[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 203 (Monday, October 25, 2021)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 58803-58805]
[FR Doc No: 2021-23179]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket Number USCG-2021-0525]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone; Pacific Ocean, Offshore Barbers Point, Oahu, HI--
Salvage Operations

AGENCY: Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security (DHS).

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone for
the navigable waters of the Southwest shores of Oahu, Hawaii, near
Barbers Point. The temporary safety zone encompasses all waters
extending 1 nautical mile in all directions from position
21[deg]16'40'' N, 158[deg]01'28'' W. The safety zone is needed to
protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment from potential
hazards associated with ongoing operations to salvage a downed aircraft
in this area. Entry of vessels or persons in this zone is prohibited
unless specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port (COTP)
Honolulu.

DATES: This rule is effective without actual notice from October 25,
2021, through November 6, 2021, at midnight. For the purposes of
enforcement, actual notice will be used from October 9, 2021, at 12:01
a.m. until October 25, 2021.

ADDRESSES: To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to https://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-
2021-0525 in the search box and click ``Search.'' Next, in the Document
Type column, select ``Supporting & Related Material.''

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or email Lieutenant Commander Joshua Williams, Waterways
Management Division, U.S. Coast Guard Sector Honolulu at<PHONE_NUMBER>
or [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

CFR Code of Federal Regulations
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
Sec.  Section
U.S.C. United States Code

II. Background Information and Regulatory History

    On July 2, 2021, Transair 810, a cargo plane, crashed off the
Southwest shores of Oahu, Hawaii, near Barbers Point.
    On July 2, 2021, the Coast Guard issued a temporary rule to
establish a safety zone extending 3 nautical miles in all directions
from position 21[deg]16'36'' N, 158[deg]01'42'' W to protect personnel,
vessels, and the marine environment from potential hazards associated
with ongoing operations to salvage a downed aircraft in the area. That
rule expired at 12:00 a.m. on July 30, 2021. The Coast Guard is issuing
this rule so that salvage operations can continue.
    The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule without prior notice
and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of
the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This
provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and
opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those
procedures are ``impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public
interest.'' Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good
cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
with respect to this rule because immediate action is needed to
facilitate an emergency salvage operation. Due to the limited
capabilities nationally and limited resources locally, the logistics
and planning of such a salvage operations does not allow for public
comment, and therefore publishing a NPRM is impracticable and contrary
to public interest.
    Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause
exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after
publication in the Federal Register. Delaying the effective date of
this rule would be impracticable because immediate action is needed to

respond to the potential safety, navigational and environmental hazards
associated with emergency salvage of Transair 810.

III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

    The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 46 U.S.C.
70034 (previously 33 U.S.C. 1231). On July 2, 2021, the Coast Guard was
informed of a cargo plane crash off the Southwest shores of Oahu,
Hawaii, near Barbers Point. The Coast Guard COTP Sector Honolulu has
determined that the potential hazards associated with the salvage
operations constitute a safety concern for anyone within the designated
safety zone. This rule is necessary to protect personnel, vessels, and
the marine environment within the navigable waters of the safety zone
during ongoing salvage operations.

IV. Discussion of the Rule

    This rule is effective from October 9, 2021, at 12:01 a.m. through
November 6, 2021, at midnight, or until salvage operations are
complete, whichever is earlier. If the safety zone is terminated prior
to 12:00 a.m. on November 6, 2021, the Coast Guard will provide notice
via a broadcast notice to mariners. The temporary safety zone
encompasses all waters extending 1 nautical mile in all directions
around the location of ongoing salvage operations at position
21[deg]16'40'' N, 158[deg]01'28'' W. This zone extends from the surface
of the water to the ocean floor. The zone is intended to protect
personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in these navigable
waters from potential hazards associated with the salvage operations of
one downed aircraft in this area. No vessel or person will be permitted
to enter the safety zone absent the express authorization of the COTP
or their designated representative.

V. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and
Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses
based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders, and we
discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits. This rule has not been designated a ``significant
regulatory action,'' under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, this
rule has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB).
    This regulatory action determination is based on the size,
location, and duration, of the safety zone. Vessel traffic will be able
to safely transit around this safety zone which would impact a small
designated area of the navigable waters off the Southwest shores of
Oahu, Hawaii, near Barbers Point where vessel traffic is normally low.
Moreover, the Coast Guard would issue a Broadcast Notice to Mariners
via VHF-FM marine channel 16 about the zone.

B. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities.
    While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the
safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section
V.A above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on any
vessel owner or operator. This safety zone is limited in size and
duration, and mariners may request to enter the zone by contacting the
COTP.
    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your
small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have
questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please
call or email the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or
action of the Coast Guard.

C. Collection of Information

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

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the
relationship between the National Government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government. We have analyzed this rule under that order and have
determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism
principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order
13132.
    Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive
Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on
one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

F. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Directive 023-01, Rev. 1, associated implementing instructions, and
Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), which guide the Coast
Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of
a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a
significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves a
safety zone lasting 28 days, or until salvage

operations are complete, that will prohibit entry within 1 nautical
mile of vessels and machinery being used by personnel to effect the
salvage of Transair 810. It is categorically excluded from further
review under paragraph L60(d) of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction
Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 1. A Record of Environmental Consideration
supporting this determination is available in the docket. For
instructions on locating the docket, see the ADDRESSES section of this
preamble.

G. Protest Activities

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

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

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

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

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

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

    Authority:  46 U.S.C. 70034, 70051; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-
6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No.
00170.1, Revision No. 01.2.

0
2. Add Sec.  165.T14-0525 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T14-0525  Safety Zone; Pacific Ocean, Offshore Barbers Point,
Oahu HI--Salvage Operations.

    (a) Location. The following area is a safety zone: All waters
extending 1 nautical miles in all directions around the location of
ongoing salvage operations at position 21[deg]16'40'' N,
158[deg]01'28'' W. This zone extends from the surface of the water to
the ocean floor. These coordinates are based on the 1984 World Geodetic
System (WGS 84).
    (b) Definitions. As used in this section, designated representative
means any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant, or petty officer who has
been authorized by the Captain of the Port (COTP) Honolulu to assist in
enforcing the safety zone described in paragraph (a) of this section.
    (c) Regulations. (1) Under the general safety zone regulations in
subpart C of this part, you may not enter the safety zone described in
paragraph (a) of this section unless authorized by the COTP or the
COTP's designated representative.
    (2) To seek permission to enter, contact the COTP at the Command
Center telephone number<PHONE_NUMBER> and<PHONE_NUMBER>, fax (808)
842-2642 or on VHF channel 16 (156.8 Mhz). Those in the safety zone
must comply with all lawful orders or directions given to them by the
COTP or the COTP's designated representative.

    Dated: October 8, 2021.
A.L. Kirksey,
Commander, U.S. Coast Guard, Alternate Captain of the Port Honolulu.
[FR Doc. 2021-23179 Filed 10-22-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


PAGE 1 STUDY TITLE FQPA Supplemental Information Document for Zeta Cypermethrin DATA REQUIREMENT No Guideline Number Requirement AUTHOR Nancy J. Hilton STUDY COMPLETION DATE April 18, 2006 SPONSOR FMC Corporation Philadelphia, PA PERFORMING LABORATORY FMC Corporation PROJECT ID NUMBER 040606FMC 040606FMC PAGE 2 STATEMENT OF NO DATA CONFIDENTIALITY CLAIMS No claim of confidentiality is made for any information contained in this report on the basis of its falling within the scope of FIFRA Section 10 ( d) ( 1) ( A), ( B), or ( C).

SPONSORS: FMC Corporation SPONSOR REPRESENTATIVE: Nancy J. Hilton Date Product Registrations Manager FMC Corporation 040606FMC PAGE 3 GOOD LABORATORY PRACTICE COMPLIANCE STATEMENT The following exposure assessments are not subject to the principles of 40 CFR 160, GOOD LABORATORY PRACTICE STANDARDS ( FIFRA), as promulgated in Federal Register, 54, No. 158, 34067 34704, 17 August 1989. Several studies used as references for this document were conducted in accordance with the appropriate GLP standards as verified by the GLP compliance statements found in those study reports.

