Comment Info: =================

General Comment:These documents concern pages 686-881of BMI France response to information collection request.


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 167 (Monday, August 29, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 53677]
[FR Doc No: 2011-21981]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 11836-001]

BMB Enterprises, Inc.; Notice of Surrender of Exemption

    Pursuant to section 4.95(a) of the Commission's regulations,\1\ BMB
Enterprises, Inc. filed with the Commission a petition to surrender its
exemption from licensing for the unconstructed Pinesdale Project No.
11836,\2\ stating that the proposed project is no longer economically
practicable.\3\ The project would have been located in Ravalli County,
Montana on the existing Pinesdale Pipeline, which draws water from
Sheafman Creek, and was described as: An existing powerhouse on the 12-
inch-diameter steel Pinesdale Pipeline with one new generating unit
having an installed capacity of 150-kV.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 18 CFR 4.95(a) (2011).
    \2\ The Commission issued a conduit exemption for Project No.
11836-000 on July 06, 2000. BMB Enterprises, Inc., 92 FERC ] 62,008
(2000).
    \3\ See filing of August 5, 2011 by BMB Enterprises, Inc.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 4.95(c) of the Commission's regulations states that if no
construction has begun, an exemption will remain in effect through the
thirtieth day after the Commission issues a public notice of receipt of
the petition, unless the Commission issues an order to the contrary.\4\
Accordingly, BMB Enterprises, Inc.'s surrender of its exemption from
licensing will be effective at the close of business on September 21,
2011. If the Commission is closed on that day, then the surrender is
effective at the close of business on the next day in which the
Commission is open.\5\ No applications for this site may be submitted
until after the surrender is effective.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 18 CFR 4.95(c) (2011).
    \5\ 18 CFR 385.2007(a)(2) (2011).

    Dated: August 23, 2011.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-21981 Filed 8-26-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: September 27, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 187)]
[Notices]
[Page 54960]
[DOCID:fr27se07-106]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-56483; File No. SR-Phlx-2007-27]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Philadelphia Stock Exchange, Inc.;
Order Approving Proposed Rule Change to Standardize Certain Options
Rules for Equity, Index, and ETF Options

September 20, 2007.
    On March 21, 2007, the Philadelphia Stock Exchange, Inc. (``Phlx''
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 Phlx Rule 1014(c)(i)(A) relating to quote
spread parameters (bid/ask differentials) and Phlx Rule 1014(g)(i)(B)
relating to the purchase or sale priority for orders of 100 contracts
or more, such that the rules would apply equally to options on
equities, options on exchange-traded fund (``ETF'') shares, and index
options. On July 25, 2007, the Exchange filed Amendment No. 1 to the
proposed rule change. The proposed rule change, as amended, was
published for comment in the Federal Register on August 21, 2007. \3\
The Commission received no comment letters on the proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 56249 (August 14,
2007), 72 FR 46697.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent
with section 6(b) of the Act, \4\ in general, and with section 6(b)(5)
of the Act, \5\ in particular, because it serves to ease and clarify
the application of the Exchange's rules relating to quote spread
parameters and priority in purchase or sale for orders of 100 contracts
or more. The Commission believes that it is reasonable to make no
distinction among options on equities, ETFs, and indexes, with respect
to the aforementioned rules, and that by applying them in the same
manner to all such option types, the proposed rule change should help
obviate confusion among customers and Exchange members.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to section 19(b)(2) of the Act,
\6\ that the proposed rule change (SR-Phlx-2007-27), as amended, be,
and hereby is, approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority. \7\
Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. E7-19022 Filed 9-26-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


                  UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
           SECTOR POLICIES AND PROGRAMS DIVISION
           OFFICE OF AIR QUALITY PLANNING AND STANDARDS
           OFFICE OF AIR AND RADIATION

DATE:January 7, 2021

SUBJECT:Documentation of Phone Conference with [Koppers, Inc.]

FROM:John Bradfield (EPA/OAR/OAQPS/SPPD/NRG)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TO:EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0133
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The purpose of this memorandum is to discuss the phone conference between John Bradfield of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) with [Heath Huschak and Leigh Ann Richardson] of [Koppers, Inc.] on December 22, 2020] regarding manufactured preservatives for use in the wood preserving process. This information will be used in the technology review for the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Wood Preserving Area Sources (Subpart QQQQQQ).

Other reason for a written response is that we wanted broad input from within.
I.  New Preservative Technology

Q1. What new preservatives and/or active ingredients have been introduced into the wood preserving industry since 2007? What products are they used on? What are the relative costs for new/old preservatives?

      Koppers has introduced Creosote Petroleum Solution in 2007-2008. More details on this product is addressed in response to questions Q5 and Q6 below.

      Koppers has not developed any new pesticide active ingredients since 2007.  We have added several registrations for active ingredients through the utilization of the EPA FIFRA data cite-all method.

Q2. Are there new preservatives and/or active ingredients currently being evaluated/registered under FIFRA/AWPA? If yes, what types?

None known

Q3. Is it easier/cheaper to control HAP emissions from wood preservatives through P2 (material/ingredient substitution) or add-on controls?

      Every wood preservative active ingredient and end use product requires EPA registration under FIFRA.  In order to ensure pesticide formulations are effective for the end use application of the treated wood article, years of research and testing is required to satisfy AWPA standardization and EPA regulatory requirements.  Pesticide active ingredients are typically not modified or changed due to these processes.  The research period to prove efficacy of the treated wood article against biological decay is a minimum of 7-10 years before a pesticide active ingredient can be commercialized.

      For these reasons, HAP content of a pesticide formulation used at wood preservation facilities is often not apt for substitution.

Q4. Are there any "greener" alternatives to creosote?  What are the technical issues for treating railroad ties/switches and/or utility poles?

      The AWPA standardized treatments for railroad ties and switch ties have not significantly changed for decades.  There are both oil-type and waterborne options for treating wood for railroad uses.  The concept of "greener" alternatives is subjective and cannot be easily defined due to sourcing and production of raw materials and various use applications.  I refer you to Life Cycle Assessment of Creosote-Treated Wooden Railroad Crossties in the US with Comparisons to Concrete and Plastic Composite Railroad Crossties published in 2013 in the Journal of Transportation Technologies.  This can be obtained free of charge by accessing Rail Tie Association website at: Creosote LCA.

      As compared to railroad uses, there are even more preservative options for treating utility poles.  The same "greener" issues also apply to these treatments. The most common treatment for utility poles is currently pentachlorophenol, followed by CCA. Copper Naphthenate and creosote are also used, but at much lower volumes.

      Each preservation type is bound by the treated article end use application.  Every preservative system has attributes that make it more, or less favorable for a condition of use.  Technical issues relating to treating wood vary both with the tree species and preservative system.   Although some formulations may contain less HAP-relevant components, this does not necessary equate to them being "greener" when other sustainability measures are considered.

Q5. How are companies reducing HAP emissions from creosote?  We noted permits with specific naphthalene content (mass fraction, by weight) limits for incoming materials and total facility emission limits for naphthalene, POM, biphenyl, dibenzofuran, and quinoline.

      The regulatory environment for creosote treating plants is largely dependent upon the state agency permitting programs.  Some of the emphasis on specific limits are based on the control of odors.  Koppers has employed several measures to control odors.  Here are some of these examples:

Condensation and collection of entrained aerosols from work tank roof vents through installation of individual or combined vent header devices;
Post treatment ventilation to aid in cooling of treated wood charges and capture post-vacuum emissions within the cylinder prior to opening the door and removing the charge trams from the cylinders.
Scrubber systems

      The condensation and post treatment ventilation systems are present at every plant that manufactures treated wood with creosote, CCA and pentachlorophenol. The post treatment purge captures a volume equal to 2 treatment cylinders of air. Scrubbers are used at several Koppers plants and the plants of competitors.  There is not a lot of consistency in the scrubbing systems, though. Some scrub with water, some with oil or diesel fuel, some scrub air only from the treatment tanks, some scrub air only from the vacuum system.

