[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 50 (Wednesday, March 14, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 15009-15012]
[FR Doc No: 2012-6126]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket No. USCG-2012-0131]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zones; Sellwood Bridge Project, Willamette River;
Portland, OR

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes the establishment of two safety zones
to remain in effect throughout the duration of the construction and
renewal of the Sellwood Bridge located on the Willamette River in
Portland, Oregon. This action is necessary to ensure the safety of
vessels transiting in close proximity to cranes, barges, and temporary
structures associated with this construction project. During the
effective period, all vessels will be required to remain at the
prescribed safe distance from the construction area while transiting in
the vicinity of the Sellwood Bridge project; however, the establishment
of these safety zones does not entirely close this section of the
Willamette River. The section of the Willamette River between the
safety zones will remain open for vessel transits, and it will have a
minimum channel width of 138 feet at all times.
    The two safety zones proposed in this rule are located within the
same geographical points as safety zones issued as a temporary final
rule effective through 11 a.m., July 1, 2012.

DATES: Comments and related material must be received by the Coast
Guard on or before May 14, 2012.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-
2012-0131 using any one of the following methods:
    (1) Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
    (2) Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (3) Mail: Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S. Department of
Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001.
    (4) Hand delivery: Same as mail address above, between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The telephone
number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    To avoid duplication, please use only one of these four methods.
See the ``Public Participation and Request for Comments'' portion of
the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below for instructions on
submitting comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this proposed
rule, call or email ENS Ian McPhillips, Waterways Management Division,
Marine Safety Unit Portland, Coast Guard; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have questions on viewing or
submitting material to the docket, call Renee V. Wright, Program
Manager, Docket Operations, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Public Participation and Request for Comments

    We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting
comments and related materials. All comments received will be posted
without change to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any
personal information you have provided.

Submitting Comments

    If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
rulemaking (USCG-2012-0131), indicate the specific section of this
document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each
suggestion or recommendation. You may submit your comments and material
online (via http://www.regulations.gov) or by fax, mail, or hand
delivery, but please use only one of these means. If you submit a
comment online via www.regulations.gov, it will be considered received
by the Coast Guard when you successfully transmit the comment. If you
fax, hand deliver, or mail your comment, it will be considered as
having been received by the Coast Guard when it is received at the
Docket Management Facility. We recommend that you include your name and
a mailing address, an email address, or a telephone number in the body
of your document so that we can contact you if we have questions
regarding your submission.
    To submit your comment online, go to http://www.regulations.gov,
click on the ``submit a comment'' box, which will then become
highlighted in blue. In the ``Document Type'' drop down menu select
``Proposed Rule'' and insert

``USCG-2012-0131'' in the ``Keyword'' box. Click ``Search'' then click
on the balloon shape in the ``Actions'' column. If you submit your
comments by mail or hand delivery, submit them in an unbound format, no
larger than 8\1/2\ by 11 inches, suitable for copying and electronic
filing. If you submit comments by mail and would like to know that they
reached the Facility, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard
or envelope. We will consider all comments and material received during
the comment period and may change the rule based on your comments.

Viewing Comments and Documents

    To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble
as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov,
click on the ``read comments'' box, which will then become highlighted
in blue. In the ``Keyword'' box insert ``USCG-2012-0131'' and click
``Search.'' Click the ``Open Docket Folder'' in the ``Actions'' column.
You may also visit the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on
the ground floor of the Department of Transportation West Building,
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. We have an
agreement with the Department of Transportation to use the Docket
Management Facility.

Privacy Act

    Anyone can search the electronic form of comments received into any
of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or
signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association,
business, labor union, etc.). You may review a Privacy Act notice
regarding our public dockets in the January 17, 2008, issue of the
Federal Register (73 FR 3316).

Public Meeting

    We do not now plan to hold a public meeting. But you may submit a
request for one on or before April 13, 2012 using one of the four
methods specified under ADDRESSES. Please explain why you believe a
public meeting would be beneficial. If we determine that one would aid
this rulemaking, we will hold one at a time and place announced by a
later notice in the Federal Register.

Basis and Purpose

    The Sellwood Bridge project will replace the existing 86 year old
bridge that is structurally inadequate and functionally obsolete. The
project will renew the bridge with a new deck arch structure compliant
with current loading and seismic requirements, upgrade the interchange
at Oregon Route 43, and provide substantially improved bicycle and
pedestrian facilities. Construction work will continue through January
1, 2015. The project includes the construction of two temporary
structures and two new bridge piers which will each require a
cofferdam. The temporary structures will be constructed to facilitate
the moving of the older bridge. To ensure the safety of construction
crews on the barges, temporary structures, and cranes, two safety zones
on each side of the river are being established to require vessels in
the vicinity of the construction area to remain outside of the two
designated safety zones. Additionally, this will ensure that the
vessels operating in the vicinity of the designated areas will not be
in any dangerous areas near the temporary structures or cranes.

Discussion of Proposed Rule

    The proposed rule would create two safety zones that cover all
waters of the Willamette River; however, the establishment of these
safety zones does not entirely close this section of the Willamette
River. The section of the Willamette River between the safety zones
will remain open for vessel transits, and it will have a minimum
channel width of 138 feet at all times. The first safety zone on the
West river bank is encompassed within the following four lines: Line
one starting at 45-27'53.5'' N/122-40'03.5'' W then heading 375 feet
offshore to 45-27'53.5'' N/122-39'58.5'' W then heading up river 200
feet to 45-27'49.5'' N/122-39'58.5'' W then heading 375 feet back to
the shore at 45-27'49.5'' N/122-40'04.5'' W then following the
shoreline to end at 45-27'53.5'' N/122-40'03.5'' W. The second safety
zone on the East river bank is encompassed within the following four
lines: Line one starting at 45-27'53.5'' N/122-39'50.5'' W then heading
420 feet offshore to 45-27'53.5'' N/122-39'55.0'' W then heading up
river 200 feet to 45-27'49.5'' N/122-39'55.0'' W then heading 420 feet
back to the shore at 45-27'49.5'' N/122-39'47.0'' W then following the
shoreline to end at 45-27'49.5'' N/122-39'47.0'' W. Geographically this
rule will cover all waters of the Willamette River 100 feet upriver and
downriver of the existing Sellwood Bridge, inward 375 feet from the
Western side shoreline, and inward 420 feet from the Eastern side
shoreline. The section of the Willamette River between the safety zones
will remain open for vessel transits, and it will have a minimum width
of 138 feet at all times. These safety zones will ensure the safety of
the all vessels and crew that are working and transiting in the
construction areas.

