[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 168 (Tuesday, August 30, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 59535-59539]
[FR Doc No: 2016-20681]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2016-8849; Directorate Identifier 2015-NM-174-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all
Airbus Model A330-223F, -223, -321, -322, and -323 airplanes. The
proposed AD was prompted by fatigue load analysis that determined the
need for certain reduced inspection intervals and updated torque values
of the forward mount pylon bolts. This proposed AD would require
repetitive torque checks to determine if there are any loose or broken
forward engine mount bolts, and, if necessary, replacement of all four
forward engine mount bolts and associated nuts, inspection of the
forward mount assembly, and repair. We are proposing this AD to detect
and correct loose or broken bolts, which could lead to engine
detachment in flight, and damage to the airplane.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by October 14,
2016.

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 http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: 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 Airbus
SAS, Airworthiness Office--EAL, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707
Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone: +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax: +33 5 61 93
45 80; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet: http://www.airbus.com. You may view this referenced service information at the
FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA.
For information on

the availability of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-
8849; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and
5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket
contains this proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments
received, and other information. The street address for the Docket
Operations office (telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the ADDRESSES
section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after
receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Vladimir Ulyanov, Aerospace Engineer,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA,
1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address
listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2016-8849;
Directorate Identifier 2015-NM-174-AD'' at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposed AD based on those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this proposed AD.

Discussion

    On June 21, 2013, we issued AD 2013-14-04, Amendment 39-17509 (78
FR 68352, November 14, 2013) (``AD 2013-14-04''). AD 2013-14-04
requires actions intended to address the unsafe condition identified in
this NPRM on all Airbus Model A330-223F, -223, -321, -322, and -323
airplanes.
    Since we issued AD 2013-14-04, we have determined that it is
necessary to update the torque values of the forward mount pylon bolts.
    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical
Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD
2015-0214, dated October 19, 2015 (referred to after this as the
Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or ``the MCAI''), to
correct an unsafe condition for all Airbus Model A330-223F, -223, -321,
-322, and -323 airplanes. The MCAI states:

    The forward mount engine pylon bolts, Part Number (P/N) 51U615,
fitted on Airbus A330 aeroplanes with Pratt & Whitney (PW) PW4000
engines, are made from MP159 material. Analysis made by PW
identified that MP159 material pylon bolts do not meet the full life
cycle torque check interval requirement, in a bolt-out condition.
Consequently, PW issued Alert Service Bulletin (ASB) PW4G-100-A71-
32, and the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), as Engine
Certification Authority, issued FAA AD 2006-16-05 [Amendment 39-
14705 (71 FR 44185, August 4, 2006) (``AD 2006-16-05'')] to require
repetitive torque checks of MP159 material forward mount pylon bolts
fitted on certain PW4000 series engines.
    However, the engine mount system is considered to be part of
aeroplane certification rather than the engine certification.
Following further fatigue load analysis by Airbus of the A330 engine
mount system, it was determined that the torque check interval for
MP159 material forward mount pylon bolts, as required by FAA AD
2006-16-05 (2,700 flight cycles (FC)), provided an insufficient
level of safety for Airbus A330 aeroplanes.
    This condition, if not detected and corrected, could ultimately
lead to detachment of the engine from the aeroplane, possibly
resulting in damage to the aeroplane and/or injury to persons on the
ground.
    Consequently, EASA issued AD 2012-0094 [which corresponds to FAA
AD 2013-14-04] to require accomplishment of repetitive torque checks
of the forward mount pylon bolts installed on affected A330
aeroplanes and, depending on findings, replacement of all four bolts
and associated nuts, in accordance with PW ASB PW4G-100-A71-32
Revision 01 and Airbus Service Bulletin (SB) A330-71-3028.
    Since that AD was issued, it has been concluded that a new
torque value must be applied.
    Consequently, Airbus issued SB A330-71-3028 Revision 02 and PW
issued ASB PW4G-100-A71-32 Revision 02 to update the torque value.
Additional forward mount inspections are also provided in case of
one or more forward engine mount bolts is found loose, broken or
missing.
    For the reasons described above, this AD retains the
requirements of EASA AD 2012-0094, which is superseded, introduces a
new torque value, and requires additional inspections and, depending
on findings, corrective action(s).

    Corrective actions include repetitive torque checks to determine if
there are any loose or broken forward engine mount bolts on both
engines, and, if necessary, replacement of all four forward engine
mount bolts and associated nuts, inspection of the forward mount
assembly, and repair. You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating
Docket No. FAA-2016-8849.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    Airbus has issued Service Bulletin A330-71-3028, Revision 02, dated
August 31, 2015. The service information describes procedures for
repetitive torque checks to determine if there are any loose or broken
forward engine mount bolts on both engines, replacement of all four
forward engine mount bolts and associated nuts, and inspection of the
forward mount assembly. This service information is reasonably
available because the interested parties have access to it through
their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
ADDRESSES section.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another
country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant
to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have
been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service
information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we
evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition
exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same
type design.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 41 airplanes of U.S.
registry.
    We also estimate that it would take about 3 work-hours per product
to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. The average
labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Required parts would cost about $6,747
per product. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this
proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $287,082, or $7,002 per product.
    In addition, we estimate that any necessary follow-on actions would
take about 1 work-hour and require parts costing $6,747, for a cost of
$6,832 per product. We have no way of determining the number of
aircraft that might need these actions.

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. ``Subtitle VII:

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

Regulatory Findings

    We 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. Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
    3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and
    4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

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 (AD):

Airbus: Docket No. FAA-2016-8849; Directorate Identifier 2015-NM-
174-AD.

(a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by October 14, 2016.

(b) Affected ADs

    This AD affects AD 2006-16-05, Amendment 39-14705 (71 FR 44185,
August 4, 2006) (``AD 2006-16-05''); and AD 2013-14-04, Amendment
39-17509 (78 FR 68352, November 14, 2013) (``AD 2013-14-04'').

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Airbus Model A330-223F, -223, -321, -322, and
-323 airplanes, certificated in any category, all manufacturer
serial numbers.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 71, Powerplant.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by fatigue load analysis that determined
the need for certain reduced inspection intervals and updated torque
values of the forward mount pylon bolts. We are issuing this AD to
detect and correct loose or broken bolts, which could lead to engine
detachment in flight, and damage to the airplane.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Torque Check and Replacement

    (1) At the applicable compliance time specified in table 1 to
paragraph (g) of this AD, do a torque check to determine if there
are any loose or broken forward engine mount bolts (4 positions/
engine) on both engines, in accordance with the Accomplishment
Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A330-71-3028, Revision 02,
dated August 31, 2015. Repeat the torque check at the applicable
time intervals not to exceed the values specified in table 1 to
paragraph (g) of this AD. For the purposes of this AD, the average
flight time (AFT) is defined as a computation of the number of
flight hours divided by the number of flight cycles accumulated
since the most recent torque check or since the airplane's first
flight, as applicable. Accomplishment of the initial torque check
required by this AD terminates the requirements of AD 2013-14-05.

                                       Table 1 to Paragraph (g) of This AD
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          Flight cycles
                                        accumulated as of
                                      December 19, 2013 (the
                                       effective date of AD
                                       2013-14-04), either
                                     since last torque check                               Torque check interval
          Airplane models              specified in Pratt &         Compliance time           (not to exceed)
                                      Whitney Alert Service
                                      Bulletin PW4G-100-A71-
                                     32, or since airplane's
                                         first flight, as
                                            applicable
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Model A330-321, -322, and -323       0-1,850................  Within 2,350 flight cycles   2,350 flight cycles
 airplanes with AFT more than 132                              since the last torque        or 24,320 flight
 minutes; and Model A330-223                                   check as specified in        hours, whichever
 airplanes.                                                    Pratt & Whitney Alert        occurs first.
                                                               Service Bulletin PW4G-100-
                                                               A71-32, or since
                                                               airplane's first flight,
                                                               as applicable.
Model A330-321, -322, and -323       1,851-2,700............  Within 500 flight cycles     2,350 flight cycles
 airplanes with AFT more than 132                              after December 19, 2013      or 24,320 flight
 minutes; and Model A330-223                                   (the effective date of AD    hours, whichever
 airplanes.                                                    2013-14-04), without         occurs first.
                                                               exceeding 2,700 flight
                                                               cycles since last torque
                                                               check as specified in
                                                               Pratt & Whitney Alert
                                                               Service Bulletin PW4G-100-
                                                               A71-32, or since
                                                               airplane's first flight,
                                                               as applicable; or within 3
                                                               months after December 19,
                                                               2013; whichever occurs
                                                               later.