      Lastly, a significant change that has positively impacted the creosote treating plants is the adoption of Creosote Petroleum Solution treatments for the majority of railroad uses.  The addition of 15-20% petroleum fuel oil, on average, has lowered the overall HAP content of the treating solution as compared to full coal tar creosote treating solutions.   The HAP content of the petroleum fuel oil is very low so, consequently, the dilution brings about an equivalent HAP reduction.

      Some permitting bodies have attempted to limit the amount of individual HAP components in the FIFRA registered pesticide product that may be used at a treating facility.  We continue to engage with these agencies to ensure requirements and approvals granted under FIFRA are respected.

      Specifically, to the question about naphthalene, we have historically served a limited number of internal and external treating customers that operate with naphthalene limits in their permits in the 10% range (% of treating solution). We believe Koppers produces some of the lowest naphthalene-containing creosote serving the US market.  Our creosote treating solutions, on average, are in the 3-8% range, which at times is more than 50% lower than other US creosote suppliers.  Our capability is based on continued investment in world class coal tar distillation facilities including the recent completion of a new Naphthalene Distillation unit in Stickney, Illinois.  This unit became fully operational in 2019 with a capital cost in excess of $100 million.

      Prior to 2019, Koppers had operated four U.S. creosote production facilities and now it only operates one, the Stickney plant. That plant also produces naphthalene. Koppers also has plants in Denmark and Australia.

      Naphthalene is monitored in every batch for two reasons.  We want to maximize the naphthalene recovery and transfer the recovered product to the Stickney naphthalene plant.  Also, as noted above, some treaters have a specification limiting the amount of naphthalene in the creosote they purchase, so they require that information from their suppliers.

Q6. We also noted some facilities using add-on controls (e.g., condenser/ scrubber systems) to reduce HAP/VOC emissions from creosote operations.  Are there new (since 2007) creosote mixtures or solutions being used today?  What was the motivation  -  odor issues?

      See response to Q5.  The primary motivation for the use of Creosote Petroleum Solution treatments by our railroad customers was based on a combination of updated efficacy data for the formulation and creosote shortages experienced in the early 2000's.  The supply of crude coke oven tar has contracted in North America due to the closure of coke ovens.  As a result, the available creosote supply has declined in direct proportion to that raw material loss.  There are no alternative raw material sources. Creosote must be produced from coke ovens processing bituminous coal. Though no new coke ovens are being built, none are expected to close soon. Currently, though, at least one coke oven is on `hot idle' and not producing coke. One of the incentives to develop a creosote product which uses petroleum as an extender was the historical reduction in the number of coke plants. When the railroads accepted the efficacy of creosote extended with petroleum, it became one of the standard creosote products.

Q7. Are there any HAP issues/concerns with fire retardants?  Most seem to be borates and contain no HAP.

      Koppers markets two flame retardant systems for use at our customer treating plants.  FlamePRO(R) is an ammonium phosphate-based product and FirePRO(R) is a borate-based product.  These formulations do not contain HAPs.  More information may be obtained by accessing the links here:
FlamePRO(R)
FirePRO(R)

Q8. What Koppers products can meet which AWPA standards? (AWPA U1, UC3B, UC4A, UC4B, UC4C, UC5A, UC5B, UC5C)U1, UC3BU1, UC3BU1, UC3B

      See Table 1 at end of document

II.  Old Preservative Technology

Q1. Pentachlorophenol (PCP or Penta) is still used for some utility poles and other outdoor/commercial applications. It typically has some associated HAP (dioxin) emissions from impurities  -  permits show some facilities have switched, but not all  -  is the industry waiting to see if another manufacturer steps in?  Are impurity levels better today than pre-2007?

      All KUIP penta plants will convert away from penta in 2021. The first conversion will start in second quarter of 2021 and complete others by 2022. We do not see any other manufacturer stepping up to produce penta once KMG exits the market in December 2021.

      We do not have any data to show that levels of impurities are any better today than in 2007.

      More information may be obtained in our public release at www.koppers.com.

Q2. CCA was discontinued for residential/household use in 2003 but is still used for outdoor/commercial applications. It was typically replaced with ACQ or CA (which contain no HAP)  -  permits show several facilities have switched from CCA to other products, but not all  -  why not?

      The voluntary withdrawal of CCA residential uses did not impact those treaters that serve utility and agricultural markets.  CCA continues to be one of most effective wood preservative systems in existence and is essential for the utility pole, marine piling and agriculture sectors.

Q3. Some permit application changes mentioned industry concerns about a possible "quat" shortage and switching from ACQ to CA products.  Was that a real issue/concern?

      More recently, "quat" shortages are related to disinfectant and sanitizer production in response to COVID-19.

Q4. How long have borate products been marketed as insecticides?

      Inorganic Boron containing products have been standardized for at least 25 years by AWPA under heading P25 Standard for Inorganic Boron (SBX).

Q5. Borates are generally expected to leach from wood upon exterior exposures. Koppers markets a Borate pre-treatment for exterior creosote products. How does the exterior Koppers product differ from the product marketed into interior applications?

      Koppers railroad treating facilities perform treatment with borate and creosote utilizing a single cylinder, dual process.  We have developed a concise video that illustrates our treating process: Koppers Dual Tie Treatment Animation.  The creosote sap wood treatment acts as a hydroscopic barrier between the aqueous borate solution phase that has penetrated the heart wood.  Lastly, it should be noted that acceptable uses of creosote treated wood are only for external applications.

III.  Preservative Treatment/Process

Q1. Are there new processes involving pre-, dual-, or post-application?  We noted things like a secondary emulsion treatment and KDAT.

      None known

Q2. Are there any anticipated changes in treatments, applications, treatment processes or any notable process changes that have occurred since 2007?

      None known

IV.  Wood Products

Q1. Are there new (since 2007) wood products being pressure- or heat-treated with preservatives that we need to consider?

      None known

IV.  Green Certification

Q1. What green certifications do Koppers and Koppers customers participate in and what is their green criteria?

      Environmentally Preferable Products (EPP). Issued by SCS Global Services
      https://www.scsglobalservices.com/services/environmentally-preferable-product

      Koppers product technologies evaluated by SCS Global Services:
            MicroPro(R) (Micronized Copper Azole or MCA treatment)
            FlamePRO(R) (non-pesticidal, ammonium phosphate-based product)

      SCS Global Services is an internationally recognized third-party certifier of environmental claims in the green building, food, energy, and consumer product sectors. SCS certification signals that the EPP claim is backed by rigorous scientific review. EPP are widely recognized as having lower environmental impacts than typical products in the same category. SCS Global Services uses the most advanced life-cycle assessment (LCA) metrics to confirm that products meet this standard.

      Koppers MicroPro(R) technology is the first and only treated wood process to be EPP certified by Scientific Certification Systems based on a LCA.

      Koppers FlamePRO(R) Fire Retardant Treated Wood products meet all the necessary requirements to be certified Indoor Advantage(TM) Gold.

