[Federal Register: February 16, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 32)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 8228-8229]
[DOCID:fr16fe06-13]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 50, 53, and 58

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2001-0017; EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0018; FRL-8033-6]
RIN 2060-AI44 and RIN 2060-AJ25

Public Hearings for Proposed Rules--National Ambient Air Quality
Standards for Particulate Matter and Revisions to Ambient Air
Monitoring Regulations

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Announcement of public hearings.

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

SUMMARY: The EPA is announcing three public hearings to be held jointly
for two proposed rules--``National Ambient Air Quality Standards for
Particulate Matter'' and ``Revisions to Ambient Air Monitoring
Regulations'' that were published in the Federal Register on January
17, 2006 (71 FR 2620 and 71 FR 2710). The hearings will be held
concurrently in Chicago, Illinois; Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; and San
Franciso, California.
    In the proposed rule entitled ``National Ambient Air Quality
Standards for Particulate Matter,'' EPA proposes to make revisions to
the primary and secondary national ambient air quality standards
(NAAQS) for particulate matter (PM) to provide requisite protection of
public health and welfare, respectively, and to make corresponding
revisions in monitoring reference methods and data handling conventions
for PM.
    In the ``Revisions to Ambient Air Monitoring Regulations,'' EPA is
proposing to revise the ambient air monitoring requirements for
criteria pollutants. The proposal establishes ambient air monitoring
requirements in support of the proposed revisions to the NAAQS for PM
and proposes other changes to better serve current and future air
quality management and research needs.

DATES: The public hearings will be held concurrently on March 8, 2006.
Please refer to SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for additional information on
the public hearings.

ADDRESSES: The hearings will be held at the following locations:

    1. Chicago: Hyatt Regency, 151 E. Wacker Drive, Chicago, IL 60601,
312-565-1234.
    2. Philadelphia: Holiday Inn Historic District, 400 Arch Street,
Philadelphia, PA 19106,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    3. San Francisco: Courtyard Marriott San Francisco Downtown, 299
Second Street, San Francisco, CA 94105,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Written comments on these proposed rules may also be submitted to
EPA electronically, by mail, by facsimile, or through hand delivery/
courier. Please refer to the two proposals for the addresses and
detailed instructions.
    A complete set of documents related to the two proposals is
available for public inspection at the EPA Docket Center, located at
1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., Room B102, Washington, DC between 8:30
a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. A
reasonable fee may be charged for copying. Documents are also available
through the electronic docket system at http://www.regulations.gov.

    The EPA Web site for the rulemakings, which includes the proposals
and information about the public hearings, can be found at: http://www.epa.gov/air/particlepollution/actions.html
.

for further information contact: If you would like to speak at the
public hearings or have questions concerning the public hearings,
please contact Ms. Tricia Crabtree at the address given below under
supplementary information.
    Questions concerning the ``National Ambient Air Quality Standards
for Particulate Matter'' proposed rule should be addressed to Dr. Erika
Sasser, U.S. EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Health
and Environmental Impacts Division, (C504-01), Research Triangle Park,
NC 27711, telephone number<PHONE_NUMBER>, e-mail at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Questions concerning the ``Revisions to Ambient Air Monitoring
Regulations'' proposed rule should be addressed to the following
individuals. For general questions, please contact Mr. Lewis Weinstock,
U.S. EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Air Quality
Assessment Division (D243-02), Research Triangle Park, NC 27711,
telephone number<PHONE_NUMBER>, e-mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For
technical questions, please contact Mr. Tim Hanley, U.S. EPA, Office of
Air Quality Planning and Standards, Air Quality Assessment Division
(D243-02), Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, telephone number (919)
541-4117, e-mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
supplementary information: The two proposals for which EPA is holding
the public hearings were published in the Federal Register on January
17, 2006 and are available on the following Web site http://www.epa.gov/air/particlepollution/actions.html.
 The public hearings

will provide interested parties the opportunity to present data, views,
or arguments concerning the proposed rules. The EPA may ask clarifying
questions during the oral presentations, but will not respond to the
presentations at that time. Written statements and supporting
information submitted during the comment period will be considered with
the same weight as any oral comments and supporting information
presented at the public hearings. Written comments must be postmarked
by the last day of the comment period, April 17, 2006, as specified in
the two proposals.
    The three public hearings will be held concurrently in Chicago,
Illinois; Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; and San Francisco, California.
The public hearings will begin each day at 9 a.m. (local time) and
continue into the evening until 9 p.m., or later if necessary,
depending on the number of speakers wishing to participate. The EPA
will make every effort to accommodate all speakers that arrive and
register before 9 p.m. The EPA is scheduling lunch breaks from 12:30
until 2 p.m. and dinner breaks from 6 p.m. to 7:30 p.m. If you would
like to present oral testimony at the hearings, please notify Ms.
Tricia Crabtree, (C504-01) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(919) 541-
5688. She will arrange a general time slot for you to speak. The EPA
will make every effort to follow the schedule as closely as possible on
the day of the hearings.
    Oral testimony will be limited to five (5) minutes for each
commenter to address either or both proposals. We will not be providing
equipment for commenters to show overhead slides or make computerized
slide presentations unless we receive special requests in advance.
Commenters should notify Ms. Tricia Crabtree if they will need specific
equipment. The EPA encourages commenters to provide written versions of
their oral testimonies either electronically on computer disk or CD-ROM
or in paper copy.
    The hearing schedules, including lists of speakers, will be posted
on EPA's Web pages for the proposals at http://www.epa.gov/air/particlepollution/actions.html
 prior to the hearings. Verbatim

transcripts of the hearings and written statements will be included in
the rulemaking dockets.

How Can I Get Copies of This Document and Other Related Information?

    The EPA has established the official public docket for the
``National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate Matter'' under
Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2001-0017. The EPA has established the
official public docket for the ``Revisions to Ambient Air Monitoring
Regulations'' under Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0018. The EPA has
also developed Web sites for the two proposals at the addresses given
above. Please refer to the two proposals, which were published in the
Federal Register on January 17, 2006, for detailed information on
accessing information related to each of the proposals.

    Dated: February 9, 2006.
Jeffrey S. Clark,
Acting Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards.
[FR Doc. 06-1462 Filed 2-15-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-M


<!DOCTYPE html
     PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN"
     "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd">

	<title>Minutes of the March 19, 2003 Exposure Modeling Public Meeting | Pesticides | US EPA</title>
	<meta name="DC.description" content="pesticide, pesticides,Access to and information regarding simulation models to predict pesticide concentrations in surface and ground water for use in both human health and aquatic ecological exposure assessments.  Exposure modeling public meeting products." />
	<meta name="keywords" content="EPA,Environmental Protection Agency, OPP, pesticides, pesticide, office of pesticide programs, scigrow, geneec, first, water models, exposure modeling public meeting" />

	<meta name="DC.title" content="Minutes of the March 19, 2003 Exposure Modeling Public Meeting | Pesticides | US EPA" />
	<meta name="DC.subject" content="EPA,Environmental Protection Agency, OPP, pesticides, pesticide, office of pesticide programs, scigrow, geneec, first, water models, exposure modeling public meeting" />
	<meta name="DC.type" content="" />

	<meta name="DC.date.modified" content="2007-06-18" />
	<meta name="DC.date.created" content="" />
	<meta name="DC.date.reviewed" content="" />

	<meta name="DC.language" content="en" />
	<meta name="DC.Creator" content="US EPA, Office of Pesticide Programs" />
	<meta http-equiv="Content-Style-Type" content="text/css" />
	<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1" />
	<link rel="schema.DC" href="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" />
	<link rel="meta" href="http://www.epa.gov/labels.rdf" type="application/rdf+xml" title="ICRA labels" />

	<link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" media="print" href="http://www.epa.gov/epafiles/s/print.css" />

Jump to main content.