Regulatory Analyses

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

Regulatory Planning and Review

    Executive Orders 13563, Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review,
and 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, direct agencies to assess
the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public
health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). Executive
Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and
benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting
flexibility. This rule has not been designated a significant regulatory
action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, the
Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed this regulation under
Executive Order 12866. The Coast Guard has made this determination
based on the fact that the safety zones created by this rule will not
significantly affect the maritime public because vessels may still
transit in the vicinity of the safety zones.

Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have
considered whether this proposed rule would have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000.
    The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. This rule may affect the following entities, some of which
may be small entities: The owners and operators of vessels intending to
operate in the area covered by the safety zones. The safety zones will
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities because the area can still be used to transit through this
section of the river, which will

maintain a minimum width of 138 feet. Other maritime users, such as
dragon boats, kayaks, and canoes, will be able to transit around the
safety zones or through the open section.
    If you think that your business, organization, or governmental
jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have
a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see
ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what
degree this rule would economically affect it.

Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this proposed rule so that they can better
evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. If the
rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental
jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or
options for compliance, please contact ENS Ian McPhillips, Waterways
Management Division, Marine Safety Unit Portland, Coast Guard;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>The Coast
Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or
complain about this proposed rule or any policy or action of the Coast
Guard.

Collection of Information

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

Federalism

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

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

Taking of Private Property

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

Civil Justice Reform

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

Protection of Children

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

Indian Tribal Governments

    This proposed rule does not have tribal implications under
Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments, because it would not have a substantial direct effect on
one or more Indian Tribes, on the relationship between the Federal
Government and Indian Tribes, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes.

Energy Effects

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

Technical Standards

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

Environment

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland
Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction
M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and
have made a preliminary determination that this action is one of a
category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a
significant effect on the human environment. A preliminary
environmental analysis checklist supporting this determination is
available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES. This rule is
categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph (34) (g), of the
instruction. This proposed rule involves the creation of two safety
zones. We seek any comments or information that may lead to the
discovery of a significant environmental impact from this proposed
rule.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

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

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

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

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

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

    2. Add Sec.  165.T13-208 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T13-208  Safety Zones; Sellwood Bridge project, Willamette
River; Portland, OR

    (a) Location. The safety zone on the western river bank encompasses
all waters of the Willamette River within the following four lines:
Line one starting at 45-27'53.5'' N/122-40'03.5'' W then heading 375
feet offshore to 45-27'53.5'' N/122-39'58.5'' W then heading up river
200 feet to 45-27'49.5'' N/122-39'58.5'' W then heading 375 feet back
to the shore at 45-27'49.5'' N/122-40'04.5'' W then following the
shoreline to end at 45-27'53.5'' N/122-40'03.5'' W. The safety zone on
the eastern river bank is encompassed within the following four lines:
line one starting at 45-27'53.5'' N/122-39'50.5'' W then heading 420
feet offshore to 45-27'53.5'' N/122-39'55.0'' W then heading up river
200 feet to 45-27'49.5'' N/122-39'55.0'' W then heading 420 feet back
to the shore at 45-27'49.5'' N/122-39'47.0'' W then following the
shoreline to end at 45-27'49.5'' N/122-39'47.0'' W. Geographically,
this rule will cover all waters of the Willamette River 100 feet
upriver and downriver of the existing Sellwood Bridge, inward 375 feet
from the Western side shoreline, and inward 420 feet from the Eastern
side shoreline. The section of the Willamette River between the safety
zones will remain open for vessel transits, and it will have a minimum
width of 138 feet at all times.
    (b) Regulations. In accordance with the general regulations in 33
CFR Part 165, subpart C, no person may enter or remain in the safety
zones created in this section or bring, cause to be brought, or allow
to remain in the safety zones created in this section any vehicle,
vessel, or object unless authorized by the Captain of the Port or his
designated representative. The Captain of the Port may be assisted by
other federal, state, or local agencies with the enforcement of the
safety zones.
    (c) Effective Period. The Safety zones created by this section will
be in effect from 11 a.m. on July 1, 2012 through 11 p.m. on January
31, 2015.

    Dated: March 1, 2012.
B.C. Jones,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port, Columbia River.
[FR Doc. 2012-6126 Filed 3-13-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register: April 2, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 62)]
[Notices]
[Page 14978-14979]
[DOCID:fr02ap09-46]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 2210-169]

Appalachian Power Company, Virginia; Notice of Availability of
the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Smith Mountain Pumped
Storage Project and Announcing Intention To Hold Public Meeting