      Home Innovation NGBS Green Certified
      https://www.homeinnovation.com/

      Koppers product technologies certified by NGBS:
            MicroPro(R) (MCA)
            NatureWood(R) (Copper Azole)
            Advance Guard(R) (Borate)
            Hi-bor(R) (Borate, same as Advance Guard, but marketed in Hawaii)
      These products have been independently verified as eligible products for use in achieving points toward project certification under ICC-700 National Green Building Standard. Third-party verified certification program ensures homes and apartments are built in compliance with the National Green Building Standard.
      The certification focuses on three primary attributes:
            Healthy Homes
            Lower Operating Costs
            Sustainable Lifestyle

      UL GREENGUARD
      https://spot.ul.com/greenguard/

      Koppers product technologies certified under Greenguard and Greenguard Gold evaluation criteria:
            MicroPro(R) (MCA)
            FlamePRO(R) (non-pesticidal, ammonium phosphate-based product)
            Advance Guard(R) (Borate)
            Hi-bor (Borate, same as Advance Guard, but marketed in Hawaii)

      GREENGUARD Certification is an internationally recognized product emissions certification labeling program for manufacturers of low-emitting indoor products, furnishings, and materials. Products can be certified under two certification programs.
            GREENGUARD - Gives assurance that products designed for use in indoor spaces meet strict chemical emissions limits, which contribute to the creation of healthier interiors.
            GREENGUARD Gold - Offers stricter certification criteria, considers safety factors to account for sensitive individuals (such as children and the elderly), and ensures that a product is acceptable for use in environments such as schools and healthcare facilities. Emission limits meet and exceed CDPH Standard Method and meet stringent standards for low volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions.

      Global GreenTag
      https://www.globalgreentag.com/

      Koppers product technologies certified under Global GreenTag evaluation criteria:
            MicroPro(R) (MCA)

      Global GreenTag is an internationally recognized ecolabel. Every product is fitness tested and certified under one of two leading certification programs using trusted scientific methods, GreenRate Level A Certification, and Global Green Tag Health Rate Gold Product Health Declaration. The Global GreenTag Product Health Declaration has been designed to provide an additional level of service to the green product sector in facilitating an easier industry understanding of both the health hazard and risk (if any) associated with any certified product/s. Every Global GreenTag PhD is independently peer reviewed by an external consultant toxicologist and member of the Australian College of Toxicology & Risk Assessment for Ingredient Hazard Assessment, Whole of Life Risk Assessment, and In Use Health (including VOCs).

Table 1. Koppers Preservative Systems and AWPA Use Category

      CA-B:  Copper Azole Type B (not a Koppers product)
      CA-C:  Copper Azole Type C
      MCA:  Micronized Copper Azole
      SBX:  Inorganic Boron
      CCA:Chromium Copper Arsenate
      CR:  P1 Creosote
      CR-S:  P2 Creosote
      CR-PS: 50/50 P1 creosote/petroleum


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 52 (Monday, March 18, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 16678-16679]
[FR Doc No: 2013-06127]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2013-N-0190]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection;
Comment Request; Requirements Under the Comprehensive Smokeless Tobacco
Health Education Act of 1986, as Amended by the Family Smoking
Prevention and Tobacco Control Act

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing an
opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain
information by the Agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
(the PRA), Federal Agencies are required to publish notice in the
Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information,
including each proposed extension of an existing collection of
information, and to allow 60 days for public comment in response to the
notice. This notice solicits comments on submission of rotational plans
for health warning label statements for smokeless tobacco products.

DATES: Submit either electronic or written comments on the collection
of information by May 17, 2013.

ADDRESSES: Submit electronic comments on the collection of information
to http://www.regulations.gov. Submit written comments on the
collection of information to the Division of Dockets Management (HFA-
305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1061,
Rockville, MD 20852. All comments should be identified with the docket
number found in brackets in the heading of this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Daniel Gittleson, Office of
Information Management, Food and Drug Administration, 1350 Piccard Dr.,
PI50-400B, Rockville, MD 20850,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), Federal
Agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor.
``Collection of information'' is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR
1320.3(c) and includes Agency requests or requirements that members of
the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a
third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A))
requires Federal Agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the Federal
Register concerning each proposed collection of information, including
each proposed extension of an existing collection of information,
before submitting the collection to OMB for approval. To comply with
this requirement, FDA is publishing notice of the proposed collection
of information set forth in this document.
    With respect to the following collection of information, FDA
invites comments on these topics: (1) Whether the proposed collection
of information is necessary for the proper performance of FDA's
functions, including whether the information will have practical
utility; (2) the accuracy of FDA's estimate of the burden of the
proposed collection of information, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality,
utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways
to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents,
including through the use of automated collection techniques, when
appropriate, and other forms of information technology.

Requirements Under the Comprehensive Smokeless Tobacco Health Education
Act of 1986, as Amended by the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco
Control Act (OMB Control Number 0910-0671)--Extension

    On June 22, 2009, the President signed the Family Smoking
Prevention and Tobacco Control Act (the Tobacco Control Act) (Pub. L.
111-31) into law. Section 3 of the Comprehensive Smokeless Tobacco
Health Education Act of 1986 (the Smokeless Tobacco Act) (15 U.S.C.
4402), as amended by section 204 of the Tobacco Control Act, requires,
among other things, that all smokeless tobacco product packages and
advertisements bear one of four required warning statements. Section
3(b)(3)(A) of the Smokeless Tobacco Act requires that the warnings be
displayed on packaging and advertising for each brand of smokeless
tobacco ``in accordance with a plan submitted by the tobacco product
manufacturer, importer, distributor, or retailer'' to, and approved by,
FDA.
    This information collection--the submission to FDA of warning plans
for smokeless tobacco products--is statutorily mandated. The warning
plans will be reviewed by FDA, as required by the Smokeless Tobacco
Act, to determine whether the companies' plans for the equal
distribution and display of warning statements on packaging and the
quarterly rotation of warning statements in advertising for each brand
of smokeless tobacco products comply with section 3 of the Smokeless
Tobacco Act, as amended.
    Based on the Federal Trade Commission's (FTC's) previous experience
with the submission of warning plans and FDA's experience with
smokeless tobacco companies (e.g., correspondence associated with user
fees under section 919 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, as
amended by the Tobacco Control Act (21 U.S.C. 387s)), FDA estimates
that there are 36 companies affected by this information collection. To
account for the entry of new smokeless tobacco companies that may be
affected by this information collection, FDA is estimating the total
number of respondents to be 100.
    When the FTC requested an extension of their approved information
collection in 2007, based on over 20 years implementing the warning
plan requirements and taking into account increased computerization and
improvements in electronic communication, the FTC estimated submitting
an initial plan would take 60 hours. Based on FDA's experience over the
past several years, FDA believes the estimate of 60 hours to complete
an initial rotational plan continues to be reasonable.
    FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as
follows:

                                                     Table 1--Estimated Annual Reporting Burden \1\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        Numbers of
                     Activity                          Numbers of     responses  per   Total  annual   Average  burden    Total  hours    Total  capital
                                                      respondents       respondent       responses       per  response                        costs
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Submission of rotational plans for health warning              100                1              100               60            6,000           $1,200
 label statements.................................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ There are no operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of information.

    FDA estimates a total of 100 respondents at 1 response each and 60
burden hours per response for a total of 6,000 burden hours (100
respondents x 1 response x 60 burden hours = 6,000 total burden hours).
In addition, capital costs are based on all 100 respondents mailing in
their submission at a postage rate of $12 for a 5-pound parcel
(business parcel post mail delivered from the furthest delivery zone).
Therefore, FDA estimates that the total postage cost for mailing the
rotational warning plans to be $1,200.

    Dated: March 12, 2013.
Leslie Kux,
Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2013-06127 Filed 3-15-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-P


[Federal Register: September 2, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 169)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 45318-45323]
[DOCID:fr02se09-5]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket No. USCG-2009-0789]
RIN 1625-AA11

Safety Zone and Regulated Navigation Area, Chicago Sanitary and
Ship Canal, Romeoville, IL

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a safety zone and regulated
navigation area on the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal near Romeoville,
IL. This temporary final rule places navigational and operational
restrictions on all vessels transiting the navigable waters located
adjacent to and over the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' (USACE)
electrical dispersal fish barrier system.