Pesticides: Science and Policy

	<form id="EPAsearch" method="get" action="http://nlquery.epa.gov/epasearch/epasearch">

Recent Additions | Contact Us
			Search:
			<input type="hidden" name="fld" value="gov/pesticides/science,oppfead1/trac/science,oppfead1/carat,oppfead1/cb/ppdc/,gov/scipoly/sap,oppad001,pesticides/antimicrobials,oppbppd1/biopesticides/regtools/guidelines,oppbead1/methods,oppbead1/labs,oppefed1/models,opptsfrs/home,gov/scipoly/oscpendo,gov/PR_Notices" />
			<input type="hidden" name="areaname" value="Pesticides: Science and Policy" />
			<input type="hidden" name="areacontacts" value="http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/science/contacts.htm" />

			<input type="hidden" name="areasearchurl" value="http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/search.htm" />

			<input type="hidden" name="result_template" value="epafiles_default.xsl" />
 			<input type="hidden" name="filter" value="sample2filt.hts" />
			<input name="typeofsearch" id="EPAall" type="radio" value="epa"/>All EPA
			<input name="typeofsearch" id="Areaall" type="radio" value="area" checked="checked" />This Area
			<input name="querytext" id="searchbox" value="" />
		  <input name="submit" id="searchbutton" type="submit" value="Go" />

	</form>

You are here: EPA Home

Pesticides

Science & Policy

Models
            and Databases

Water Models

Exposure 		Modeling Public Meeting (EMPM) Information and Products

Minutes of the March 19, 2003 Exposure Modeling Public Meeting

Minutes of the March 19, 2003 Exposure Modeling Public Meeting

On this Page

Attendees

Welcome

Old Action Items

Brief Updates

Major Topics

Next Meeting

Attendees

Name	Association

Michael Barrett	OPP/EFED

Mark Carroll	UMD

Marietta Echeverria	OPP/EFED

Russell Jones	Bayer

Karen McCormack	OPP/EFED

Mark Shocken	Crompton

Jim Hetrick	OPP/EFED

Clive Wanner	Crompton

Dirk Young	OPP/EFED

Claude Beigel	BASF

Betsy Behl	OPP/EFED

Scott Jackson	BASF

R. David Jones	OPP/EFED

Paul Hendley	Syngenta

Richard Lee	OPP/EFED

Wenlin Chen	Syngenta

William Eckel	OPP/EFED

Louis Suarez	NERL/Athens

Ron Parker	OPP/EFED

Elise McCoy	FMC

Alex Clem	OPP/EFED

Susan Alexander	Stone Environ.

Jim Lin	OPP/EFED

Marty Williams	Waterborne

Nelson Thurman	OPP/EFED

Katherine Carr	Monsanto

Paul Horng	OPP/EFED & SRRD

Piyush Singh	DuPont

Adrian Wadley	WQC

Mary Nett	WQC

Don Wauchope	USDA/ARS

Top of page

WELCOME

Michael Barrett opened the meeting at 9:00 and welcomed everyone.

Top of page

OLD ACTION ITEMS

Update on prospective groundwater (PGW) guidance  - process for public posting is still in progress, formatting requirements may have to be made.

ORD to post latest PRZM version on Web site - done

Budgets and goals - to be discussed later in the meeting

EU kinetics group - EFED will send members - done

Don Wauchope to send USDA/ARS runoff data to Dirk Young - some progress.

Latest version of EXAMINER is with EPA - EXPRESS compatible - Ron Parker has
a copy but has not tested it yet

PLUS model - will be covered later in the meeting

EFED to resolve curve number switching - waiting input from PRZM developers

PGW database issues - will be covered later in the meeting

ORD coding problem for field capacity and wilting point - waiting for input from PRZM developers

USGS pesticide usage data - Gail Thelin/Bob Gilliom will be asked to discuss progress in developing usage data to support interpretation of monitoring data (and model development) at next EMWG meeting

Action Item: Betsy/Mike to invite Gail and Bob to next meeting.

PRZM-EXAMS scenarios - will be covered later in the meeting

Send turf runoff protocol to Betsy - done

Temperature-dependent PRZM code - will be covered later

Mark Russell's and Russell Jones' presentations on European modeling efforts posted to the Web site -  done

Don Wauchope's presentation posted to Web site

Action Item:   Don to send his presentation on the USDA/ARS OPP/EFED workshop (focus on developing credible mitigation measures) ASAP

Top of page

BRIEF UPDATES

European Union Activities - Russell Jones

- reported that FOCUS exercises are going full tilt.  He is working on kinetics, but is not ready to report presently.  There will be a two-day FOCUS workshop for EPA people this week and a one-day seminar in RTP.  Groundwater models have not changed in the last six months, and they are working on the bugs in the surface water models.  All of these models will be posted on the Web site.

USDA/ARS Mitigation Measures Workshop - Don Wauchope

- reported that the draft final report of the workshop is being circulated for comment.  The report lists 4-5 priority research items.

USDA/ARS Pesticide Properties  Database (New Version)

This database will be listed under the Tifton watershed Web site in a month.  It combines USDA/ARS data with NRCS data and will for the time being be limited to six primary properties.  The new version will, like the previous version, include recommended values based on expert judgement.  IUPAC projects are being proposed to evaluate the physical chemical property values of pesticides - but will not cover soil sorption coefficients and degradation half-lives.  A suggestion was made that USDA coordinate with OECD since they may have useful input.

PRZM/EXAMS Update

   - 3.12 final version will be on the CEAM Web site within two weeks.

PRZM Temperature Correction - Wenlin Chen

- discussed this problem regarding temperature-dependence of pesticide degradation which was mentioned at the last meeting.  PRZM 3.12 is not properly applying the temperature corrections for soil degradation.  PRZM 3.22, does not appear to have this problem.   There have been many questions over the years about how PRZM represents soil temperature.  Dave Jones suggested that inaccuracies in estimating soil temperature may be associated with imprecise estimation of soil albedo.

Action Item: Mark Cheplick to post details of code changes in PRZM on this and slides showing impact of changes on the list server.

Rice Modeling - Jim Breithaupt

- briefed the group on the rice model.  The rice scenarios seem to give reasonable results. Dean Pennington has developed useful GIS data for Mississippi rice agronomy and related flow information.  A new version of RICEWQ, which models parent and four metabolites runoff from rice fields, is available.  It can handle bi-phasic degradation and separate rate constants for water degradation processes (hydrolysis, metabolism, photolysis) and different soil/sediment degradation rates when flooded and not flooded.  It uses a standard stream and improves output format; the next version will be in a windows format and will include a thermal growth model for the rice crop.  Implementation work for Tier 1 rice scenarios will be supported in 2003, but the Tier 2 ones are at a lower priority.

WARP Model - Ron Parker

- expects to have a version of WARP available within a week which will predict the 9 percentiles of the distribution of atrazine at 5,000 watersheds defined by USGS GIS approaches; another 2000 CWS watersheds are still awaiting spatial verification.  Land use and soil information have been developed for each watershed.  A multi-compound version of WARP based on pesticide properties should be available soon.  Ron noted that funding for this project is not secure beyond this year, and they are looking for more funding.  The mini-pilot was conducted in order to determine sampling frequency.  This year they may look at six new sites to validate WARP predictions, and if more money is available, then go back to five original sites for additional sampling.

Sharing of watershed information may only occur after resolution of homeland security issues.  EPA Office of Water is looking at various security access levels as an option for data communication.  WARP may be a useful tool for selecting monitoring sites.

