[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 25 (Thursday, February 6, 2020)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 6755-6757]
[FR Doc No: 2020-02322]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2019-0610; Product Identifier 2019-NM-094-AD; Amendment
39-21022; AD 2019-26-11]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus SAS Airplanes

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for
certain Airbus SAS Model A319-112, A319-115, A319-132, A320-214, A320-
216, A320-232, A320-233, A320-251N, A320-271N, A321-211, A321-231,
A321-232, A321-251N, and A321-253N airplanes. This AD was prompted by
reports of finding container/galley end stop bumpers damaged in
service. This AD requires replacement of the affected bumpers with
serviceable bumpers, as specified in a European Union Aviation Safety
Agency (EASA) AD, which is incorporated by reference. The FAA is
issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: This AD is effective March 12, 2020.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of March 12,
2020.

ADDRESSES: For the material incorporated by reference (IBR) in this AD,
contact the EASA, Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3, 50668 Cologne, Germany;
telephone +49 221 89990 1000; 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, Transport Standards Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA.
For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call
206-231-3195. It is also available in the AD docket on the internet at
https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No.
FAA-2019-0610.

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-2019-
0610; or in person at Docket Operations between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains
this final rule, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and
other information. The address for Docket Operations is 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: Sanjay Ralhan, Aerospace Engineer,
International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 2200 South
216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone and fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    The EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the
European Union, has issued EASA AD 2019-0106, dated May 15, 2019
(``EASA AD 2019-0106'') (also referred to as the Mandatory Continuing
Airworthiness Information, or ``the MCAI''), to correct an unsafe
condition for certain Airbus SAS Model A319-112, A319-115, A319-132,
A320-214, A320-216, A320-232, A320-233, A320-251N, A320-271N, A321-211,
A321-231, A321-232, A321-251N, and A321-253N airplanes.
    The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14
CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain Airbus SAS
Model A319-112, A319-115, A319-132, A320-214, A320-216, A320-232, A320-
233, A320-251N, A320-271N, A321-211, A321-231, A321-232, A321-251N, and
A321-253N airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on
August 30, 2019 (84 FR 45692). The NPRM was prompted by reports of
finding container/galley end stop bumpers damaged in service. The NPRM
proposed to require replacement of the affected bumpers with
serviceable bumpers.
    The FAA is issuing this AD to address deformed end stops, which
could break or lose their function to maintain the container/galley in
position on the airplane. This condition, if not corrected, could lead
to container/galley detachment under certain forward loading
conditions, possibly resulting in injury to airplane occupants. See the
MCAI for additional background information.

Comments

    The FAA gave the public the opportunity to participate in
developing this final rule. The following presents the comment received
on the NPRM and the FAA's response to the comment.

Request To Change the Service Information

    American Airlines (AAL) requested that certain service information
be changed to restrict installation of the containers in related
compartments only during the adhesive cure time, rather than the
specified 168 hours (7 days) after completion of certain tasks and to
provide an alternative adhesive compound with a faster cure time that
does not require heat. AAL stated that requirements related to the
specified adhesive cure time would necessitate an unacceptable amount
of aircraft downtime, which could jeopardize its ability to comply
within the proposed compliance time.
    The FAA disagrees. The FAA and EASA both have concluded that 48
months after the effective date of the AD is sufficient time for
operators to plan and execute compliance requirements to mitigate the
unsafe condition. Regarding the requirement to wait 168 hours before
installing containers, the FAA notes that only certain compartments are
affected. Operators who wish to install containers in those affected
compartments in less than 168 hours may request an alternative method
of compliance (AMOC) in accordance with paragraph (i)(1) of this AD,
including providing sufficient data to substantiate that installing the
containers in less than 168 hours would provide an acceptable level of
safety. In addition, Safran is reportedly in the process of certifying
an alternative adhesive with accelerated cure time, followed by changes
to their service bulletin. However, to delay this AD action while
Safran works toward certification of an alternative adhesive and
releases revised service information would be inappropriate, since the
FAA has determined that an unsafe condition exists and that sufficient
technology currently exists to accomplish the required actions within
the required compliance time. Once the alternative adhesive and revised
service information are approved, operators may request to use the
alternative adhesive and revised service information by using the AMOC
provision provided in paragraph (i)(1) of this AD and submitting
sufficient data to substantiate that the alternative adhesive would
provide an acceptable level of safety. The FAA has not changed this AD
in this regard.

Conclusion

    The FAA reviewed the relevant data, considered the comment
received, and determined that air safety and the public interest
require adopting this

final rule as proposed, except for minor editorial changes. The FAA has
determined that these minor changes:
     Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the
NPRM for addressing the unsafe condition; and
     Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was
already proposed in the NPRM.

Related IBR Material Under 1 CFR Part 51

    EASA AD 2019-0106 describes procedures for modification of the
affected galleys by replacement of the affected bumpers with
serviceable bumpers.
    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.

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this AD affects 274 airplanes of U.S.
registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:

                                      Estimated Costs for Required Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Labor cost                  Parts cost        Cost per product          Cost on U.S. operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Up to 54 work-hours x $85 per hour =              $0   Up to $4,590...........  Up to $1,257,660.
 Up to $4,590.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    According to the manufacturer, some or all of the costs of this AD
may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on
affected individuals. The FAA does not control warranty coverage for
affected individuals. As a result, the FAA has included all known costs
in the cost estimate.

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,
describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
    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.
    This AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the
Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by
FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order, issuance of ADs is
normally a function of the Compliance and Airworthiness Division, but
during this transition period, the Executive Director has delegated the
authority to issue ADs applicable to transport category airplanes and
associated appliances to the Director of the System Oversight Division.

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) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, 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.

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):

2019-26-11 Airbus SAS: Amendment 39-21022; Docket No. FAA-2019-0610;
Product Identifier 2019-NM-094-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective March 12, 2020.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to the Airbus SAS airplanes specified in
paragraphs (c)(1) through (3) of this AD, certificated in any
category, as identified in European Union Aviation Safety Agency
(EASA) AD 2019-0106, dated May 15, 2019 (``EASA AD 2019-0106'').
    (1) Model A319-112, -115, and -132 airplanes.
    (2) Model A320-214, -216, -232, -233, -251N, and -271N
airplanes.
    (3) Model A321-211, -231, -232, -251N, and -253N airplanes

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 25, Equipment/
furnishings.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by reports of finding container/galley end
stop bumpers damaged in service. The FAA is issuing this AD to
address deformed end stops, which could break or lose their function
to maintain the container/galley in position on the airplane. This
condition, if not corrected, could lead to container/galley
detachment under certain forward loading conditions, possibly
resulting in injury to airplane occupants.

(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 2019-0106.

(h) Exceptions to EASA AD 2019-0106

    (1) Where EASA AD 2019-0106 refers to its effective date, this
AD requires using the effective date of this AD.
    (2) The ``Remarks'' section of EASA AD 2019-0106 does not apply
to this AD.

(i) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:

    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, has the
authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the
procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19,
send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight
Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information
directly to the International Section, send it to the attention of
the person identified in paragraph (j) 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 local flight
standards district office/certificate holding district 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, International
Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA; or EASA; or Airbus SAS's
EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA). If approved by the DOA, the
approval must include the DOA-authorized signature.
    (3) Required for Compliance (RC): For any service information
referenced in EASA AD 2019-0106 that contains RC procedures and
tests: Except as required by paragraph (i)(2) of this AD, RC
procedures and tests must be done to comply with this AD; any
procedures or tests that are not identified as RC are recommended.
Those procedures and tests that are not identified 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 procedures and tests identified as
RC can be done and the airplane can be put back in an airworthy
condition. Any substitutions or changes to procedures or tests
identified as RC require approval of an AMOC.