Model A330-321, -322, and -323       0-1,450................  Within 1,950 flight cycles   1,950 flight cycles
 airplanes with AFT 132 minutes or                             since the last torque        or 20,210 flight
 less; and Model A330-321, -322,                               check performed as           hours, whichever
 and -323 airplanes on which the                               specified in Pratt &         occurs first.
 AFT is not calculated on a regular                            Whitney Alert Service
 basis.                                                        Bulletin PW4G-100-A71-32,
                                                               or since airplane's first
                                                               flight, as applicable.
Model A330-321, -322, and -323       1,451-2,700............  Within 500 flight cycles     1,950 flight cycles
 airplanes with AFT 132 minutes or                             after December 19, 2013      or 20,210 flight
 less; and Model A330-321,-322, and                            (the effective date of AD    hours, whichever
 -323 airplanes on which the AFT is                            2013-14-04), without         occurs first.
 not calculated on a regular basis.                            exceeding 2,700 flight
                                                               cycles since last torque
                                                               check performed as
                                                               specified in Pratt &
                                                               Whitney Alert Service
                                                               Bulletin PW4-100-A71-32,
                                                               or since airplane's first
                                                               flight, as applicable; or
                                                               within 3 months after
                                                               December 19, 2013;
                                                               whichever occurs later.
Model A330-223F airplanes..........  Any....................  Within 2,140 flight cycles   2,140 flight cycles
                                                               or 6,600 flight hours,       or 6,600 flight
                                                               whichever occurs first       hours, whichever
                                                               since the last torque        occurs first.
                                                               check performed as
                                                               specified in Pratt &
                                                               Whitney Alert Service
                                                               Bulletin PW4G-100-A71-32,
                                                               or since airplane's first
                                                               flight, as applicable.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (2) If any loose or broken bolt is detected during the check
required by paragraph (g)(1) of this AD, before further flight, do
the actions specified by paragraphs (g)(2)(i) and (g)(2)(ii) of this
AD, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus
Service Bulletin A330-71-3028, Revision 02, dated August 31, 2015;
except, where the service information specifies to contact the
manufacturer for further actions, this AD requires repair before
further flight using a method approved by the Manager, International
Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or the
European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA); or Airbus's EASA Design
Organization Approval (DOA).
    (i) Replace all four forward engine mount bolts and associated
nuts, on the engine where the loose or broken bolt was detected,
with new bolts and nuts.
    (ii) Do nondestructive inspections of the forward mount assembly
for damage including cracks, dents, nicks, and scratches, and do all
applicable corrective actions.
    (3) Replacement of bolts and nuts as required by paragraph
(g)(2)(i) of this AD is not terminating action for the repetitive
torque checks required by paragraph (g)(1) of this AD.

(h) Provisions for Compliance With AD 2006-16-05

    Accomplishment of the actions required by paragraph (g) of this
AD constitutes compliance with the requirements specified in
paragraph (g) of AD 2006-16-05.

(i) Parts Installation Prohibition

    As of December 19, 2013 (the effective date of AD 2013-14-04),
no person may install any INCO718 material, forward mount pylon bolt
having Pratt & Whitney part number 54T670 on any airplane.

(j) Credit for Previous Actions

    This paragraph provides credit for the actions required by
paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(2)(i) of this AD, if those actions were
performed before the effective date of this AD using Airbus Service
Bulletin A330-71-3028, dated December 16, 2011, or Airbus Service
Bulletin A330-71-3028, Revision 01, dated February 20, 2012. This
service information is not incorporated by reference in this AD.

(k) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA,
has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using
the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR
39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight
Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information
directly to the International Branch, send it to ATTN: Vladimir
Ulyanov, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116,
Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton,
WA 98057-3356; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
Information may be emailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal
inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the
local flight standards district office/certificate holding district
office. The AMOC approval letter must specifically reference this
AD.
    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: As of the effective date of
this AD, for any requirement in this AD to obtain corrective actions
from a manufacturer, the action must be accomplished using a method
approved by the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport
Airplane Directorate, FAA; or EASA; or Airbus's EASA Design
Organization Approval (DOA). If approved by the DOA, the approval
must include the DOA-authorized signature.
    (3) Required for Compliance (RC): Except as required by
paragraph (g)(2) of this AD: If any service information contains
procedures or tests that are identified as RC, those procedures and
tests must be done to comply with this AD; any procedures or tests
that are not identified as RC are recommended. Those procedures and
tests that are not identified as RC may be deviated from using
accepted methods in accordance with the operator's maintenance or
inspection program without obtaining approval of an AMOC, provided
the procedures and tests identified as RC can be done and the
airplane can be put back in an airworthy condition. Any
substitutions or changes to procedures or tests identified as RC
require approval of an AMOC.

(l) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information
(MCAI) 2015-0214, dated October 19, 2015, for related information.
This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-
2016-8849.
    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Airbus SAS, Airworthiness Office--EAL, 1 Rond Point Maurice
Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone: +33 5 61 93 36 96;
fax: +33 5 61 93 45 80; email:

<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet: http://www.airbus.com.
You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane
Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on
the availability of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on August 18, 2016.
Dorr M. Anderson,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2016-20681 Filed 8-29-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 145 (Monday, August 2, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 41534-41535]
[FR Doc No: 2021-16441]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

[Docket No. FRA-2020-0031]

Petition for Approval Extension: Union Pacific Railroad

AGENCY: Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Notice of petition for an extension of approval of track
inspection test program.

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

SUMMARY: This document provides the public notice that on July 21,
2021, Union Pacific Railroad (UP) petitioned the Federal Railroad
Administration (FRA) to extend an existing temporary suspension of some
visual track inspections to allow for the continuation of a previously
approved Test Program designed to test track inspection technologies
(i.e., an autonomous track geometry measurement system) and new
operational approaches to track inspections (i.e., combinations of
autonomous inspection and traditional visual inspections).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Yu-Jiang Zhang, Staff Director, Track
and Structures Division, at<PHONE_NUMBER> or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or
Aaron Moore, Attorney, Office of the Chief Counsel, at<PHONE_NUMBER>
or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On April 28, 2020, FRA conditionally
approved the Test Program and UP's petition under 49 CFR 211.51 to
suspend Sec.  213.233(c) as applied to operations under the Test
Program. Accordingly, a copy of the Test Program, FRA's conditional
approval of the Test Program, and a previously published Federal
Register notice explaining FRA's rationale for approving the Test
Program and related suspension are available for review in the
docket.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ https://www.regulations.gov/document/FRA-2020-0031-0001
(Test Program); https://www.regulations.gov/document/FRA-2020-0031-0002 (FRA's approval decision); https://www.regulations.gov/document/FRA-2020-0031-0004 (FRA's published notice of approval).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As approved, the Test Program includes two separate phases over 12
months, as outlined in Exhibit C of the Program.\2\ UP began the Test
Program on June 15, 2020. Accordingly, the Test Program expired on June
15, 2021. UP is requesting to renew and extend the Test Program for one
year, until June 15, 2022, to complete the Program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See https://www.regulations.gov/document/FRA-2020-0031-0001.
_____________________________________-

    A copy of the petition, as well as any written communications
concerning the petition, if any, are available for review online at
www.regulations.gov.
    Interested parties are invited to participate in these proceedings
by submitting written views, data, or comments.
    All communications concerning these proceedings should identify the
appropriate docket number and may be

submitted by any of the following methods:
     Website: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
    Communications received by September 7, 2021 will be considered by
FRA before final action is taken. Comments received after that date
will be considered if practicable. Anyone can search the electronic
form of any written communications and comments received into any of
our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or
signing the document, if submitted on behalf of an association,
business, labor union, etc.). Under 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits
comments from the public to better inform its processes. DOT posts
these comments, without edit, including any personal information the
commenter provides, to www.regulations.gov, as described in the system
of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at https://www.transportation.gov/privacy. See also https://www.regulations.gov/privacy-notice for the privacy notice of regulations.gov.

    Issued in Washington, DC.
John Karl Alexy,
Associate Administrator for Railroad Safety Chief Safety Officer.
[FR Doc. 2021-16441 Filed 7-30-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-06-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 82 (Thursday, April 28, 2022)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 25178-25180]
[FR Doc No: 2022-09145]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 174 and 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2022-0161; FRL-9410-12-OCSPP]

Receipt of Pesticide Petitions Filed for Residues of Pesticide
Chemicals in or on Various Commodities March 2022

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

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

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

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

DATES: Comments must be received on or before May 31, 2022.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by docket identification
(ID) number and the pesticide petition (PP) of interest as shown in the
body of this document, using the Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to
be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Additional instructions on
commenting or visiting the docket, along with more information about
dockets generally, is available at https://www.epa.gov/dockets.
    Due to the public health concerns related to COVID-19, the EPA
Docket Center (EPA/DC) and Reading Room is open to visitors by
appointment only. For the latest status information on EPA/DC services
and access, visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Charles Smith, Biopesticides and
Pollution Prevention Division (BPPD) (7511M), main telephone number:
(202) 566-2427, email address: [email protected]; or Marietta
Echeverria, Registration Division (RD) (7505P), main telephone number:
(703) 305-7090, email address: [email protected]. The mailing address
for each contact person is Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-
0001. As part of the mailing address, include the contact person's
name, division, and mail code. The division to contact is listed at the
end of each application summary.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an
agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer.
The following list of North American Industrial Classification System
(NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them.
Potentially affected entities may include:
     Crop production (NAICS code 111).
     Animal production (NAICS code 112).
     Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
     Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).