AUTHOR/ SPONSOR/ SUBMITTER:

Nancy J. Hilton Date Product Registrations Manager FMC Corporation 040606FMC PAGE 4 FQPA Supplemental Information Document for Zeta Cypermethrin EPA Registration Division contact George T. LaRocca. ( 703) 305 6100.

1. Interregional Research Project No. 4, 681 U. S. Highway # 1 South, North Brunswick, New Jersey 08902 3390.

PP 3E6677 EPA has received pesticide petition ( PP 3E6677) from Interregional Research Project No. 4, 681 U. S. Highway # 1 South, North Brunswick, New Jersey 08902 3390, proposing pursuant to section 408 ( d) of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, 21 U. S. C. 346a( d), to amend 40 C. F. R. § 180.418 by establishing a tolerance for residues of the insecticide zeta cypermethrin ( ±    Cyano( 3 phenoxyphenyl) methyl ( ± ) cis, trans 3( 2,2 dichloroethenyl) 2,2 dimethylcyclopropanecarboxylate and its inactive isomers) in or on the raw agricultural commodity turnip greens, 14.0 ppm; and cilantro, 10.0 ppm. EPA has determined that the petition contains data or information regarding the elements set forth in section 408( d)( 2) of the FFDCA; however, EPA has not fully evaluated the sufficiency of the submitted data at this time or whether the data supports granting of the petition. Additional data may be needed before EPA rules on the petition.

A. Residue Chemistry 1. Plant metabolism. The metabolism of cypermethrin in plants is adequately understood. Studies have been conducted to delineate the metabolism of radiolabelled cypermethrin in various crops all showing similar results. The residue of concern is the parent compound only.

2. Analytical method. There is a practical analytical method for detecting and measuring levels of cypermethrin in or on food with a limit of detection that allows monitoring of food with residues at or above the levels set in these tolerances ( Gas Chromatography with Electron Capture Detection ( GC/ ECD).

3. Magnitude of residues. Crop field trial residue data from studies conducted at the maximum label rates for representative commodities for the Brassica, leafy crop group and the Leafy vegetables, except Brassica crop group show that the proposed zeta cypermethrin tolerances on turnip greens at 14.0 ppm; and cilantro at 10.0 ppm will not be exceeded when the zeta cypermethrin products labeled for these uses are used as directed.

B. Toxicological Profile 1. Acute toxicity. For the purposes of assessing acute dietary risk, the NOEL of 10.0 mg/ kg/ day from the zeta cypermethrin acute neurotoxicity study in rats has been used. The LOAEL of 50.0 mg/ kg/ day was based on clinical signs. This acute dietary endpoint is used to determine acute dietary risks to all population subgroups. 040606FMC PAGE 5 2. Genotoxicity. The following genotoxicity tests were all negative: in vivo chromosomal aberration in rat bone marrow cells; in vitro cytogenic chromosome aberration; unscheduled DNA synthesis; CHO/ HGPTT mutagen assay; weakly mutagenic: gene mutation ( Ames).

3. Reproductive and developmental toxicity. No evidence of additional sensitivity to young rats was observed following pre or postnatal exposure to zeta cypermethrin. a. A two generation reproductive toxicity study with zeta cypermethrin in rats demonstrated a NOEL of 7.0 mg/ kg/ day and a LOEL of 27.0 mg/ kg/ day for parental/ systemic toxicity based on body weight, organ weight, and clinical signs. There were no adverse effects in reproductive performance. The NOEL for reproductive toxicity was considered to be > 45.0 mg/ kg/ day ( the highest dose tested). b. A developmental study with zeta cypermethrin in rats demonstrated a maternal NOEL of 12.5 mg/ kg/ day and a LOEL of 25 mg/ kg/ day based on decreased maternal body weight gain, food consumption and clinical signs. There were no signs of developmental toxicity at 35.0 mg/ kg/ day, the highest dose level tested. c. A developmental study with cypermethrin in rabbits demonstrated a maternal NOEL of 100 mg/ kg/ day and a LOEL of 450 mg/ kg/ day based on decreased body weight gain. There were no signs of developmental toxicity at 700 mg/ kg/ day, the highest dose level tested.

4. Subchronic toxicity. Short and intermediate term toxicity ( incidental oral exposure). The NOEL of 10.0 mg/ kg/ day based on clinical signs at the LEL of 50.0 mg/ kg/ day in the zeta cypermethrin acute neurotoxicity study in rats would also be used for short term % aPAD and MOE calculations ( as well as acute, discussed in ( 1) above), and the NOEL of 5.0 mg/ kg/ day based on decreased motor activity in the zeta cypermethrin subchronic neurotoxicity study in rats, would be used for intermediate term MOE calculations.

5. Chronic toxicity. a. The chronic reference dose ( RfD) of 0.06 mg/ kg/ day for zeta cypermethrin is based on a NOEL of 6.0 mg/ kg/ day from a cypermethrin chronic feeding study in dogs and an uncertainty factor of 100. The endpoint effect of concern was based on clinical signs. b. Cypermethrin is classified as a Group C chemical ( possible human carcinogen with limited evidence of carcinogenicity in animals) based upon limited evidence for carcinogenicity in female mice; assignment of a Q* has not been recommended.

6. Animal metabolism. The metabolism of cypermethrin in animals is adequately understood. Cypermethrin has been shown to be rapidly absorbed, distributed, and excreted in rats when administered orally. Cypermethrin is metabolized by hydrolysis and oxidation.

7. Metabolite toxicology. The Agency has previously determined that the metabolites of cypermethrin are not of toxicological concern and need not be included in the tolerance expression nor in the risk exposure assessments.

8. Endocrine Disruption. No special studies investigating potential estrogenic or other endocrine effects of cypermethrin have been conducted. However, no evidence of such effects were reported in the standard battery of required toxicology studies, which have been completed and found acceptable. Based on these studies, there is no evidence to suggest that cypermethrin has an adverse effect on the endocrine system.

C. Aggregate Exposure 1. Dietary exposure. a. Food. Permanent tolerances, in support of registrations, currently exist for residues of zeta cypermethrin on: alfalfa hay, alfalfa forage, alfalfa seed, aspirated grain fractions, sugar beets ( roots and tops), head, stem and leafy Brassica vegetables, cabbage, field corn grain, pop corn grain, field corn forage, field corn stover, pop corn stover, sweet corn ( K+ CWHR), sweet corn forage, sweet corn stover, cottonseed, dried shelled peas and beans, edible podded legume vegetables, fruiting 040606FMC PAGE 6 vegetables ( except Cucurbits), leafy vegetables, head lettuce, bulb and green onions, pecans, rice grain, rice hulls, rice straw, sorghum forage, sorghum grain, sorghum stover, soybean seed, succulent shelled peas and beans, sugarcane, wheat forage, wheat grain, wheat hay, wheat straw, meat, fat and meat byproducts of cattle, goats, hogs, horses and poultry, eggs, milk and milk fat. For the purposes of assessing the potential dietary exposure for these existing and the subject proposed tolerances, available information on anticipated residues, monitoring data and percent crop treated has been utilized as follows: i. Acute exposure and risk. Acute dietary exposure risk assessments are performed for a fooduse pesticide if a toxicological study has indicated the possibility of an effect of concern occurring as a result of a one day or single exposure. For the purposes of assessing acute dietary risk for zetacypermethrin the NOEL of 10.0 mg/ kg/ day from the zeta cypermethrin acute neurotoxicity study in rats with an uncertainty factor ( UF) of 100 ( acute RfD = 0.10 mg/ kg/ day) has been used. The LEL of 50.0 mg/ kg/ day was based on clinical signs. This acute dietary endpoint is used to determine acute dietary risks to all population subgroups. Available information on anticipated residues, monitoring data and percent crop treated was incorporated into a Tier 3 analysis, using Monte Carlo modeling for commodities that may be consumed in a single serving. These assessments show that the percent acute Population Adjusted Dose (% aPAD) all fall below the EPA's level of concern (  100%). The 95th percentile of exposure for the overall U. S. population was estimated to be 0.001177 mg/ kg/ day (% aRfD of 1.2); 99th percentile 0.003307 mg/ kg/ day (% aRfD of 3.3); and 99.9th percentile 0.012692 mg/ kg/ day (% aRfD of 12.7). The 95th percentile of exposure for all infants < one year old was estimated to be 0.002441 mg/ kg/ day (% aRfD of 2.4); 99th percentile 0.011178 mg/ kg/ day (% aRfD of 11.2); and 99.9th percentile 0.029462 mg/ kg/ day (% aRfD of 29.5). The 95th percentile of exposure for nursing infants < one year old was estimated to be 0.001247 mg/ kg/ day (% aRfD of 1.3); 99th percentile 0.004540 mg/ kg/ day (% aRfD of 4.5); and 99.9th percentile 0.011659 mg/ kg/ day (% aRfD of 11.7). The 95th percentile of exposure for non nursing infants < one year old ( the most highly exposed population subgroup) was estimated to be 0.002786 mg/ kg/ day (% aRfD of 2.8); 99th percentile 0.012899 mg/ kg/ day (% aRfD of 12.9); and 99.9th percentile 0.033071 mg/ kg/ day (% aRfD of 33.1). The 95th percentile of exposure for children 1 to 6 years old and children 7 to 12 years old was estimated to be, respectively, 0.001942 mg/ kg/ day (% aRfD of 1.9) and 0.001244 mg/ kg/ day (% aRfD of 1.2); 99th percentile 0.005670 mg/ kg/ day (% aRfD of 5.7) and 0.003082 (% aRfD of 3.1); and 99.9th percentile 0.018280 mg/ kg/ day (% aRfD of 18.3) and 0.009335 (% aRfD of 9.3). The 95th percentile of exposure for females ( 13+/ nursing) was estimated to be 0.001128 mg/ kg/ day (% aRfD of 1.1); 99th percentile 0.003112 mg/ kg/ day (% aRfD of 3.1); and 99.9th percentile 0.012903 mg/ kg/ day (% aRfD of 12.9). Therefore, it is concluded that the acute dietary risk of zeta cypermethrin, as estimated by the dietary risk assessment, does not appear to be of concern.