March 27, 2009.
    In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission)
regulations, 18 CFR part 380 (Order No. 486, 52 FR 47897), the Office
of Energy Projects has reviewed the application for license for the
Smith Mountain Pumped Storage Project (FERC No. 2210), located on the
headwaters of the Roanoke River in Bedford, Campbell, Franklin, and
Pittsylvania counties in the Commonwealth of Virginia. Commission staff
has prepared a draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the
project.
    The draft EIS contains staff's evaluation of the applicant's
proposal and the alternatives for relicensing the Smith Mountain
Project. The draft EIS documents the views of governmental agencies,
non-governmental organizations, affected Indian tribes, the public, the
license applicant, and Commission staff.
    A copy of the draft EIS is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Branch, Room 2A, located at 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426. The draft EIS also may be viewed on the
Commission's web site at http://www.ferc.gov, under the eLibrary link.
Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket

number field to access the document. For assistance, contact FERC
Online Support at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll-free at 1-866-208-
3676, or for TTY,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    You may also register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/
esubscription.asp to be notified via email of new filings and issuances
related to this or other pending projects. For assistance, contact FERC
Online Support.
    Comments should be filed with: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC,
20426. All comments must be filed by May 11, 2009, and should reference
Project No. 2210-169. Comments may be filed electronically via the
Internet in lieu of paper. The Commission strongly encourages
electronic filings. See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and instructions on
the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov under the eLibrary
link.
    Anyone may intervene in this proceeding based on this draft EIS (18
CFR 380.10). You must file your request to intervene as specified
above.\1\ You do not need intervenor status to have your comments
considered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Interventions may also be filed electronically via the
Internet in lieu of paper. See the previous discussion on filing
comments electronically.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to, or in lieu of, sending written comments, you are
invited to attend a public meeting that will be held to receive
comments on the draft EIS. The time and location of the meeting will be
announced in a subsequent notice.
    At this meeting, resource agency personnel and other interested
persons will have the opportunity to provide oral and written comments,
as well as recommendations, regarding the draft EIS. The meeting will
be recorded by a court reporter, and all statements (verbal and
written) will become part of the Commission's public record for the
project. This meeting is posted on the Commission's calendar located at
http://www.ferc.gov/EventCalendar/EventsList.aspx along with other
related information.
    For further information, contact Allan Creamer at<PHONE_NUMBER>,
or via e-mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-7443 Filed 4-1-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 180 (Tuesday, September 19, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 64429-64430]
[FR Doc No: 2023-20281]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0750; FRL-11343-01-OCSPP]

Pesticide Registration Review; Proposed Interim Decision for
Tetrachlorvinphos; Notice of Availability

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces the availability of EPA's proposed
interim registration review decision for tetrachlorvinphos (hereafter
referred to as TCVP) and opens a 60-day public comment period on the
proposed interim decision and revised draft human health risk
assessment for TCVP.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before November 20, 2023.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by docket identification
(ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0750, through the Federal eRulemaking
Portal at 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 and visiting the docket, along with more
information about dockets generally, is available at https://www.epa.gov/dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
    For pesticide specific information, contact: The Chemical Review
Manager for the pesticide of interest identified in Table 1 in Unit IV.
    For general information on the registration review program,
contact: Melanie Biscoe, Pesticide Re-Evaluation Division (7508P),
Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:
(202) 566-0701; email address: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    This action is directed to the public in general and may be of
interest to a wide range of stakeholders including

environmental, human health, farm worker, and agricultural advocates;
the chemical industry; pesticide users; and members of the public
interested in the sale, distribution, or use of pesticides. Since
others also may be interested, the Agency has not attempted to describe
all the specific entities that may be affected by this action. If you
have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a
particular entity, consult the Chemical Review Manager for the
pesticide of interest identified in Table 1 in Unit IV.

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 the information
that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information on 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/commenting-epa-dockets.
    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. Background

    Registration review is EPA's periodic review of pesticide
registrations to ensure that each pesticide continues to satisfy the
statutory standard for registration, that is, the pesticide can perform
its intended function without unreasonable adverse effects on human
health or the environment. As part of the registration review process,
the Agency has completed proposed interim or proposed final decisions
for all pesticides listed in Table 1 in Unit IV. Through this program,
EPA is ensuring that each pesticide's registration is based on current
scientific and other knowledge, including its effects on human health
and the environment.

III. Authority

    EPA is conducting its registration review of the chemicals listed
in the Table 1 in Unit IV pursuant to section 3(g) of the Federal
Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and the Procedural
Regulations for Registration Review at 40 CFR part 155, subpart C.
Section 3(g) of FIFRA provides, among other things, that the
registrations of pesticides are to be reviewed every 15 years. Under
FIFRA, a pesticide product may be registered or remain registered only
if it meets the statutory standard for registration given in FIFRA
section 3(c)(5) (7 U.S.C. 136a(c)(5)). When used in accordance with
widespread and commonly recognized practice, the pesticide product must
perform its intended function without unreasonable adverse effects on
the environment; that is, without any unreasonable risk to man or the
environment, or a human dietary risk from residues that result from the
use of a pesticide in or on food.

IV. What action is the Agency taking?

    Pursuant to 40 CFR 155.58, this notice announces the availability
of EPA's proposed interim registration review decision and opens a 60-
day public comment period on the proposed interim registration review
decision and revised draft human health risk assessment.

                                       Table 1--Proposed Interim Decision
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Registration review case name and No.             Docket ID No.                  Contact information
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tetrachlorvinphos Case 0321..................         EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0316  Patricia Biggio,
                                                                             [email protected], (202) 566-
                                                                             1938.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The registration review docket for a pesticide includes earlier
documents related to the registration review case. For example, the
review opened with a Preliminary Work Plan, for public comment. A Final
Work Plan was placed in the docket following public comment on the
Preliminary Work Plan.
    The documents in the dockets describe EPA's rationales for
conducting additional risk assessments for the registration review of
the pesticide included in the Table in Unit IV, as well as the Agency's
subsequent risk findings. The proposed interim registration review
decision is supported by the rationales included in the risk
assessments.
    The registration review final rule at 40 CFR 155.58(a) provides for
a minimum 60-day public comment period on all proposed interim
registration review decisions. This comment period is intended to
provide an opportunity for public input and a mechanism for initiating
any necessary amendments to the proposed interim decision and risk
assessments. All comments should be submitted using the methods in
ADDRESSES and must be received by EPA on or before the closing date.
These comments will become part of the docket for the pesticide
included in the Table in Unit IV. Comments received after the close of
the comment period will be marked ``late.'' EPA is not required to
consider these late comments.
    The Agency will carefully consider all comments received by the
closing date and may provide a ``Response to Comments Memorandum'' in
the docket. The interim registration review decision will explain the
effect that any comments had on the interim registration review
decision and risk assessments and provide the Agency's response to
significant comments.
    Background on the registration review program is provided at:
https://www.epa.gov/pesticide-reevaluation.
    Authority: 7 U.S.C. 136 et seq.