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

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

II. What action is the Agency taking?

    EPA is announcing receipt of pesticide petitions filed under
section 408 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21
U.S.C. 346a, requesting the establishment or modification of
regulations in 40 CFR part 174 or part 180 for residues of pesticide
chemicals in or on various food commodities. The Agency is taking
public comment on the requests before responding to the petitioners.
EPA is not proposing any particular action at this time. EPA has
determined that the pesticide petitions described in this document
contain data or information prescribed in FFDCA section 408(d)(2), 21
U.S.C. 346a(d)(2); however, EPA has not fully evaluated the sufficiency
of the submitted data at this time or whether the data supports
granting of the pesticide petitions. After considering the public
comments, EPA intends to evaluate whether and what action may be
warranted. Additional data may be needed before EPA can make a final
determination on these pesticide petitions.
    Pursuant to 40 CFR 180.7(f), summaries of the petitions that are
the subject of this document, prepared by

the petitioners, are included in dockets EPA has created for these
rulemakings. The dockets for these petitions are available at https://www.regulations.gov.
    As specified in FFDCA section 408(d)(3), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), EPA
is publishing notice of the petitions so that the public has an
opportunity to comment on these requests for the establishment or
modification of regulations for residues of pesticides in or on food
commodities. Further information on the petitions may be obtained
through the petition summaries referenced in this unit and the
corresponding docket.

A. Amended Tolerance Exemptions for Non-Inerts (Except PIPS)

    PP 1F8953. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2022-0273). Danstar Ferment Ag/LALLEMAND
PLANT CARE, Postsrasse 20, CH-6300 Zug, Switzerland (c/o Amy Plato
Roberts, P.O. Box 990, Hailey, ID 83333), requests to amend an
exemption from the requirement of a tolerance in 40 CFR 180.1120 for
residues of the fungicide Streptomyces sp. strain K61 in or on all food
commodities when used in accordance with label directions and good
agricultural practices. The petitioner believes no analytical method is
needed because it is expected that, when used as proposed, Streptomyces
sp. strain K61, would not result in residues that are of toxicological
concern. Contact: BPPD.

B. Amended Tolerances for Non-Inerts

    1. PP 1E8904. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2021-0387). Interregional Research
Project No. 4 (IR-4), North Carolina State University, 1730 Varsity
Drive, Venture IV, Suite 210, Raleigh, NC 27606, requests to amend 40
CFR part 180 by removing the tolerance for residues of the insecticide
cyclaniliprole, 3-bromo-N-[2-bromo-4-chloro-6-[[(1-
cyclopropylethyl)amino]carbonyl]phenyl]-1-(3-chloro-2-pyridinyl)-1H-
pyrazole-5-carboxamide, including its metabolites and degradates, in or
on the raw agricultural commodity Vegetable, fruiting, group 8-10 at
0.20 ppm. Contact: RD.
    2. PP 1E8935. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2021-0657). Interregional Research
Project #4 (IR-4), North Carolina State University, 1730 Varsity Drive,
Venture IV, Suite 210, Raleigh, NC 27606, requests, pursuant to section
408(d) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C.
346a(d), to amend 40 CFR part 180 by removing established tolerances
for residues of dodine in or on the raw agricultural commodities Apple
at 5.0 ppm; Fruit, stone, crop group 12 at 5.0 ppm; Nuts, tree, crop
group 14 at 0.3 ppm; and Pear at 5.0 ppm. Contact: RD.
    3. PP 1E8957. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2022-0005). Interregional Research
Project #4 (IR-4), North Carolina State University, 1730 Varsity Drive,
Venture IV, Suite 210, Raleigh, NC 27606, requests to amend 40 CFR part
180 by removing the established tolerances of fomesafen, 5-2-chloro-4-
(trifluoromethyl)phenoxy-N-(methylsulfonyl)-2-nitrobenzamide in or on
the raw agricultural commodities: Cantaloupe at 0.025 parts per million
(ppm); Cucumber at 0.025 ppm; Pepper, bell at 0.025 ppm; Pepper, non-
bell at 0.025 ppm; Pumpkin at 0.025 ppm; Squash, summer at 0.025 ppm;
Squash, winter at 0.025 ppm; Tomato at 0.025 ppm; and Watermelon at
0.025 ppm. Contact: RD.
    4. PP 1E8980. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2022-0234). Interregional Research
Project No. 4 (IR-4) North Carolina State University, 1730 Varsity
Drive, Suite 210, Venture IV, Raleigh, NC 27606, proposes upon
establishment of tolerances referenced in this document under ``New
Tolerances'' for PP#1E8980, to remove existing tolerances in 40 CFR
180.666 for residues of the fungicide, fluxapyroxad, 3-
(difluoromethyl)-1-methyl-N-(3',4',5'-trifluoro[1,1'-biphenyl]-2-yl)-
1H-pyrazole-4-carboxamide in or on Coffee, green bean\1\ at 0.2 parts
per million (ppm). Contact: RD.
    5. PP 1E8981. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2022-0235). Interregional Research
Project No. 4 (IR-4) North Carolina State University, 1730 Varsity
Drive, Suite 210, Venture IV, Raleigh, NC 2760, proposes upon
establishment of tolerances referenced in this document under ``New
Tolerances'' for PP#1E8981, to remove existing tolerances in 40 CFR
180.582 for residues of the fungicide pyraclostrobin, (carbamic acid,
[2-[[[ 1-(4-chlorophenyl)-1H-pyrazol-3-yl]oxy] methyl]phenyl]methoxy-,
methyl ester) and its desmethoxy metabolite (methyl-N-[[[1-(4-
chlorophenyl)-1H-pyrazol-3-yl]oxy]methyl] phenylcarbamate), calculated
as the stoichiometric equivalent of pyraclostrobin in or on in or on
Coffee, green bean at \1\0.3 parts per million (ppm). Contact: RD.

C. New Tolerance Exemptions for Non-Inerts (Except PIPS)

    1. PP 0F8873. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2021-0422). Amo[eacute]ba SA, 38 ave des
Fr[egrave]res Montgolfier, F-69680 Chassieu, France (c/o SciReg, Inc.,
12733 Director's Loop, Woodbridge, VA 22192), requests to establish an
exemption from the requirement of a tolerance in 40 CFR part 180 for
residues of the fungicide and systemic resistance inducer Lysate of
Willaertia magna C2c Maky, in or on raw agricultural commodities and
processed food. The petitioner believes no analytical method is needed
because it is not required for enforcement purposes since the Agency is
establishing an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance without
any numerical limitation. Contact: BPPD.
    2. PP 1F8943. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2022-0323). Chr. Hansen, Inc., 9015 W
Maple St., Milwaukee, WI 53214, requests to establish an exemption from
the requirement of a tolerance in 40 CFR part 180 for residues of the
fungicide and nematicide Bacillus paralicheniformis strain CH0273 in or
on all food commodities. The petitioner believes no analytical method
is needed because it is not applicable. Contact: BPPD.
    3. PP 1F8944. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2022-0318). Chr. Hansen, Inc., 9015 W
Maple St., Milwaukee, WI 53214, requests to establish an exemption from
the requirement of a tolerance in 40 CFR part 180 for residues of the
fungicide and nematicide Bacillus subtilis strain CH4000 in or on all
food commodities. The petitioner believes no analytical method is
needed because it is not applicable. Contact: BPPD.
    4. PP 1G8963. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2022-0233). NewLeaf Symbiotics, Inc.,
1005 North Warson Road, St. Louis, MO 63132, requests to establish a
temporary exemption from the requirement of a tolerance in 40 CFR part
180 for residues of the insecticide Methylorubrum extorquens strain
NLS0042 in or on all food commodities. The petitioner believes no
analytical method is needed because it is expected that, when used as
proposed, Methylorubrum extorquens strain NLS0042 would not result in
residues that are of toxicological concern. Contact: BPPD.

D. New Tolerance Exemptions for PIPS

    PP 2F8985. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2022-0231). Bayer CropScience LP, 800 N
Lindbergh Blvd. St. Louis, MO 63167, requests to establish an exemption
from the requirement of a tolerance in 40 CFR part 174 for residues of
the plant-incorporated protectants (PIP) Bacillus thuringiensis Vpb4Da2
and Brevibacillus laterosporus Mpp75Aa1.1 in or on corn. An analytical
method to detect and quantify concentrations of Mpp75Aa1.1 and Vpb4Da2
proteins expressed in corn was provided with the petition. Contact:
BPPD.