(j) Related Information

    For more information about this AD, contact Sanjay Ralhan,
Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport Standards
Branch, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone
and fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

(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 this AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD 2019-0106,
dated May 15, 2019.
    (ii) [Reserved]
    (3) For information about EASA AD 2019-0106, contact the EASA,
Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3, 50668 Cologne, Germany; telephone +49 221
89990 6017; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>internet www.easa.europa.eu.
You may find this EASA AD on the EASA website at https://ad.easa.europa.eu.
    (4) You may view this material at the FAA, Transport Standards
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-
2019-0610.
    (5) You may view this material that is incorporated by reference
at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For
information on the availability of this material at NARA, email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or go to: https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued on January 3, 2020.
Michael Kaszycki,
Acting Director, System Oversight Division, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2020-02322 Filed 2-5-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


PCNB/ Quintozene ( PC 056502) Screening Level Usage Analysis ( SLUA)

Date: 5/ 10/ 05 What is a Screening Level Usage Analysis ( SLUA)?

  Available estimates of pesticide usage data for a particular active ingredient that is used on agricultural crops in the United States.

What does it contain?

  Pesticide usage data for a single active ingredient only.   Agricultural use sites ( crops) that the pesticide is reported to be used on.   Available pesticide usage information ( i. e., does not include all of the United States).   Annual percent of crop treated ( average & maximum) for each agricultural crop.   Average annual pounds of the pesticide applied for each agricultural crop ( i. e., for the states surveyed, not for the entire United States).

What assumptions can I make about the reported data?

  Average pounds of active ingredient applied  Values are calculated by merging pesticide usage data sources together; averaging by year, averaging across all years, & then rounding. Note: If the estimated value is less than 500, then that value is labeled < 500. Estimated values between 500 & < 1,000,000 are rounded to 1 significant digit. Estimated values of 1,000,000 or greater are rounded to 2 significant digits.)

  Average percent of crop treated  Values are calculated by merging data sources together; averaging by year, averaging across all years, & rounding to the nearest multiple of 5. Note: If the estimated value is less than 1, then the value is labeled < 1.

  Maximum percent of crop treated  Value is the single maximum value reported across all data sources, across all years, & rounded up to the nearest multiple of 5. Note: If the estimated value is less than 2.5, then the value is labeled < 2.5.

What are the data sources used?

  USDA NASS ( United States Department of Agriculture's National Agricultural Statistics Service)   pesticide usage data from 1998 to 2003.   NCFAP ( National Center for Food and Agricultural Policy)   pesticide usage data from 1997 & is only used if data is not available from the other sources.   Private pesticide market research   pesticide usage data from 1998 to 2003.   California DPR data can be requested separately.

What are the limitations to the data?

  Additional registered uses may exist but are not included because the available surveys do not report usage ( e. g., small acreage crops).   Lack of reported usage data for the pesticide on a crop does not imply zero usage.   Usage data on a particular site may be noted in data sources, but not quantified. In these instances, the site would not be reported in the SLUA.   Non agricultural use sites ( e. g., turf, post harvest, mosquito control, etc.) are not reported in the SLUA. A separate request must be made to receive these estimates.

Who do I contact for further information and/ or questions on this SLUA?

  BEAD Analyst: Alan Halvorson   Phone number: 703 308 8070 Screening Level Estimates of Agricultural Uses of PCNB Sorted Alphabetically Pounds of Percent Maximum Active of Crop Percent of OBS Crop Ingredient Treated Crop Treated 1 Beans, Green 30,000 15 20 2 Brussels Sprouts ( NCFAP ' 97) 7,000 10 3 Cabbage 10,000 < 1 < 2.5 4 Cauliflower ( NCFAP ' 97) 6,000 5 5 Cotton 400,000 5 10 6 Dry Beans/ Peas 2,000 < 1 < 2.5 7 Grapes < 500 < 1 < 2.5 8 Onions ( NCFAP ' 97) 1,000 < 1 9 Peanuts 5,000 < 1 < 2.5 10 Peppers 2,000 < 1 5 11 Potatoes 60,000 < 1 5 12 Strawberries < 500 < 1 < 2.5 ______________________________________

All numbers rounded. '< 500' indicates less than 500 pounds of active ingredient. '< 2.5' indicates less than 2.5 percent of crop is treated.


safety-sensitive functions for
                                          a part 119 certificate holder
                                          with authority to operate
                                          under parts 121 or 135, or
                                          operator as defined in Sec.
                                          91.147 of this chapter, and
                                         (iii) Meet the requirements of
                                          this subpart as if you were an
                                          employer.

(2) A part 145 repair station located    (i) Obtain an Antidrug and
 outside the territory of the United      Alcohol Misuse Prevention
 States whose employees perform           Program Operations
 maintenance functions on part 121 air    Specification by contacting
 carrier aircraft.                        your Principal Maintenance
                                          Inspector.
                                         (ii) Implement a drug testing
                                          program acceptable to the
                                          Administrator no later than
                                          one year from [EFFECTIVE DATE
                                          OF REGULATION], or if company
                                          operations begin more than one
                                          year after [EFFECTIVE DATE OF
                                          REGULATION], implement a drug
                                          testing program acceptable to
                                          the Administrator no later
                                          than the date you start
                                          operations, and
                                         (iii) Meet the requirements of
                                          this subpart in a manner
                                          acceptable to the
                                          Administrator.
(3) A contractor who opts to implement   (i) Register with the FAA,
 a testing program under this part.       Office of Aerospace Medicine,
                                          Drug Abatement Division (AAM-
                                          800), 800 Independence Avenue
                                          SW, Washington, DC 20591,
                                         (ii) Implement an FAA drug
                                          testing program no later than
                                          the date you start performing
                                          safety-sensitive functions for
                                          a part 119 certificate holder
                                          with authority to operate
                                          under parts 121 or 135, or
                                          operator as defined in Sec.
                                          91.147 of this chapter, or an
                                          air traffic control facility
                                          not operated by the FAA or by
                                          or under contract to the U.S.
                                          Military, and
                                         (iii) Meet the requirements of
                                          this subpart as if you were an
                                          employer.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
0
6. Amend Sec.  120.123 by revising paragraphs (a) introductory text,
(a)(1), and (b) to read as follows:

Sec.  120.123  Drug testing outside the territory of the United States.

    (a) Except for those testing processes applicable to persons
testing pursuant to Sec.  120.1(d), no part of the testing process
(including specimen collection, laboratory processing, and MRO actions)
shall be conducted outside the territory of the United States.
    (1) Except for those persons testing pursuant to Sec.  120.1(d),
each employee who is assigned to perform safety-sensitive functions
solely outside the territory of the United States shall be removed from
the random testing pool upon the inception of such assignment.
* * * * *
    (b) Except for those persons testing pursuant to Sec.  120.1(d),
the provisions of this subpart shall not apply to any individual who
performs a function listed in Sec.  120.105 by contract for an employer
outside the territory of the United States.
0
7. Amend Sec.  120.225 by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (a)(5);
0
b. Redesignating paragraph (a)(6) as paragraph (a)(7);
0
c. Adding new paragraph (a)(6);
0
d. Revising paragraph (c); and
0
e. Revising paragraphs (d) introductory text and (d)(1).
    The revisions and addition read as follows:

Sec.  120.225  How to implement an alcohol testing program.

    (a) * * *

------------------------------------------------------------------------
            If you are . . .                      You must . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                              * * * * * * *
(5) A part 145 certificate holder        Obtain an Antidrug and Alcohol
 located inside the territory of the      Misuse Prevention Program
 United States who has your own alcohol   Operations Specification by
 testing program.                         contacting your Principal
                                          Maintenance Inspector or
                                          register with the FAA Office
                                          of Aerospace Medicine, Drug
                                          Abatement Division (AAM-800),
                                          800 Independence Avenue SW.,
                                          Washington, DC 20591, if you
                                          opt to conduct your own
                                          alcohol testing program.
(6) A part 145 repair station located    Obtain an Antidrug and Alcohol
 outside the territory of the United      Misuse Prevention Program
 States who performs safety-sensitive     Operations Specification by
 maintenance functions on part 121 air    contacting your Principal
 carrier aircraft.                        Maintenance Inspector.