DATES: This temporary final rule is effective from 5 p.m. on September
2, 2009, until 5 p.m. on September 9, 2009. This temporary final rule
is enforceable with actual notice by Coast Guard personnel beginning
August 25, 2009.

ADDRESSES: Documents indicated in this preamble as being available in
the docket are part of docket USCG-2009-0789 and are available online
by going to http://www.regulations.gov, inserting USCG-2009-0789 in the
``Keyword'' box, and then clicking ``Search.'' They are also available
for inspection or copying at the Docket Management Facility (M-30),
U.S. Department of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this
temporary final rule, call CDR Tim Cummins, Deputy Prevention Division,
Ninth Coast Guard District, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>. If you have
questions on viewing the docket, call Renee V. Wright, Program Manager,
Docket Operations, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Regulatory Information

    The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary final rule without prior
notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section
4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This
provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and
opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those
procedures are ``impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public
interest.'' Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good
cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
with respect to this rule because the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(USACE) made the decision, without time for a proper notice period, to
permanently increase the voltage of the fish barrier to two-volts per
inch in response to data which indicates that Asian carp are closer to
the Great Lakes waterway system than originally thought. The electric
current in the water created by the electrical dispersal barriers
coupled with the uncertainty of the effects of the increased voltage
poses a safety risk to commercial vessels and recreational boaters who
transit the area. Therefore, it would be against the public interest to
delay the issuing of this rule.
    Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause
exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after
publication in the Federal Register because of the safety risk to
commercial vessels and recreational boaters who transit the area. The
following discussion and the Background and Purpose section below
provide additional support of the Coast Guard's determination that good
cause exists for not publishing a NPRM and for making this rule
effective less than 30 days after publication.
    In 2002, the USACE energized a demonstration electrical dispersal
barrier located in the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal. The
demonstration barrier, commonly referred to as ``Barrier I,'' generates
a low-voltage electric field (one-volt per inch) across the canal,
which connects the Illinois River to Lake Michigan. Barrier I was built
to block the passage of aquatic nuisance species, such as Asian carp,
and prevent them from moving between the Mississippi River basin and
Great Lakes via the canal. In 2006, the USACE completed construction of
a new barrier, ``Barrier IIA.'' Because of its design, Barrier IIA can
generate a more powerful electric field (up to four-volts per inch),
over a larger area within the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal, than
Barrier I. Testing was conducted by the USACE which indicated that two-
volts per inch is the optimal voltage to deter aquatic nuisance
species. The USACE's original plan was to perform testing on the
effects of the increased voltage on vessels passing through the fish
barrier prior to permanently increasing the voltage. However, after
receiving data that the Asian carp were closer to the Great Lakes than
expected, the decision was made to immediately energize the barrier to
two-volts per inch without prior testing.
    A comprehensive, independent analysis of Barrier IIA, conducted in
2008 by the USACE at the one-volt per inch level, found a serious risk
of injury or death to persons immersed in the water located adjacent to
and over the barrier. Additionally, sparking between barges transiting
the barrier (a risk to flammable cargoes) occurred at the one-volt per
inch level. The Coast Guard and USACE developed regulations and safety
guidelines, with stakeholder input, which addressed the risks and
hazards associated with operating the barriers at the one-volt per inch
level. These regulations were published in 33 CFR 165.923, 70 FR 76692
(Dec 28, 2005) and in a series of temporary final rules: 71 FR 4488
(Jan 27, 2006); 71 FR 19648 (Apr 17, 2006); 73 FR 33337 (Jun 12, 2008);
73 FR 37810 (Jul 2, 2008); 73 FR 45875 (Aug 7, 2008); and 73 FR 63633
(Oct 27, 2008). A temporary interim rule was issued on February 9, 2009
(74 FR 6352). A NPRM was issued on May 26, 2009 (74 FR 24722).
    The USACE recently notified the Coast Guard that it plans to
immediately increase the voltage of Barrier IIA to two-volts per inch
on a full-time basis starting August 17, 2009. Both Barrier IIA and
Barrier I will operate at the same time; hence, Barrier I will provide
a redundant backup to Barrier IIA.
    In the past, the Coast Guard has advised the USACE that it has no
objection to the activation of Barrier IIA and Barrier I at a maximum
strength of one-volt per inch. Testing on commercial vessels transiting
the canal over the fish barrier was conducted at one-volt per inch
indicating that although the barriers create risks to people and
vessels, those risks could be mitigated by following certain
procedures. These procedures were implemented in a temporary interim
rule establishing a regulated navigation area and safety zone that was
published in the Federal Register on February 9, 2009 (74 FR 6352) as
well as a notice of proposed rulemaking published in the Federal
Register on May 26, 2009 (74 FR 24722).
    However, both of these rulemakings contemplated further testing of
the effects of higher voltages on commercial and recreational vessels
as well as people. The USACE began initial safety testing in
cooperation with the U.S. Coast Guard on August 17, 2009, to test
various configurations of commercial tugs and barges passing through
the Barriers while it is at increased voltage and operating parameters.
However, more time is needed to complete testing and analyze the
results in order to

properly identify the potential risks to people and vessels. Therefore,
the Coast Guard has determined that a safety zone is necessary until
safety tests are completed.
    The Captain of the Port Lake Michigan retains the authority to
permit vessels to enter the safety zone. As safety testing results
become available, the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan will make every
effort to permit vessels to pass for which there is a decreased risk of
injury or property damage. If vessels wish to enter the safety zone
they must receive permission from the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan
to do so and must follow all orders from the Captain of the Port or her
designated on-scene representative while in the zone.
    If, for any reasons, the safety zone is at any time suspended, the
terms of the regulated navigation area will apply to all vessels.