E. New Tolerances for Non-Inerts

    1. PP 0E8876. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2021-0130). Interregional Research
Project No. 4 (IR-4), IR-4 Project Headquarters,

Rutgers, The State University of NJ, 500 College Road East, Suite 201
W, Princeton, NJ 08540, requests to amend 40 CFR part 180 by
establishing a tolerance for residues of ethalfluralin, N-ethyl-N-(2-
methyl-2-propenyl)-2,6-dinitro-4-(trifluoromethyl)benzenamine in or on
the raw agricultural commodity Stevia, fresh leaves at 0.05 parts per
million (ppm). Adequate analytical methods for determining
ethalfluralin in/on appropriate raw agricultural commodities and
processed commodities have been developed and validated. Contact: RD.
    2. PP 0E8882. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2021-0153). Interregional Research
Project No. 4 (IR-4), IR-4 Project Headquarters, Rutgers, The State
University of NJ, 500 College Road East, Suite 201 W, Princeton, NJ
08540, requests to amend 40 CFR part 180 by establishing tolerances for
residues of novaluron, including its metabolites and degradates, in or
on the following commodities. Compliance with the tolerance levels is
to be determined by measuring only novaluron, (N-3-chloro-4-1,1,2-
trifluoro-2-(trifluoromethoxy)ethoxyphenylaminocarbonyl-2,-
difluorobenzamide), in or on the following raw agricultural
commodities: Bean, phaseolus, forage at 15 parts per million (ppm);
Cowpea forage at 15 ppm; Pea field, forage at 15 ppm; Bean phaseolus,
hay at 80 ppm; Cowpea, hay at 80 ppm; and Pea, field, hay at 80 ppm.
Adequate analytical methods for determining novaluron in/on appropriate
raw agricultural commodities and processed commodities have been
developed and validated. Contact: RD.
    3. PP 1E8904. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2021-0387). Interregional Research
Project No. 4 (IR-4), North Carolina State University, 1730 Varsity
Drive, Venture IV, Suite 210, Raleigh, NC 27606, requests to amend 40
CFR part 180 by establishing tolerances for residues of the insecticide
cyclaniliprole, 3-bromo-N-[2-bromo-4-chloro-6-[[(1-
cyclopropylethyl)amino]carbonyl]phenyl]-1-(3-chloro-2-pyridinyl)-1H-
pyrazole-5-carboxamide, including its metabolites and degradates, in or
on the raw agricultural commodities: Artichoke, globe at 1.5 parts per
million (ppm); Sunflower subgroup 20B at 0.4 ppm; Pepper/eggplant
ground 8-10B at 1.5 ppm; Tomato subgroup 8-10A at 0.6 ppm; Hog, meat at
0.01 ppm; Hog, fat at 0.015 ppm; Hog, meat byproducts at 0.015 ppm; Egg
at 0.01 ppm; Poultry, meat at 0.01 ppm; Poultry, fat at 0.015 ppm; and
Poultry, meat byproducts at 0.015 ppm. A practical analytical method
for Cyclaniliprole and NK-1375 using Liquid Chromatography-MS/MS is
available for analysis of all plant matrices. This method has been
confirmed through independent laboratory validation and is available
for enforcement purposes. Contact: RD.
    4. PP 1E8935. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2021-0657). Interregional Research
Project #4 (IR-4), North Carolina State University, 1730 Varsity Drive,
Venture IV, Suite 210, Raleigh, NC 27606, requests, pursuant to section
408(d) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C.
346a(d), to amend 40 CFR part 180 by establishing tolerances for
residues of dodine, N-dodecylguanidine acetate in or on the raw
agricultural commodities Fruit, pome, group 11-10 at 5 parts per
million (ppm); Fruit, stone, group 12-12 at 5 ppm; Nut, tree, group 14-
12 at 0.3 ppm; and Olive, with pit at 0.3 ppm.. Adequate analytical
methods for determining dodine in/on appropriate raw agricultural
commodities and processed commodities have been developed and
validated. Contact: RD.
    5. PP 1E8957. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2022-0005). Interregional Research
Project #4 (IR-4), North Carolina State University, 1730 Varsity Drive,
Venture IV, Suite 210, Raleigh, NC 27606, requests, pursuant to section
408(d) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C.
346a(d), to amend 40 CFR part 180 by establishing tolerances for
residues of fomesafen, 5-2-chloro-4-(trifluoromethyl)phenoxy-N-
(methylsulfonyl)-2-nitrobenzamide in or on the raw agricultural
commodities Vegetable, bulb, group 3-07 at 0.02 parts per million
(ppm); Vegetable, cucurbit, group 9 at 0.025 ppm; Vegetable, foliage of
legume, except soybean, subgroup 7A at 0.05 ppm; and Vegetable,
fruiting, group 8-10 at 0.025 ppm. Adequate analytical methods for
determining fomesafen in/on appropriate raw agricultural commodities
and processed commodities have been developed and validated. Contact:
RD.
    6. PP 1E8966. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2022-0069). Interregional Research
Project #4 (IR-4), North Carolina State University, 1730 Varsity Drive,
Venture IV, Suite 210, Raleigh, NC 27606, requests, pursuant to section
408(d) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C.
346a(d), to amend 40 CFR part 180 by establishing a tolerance for
residues of Trinexapac-ethyl in or on the raw agricultural commodity
clover, forage at 8 parts per million (ppm) and clover, hay at 15
(ppm). As a result of feeding clover that has been treated with
trinexapac-ethyl to livestock, the following tolerances are proposed in
livestock commodities: Cattle, fat; cattle, meat; goat, fat; goat,
meat; horse, fat; horse, meat; sheep, fat; and sheep, meat at 0.03 ppm.
Adequate analytical methods for determining trinexapac-ethyl in/on
appropriate raw agricultural commodities and processed commodities have
been developed and validated. Contact: RD.
    7. PP 1E8980. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2022-0234). Interregional Research
Project No. 4 (IR-4) North Carolina State University, 1730 Varsity
Drive, Suite 210, Venture IV, Raleigh, NC 27606, requests to establish
a tolerance in 40 CFR 180.666 for residues of the fungicide,
fluxapyroxad, 3-(difluoromethyl)-1-methyl-N-(3',4',5'-trifluoro[1,1'-
biphenyl]-2-yl)-1H-pyrazole-4-carboxamide in or on Coffee, green bean
at 0.2 parts per million (ppm), Stevia, dried leaves at 60 ppm, and
Stevia, fresh leaves at 20 ppm. The Method for the Determination of BAS
700 F (Reg. No. 5094351) and its Metabolites M700F002 (Reg. No.
5435595), M700F008 (Reg. No. 5566402) and M700F048 (Reg. No. 5570265)
in Plant Matrices and Processed Fractions'', Dated October 7, 2009; is
used to measure and evaluate the chemical. Contact: RD.
    8. PP 1E8981. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2022-0235). Interregional Research
Project No. 4 (IR-4) North Carolina State University, 1730 Varsity
Drive, Suite 210, Venture IV, Raleigh, NC 2760, requests to establish a
tolerance in 40 CFR 180.582 for residues of the fungicide
pyraclostrobin, (carbamic acid, [2-[[[ 1-(4-chlorophenyl)-1H-pyrazol-3-
yl]oxy] methyl]phenyl]methoxy-, methyl ester) and its desmethoxy
metabolite (methyl-N-[[[1-(4-chlorophenyl)-1H-pyrazol-3-yl]oxy]methyl]
phenylcarbamate), calculated as the stoichiometric equivalent of
pyraclostrobin in or on Coffee, green bean at 0.3 parts per million
(ppm), Stevia, dried leaves at 150 ppm, and Stevia, fresh leaves at 40
ppm. The Method for the Determination of BAS 421 F, BAS 480 F, BAS 500
F, BF 500-3, BAS 505 F, BAS 510 F, BAS 550 F, BAS 555 F, BAS 560 F and
BAS 700 F in Plant Matrices'', Dated June 2008 is used to measure and
evaluate the chemical. Contact: RD.

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

    Dated: April 18, 2022.
Delores Barber,
Director, Information Technology and Resources Management Division,
Office of Program Support.
[FR Doc. 2022-09145 Filed 4-27-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


0153 03 010 003\ DCTM_ ARP. DOC 1 MEMORANDUM TO: Randy McDonald, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, OAQPS FROM: Roy Oommen, Eastern Research Group ( ERG), Morrisville DATE: June 1, 2006 SUBJECT: Summary of Costs for HON Control Options This memorandum presents the costs estimated for the Hazardous Organic NESHAP ( HON) residual risk project. Three control options were evaluated and are described below:

Option 1: Control of storage tanks emitting 5 tpy or more of a URE HAP Option 2: Option 1 plus control of process vents with a TRE less than or equal to 4.0 Option 3: Option 2 plus control of equipment leaks by requiring valves to meet a 0.5 percent leakers requirement The procedures for calculating emission reductions and costs for controlling each emission source ( e. g., storage vessels, process vents, and equipment leaks) are documented in other memoranda. 1,2,3 Table 1 summarizes the costs and emission reductions of option 1. Table 2 presents the costs and emission reductions of option 2. Table 3 presents the costs and emission reductions of option 3. 0153 03 010 003\ DCTM_ ARP. DOC 2 References 1. Oommen, Roy, ERG. Memorandum to Randy McDonald, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. Process Vent Emission Reductions and Control Cost Estimates.

June 1, 2006 2. Oommen, Roy, ERG. Memorandum to Randy McDonald, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. Storage Vessel Emission Reductions and Control Cost Estimates.

June 1, 2006 3. Oommen, Roy, ERG. Memorandum to Randy McDonald, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. Costs and Emission Reductions for Meeting Percent Leak Requirements for HON sources. June 1, 2006


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 70 (Thursday, April 13, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 17765]
[FR Doc No: 2017-07467]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

49 CFR Parts 209, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219, 220, 221, 222,
223, 224, 225, 227, 228, 229, 230, 231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236,
237, 238, 239, 240, 241, 242, 243, 244, 270, and 272

[Docket No. FRA-2016-0021; Notice No. 3]
RIN 2130-AC59

Implementation of the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation
Adjustment Act Improvements Act for a Violation of a Federal Railroad
Safety Law, Federal Railroad Administration Safety Regulation or Order,
or the Hazardous Material Transportation Laws or Regulations, Orders,
Special Permits, and Approvals Issued Under Those Laws

AGENCY: Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), Department of
Transportation.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: On July 1, 2016, FRA published two interim final rules to
comply with the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of
1990, as amended by the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment
Act Improvements Act of 2015. FRA received no comments in response to
the interim final rules. This document confirms the July 1, 2016,
interim final rules will not be changed and the effective date is
August 1, 2016.