Chronic exposure and risk. The chronic reference dose ( cRfD) of 0.06 mg/ kg/ day for zeta cypermethrin is based on a NOEL of 6.0 mg/ kg/ day from a cypermethrin chronic feeding study in dogs and an uncertainty factor of 100. The endpoint effect of concern was based on clinical signs. A chronic dietary exposure/ risk assessment has been performed for zeta cypermethrin using the above cRfD. Available information on anticipated residues, monitoring data and percent crop treated was incorporated into the analysis to estimate the anticipated residue contribution ( ARC). The ARC is generally considered a more realistic estimate than an estimate based on tolerance level residues. The ARC are estimated to be 0.000184 mg/ kg body weight ( bwt)/ day and utilize 0.3 percent of the cRfD for the overall U. S. population. The ARC for non nursing infants (< 1 year) ( subgroup most highly exposed) are estimated to be 0.000666 mg/ kg bwt/ day and utilizes 1.1 percent of the cRfD, respectively. The ARC for children 1 6 years old and children 7 12 years old are estimated to be 0.000477 mg/ kg bwt/ day and 0.000254 mg/ kg bwt/ day and utilizes 0.8 percent and 0.4 percent of the cRfD, respectively. The ARC for females ( 13+/ nursing) is estimated to be 0.000180 mg/ kg bwt/ day and utilizes 0.3 percent of the RfD. Generally speaking, the EPA has no cause for concern if the total dietary exposure from residues for uses for which there are published and proposed tolerances is less than 100 percent of the cRfD. Therefore, it is concluded that the chronic dietary risk of zeta cypermethrin, as estimated by the dietary risk assessment, does not appear to be of concern. 040606FMC PAGE 7 Drinking water. Laboratory and field data have demonstrated that cypermethrin is immobile in soil and will not leach into groundwater. Other data show that cypermethrin is virtually insoluble in water and extremely lipophilic. As a result, it is concluded that residues reaching surface waters from field runoff will quickly adsorb to sediment particles and be partitioned from the water column. Drinking water estimated concentrations ( DWEC) and the corresponding drinking water level of comparison ( DWLOC) values were calculated for chronic and acute exposures. The results show that all DWLOC values exceed the DWEC values. Thus, exposure to zetacypermethrin and cypermethrin residues in drinking water is not of concern.

US EPA's draft SOP for Incorporating Estimates of Drinking Water Exposure Into Aggregate Risk Assessments was used to perform a drinking water analysis. This SOP utilizes a variety of tools to conduct drinking water assessment. These tools include water models such as FQPA Index Reservoir Screening Tool ( FIRST), PRZM/ EXAMS, SCIGROW and monitoring data. If monitoring data are not available then the models are used to predict potential residues in drinking water. The technique recommended in the drinking water SOP compares a calculated Drinking Water Level of Comparison ( DWLOC) value to the Drinking Water Estimated Concentration ( DWEC) value. The DWEC value results from either the monitoring data residues or modeled water residues. If the DWLOC value exceeds the DWEC value then there is reasonable certainty that no harm will result from the acute or chronic aggregate exposure.

I n the case of cypermethrin and zetacypermethrin, monitoring data do not exist. Therefore, the FIRST model was used to estimate a surface water residue. The risk assessment for drinking water compares two values: the DWLOC and the DWEC. The DWLOC is the drinking water level of comparison. This is the maximum allowable drinking water concentration ( in ppb). The DWEC is the drinking water environmental concentration, which is derived either from monitoring studies or from modeling. If the DWLOC is greater than the DWEC, then the overall exposure from water, food, and residential is considered to be acceptable. The calculated DWLOC values for acute and chronic exposures for all adults, adult females and children exceed the modeled DWEC surface water residues. Therefore, there is reasonable certainty that no harm will result from cumulative and aggregate ( food and water) exposure to cypermethrin and zetacypermethrin residues.

2. Non dietary exposure. Zeta cypermethrin is registered for agricultural crop applications only, therefore non dietary exposure assessments are not warranted at this time.

D. Cumulative Effects. In consideration of potential cumulative effects of cypermethrin and other substances that may have a common mechanism of toxicity, to our knowledge there are currently no available data or other reliable information indicating that any toxic effects produced by cypermethrin would be cumulative with those of other chemical compounds; thus only the potential risks of cypermethrin have been considered in this assessment of its aggregate exposure. FMC Corporation ( 1735 Market Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103), the registrant of zeta cypermethrin, intends to submit information for the EPA to consider concerning potential cumulative effects of cypermethrin consistent with the schedule established by EPA at 62 Federal Register 42020 ( August 4, 1997) and other EPA publications pursuant to the Food Quality Protection Act. 040606FMC PAGE 8 E. Safety Determination 1. U. S. population. The chronic reference dose ( cRfD) of 0.06 mg/ kg/ day for zeta cypermethrin is based on a NOEL of 6.0 mg/ kg/ day from a cypermethrin chronic feeding study in dogs and an uncertainty factor of 100. The endpoint effect of concern was based on clinical signs. A chronic dietary exposure/ risk assessment has been performed for zeta cypermethrin using the above cRfD. Available information on anticipated residues, monitoring data and percent crop treated was incorporated into the analysis to estimate the anticipated residue contribution ( ARC). The ARC is generally considered a more realistic estimate than an estimate based on tolerance level residues. The ARC are estimated to be 0.000184 mg/ kg body weight ( bwt)/ day and utilize 0.3 percent of the cRfD for the overall U. S. population. The ARC for non nursing infants (< 1 year) ( subgroup most highly exposed) are estimated to be 0.000666 mg/ kg bwt/ day and utilizes 1.1 percent of the cRfD, respectively. The ARC for children 1 6 years old and children 7 12 years old are estimated to be 0.000477 mg/ kg bwt/ day and 0.000254 mg/ kg bwt/ day and utilizes 0.8 percent and 0.4 percent of the cRfD, respectively. The ARC for females ( 13+/ nursing) is estimated to be 0.000180 mg/ kg bwt/ day and utilizes 0.3 percent of the RfD. Generally speaking, the EPA has no cause for concern if the total dietary exposure from residues for uses for which there are published and proposed tolerances is less than 100 percent of the cRfD. Therefore, it is concluded that the chronic dietary risk of zeta cypermethrin, as estimated by the dietary risk assessment, does not appear to be of concern.