EXPRESS Shell for PRZM-EXAMS - Ron Parker

- is working on getting numbers for the model.  PCA's and tables and graphs were corrected.  Three versions of the model will be maintained on ORD's site: the beta version, new version, and European version.  Currently, EXPRESS results do not give the same answers as the stand-alone versions.  Currently, EFED is using the EFED shell "PE3" (originally developed by EFED to automate inputs and output presentation for single PRZM scenario runs) for routine risk assessments, and this will at some point be updated to "PE4".    PE4 provides presentation of calculations of instantaneous peak pesticide concentrations and will be made available to the public after the quality assurance procedures are completed.  More on PE3 and PE4 will be covered later in the meeting.

Action Item: EFED will complete QA for PE3 and PE4 and post on Web site.

Spray Drift Task Force - Norm Birchfield

- reiterated EPA's concerns regarding restrictions on the use of and source code availability for AgDRIFT (see the December 2002 meeting minutes).  In response to EPA's concerns, the Task Force developed revised language that authorizes non-commercial use of the model, but problems still exist in the new language.  The new legal agreement states that anyone can use the model for screening level purposes, but at a higher level, only EPA can use it.  Any model used by EPA for regulatory purposes must be publicly available under the new Data Quality Guidelines.  Other modelers are reluctant to use AgDRIFT because of these problems, and tool development has been delayed.  Paul Hendley discussed the difficulty of reaching an agreement on the use of the model among all of the current model owners, right now they are awaiting a formal response from EPA to the latest changes in the AgDRIFT user license.

Action Item: Norm Birchfield will respond to revised language proposed by SDTF.  This will also be an agenda item at the next meeting.

EXAMINER

New version of this tool for visualizing the model output data is available to EPA and is linked to EXPRESS.  Complete installation instructions will be provided on the EMWGlist website:

  https://lists.epa.gov/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=emwglist&text_mode=&lang=english

Action Item: All are asked to review this version of EXAMINER before next meeting.

PLUS

This model was demonstrated at the last meeting and can be found in the public domain on the Waterborne Web site at:

  http://www.waterborne-env.com/modeling/model_topic_develop.html

Action Item: The developers want review from the regulatory community on the alpha version of PLUS and decide if it is a worthwhile project for further development.  The EFED Water Quality Tech Team will work with Scott Jackson to arrange a presentation at EPA to facilitate further discussion and review.

Top of page

MAJOR TOPICS

PRZM-EXAMS EFED Shell Update - Marietta Echeverria

- an intern working with EFED for another month before transferring to the Office of Water for her next assignment, gave a demonstration of the EFED PRZM-EXAMS shell - PE4.  The shell generates input files, and the scenarios are external to the code.  The shell was originally developed to address needs for the organophosphate pesticide cumulative risk assessment. Current applications are for development of  the Refined Risk Assessment methods where speed is necessary.   EFED has been working on PRZM to make it run faster.  They have recompiled key PRZM processes in a FORTRAN environment and changed coding approaches from loops to array operations. They took ANEX and coupled it with the new PRZM version.  They have restructured the outputs, taken out redundant operations, and built in the variable volume pond.  The underlying algorithms have not been changed in PRZM, but some changes have been made in EXAMS.   The new shell calculates 4-day, 21-day, 60-day, and 90-day values in one second.

Model QA/QC - Jim Hetrick

- discussed OPP model QA/QC initiatives which includes:

version control,

a library for archived model input/output files,

documentation of models, and

a systematic evaluation process of models.

  The EFED evaluation process will involve both participation in the ORD model QA/QC process for models they provide (currently PRZM and EXAMS) and internal QA/QC for models developed within EFED and an interim EFED model process that is being used to evaluate the new PRZM shell (PE4.pl), using four dummy compounds and IR and pond versions of two scenarios (MN alfalfa and MS cotton).  EXPRESS may be included in the later evaluations.

Prospective Groundwater Database - Michael Barrett

- gave an update on this database which will use a Microsoft ACCESS platform.  It includes site data for modeling, saves time for interim reports, and reduces data transfer errors.  Guidance for data reporting may include sample templates and reporting field characteristics.  The database will contain: agronomic data, pest application data, tracer application data, site monitoring data, soil profile data, and additional on-site soil data.  Historical weather data sets may be requested by EFED, if needed.  Next steps are to complete the field specs and develop the sample templates.

Action Item: Send sample templates to registrants and post report update on the Web.

EFED Water Quality Priorities for FY 2003 - Betsy Behl

- outlined EFED's budget priorities for water quality in FY2003.  Resources will be focused on documenting accomplishments to date and on projects that promote risk assessment consistency and quality.  Increasing refinement of endangered species risk assessments is also an area that will be emphasized.  There is no money beyond mission support, and there is little external cash and internal manpower.  Project priorities for the water quality tech team related to environmental model development include:

Tiering paper - documents refinements of risk assessment - more of a policy paper - Nelson Thurman has the lead.

QA/QC and model version control

Tier I Rice screening model will be developed this year; Tier II rice scenarios may be put on hold.

WARP refinement and related drinking water efforts are ongoing.

Groundwater projects - may have an evaluation of models this year using comparisons with results of selected prospective ground-water monitoring studies since cumulative risk assessment will require this.  Comparisons with some of the FOCUS models used in European risk assessments may be made,  Russell Jones says that these models tend to give similar answers.

Develop standard scenarios QA process for surface water modeling; respond to public comments and make changes.

Variable pond model needs to be completed.

Turf Thatch Modeling - Mark Carroll (University of Maryland)

- presented thatch modeling studies that were conducted at the University of Maryland.  These studies are aimed at determining the effects of thatch on the transport of pesticides through the soil column and then comparing the results with model predictions.  The results of these studies showed that thatch did not significantly reduce leaching of pesticides (triclopyr, 2,4-D, and carbaryl).  He also found good agreement between actual lab data and model predictions.

Action Item: Mark Carroll to send his overheads to Mike Barrett for posting on the list server.

Runoff Studies for Turf - Mary Nett

- summarized a draft field protocol for measuring turf runoff that could be used for refined risk assessments.  The protocol is being tested at three locations: OK, MD, and MS - somewhat different field design at each site.  The objective of the study is to provide support for standardized data collection parameters and to provide data to bridge to existing field data sets (e.g., US Golf Association data).  Mary needs feedback on this draft protocol and suggestions for improving the design.

Action Item: Mary to send protocol details to Michael Barrett who will post on the list server for further debate and comment.

Issues brought up in the discussion included:

Differences in features of residential turf, which is not addressed in this study.

Influence on pesticide fate of recently established turf may be significantly different than for aged turf.

Using identical simulated storms for each location versus storms tailored to be more representative of the local climate.

Importance of the intensity of the rainfall.

Debate over what pesticides to include.

Types of data need to support future model development.

Incorporating Full-Time Series Drinking Water EECs in Dietary Risk Assessments - Nelson Thurman

- described the proposed changes in the way drinking water exposure estimates are incorporated into dietary risk assessments.  Instead of calculating a drinking water level of concern (DWLOC) using a single 1-in-10 year peak exposure estimate the full daily time series distribution generated by PRZM/EXAMS will be incorporated into the dietary risk assessments.   OPP currently uses DEEM-FCID (Dietary Exposure Evaluation Model) software to estimate exposures from food where exposure = consumption x residue.  DEEM produces an estimate of the distribution of exposures through food using probabilistic (Monte-Carlo) techniques.  Some issues with this that were brought up were:

Pesticide concentrations in water often vary more significantly over the course of a year (with very distinctive seasonal patterns for many drinking water sources)

Pesticide residues tend to have a pronounced regional variation that is carried over into regional variation in exposure because most drinking water sources are locally derived.

People drink water every day usually from the same source, while food consumed by most individuals comes from multiple sources around the world.