                              * * * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
    (c) If you are an individual or company that intends to provide
safety-sensitive services by contract to a part 119 certificate holder
with authority to operate under part 121 and/or part 135 of this
chapter, or an operator as defined in Sec.  91.147 of this chapter, use
the following chart to determine what you must do if you opt to have
your own drug testing program.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
            If you are . . .                      You must . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) A part 145 certificate holder        (i) Have an Antidrug and
 located inside the territory of the      Alcohol Misuse Prevention
 United States and opt to conduct your    Program Operations
 own program under this part.             Specifications or register
                                          with the FAA, Office of
                                          Aerospace Medicine, Drug
                                          Abatement Division (AAM-800),
                                          800 Independence Avenue SW,
                                          Washington, DC 20591,

                                         (ii) Implement an FAA alcohol
                                          testing program no later than
                                          the date you start performing
                                          safety-sensitive functions for
                                          a part 119 certificate holder
                                          with the authority to operate
                                          under parts 121 and/or 135, or
                                          operator as defined in Sec.
                                          91.147 of this chapter, and
                                         (iii) Meet the requirements of
                                          this subpart as if you were an
                                          employer.
(2) Are a part 145 repair station        (i) Obtain an Antidrug and
 located outside of the territory of      Alcohol Misuse Prevention
 the United States who performs           Program Operations
 maintenance functions on part 121 air    Specification by contacting
 carrier aircraft.                        your Principal Maintenance
                                          Inspector.
                                         (ii) Implement an alcohol
                                          testing program acceptable the
                                          Administrator no later than
                                          one year from [EFFECTIVE DATE
                                          OF REGULATION], or if company
                                          operations begin more than one
                                          year after [EFFECTIVE DATE OF
                                          REGULATION], implement an
                                          alcohol testing program
                                          acceptable to the
                                          Administrator no later than
                                          the date you start operations,
                                          and
                                         (iii) Meet the requirements of
                                          this subpart in a manner
                                          acceptable to the
                                          Administrator.
(3) A contractor.......................  (i) Register with the FAA,
                                          Office of Aerospace Medicine,
                                          Drug Abatement Division (AAM-
                                          800), 800 Independence Avenue
                                          SW, Washington, DC 20591,
                                         (ii) Implement an FAA drug
                                          testing program no later than
                                          the date you start performing
                                          safety-sensitive functions for
                                          a part 119 certificate holder
                                          with authority to operate
                                          under parts 121 or 135, or
                                          operator as defined in Sec.
                                          91.147 of this chapter, or an
                                          air traffic control facility
                                          not operated by the FAA or by
                                          or under contract to the U.S.
                                          Military, and
                                         (iii) Meet the requirements of
                                          this subpart as if you were an
                                          employer.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (d) To obtain an antidrug and alcohol misuse prevention program
operations specification:
    (1) You must contact your FAA Principal Operations Inspector or
Principal Maintenance Inspector. Provide him/her with the following
information:
* * * * *
0
8. Amend Sec.  120.227 by revising paragraphs (a) introductory text,
(a)(1), and (b) to read as follows:

Sec.  120.227  Employees located outside the U.S.

    (a) Except for those persons testing pursuant to Sec.  120.1(d), no
covered employee shall be tested for alcohol misuse while located
outside the territory of the United States.
    (1) Except for those persons testing pursuant to Sec.  120.1(d),
each covered employee who is assigned to perform safety-sensitive
functions solely outside the territory of the United States shall be
removed from the random testing pool upon the inception of such
assignment.
* * * * *
    (b) Except for those persons testing pursuant to Sec.  120.1(d),
the provisions of this subpart shall not apply to any person who
performs a safety-sensitive function by contract for an employer
outside the territory of the United States.

    Issued in Washington, DC.
Susan E. Northrup,
Federal Air Surgeon.
[FR Doc. 2023-26394 Filed 12-6-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

49 CFR Part 195

[Docket No. PS–117; Notice 3]

Transportation of a Hazardous Liquid

In Pipelines Operating at 20 Percent

or Less of Specified Minimum Yield

Strength

agency:   Research and Special Programs Administration, DOT.

action:  Notice of proposed rulemaking.

summary:  By regulatory exception, the Federal pipeline safety standards
governing hazardous liquid pipelines do not apply to pipelines operated
at a stress level of 20 percent or less of the specified minimum yield
strength (SMYS) of the pipe.  In this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
(NPRM), the Research and Special Programs Administration (RSPA) proposes
to revise the current exception and to apply the pipeline safety
standards to certain pipelines operating at a stress level of 20 percent
or less of SMYS.  RSPA expects that this rulemaking will improve public
safety and environmental protection by minimizing the possibility of
accidents.

date:  Comments must be received by May 3, 1993.  Late-filed comments
will be considered to the extent practicable.

address:   Send comments in duplicate to the Dockets Unit, room 8421,
Research and Special Programs Administration, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590.  Identify
the docket and notice number stated in the heading of this notice.  All
comments and docketed material will be available for inspection and
copying in Room 8421 between 8:30 a.m. and 5 p.m. each business day.

for further information contact:   G. Joseph Wolf, (202) 366–4560,
regarding the subject matter of this NPRM.  Contact the Dockets Unit,
(202) 366–4453, for copies of the NPRM or other docket material.
Contact the Transporta-tion Safety Institute, Pipeline Safety Division,
6500 South MacArthur Boulevard, Oklahoma City, OK 73125, (405)
680–4643, for a copy of 49 CFR part 195.

supplementary information:

Background

	When the Federal pipeline safety regulations applicable to
transportation of hazardous liquids by pipeline (49 CFR part 195) were
issued in 1969, pipelines operated at a stress level of 20 percent or
less of SMYS, hereafter referred to as low stress pipelines, were
excepted from the regulations because they were thought to pose little
risk to public safety.  Since then, however, accidents that have
occurred on low stress pipelines provide reasons to reconsider the
exception.  Recent failures of such pipelines and recommendations to
revise their exception from regulation were described in the Advance
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) published on October 31, 1990
(Notice 1; 55 FR 45822).  The ANPRM noted that RSPA would determine
whether and to what extent to remove the exception.  Based on data in
the responses to the ANPRM, which indicate a favorable benefit to cost
ratio, RSPA is proposing to regulate certain low stress pipelines.

Current Requirements

	Section 195.1(b)(3) provides that Part 195 does not apply to
“Transportation of a hazardous liquid through pipelines that operate
at a stress level of 20 percent or less of the specified minimum yield
strength of the line pipe.”  The pipelines excepted are those steel
pipelines in which the internal operating pressure results in a stress
level of the pipe that does not exceed 20 percent of SMYS at any point
along the length of the pipeline.

Information Acquisition

	Because low stress pipelines have been excepted under §195.1(b)(3),
owners and operators are excepted from filing accident reports with RSPA
pursuant to subpart B of part 195.

	Consequently, RSPA lacked accident data about such pipelines.  However,
the ANPRM contained a questionnaire for the purpose of gathering
information to make a decision regarding rulemaking.  The owners or
operators of hazardous liquid pipelines operated at 20 percent or less
of SMYS and not otherwise excepted under §195.1(b) were requested to
complete the questionnaire for each such pipeline and return it.  RSPA
requested the information in the questionnaire to estimate the number
and mileage of low stress pipelines, to perform a regulatory impact
analysis (including a cost-benefit analysis), and to develop and
consider alternatives that would ensure the safe operation of low stress
pipelines.

	In addition, state and local governments and other interested parties
were invited to provide comments and available information about low
stress pipelines located within their jurisdictions.  Comments received
provided the data to develop the proposals in this NPRM.

Data Summary

	RSPA received 50 responses to the ANPRM: 40 from pipeline operators, 2
from other representatives of the pipeline industry, 5 from government
representatives, and 3 from unaffiliated members of the public.  The
data furnished in the responses were tabulated in computerized format.
Using the computerized data and the narrative comments in the responses,
the Volpe National Transportation Systems Center (VNTSC) of RSPA
prepared a draft regulatory evaluation titled “Economic Evaluation of
Regulating Certain Hazardous Liquid Pipelines Operating at 20% or Less
of Specified Minimum Yield Strength.”

	Nine of the 40 pipeline operators who submitted comments furnished no
data.  The other 31 operators reported the operation of 1555 individual
pipelines, a total of more than 3,600 miles, operating at a stress level
of 20% or less of SMYS.  The largest number of these are classified as
interfacility lines (lines between petrochemical facilities) with 996
lines (939 miles) reported.  Also reported were 272 trunk pipelines
(1,816 miles), 153 gathering lines (564 miles), 116 offshore pipelines
(463 miles, estimated), and 105 delivery pipelines (126 miles).
Interfacility and delivery lines are described later.  For 12 pipelines,
information furnished was inadequate for classifying the lines.  Based
on the data submitted, regulated hazardous liquid pipeline miles would
increase an estimated 5 percent to 157,100 miles if low stress pipelines
were regulated to the extent proposed in this NPRM.

