $2,541,597
 rotor spool.                        per hour = $680.       rated part cost).
Replace forward seal..............  8 work-hours x $85     $364,558 (average pro-        365,238               0
                                     per hour = $680.       rated part cost).
Replace HPT stage 2 disk..........  8 work-hours x $85     $363,424 (average pro-        364,104               0
                                     per hour = $680.       rated part cost).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Proposed Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13   [Amended]

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

General Electric Company: Docket No. FAA-2022-0978; Project
Identifier AD-2022-00460-E.

(a) Comments Due Date

    The FAA must receive comments on this airworthiness directive
(AD) by October 24, 2022.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to General Electric Company GEnx-1B64, GEnx-
1B64/P1, GEnx-1B64/P2, GEnx-1B67, GEnx-1B67/P1, GEnx-1B67/P2, GEnx-
1B70, GEnx-1B70/75/P1, GEnx-1B70/75/P2, GEnx-1B70/P1, GEnx-1B70/P2,
GEnx-1B70C/P1, GEnx-1B70C/P2, GEnx-1B74/75/P1, GEnx-1B74/75/P2,
GEnx-1B76/P2, GEnx-1B76A/P2, GEnx-2B67, GEnx-2B67B, and GEnx-2B67/P
model turbofan engines with an installed high-pressure turbine (HPT)
stage 2 disk, forward seal, or stages 6-10 compressor rotor spool
with a part number (P/N) and serial number (S/N) identified in Table
1 to paragraph (c) of this AD.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP09SE22.046

(d) Subject

    Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC) Code 7230, Turbine Engine
Compressor Section; 7250, Turbine Section.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by a manufacturer investigation that
revealed certain HPT stage 2 disks, forward seals, and stages 6-10
compressor rotor spools were manufactured from powder metal material
suspected to contain iron inclusion. The FAA is issuing this AD to
prevent fracture and potential

uncontained failure of certain HPT stage 2 disks, forward seals, and
stages 6-10 compressor rotor spools. The unsafe condition, if not
addressed, could result in uncontained debris release, damage to the
engine, and damage to the aircraft.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Required Actions

    (1) Before exceeding 600 flight cycles after the effective date
of this AD, remove the affected HPT stage 2 disk, forward seal, and
stages 6-10 compressor rotor spool from service and replace with a
part eligible for installation.
    (2) For affected engines not in service, before further flight,
remove the affected HPT stage 2 disk, forward seal, and stages 6-10
compressor rotor spool and replace with a part eligible for
installation.

(h) Definitions

    (1) For the purpose of this AD, a ``part eligible for
installation'' is any HPT stage 2 disk, forward seal, or stages 6-10
compressor rotor spool with a P/N and S/N not identified in Table 1
to paragraph (c) of this AD.
    (2) For the purpose of this AD, ``engines not in service'' are
engines that are in long-term or short-term storage as of the
effective date of this AD.

(i) Installation Prohibition

    After the effective date of this AD, do not install an HPT stage
2 disk, forward seal, or stages 6-10 compressor rotor spool with a
P/N and S/N identified in Table 1 to paragraph (c) of this AD onto
any engine.

(j) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, ECO Branch, FAA, has the authority to approve
AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR
39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your
principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as
appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the
certification office, send it to the attention of the person
identified in paragraph (k) of this AD and email to: [email protected].
    (2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate
principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager
of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding
district office.

(k) Related Information

    For more information about this AD, contact Alexei Marqueen,
Aviation Safety Engineer, ECO Branch, FAA, 1200 District Avenue,
Burlington, MA 01803; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
[email protected].

    Issued on July 21, 2022.
Christina Underwood,
Acting Director, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, Aircraft
Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2022-19397 Filed 9-8-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P