The drinking water level of comparison (DWLOC) is the theoretical concentration limit for a pesticide in drinking water, which when combined with exposure from food, would result in aggregate exposure just equal to the PAD (safe exposure).  A DWLOC is based on how much additional exposure through water would be acceptable once exposures in food have been estimated.  The DWLOC is  not a probabilistic approach; does not simultaneously evaluate food and water exposures and does not consider residential exposures.  DEEM/Calendex incorporates the concept of a Calendar to evaluate aggregate exposures.  It looks at each day of the year and allows appropriate "temporal matching" of exposure through food and drinking water (residential pathways, also).  The DEEM/Calendex approach was used in the OP cumulative approach because the Agency needed to reflect temporal co-occurrence of multiple chemicals in water and combine with residential exposures.

A major issue brought up in the discussion was on how to blend temporal distributions with population distributions - this may need to be brought together in a CARES/Calendex environment.  Many of these issues may be covered in a policy paper to be issued in 2003.  There are fundamental issues depending upon whether chronic or acute issues dominate the assessment.   A tiered scheme may be needed for drinking water assessments so that unnecessary work is not conducted.  For example, if a Tier 1 DWLOC approach can be passed, no further work may be needed.  Failing that, a worst case PRZM/EXAMS daily data set could be added into a CARES or Calendex type assessment with work ensuring that relevant water, dietary, and residential consumption predictions for specific use regions are considered together as a set of regionally specific assessments that might constitute the highest tier.  Questions were also asked about how the Agency would deal with ground water.

Top of page

Next Meeting

Betsy Behl will propose a date on the list server.  The second week in June looks good.

Top of page

Local Navigation

Pesticides Home

Science & Policy Home

Advisory Committees

Policy & Guidance

Test Guidelines

Models & Databases

Laboratories

Analytical Methods Procedures

EPA Home

Privacy and Security Notice

Contact Us

Jump to main content.


[Federal Register: July 30, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 147)]
[Notices]
[Page 44246-44247]
[DOCID:fr30jy08-65]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. EF08-2021-000]

Bonneville Power Administration; Notice of Filing

July 23, 2008.
    Take notice that on July 17, 2008, Bonneville Power Administration,
filed its 2009 Wind Integration--Within-Hour Balancing Service rate
schedule for the Commission's confirmation and approval on an interim
basis by September 30, 2008 and final approval effective October 1,
2008 through September 30, 2008, vested in the Commission by Pacific
Northwest Electric Power Planning and Conservation Act, under sections
7(a)(2) and 7(i)(6), and Commission regulations, 16 U.S.C. 839e(a)(2)
and 839e(i)(6), and Subpart B of Part 300, 18 CFR part 300.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to

become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to
intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be
filed on or before the comment date. On or before the comment date, it
is not necessary to serve motions to intervene or protests on persons
other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://
www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an
original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on August 18, 2008.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-17398 Filed 7-29-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 70 (Wednesday, April 12, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 22089-22090]
[FR Doc No: 2023-07619]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

[Docket No.: PHMSA-2023-0014; Notice No. 2023-03]

Hazardous Materials: Public Meeting Notice for the 2024 Emergency
Response Guidebook (ERG2024)

AGENCY: Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Notice of public meeting.

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

SUMMARY: PHMSA's Office of Hazardous Materials Safety (OHMS) will hold
a public meeting to solicit input on the development of the 2024
edition of the Emergency Response Guidebook (ERG2024). The meeting will
take place virtually on Microsoft Teams on May 16, 2023.

DATES: The meeting will be held virtually on Microsoft Teams on May 16,
2023, from 1:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. EDT.

ADDRESSES: DOT requests that attendees pre-register for this meeting.
The meeting will be hosted on Microsoft Teams and a conference call
line will be provided upon registration by completing the form at
https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/research-and-development/hazmat/rd-meetings-and-events. If you have technical difficulties, please contact the
meeting organizer below.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ryan Vierling or Peter Heitzmann,
Office of Hazardous Materials Safety, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials
Safety

Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, DC.
Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER> or<PHONE_NUMBER>. Email: [email protected]
or [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: PHMSA developed the United States version of
the Emergency Response Guidebook (ERG) for use by emergency services
personnel to provide guidance for initial response to hazardous
materials transportation incidents. Since 1980, it has been PHMSA's
goal that all public emergency response personnel (e.g., firefighters,
police, and rescue squads) have free and immediate access to the ERG.
To date, PHMSA has distributed more than 16.4 million copies of the ERG
to emergency service agencies and developed free online resources and
downloadable mobile applications to make the ERG more accessible. Since
1996, PHMSA, Transport Canada, and the Secretariat of Communication and
Transport of Mexico have collaborated on development of the ERG, with
interested parties from government and industry providing additional
assistance, including Argentina's Chemical Information Center for
Emergencies. ERG2024 will be published in English, French, and Spanish
and will continue to serve as a valuable resource to help increase
public safety by providing consistent emergency response procedures for
hazardous materials transportation incidents throughout North America.
    The meeting will include a discussion of the methodology used to
determine the appropriate response protective distances for poisonous
vapors resulting from spills involving dangerous goods considered toxic
by inhalation in the 2020 Edition of the Emergency Response Guidebook
``Green Pages'' as requested by stakeholders. To pursue our objective
of continually improving the ERG, PHMSA will solicit comments related
to new methodologies and considerations for future editions of the ERG.
Additionally, the meeting will include discussions on the outcomes of
field experiments, ongoing research efforts to better understand
environmental effects on airborne toxic gas concentrations, and updates
to be published in the ERG2024.
    DOT is committed to providing equal access for all Americans and
ensuring that information is available in appropriate alternative
formats to meet the requirements of persons who have a disability. If
you require an alternative version of files provided or alternative
accommodations, please contact [email protected] no later
than May 2, 2023.

    Signed in Washington, DC, on April 6, 2023.
William S. Schoonover,
Associate Administrator for Hazardous Materials Safety, Pipeline and
Hazardous Materials Safety Administration.
[FR Doc. 2023-07619 Filed 4-11-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-60-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 242 (Monday, December 19, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 77602-77603]
[FR Doc No: 2022-27388]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-ORD-2018-0774; FRL-10472-02-ORD]

Proposed Information Collection Request; Evaluating End User
Satisfaction of EPA's Research Products (Renewal)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is planning to
submit an information collection request (ICR), ``Evaluating End User
Satisfaction of EPA's Research Products'' (EPA ICR No. 2593.02, OMB
Control No. 2080-0085) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for
review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act
(PRA). Before doing so, EPA is soliciting public comments on specific
aspects of the proposed information collection as described below. This
is a proposed extension of the ICR, which is currently approved through
August 31, 2023. 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.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before February 17, 2023.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-ORD-
2018-0774, online using www.regulations.gov (our preferred method), by
email to [email protected], or by mail to: EPA Docket Center,
Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460.
    EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the
public docket without change including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information
claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Alyssa Gurkas, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Office of
Resource Management, Improvement and Accountability Division, Mail Code
41182, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW,
Washington, DC 20460; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address:
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Supporting documents which explain in detail
the information that the EPA will be collecting are available in the
public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at
www.regulations.gov or in person at the EPA Docket Center, WJC West,
Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC. The telephone
number for the Docket Center is<PHONE_NUMBER>. For additional
information about EPA's public docket, visit http://www.epa.gov/dockets.
    Pursuant to section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501 et
seq.), EPA is soliciting comments and information to enable it to: (i)
evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary
for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including
whether the information will have practical utility; (ii) evaluate the
accuracy of the Agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed
collection of information, including the validity of the methodology
and assumptions used; (iii) enhance the quality, utility, and clarity
of the information to be collected; and (iv) minimize the burden of the
collection of information on those who are to respond, including
through the use of appropriate automated electronic, mechanical, or
other technological collection techniques or other forms of information
technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses. EPA
will consider the comments received and amend the ICR as appropriate.
The final ICR package will then be submitted to OMB for review and
approval. At that time, EPA will issue another Federal Register notice
to announce the submission of the ICR to OMB and the opportunity to
submit additional comments to OMB.
    Abstract: The purpose of this information collection is to survey
partners currently using the EPA's Office of Research and Development's
(ORD) scientific research products to increase transparency and public
participation, and to ascertain the quality, usability, and timeliness
of the research products. ORD will collect these data to inform the
annual end-of-year performance reporting to the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) that will be published each year in the Annual
Performance Report (APR), which is part of the President's Budget
Request and mandated under the Government Performance and Results Act
(GPRA). The survey results will be used to estimate the degree to which
ORD research products meet partner needs and will enable the
improvement of the development and delivery of products. Some of the
information reported on the form is confidential, which will be
withheld from the public pursuant to Section 107(1) of the Ethics in
Government Act of 1978. Participation is voluntary.
    Form Numbers: None.
    Respondents/affected entities: Life, physical and social science
professionals.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Voluntary.
    Estimated number of respondents: 225.
    Frequency of response: Annually.
    Total estimated burden: .25 hours (per year). Burden is defined at
5 CFR 1320.03(b).
    Total estimated cost: $3,493 (per year).
    Changes in Estimates: There is a decrease of .08 hours in the total
estimated respondent burden compared with the ICR previously approved
by OMB. There is a decrease in the total estimated number of
respondents by 25 individuals. This burden reduction is due to the
decrease in time for survey completion and the decrease in estimated
respondents. The slight decrease from the original ICR is by $1,292
(decrease from $4,785 to $3,493).