Background and Purpose

    The Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act of
1990, as amended by the National Invasive Species Act of 1996,
authorized the USACE to conduct a demonstration project to identify an
environmentally sound method for preventing and reducing the dispersal
of non-indigenous aquatic nuisance species through the Chicago Sanitary
and Ship Canal. The USACE selected an electric barrier because it is a
non-lethal deterrent with a proven history, which does not overtly
interfere with navigation in the canal.
    A demonstration dispersal barrier (Barrier I) was constructed and
has been in operation since April 2002. It is located approximately 30
miles from Lake Michigan and creates an electric field in the water by
pulsing low voltage DC current through steel cables secured to the
bottom of the canal. A second barrier, Barrier IIA, was constructed 800
to 1300 feet downstream of the Barrier I. The potential field strength
for Barrier IIA will be up to four times that of the Barrier I. Barrier
IIA was successfully operated for the first time for approximately
seven weeks in September and October 2008, while Barrier I was taken
down for maintenance. Construction on a third barrier (Barrier IIB) is
planned; Barrier IIB would augment the capabilities of Barriers I and
IIA.
    In the spring of 2004, a commercial towboat operator reported an
electrical arc between a wire rope and timberhead while making up a tow
in the vicinity of the Barrier I. During subsequent USACE safety
testing in January 2005, sparking was observed at points where metal-
to-metal contact occurred between two barges in the barrier field.
    The electric current in the water also poses a safety risk to
commercial and recreational boaters transiting the area. The Navy
Experimental Diving Unit (NEDU) was tasked with researching how the
electric current from the barriers would affect a human body if
immersed in the water. The NEDU final report concluded that the
possible effects to a human body if immersed in the water include
paralysis of body muscles, inability to breathe, and ventricular
fibrillation.
    A Safety Work Group facilitated by the Coast Guard and in
partnership with the USACE and industry initially met in February 2008
and focused on three goals: (1) Education and public outreach, (2)
keeping people out of the water, and (3) egress/rescue efforts. The
Safety Work Group has regularly been attended by eleven stakeholders.
Key partners include the American Waterways Operators, Illinois River
Carriers Association, Army Corps of Engineers Chicago District, Coast
Guard Marine Safety Unit Chicago, Coast Guard Sector Lake Michigan/
Captain of the Port Lake Michigan, and the Ninth Coast Guard District.
    Based on the safety hazards associated with electric current
flowing through navigable waterways and the uncertainty of the effects
of higher voltage on people and vessels that pass over and adjacent to
the barriers, the Coast Guard is closing the waterway until proper
testing can be completed by the USACE. The Coast Guard appreciates the
commercial significance of this waterway and will work closely with the
USACE to re-open the waterway as soon as possible; however, it is
imperative that this safety zone be immediately enacted to avoid loss
of life.
    As soon as safety testing and analysis are completed, the Coast
Guard plans on publishing a new temporary interim rule (TIR) with
requests for comments. Although the Coast Guard anticipates being able
to permit some vessels to transit through the fish barrier after
testing is complete, it is currently anticipated any subsequent TIR
will continue to place restrictions on vessels including prohibiting
some vessels from transiting through the fish barrier entirely. The
Coast Guard will then likely follow with a supplemental notice of
proposed rulemaking (SNPRM) in order to provide a complete notice and
comment period for interested parties. We encourage the public to
participate in the rulemaking process by submitting and reviewing
comments and related materials at http://www.regulations.gov to the
dockets associated with the anticipated TIR and any subsequent NPRM/
SNPRM.

Discussion of Rule

    This temporary final rule will suspend 33 CFR 165.T09-1247. This
rule also continues the suspension of 33 CFR 165.923 which was earlier
suspended from January 18, 2009, until September 30, 2009 (74 FR 6352,
Feb. 9, 2005). This rule places a safety zone on all waters located
adjacent to and over the electrical dispersal barriers on the Chicago
Sanitary and Ship Canal. The safety zone will be enforced at all times
the USACE operates the electrical dispersal barrier higher than one-
volt per inch until safety testing is conducted that indicates vessels
may safely pass. The Coast Guard has deemed this safety zone necessary
from August 25, 2009 until September 9, 2009 because safety testing is
still being conducted on vessels to determine whether and under what
conditions vessels can safely pass adjacent to and over the electrical
dispersal barriers. Although every effort will be made to permit
vessels to pass as information becomes available; current estimates
indicate that testing and analysis will not be completed by the USACE
until at least September 9, 2009. Therefore, this safety zone is
necessary until that time in order to prevent loss of life and damage
to property.
    This safety zone, which encompasses all the waters of the Chicago
Sanitary and Ship Canal located between mile marker 296.0
(approximately 958 feet south of the Romeo Road Bridge) and mile marker
296.7 (aerial pipeline located approximately 0.51 miles north east of
Romeo Road Bridge), will be enforced by the Captain of the Port Lake
Michigan, for such times before, during, and after barrier testing as
he or she deems necessary to protect mariners and vessels from damage
or injury. The Captain of the Port Lake Michigan will cause notice of
enforcement or suspension of enforcement of this safety zone to be made
by all appropriate means to effect the widest publicity among the
affected segments of the public. Such means of notification will
include, but is not limited to, Broadcast Notice to Mariners and Local
Notice to Mariners. The Captain of the Port will issue a Broadcast
Notice to Mariners notifying the public when enforcement of the safety
zone is suspended. In addition, Captain of the Port Lake Michigan
maintains a telephone line that is manned 24 hours a day, seven days a
week. The public can obtain information concerning enforcement of the
safety zone by contacting the

Captain of the Port Lake Michigan via the Coast Guard Sector Lake
Michigan Command Center at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    In the event that the enforcement of the safety zone is temporarily
suspended, this rule implements a regulated navigation area to control
the movements of all vessels passing over and adjacent to the barriers.
This regulated navigation area closely mirrors those previously
implemented in this area. The regulated navigation area encompasses all
waters of the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal located between mile
marker 295.0 (approximately 1.1 miles south of the Romeo Road Bridge)
and mile marker 297.5 (approximately 1.3 miles northeast of the Romeo
Road Bridge). The requirements placed on commercial vessels include:
(1) Vessels engaged in commercial service, as defined in 46 U.S.C.
2101(5), may not pass (meet or overtake) in the regulated navigation
area and must make a SECURITE call when approaching the regulated
navigation area to announce intentions and work out passing
arrangements on either side; (2) commercial tows transiting the
regulated navigation area must be made up with wire rope to ensure
electrical connectivity between all segments of the tow; and (3) all
up-bound and down-bound barge tows that contain one or more red flag
barges must be assisted by a bow boat until the entire tow is clear of
the regulated navigation area. Red flag barges are barges certificated
to carry, in bulk, any hazardous material as defined in 46 CFR 150.115.
Currently, 46 CFR 150.115 defines hazardous material as:
    (a) A flammable liquid as defined in 46 CFR 30.10-22 or a
combustible liquid as defined in 46 CFR 30.10-15;
    (b) A material listed in Table 151.05, Table 1 of part 153, or
Table 4 of part 154 of Title 46, CFR; or
    (c) A liquid, liquefied gas, or compressed gas listed in 49 CFR
172.101.
    The USACE has informed the Coast Guard that they will continue to
contract bow boat assistance for barge tows containing one or more red
flag barges. Operators of tows containing one or more red flag barges
should notify the bow boat contractor at least two hours prior to the
need for assistance. The tow operator should then remain in contact
with the contractor after the initial call for bow boat assistance and
advise the contractor of any delays. Information on how to arrange for
bow boat assistance may be obtained by contacting the Army Corps of
Engineers at<PHONE_NUMBER>, during normal working hours. The Coast Guard
will also publish this information in its Local Notice to Mariners.
    This temporary final rule places additional restrictions and
operating requirements on all vessels within a smaller portion of the
regulated navigation area, specifically, the waters between the Romeo
Road Bridge (approximate mile marker 296.18) and mile marker 296.7
(aerial pipeline located approximately 0.51 miles north east of Romeo
Road Bridge). Within this smaller area, this temporary final rule
prohibits all vessels from loitering, mooring or laying up on the right
or left descending banks, or making or breaking tows on the waters
between the Romeo Road Bridge (approximate mile marker 296.18) and mile
marker 296.7 (aerial pipeline located approximately 0.51 miles north
east of Romeo Road Bridge). In addition, vessels may only enter the
waters between the Romeo Road Bridge (approximate mile marker 296.18)
and mile marker 296.7 (aerial pipeline located approximately 0.51 miles
north east of Romeo Road Bridge) for the sole purpose of transiting to
the other side and must maintain headway throughout the transit. All
vessels and persons are prohibited from dredging, laying cable,
dragging, fishing, conducting salvage operations, or any other
activity, which could disturb the bottom of the canal in the area
located between the Romeo Road Bridge (approximate mile marker 296.18)
and mile marker 296.7 (aerial pipeline located approximately 0.51 miles
north east of Romeo Road Bridge). The temporary final rule also
requires all personnel on open decks to wear a Coast Guard approved
Type I personal flotation device while on the waters between the Romeo
Road Bridge (approximate mile marker 296.18) and mile marker 296.7
(aerial pipeline located approximately 0.51 miles north east of Romeo
Road Bridge).
    These restrictions are necessary for safe navigation of the
regulated navigation area and to ensure the safety of vessels and their
personnel as well as the public's safety due to the electrical
discharges noted during safety tests conducted by the USACE. Deviation
from this temporary final rule is prohibited unless specifically
authorized by the Commander, Ninth Coast Guard District or his
designated representatives. The Commander, Ninth Coast Guard District
designates Captain of the Port Lake Michigan and Commanding Officer,
Marine Safety Unit Chicago, as his designated representatives for the
purposes of the regulated navigation area.