	The sum of the miles of pipelines in high risk areas as defined in the
ANPRM exceeded the total miles of pipelines reported because many
pipeline lengths are in more than one kind of higher risk area.  For
those pipelines for which risk or absence of risk was reported, the sum
of the total length of all pipelines that traverse higher risk areas was
1,045 miles.  Of those 1,045 miles, 349 miles (33 percent) traverse
populated areas, and 101 miles (10 percent) cross navigable waters, some
both traversing populated areas and crossing navigable waters.

Comments and Analysis

	RSPA anticipated that there were three categories of low stress
pipelines—interfacility lines moving hazardous liquids between
petrochemical facilities, gathering lines, and trunk (long distance
transportation) lines.  Comments to the ANPRM discussed an additional
category of low stress pipelines which they called delivery lines.
Delivery lines generally were described as pipelines that transport
hazardous liquids between trunk lines or marine facilities and other
petrochemical facilities, for example, refineries, manufacturing plants,
and storage or transfer terminals.

	In general, operators report that deleting the exception would have
minimal economic impact on the operation of low stress trunk lines.
Minimal impact is expected because many low stress trunk lines already
are operated in accordance with Part 195 even though they are excepted
from this requirement.  On the other hand, operators anticipate that the
initial and continuing annual cost of complying with Part 195 for
delivery lines, interfacility lines and gathering lines will be high.
Some operators reported anticipated costs of compliance, which have been
considered in a regulatory impact analysis of the proposed changes.

	Most trunk lines are operated at an internal pressure creating a pipe
hoop stress in excess of 20 percent of SMYS of the pipe because it is
not economical to construct and operate trunk lines at a low stress.  To
maximize economy, many trunk lines are designed to be operated at the
maximum pressure permitted by Part 195, which is equivalent to 72
percent of SMYS.  Low stress trunk pipelines represent 18 percent of the
pipelines and 53 percent of the mileage reported and have an average
length of 6.7 miles.  They are operated at low stress for varying
reasons.

	In the ANPRM, RSPA stated that it believed that there may be a limited
number of low stress trunk lines that transport hazardous liquids for
long distances.  RSPA believed that these pipelines are operated at low
stress because typically they are old and potentially in poor condition.
 Some operators disputed RSPA’s belief, stating that a pipeline is
operated at low stress for numerous reasons but not because of its age
or condition.  Among the reasons given were: structural considerations
other than internal pressure (for example, rigidity); low volume demands
on the pipeline; diminishing volumes transported; and minimal
consequences of damage from external sources.

	Of the pipelines for which length was reported, 20 pipelines were
reported to be 30 miles and longer.  Of the 20 lines, 15 were trunk
lines which normally would be operated at high stress.  RSPA considered
that the average accident costs per mile reported for these 20 longer
lines are about one-fourth of the average for all types of low stress
pipelines.  Therefore, the longer low stress trunk lines represent no
greater risk than all reported pipelines operated at low stress.
Regulation of a low stress pipeline on the basis of its length is not
proposed.

	Gathering lines represent another category of low stress pipelines.  As
set forth in §195.1, gathering lines in non-rural areas, other than low
stress lines, currently are subject to Part 195, while gathering lines
in rural areas, regardless of their stress level, are not subject to
those rules.  Of 1526 pipelines identifiable by pipeline category for
which length was reported, there were 153 gathering lines (564 miles)
with an average length of 3.7 miles.  They represent 16 percent of the
mileage and 10 percent of the pipelines analyzed.

	Some operators and one industry trade association commented that, if
regulated, low stress gathering lines in economically marginal
operations could be shut down.  They further commented that shutdown
would result in hazardous liquids being moved by other modes of
transportation, which they argue are more expensive and more hazardous.
The commenters did not suggest specific separate treatment for
economically marginal gathering operations.

	Some operators expressed concern that gathering lines in rural areas
would become regulated.  No change in the definition of rural area is
proposed, and rural gathering lines have been excepted from regulation
by statute.  However, the Pipeline Safety Act of 1992, Public Law No.
102–508, which was enacted on October 24, 1992, allows regulation of
rural gathering lines.  Therefore, certain rural gathering lines
currently excepted from regulation may be regulated in the future.  In
this NPRM, RSPA proposes to regulate low stress gathering lines only to
the extent they are located in populated areas or offshore.

	The ANPRM questionnaire requested reports of pipelines within 220 yards
of populated areas, defined as areas other than rural areas under
§195.2.  Currently, gathering lines in non-rural (populated) areas are
subject to Part 195 unless they are operated at low stress.  The data
reported indicate that some low stress gathering lines are transporting
large volumes of hazardous liquids in populated areas.  Some operators
suggested that no gathering lines should be regulated but offered
nothing to address the safety and environmental concerns about gathering
lines or a rationale for different treatment.  RSPA proposes to regulate
those lengths of low stress level gathering lines traversing populated
areas.  Whether all gathering lines (regardless of their stress level),
including those in populated areas, should be excepted from regulation
is beyond the scope of this rulemaking.

	Some operators expressed concern that incorporated political
subdivisions of state governments such as counties and townships would
be considered by regulation to be non-rural areas, and therefore that
gathering lines in such areas would become regulated.  Under the
definition in §195.2, rural area means outside the limits of any
incorporated or unincorporated city, town, or village, or any other
designated residential or commercial area such as a subdivision, a
business or shopping center, or community development.  A county,
township, and similar political subdivision is not the same as a city,
town, or village.  Therefore a gathering line in a rural area of a
county, township or similar political subdivision is not intended to be
regulated.

	Comments confirmed RSPA’s belief that low stress interfacility
pipelines used to move hazardous liquids to or from petrochemical
facilities such as refineries, manufacturing plants, and hazardous
liquid terminals, are relatively short.  Low stress operation is
adequate to move the liquid to or from the complex at the rate required
for operation.  Design of such pipelines frequently is based on
considerations other than internal pressure, for example, additional
thickness to provide rigidity or an allowance for expected corrosion.
The operators of low stress interfacility lines usually have not
operated pipelines subject to part 195, and therefore may not be
familiar with its requirements.  Certain interfacility pipelines will
become regulated under the proposed rulemaking.  Interfacility lines
represented about 65 percent of the pipelines and 27 percent of the
miles reported.  Included in these interfacility pipeline statistics are
891 pipelines (716 miles) reported by one operator, Shell, of a total of
996 interfacility pipelines (939 miles) reported.

	In response to the ANPRM, commenters asked whether intrafacility lines
(in-plant piping) within petrochemical facilities and interfacility
lines (piping connecting facilities) crossing a common boundary or a
single public thoroughfare between adjacent properties would be subject
to regulation if the regulations were changed.  Intrafacility lines are
excepted from regulation in accordance with §195.1(b)(6).  However,
intrafacility piping connecting adjacent facilities separated by
navigable waterways or separated by third party property other than
single public thoroughfares in populated areas would be subject to the
regulations if the 20% SMYS exception is modified.

	The data reported in response to the ANPRM indicate that delivery lines
were a type of low stress pipeline not anticipated by RSPA prior to the
ANPRM.  Comments by operators indicate that low stress delivery lines
typically are short lines.  The data for those reported (105 lines, 126
miles) indicate an average length of about 1( mile.  They represent a
small portion of the lines affected by the proposed rulemaking, but
generally they move large volumes of hazardous liquids.  Of all
pipelines reported, delivery lines represent only about 7 percent of the
lines and 4 percent of the miles.  The proposed rules would regulate
many of these low stress delivery lines based on their transporting a
highly volatile liquid or traversing a populated area or navigable
waterway.  RSPA does not propose a separate treatment for them.

	Some operators expressed concern that piping within storage or terminal
facilities would become regulated.  Piping associated with breakout
tanks at storage facilities of regulated hazardous liquid pipelines
currently is regulated, regardless of operating stress, if the liquids
are reinjected and transported further by a pipeline system that is
regulated.  Conversely, piping within distribution and marketing
terminals exclusively transferring hazardous liquids between modes of
transportation excepted from regulation under §195.1(b)(7).