Acute dietary exposure risk assessments are performed for a food use pesticide if a toxicological study has indicated the possibility of an effect of concern occurring as a result of a one day or single exposure. For the purposes of assessing acute dietary risk for zeta cypermethrin, the NOEL of 10.0 mg/ kg/ day from the zeta cypermethrin acute neurotoxicity study in rats with an uncertainty factor ( UF) of 100 ( acute RfD = 0.10 mg/ kg/ day) has been used. The LEL of 50.0 mg/ kg/ day was based on clinical signs. This acute dietary endpoint is used to determine acute dietary risks to all population subgroups. Available information on anticipated residues, monitoring data and percent crop treated was incorporated into a Tier 3 analysis, using Monte Carlo modeling for commodities that may be consumed in a single serving. These assessments show that the percent acute Population Adjusted Dose (% aPAD) all fall below the EPA's level of concern (  100%). The 95th percentile of exposure for the overall U. S. population was estimated to be 0.001177 mg/ kg/ day (% aRfD of 1.2); 99th percentile 0.003307 mg/ kg/ day (% aRfD of 3.3); and 99.9th percentile 0.012692 mg/ kg/ day (% aRfD of 12.7). The 95th percentile of exposure for all infants < one year old was estimated to be 0.002441 mg/ kg/ day (% aRfD of 2.4); 99th percentile 0.011178 mg/ kg/ day (% aRfD of 11.2); and 99.9th percentile 0.029462 mg/ kg/ day (% aRfD of 29.5). The 95th percentile of exposure for nursing infants < one year old was estimated to be 0.001247 mg/ kg/ day (% aRfD of 1.3); 99th percentile 0.004540 mg/ kg/ day (% aRfD of 4.5); and 99.9th percentile 0.011659 mg/ kg/ day (% aRfD of 11.7). The 95th percentile of exposure for non nursing infants < one year old ( the most highly exposed population subgroup) was estimated to be 0.002786 mg/ kg/ day (% aRfD of 2.8); 99th percentile 0.012899 mg/ kg/ day (% aRfD of 12.9); and 99.9th percentile 0.033071 mg/ kg/ day (% aRfD of 33.1). The 95th percentile of exposure for children 1 to 6 years old and children 7 to 12 years old was estimated to be, respectively, 0.001942 mg/ kg/ day (% aRfD of 1.9) and 0.001244 mg/ kg/ day (% aRfD of 1.2); 99th percentile 0.005670 mg/ kg/ day (% aRfD of 5.7) and 0.003082 (% aRfD of 3.1); and 99.9th percentile 0.018280 mg/ kg/ day (% aRfD of 18.3) and 0.009335 (% aRfD of 9.3). The 95th percentile of exposure for females ( 13+/ nursing) was estimated to be 0.001128 mg/ kg/ day (% aRfD of 1.1); 99th percentile 0.003112 mg/ kg/ day (% aRfD of 3.1); and 99.9th percentile 0.012903 mg/ kg/ day (% aRfD of 12.9). Therefore, it is concluded that the acute dietary risk of zeta cypermethrin, as estimated by the dietary risk assessment, does not appear to be of concern.

2. Infants and children. a. General. In assessing the potential for additional sensitivity of infants and children to residues of zeta cypermethrin, data from developmental toxicity studies in the rat and rabbit, and a two generation reproductive study in the rat was considered. The data demonstrated no indication of increased sensitivity of rats to zeta cypermethrin or rabbits to cypermethrin in utero and/ or postnatal exposure to zeta cypermethrin or cypermethrin. The developmental toxicity studies are designed to evaluate adverse effects on the developing organism resulting from pesticide exposure during prenatal development to one or both parents. Reproduction studies provide information relating to effects from 040606FMC PAGE 9 exposure to the pesticide on the reproductive capability of mating animals and data on systemic toxicity. FFDCA section 408 provides that EPA may apply an additional margin of safety for infants and children in the case of threshold effects to account for pre and post natal toxicity and the completeness of the database. b. Developmental toxicity studies. In the prenatal developmental toxicity studies in rats and rabbits, there was no evidence of developmental toxicity at the highest doses tested ( 35.0 mg/ kg/ day in rats and 700 mg/ kg/ day in rabbits). Decreased body weight gain was observed at the maternal LOEL in each study; the maternal NOEL was established at 12.5 mg/ kg/ day in rats and 100 mg/ kg/ day in rabbits. c. Reproductive toxicity study. In the two generation reproduction study in rats, offspring toxicity ( body weight) and parental toxicity ( body weight, organ weight, and clinical signs) was observed at 27.0 mg/ kg/ day and greater. The parental systemic NOEL was 7.0 mg/ kg/ day and the parental systemic LOEL was 27.0 mg/ kg/ day. There were no developmental ( pup) or reproductive effects up to 45.0 mg/ kg/ day, highest dose tested. d. Pre and post natal sensitivity. i. Pre natal. There was no evidence of developmental toxicity in the studies at the highest doses tested in the rat ( 70.0 mg/ kg/ day) or in the rabbit ( 700 mg/ kg/ day). Therefore, there is no evidence of a special dietary risk ( either acute or chronic) for infants and children that would require an additional safety factor. ii. Post natal. Post natal. Based on the absence of pup toxicity up to dose levels that produced toxicity in the parental animals, there is no evidence of special post natal sensitivity to infants and children in the rat reproduction study. e. Conclusion. Based on the above, it is concluded that reliable data support use of the standard 100 fold uncertainty factor, and that an additional uncertainty factor is not needed to protect the safety of infants and children. As stated above, aggregate exposure assessments utilized significantly less than 1 percent of the RfD for either the entire U. S. population or any of the 26 population subgroups including infants and children. Therefore, it may be concluded that there is reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and children from aggregate exposure to cypermethrin residues.

F. International Tolerances. Current status indicates that a Codex MRL of 2.0 ppm for residues of cypermethrin has been established for head lettuce ( leafy vegetable) and 1.0 ppm for Brassica vegetables. Neither Canadian nor Mexican MRLs have been established for residues of cypermethrin or zeta cypermethrin in any relevant crop.


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 18 (Thursday, January 27, 2022)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 4168-4170]
[FR Doc No: 2022-01541]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2022-0014; Project Identifier AD-2021-00114-A]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Textron Aviation Inc. (Type Certificate
Previously Held by Cessna Aircraft Company) Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD)
for certain Textron Aviation Inc. (Textron) Model 120 and 140 airplanes
and all Model 140A airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by reports
of seat belt center bracket failures from overstress. This proposed AD
would require determining if the seat belt center bracket is made of
steel and replacing any non-steel brackets. The FAA is proposing this
AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: The FAA must receive comments on this proposed AD by March 14,
2022.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR
11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail address above between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this NPRM, contact Textron
Aviation Inc., One Cessna Blvd., Wichita, KS 67215; phone: (316) 517-
5800; email: [email protected]; website: https://support.cessna.com. You may view this service information at the FAA,
Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 901 Locust,
Kansas City, MO 64106. For information on the availability of this
material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket at https://www.regulations.gov by
searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2022-0014; or in person at
Docket Operations between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this NPRM, any comments
received, and other information. The street address for Docket
Operations is listed above.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bobbie Kroetch, Aviation Safety
Engineer, Wichita ACO Branch, FAA, 1801 Airport Road, Wichita, KS
67209; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email: [email protected] or [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    The FAA invites you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed
under ADDRESSES. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2022-0014; Project Identifier
AD-2021-00114-A'' at the beginning of your comments. The most helpful
comments reference a specific portion of the

proposal, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include
supporting data. The FAA will consider all comments received by the
closing date and may amend this proposal because of those comments.
    Except for Confidential Business Information (CBI) as described in
the following paragraph, and other information as described in 14 CFR
11.35, the FAA will post all comments received, without change, to
https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you
provide. The agency will also post a report summarizing each
substantive verbal contact received about this NPRM.

Confidential Business Information

    CBI is commercial or financial information that is both customarily
and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of
Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public
disclosure. If your comments responsive to this NPRM contain commercial
or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that
you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to
this NPRM, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted
comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission containing
CBI as ``PROPIN.'' The FAA will treat such marked submissions as
confidential under the FOIA, and they will not be placed in the public
docket of this NPRM. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to
Bobbie Kroetch, Aviation Safety Engineer, Wichita ACO Branch, FAA, 1801
Airport Road, Wichita, KS 67209. Any commentary that the FAA receives
which is not specifically designated as CBI will be placed in the
public docket for this rulemaking.