Regulatory Analyses

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

Regulatory Planning and Review

    This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f)
of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does not
require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section
6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not
reviewed it under that Order.
    We expect the economic impact of this rule to be minimal. This
determination is based the following: (1) The Chicago Sanitary and Ship
Canal will be re-opened as soon as is practicable; (2) the Coast Guard
expects to be able to re-open the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal at
least to some commercial traffic as soon as the first phase of safety
testing and analysis is complete; (3) if the Chicago Sanitary and Ship
Canal is re-opened to commercial traffic, the USACE intends to pay the
cost of the bow boat required by barge tows containing one or more red
flag barges during the time this rule is effective; (4) vessels may
request permission from the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan to
transit through the safety zone while the safety zone is enforced; and
(5) in exigent circumstances, it may be possible to temporarily drop
the voltage of the fish barrier back to one-volt per inch.
    Because this safety zone must be implemented immediately without a
full notice and comment period, the full economic impact of this rule
is difficult to determine at this time. The Coast Guard urges
interested parties to submit comments that specifically address the
economic impacts of permanent or temporary closures of the Chicago
Sanitary and Ship Canal.

Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601-612) requires
agencies to consider whether regulatory actions would have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
The term ``small entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit
organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not
dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with
populations of less than 50,000. An RFA analysis is not required when a
rule is exempt from notice and comment rulemaking under 5 U.S.C.
553(b). The Coast Guard determined that this rule is exempt from notice
and comment rulemaking pursuant to 5 U.S.C.

553(b)(B). Therefore, an RFA analysis is not required for this rule.
The Coast Guard, nonetheless, expects that this temporary final rule
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities.

Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we offer to assist small
entities in understanding the rule so that they can better evaluate its
effects on them and participate in the rulemaking process.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or
action of the Coast Guard.

Collection of Information

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

Federalism

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

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

Taking of Private Property

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

Civil Justice Reform

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

Protection of Children

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

Indian Tribal Governments

    The Coast Guard recognizes the treaty rights of Native American
Tribes. Moreover, the Coast Guard is committed to working with Tribal
Governments to implement local policies and to mitigate tribal
concerns. We have determined that these regulations and fishing rights
protection need not be incompatible. We have also determined that this
rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175,
Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because
it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian
tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian
tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between
the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Nevertheless, Indian tribes
that have questions concerning the provisions of this rule or options
for compliance are encouraged to contact the point of contact listed
under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

Energy Effects

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

Technical Standards

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

Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which
guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded
that this action is one of the category of actions which do not
individually or cumulatively have significant effect on the human
environment. Therefore, this rule is categorically excluded, under
section 2.B.2 Figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(g), of the Instruction and
neither an environmental assessment nor an environmental impact
statement is required. This rule involves the establishing,
disestablishing, or changing of regulated navigation areas and security
or safety zones. An environmental analysis checklist and a categorical
exclusion determination are available in the docket where indicated
under ADDRESSES.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

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

0
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33
CFR part 165 as follows:

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

0
1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  33 U.S.C. 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701, 3306,
3703; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5;
Pub. L. 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security
Delegation No. 0170.1.

Sec.  165.T09-1247  [Suspended]

0
2. Section 165.T09-1247 is suspended.

0
3. A new temporary section 165.T09-0789 is added as follows:

Sec.  165.T09-0789  Safety Zone and Regulated Navigation Area, Chicago
Sanitary and Ship Canal, Romeoville, IL.

    (a) Safety Zone. (1) The following area is a permanent safety zone:
All waters of the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal located between mile
marker 296.0 (approximately 958 feet south of the Romeo Road Bridge)
and mile marker 296.7 (aerial pipeline located approximately 0.51 miles
north east of Romeo Road Bridge).
    (2) Enforcement period. The safety zone will be enforced from 5
p.m. on August 25, 2009, until 5 p.m. on September 9, 2009.
    (3) Notice of suspension of enforcement. The Captain of the Port
Lake Michigan will enforce the safety zone established by this section
at all times. However, the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan may
temporarily suspend enforcement of the safety zone. If enforcement of
the zone is temporarily suspended, the Captain of the Port Lake
Michigan will cause a notice of the suspension of enforcement of this
safety zone to be made by all appropriate means to effect the widest
publicity among the affected segments of the public including
publication in the Federal Register as practicable, in accordance with
33 CFR 165.7(a). Such means of notification may also include but are
not limited to, Broadcast Notice to Mariners or Local Notice to
Mariners. The Captain of the Port Lake Michigan will also issue a
Broadcast Notice to Mariners and Local Notice to Mariners notifying the
public when the temporary suspension of enforcement is over and the
zone is once again in operation.
    (4) Regulations. (i) In accordance with the general regulations in
Sec.  165.23 of this part, entry into, transiting, or anchoring within
this safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the
Port Lake Michigan, or her on-scene representative.
    (ii) This safety zone is closed to all vessel traffic, except as
may be permitted by the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan or her on-
scene representative.
    (iii) The ``on-scene representative'' of the Captain of the Port is
any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant or petty officer who has been
designated by the Captain of the Port to act on her behalf. The on-
scene representative of the Captain of the Port will be aboard a Coast
Guard, Coast Guard Auxiliary, or other designated vessel or will be on
shore and will communicate with vessels via VHF-FM radio or loudhailer.
The Captain of the Port or her on-scene representative may be contacted
via VHF-FM radio Channel 16.
    (iv) Vessel operators desiring to enter or operate within the
safety zone shall contact the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan or her
on-scene representative to obtain permission to do so. Vessel operators
given permission to enter or operate in the safety zone must comply
with all directions given to them by the Captain of the Port Lake
Michigan or her on-scene representative.
    (b) Regulated Navigation Area. The following is a Regulated
Navigation Area: All waters of the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal,
Romeoville, IL located between mile marker 295.0 (approximately 1.1
miles south of the Romeo Road Bridge) and mile marker 297.5
(approximately 1.3 miles northeast of the Romeo Road Bridge).
    (1) Definitions. The following definitions apply to this section:
    Bow boat means a towing vessel capable of providing positive
control of the bow of a tow containing one or more barges, while
transiting the regulated navigation area. The bow boat must be capable
of preventing a tow containing one or more barges from coming into
contact with the shore and other moored vessels.
    Designated representatives means the Captain of the Port Lake
Michigan and Commanding Officer, Marine Safety Unit Chicago.
    Hazardous material means any material as defined in 46 CFR 150.115.
    Red flag barge means any barge certificated to carry any hazardous
material in bulk.
    (2) Notice of enforcement or suspension of enforcement. The Captain
of the Port Lake Michigan will enforce the Regulated Navigation Area
established by this section only upon notice. Captain of the Port Lake
Michigan will cause notice of the enforcement of this regulated
navigation area to be made by all appropriate means to effect the
widest publicity among the affected segments of the public including
publication in the Federal Register as practicable, in accordance with
33 CFR 165.7(a). Such means of notification may also include but are
not limited to, Broadcast Notice to Mariners or Local Notice to
Mariners. The Captain of the Port Lake Michigan will issue a Broadcast
Notice to Mariners and Local Notice to Mariners notifying the public
when enforcement of these safety zones is suspended.
    (3) Regulations. (i) The general regulations contained in 33 CFR
165.13 apply.
    (ii) All up-bound and down-bound barge tows that contain one or
more red flag barges transiting through the regulated navigation area
must be assisted by a bow boat until the entire tow is clear of the
regulated navigation area.
    (iii) Vessels engaged in commercial service, as defined in 46
U.S.C. 2101(5), may not pass (meet or overtake) in the regulated
navigation area and must make a SECURITE call when approaching the
regulated navigation area to announce intentions and work out passing
arrangements on either side.
    (iv) Commercial tows transiting the regulated navigation area must
be made up with wire rope to ensure electrical connectivity between all
segments of the tow.
    (v) All vessels are prohibited from loitering between the Romeo
Road Bridge (approximate mile marker 296.18) and mile marker 296.7
(aerial pipeline located approximately 0.51 miles north east of Romeo
Road Bridge).
    (vi) Vessels may enter the waters between the Romeo Road Bridge
(approximate mile marker 296.18) and mile marker 296.7 (aerial pipeline
located approximately 0.51 miles north east of Romeo Road Bridge) for
the sole purpose of transiting to the other side and must maintain
headway throughout the transit. All vessels and persons are prohibited
from dredging, laying cable, dragging, fishing, conducting salvage
operations, or any other activity, which could disturb the bottom of
the canal in the area located between the Romeo Road Bridge
(approximate mile marker 296.18) and mile marker 296.7 (aerial pipeline
located approximately 0.51 miles north east of Romeo Road Bridge).
    (vii) All personnel on open decks must wear a Coast Guard approved
Type I personal flotation device while in the waters between the Romeo
Road Bridge (approximate mile marker 296.18) and mile marker 296.7
(aerial pipeline located approximately 0.51 miles north east of Romeo
Road Bridge).
    (viii) Vessels may not moor or lay up on the right or left
descending banks of the waters between the Romeo Road Bridge
(approximate mile marker 296.18) and mile marker 296.7 (aerial pipeline
located approximately 0.51 miles north east of Romeo Road Bridge).
    (ix) Towboats may not make or break tows if any portion of the
towboat or tow is located in the waters between the Romeo Road Bridge
(approximate mile