Henry Frey,
Assistant Administrator, Office of Research and Development.
[FR Doc. 2022-27388 Filed 12-16-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 94 (Monday, May 16, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 30170-30173]
[FR Doc No: 2016-11197]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2015-3141; Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-242-AD;
Amendment 39-18516; AD 2016-10-05]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all The
Boeing Company Model 757 airplanes. This AD was prompted by a report of
cracking in the fuselage frame. This AD requires inspections for
cracking in the fuselage frame, left and right sides, and repair if
necessary. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct fuselage frame
fatigue cracking. Such cracking could result in loss of structural
integrity and the inability to sustain loading conditions.

DATES: This AD is effective June 20, 2016.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of June 20,
2016.

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this final rule,
contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services
Management, P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, WA 98124-2207; telephone
206-544-5000, extension 1; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You may view this referenced service information
at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW.,
Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the
FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. It is also available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-
3141.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-
3141; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and
5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket
contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and
other information. The address for the Docket Office (phone: 800-647-
5527) is Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation,
Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Roger Durbin, Aerospace Engineer,
Airframe Branch, ANM-120L, FAA, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification
Office (ACO), 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, CA 90712-4137; phone:
562-627-5233; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to all The Boeing Company
Model 757 airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on
August 19, 2015 (80 FR 50230) (``the NPRM''). The NPRM was prompted by
reports of cracking in the fuselage frame at Station (STA) 1440,
stringer 24L. The NPRM proposed to require inspections for cracking in
the fuselage frame, left and right sides, and repair if necessary. We
are issuing this AD to detect and correct fuselage frame fatigue
cracking. Such cracking could result in loss of structural integrity
and the inability to sustain loading conditions.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD. The following presents the comments received on the NPRM and
the FAA's response to each comment.

Request To Revise Paragraph (g) for Clarity and Consistency

    Boeing requested that we revise paragraph (g) of the proposed AD to
change it from ``frames at stringer 24 and stringer 25, left and right
sides,'' to state, ``frames in Section 43 at stringer 25, left and
right sides, and frames in Section 46 at stringer 24, left and right
sides.''
    We agree with the comment as it adds clarity and makes the AD
consistent with the required Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing
Alert Service Bulletin 757-53A0099, dated September 18, 2014. We have
revised the introductory text to paragraph (g) of this AD accordingly.

Request To Revise Paragraph (g)(1) To Make Exceptions for Repaired
Areas

    Boeing requested that we revise paragraph (g)(1) of the proposed AD
from ``repeat the inspections at intervals not to exceed 12,000 flight
cycles,'' to state, ``repeat the inspections of frame areas at
intervals not to exceed 12,000 flight cycles in areas that have not
been repaired as a result of this service bulletin.''
    We disagree with the commenter's proposal to make exceptions for
areas repaired using the procedures described in the service bulletin,
where we assume that the commenter is referring to Boeing Alert Service
Bulletin 757-53A0099, dated September 18, 2014. We have not received
repair data for cracks detected as a result of the inspections required
by this AD, and therefore cannot make a determination that any such
repair is terminating action for the required inspections. We will
consider requests for alternative methods of compliance (AMOCs) with
supporting repair data, which may include termination of the required
inspections, or alternate inspection intervals and methods, as
required, to address the unsafe condition.

Request To Delay AD for Service Bulletin Revision

    United Airlines and United Parcel Service requested to delay the AD
until approved repair information could be included in a revision of
Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757-53A0099, dated September 18, 2014.
One commenter noted that its cargo operations often required frame
repairs and the lack of approved repair configurations would require
unnecessary AMOC requests.
    We do not agree to delay issuance of this final rule for a revision
to Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757-53A0099, dated September 18, 2014,
to include repair data. Including the repair data will only delay
necessary inspections required to address the unsafe condition. The
number of positive findings requiring repairs is unknown at this time,
and therefore the value of delaying the AD for approved repair data is
unknown. It is not possible to address existing repairs which may
require an AMOC. The various repair configurations and locations are
unknown and therefore cannot be addressed at this time. If the required
inspections result in a significant number of repairs, operators and/or
the original equipment manufacturer can request a global AMOC for
repair data using the procedures in paragraph (i) of this AD.

Conclusion

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

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    We reviewed Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757-53A0099, dated
September 18, 2014. The service information describes procedures for
detailed and high frequency eddy current (HFEC) inspections for
cracking in the fuselage frame at stringer 24 and stringer 25, left and
right sides. This service information is reasonably available because
the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of
business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 652 airplanes of U.S. registry. We
estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

                                                 Estimated osts
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost on U.S.
          Action                 Labor cost          Parts cost       Cost per product           operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inspection...............  68 to 83 work-hours x               $0  Up to $7,055 per        Up to $4,599,860 per
                            $85 per hour = Up to                    inspection cycle.       inspection cycle.
                            $7,055 per inspection
                            cycle.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide
cost estimates for the on-condition actions specified in this AD.

Authority for this Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

    This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order
13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States,
on the relationship between the national government and the States, or
on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various
levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866,
    (2) Is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT Regulatory Policies and
Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
    (3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
    (4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

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

2016-10-05 The Boeing Company: Amendment 39-18516 ; Docket No. FAA-
2015-3151; Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-242-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective June 20, 2016.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to all The Boeing Company Model 757-200, -200CB,
-200PF, and -300 airplanes, certificated in any category.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 53, Fuselage.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by a report of cracking in the fuselage
frame at Station (STA) 1440, stringer 24L. We are issuing this AD to
detect and correct fuselage frame fatigue cracking. Such cracking
could result in loss of structural integrity and the inability to
sustain loading conditions.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Inspection

    At the applicable time specified in paragraph 1.E.,
``Compliance,'' of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757-53A0099, dated
September 18, 2014, except as required by paragraph (h) of this AD,
do detailed and high frequency eddy current inspections for cracking
in the fuselage frames in Section 43 at stringer 25, left and right
sides, and frames in Section 46 at stringer 24, left and right
sides, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing
Alert Service Bulletin 757-53A0099, dated September 18, 2014.
    (1) If cracking is not found, repeat the inspections at
intervals not to exceed 12,000 flight cycles.
    (2) If any cracking is found, before further flight, repair
using a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified
in paragraph (i) of this AD. Repeat the inspections at intervals not
to exceed 12,000 flight cycles in unrepaired areas.