    Dated: September 13, 2023.
Mary Elissa Reaves,
Director, Pesticide Re-Evaluation Division, Office of Pesticide
Programs.
[FR Doc. 2023-20281 Filed 9-18-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 105 (Wednesday, June 1, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 35026-35028]
[FR Doc No: 2016-12823]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2014-E-1235]

Determination of Regulatory Review Period for Purposes of Patent
Extension; OSPHENA

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has determined the
regulatory review period for OSPHENA and is publishing this notice of
that determination as required by law. FDA has made the determination
because of the submission of an application to the Director of the U.S.
Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), Department of Commerce, for the
extension of a patent which claims that human drug product.

DATES: Anyone with knowledge that any of the dates as published (in the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section) are incorrect may submit either
electronic or written comments and ask for a redetermination by August
1, 2016. Furthermore, any interested person may petition FDA for a
determination regarding whether the applicant for extension acted with
due diligence

during the regulatory review period by November 28, 2016. See
``Petitions'' in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for more
information.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments as follows:

Electronic Submissions

    Submit electronic comments in the following way:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments. Comments submitted
electronically, including attachments, to http://www.regulations.gov
will be posted to the docket unchanged. Because your comment will be
made public, you are solely responsible for ensuring that your comment
does not include any confidential information that you or a third party
may not wish to be posted, such as medical information, your or anyone
else's Social Security number, or confidential business information,
such as a manufacturing process. Please note that if you include your
name, contact information, or other information that identifies you in
the body of your comments, that information will be posted on http://www.regulations.gov.
     If you want to submit a comment with confidential
information that you do not wish to be made available to the public,
submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner
detailed (see ``Written/Paper Submissions'' and ``Instructions'').

Written/Paper Submissions

    Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
     Mail/Hand delivery/Courier (for written/paper
submissions): Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug
Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.
     For written/paper comments submitted to the Division of
Dockets Management, FDA will post your comment, as well as any
attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified,
as confidential, if submitted as detailed in ``Instructions.''
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket No.
FDA-2014-E-1235 for ``Determination of Regulatory Review Period for
Purposes of Patent Extension; OSPHENA.'' Received comments will be
placed in the docket and, except for those submitted as ``Confidential
Submissions,'' publicly viewable at http://www.regulations.gov or at
the Division of Dockets Management between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday
through Friday.
     Confidential Submissions--To submit a comment with
confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly
available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You
should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information
you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states
``THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.'' The Agency will
review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in
its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the
claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be
available for public viewing and posted on http://www.regulations.gov.
Submit both copies to the Division of Dockets Management. If you do not
wish your name and contact information to be made publicly available,
you can provide this information on the cover sheet and not in the body
of your comments and you must identify this information as
``confidential.'' Any information marked as ``confidential'' will not
be disclosed except in accordance with 21 CFR 10.20 and other
applicable disclosure law. For more information about FDA's posting of
comments to public dockets, see 80 FR 56469, September 18, 2015, or
access the information at: http://www.fda.gov/regulatoryinformation/dockets/default.htm.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
the electronic and written/paper comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov and insert the docket number, found in brackets in
the heading of this document, into the ``Search'' box and follow the
prompts and/or go to the Division of Dockets Management, 5630 Fishers
Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Beverly Friedman, Office of Regulatory
Policy, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg.
51, Rm. 6250, Silver Spring, MD 20993,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    The Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984
(Pub. L. 98-417) and the Generic Animal Drug and Patent Term
Restoration Act (Pub. L. 100-670) generally provide that a patent may
be extended for a period of up to 5 years so long as the patented item
(human drug product, animal drug product, medical device, food
additive, or color additive) was subject to regulatory review by FDA
before the item was marketed. Under these acts, a product's regulatory
review period forms the basis for determining the amount of extension
an applicant may receive.
    A regulatory review period consists of two periods of time: A
testing phase and an approval phase. For human drug products, the
testing phase begins when the exemption to permit the clinical
investigations of the drug becomes effective and runs until the
approval phase begins. The approval phase starts with the initial
submission of an application to market the human drug product and
continues until FDA grants permission to market the drug product.
Although only a portion of a regulatory review period may count toward
the actual amount of extension that the Director of USPTO may award
(for example, half the testing phase must be subtracted as well as any
time that may have occurred before the patent was issued), FDA's
determination of the length of a regulatory review period for a human
drug product will include all of the testing phase and approval phase
as specified in 35 U.S.C. 156(g)(1)(B).
    FDA has approved for marketing the human drug product OSPHENA
(ospemifene). OSPHENA is indicated for treatment of moderate to severe
dyspareunia, a symptom of vulvar and vaginal atrophy due to menopause.
Subsequent to this approval, the USPTO received a patent term
restoration application for OSPHENA (U.S. Patent No. 6,245,819) from
Hormos Medical Ltd., and the USPTO requested FDA's assistance in
determining this patent's eligibility for patent term restoration. In a
letter dated May 11, 2015, FDA advised the USPTO that this human drug
product had undergone a regulatory review period and that the approval
of OSPHENA represented the first permitted commercial marketing or use
of the product. Thereafter, the USPTO requested that FDA determine the
product's regulatory review period.