marker 296.18) and mile marker 296.7 (aerial pipeline located
approximately 0.51 miles north east of Romeo Road Bridge).
    (4) Compliance. All persons and vessels must comply with this
section and any additional instructions or orders of the Ninth Coast
Guard District Commander, or his designated representatives.
    (5) Waiver. For any vessel, the Ninth Coast Guard District
Commander, or his designated representatives, may waive any of the
requirements of this section, upon finding that operational conditions
or other circumstances are such that application of this section is
unnecessary or impractical for the purposes of vessel and mariner
safety.

    Dated: August 24, 2009.
Peter V. Neffenger,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Ninth Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. E9-21200 Filed 8-28-09; 4:15 pm]

BILLING CODE 4910-15-P


[Federal Register: February 18, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 31)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 7565-7568]
[DOCID:fr18fe09-14]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2009-0133; Directorate Identifier 2008-NM-107-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; BAE Systems (Operations) Limited Model
BAe 146 and Avro 146-RJ Airplanes

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

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to supersede an existing airworthiness
directive (AD) that applies to all BAE Systems (Operations) Limited
Model BAe 146 and Avro 146-RJ airplanes. The existing AD currently
requires repetitive inspections for corrosion of frames 15, 18, 41, and
43 and applicable related investigative and corrective actions. The
existing AD also provides an optional action that would extend the
repetitive inspection interval. This proposed AD would add a high
frequency eddy current inspection for corrosion of the outer frame
flanges and door hinge bosses of frames 15, 18, 41, and 43. This
proposed AD results from a report indicating that corrosion has been
detected in the outer frame flanges and door hinge bosses during
scheduled maintenance. We are proposing this AD to prevent reduced
structural integrity of the airplane.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by March 20, 2009.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact BAE
Systems Regional Aircraft, 13850 McLearen Road, Herndon, Virginia
20171; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet

http://www.baesystems.com/Businesses/RegionalAircraft/index.htm. You
may review copies of the referenced service information at the FAA,
Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,
Washington. For information on the availability of this material at the
FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER> or<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://
www.regulations.gov; or in person at the Docket Management Facility
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory
evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street
address for the Docket Office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the
ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly
after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Todd Thompson, Aerospace Engineer,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA,
1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone (425)
227-1175; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address
listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2009-0133;
Directorate Identifier 2008-NM-107-AD'' at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposed AD because of those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this proposed AD.

Discussion

    On May 31, 2006, we issued AD 2006-12-09, amendment 39-14634 (71 FR
33602, June 12, 2006), for certain BAE Systems (Operations) Limited
Model BAe 146 and Avro 146-RJ airplanes. That AD requires repetitive
inspections for corrosion of frames 15, 18, 41, and 43 and applicable
related investigative and corrective actions. That AD also provides an
optional action that would extend the repetitive inspection interval.
That AD resulted from a report indicating that in some cases the
inspections required by an existing AD revealed no damage, yet frame
corrosion and cracking were later found during scheduled maintenance in
the two forward fuselage frames 15 and 18. We issued that AD to prevent
reduced structural integrity of the airplane.

Actions Since Existing AD Was Issued

    Since we issued AD 2006-12-09, we have received a report indicating
that corrosion has been detected in the outer frame flanges and door
hinge bosses during scheduled maintenance.

Relevant Service Information

    BAE Systems (Operations) Limited has issued Inspection Service
Bulletin ISB.53-182, Revision 1, dated August 6, 2007. We referred to
BAE Systems (Operations) Limited Inspection Service Bulletin ISB.53-
182, dated March 16, 2005, as the appropriate source of service
information for accomplishing the required actions of AD 2006-12-09.
The procedures in Revision 1 are essentially the same as the original
issue of the service bulletin, except Revision 1 of the service
bulletin adds procedures for doing a high frequency eddy current (HFEC)
inspection for corrosion of the outer frame flanges and door hinge
bosses of frames 15, 18, 41, and 43. Accomplishing the actions
specified in the service information is intended to adequately address
the unsafe condition. The European Aviation Safety Agency mandated the
service information and issued airworthiness directive 2008-0092 R1,
dated May 15, 2008 (referred to after this as ``the MCAI''), to ensure
the continued airworthiness of these airplanes in the European Union.
The compliance times for the new actions are the same as for the
existing actions.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of the Proposed AD

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another
country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant
to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have
been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service
information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we
evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition
exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same
type design.
    This proposed AD would supersede AD 2006-12-09 and would retain the
requirements of the existing AD. This proposed AD would also require
accomplishing the additional inspection specified in the service
bulletin described previously.

Change to Existing AD

    This proposed AD would retain all requirements of AD 2006-12-09.
Since AD 2006-12-09 was issued, the AD format has been revised, and
certain paragraphs have been rearranged. As a result, the corresponding
paragraph identifiers have changed in this proposed AD, as listed in
the following table:

                      Revised Paragraph Identifiers
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            Corresponding requirement in
       Requirement in AD  2006-12-09              this proposed AD
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paragraph (f).............................  Paragraph (g).
Paragraph (g).............................  Paragraph (h).
Paragraph (h).............................  Paragraph (i).
Paragraph (i).............................  Paragraph (p).
Paragraph (j).............................  Paragraph (j).
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Costs of Compliance

    The following table provides the estimated costs for U.S. operators
to comply with this proposed AD.

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Number of U.S.-
             Action                 Work hours     Average labor     Cost per       registered      Fleet cost
                                                   rate per hour     airplane        airplanes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HFEC inspection, per inspection                5             $80            $400               1            $400
 cycle (required by AD 2006-12-
 09)............................
Detailed Inspection, per                       3              80             240               1             240
 inspection cycle (required by
 AD 2006-12-09).................