Background

    The FAA has received multiple reports of the seat belt center
bracket failing on Textron (Type Certificate previously held by Cessna
Aircraft Company) Model 120 and 140 airplanes, including a 2014 fatal
accident where a Model 140 airplane nosed over on landing, and the seat
belt center bracket failed. To address that accident, the FAA issued
Special Airworthiness Information Bulletin CE-15-13, dated April 15,
2015, recommending operators replace aluminum brackets with steel
brackets. In 2020, another fatal accident occurred when a Model 140
airplane nosed over during an aborted takeoff, and the seat belt center
bracket failed. A metallurgical analysis determined the part failed due
to overstress. There have been four additional occurrences of seat belt
center bracket failure on Model 120 and 140 airplanes, two of which
resulted in occupant injury.
    Analysis of the failures determined the original aluminum seat belt
center bracket does not have sufficient strength and can fail due to
overstress during incidents and accidents. The aluminum brackets and
the steel brackets both have the same part number (part number
0425132). Although Model 140A airplanes were manufactured with steel
seat belt center brackets, owners of Model 140A airplanes could have
replaced the steel bracket with an aluminum bracket; therefore, the FAA
determined the unsafe condition also exists on Model 140A airplanes.
    This condition, if not addressed, could result in failure of the
seat belt center bracket, which could lead to failure of the seat belt
restraint system and injury to occupants.

FAA's Determination

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

Related Service Information

    The FAA reviewed Cessna Single Engine Service Bulletin SEB-25-03,
dated February 17, 2015. This service information specifies the
location of the affected seat belt center bracket. This service
information also contains a figure depicting the location of the
seatbelt center bracket.

Proposed AD Requirements in This NPRM

    This proposed AD would require determining if the seat belt center
bracket material is made of steel. An owner/operator (pilot) may
perform this check and must enter compliance with the applicable
paragraph of this AD in the aircraft maintenance records in accordance
with 14 CFR 43.9(a)(1) through (4) and 14 CFR 91.417(a)(2)(v). A pilot
may perform this action because it involves a one-time check to
determine material. This check is an exception to the FAA's standard
maintenance regulations.
    This proposed AD would also require replacing any non-steel bracket
with a steel bracket and would prohibit installing a non-steel bracket
on any airplane.

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this AD, if adopted as proposed, would
affect 2,033 airplanes of U.S. registry.
    The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this proposed
AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per      Cost on U.S.
              Action                    Labor cost              Parts cost           airplane        operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Determine material of the seat     0.25 work-hour x $85  Not applicable.........          $21.25      $43,201.25
 belt center bracket.               per hour = $21.25.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FAA estimates the following costs to do any necessary
replacements that may be required. The agency has no way of determining
the number of airplanes that might need these replacements:

                                               On-Condition Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per
                    Action                                 Labor cost               Parts cost       airplane
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Replace any non-steel seat belt center bracket  0.75 work-hour x $85 per hour =              $79         $142.75
                                                 $63.75.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Proposed Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13   [Amended]

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

Textron Aviation Inc. (Type Certificate previously held by Cessna
Aircraft Company): Docket No. FAA-2022-0014; Project Identifier AD-
2021-00114-A.

(a) Comments Due Date

    The FAA must receive comments on this airworthiness directive
(AD) by March 14, 2022.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Textron Aviation Inc. (Type Certificate
previously held by Cessna Aircraft Company) Model 120 and 140
airplanes, serial numbers (S/Ns) 10070 through 15075, and Model 140A
airplanes, all serial numbers, certificated in any category.

(d) Subject

    Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC) Code 2510, Flight
Compartment Equipment.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by reports of seat belt center bracket
failures from overstress. The FAA is issuing this AD to prevent
failure of the seat belt center brackets. The unsafe condition, if
not addressed, could result in failure of the seat belt center
bracket, which could lead to failure of the seat belt restraint
system and injury to occupants.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Required Actions

    (1) Within 12 months after the effective date of this AD,
determine if the seatbelt center bracket located between the two
seats is made of steel by placing a magnet on the center of the
bracket. This action may be performed by the owner/operator (pilot)
holding at least a private pilot certificate and must be entered
into the aircraft records showing compliance with this AD in
accordance with 14 CFR 43.9(a)(1) through (4) and 14 CFR
91.417(a)(2)(v). The record must be maintained as required by 14 CFR
91.417. This authority is not applicable to aircraft being operated
under 14 CFR part 119.
    (i) If the seat belt center bracket is made of steel, no
additional action is required.
    (ii) If the seat belt center bracket is not made of steel,
within 12 months after the effective date of this AD, replace with a
steel part number (P/N) 0425132 seat belt center bracket.
    (2) As of the effective date of this AD, do not install a seat
belt center bracket P/N 0425132 that is not made of steel on any
airplane.

(h) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

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

(i) Related Information

    For more information about this AD, contact Bobbie Kroetch,
Aviation Safety Engineer, Wichita ACO Branch, FAA, 1801 Airport
Road, Wichita, KS 67209; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
[email protected] or [email protected].

    Issued on January 20, 2022.
Ross Landes,
Deputy Director for Regulatory Operations, Compliance & Airworthiness
Division, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2022-01541 Filed 1-26-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 46 (Friday, March 8, 2019)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 8489-8490]
[FR Doc No: 2019-04218]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket Number USCG-2018-1084]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone; Cocos Lagoon, Merizo, GU

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is proposing to establish a temporary safety
zone for navigable waters within Cocos Lagoon. This safety zone will
encompass the designated swim course for the Cocos Crossing swim event
in the waters of Cocos Lagoon, Merizo, Guam. We invite your comments on
this proposed rulemaking.

DATES: Comments and related material must be received by the Coast
Guard on or before April 8, 2019.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-
2018-1084 using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at https://www.regulations.gov. See the ``Public Participation and Request for
Comments'' portion of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for further
instructions on submitting comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions about this
proposed rulemaking, call or email Chief Petty Officer Todd Wheeler,
Sector Guam, U.S. Coast Guard, by telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or email
at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

CFR Code of Federal Regulations
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
Sec.  Section
U.S.C. United States Code

II. Background, Purpose, and Legal Basis

    The Cocos Crossing swim event is a recurring annual event that
occurs one day either at the end of May or the beginning of June. We
have established safety zones for this swim event in past years.
    The purpose of this rule is to ensure the safety of the
participants and the navigable waters in the safety zone before,
during, and after the scheduled swim event. The Coast Guard is
proposing this rulemaking under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1231.

III. Discussion of Proposed Rule

    The Captain of the Port (COTP) is proposing to establish a safety
zone from 6 a.m. to 1 p.m. on a day to be determined to host the Cocos
Crossing swimming event either during the last two weeks of May or the
first two weeks of June. This safety zone is necessary to protect all
persons and vessels participating in this marine event from potential
safety hazards associated with vessel traffic in the area. Race
participants, chase boats, and organizers of the event will be exempt
from the safety zone. Entry of persons or vessels into this safety zone
is prohibited unless authorized by the COTP. The regulatory text we are
proposing appears at the end of this document.

IV. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this proposed rule after considering numerous statutes
and Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our
analyses based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders, and
we discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits. Executive Order 13771 directs agencies to control
regulatory costs through a budgeting process. This NPRM has not been
designated a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order
12866. Accordingly, the NPRM has not been reviewed by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB), and pursuant to OMB guidance it is exempt
from the requirements of Executive Order 13771.
    This regulatory action determination is based on the size,
location, duration, and time-of-day of the safety zone. Vessel traffic
will be able to safely transit around this safety zone, which will
impact a small designated area of the Cocos Lagoon for approximately 7
hours. Moreover, the Coast Guard will issue a Broadcast Notice to
Mariners via VHF-FM marine channel 16 about the zone, and the rule
allows vessels to seek permission to enter the zone.

B. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this
proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
    While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the
safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section
IV.A above, this proposed rule would not have a significant economic
impact on any vessel owner or operator.
    If you think that your business, organization, or governmental
jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have
a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see
ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it qualifies, and how and to what
degree this rule would economically affect it.
    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this proposed rule. If the rule would affect
your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction, and
you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance,
please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section. The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that
question or complain about this proposed rule or any policy or action
of the Coast Guard.

C. Collection of Information

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

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the
relationship between the national government and

the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among
the various levels of government. We have analyzed this proposed rule
under that Order and have determined that it is consistent with the
fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described
in Executive Order 13132.
    Also, this proposed rule does not have tribal implications under
Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments, because it would not have a substantial direct effect on
one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If
you believe this proposed rule has implications for federalism or
Indian tribes, please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

F. Environment

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland
Security Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.1D, which
guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made a preliminary
determination that this action is one of a category of actions that do
not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human
environment. This proposed rule involves a safety zone lasting
approximately 7 hours that would prohibit entry within 100-yards of
swim participants. Normally such actions are categorically excluded
from further review under paragraph L60(a) of Appendix A, Table 1 of
DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 01. A preliminary Record of
Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is available
in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES. We seek any comments or
information that may lead to the discovery of a significant
environmental impact from this proposed rule.

G. Protest Activities

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

V. Public Participation and Request for Comments

    We view public participation as essential to effective rulemaking,
and will consider all comments and material received during the comment
period. Your comment can help shape the outcome of this rulemaking. If
you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which
each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or
recommendation.
    We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking
Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. If your material cannot be
submitted using http://www.regulations.gov, contact the person in the
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document for alternate
instructions.
    We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted
without change to https://www.regulations.gov and will include any
personal information you have provided. For more about privacy and the
docket, visit https://www.regulations.gov/privacyNotice.
    Documents mentioned in this NPRM as being available in the docket,
and all public comments, will be in our online docket at https://www.regulations.gov and can be viewed by following that website's
instructions. Additionally, if you go to the online docket and sign up
for email alerts, you will be notified when comments are posted or when
a final rule is published.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

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

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard is
proposing to amend 33 CFR part 165 as follows:

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

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

    Authority: 33 U.S.C 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1,
6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No.
0170.1.

0
2. Add Sec.  165.T14-1084 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T14-1084   Safety Zone; Cocos Lagoon, Merizo, GU.

    (a) Location. The following area, within the Guam Captain of the
Port (COTP) Zone (See 33 CFR 3.70-15), all navigable waters within a
100-yard radius of race participants in Cocos Lagoon, Merizo, Guam.
Race participants, chase boats and organizers of the event will be
exempt from the safety zone.
    (b) Enforcement dates. This rule will be enforced from 6 a.m. to 1
p.m. on a specified day during either the last two weeks of May or the
first two weeks of June.
    (c) Enforcement. All persons are required to comply with the
general regulations governing safety zones found in 33 CFR 165.23.
Entry into or remaining in this zone is prohibited unless authorized by
the Coast Guard Captain of the Port, Guam. Persons desiring to transit
the area of the safety zone must first request authorization from the
Captain of the Port Guam or his designated representative. To seek
permission to transit the area, the Captain of the Port Guam and his
designated representatives can be contacted at telephone number (671)
355-4821 or on Marine Band Radio, VHF-FM channel 16 (156.8 MHz). Any
Coast Guard commissioned, warrant, or petty officer, and any other COTP
representative permitted by law, may enforce this safety zone.
    (d) Waiver. The COTP may waive any of the requirements of this rule
for any person, vessel, or class of vessel upon finding that
application of the safety zone is unnecessary or impractical for the
purpose of maritime security.
    (e) Penalties. Vessels or persons violating this rule are subject
to the penalties set forth in 33 U.S.C. 1232.

    Dated: March 4, 2019.
Christopher M. Chase,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port, Guam.
[FR Doc. 2019-04218 Filed 3-7-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 236 (Friday, December 9, 2022)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 75525-75528]
[FR Doc No: 2022-26595]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2022-1575; Project Identifier MCAI-2022-00859-T]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus SAS Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to supersede Airworthiness Directive (AD)
2020-15-20, which applies to certain Airbus SAS Model A350-941 and -
1041 airplanes. AD 2020-15-20 requires revising the existing
maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate new or
more restrictive airworthiness limitations. Since the FAA issued AD
2020-15-20, the FAA has determined that new or more restrictive
airworthiness limitations are necessary. This proposed AD would
continue to require the actions in AD 2020-15-20 and would require
revising the existing maintenance or inspection program, as applicable,
to incorporate additional new or more restrictive airworthiness
limitations, as specified in a European Union Aviation Safety Agency
(EASA) AD, which is proposed for incorporation by reference (IBR). The
FAA is proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these
products.

DATES: The FAA must receive comments on this proposed AD by January 23,
2023.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR
11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to regulations.gov. Follow
the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail address above between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    AD Docket: You may examine the AD docket at regulations.gov under
Docket No. FAA-2022-1575; or in person at Docket Operations between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD
docket contains this NPRM, the mandatory continuing airworthiness
information (MCAI), any comments received, and other information. The
street address for Docket Operations is listed above.
    Material Incorporated by Reference:
     For material that is proposed for IBR in this NPRM,
contact EASA, Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3, 50668 Cologne, Germany; telephone
+49 221 8999 000; email [email protected]; website easa.europa.eu. You
may find this material on the EASA website at ad.easa.europa.eu. It is
also available at regulations.gov under Docket No. FAA-2022-1575.
     You may view this service information at the FAA,
Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200 South
216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this
material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dat Le, Aerospace Engineer, Large
Aircraft Section, FAA, International Validation Branch, 2200 South
216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    The FAA invites you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed
under ADDRESSES. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2022-1575; Project Identifier
MCAI-2022-00859-T'' at the beginning

of your comments. The most helpful comments reference a specific
portion of the proposal, explain the reason for any recommended change,
and include supporting data. The FAA will consider all comments
received by the closing date and may amend this proposal because of
those comments.
    Except for Confidential Business Information (CBI) as described in
the following paragraph, and other information as described in 14 CFR
11.35, the FAA will post all comments received, without change, to
regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. The
agency will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal
contact received about this NPRM.

Confidential Business Information

    CBI is commercial or financial information that is both customarily
and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of
Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public
disclosure. If your comments responsive to this NPRM contain commercial
or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that
you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to
this NPRM, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted
comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission containing
CBI as ``PROPIN.'' The FAA will treat such marked submissions as
confidential under the FOIA, and they will not be placed in the public
docket of this NPRM. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to Dat
Le, Aerospace Engineer, Large Aircraft Section, FAA, International
Validation Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email [email protected]. Any commentary that the
FAA receives that is not specifically designated as CBI will be placed
in the public docket for this rulemaking.

Background

    The FAA issued AD 2020-15-20, Amendment 39-21183 (85 FR 53156,
August 28, 2020) (AD 2020-15-20), for certain Airbus SAS Model A350-941
and -1041 airplanes. AD 2020-15-20 was prompted by an MCAI originated
by EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the
European Union. EASA issued AD 2019-0288, dated November 28, 2019 (EASA
AD 2019-0288), to correct an unsafe condition.
    AD 2020-15-20 requires revising the existing maintenance or
inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate new or more
restrictive airworthiness limitations. The FAA issued AD 2020-15-20 to
address safety-significant latent failures that would, in combination
with one or more other specific failures or events, result in a
hazardous or catastrophic failure condition.

Actions Since AD 2020-15-20 Was Issued

    Since the FAA issued AD 2020-15-20, EASA superseded AD 2019-0288
and issued EASA AD 2022-0126, dated June 28, 2022 (EASA AD 2022-0126)
(referred to after this as the MCAI), for all Airbus SAS Model A350-941
and -1041 airplanes. The MCAI states that new or more restrictive
airworthiness limitations have been developed. Airplanes with an
original airworthiness certificate or original export certificate of
airworthiness issued after May 2, 2022 must comply with the
airworthiness limitations specified as part of the approved type design
and referenced on the type certificate data sheet; this proposed AD
therefore does not include those airplanes in the applicability.
    The FAA is proposing this AD to address safety-significant latent
failures that would, in combination with one or more other specific
failures or events, result in a hazardous or catastrophic failure
condition. You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket at regulations.gov
under Docket No. FAA-2022-1575.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    The FAA reviewed EASA AD 2022-0126. This service information
specifies new or more restrictive airworthiness limitations for
certification maintenance requirements.
    This proposed AD would also require EASA AD 2019-0288, dated
November 28, 2019, which the Director of the Federal Register approved
for incorporation by reference as of October 2, 2020 (85 FR 53156,
August 28, 2020).
    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 ADDRESSES.