DATES: This final rule is effective April 13, 2017.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Veronica Chittim, Trial Attorney,
Office of Chief Counsel, FRA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Mail Stop 10,
Washington, DC 20590 (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>),
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Because FRA received no comments on its
interim final rules published July 1, 2016, we are making no changes to
the rules and the effective date is August 1, 2016. For regulatory
analyses and notices associated with this action, please see the
interim final rules published at 81 FR 43105 and 81 FR 43101.

0
Accordingly, the interim final rules published at 81 FR 43105 and 81 FR
43101 on July 1, 2016, are adopted as final without change.

Patrick T. Warren,
Executive Director.
[FR Doc. 2017-07467 Filed 4-12-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-06-P


Memo: Recoupment Options
EPA is not proposing to provide recoupment, but is taking comment on the issue. If the agency decides to address 2010 allowances, it would consider providing recoupment to the following entities:

Table 1: Proposed Recoupment Allowances:

Company
Chemical
Consumption (kg)
Production (kg)
Arkema
HCFC-22
                                                                      4,749,692
                                                                      4,611,848
DuPont
HCFC-142b
                                                                          2,339
                                                                              0
Honeywell
HCFC-142b
                                                                         58,291
                                                                        107,097
Solvay Fluorides
HCFC-22
                                                                      1,157,895
                                                                              0
Solvay Solexis
HCFC-142b
                                                                              0
                                                                        289,800

Under Option 1:
EPA would provide recoupment in the 2013 control period in addition to the amount allocated through the typical process. The process for determining allowances would go as follows:
   1) First, EPA would determine the percentage of baseline it would allocate to provide consumption allowances in 2013 absent recoupment.
         a. For HCFC-22 in 2013, EPA would divide the aggregate allocation amount by 141,865,381 kg, the total of all company baselines for HCFC-22 consumption, to determine the resultant percentage of baseline allocated. For example, an aggregate allocation of 35,900,000 kg (consumption allocation from the 2009 Final Rule without the 11-47 percent proposed decrease) divided by the total of all baselines would create a baseline percentage of 25.3 percent in 2013.
   2) All companies would receive the percentage of baseline established in Step 1 for calendar-year production and consumption allowances (recall that the two percentages could be different if EPA decides to decouple production and consumption allowances).
   3) For companies receiving recoupment, EPA would then add the total amount listed in Table 1, above, to the percentage of baseline allocated in 2013 only.

The same procedure would be used to determine HCFC-142b allowances. Allowances in 2012 and 2014 would be unaffected by recoupment.

To effectuate this option in the regulations, proposed section 82.16(a)(2) would be added to read as follows:

*  *  *  *  *

(a)  *  *  *  (2) Recoupment allowances. In the control period beginning January 1, 2013 and ending December 31, 2013, the following companies are granted a one-time amount of HCFC consumption and production allowances in addition to the percentage of baseline listed in the table at paragraph (a)(1) of this section equal to: 4,749,692 kg of HCFC-22 consumption allowances and 4,611,848 kg of HCFC-22 production allowances to Arkema; 2,339 kg of HCFC-142b consumption allowances to DuPont; 58,291 kg of HCFC-142b consumption allowances and 107,097 kg of HCFC-142b production allowances to Honeywell; 1,157,895 kg of HCFC-22 consumption allowances to Solvay Fluorides; and 289,800 kg of HCFC-142b production allowances to Solvay Solexis.

*  *  *  *  *

Under Option 2:
EPA would provide recoupment in the 2013 and 2014 control periods in addition to the amount allocated through the typical process. The process for determining allowances would go as follows:
   1) First, EPA would determine the percentage of baseline it would allocate to provide consumption allowances in 2013 and 2014 absent recoupment.
         a. For example, the aggregate HCFC-22 consumption allocation amount in each year would be divided by 141,865,381 kg, the proposed aggregate baseline for all companies, in order to determine the percent of baseline issued.
   2) All companies would receive the percentage of baseline established in Step 1 for calendar-year production and consumption allowances.
   3) For companies receiving recoupment, EPA would then add half of the amount listed in Table 1, above, to the percentage of baseline allocated in 2013 and 2014.
         a. In the case of HCFC-22 consumption allowances, Arkema and Solvay Fluorides would receive an additional 2,374,846 kg and 578,947 kg each year, respectively. In the case of HCFC-22 production allowances, Arkema would receive an additional 2,305,924 kg each year.

The same procedure would be used to determine HCFC-142b allowances. Allowances in 2012 would be unaffected by recoupment.

To effectuate this option in the regulations, proposed section 82.16(a)(2) would be added to read as follows:

*  *  *  *  *

(a)  *  *  *  (2) Recoupment allowances. In the control period beginning January 1, 2013 and ending December 31, 2013, and the control period beginning January 1, 2014 and ending December 31, 2014, the following companies are granted an additional amount of HCFC consumption and production allowances in addition to the percentage of baseline listed in the table at paragraph (a)(1) of this section equal to: 2,374,846 kg of HCFC-22 consumption allowances and 2,305,924 kg of HCFC-22 production allowances to Arkema; 1,170 kg of HCFC-142b consumption allowances to DuPont; 29,146 kg of HCFC-142b consumption allowances and 53,549 kg of HCFC-142b production allowances to Honeywell; 578,947 kg of HCFC-22 consumption allowances to Solvay Fluorides; and 144,900 kg of HCFC-142b production allowances to Solvay Solexis.

*  *  *  *  *

Under Option 3:
EPA would provide recoupment from the total allocation level spread over the 2013 and 2014 control periods. The process for determining consumption allowances would go as follows:
   1) First, EPA would determine the percentage of baseline it would allocate to provide consumption allowances in 2013 and 2014 absent recoupment.
   2) Second, for the companies receiving recoupment allowances, EPA would determine what the initial allocation would be absent recoupment by multiplying their baseline by the determined baseline percentage for 2013 and 2014.
   3) EPA would then add half of these companies' recoupment allowances to their initial allocation for 2013 and 2014.
         a. In the case of HCFC-22 consumption allowances, Arkema would receive an additional 2,374,846 kg in 2013 and 2014; Solvay Fluorides would receive an additional 578,947 kg in 2013 and 2014
   4) EPA would then subtract the number of allowances provided to the companies receiving recoupment from the total number of allowances allocated for 2013 and 2014.
         a. Assuming that there is no decrease in HCFC-22 consumption allowances from the 2009 Final Rule, the 2013 allocation provided to Arkema and Solvay Fluorides would be 16,215,885 kg of the 35,900,000 kg overall allowance, leaving 19,676,056 kg for all other allowance holders.
   5) To determine the percent of baseline allocated to all other allowance holders, EPA would divide the remaining allowances calculated in step 4 by the number of baseline allowances held by all companies not receiving recoupment.
         a. In the case of 2013 HCFC-22 consumption allowances, the remaining number of allowances would be divided by the remaining baseline 89,446,048 kg (141,865,381 kg  -  48,637,642 kg for Arkema  -  3,781,691 kg for Solvay Fluorides = 89,446,048 kg). The resulting percentage for every company beside Arkema and Solvay Fluorides is 3.3 percentage points lower than what would be allocated absent recoupment.
The same process would be used for HCFC-142b consumption allowances in both 2013 and 2014. Allowances in 2012 would be unaffected by recoupment.

For HCFC-22 production allowances in 2013 and 2014, the following process would be used:
   1) For the companies receiving recoupment allowances, EPA would determine what the initial allocation would be absent recoupment in both 2013 and 2014.
         a. For example, if EPA chooses to provide 25.3 percent of baseline for HCFC-22 in 2013, EPA would first provide Arkema with 11,813,161 kg (or 25.3 percent of its baseline) of HCFC-22 production allowances.
   2) EPA would then add half of these companies' recoupment allowances to their initial allocation in 2013 and 2014.
         a. Continuing the example, in the case of 2013 HCFC-22 production allowances, Arkema would receive 11,813,161 kg plus 2,305,924 kg for a total of 14,119,085 kg in 2013.
   3) EPA would then subtract the number of allowances provided to the companies receiving recoupment from the total number of allowances allocated for 2013 and 2014.
         a. Continuing the example, 14,119,085 kg of the resulting 32,660,395 kg overall allowance would be provided to Arkema, leaving 18,541,310 kg for all other allowance holders.
   4) To determine the percent of baseline allocated to all other allowance holders, EPA would divide the remaining allowances calculated in step 3 by the number of baseline allowances held by all companies not receiving recoupment.
         a. Continuing the example, 18,541,310 kg would be divided by the remaining baseline of 82,400,136 kg (129,092,472 kg  -  46,692,336 kg for Arkema = 82,400,136 kg). The resulting percentage is 22.5 percent: 2.8 percentage points lower than what would be allocated absent recoupment. All entities not receiving recoupment would be allowed to produce 22.5 percent of their baseline.