HFEC inspection, per inspection                5              80             400               1             400
 cycle (new proposed action)....
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

    We have 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 that the proposed
regulation:
    1. Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order
12866;
    2. Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and
    3. 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.
    We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to
comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket. See the
ADDRESSES section for a location to examine the regulatory evaluation.

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

    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]

    2. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) amends Sec.  39.13 by
removing amendment 39-14634 (71 FR 33602, June 12, 2006) and adding the
following new airworthiness directive (AD):

BAE Systems (Operations) Limited (Formerly British Aerospace
Regional Aircraft): Docket No. FAA-2009-0133; Directorate Identifier
2008-NM-107-AD.

Comments Due Date

    (a) The FAA must receive comments on this AD action by March 20,
2009.

Affected ADs

    (b) This AD supersedes AD 2006-12-09.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to all BAE Systems (Operations) Limited
Model BAe 146-100A, -200A, and -300A series airplanes; and Model
Avro 146-RJ70A, 146-RJ85A, and 146-RJ100A airplanes; certificated in
any category.

Subject

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

Unsafe Condition

    (e) This AD results from a report indicating that corrosion has
been detected in the outer frame flanges and door hinge bosses
during scheduled maintenance. We are issuing this AD to prevent
reduced structural integrity of the airplane.

Compliance

    (f) You are responsible for having the actions required by this
AD performed within the compliance times specified, unless the
actions have already been done.

Restatement of Requirements of AD 2006-12-09

Repetitive Inspections

    (g) Use high-frequency eddy current (HFEC) and detailed methods
to inspect for signs of corrosion (including cracks, blistering, or
flaking paint) of frames 15, 18, 41, and 43, in accordance with the
Accomplishment Instructions of BAE Systems (Operations) Limited
Inspection Service Bulletin ISB.53-182, dated March 16, 2005, except
as required by paragraph (k) of this AD. Inspect at the applicable
time specified in 1.D. ``Compliance'' of BAE Systems (Operations)
Limited Inspection Service Bulletin ISB.53-182, dated March 16,
2005. Application of corrosion-preventive treatment, in accordance
with BAE Systems (Operations) Limited Inspection Service Bulletin
ISB.53-182, dated March 16, 2005; or Revision 1, dated August 6,
2007; extends the repetitive inspection interval, as specified in
Table 2 in 1.D. ``Compliance'' of BAE Systems (Operations) Limited
Inspection Service Bulletin ISB.53-182, dated March 16, 2005.

    Note 1: For the purposes of this AD, a detailed inspection is:
``An intensive examination of a specific item, installation, or
assembly to detect damage, failure, or irregularity. Available
lighting is normally supplemented with a direct source of good
lighting at an intensity deemed appropriate. Inspection aids such as
mirror, magnifying lenses, etc., may be necessary. Surface cleaning
and elaborate procedures may be required.''

Corrective Action

    (h) If any discrepancy is found during any inspection required
by paragraph (g) of this AD: Before further flight, perform
applicable related investigative/corrective actions in accordance
with the Accomplishment Instructions of BAE Systems (Operations)
Limited Inspection Service Bulletin ISB.53-182, dated March 16,
2005, except as required by paragraphs (i) and (k) of this AD.

Exceptions to Service Bulletin Specifications

    (i) If BAE Systems (Operations) Limited Inspection Service
Bulletin ISB.53-182, dated March 16, 2005, specifies to contact the
manufacturer for appropriate action, before further flight, repair
per a method approved by the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116,
Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or the Civil Aviation Authority
(or its delegated agent); or European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA)
(or its delegated agent).
    (j) Where BAE Systems (Operations) Limited Inspection Service
Bulletin ISB.53-182, dated March 16, 2005, specifies a compliance
time after the issuance of the service bulletin, this AD requires
compliance within the specified compliance time after July 17, 2006
(the effective date of AD 2006-12-09). Where BAE Systems
(Operations) Limited Inspection Service Bulletin ISB.53-182, dated
March 16, 2005, specifies a

compliance time ``since date of construction'' of the airplane, this
AD requires compliance since the date of issuance of the original
standard airworthiness certificate or the date of issuance of the
original export certificate of airworthiness.

New Requirements of This AD

New Service Bulletin

    (k) As of the effective date of this AD: Do the actions required
by paragraphs (g) and (h) of this AD in accordance with the
Accomplishment Instructions of BAE Systems (Operations) Limited
Inspection Service Bulletin ISB.53-182, Revision 1, dated August 6,
2007, except as required by paragraph (n) of this AD.

Additional Inspection Areas

    (l) At the applicable compliance time specified in paragraph (g)
of this AD, except as provided by paragraph (o) of this AD; or
within six months after the effective date of this AD; whichever
occurs later: Do an HFEC inspection for corrosion of the outer frame
flanges and door hinge bosses of frames 15, 18, 41, and 43, in
accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of BAE Systems
(Operations) Limited Inspection Service Bulletin ISB.53-182,
Revision 1, dated August 6, 2007 (``the service bulletin''). Repeat
the inspection thereafter at the applicable time specified in
paragraph 1.D., ``Compliance,'' of the service bulletin. Application
of corrosion-preventive treatment, in accordance with the
Accomplishment Instructions of the service bulletin, extends the
repetitive inspection interval, as specified in Table 2 in paragraph
1.D., ``Compliance,'' of the service bulletin.

Corrective Action for Additional Inspection

    (m) If any discrepancy is found during any inspection required
by paragraph (l) of this AD: Before further flight, perform
applicable related investigative/corrective actions in accordance
with the Accomplishment Instructions of BAE Systems (Operations)
Limited Inspection Service Bulletin ISB.53-182, Revision 1, dated
August 6, 2007, except as required by paragraph (n) of this AD.

Exception to BAE Systems (Operations) Limited Inspection Service
Bulletin ISB.53-182, Revision 1

    (n) If BAE Systems (Operations) Limited Inspection Service
Bulletin ISB.53-182, Revision 1, dated August 6, 2007, specifies to
contact the manufacturer for appropriate action, before further
flight, repair per a method approved by the Manager, International
Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or EASA (or
its delegated agent).
    (o) Where BAE Systems (Operations) Limited Inspection Service
Bulletin ISB.53-182, Revision 1, dated August 6, 2007, specifies a
compliance time after the issuance of the service bulletin, this AD
requires compliance within the specified compliance time after the
effective date of this AD. Where BAE Systems (Operations) Limited
Inspection Service Bulletin ISB.53-182, Revision 1, dated August 6,
2007, specifies a compliance time ``since date of construction'' of
the airplane, this AD requires compliance since the date of issuance
of the original airworthiness certificate or the date of issuance of
the original export certificate of airworthiness.

No Reporting

    (p) Although BAE Systems (Operations) Limited Inspection Service
Bulletin ISB.53-182, dated March 16, 2005; and Revision 1, dated
August 6, 2007; specify to submit information to the manufacturer,
this AD does not include such a requirement.

Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (q) The Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, FAA, has the
authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the
procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send information to ATTN: Todd
Thompson, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116,
Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton,
Washington 98057-3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.
Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC
applies, notify your principal maintenance inspector (PMI) or
principal avionics inspector (PAI), as appropriate, or lacking a
principal inspector, your local Flight Standards District Office.
The AMOC approval letter must specifically reference this AD.

Related Information

    (r) European Aviation Safety Agency airworthiness directive
2008-0092 R1, dated May 15, 2008, also addresses the subject of this
AD.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on February 5, 2009.
Ali Bahrami,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. E9-3400 Filed 2-17-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P