	Some operators explicitly included the cost to pressure test in their
estimates of the cost of compliance.  The treatment of the cost of
hydrostatic testing is covered in the regulatory impact analysis
performed by VNTSC.

	Some operators and one government representative have suggested the use
of pneumatic testing (air under pressure) as a low cost alternative to
hydrostatic testing (water under pressure).  The American society of
Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Code for Pressure Piping ASME B31.4–1989
Edition for Liquid Transportation Systems for Hydrocarbons, Liquid
Petroleum Gas, Anhydrous Ammonia, and Alcohols (B31.4) permits the use
of hydrostatic or pneumatic testing for pipelines to be operated at a
hoop stress of 20 percent or less of SMYS of the pipe.  Part 192
(Transportation of Natural and Other Gas by Pipeline: Minimum Federal
Safety Standards) permits the use of pneumatic tests as an alternative
to hydrostatic tests.  The use of pneumatic testing would eliminate the
need to collect and process the testing water contaminated by residual
contents of the pipeline.  RSPA has not included a proposal to permit
pneumatic testing of hazardous liquid pipelines.  Comments are invited
on whether and to what extent pneumatic testing should be permitted in
lieu of hydrostatic testing.

	Some commenters claimed that the cost to bring low stress pipelines
into compliance and to operate the pipelines in compliance with Part 195
is not commensurate with the benefits of regulation.  The principal
costs noted were preparation and maintenance of operations and
maintenance manuals, drug testing programs, pressure monitoring
equipment, cathodic protection systems, and pressure testing.  Some
operators of low stress pipelines suggest that, because of the cost,
only low stress pipelines traversing populated areas, navigable waters,
or environmentally sensitive areas should be considered for regulation.
Two government commenters supported removing the blanket exception for
low stress pipelines, but argued for a limited exception based on
criteria such as age, length, location, and volume transported.  Two
other government commenters supported regulation of all low stress
pipelines.

	RSPA carefully considered comments that suggested regulating low stress
pipelines.  The regulatory impact analysis indicates that the benefits
of regulating all low stress pipelines substantially exceed the costs.
At this time, RSPA proposes regulating low stress pipelines only on the
basis of one or more measures of risk as discussed below.

	Several commenters discussed the length of time needed to comply with
regulations if the exception is deleted or modified.  Both 1 year and 5
years were suggested as the time needed for compliance.  Comments are
solicited as to whether one year would provide sufficient time to bring
newly regulated low stress pipelines into compliance with parts 195 and
199.

	A letter from Senator Lautenberg of New Jersey suggested that RSPA
require that operators of low stress pipelines apply to RSPA on an
individual basis to continue the exception from regulation of individual
low stress pipelines.  The Senator would require that operators certify
initially and annually thereafter the conditions justifying the
exception.  Since RSPA’s proposal would discontinue the exception for
most higher risk pipelines, and there is an existing method to obtain
waiver from regulation, RSPA plans no further action on this comment.

Proposal

	RSPA proposes to revise §195.1(b)(3) which excepts low stress
pipelines from regulation under Part 195 by excepting from regulation
only a low stress pipeline that is not used in the transportation of a
highly volatile liquid or that does not traverse a populated area or a
navigable waterway.  RSPA does not propose to regulate low stress
pipelines on the basis of any additional criteria.  RSPA’s proposed
rule will reduce the risk to public safety and the environment and is
supported by a favorable benefit/cost ratio determined on the basis of
data furnished by operators of low stress hazardous liquid pipelines and
published data on pipelines.  This proposal was developed in response to
recommendations from the National Association of Pipeline Safety
Representatives (NAPSR) and the Safety Review Task Force of the
Department of Transportation (DOT).  It also is responsive to the
delegation to RSPA following passage of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990
regarding prevention of spills and the containment of oil in pipelines.
This delegation concerns the prevention of pollution of navigable
waters, shorelines, and the exclusive economic zone.  Finally, this
proposal is responsive to the amendment to section 203(b) to the
Hazardous Liquid Pipeline Safety Act (HLPSA) made by section 206 of the
Pipeline Safety Act of 1992.  That amendment provides that exception to
regulation under the HLPSA shall not be based solely on operation at low
internal stress.

	RSPA now proposes to regulate the low stress pipelines which are used
for the transportation of highly volatile liquids or which traverse
populated areas or crossing navigable waterways.  RSPA is deferring a
decision on whether to propose regulation of low stress lines in
environmentally sensitive areas because that subject is being studied to
evaluate the extent to which pipeline spills affect environmentally
sensitive areas and to develop a definition of environmentally sensitive
areas appropriate for pipeline regulation.

	This proposal to regulate low stress pipelines that cross navigable
waters will assure that pipelines that could be struck and damaged by
vessel operations, will not be excepted from regulation.  Low stress
pipelines also may be located in water which is “navigable” under
some definitions, but which is not navigable in fact.  Because these
pipelines are not at risk of being damaged by vessel operations, RSPA
does not propose to regulate such pipelines at this time.  They will be
considered for regulation when RSPA considers extension of the
regulation of low stress pipelines in environmentally sensitive areas.

	Regardless of the stress at which they are operated, pipelines are
vulnerable to damage from the two principal causes of pipeline
failures—outside force damage and corrosion.  Admittedly, pipelines
which are operated at lower stresses may survive damage from outside
force and corrosion for a longer period before failure than will high
stress pipelines, but the risk of failure is present nevertheless.  The
December 1989 Exxon pipeline failure, which spilled oil into the Arthur
Kill waterway between New York and New Jersey at a cost of $45 million,
is an illustration of a spill from an unregulated low stress pipeline
caused by outside force damage.  The December 1986 Kinley pipeline
failure, which spilled 5000 gallons of jet fuel into surface and ground
water in Iowa and has cost $273,000 to date, is an illustration of a
spill from an unregulated low stress pipeline caused by corrosion.

	Under the proposed rulemaking, RSPA would revise §195.1(b)(3), which
now excepts from regulation all low stress pipelines, to regulate
certain new and existing low stress pipelines.  Existing pipelines that
would be brought under the regulations because of the modification of
the exception would be subject to Part 199 and all subparts of Part 195
except Subparts C—Design Requirements, D—Construction, and
E—Hydrostatic Testing, except that Subpart E would apply only to low
stress pipelines used in the transportation of a highly volatile liquid
(HVL).  The exception from the design and construction requirements is
covered by the proposed addition of §195.401(c)(5).  Although the
requirements of Subpart E—Hydrostatic Testing currently would not
apply to non-HVL pipelines constructed before dates specified in
§195.302, an NPRM published on May 22, 1991 (Docket No. PS–121;
Notice 1; 56 FR 23538) proposes hydrostatic testing of those pipelines
at a pressure at least 25 percent in excess of the maximum operating
pressure or, alternatively, a commensurate reduction of the operating
pressure.  RSPA proposes that the testing rules proposed in PS–121
Notice 1 would not apply to non-HVL low stress pipelines that would
become subject to Part 195 if §195.1(b)(3) is modified as proposed in
this NPRM.

	All sections of parts 195 and 199 would apply to regulated low stress
pipelines constructed after the effective date of the issuance of a
final rule.  The proposed modification of §195.1(b)(3) would not affect
pipelines currently excepted by other criteria in §195.1(b).

	RSPA proposes to correct §195.1(b)(7) to delete the period at the end
and add “; and”.  This will clarify that part 195 does not apply to
pipelines excepted under any of the criteria in §195.1(b).

	Operators of pipelines currently excepted under §195.1(b)(3) are
cautioned that proposed regulations being considered now or in the
future may apply to the operation of those pipelines currently excepted
under §195.1(b)(3), and are advised to follow all notices pertaining to
hazardous liquid pipeline regulation appearing in the Federal Register.

Request for Comments

	Comments may address any aspect of this proposal.  However, RSPA
requests specific comments on the following: Whether there should be
separate treatment in this rulemaking for economically marginal
gathering line operations in non-rural areas and what form such
treatment should take; whether pneumatic testing of low stress pipelines
should be permitted as an alternative to hydrostatic testing under
subpart E; and whether one year would provide sufficient time to comply
with parts 195 and 199 to the extent they would be made applicable.