For HCFC-142b production allowances, the only way to provide recoupment is to increase the amount of allowed production in both 2013 and 2014. There are three companies with HCFC-142b production allowances: Arkema, Honeywell and Solvay Solexis. Using the same formula as above, Honeywell and Solvay Solexis (the two companies who would receive recoupment under option 3) would receive 118,459 kg and 320,546 kg as their initial allocation (or 4.9 percent of their baseline), followed by 53,548 kg and 144,900 kg, respectively, in recoupment allowances. The result is 637,454 kg in total HCFC-142b production allowances. While the goal of this option is to keep total production allowances at 4.9 percent of the aggregate baseline (for a total calendar-year allocation of 462,740 kg) in each year, this is impossible if full recoupment is provided and would result in an additional allocation of 174,414 kg of allowed HCFC-142b production. Even though Arkema has an HCFC-142b baseline, once recoupment is provided, there are no additional HCFC-142b allowances remaining like in the HCFC-22 scenarios, leaving Arkema with zero HCFC-142b production allowances in 2013 and 2014.

To effectuate option three in the regulations, proposed section 82.16(a)(2) would be added to read as follows:

 *  *  *  *  *

(a)  *  *  *  (2) Recoupment allowances. (A) In the control period beginning January 1, 2013 and ending December 31, 2013, and the control period beginning January 1, 2014 and ending December 31, 2014, the following companies are granted an additional amount of HCFC consumption and production allowances in addition to the percentage of baseline listed in the table at paragraph (a)(1) of this section equal to: 2,374,846 kg of HCFC-22 consumption allowances and 2,305,924 kg of HCFC-22 production allowances to Arkema; 1,170 kg of HCFC-142b consumption allowances to DuPont; 29,146 kg of HCFC-142b consumption allowances and 53,549 kg of production allowances to Honeywell; 578,947 kg of HCFC-22 consumption allowances to Solvay Fluorides; and 144,900 kg of HCFC-142b production allowances to Solvay Solexis.

(B) In the control period beginning January 1, 2013 and ending December 31, 2013, and the control period beginning January 1, 2014 and ending December 31, 2014, ABCO Refrigeration Supply, Altair Partners, Carrier, Coolgas Investment Property, DuPont, H.G. Refrigeration Supply, Honeywell, Mexichem Fluor Inc., Kivlan & Company, MDA Manufacturing, Mondy Global, National Refrigerants, Refricenter of Miami, Refricentro, R-Lines, Saez Distributors, and USA Refrigerants must subtract 3.3 percentage points from the percentage of baseline allocated at 82.16(a)(1) for HCFC-22 consumption allowances and 2.8 percentage points from the percentage of baseline allocated at 82.16(a)(1) for HCFC-22 production allowances to determine their annual allocation of allowances.

(C) In the control period beginning January 1, 2013 and ending December 31, 2013, and the control period beginning January 1, 2014 and ending December 31, 2014, Arkema and Solvay Solexis must subtract 4.4 percentage points from the percentage of baseline allocated at 82.16(a)(1) for HCFC-142b consumption allowances. In the control period beginning January 1, 2013 and ending December 31, 2013, and the control period beginning January 1, 2014 and ending December 31, 2014, Arkema must subtract 4.9 percentage points from the percentage of baseline allocated at 82.16(a)(1) for HCFC-142b production allowances.

 *  *  *  *  *
EPA would also need to footnote the table(s) at 82.16(a)(1) to indicate the instances in which (a)(2) adjustments reduce the percentage set forth in the table.

Under Option 4:
EPA would not provide recoupment allowances as described in section III.B.4. of the preamble of the proposed rule. EPA would not need to change the regulatory text if it chooses this option.

Summary
The tables below shows how each of these options would impact HCFC-22 and HCFC-142b allocations in 2012-2014:

HCFC-22 Allocation in Metric Tons with Recoupment Options 1-4*

                                     2012
                                     2013
                                     2014

Consumption
Production
Consumption
Production
Consumption
Production
Option 1
                                    40,715
                                    37,050
                                    41,800
                                    37,272
                                    31,069
                                    28,271
Option 2
                                    40,715
                                    37,050
                                    38,846
                                    34,966
                                    34,022
                                    30,577
Option 3
                                    40,715
                                    37,050
                                    35,894
                                    32,659
                                    31,071
                                    28,270
Option 4
                                    40,715
                                    37,050
                                    35,892
                                    32,660
                                    31,069
                                    28,271
*All options assume the amount of allowed production does not increase and the amount of allowed consumption does not decrease as compared to the 2009 Final Rule.

HCFC-142b Allocation in Metric Tons with Recoupment Options 1-4

                                     2012
                                     2013
                                     2014

Consumption
Production
Consumption
Production
Consumption
Production
Option 1
                                      100
                                      463
                                      161
                                      860
                                      100
                                      463
Option 2
                                      100
                                      463
                                      131
                                      661
                                      131
                                      661
Option 3
                                      100
                                      463
                                      100
                                      637
                                      100
                                      637
Option 4
                                      100
                                      463
                                      100
                                      463
                                      100
                                      463


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 86 (Wednesday, May 4, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 26296-26299]
[FR Doc No: 2022-09474]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

49 CFR Parts 191 and 192

[Docket No. PHMSA-2011-0023; Amdt. Nos. 191-31; 192-131]
RIN 2137-AF38

Pipeline Safety: Safety of Gas Gathering Pipelines: Extension of
Reporting Requirements, Regulation of Large, High-Pressure Lines, and
Other Related Amendments: Response to a Petition for Reconsideration;
Technical Corrections; Issuance of Limited Enforcement Discretion

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

ACTION: Final rule; response to petition for reconsideration;
enforcement discretion; technical corrections.

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

SUMMARY: PHMSA is alerting the public to its April 1, 2022, response
denying a petition for reconsideration of the final rule titled
``Safety of Gas Gathering Pipelines: Extension of Reporting
Requirements, Regulation of Large, High-Pressure Lines, and Other
Related Amendments.'' This final rule also makes clarifications and two
technical corrections to that rulemaking. Lastly, this final rule
memorializes a limited enforcement discretion in connection with that
rulemaking's amendment of the regulatory definition of ``incidental
gathering.''

DATES: This final rule is effective May 16, 2022. The limited
enforcement discretion is effective May 16, 2022.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Technical questions: Steve Nanney,
Senior Technical Advisor, by telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    General information: Sayler Palabrica, Transportation Specialist,
by telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Response to Petition for Reconsideration

    On November 15, 2021, PHMSA published a final rule titled ``Safety
of Gas Gathering Pipelines: Extension of Reporting Requirements,
Regulation of Large, High-Pressure Lines, and Other Related
Amendments'' \1\ amending the Pipeline Safety Regulations at 49 CFR
parts 191 and 192 to introduce reporting requirements for previously
unregulated Types C and R gas gathering pipelines along with safety
standards for Type C gas gathering pipelines.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 86 FR 63266 (``Final Rule'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On December 15, 2021, the American Petroleum Institute and the GPA
Midstream Association (collectively, ``Petitioners'') submitted a
Petition for Reconsideration of the final rule.\2\ On April 1, 2022,
PHMSA issued a letter to the Petitioners with an accompanying Appendix
(``Response Letter'') responding to the arguments made in the Petition
and denying the Petition and the Motion to Stay. The Response Letter is
available in the docket for this rulemaking at Doc. No. PHMSA-2011-
0023-0504.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Doc. No. PHMSA-2011-0023-0493 (Dec. 20, 2021)
(``Petition''). The Petition was accompanied by a Motion to Stay the
rule (Doc. No. PHMSA-2011-0023-0492 (Dec. 20, 2021)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Clarifications and Technical Corrections

    Although PHMSA denied the Petition for reasons articulated in the
Response Letter, Petitioners raised certain elements of the final rule
that could benefit from clarification or technical correction to
facilitate operator compliance efforts. Specifically, PHMSA is (1)
issuing a technical correction amending the safety-related condition
report requirements in Sec.  191.23 consistent with statements in the
preamble to the final rule, and (2) clarifying that operators may, when
identifying Type C gas gathering lines pursuant to Sec.  192.8, use the
default specified minimum yield strength (``SMYS'') at Sec.
192.107(b)(2) when the yield strength is not known. PHMSA is also
issuing a technical correction amending Sec.  192.8 to align the
regulatory text with statements in the final rule facilitating
operators' consideration of maximum allowable operating pressure
(``MAOP'') in making threshold determinations that gas gathering
facilities qualify as Type C lines.

A. Technical Correction To Clarify That Certain Type C Gathering Lines
Do Not Need To Report MAOP Exceedances

    The final rule exempts all Type R gathering lines from part 191
requirements to report certain safety-related conditions, including
when the pressure on a pipeline exceeds its MAOP. 86 FR at 63295
(revising Sec.  191.23(b)(1)). However, the preamble to the final rule
explained that exception was not meant to be limited to Type R
gathering lines: Type C gathering lines with an outside diameter of
less than 12.75 inches, which are not required by Sec.  192.9(e)-(f) to
establish MAOP pursuant to Sec.  192.619, were to be excepted from the
safety-related condition reporting requirement. 86 FR at 63275. As the
Petition pointed out, PHMSA inadvertently omitted regulatory language
codifying that exception. PHMSA is therefore issuing a technical
correction revising Sec.  191.23(b)(1) to clarify that safety-related
condition reporting of MAOP exceedances is not required for operators
of gathering lines not required to establish an MAOP pursuant to
Sec. Sec.  192.9(e) and (f) and 192.619.