FAA's Determination

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another
country and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to
the FAA's bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, it
has notified the FAA of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI
described above. The FAA is issuing this NPRM after determining that
the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop
in other products of the same type design.

Proposed AD Requirements in This NPRM

    This proposed AD would retain all requirements of AD 2020-15-20.
This proposed AD would also require revising the existing maintenance
or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate additional new or
more restrictive airworthiness limitations, which are specified in EASA
AD 2022-0126 already described, as proposed for incorporation by
reference. Any differences with EASA AD 2022-0126 are identified as
exceptions in the regulatory text of this AD.
    This proposed AD would require revisions to certain operator
maintenance documents to include new actions (e.g., inspections).
Compliance with these actions is required by 14 CFR 91.403(c). For
airplanes that have been previously modified, altered, or repaired in
the areas addressed by this proposed AD, the operator may not be able
to accomplish the actions described in the revisions. In this
situation, to comply with 14 CFR 91.403(c), the operator must request
approval for an alternative method of compliance (AMOC) according to
paragraph (m)(1) of this proposed AD.

Explanation of Required Compliance Information

    In the FAA's ongoing efforts to improve the efficiency of the AD
process, the FAA developed a process to use some civil aviation
authority (CAA) ADs as the primary source of information for compliance
with requirements for corresponding FAA ADs. The FAA has been
coordinating this process with manufacturers and CAAs. As a result, the
FAA proposes to retain the IBR of EASA AD 2019-0288 and incorporate
EASA AD 2022-0126 by reference in the FAA final rule. This proposed AD
would, therefore, require compliance with EASA AD 2022-0126 and EASA AD
2019-0288 through that incorporation, except for any differences
identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of this proposed AD.
Using common terms that are the same as the heading of a particular
section in EASA AD 2022-0126 or EASA AD 2019-0288 does not mean that
operators need comply only with that section. For example, where the AD
requirement refers to ``all required actions and compliance times,''
compliance with this AD requirement is not limited to the section
titled ``Required Action(s) and Compliance Time(s)'' in EASA AD 2022-
0126 or EASA AD 2019-0288. Service information required by EASA

AD 2022-0126 and EASA AD 2019-0288 for compliance will be available at
regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2022-1575
after the FAA final rule is published.

Airworthiness Limitation ADs Using the New Process

    The FAA's process of incorporating by reference MCAI ADs as the
primary source of information for compliance with corresponding FAA ADs
has been limited to certain MCAI ADs (primarily those with service
bulletins as the primary source of information for accomplishing the
actions required by the FAA AD). However, the FAA is now expanding the
process to include MCAI ADs that require a change to airworthiness
limitation documents, such as airworthiness limitation sections.
    For these ADs that incorporate by reference an MCAI AD that changes
airworthiness limitations, the FAA requirements are unchanged.
Operators must revise the existing maintenance or inspection program,
as applicable, to incorporate the information specified in the new
airworthiness limitation document. The airworthiness limitations must
be followed according to 14 CFR 91.403(c) and 91.409(e).
    The previous format of the airworthiness limitation ADs included a
paragraph that specified that no alternative actions (e.g.,
inspections) or intervals may be used unless the actions and intervals
are approved as an AMOC in accordance with the procedures specified in
the AMOCs paragraph under ``Additional AD Provisions.'' This new format
includes a ``New Provisions for Alternative Actions and Intervals''
paragraph that does not specifically refer to AMOCs, but operators may
still request an AMOC to use an alternative action or interval.

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this AD, if adopted as proposed, would
affect 30 airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following
costs to comply with this proposed AD:
    The FAA estimates the total cost per operator for the retained
actions from AD 2020-15-20 to be $7,650 (90 work-hours x $85 per work-
hour).
    The FAA has determined that revising the existing maintenance or
inspection program takes an average of 90 work-hours per operator,
although the agency recognizes that this number may vary from operator
to operator. Since operators incorporate maintenance or inspection
program changes for their affected fleet(s), the FAA has determined
that a per-operator estimate is more accurate than a per-airplane
estimate.
    The FAA estimates the total cost per operator for the new proposed
actions to be $7,650 (90 work-hours x $85 per work-hour).

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Proposed Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by:
0
a. Removing Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2020-15-20, Amendment 39-21183
(85 FR 53156, August 28, 2020); and
0
b. Adding the following new AD:

Airbus SAS: Docket No. FAA-2022-1575; Project Identifier MCAI-2022-
00859-T.

(a) Comments Due Date

    The FAA must receive comments on this airworthiness directive
(AD) by January 23, 2023.

(b) Affected ADs

    This AD replaces AD 2020-15-20, Amendment 39-21183 (85 FR 53156,
August 28, 2020) (AD 2020-15-20).

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Airbus SAS Model A350-941 and -1041
airplanes, certificated in any category, with an original
airworthiness certificate or original export certificate of
airworthiness issued on or before May 2, 2022.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 05, Time Limits/
Maintenance Checks.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by a determination that new or more
restrictive airworthiness limitations are necessary. The FAA is
issuing this AD to address safety-significant latent failures that
would, in combination with one or more other specific failures or
events, result in a hazardous or catastrophic failure condition.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Retained Revision of the Existing Maintenance or Inspection
Program, With No Changes

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (i) of AD
2020-15-20, with no changes. For airplanes with an original
airworthiness certificate or original export certificate of
airworthiness issued on or before August 20, 2019, except as
specified in paragraph (h) of this AD: Comply with all required
actions and compliance times specified in, and in accordance with,
European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD 2019-0288, dated
November 28, 2019 (EASA AD 2019-0288). Accomplishing the revision of
the existing maintenance or inspection program required by paragraph
(j) of this AD terminates the requirements of this paragraph.

(h) Retained Exceptions to EASA AD 2019-0288 With No Changes

    This paragraph restates the exceptions specified in paragraph
(j) of AD 2020-15-20, with no changes.
    (1) The requirements specified in paragraphs (1) and (2) of EASA
AD 2019-0288 do not apply to this AD.
    (2) Paragraph (3) of EASA AD 2019-0288 specifies revising ``the
approved AMP'' within 12 months after its effective date, but this
AD requires revising the existing maintenance or inspection program,
as applicable, to incorporate the ``maintenance tasks and associated
thresholds and intervals'' specified in paragraph (3) of EASA AD
2019-0288 within 90 days after October 2, 2020 (the effective date
of AD 2020-15-20).
    (3) The initial compliance time for doing the tasks specified in
paragraph (3) of EASA AD 2019-0288 is at the applicable ``associated
thresholds'' specified in paragraph (3) of EASA AD 2019-0288, or
within 90 days after October 2, 2020 (the effective date of AD 2020-
15-20).
    (4) The provisions specified in paragraphs (4) and (5) of EASA
AD 2019-0288 do not apply to this AD.
    (5) The ``Remarks'' section of EASA AD 2019-0288 does not apply
to this AD.

(i) Retained Restrictions on Alternative Actions and Intervals With a
New Exception

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (k) of AD
2020-15-20, with a new exception. Except as required by paragraph
(j) of this AD, after the existing maintenance or inspection program
has been revised as required by paragraph (g) of this AD, no
alternative actions (e.g., inspections) or intervals are allowed
unless they are approved as specified in the provisions of the
``Ref. Publications'' section of EASA AD 2019-0288.

(j) New Revision of the Existing Maintenance or Inspection Program

    Except as specified in paragraph (k) of this AD: Comply with all
required actions and compliance times specified in, and in
accordance with, EASA AD 2022-0126, dated June 28, 2022 (EASA AD
2022-0126). Accomplishing the maintenance or inspection program
revision required by this paragraph terminates the requirements of
paragraph (g) of this AD.