Impact Assessment

	These proposals would extend the requirements of parts 195 and 199 to
certain steel pipelines currently excepted from regulation solely on the
basis of a low operating stress level under §195.1(b)(3).  Pipelines
constructed prior to or under construction of the effective date of the
proposed rule would be subject to all of Part 195 except subparts C, D,
and E which apply respectively to design, construction, and hydrostatic
testing.  Operators have raised issues regarding the cost of
implementation, particularly regarding the cost of implementation for
gathering lines in areas other than rural areas.  Operators also have
suggested that any change to the existing exception be limited to low
stress pipelines in higher risk areas.  The proposed modification of the
regulations is consistent with these operator comments.

	From the responses to the ANPRM, the accident cost per mile per year on
low stress pipelines not operated in accordance with those regulations
was estimated to be $3692.  The accident cost per mile per year on low
stress pipelines already operated in accordance with the pipeline safety
regulations was estimated to be $105 per mile per year.  Further, the
five-year average cost of accidents on high stress (regulated) lines
taken from incident reports in OPS files is similar to the costs for
those low stress lines operated in compliance with the regulations.
Therefore, RSPA presumes that the cost of accidents on low stress
pipelines will be reduced to a level of $105 per mile per year.

	In developing the analysis, the cost of the Exxon Arthur Kill accident
was distributed over ten years.  RSPA considers this distribution period
equitable because the age of pipelines systems in general, and because
the cost consequences of accidents are increasing rapidly as a
consequence of environmental considerations.  Overall, the regulatory
impact analysis indicates a favorable benefit/cost ratio.

Regulatory Analyses and Notices

Executive Order 12291 and DOT

Policies and Procedures

	This proposed rule is considered to be non-major under Executive Order
12291, and is not considered significant under DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979).  A Draft Regulatory
Evaluation has been prepared and is available in the docket.

Paperwork Reduction Act

	The reporting requirements in subpart B and recordkeeping requirements
under §§195.54, 195.55, 195.56, 195.57, 195.234, 195.266, 195.310,
195.402, and 195.404 are being submitted to the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) for review under the Paperwork Reduction Act.  Comments on
the collection of information should be sent to the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget,
Washington, DC 20503, Attention: Desk Officer for the Department of
Transportation.  This submission would modify the current approval of
pipeline recordkeeping and accident reporting under OMB Nos.
2137–0047, 2137–0578, and 2137–0583.  The proposed regulation of
certain pipelines operated at 20 percent or less of SMYS would represent
an increase of about 7100 additional pipeline miles subject to the
reporting and recordkeeping requirements in Part 195, or 5 percent more
than the miles currently subject to those requirements.  RSPA estimates
that burden hours for recordkeeping and accident reporting will increase
a total of 2494 hours above the current burden of 55639 hours to 58133
hours.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

	Based on the facts available about the anticipated impact of this
proposed rulemaking action, I certify, pursuant to section 605 of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 605), that the action will not have
a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities,
because few, if any, small entities operate pipelines subject to part
195.  Each operator responding to the ANPRM reported that it was not a
small business.

Executive Order 12612

	RSPA has analyzed this action in accordance with the principles and
criteria contained in E.O. 12612 (52 FR 41685) and has determined that
it does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant
preparation of a Federalism Assessment.

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 195

	Ammonia, Carbon dioxide, Petroleum, Pipeline safety, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.

Part 195—Transportation of Hazardous Liquids by Pipeline

	1.	The authority citation for part 195 continues to read as follows:

	Authority:  49 App. U.S.C. 2001 et seq.; 49 CFR 1.53

	2.	Section 195.1 would be amended by revising paragraphs (b)(3) and
(b)(7), and adding paragraph (d) to read as follows:

§195.1	Applicability.

*          *          *          *          *

	(b)	*   *   *

	(3)	Transportation of a hazardous liquid through a pipeline that is
operated at a stress level of 20 percent or less of the specified
minimum yield strength of the line pipe, and that:

	(i)	Is not used in the transportation of highly volatile liquids;

	(ii)	Does not traverse a populated area; or

	(iii)	Does not traverse a navigable waterway.

*          *          *          *          *

	(7)	Transportation of a hazardous liquid or carbon dioxide by vessel,
aircraft, tank truck, tank car, or other vehicle, or terminal facilities
used exclusively to transfer hazardous liquids or carbon dioxide between
such modes of transportation; and

*          *          *          *          *

	(d)	The operator of a pipeline that was excepted from regulations prior
to [date of publication of the final rule will be inserted] on the basis
of operation at a stress level of 20 percent or less of the specified
minimum yield strength of the line pipe must comply with this part by
[one year after the date of publication of the final rule will be
inserted].

	3.	Section 195.2 would be amended by adding in appropriate alphabetical
order the followning [sic] definitions:

§195.2	Definitions.

*          *          *          *          *

	Navigable waterway means a waterway which is navigable in fact and is
currently used for commercial navigation.

*          *          *          *          *

	Populated area means any onshore area other than a rural area.

*          *          *          *          *

	4.	Section 195.302 would be amended by redesignating paragraph (c) as
paragraph (d) and adding new paragraph (c) to read as follows:

§195.302	General requirements.

*          *          *          *          *

	(c)	After [one year after date of publication of the final rule will be
inserted], no person may transport a highly volatile liquid in a
pipeline that was excepted from regulation under this part prior to
[date of publication of the final rule will be inserted] on the basis of
operation at a stress level of 20 percent or less of the specified
minimum yield strength of the line pipe unless the pipeline has been
hydrostatically tested in accordance with this subpart or its maximum
operating pressure has been established under §195.406(a)(6) or (7).

*          *          *          *          *

	5.	Section 195.401 would be amended by adding paragraph (c)(5) to read
as follows:

§195.401	General requirements.

	(c)	*   *   *

	(5)	A pipeline not regulated on the basis of operation at a stress
level of 20 percent or less of the specified minimum yield strength of
the line pipe prior to [date of publication of the final rule will be
inserted] on which construction was begun after [date of publication of
the final rule will be inserted].

	6.	Section 195.406 would be amended by adding paragraphs (a)(6) and
(a)(7) to read as follows:

§195.406	Maximum operating pressure.

	(a)	*   *   *

	(6)	In the case of a pipeline used for the transportation of hazardous
liquids that was not regulated prior to [date of publication of the
final rule will be inserted] because it was operated at a stress level
of 20 percent or less of the specified minimum yield strength of the
line pipe and that was not tested under subpart E of this part, 80
percent of the test pressure or 100 percent of the highest operating
pressure to which the pipeline was subjected for four or more continuous
hours that can be demonstrated by recording charts or logs made at the
time the test or operations were conducted.

	(7)	In the case of a pipeline used for the transportation of highly
volatile liquids that was not regulated prior to [date of publication of
the final rule will be inserted] because it was operated at a stress
level of 20 percent or less of the specified minimum yield strength of
the line pipe and that was not tested under subpart E of this part, 80
percent of the test pressure or highest operating pressure to which the
pipeline was subjected for four or more continuous hours that can be
demonstrated by recording charts or logs made at the time the test or
operations were conducted.

*          *          *          *          *

	Issued in Washington, DC on February 26, 1993.

George W. Tenley, Jr.,

Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety.