II. Determination of Regulatory Review Period

    FDA has determined that the applicable regulatory review period for
OSPHENA is 3,585 days. Of this time, 3,278 days occurred during the
testing phase of the regulatory review period, while 307 days occurred
during the approval phase. These periods of time were derived from the
following dates:
    1. The date an exemption under section 505(i) of the Federal Food,
Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 355(i)) became
effective: May 7, 2003. FDA has verified the Hormos Medical Ltd. claim
that May 7, 2003, is

the date the investigational new drug application (IND) became
effective.
    2. The date the application was initially submitted with respect to
the human drug product under section 505(b) of the FD&C Act: April 26,
2012. FDA has verified the applicant's claim that the new drug
application (NDA) for OSPHENA (NDA 203505) was initially submitted on
April 26, 2012.
    3. The date the application was approved: February 26, 2013. FDA
has verified the applicant's claim that NDA 203505 was approved on
February 26, 2013.
    This determination of the regulatory review period establishes the
maximum potential length of a patent extension. However, the USPTO
applies several statutory limitations in its calculations of the actual
period for patent extension. In its application for patent extension,
this applicant seeks 1,826 days of patent term extension.

III. Petitions

    Anyone with knowledge that any of the dates as published are
incorrect may submit either electronic or written comments and ask for
a redetermination (see DATES). Furthermore, any interested person may
petition FDA for a determination regarding whether the applicant for
extension acted with due diligence during the regulatory review period.
To meet its burden, the petition must be timely (see DATES) and contain
sufficient facts to merit an FDA investigation. (See H. Rept. 857, part
1, 98th Cong., 2d sess., pp. 41-42, 1984.) Petitions should be in the
format specified in 21 CFR 10.30.
    Submit petitions electronically to http://www.regulations.gov at
Docket No. FDA-2013-S-0610. Submit written petitions (two copies are
required) to the Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and
Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

    Dated: May 25, 2016.
Leslie Kux,
Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2016-12823 Filed 5-31-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


and rely on the provisions in this December 17, 2007, submittal to meet
these requirements.

E. Monitoring Strategy and Other Implementation Plan Requirements

    The primary monitoring network for regional haze in South Carolina
is the IMPROVE network. As discussed in section IV.B.2 of this action,
there is currently one IMPROVE site in South Carolina, which serves as
the monitoring site for Cape Romain (ROMA1).
    IMPROVE monitoring data from 2000-2004 serves as the baseline for
the regional haze program and is relied upon in the December 17, 2007,
regional haze submittal. In the submittal, South Carolina states its
intention to rely on the IMPROVE network for complying with the
regional haze monitoring requirement in EPA's RHR for the current and
future regional haze implementation periods.
    Data produced by the IMPROVE monitoring network will be used nearly
continuously for preparing the five-year progress reports and the 10-
year SIP revisions, each of which relies on analysis of the preceding
five years of data. The Visibility Information Exchange Web System
(VIEWS) web site has been maintained by VISTAS and the other RPOs to
provide ready access to the IMPROVE data and data analysis tools. South
Carolina is encouraging VISTAS and the other RPOs to maintain the VIEWS
or a similar data management system to facilitate analysis of the
IMPROVE data.
    In addition to the IMPROVE measurements, the State supplements the
IMPROVE sampling by operating additional co-located monitoring.
Monitoring at Cape Romain includes:
     A tapered element oscillating microbalance for
continuously measuring PM2.5 mass concentration;
     An aethalometer for continuously measuring black carbon;
     An integrating nephelometer, supported by VISTAS, for
continuously measuring light scattering; and
     Continuous monitoring of NO2 and SO2
precursor gasses.
    Additional haze-related measurements were taken in South Carolina
in 2002-2005 as part of special monitoring studies by VISTAS to better
understand source contributions to PM2.5 mass and
visibility. These studies included: continuous monitoring of sulfate,
nitrate, and carbon to better understand daily trends in
PM2.5; detailed analyses of carbon collected on high volume
filters to identify source contributions to carbon; and additional
analyses of sodium and ammonium on IMPROVE filter samples. VISTAS does
not have the funding to continue these special studies and has
therefore transferred the equipment to SC DHEC. South Carolina has also
acquired several continuous sulfate monitors and expects to operate
them at urban and rural sites to further the understanding of both
PM2.5 and visibility formation and trends in the State. SC
DHEC will operate the units discussed above as long as funds allow. In
addition, SC DHEC operates a comprehensive PM2.5 network of
filter-based Federal reference method monitors, continuous mass
monitors, filter-based speciated monitors, and continuous speciated
monitors.

F. Consultation With States and FLMs

1. Consultation With Other States
    In December 2006 and in May 2007, the State Air Directors from the
VISTAS states held formal interstate consultation meetings. The purpose
of the meetings was to discuss the methodology proposed by VISTAS for
identifying sources to evaluate for reasonable progress. The states
invited FLM and EPA representatives to participate and to provide
additional feedback. The Directors discussed the results of analyses
showing contributions to visibility impairment from states to each of
the Class I areas in the VISTAS region.
    SC DHEC has evaluated the impact of South Carolina sources on Class
I areas in neighboring states. The state in which a Class I area is
located is responsible for determining which sources, both inside and
outside of that state, to evaluate for reasonable progress controls.
Because many of these states had not yet defined their criteria for
identifying sources to evaluate for reasonable progress, South Carolina
applied its AOI methodology to identify sources in the State that have
emissions units with impacts large enough to potentially warrant
further evaluation and analysis. The State identified seven emissions
units at three facilities in South Carolina with a contribution of one
percent or more to the visibility impairment at the following five
Class I areas in two neighboring states: Wolf Island Wilderness Area
and Okefenokee Wilderness Area in Georgia; and Joyce Kilmer, Shining
Rock, and Swanquarter Wilderness Areas in North Carolina.
    Georgia and North Carolina submitted letters to South Carolina
requesting that the State consider adding several of its sources'
emissions units to the SC DHEC's final reasonable progress