(h) Exception to Service Information Specifications

    Where Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757-53A0099, dated September
18, 2014, specifies a compliance time ``after the Original Issue
date of this Service Bulletin,'' this AD requires compliance within
the specified compliance time after the effective date of this AD.

(i) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office
(ACO), FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if
requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance
with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or
local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending
information directly to the manager of the ACO, send it to the
attention of the person identified in paragraph (j) of this AD.
Information may be emailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate
principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager
of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding
district office.
    (3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be
used for any repair required by this AD if it is approved by Boeing
Commercial Airplanes Organization Designation Authorization (ODA)
that has been authorized by the Manager, Los Angeles ACO, to make
those findings. For a repair method to be approved, the repair must
meet the certification basis of the airplane, and the approval must
specifically refer to this AD.
    (4) Except as required by paragraph (h) of this AD: For service
information that contains steps that are labeled as Required for
Compliance (RC), the provisions of paragraphs (i)(4)(i) and
(i)(4)(ii) apply.
    (i) The steps labeled as RC, including substeps under an RC step
and any figures identified in an RC step, must be done to comply
with the AD. An AMOC is required for any deviations to RC steps,
including substeps and identified figures.
    (ii) Steps not labeled as RC may be deviated from using accepted
methods in accordance with the operator's maintenance or inspection
program without obtaining

approval of an AMOC, provided the RC steps, including substeps and
identified figures, can still be done as specified, and the airplane
can be put back in an airworthy condition.

(j) Related Information

    For more information about this AD, contact Roger Durbin,
Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM-120L, FAA, Los Angeles ACO,
3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, CA 90712-4137; phone: 562-627-
5233; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
(k) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed
in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757-53A0099, dated September
18, 2014.
    (ii) Reserved.
    (3) For Boeing service information identified in this AD,
contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services
Management, P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, WA 98124-2207;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, extension 1; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; Internet
https://www.myboeingfleet.com.
    (4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport
Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For
information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call
425-227-1221.
    (5) You may view this service information that is incorporated
by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA). For information on the availability of this material at
NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on May 4, 2016.
Michael Kaszycki,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2016-11197 Filed 5-13-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: February 26, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 38)]
[Notices]
[Page 10319-10320]
[DOCID:fr26fe08-102]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-57355; File No. SR-CBOE-2007-03]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated; Order Granting Approval of a Proposed Rule Change as
Modified by Amendment No. 1 Thereto Amending its Obvious Error Rule for
Options on Indices, ETFs, and HOLDRS

February 20, 2008.

I. Introduction

    On February 21, 2007, the Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated (``CBOE'' 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\ a proposed rule change to amend CBOE Rule 24.16, which
is the Exchange's rule applicable to the nullification and adjustment
of transactions in index options, options on exchange-traded funds
(``ETFs''), and options on HOLding Company Depository ReceiptS
(``HOLDRS''), to: (i) Modify the nullification and adjustment
provisions for erroneous prints and erroneous quotes in the underlying;
(ii) eliminate the nullification and adjustment provision for trades
below intrinsic value; and (iii) modify the nullification provision for
``no bid series.'' On December 20, 2007, the CBOE submitted Amendment
No. 1 to the proposed rule change. The proposed rule change, as
amended, was published for comment in the Federal Register on December
28, 2007.\3\ The Commission received no comment letters on the
proposal. This order approves the proposed rule change, as amended.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 57012 (December 20,
2007), 72 FR 73921.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposed Rule Change

    The Exchange proposes to modify CBOE Rule 24.16 with respect to
erroneous prints and erroneous quotes in the underlying. Under the
revised rule, the appropriate Exchange committee would identify
particular underlying or related instrument(s) that would be used to
determine an erroneous print or quote and also would identify the
relevant market(s) trading the underlying or related instrument to
which the Exchange would look for purposes of applying the obvious
error analysis. The underlying or related instrument(s) may include the
underlying or related ETF(s), HOLDRS(s), and/or index value(s),\4\ and/
or related futures product(s).\5\ The relevant underlying market(s) may
include one or more markets. The underlying or related instrument(s)
and relevant market(s) would be designated by the appropriate Exchange
committee and announced to the membership via Regulatory Circular. For
a particular ETF, HOLDRS, index value, and/or futures product to
qualify for consideration as a ``related instrument,'' the revised rule
requires that: (i) The option class and related instrument must be
derived from or designed to track the same underlying index; or (ii) in
the case of S&P 100-related options, the options class and related
instrument must be derived from or designed to track the S&P 100 Index
or the S&P 500 Index.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ An ``index value'' is the value of an index as calculated
and reported by the index's reporting authority. Use of an index
value would be applicable only for purposes of identifying an
erroneous print in the underlying (and not an erroneous quote). See
proposed changes to CBOE Rule 24.16(a)(3).
    \5\ This proposed rule change does not seek to designate any of
the individual underlying stocks (or related options or futures on
any of the individual underlying stocks) that comprise a particular
ETF, HOLDR, or index.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, the proposal would eliminate the nullification and
adjustment provision for trades below intrinsic value. CBOE Rule
24.16(a)(5) currently states that an obvious pricing error will be
deemed to have occurred when the transaction price of an option series
is more than $0.10 below the intrinsic value of the same option. The
purpose of deleting this provision is to account for circumstances
under which options are correctly priced $0.10 or more below the
intrinsic value. For example, this situation might occur in options
with underlying securities that are hard-to-borrow, extremely volatile
issues where one market participant seeks to transfer the risk of
selling or buying a security to other market participants by trading
options, and options having European-style exercise, thus preventing
exercise prior to expiration. According to the Exchange, the
elimination of this provision is consistent with the Exchange's current
rule for equity options, which does not have an obvious error review
for trades below intrinsic value.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See CBOE Rule 6.25.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, the proposal would modify the nullification provision for
no bid series. Currently, the rule provides that electronic
transactions in series that are quoted no bid on the Exchange are
subject to nullification, provided that at least one strike price below
(for calls) or above (for puts) in the same options class was quoted no
bid at the time of execution. Under the revised rule, additional
criteria and clarifying language would be added. Specifically, an
electronic transaction in a series quoted no bid on the Exchange would
be subject to nullification provided that: (i) The bid in that series
immediately preceding the execution was, and for five seconds prior to
the execution remained, zero; and (ii) at least one strike price below
(for calls) or above (for puts) in the same options class was quoted no
bid and offered at the same price or lower as that series at the time
of execution. The revised no bid provision would provide that, when
determining the Exchange's quotes in the relevant series, bids and
offers of the parties to the subject trade that are in any of the
series in the same options class shall not be considered. The revised
rule also would provide that when an option series in a class has a
non-standard deliverable (e.g., 150 contract delivery requirement), it
will be considered separately for purposes of the no bid provision from
series in such class that do not have a non-standard deliverable. The
revised rule would clarify that the no bid provision is intended to
apply to series quoted no bid on the Exchange (as opposed to series for
which the national best bid is quoted no bid).