(k) Exceptions to EASA AD 2022-0126

    (1) The requirements specified in paragraphs (1) and (2) of EASA
AD 2022-0126 do not apply to this AD.
    (2) Paragraph (3) of EASA AD 2022-0126 specifies revising ``the
approved AMP'' within 12 months after its effective date, but this
AD requires revising the existing maintenance or inspection program,
as applicable within 90 days after the effective date of this AD
    (3) The initial compliance time for doing the tasks specified in
paragraph (3) of EASA AD 2022-0126 is at the applicable ``associated
thresholds'' as incorporated by the requirements of paragraph (3) of
EASA AD 2022-0126, or within 90 days after the effective date of
this AD, whichever occurs later.
    (4) The provisions specified in paragraphs (4) and (5) of EASA
AD 2022-0126 do not apply to this AD.
    (5) The ``Remarks'' section of EASA AD 2022-0126 does not apply
to this AD.

(l) New Provisions for Alternative Actions and Intervals

    After the maintenance or inspection program has been revised as
required by paragraph (j) of this AD, no alternative actions (e.g.,
inspections) or intervals are allowed unless they are approved as
specified in the provisions of the ``Ref. Publications'' section of
EASA AD 2022-0126.

(m) Additional AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
International Validation Branch, FAA, has the authority to approve
AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR
39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your
principal inspector or responsible Flight Standards Office, as
appropriate. If sending information directly to the International
Validation Branch, send it to the attention of the person identified
in paragraph (n) of this AD. Information may be emailed to: [email protected]. Before using any approved AMOC, notify your
appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector,
the manager of the responsible Flight Standards Office.
    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD
to obtain instructions from a manufacturer, the instructions must be
accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, International
Validation 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.

(n) Additional Information

    For more information about this AD, contact Dat Le, Aerospace
Engineer, Large Aircraft Section, FAA, International Validation
Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone 516-
228-7317; email [email protected].

(o) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference of the service information listed in this
paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise.
    (3) The following service information was approved for IBR on
[DATE 35 DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE].
    (i) European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD 2022-0126,
dated June 28, 2022.
    (ii) [Reserved]
    (4) The following service information was approved for IBR on
October 2, 2020 (85 FR 53156, August 28, 2020).
    (i) European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD 2019-0288,
dated November 28, 2019.
    (ii) [Reserved]
    (5) For EASA ADs 2022-0126 and 2019-0288, contact EASA, Konrad-
Adenauer-Ufer 3, 50668 Cologne, Germany; telephone +49 221 8999 000;
email [email protected]; website easa.europa.eu. You may find these
EASA ADs on the EASA website at ad.easa.europa.eu.
    (6) You may view this material at the FAA, Airworthiness
Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200 South 216th St.,
Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this material
at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (7) 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 protected], or go to: www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued on December 2, 2022.
Christina Underwood,
Acting Director, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, Aircraft
Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2022-26595 Filed 12-8-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 186 (Wednesday, September 25, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 50446-50447]
[FR Doc No: 2019-20862]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0077; FRL 10000-44-OAR]

Proposed Information Collection Request; Comment Request;
Significant New Alternatives Policy (SNAP) Program (Renewal)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is planning to
submit an information collection request (ICR), ``Significant New
Alternatives Policy (SNAP) Program (Renewal)'' (EPA ICR No. 1596.10,
OMB Control No. 2060-0226) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act.
Before doing so, EPA is soliciting public comments on specific aspects
of the proposed information collection as described below. This is a
proposed extension of the ICR, which is currently approved through May
31, 2020. An Agency may not conduct or sponsor and a person is not
required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before November 25, 2019.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2004-0077, online using www.regulations.gov (our preferred method), by
email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by mail to: EPA Docket Center,
Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460.
    EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the
public docket without change including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information
claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Christina Thompson, Stratospheric
Protection Division, Office of Atmospheric Programs, (Mail Code 6205T),
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington,
DC 20460; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Supporting documents which explain in detail
the information that the EPA will be collecting are available in the
public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at
www.regulations.gov or in person at the EPA Docket Center, WJC West,
Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC. The telephone
number for the Docket Center is<PHONE_NUMBER>. For additional
information about EPA's public docket, visit http://www.epa.gov/dockets.
    Pursuant to section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, EPA is soliciting
comments and information to enable it to: (i) Evaluate whether the
proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper
performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the
information will have practical utility; (ii) evaluate the accuracy of
the Agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of
information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions
used; (iii) enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the
information to be collected; and (iv) minimize the burden of the
collection of information on those who are to respond, including
through the use of appropriate automated electronic, mechanical, or
other technological collection techniques or other forms of information
technology,

e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses. EPA will consider
the comments received and amend the ICR as appropriate. The final ICR
package will then be submitted to OMB for review and approval. At that
time, EPA will issue another Federal Register notice to announce the
submission of the ICR to OMB.
    Abstract: Information collected under this rulemaking is necessary
to implement the requirements of the Significant New Alternatives
Policy (SNAP) program for evaluating and regulating substitutes for
ozone-depleting substances (ODS) being phased out under the
stratospheric ozone protection provisions of the Clean Air Act (CAA)
and globally under the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the
Ozone Layer. Under CAA Section 612, EPA is authorized to identify and
restrict the use of substitutes for class I and class II ODS (listed in
40 CFR part 82, subpart A, appendices A and B) where EPA determines
other alternatives are available or potentially available that reduce
overall risk to human health and the environment. Any producer of a new
substitute must submit a notice of intent to introduce a substitute
into interstate commerce 90 days prior to such introduction. The
producer must also provide EPA with information covering a wide range
of health and environmental factors. The SNAP program, based on
information collected from the manufacturers, formulators, and/or
sellers of such substitutes, identifies acceptable substitutes.
Responses to the collection of information are mandatory under Section
612 for anyone who sells or, in certain cases, uses substitutes for an
ODS after April 18, 1994, the effective date of the final rule.
Measures to protect confidentiality of information collected under the
SNAP program are based on EPA's confidentiality regulations (40 CFR
2.201 et seq., or Subpart B). Submitters may designate all or portions
of their forms or petitions as confidential. EPA requires the
submitters to substantiate their claim of confidentiality. Under CAA
Section 114(c), emissions information may not be claimed as
confidential.
    To develop the lists of acceptable and unacceptable substitutes,
the Agency must assess and compare ``overall risks to human health and
the environment'' posed by use of substitutes in the context of
particular applications. EPA requires submission of information
covering a wide range of health and environmental factors. These
include intrinsic properties such as physical and chemical information,
atmospheric effects including ozone depleting potential and global
warming potential, toxicity, and flammability, and use-specific data
such as substitute applications, process description, environmental
release data, exposure data during use of a substitute, environmental
fate and transport, and cost information of the substitute. Once a
completed submission has been received, the SNAP program will commence
its review. Any substitute which is a new chemical must also be
submitted to the Agency under the Premanufacture Notice program under
the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). Alternatives that will be used
as sterilants must be filed jointly with EPA's Office of Pesticide
Programs and with SNAP.
    Form Numbers: 1265-14.
    Respondents/affected entities: Manufacturers, importers,
formulators and processors of substitutes for ODS.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR 82.176).
    Estimated number of respondents: 180 (per year).
    Frequency of response: Annual.
    Total estimated burden: 5,557 hours (per year). Burden is defined
at 5 CFR 1320.03(b).
    Total estimated cost: $471,714, which includes $22,938 annualized
capital or O&M costs.
    Changes in Estimates: There is a decrease of 814 hours in the total
estimated respondent burden compared with the ICR currently approved by
OMB. The Agency anticipates the number of submissions to the SNAP
program to remain the same as the previous ICR during the next 3 years.
Many of the recent SNAP submissions, and those anticipated over the
next three years, are for chemicals previously found acceptable for
other SNAP applications or for blends of alternatives already found
acceptable. For the expected submissions, the burden of developing
supporting information for the majority of these submissions is
expected to decrease because it is easier to find and review
information for substitutes that have been reviewed previously. EPA
estimates a reduction in the number of respondents responsible for
recordkeeping for substitutes acceptable subject to use conditions and
narrowed use limits. The increased availability of alternatives reduces
the need for industry to use alternatives previously listed as
acceptable subject to narrowed use limits.

    Dated: September 13, 2019.
Cynthia A. Newberg,
Director, Stratospheric Protection Division.
[FR Doc. 2019-20862 Filed 9-24-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P