control analysis list of facilities so as to account for those
facilities that Georgia believes are likely to contribute more than 0.5
percent, and North Carolina believes are likely to contribute more than
one percent, to the total visibility impairment at one or more Class I
areas in these states, respectively. In its response to this request,
SC DHEC provided Georgia and North Carolina with a list of sources
identified as likely to contribute one percent or more to visibility
impairment in South Carolina and a justification as to why or why not
each facility would be included in South Carolina's final reasonable
progress control analysis list of facilities. South Carolina provided
initial results for several of its reasonable progress control
evaluations to both states. SC DHEC also notified Georgia that four of
the facilities identified by Georgia in its letter were either below
the 0.5 percent contribution threshold used by Georgia or did not meet
South Carolina's cost effectiveness threshold for additional controls.
The remaining facilities are addressed by CAIR. Based on an evaluation
of the four reasonable progress statutory factors, South Carolina
determined that there are no additional control measures for these
South Carolina emissions units that would be reasonable to implement to
mitigate visibility impacts in Class I areas in these neighboring
states. SC DHEC has consulted with these states regarding its
reasonable progress control evaluations showing that no additional
cost-effective controls are available for those emissions units in
South Carolina contributing at least one percent to visibility
impairment at Class I areas in the states. The documentation for these
formal consultations is provided in Appendix J of South Carolina's SIP.
    Regarding the impact of sources outside of the State on the Class I
area in South Carolina, SC DHEC sent a letter to Georgia identifying
two emissions units in that State that South Carolina believes
contributed one percent or higher to visibility impairment at Cape
Romain. At that time, Georgia was still in the process of evaluating
BART and reasonable progress for its sources. Any controls resulting
from those determinations will provide additional emissions reductions
and resulting visibility improvement, which gives further assurances
that South Carolina will achieve its RPGs. Therefore, to be
conservative, South Carolina opted not to rely on any additional
emissions reductions from sources located outside the State's
boundaries beyond those already identified in the State's regional haze
SIP submittal and as discussed in section IV.C.1 of this action.
    South Carolina also received letters from the Mid-Atlantic/
Northeast Visibility Union (MANE-VU) RPO States of New Jersey and New
Hampshire in the spring of 2007, stating that based on MANE-VU's
analysis of 2002 emissions data, South Carolina contributed to
visibility impairment to Class I areas in those states. The MANE-VU
states asked South Carolina to participate in further consultation with
MANE-VU during the summer of 2007. SC DHEC sent response letters to
both states and expressed its intent to consult with them through
VISTAS representatives. SC DHEC also explained in its responses that
VISTAS has conducted assessments for the VISTAS states to help predict
the influence of emissions from the VISTAS region on visibility at
Class I areas in and near the VISTAS region. This work took into
account the latest data and information available, including the
reductions from CAA and state programs that will be in effect in 2018.
SC DHEC notified New Jersey and New Hampshire that these assessments do
not indicate that South Carolina facility emissions have an impact on
visibility at any Class I area outside of the VISTAS region, and that
SC DHEC thus concluded that emissions from South Carolina do not
reasonably contribute to visibility impairment at these States' areas.
EPA proposes to find that South Carolina has adequately addressed the
consultation requirements in the RHR and appropriately documented its
consultation with other states in its SIP submittal.
2. Consultation With the FLMs
    Through the VISTAS RPO, South Carolina and the nine other member
states worked extensively with the FLMs from the U.S. Departments of
the Interior and Agriculture to develop technical analyses that support
the regional haze SIPs for the VISTAS states. South Carolina provided a
draft regional haze plan to the FLMs and EPA for early input in the
August to September 2007 time period. The proposed regional haze plan
for South Carolina was out for public comment from October 26, 2007,
until December 12, 2007.
    The FLMs submitted comments on the August 17, 2007, draft SIP
provided by the State to the FLMs and EPA for initial consultation
prior to the public comment period. The October 9, 2007, letter from
the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (FWS) noted that the draft SIP should
provide discussion or justifications for modifications made to the new
IMPROVE equation for determining which BART-eligible sources are
contributing to visibility impairment at any Class I area.
Additionally, FWS indicated that the modifications to the new IMPROVE
equation did not appear to be applied consistently throughout the
regional haze analyses and needed further explanation. The FWS
recommended that the SIP provide information that indicates that EPA
has approved these modifications. The FWS also identified several
appendices that were not included in the draft SIP, including the
appendix that addresses reasonable progress, BART, and the LTS. The FWS
also recommended that the State include its smoke management plan in
the SIP. The FWS suggested that the State add discussion of South
Carolina's evaluation of impacts to Class I areas outside of the State
to the narrative that was in an appendix, and made several other
recommendations to provide more detail or to clarify technical
discussions in the SIP. South Carolina responded to the comments and
subsequently modified the plan to address comments received on this
initial version of the State's regional haze SIP. South Carolina
included extensive discussion and documentation in both the SIP
narrative and appendices to explain the refinements to the IMPROVE
equation that BART-eligible sources could use, including the
alternative approach to the recommendation contained in the VISTAS
CALPUFF protocol using the sodium ion concentration to develop the sea
salt concentration when using the new IMPROVE equation to calculate
visibility impacts. The State also provided the missing appendices to
the FLMs on September 28, 2007, and added two other appendices on
November 21, 2007. SC DHEC made the requested clarifications to the
SIP. Instead of including the State's smoke management plan, SC DHEC
explained the reasons that the MOU with SCFC is included instead, with
references to the smoke management plan. To address the requirement for
continuing consultation procedures with the FLMs under 40 CFR
51.308(i)(4), SC DHEC made a commitment in the SIP to ongoing
consultation with the FLMs on regional haze issues throughout
implementation of its plan, including annual discussions.