[FR Doc. 93–4850 Filed 3–2–93; 8:45 am]

PS–117, #3, NPRM

 PAGE   2

Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 40 / Wednesday, March 3, 1993

Pages 12213 - 12218

PS–117, #3, NPRM 		  PAGE  6 /  NUMPAGES  6


[Federal Register: July 2, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 128)]
[Notices]
[Page 37951-37954]
[DOCID:fr02jy08-78]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0416; FRL-8367-4]

Alkyl trimethylenediamines, Bioban P-1487, Copper 8-
quinolinolate, Napthenate Salts, Octhilinone, and the Trimethoxysilyl
Quaternary Ammonium Chloride Compounds Reregistration Eligibility
Decisions; Notice of Availability

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces the availability of EPA's Reregistration
Eligibility Decisions (REDs) for the

pesticides Alkyl trimethylenediamines (ATMDs), bioban P-1487, copper 8-
quinolinolate, napthenate salts, octhilinone, and the trimethoxysilyl
quaternary ammonium chloride compounds and opens a public comment
period on these documents. The Agency's risk assessments and other
related documents also are available in the dockets for these
pesticides. The ATMDs are used as microbicides, bacteriocides, and
molluscides. Bioban P-1487 is used as a materials preservative and as a
microbial growth inhibitor of slime-forming fungi and bacteria. Copper
8-quinolinolate is used as an algaecide, bactericide and fungicide. The
naphthenate salts are used as fungicides, microbiocides/microbiostats,
and algaecides. Octhilinone is used as an industrial mildewcide,
microbiocide, fungicide and bacteriocide. The quaternary ammonium
chloride compounds are used as bacteriastat, fungistat, antimicrobial
and algaestat.
    EPA has reviewed ATMD, bioban P-1487, copper 8-quinolinolate,
napthenate salts, octhilinone, and the trimethoxysilyl quaternary
ammonium chloride compounds through the public participation process
that the Agency uses to involve the public in developing pesticide
reregistration and tolerance reassessment decisions. Through these
programs, EPA is ensuring that all pesticides meet current health and
safety standards.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before September 2, 2008.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by docket identification
(ID) number, chemical name and contact persons, by one of the following
methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
     Mail: Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) Regulatory Public
Docket (7502P), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001.
     Delivery: OPP Regulatory Public Docket (7502P),
Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South
Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. Deliveries are only
accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation (8:30 a.m. to 4
p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays). Special
arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. The
Docket Facility telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0416 and the
docket number specific to the pesticide of interest as shown in the
table in Unit.II. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be
included in the docket without change and may be made available on-line
at http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through regulations.gov or e-
mail. The regulations.gov website is an ``anonymous access'' system,
which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information
unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-
mail comment directly to EPA without going through regulations.gov,
your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part
of the comment that is placed in the docket and made available on the
Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you
include your name and other contact information in the body of your
comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the docket index
available in regulations.gov. To access the electronic docket, go to
http://www.regulations.gov, select ``Advanced Search,'' then ``Docket
Search.'' Insert the docket ID number where indicated and select the
``Submit'' button. Follow the instructions on the regulations.gov
website to view the docket index or access available documents.
Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly
available, e.g., CBI or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted
material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available
only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are
available either in the electronic docket at http://
www.regulations.gov, or, if only available in hard copy, at the OPP
Regulatory Public Docket in Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South Bldg.),
2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. The hours of operation of this
Docket Facility are from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday,
excluding legal holidays. The Docket Facility telephone number is (703)
305-5805.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The person listed for the pesticide of
interest in the table to Unit.II. below.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this Action Apply to Me?

    This action is directed to the public in general, and may be of
interest to a wide range of stakeholders including environmental, human
health, and agricultural advocates; the chemical industry; pesticide
users; and members of the public interested in the sale, distribution,
or use of pesticides. Since others also may be interested, the Agency
has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be
affected by this action. If you have any questions regarding the
applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person
listed for the pesticide of interest in the table to Unit.II.

B. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA?

    1.  Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through
regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly mark the part or all of the
information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or
CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as
CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the
specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one
complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as
CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information
claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket.
Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with
procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
    2. Tips for preparing your comments. When submitting comments,
remember to:
    i. Identify the document by docket ID number and other identifying
information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number).
     ii. Follow directions. The Agency may ask you to respond to
specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
    iii. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and
substitute language for your requested changes.
    iv. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information
and/or data that you used.
    v. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you
arrived at

your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be reproduced.
    vi. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns and
suggest alternatives.
    vii. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of
profanity or personal threats.
    viii. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period
deadline identified.

II. Docket ID Numbers

    When submitting comments, please use the docket ID number, and the
chemical name for the pesticide of interest, as shown in the table.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Chemical Review
            Chemical Name                  Docket ID Number             Division            Manager, Telephone
                                                                                Number, E-mail Address
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ATMD                                   EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0537     Antimicrobials Division  ShaRon Carlisle,
                                                                 (7510P),<PHONE_NUMBER>,
                                                                Office of Pesticide<EMAIL_ADDRESS>                                                                 Programs,.
                                                                Environmental
                                                                 Protection Agency,.
                                                                1200 Pennsylvania Ave.,
                                                                 NW.,.
                                                                Washington, DC 20460-
                                                                 0001,.
                                                                fax number: (703) 308-
                                                                 8481..
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bioban P-1487                          EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0402     Do.                      Diane Isbell,
<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copper 8-quinolinolate                 EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0556     Do.                      Kathryn Jakob,
<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Naphthenate Salts                      EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0589     Do.                      Diane Isbell,
<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Octhilinone                            EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0415     Do.                      Kathryn Jakob,
<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Trimethoxysilyl Quaternary Ammonium    EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0831     Do.                      Diane Isbell,
 Chloride Compounds<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Background

A. What Action is the Agency Taking?

    Under section 4 of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and
Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), EPA is reevaluating existing pesticides to
ensure that they meet current scientific and regulatory standards. EPA
has completed REDs for the pesticides, ATMD, bioban P-1487, copper 8-
quinolinolate, napthenate salts, octhilinone, and the trimethoxysilyl
quaternary ammonium chloride compounds under section 4(g)(2)(A) of
FIFRA.
    ATMDs are used in industrial processes and water systems: oilfield/
petrochemical injection water systems; industrial recirculating water
cooling systems; non-potable industrial waters; other industrial
processing water systems; petroleum transport systems, storage systems
and subsurface equipment; natural gas well gathering systems and
pipelines; and well completion, packer, stimulation and workover fluids
to control microbes, bacteria, or mollusks.
    Bioban P-1487 is applied to industrial processes and water systems
such as metalworking fluids; oil storage tank bottom water, fuel
storage tank bottom water; and to diesel oil, fuel oil, gasoline, and
kerosene, as a hydrocarbon preservative to inhibit microorganism
growth. As a materials preservative, bioban P-1487 is formulated into
products such as metal die cast lubricants, corrosion inhibiting metal
coatings, mold-release agents, and fuel conditioners.
    Copper 8-quinolinolate is used as a materials preservative and as a
wood preservative. Examples of materials that can contain copper 8-
quinolinolate include in-can paint preservation, pulp and paperboard,
kraft paper, adhesives and glues. Copper 8-quinolinolate is also used
as an industrial wood preservative (non-pressure dipping/immersion and
pressure methods) to control sapstain and to protect against mold and
mildew in soft-wood or hard-wood lumber.
    The naphthenate salts are used in industrial and commercial wood
preservation for non-pressure (dip/brush/spray) and pressure treatments
(vacuum/full-cell) used to protect against fungal rot, decay, termites
and wood-boring insects in unfinished wood and various fabricated wood
products. In addition, textile preservation is limited to industrial
textiles and certain military specified treatments for cellulose-based
cotton, canvas, tents/tarps, ropes, cordage and nets.
    Octhilinone is used as a materials preservative; as an industrial
mildewcide for cooling tower and air washer water systems; and as a
wood preservative. Examples of materials that can contain octhilinone
include fabrics and textiles, coatings, sealants, adhesives, and
rubbers and plastics. Octhilinone is also used for metalworking fluid
preservation, hydraulic fluid preservation, and industrial process and
water systems including air washer water and flow-thru cooling towers.
As a wood preservative, octhilinone is used as an antisapstain drench
to debarked logs.
    The quaternary ammonium chloride compounds are used as materials
preservatives for paints (in can), coatings, textiles, sails, ropes,
fire hose, concrete additive, roofing materials, filter media and
polyurethane foam and cellulose products and cleaning buffers. The
chemical is also formulated to provide residual fungistatic activity in
household and domestic dwellings on hard non-porous surfaces, bathroom
premises (hard non-porous surfaces), and in garbage cans.
    EPA has determined that the data base to support reregistration is
substantially complete and that products containing ATMD, bioban P-
1487, copper 8-