III. Discussion

    The Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations
thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange \7\ and, in
particular, the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act \8\ and the
rules and regulations thereunder. Specifically, the Commission finds
that the proposal is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\9\ in
that the proposal promotes just and equitable principles of trade,
prevents fraudulent and manipulative acts, removes impediments to and
perfects the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market
system, and, in general, protects investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ In approving this proposal, the Commission has considered
the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition, and capital
formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission considers that in most circumstances trades that are
executed between parties should be honored. On rare occasions, the
price of the executed trade indicates an ``obvious error'' may exist,
suggesting that it is unrealistic to expect that the parties to the
trade had come to a meeting of the minds regarding the terms of the
transaction. In the Commission's view, the determination of whether an
``obvious error'' has occurred should be based on specific and
objective criteria and subject to specific and objective procedures.
    The provisions of Rule 24.16 that relate to an erroneous print or
quote in the underlying market would be revised to permit the Exchange
to designate the underlying or related instruments that can be used as
a basis for determining whether there is an erroneous print or quote in
such instrument that indicates an obvious error has occurred. This
revision recognizes that market participants trading in the index, ETF,
or HOLDRS options may base their options pricing on trading in various
markets and instruments. By requiring the underlying related instrument
to be derived from or track the same underlying index, the Exchange has
set forth objective criteria that must be met before it can designate
such underlying or related instrument for use in the obvious error
analysis. The elimination of the provision for trades below intrinsic
value would align Rule 24.16 with the Exchange's obvious error rule for
equity options, which does not contain a similar provision. The
revisions to the ``no bid series'' provision incorporate additional
objective factors to be used by CBOE in determining whether an obvious
error exists.
    In the Commission's view, the proposed changes to Rule 24.16 are
appropriate and are consistent with the Act. These revisions provide
reasonable and objective measures to assist the Exchange in
ascertaining whether an obvious error has occurred in the
aforementioned circumstances.

IV. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\10\ that the proposed rule change (SR-CBOE-2007-03), as amended,
is hereby approved.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
    \11\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E8-3553 Filed 2-25-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 110 (Thursday, June 7, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 33793-33794]
[FR Doc No: 2012-13933]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[File No. 500-1]

Optimized Transportation Management, Inc.; Order of Suspension of
Trading

June 5, 2012.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of
Optimized Transportation Management, Inc. (``Optimized Transportation
Management'') because it has not filed a periodic report since it filed
its Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2010, filed on
November 22, 2010.
    The Commission is of the opinion that the public interest and the
protection of investors require a suspension of trading in the
securities of Optimized Transportation Management. Therefore, it is
ordered, pursuant to Section 12(k) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934,

that trading in the securities of Optimized Transportation Management
is suspended for the period from 9:30 a.m. EDT on June 5, 2012, through
11:59 p.m. EDT on June 18, 2012.

    By the Commission.
Jill M. Peterson,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-13933 Filed 6-5-12; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: July 7, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 128)]
[Notices]
[Page 32212-32214]
[DOCID:fr07jy09-108]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-60198; File No. SR-BX-2009-034]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ OMX BX, Inc.; Notice of
Filing and Order Granting Accelerated Approval of Proposed Rule Change
To Amend the Fee Schedule of the Boston Options Exchange Facility

June 30, 2009.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on June 26, 2009, NASDAQ OMX BX, Inc. (the ``Exchange'') filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the proposed rule
change as described in Items I and II below, which Items have been
prepared by the self-regulatory organization. The Commission is
publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule from
interested persons and approves the proposal on an accelerated basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange is proposing an amendment to the Fee Schedule of the
Boston Options Exchange Group, LLC (``BOX''). The text of the proposed
rule change is available from the principal office of the Exchange, at
the Commission's Public Reference Room and also on the Exchange's
Internet Web site at http://nasdaqomxbx.cchwallstreet.com/NASDAQOMXBX/
Filings/.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization
included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the
proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the
proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at
the places specified in Item IV below.

The self-regulatory organization has prepared summaries, set forth in
Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such
statements.

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

1. Purpose
    Executions on BOX resulting from orders sent via the InterMarket
Linkage System (``Linkage Orders'') are currently subject to the same
billing treatment as other executions on BOX. This includes either
`standard billing' or The Liquidity Make or Take Pricing Structure, as
described in Section 7 of the BOX Fee Schedule, depending upon the
particular options class.
    The Exchange recently submitted a proposed rule change \3\ with the
Commission which removed the following three (3) classes from the
Liquidity Make or Take Pricing Structure: (1) Standard & Poor's
Depositary Receipts[reg] (SPY); (2) Powershares[supreg] QQQ Trust
Series 1 (QQQQ); and (3) iShares Russell 2000[reg] Index Fund (IWM).
Instead `standard' transaction fees shall apply. Currently,
transactions in these three classes are charged the Take fee of $0.30.
Under the new standard fees all executions for Market Makers or Firms
will be charged $0.20 and there will be no fees for Public Customer
executions.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See SR-BX-2009-033.
    \4\ The $0.15 fee per executed contract of an Improvement Order
for a Public Customer that is not submitted as a Customer Price
Improvement Period Order (``CPO'') for a Price Improvement Period
(``PIP'') auction--(``non-CPO'') will remain.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In conjunction with the above referenced rule change the Exchange
is now proposing to remove the application of Liquidity Make or Take
Pricing from Linkage Orders in these three classes sent to and executed
on BOX. Standard Linkage Fees shall instead apply to transactions in
these three classes.
2. Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposal is consistent with the
requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act,\5\ in general, and Section
6(b)(4) of the Act,\6\ in particular, in that it provides for the
equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among
its members and issuers and other persons using its facilities for the
purpose of executing Linkage Orders that are routed to BOX from other
market centers. These three particular classes are some of the most
liquid and actively traded multiply-listed options classes so there is
no need to entice liquidity by using the Make or Take pricing
structure. The proposed rule change will apply fees more appropriate
for the level of liquidity in the specific classes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

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

    The Exchange has neither solicited nor received comments on the
proposed rule change.

III. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://
www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-BX-2009-034 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-1090.
    All submissions should refer to File Number SR-BX-2009-034. This
file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used.
To help the Commission process and review your comments more
efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all
comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/
rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments,
all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that
are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating
to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person,
other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance
with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection
and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street,
NE., Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours
of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of the filing will also be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of the self-regulatory
organization. All comments received will be posted without change; the
Commission does not edit personal identifying information from
submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make
available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-BX-
2009-034 and should be submitted on or before July 29, 2009.

IV. Commission's Findings and Order Granting Accelerated Approval of
Proposed Rule Change

    After careful consideration, the Commission finds that the proposed
rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the
rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities
exchange \7\ and, in particular, with the requirements of Section 6(b)
of the Act.\8\ Specifically, the Commission finds that the Exchange's
proposal is consistent with Section 6(b)(4) of the Act,\9\ which
requires that the rules of the Exchange provide for the equitable
allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among its
members and other persons using its facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ In approving this rule, the Commission notes that it has
considered its impact on efficiency, competition, and capital
formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange requests that the Commission approve the proposed rule
change on an accelerated basis pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act.\10\ The Commission finds good cause, pursuant to Section
19(b)(2)(B) of the Act,\11\ for approving the proposed rule change
prior to the 30th day after the date of publication of the notice of
the filing thereof in the Federal Register. An accelerated approval
will allow the Exchange to immediately implement a lower fee for market
participants executing certain Linkage Orders on the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act
\12\ that the proposed rule change (SR-BX-2009-034), is hereby approved
on an accelerated basis.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
    \13\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-16036 Filed 7-6-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 46 (Thursday, March 11, 2021)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 13841-13843]
[FR Doc No: 2021-05039]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2021-0141; Project Identifier MCAI-2020-01162-T]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Defense and Space S.A. (Formerly
Known as Construcciones Aeronauticas, S.A.) Airplanes

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 Airbus Defense and Space S.A. Model C-212-CB, C-212-CC, C-
212-CD, C-212-CE, C-212-CF, C-212-DE, and C-212-DF airplanes. This
proposed AD was prompted by a report of cracks on the left-hand (LH)
and right-hand (RH) side fuselage skin and on frame (FR) 5 underneath
the skin, near the leading edge of the wing. This proposed AD would
require repetitive inspections of the LH and RH side center wing
fairings at FR 5, around the wing leading edge for discrepancies
(cracks) and repair, as specified in a European Union Aviation Safety
Agency (EASA) AD, which is proposed for incorporation by reference. 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 April 26,
2021.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR
11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail address above between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For material that will be incorporated by reference (IBR) in this
AD, contact the EASA, Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3, 50668 Cologne, Germany;
phone: +49 221 8999 000; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>internet:
www.easa.europa.eu. You may find this IBR material on the EASA website
at https://ad.easa.europa.eu. You may view this IBR material at the
FAA, Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200
South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of
this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. It is also available in
the AD docket on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by
searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2021-0141.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2021-
0141; 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: Shahram Daneshmandi, Aerospace
Engineer, Large Aircraft Section, International Validation Branch, FAA,
2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; phone and fax: 206-231-
3220; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    The FAA invites you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed
under ADDRESSES. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2021-0141; Project Identifier
MCAI-2020-01162-T'' 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
the 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 proposed AD.