G. Periodic SIP Revisions and Five-Year Progress Reports

    As also summarized in section IV.D of this action, consistent with
40 CFR 51.308(g), SC DHEC affirmed its commitment to submitting a
progress report in the form of a SIP revision to

EPA every five years following this initial submittal of the South
Carolina regional haze SIP. The report will evaluate the progress made
towards the RPGs for the mandatory Class I area located within South
Carolina and in each mandatory Class I area located outside South
Carolina which may be affected by emissions from within South Carolina.
South Carolina also offered recommendations for several technical
improvements that, as funding allows, can support the State's next LTS.
These recommendations are discussed in detail in the South Carolina
submittal in Appendix K.
    If another state's regional haze SIP identifies that South
Carolina's SIP needs to be supplemented or modified, and if, after
appropriate consultation and South Carolina agrees, today's action may
be revisited, or additional information and/or changes will be
addressed in the five-year progress report SIP revision.

V. What action is EPA taking?

    EPA is proposing a limited approval of a revision to the South
Carolina SIP submitted by the State of South Carolina on December 17,
2007, as meeting some of the applicable regional haze requirements as
set forth in sections 169A and 169B of the CAA and in 40 CFR 51.300-
308, as described previously in this action. Also in this action, EPA
is proposing to rescind the Federal regulations in 40 CFR 52.2132 that
were approved into the South Carolina SIP on July 12, 1985, and
November 24, 1987, and to rely on the provisions in South Carolina's
December 17, 2007, SIP revision to meet the monitoring and LTS
requirements for RAVI.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review

    The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted this
regulatory action from Executive Order 12866, entitled ``Regulatory
Planning and Review.''

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    Under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., OMB must
approve all ``collections of information'' by EPA. The Act defines
``collection of information'' as a requirement for answers to * * *
identical reporting or recordkeeping requirements imposed on ten or
more persons * * *. 44 U.S.C. 3502(3)(A). The Paperwork Reduction Act
does not apply to this action.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    The RFA generally requires an agency to conduct a regulatory
flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment
rulemaking requirements unless the agency certifies that the rule will
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. Small entities include small businesses, small not-for-profit
enterprises, and small governmental jurisdictions.
    This rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial
number of small entities because SIP approvals under section 110 and
subchapter I, part D of the CAA do not create any new requirements but
simply approve requirements that the state is already imposing.
Therefore, because the Federal SIP approval does not create any new
requirements, I certify that this action will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
    Moreover, due to the nature of the Federal-state relationship under
the CAA, preparation of a flexibility analysis would constitute Federal
inquiry into the economic reasonableness of state action. The CAA
forbids EPA to base its actions concerning SIPs on such grounds. Union
Electric Co. v. EPA, 427 U.S. 246, 255-66 (1976); 42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2).

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    Under section 202 of the UMRA of 1995 (``Unfunded Mandates Act''),
signed into law on March 22, 1995, EPA must prepare a budgetary impact
statement to accompany any proposed or final rule that includes a
Federal mandate that may result in estimated costs to State, local, or
tribal governments in the aggregate; or to the private sector, of $100
million or more. Under section 205, EPA must select the most cost-
effective and least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives
of the rule and is consistent with statutory requirements. Section 203
requires EPA to establish a plan for informing and advising any small
governments that may be significantly or uniquely impacted by the rule.
    EPA has determined that today's proposal does not include a Federal
mandate that may result in estimated costs of $100 million or more to
either state, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate, or to the
private sector. This Federal action proposes to approve pre-existing
requirements under state or local law, and imposes no new requirements.
Accordingly, no additional costs to state, local, or tribal
governments, or to the private sector, result from this action.

E. Executive Order 13132, Federalism

    Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) revokes and replaces
Executive Orders 12612 (Federalism) and 12875 (Enhancing the
Intergovernmental Partnership). Executive Order 13132 requires EPA to
develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful and timely input
by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies
that have federalism implications.'' ``Policies that have federalism
implications'' is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations
that have ``substantial direct effects 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.'' Under Executive Order 13132, EPA may not issue a
regulation that has federalism implications, that imposes substantial
direct compliance costs, and that is not required by statute, unless
the Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct
compliance costs incurred by state and local governments, or EPA
consults with state and local officials early in the process of
developing the proposed regulation. EPA also may not issue a regulation
that has federalism implications and that preempts state law unless the
Agency consults with state and local officials early in the process of
developing the proposed regulation.
    This rule will not have substantial direct effects 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, as specified in Executive Order 13132, because it
merely approves a state rule implementing a Federal standard, and does
not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and
responsibilities established in the CAA. Thus, the requirements of
section 6 of the Executive Order do not apply to this rule.