B. Clarification That Operators May Use a Default SMYS for Identifying
Type C Gathering Lines

    The final rule sets out in the Table 1 to Sec.  192.8(c)(2) the
criteria for an operator to use in making the threshold determination
that its pipelines are Type C. 86 FR at 63296. Among those criteria is
a comparison of hoop stress to SMYS. The Petition requested that PHMSA
revise regulatory text to provide that operators may use the default
yield strength specified at Sec.  192.107(b)(2) for the SMYS input for
determining whether a steel gas gathering line is a Type C gathering
line.
    As noted in the Response Letter, PHMSA declines to revise pertinent
regulatory text as requested by the Petitioners. However, PHMSA agrees
that there is value in clarifying that, in making the determination
whether a gathering line is a Type C line pursuant to Sec.  192.8(c),
operators that do not know the yield strength of a steel gathering line
may use the 24,000 pounds-per-square-inch default yield strength
specified at Sec.  192.107(b)(2) as a proxy for pipe SMYS used along
with the pipeline operating hoop stress to determine the operating hoop
stress percentage of pipe SMYS.

C. Technical Correction for Determining Pressure in Identifying Type C
Gathering Lines

    PHMSA also understands there is value in clarifying regulatory text
pertaining to the operating pressure input in making the threshold
determination of whether a gathering line is Type C pursuant to Sec.
192.8(c). The final rule identifies operating pressure as an input to
the threshold determination whether a pipeline facility is a Type C
gathering line. 86 FR 63291 (``The Type C determination in Sec.
192.8(c)(2) requires, at a minimum, knowledge only of . . . pressure of
the pipeline.''), and 86 FR 63296 (codifying Table 1 to Sec.
192.8(c)). However, PHMSA

inadvertently omitted from the final rule's regulatory text language
codifying that operators would be able to reference historical
operating pressure as an input to that threshold determination.
    PHMSA therefore is issuing a technical correction to remedy this
omission. Specifically, PHMSA is introducing Sec.  192.8(c)(4), which
provides that gas gathering line operators may, in connection with the
threshold determination that a facility is a Type C gathering line when
no MAOP has been calculated consistent with Sec.  192.619(a) or (c)(1),
use either (i) an MAOP calculated consistent with the methods at Sec.
192.619(a) or (c)(1), or (ii) as a substitute for MAOP, the highest
operating pressure to which the segment was subjected during the
preceding five years.

III. Limited Enforcement Discretion for Existing Incidental Gathering
Lines

    PHMSA is also issuing a limited enforcement discretion addressing
concerns raised in the Petition regarding the scope of the final rule's
amendment of Sec.  192.8 limiting the use of the ``incidental
gathering'' designation. The final rule permitted continued use of an
``incidental gathering'' designation, which allows operators to
designate lines downstream from the termination of any gathering
function as a gathering line rather than as a transmission line. For
pipelines that are new, replaced, relocated, or otherwise changed after
May 16, 2022, however, the final rule limited incidental gathering to
no more than 10 miles from the furthermost downstream endpoint of
gathering. (86 FR 63295 (codifying Sec.  192.8(a)(5)).
    Petitioners asked PHMSA to restrict the scope of this limitation to
newly-constructed lines, as they note that its application to projects
involving the replacement, relocation, or change of gas gathering lines
currently considered ``incidental gathering'' would cause economic
hardship on lines that would have to come into prompt compliance with
the suite of part 192 requirements governing transmission lines.
    As stated in the Response Letter, PHMSA declines at this time to
amend the final rule to limit the scope of the incidental gathering
distance limitation as requested by Petitioners. However, PHMSA
understands that the broad scope of the final rule distance limitation
may discourage operators of existing incidental gathering lines from
undertaking much needed safety-improving repairs and replacement
projects, which would subject those gathering lines to the more
rigorous part 192 requirements for transmission lines. Therefore, PHMSA
will exercise its discretion, during the pendency of its consideration
of amendments to Sec.  192.8(a)(5) to be announced in a forthcoming
supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (``SNPRM'') under RIN 2137-
AF37,\3\ to enforce the final rule's ten-mile limitation on
``incidental gathering'' only in connection with gas gathering lines
that are newly construction after May 16, 2022. PHMSA will not, during
the pendency of that rulemaking, enforce the final rule's 10-mile
limitation in connection with repair, replacement, or change of
gathering lines existing on or before May 16, 2022 that are currently
considered ``incidental gathering'' lines. PHMSA expects this limited
enforcement discretion will remove any disincentive created by the
final rule for operators of those legacy ``incidental gathering''
pipelines to undertake safety-enhancing replacement, relocation, or
other projects on those lines while PHMSA considers within a rulemaking
whether modification of Sec.  192.8(a)(5) is warranted. PHMSA will
memorialize this enforcement discretion within implementation material
for PHMSA inspectors and recommend that its state partners do the same.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Additional detail regarding the contents of that
Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking will be announced in the
Spring 2022 Unified Agenda.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This document is a temporary notice of enforcement discretion.
Regulated entities may rely on this notice as a temporary safeguard
from Departmental enforcement as described herein. To the extent this
notice includes guidance on how regulated entities may comply with
existing regulations, it does not have the force and effect of law and
is not meant to bind the regulated entities in any way. This
enforcement discretion will remain in effect until further notice,
aligned with the forthcoming SNPRM under RIN 2137-AF37. Nothing herein
prohibits the PHMSA Office of Pipeline Safety from rescinding this
limited exercise of its enforcement discretion and pursuing an
enforcement action if it determines that a significant safety issue
warrants doing so. Furthermore, nothing herein relieves operators from
compliance with any other applicable provisions of PHMSA regulations or
other law, and PHMSA reserves the right to exercise all of its other
authorities.

IV. Regulatory Analyses and Notices

A. Statutory/Legal Authority

    Statutory authority for this document's clarification and technical
corrections to the final rule, as with the final rule itself (whose
discussion of statutory authority at section IV.A., 86 FR 63290, is
incorporated herein by reference), is provided by the Federal Pipeline
Safety Act (49 U.S.C. 60101 et seq.). The Secretary delegated his
authority under the Federal Pipeline Safety Act to the PHMSA
Administrator under 49 CFR 1.97.
    PHMSA finds it has good cause to make those clarification and
technical corrections without notice and comment pursuant to section
553(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA, 5 U.S.C. 551, et
seq.). Section 553(b)(B) of the APA provides that, when an agency for
good cause finds that notice and public procedure are impracticable,
unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest, the agency may issue a
rule without providing notice and an opportunity for public comment. As
explained above, the textual alterations herein consist of a pair of
technical corrections codifying statements in the final rule preamble
that were inadvertently omitted from its amendatory text; they make no
substantive changes to the final rule but merely facilitate its
implementation by aligning the regulatory text and explanatory material
in the final rule's preamble. Because the final rule is the product of
an extensive administrative record with numerous opportunities
(including through written comments and the advisory committee) for
public comment, PHMSA finds that additional comment on the technical
corrections herein is unnecessary.
    The May 16, 2022 effective date of the revisions contained in this
notice is authorized under both section 553(d)(1) and (3) of the APA.
Section 553(d)(1) provides that a rule should take effect ``not less
than 30 days'' after publication in the Federal Register except for ``a
substantive rule which grants or recognizes an exemption or relieves a
restriction,'' while section 553(d)(3) allows for earlier effectiveness
for good cause found by the agency and published within the rule. 5
U.S.C. 553(d)(1), (3). ``[T]he purpose of the thirty-day waiting period
is to give affected parties a reasonable time to adjust their behavior
before the final rule takes effect.'' Omnipoint Corp. v. F.C.C., 78
F.3d 620, 630 (D.C. Cir. 1996). The technical correction at Sec.
191.23(b)(1) relieves reporting requirements, the technical correction
at Sec.  192.8(c)(4) eases the threshold Type C determination by
codifying an alternative method for calculating an operating pressure
input, while the enforcement discretion expresses PHMSA's intent to
limit enforcement of Sec.  192.8(a)(5) to only certain categories
(newly built incidental gathering lines)

provided for in that provision. Each relieves regulatory requirements
of the final rule and, in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1), are
effective May 16, 2022. Moreover, PHMSA finds that good cause under
Section 553(d)(3) supports making the revisions effective May 16, 2022
because the technical corrections contained in this notice are entirely
consistent with the final rule (which itself was published in November
2021) and in fact help promote timely compliance with the final rule's
requirements before its May 16, 2022, effective date.

B. Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures

    This document has been evaluated in accordance with existing
policies and procedures and is considered not significant under
Executive Order 12866 (``Regulatory Planning and Review'') and DOT
Order 2100.6A (``Rulemaking and Guidance Procedures''); therefore, this
notice has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) under Executive Order 12866. PHMSA finds that neither the
clarifications nor the technical corrections herein (in all respects
consistent with the final rule) neither impose incremental compliance
costs nor adversely affect safety. Additionally, PHMSA found in the
Regulatory Impact Analysis that the incidental gathering provision of
the final rule would have a minor cost. To the extent the enforcement
discretion statement contained in this notice results in fewer safety
requirements applied to existing incidental gathering lines greater
than 10 miles that are modified or replaced, the notice may lead to
reduced costs of compliance and reduced safety and environmental
benefits. However, the amount of existing incidental gathering lines 10
or more miles long is believed to be low and the portion of those lines
that will be modified or replaced while the enforcement discretion is
in effect is also likely to be low. Overall, PHMSA expects any impacts
on the expected costs and benefits of the final rule will be
negligible.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act, as amended by the Small Business
Regulatory Flexibility Fairness Act of 1996 (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.),
generally requires Federal regulatory agencies to prepare a Final
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) for a final rule subject to
notice-and-comment rulemaking under the APA. 5 U.S.C. 604(a).\4\ The
Small Business Administration's implementing guidance explains that
``[i]f an NPRM is not required, the RFA does not apply.'' \5\ Because
PHMSA has ``good cause'' under the APA to forego comment on the
technical corrections herein, no FRFA is required. Moreover, PHMSA
prepared a FRFA for the final rule, which is available in the docket
for this rulemaking; \6\ because the technical corrections herein will
impose no new incremental compliance costs, PHMSA understands the
analysis in that FRFA remains unchanged.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ This requirement is subject to exceptions--which are not in
any event applicable here because PHMSA has good cause to forego
comment in adopting the technical correction herein.
    \5\ Small Business Administration, ``A Guide for Government
Agencies: How to Comply with the Regulatory Flexibility Act'' 55
(2017).
    \6\ Doc. No. PHMSA-2011-0023-0488, at 34-35 (Nov. 14, 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The clarifications and technical corrections in this notice impose
no new or revised information collection requirements beyond those
discussed in the final rule.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    PHMSA analyzed the clarifications and technical corrections in this
notice under the factors in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.) and determined that the technical
corrections to the final rule herein do not impose enforceable duties
on State, local, or Tribal governments or on the private sector of $100
million or more, adjusted for inflation, in any one year. PHMSA
prepared an analysis of the UMRA considerations in the final RIA for
the final rule, which is available in the docket for the rulemaking.\7\
Because the clarifications and technical corrections herein will impose
no new incremental compliance costs, PHMSA understands the analysis in
that UMRA discussion for the final rule remains unchanged.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Doc. No. PHMSA-2011-0023-0488, at 35 (Nov. 14, 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

F. National Environmental Policy Act

    The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA, 42 U.S.C. 4321
et seq.) requires Federal agencies to prepare a detailed statement on
major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human
environment. PHMSA analyzed the final rule in accordance with NEPA,
implementing Council on Environmental Quality regulations (40 CFR parts
1500-1508), and DOT implementing policies (DOT Order 610.1C,
``Procedures for Considering Environmental Impacts'') and determined
the final rule would not significantly affect the quality of the human
environment.\8\ The clarifications and technical corrections to the
final rule in this notice have no effect on PHMSA's earlier NEPA
analysis as they are consistent, and merely facilitate compliance with,
the final rule. PHMSA acknowledges that the limited enforcement
discretion in Section III above could result in some existing
``incidental'' gas gathering lines that are replaced, relocated, or
changed remaining subject to less rigorous part 192 safety requirements
than if those lines were to be regulated as transmission lines
consistent with the final rule's revisions to Sec.  192.8. However,
PHMSA expects that the enforcement discretion could improve public
safety and environmental protection in some cases, as it removes
potential inhibitions for some of those operators undertaking safety-
enhancing repair, replacement, or change projects on their facilities.
With these offsetting considerations in mind, PHMSA finds that the
limited enforcement discretion herein would result in no significant
impact on the human environment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Final Environmental Assessment, Doc. No. PHMSA-2011-0023
(Nov. 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

G. Privacy Act Statement

    In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the
public to inform its rulemaking process. DOT posts these comments,
without edit, including any personal information the commenter
provides, to www.regulations.gov, as described in the system of records
notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at www.dot.gov/privacy.

H. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)

    PHMSA has analyzed this notice in accordance with the principles
and criteria contained in Executive Order 13132 (``Federalism'').\9\
The clarifications and technical corrections herein are consistent, and
merely facilitate compliance with, the final rule, and do not have any
substantial direct effect on the States, the relationship between the
National Government and the States, or the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government beyond what was
accounted for in the final rule. It does not contain any provision that
imposes any substantial direct compliance costs on State and local
governments, nor any new provision that preempts State law. Therefore,
the consultation and funding

requirements of Executive Order 13132 do not apply.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 64 FR 43255 (Aug. 10, 1999).
    \10\ Moreover, PHMSA determined that the Final Rule did not
impose substantial direct compliance costs on State and local
governments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Executive Order 13211

    PHMSA analyzed the final rule and determined that the requirements
of Executive Order 13211 (``Actions Concerning Regulations that
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use'') \11\ did
not apply. The clarifications and technical corrections to the final
rule herein are not a ``significant energy action'' under Executive
Order 13211 either as they are not likely to have a significant adverse
effect on supply, distribution, or energy use. Further, OMB has not
designated these clarifications and revisions as a significant energy
action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

J. Executive Order 13175

    This document was analyzed in accordance with the principles and
criteria contained in Executive Order 13175 (``Consultation and
Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments'') \12\ and DOT Order
5301.1 (``Department of Transportation Policies, Programs, and
Procedures Affecting American Indians, Alaska Natives, and Tribes'').
Because none of the clarifications and technical revisions have Tribal
implications or impose substantial direct compliance costs on Indian
Tribal governments, the funding and consultation requirements of
Executive Order 13175 do not apply.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 65 FR 67249 (Nov. 6, 2000).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

K. Executive Order 13609 and International Trade Analysis

    Under Executive Order 13609 (``Promoting International Regulatory
Cooperation''),\13\ agencies must consider whether the impacts
associated with significant variations between domestic and
international regulatory approaches are unnecessary or may impair the
ability of American business to export and compete internationally. In
meeting shared challenges involving health, safety, labor, security,
environmental, and other issues, international regulatory cooperation
can identify approaches that are at least as protective as those that
are or would be adopted in the absence of such cooperation.
International regulatory cooperation can also reduce, eliminate, or
prevent unnecessary differences in regulatory requirements. The
clarifications and technical corrections to the final rule in this
notice do not impact international trade.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 77 FR 26413 (May 4, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

L. Regulation Identifier Number (RIN)

    A regulation identifier number (RIN) is assigned to each regulatory
action listed in the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulations. The
Regulatory Information Service Center publishes the Unified Agenda in
April and October of each year. The RIN contained in the heading of
this document can be used to cross-reference this action with the
Unified Agenda.

List of Subjects

49 CFR Part 191

    MAOP exceedance, Pipeline reporting requirements.

49 CFR Part 192

    Integrity assessments, MAOP reconfirmation, Material verification,
Pipeline safety, Predicted failure pressure, Reporting and record-
keeping requirements, Risk assessment, Safety devices.

    In consideration of the foregoing, PHMSA amends 49 CFR parts 191
and 192 as follows:

PART 191--TRANSPORTATION OF NATURAL AND OTHER GAS BY PIPELINE;
ANNUAL, INCIDENT, AND OTHER REPORTING

0
1. The authority citation for part 191 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  30 U.S.C. 185(w)(3), 49 U.S.C. 5121, 60101 et seq.,
and 49 CFR 1.97.

0
2. Section 191.23, as amended November 15, 2021, at 86 FR 63295, and
effective May 16, 2022, is further amended by revising paragraph (b)(1)
to read as follows:

Sec.  191.23  Reporting safety-related conditions.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (1) Exists on a master meter system, a reporting-regulated
gathering pipeline, a Type C gas gathering pipeline with an outside
diameter of 12.75 inches or less, a Type C gas gathering pipeline
covered by the exception in Sec.  192.9(f)(1) of this subchapter and
therefore not required to comply with Sec.  192.9(e)(2)(ii), or a
customer-owned service line;
* * * * *

PART 192--TRANSPORTATION OF NATURAL AND OTHER GAS BY PIPELINE:
MINIMUM FEDERAL SAFETY STANDARDS

0
3. The authority citation for part 192 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 30 U.S.C. 185(w)(3), 49 U.S.C. 5103, 60101 et seq.,
and 49 CFR 1.97.

0
4. Section 192.8, as amended November 15, 2021, at 86 FR 63295, and
effective May 16, 2022, is further amended by adding paragraph (c)(4)
to read as follows:

Sec.  192.8  How are onshore gathering pipelines and regulated onshore
gathering pipelines determined?

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (4) For the purpose of identifying Type C lines in table 1 to
paragraph (c)(2) of this section, if an operator has not calculated
MAOP consistent with the methods at Sec.  192.619(a) or (c)(1), the
operator must either:
    (i) Calculate MAOP consistent with the methods at Sec.  192.619(a)
or (c)(1); or
    (ii) Use as a substitute for MAOP the highest operating pressure to
which the segment was subjected during the preceding 5 operating years.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on April 28, 2022, under authority
delegated in 49 CFR 1.97.
Tristan H. Brown,
Deputy Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2022-09474 Filed 5-3-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-60-P