quinolinolate, napthenate salts, octhilinone, and the trimethoxysilyl
quaternary ammonium chloride compounds are eligible for reregistration,
provided the risks are mitigated either in the manner described in the
REDs or by another means that achieves equivalent risk reduction. Upon
submission of any required product-specific data under section
4(g)(2)(B) of FIFRA and any necessary changes to the registration and
labeling (either to address concerns identified in the REDs or as a
result of product-specific data), EPA will make a final reregistration
decision under section 4(g)(2)(C) of FIFRA for products containing
ATMD, bioban P-1487, copper 8-quinolinolate, napthenate salts,
octhilinone, and the trimethoxysilyl quaternary ammonium chloride
compounds.
    EPA is applying the principles of public participation to all
pesticides undergoing reregistration and tolerance reassessment. The
Agency's Pesticide Tolerance Reassessment and Reregistration; Public
Participation Process, published in the Federal Register on May 14,
2004, (69 FR 26819) (FRL-7357-9) explains that in conducting these
programs, EPA is tailoring its public participation process to be
commensurate with the level of risk, extent of use, complexity of
issues, and degree of public concern associated with each pesticide.
Due to its uses, risks, and other factors, ATMD, bioban P-1487, copper
8-quinolinolate, napthenate salts, octhilinone, and the trimethoxysilyl
quaternary ammonium chloride compounds were reviewed through the
modified 4-Phase process. Through this process, EPA worked extensively
with stakeholders and the public to reach the regulatory decisions for
ATMD, bioban P-1487, copper 8-quinolinolate, napthenate salts,
octhilinone, and the trimethoxysilyl quaternary ammonium chloride
compounds.
    The reregistration program is being conducted under congressionally
mandated time frames, and EPA recognizes the need both to make timely
decisions and to involve the public. The Agency is issuing the ATMD,
bioban P-1487, copper 8-quinolinolate, napthenate salts, octhilinone,
and the trimethoxysilyl quaternary ammonium chloride compounds REDs for
public comment. This comment period is intended to provide an
additional opportunity for public input and a mechanism for initiating
any necessary amendments to the REDs. All comments should be submitted
using the methods in ADDRESSES, and must be received by EPA on or
before the comment date. These comments will become part of the Agency
Docket for ATMD, bioban P-1487, copper 8-quinolinolate, napthenate
salts, octhilinone, and the trimethoxysilyl quaternary ammonium
chloride compounds. Comments received after the close of the comment
period will be marked ``late.'' EPAis not required to consider these
late comments.
    The Agency will carefully consider all comments received by the
closing date and will provide a response to comments memorandum in the
docket and regulations.gov. If any comment significantly affects the
document, EPA also will publish an amendment to the REDs in the Federal
Register. In the absence of substantive comments requiring changes, the
ATMD, bioban P-1487, copper 8-quinolinolate, napthenate salts,
octhilinone, and the trimethoxysilyl quaternary ammonium chloride
compounds REDs will be implemented as now presented.

B. What is the Agency's Authority for Taking this Action?

    Section 4(g)(2) of FIFRA, as amended, directs that, after
submission of all data concerning a pesticide active ingredient, the
Administrator shall determine whether pesticides containing such active
ingredient are eligible for reregistration, before calling in product-
specific data on individual end-use products and either reregistering
products or taking other ``appropriate regulatory action.''

List of Subjects

    Environmental protection, Pesticides and pests.

    Dated: June 17, 2008.
Frank Sanders,
Director, Antimicrobials Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.
[FR Doc. E8-15008 Filed 7-1-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-S


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 49 (Monday, March 14, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 13570-13571]
[FR Doc No: 2011-5819]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

44 CFR Part 67

[Docket ID FEMA-2008-0020; Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-B-1069]

Proposed Flood Elevation Determinations

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Proposed rule; correction.

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

SUMMARY: On September 15, 2009, FEMA published in the Federal Register
a proposed rule that contained an erroneous table. This notice provides
corrections to that table, to be used in lieu of the information
published at 74 FR 47169. The table provided here represents the
flooding sources, location of referenced elevations, effective and
modified elevations, and communities affected for Sanpete County, Utah,
and Incorporated Areas. Specifically, it addresses the flooding source
South Creek.

DATES: Comments are to be submitted on or before June 13, 2011.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. FEMA-B-
1069, to Luis Rodriguez, Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Federal
Insurance and Mitigation Administration, Federal Emergency Management
Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER> or (e-
mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Luis Rodriguez, Chief, Engineering
Management Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration,
Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC
20472,<PHONE_NUMBER> or (e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) publishes proposed determinations of Base (1% annual-chance)
Flood Elevations (BFEs) and modified BFEs for communities participating
in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), in accordance with
section 110 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C.
4104, and 44 CFR 67.4(a).
    These proposed BFEs and modified BFEs, together with the floodplain
management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are minimum requirements.
They should not be construed to mean that the community must change any
existing ordinances that are more stringent in their floodplain
management requirements. The community may at any time enact stricter
requirements of its own or pursuant to policies established by other
Federal, State, or regional entities. These proposed elevations are
used to meet the floodplain management requirements of the NFIP and
also are used to calculate the appropriate flood insurance premium
rates for new buildings built after these elevations are made final,
and for the contents in those buildings.

Correction

    In the proposed rule published at 74 FR 47169, in the September 15,
2009, issue of the Federal Register, FEMA published a table under the
authority of 44 CFR 67.4. The table, entitled ``Sanpete County, Utah,
and Incorporated Areas'' addressed the flooding source South Creek.
That table contained inaccurate information as to the location of
referenced elevation, effective and modified elevation in feet,

and/or communities affected for that flooding source. In this notice,
FEMA is publishing a table containing the accurate information, to
address these prior errors. The information provided below should be
used in lieu of that previously published.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    * Elevation in feet
                                                                  (NGVD)  + Elevation in
                                                                  feet  (NAVD)
                                       Location of referenced       Depth in feet above
         Flooding source(s)                 elevation **         ground [caret] Elevation   Communities affected
                                                                      in meters (MSL)
                                                                --------------------------
                                                                  Effective     Modified
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  Sanpete County, Utah, and Incorporated Areas
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
South Creek........................  Approximately 320 feet             None        +5529  City of Manti,
                                      east of 100 South Street.                             Unincorporated Areas
                                                                                of Sanpete County.
                                     Approximately 596 feet             None        +5838
                                      upstream of the Manti
                                      Creek confluence.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* National Geodetic Vertical Datum.
+ North American Vertical Datum.
 Depth in feet above ground.
[caret] Mean Sea Level, rounded to the nearest 0.1 meter.

** BFEs to be changed include the listed downstream and upstream BFEs, and include BFEs located on the stream
 reach between the referenced locations above. Please refer to the revised Flood Insurance Rate Map located at
 the community map repository (see below) for exact locations of all BFEs to be changed.

Send comments to Luis Rodriguez, Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Mitigation Directorate, Federal Emergency
 Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472.

                                                    ADDRESSES

City of Manti
Maps are available for inspection at City Hall, 50 South Main Street, Manti, UT 84642.
                                     Unincorporated Areas of Sanpete County
Maps are available for inspection at the Sanpete County Building and Zoning Office, 160 North Main Street,
 Manti, UT 84642.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Dated: March 4, 2011.
Sandra K. Knight,
Deputy Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administrator, Mitigation,
Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2011-5819 Filed 3-11-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-12-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 93 (Wednesday, May 13, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Page 28651]
[FR Doc No: 2020-10187]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4515-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2020-0001]

Indiana; Amendment No. 1 to Notice of a Major Disaster
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of Indiana (FEMA-4515-DR), dated April 3, 2020, and
related determinations.

DATES: This amendment was issued April 30, 2020.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of Indiana is hereby amended to include Individual
Assistance limited to the Crisis Counseling Program for those areas
determined to have been adversely affected by the event declared a
major disaster by the President in his declaration of April 3, 2020.

    Individual Assistance limited to the Crisis Counseling Program
for all areas in the State of Indiana (already designated for
emergency protective measures [Category B] not authorized under
other Federal statutes, including direct Federal assistance).
    The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers
(CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030,
Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis
Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster
Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance
Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and
Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049,
Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing
Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050 Presidentially
Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other
Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially
Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

Pete Gaynor,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2020-10187 Filed 5-12-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9111-23-P