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 Shahram Daneshmandi,
Aerospace Engineer, Large Aircraft Section, International Validation
Branch, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; phone and fax:
206-231-3220; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Any commentary that
the FAA receives which is not specifically designated as CBI will be
placed in the public docket for this rulemaking.

Discussion

    The EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the
European Union, has issued AD 2020-0182, dated August 13, 2020 (EASA AD
2020-0182) (also referred to as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness
Information, or the MCAI), to correct an unsafe condition for certain
Airbus Defense and Space S.A Model C-212-CB, C-212-CC, C-212-CD, C-212-
CE, C-212-CF, C-212-DD, C-212-DE, C-212-DF, C-212-EE and C-212-VA
airplanes. Model C-212-DD, C-212-EE, and C-212-VA airplanes are not
certificated by the FAA and are not included on the U.S. type
certificate data sheet; this AD therefore does not include those
airplanes in the applicability.
    This proposed AD was prompted by a report of cracks on the LH and
RH side fuselage skin and on FR 5 underneath the skin, near the leading
edge of the wing. The FAA is proposing this AD to address cracks on the
LH and RH side fuselage skin and on FR 5 underneath the skin, near the
leading edge of the wing, which could affect the structural integrity
of the airplane. See the MCAI for additional background information.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    EASA AD 2020-0182 describes procedures for repetitive detailed
visual inspections of the LH and RH side center wing fairings at FR 5,
around the wing leading edge for discrepancies (cracks) and repair.
    This material is reasonably available because the interested
parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by
the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another
country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant
to the FAA's bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority,
the FAA has been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI
referenced above. The FAA is proposing this AD because the FAA
evaluated all the relevant information and determined the unsafe
condition described previously is likely to exist or develop in other
products of the same type design.

Proposed AD Requirements

    This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions specified
in EASA AD 2020-0182 described previously, as incorporated by
reference, except for any differences identified as exceptions in the
regulatory text of this AD and except as discussed under ``Differences
Between this Proposed AD and the MCAI.''

Explanation of Required Compliance Information

    In the FAA's ongoing efforts to improve the efficiency of the AD
process, the FAA initially worked with Airbus and EASA to develop a
process to use certain EASA ADs as the primary source of information
for compliance with requirements for corresponding FAA ADs. The FAA has
since coordinated with other manufacturers and civil aviation
authorities (CAAs) to use this process. As a result, EASA AD 2020-0182
will be incorporated by reference in the FAA final rule. This proposed
AD would, therefore, require compliance with EASA AD 2020-0182 in its
entirety, through that incorporation, except for any differences
identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of this proposed AD.
Using common terms that are the same as the heading of a particular
section in the EASA AD does not mean that operators need comply only
with that section. For example, where the AD requirement refers to
``all required actions and compliance times,'' compliance with this AD
requirement is not limited to the section titled ``Required Action(s)
and Compliance Time(s)'' in the EASA AD. Service information specified
in EASA AD 2020-0182 that is required for compliance with EASA AD 2020-
0182 will be available on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov
by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2021-0141 after the FAA
final rule is published.

Differences Between This Proposed AD and the MCAI

    Although the MCAI allows further flight after cracks are found
during compliance with the required action, paragraph (h)(3) of this AD
requires that you repair the cracks before further flight.

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this proposed AD affects 45 airplanes of
U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with
this proposed AD:

                                      Estimated Costs for Required Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per       Cost on U.S.
                          Labor cost                              Parts cost        product         operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3 work-hours x $85 per hour = $255...........................              $0             $255          $11,475
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FAA has received no definitive data on which to base the cost
estimates for the on-condition repairs specified in this proposed AD.

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:

Airbus Defense and Space S.A. (Formerly Known as Construcciones
Aeronauticas, S.A.): Docket No. FAA-2021-0141; Project Identifier
MCAI-2020-01162-T.

(a) Comments Due Date

    The FAA must receive comments on this airworthiness directive
(AD) action by April 26, 2021.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Airbus Defense and Space S.A. (formerly known
as Construcciones Aeronauticas, S.A.) Model C-212-CB, C-212-CC, C-
212-CD, C-212-CE, C-212-CF, C-212-DE, and C-212-DF airplanes,
certificated in any category, as identified in European Union
Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD 2020-0182, dated August 13, 2020
(EASA AD 2020-0182).

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 53, Fuselage.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by a report of cracks on the left-hand (LH)
and right-hand (RH) side fuselage skin and on frame (FR) 5
underneath the skin, near the leading edge of the wing. The FAA is
issuing this AD to address cracks on the LH and RH side fuselage
skin and on FR 5 underneath the skin, near the leading edge of the
wing, which could affect the structural integrity of the airplane.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Requirements

    Except as specified in paragraph (h) of this AD: Comply with all
required actions and compliance times specified in, and in
accordance with, EASA AD 2020-0182.

(h) Exceptions to EASA AD 2020-0182

    (1) Where EASA AD 2020-0182 refers to its effective date, this
AD requires using the effective date of this AD.
    (2) The ``Remarks'' section of EASA AD 2020-0182 does not apply
to this AD.
    (3) Where paragraph (2) of EASA AD 2020-0182 specifies to
``contact Airbus D&S for approved instructions and accomplish those
instructions accordingly'' if discrepancies are detected, for this
AD, if any cracking is detected, the cracking must be repaired
before further flight using a method approved by the Manager, Large
Aircraft Section, International Validation Branch, FAA; or EASA; or
Airbus Defense and Space S.A.'s EASA Design Organization Approval
(DOA). If approved by the DOA, the approval must include the DOA-
authorized signature.

(i) No Reporting Requirement

    Although the service information referenced in EASA AD 2020-0182
specifies to submit certain information to the manufacturer in case
of no finding, this AD does not include that requirement.

(j) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
Large Aircraft Section, International Validation 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 responsible Flight
Standards Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to
the Large Aircraft Section, International Validation Branch, send it
to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (k)(2) of
this AD. Information may be emailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal
inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the
responsible Flight Standards Office.
    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD
to obtain instructions from a manufacturer, the instructions must be
accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, Large Aircraft
Section, International Validation Branch, FAA; or EASA; or Airbus
Defense and Space S.A's EASA DOA. If approved by the DOA, the
approval must include the DOA-authorized signature.

(k) Related Information

    (1) For information about EASA AD 2020-0182, contact the EASA,
Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3, 50668 Cologne, Germany; phone: +49 221 8999
000; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>internet: www.easa.europa.eu. You
may find this EASA AD on the EASA website at https://ad.easa.europa.eu. You may view this material at the FAA,
Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200
South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability
of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. This material may be
found in the AD docket on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-
2021-0141.
    (2) For more information about this AD, contact Shahram
Daneshmandi, Aerospace Engineer, Large Aircraft Section,
International Validation Branch, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des
Moines, WA 98198; phone and fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Issued on March 5, 2021.
Lance T. Gant,
Director, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2021-05039 Filed 3-10-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P