F. Executive Order 13175, Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments

    Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination
with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful
and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory
policies that have tribal implications.'' Consistent with the EPA

Policy on Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribes, EPA
complies with this Executive Order through the process of tribal
consultation. With respect to today's action, EPA has offered the
Catawba Indian Nation two opportunities to consult.\17\ First, in an
email dated October 21, 2010, EPA extended the Catawba Indian Nation an
opportunity to consult, however, the Tribe declined to consult with EPA
at that time. Due to the passage of time between the initial offer of
consultation and today's proposed action, EPA provided the Catawba
Indian Nation a second opportunity to consult on the South Carolina
Regional Haze SIP revision on February 1, 2012. In an email dated
February 8, 2012, the Catawba Indian Nation stated that no consultation
on this pending action was needed by the Tribe. Further, EPA has no
information to suggest that today's action will impose substantial
direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ The Catawba Indian Nation Reservation is located within the
South Carolina. Generally, SIPs do not apply in Indian country
throughout the United States, however, for purposes of the Catawba
Indian Nation Reservation in Rock Hill, the South Carolina SIP does
apply within the Reservation pursuant to the Catawba Indian Claims
Settlement Act, S.C. Code Ann. 27-16-120 (providing that ``all state
and local environmental laws and regulations apply to the [Catawba
Indian Nation] and Reservation and are fully enforceable by all
relevant state and local agencies and authorities.'')
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

G. Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks

    Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), applies to any rule that: (1) Is
determined to be ``economically significant'' as defined under
Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental health or
safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a disproportionate
effect on children. If the regulatory action meets both criteria, the
Agency must evaluate the environmental health or safety effects of the
planned rule on children, and explain why the planned regulation is
preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably feasible
alternatives considered by the Agency.
    This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it does
not involve decisions intended to mitigate environmental health or
safety risks.

H. Executive Order 13211, Actions That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use

    This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, ``Actions
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not a
significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)

    Section 12 of the NTTAA of 1995 requires Federal agencies to
evaluate existing technical standards when developing a new regulation.
To comply with NTTAA, EPA must consider and use ``voluntary consensus
standards'' (VCS) if available and applicable when developing programs
and policies unless doing so would be inconsistent with applicable law
or otherwise impractical.
    EPA believes that VCS are inapplicable to this action. Today's
action does not require the public to perform activities conducive to
the use of VCS.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental
relations, Nitrogen oxide, Particulate matter, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxide, Volatile organic compounds.

    Authority:  42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Dated: February 15, 2012.
 A. Stanley Meiburg,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. 2012-4680 Filed 2-27-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 79 (Friday, April 24, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 22949-22950]
[FR Doc No: 2015-09395]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2015-0045; Airspace Docket No. 14-ASO-22]

Proposed Establishment of Class E Airspace; Defuniak Springs, FL

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: This action proposes to establish Class E Airspace at Defuniak
Springs, FL, to accommodate new Area Navigation (RNAV) Global
Positioning System (GPS) Standard Instrument Approach Procedures
(SIAPs) serving Defuniak Springs Airport. Controlled airspace is
necessary for the safety and management of instrument flight rules
(IFR) operations at the airport.

DATES: 0901 UTC. Comments must be received on or before June 8, 2015.

ADDRESSES: Send comments on this rule to: U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12-140, 1200 New Jersey SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001; Telephone: 1-
800-647-5527; Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>. You must identify the Docket Number
FAA-2015-0045; Airspace Docket No. 14-ASO-22, at the beginning of your
comments. You may also submit and review received comments through the
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov.
    You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any
comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets
Office between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except
Federal holidays. The Docket Office (telephone 1-800-647-5527), is on
the ground floor of the building at the above address.
    FAA Order 7400.9Y, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and
subsequent amendments can be viewed online at http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. The Order is also available for inspection
at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For
information on the availability of this proposed incorporation by
reference material at NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal-regulations/ibr_locations.html.
    FAA Order 7400.9, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is
published yearly and effective on September 15. For further
information, you can contact the Airspace Policy and Regulations Group,
Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW.,
Washington, DC 20591; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Fornito, Operations Support
Group, Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, P.O.
Box 20636, Atlanta, Georgia 30320; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    Interested persons are invited to comment on this rule by
submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as they may desire.
Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and
suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned
regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited
on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and
energy-related aspects of the proposal.
    Communications should identify both docket numbers (FAA Docket No.
FAA-2015-0045; Airspace Docket No. 14-ASO-22) and be submitted in
triplicate to the Docket Management System (see ADDRESSES section for
address and phone number). You may also submit comments through the
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov.
    Persons wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on
this action must submit with those comments a self-addressed stamped
postcard on which the following statement is made: ``Comments to Docket
No. FAA-2015-0045; Airspace Docket No. 14-ASO-22.'' The postcard will
be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.
    All communications received before the specified closing date for
comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule.
The proposal contained in this notice may be changed in light of the
comments received. A report summarizing each substantive public contact
with FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the
docket.

Availability of NPRMs

    An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded from and
comments submitted through http://www.regulations.gov. Recently
published rulemaking documents can also be accessed through the FAA's
Web page at http://www.faa.gov/airports_airtraffic/air_traffic/publications/airspace_amendments/.
    You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any
comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets
Office (see the ADDRESSES section for address and phone number) between
9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
Holidays. An informal docket may also be examined between 8:00 a.m. and
4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays at the office
of the Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, Room
350, 1701 Columbia Avenue, College Park, Georgia 30337.
    Persons interested in being placed on a mailing list for future
NPRM's should contact the FAA's Office of Rulemaking,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
to request a copy of Advisory circular No. 11-2A, Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking distribution System, which describes the application
procedure.

Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

    This document proposes to amend FAA Order 7400.9Y, Airspace
Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 6, 2014, and effective
September 15, 2014. FAA Order 7400.9Y is publicly available as listed
in the ADDRESSES section of this proposed rule. FAA Order 7400.9Y lists
Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and
reporting points.

The Proposal

    The FAA is considering an amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal
Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 to establish Class E airspace extending
upward from 700 feet above the surface at Defuniak Springs Airport.,
Defuniak Springs, FL, providing the controlled airspace required to
support the new RNAV (GPS) standard instrument approach procedures for
Defuniak Springs Airport.. Controlled airspace extending upward from
700 feet above the surface within a 6.4-mile radius of the airport
would be established for IFR operations.
    Class E airspace designations are published in Paragraph 6005 of
FAA Order 7400.9Y, dated August 6, 2014, and effective September 15,
2014, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E
airspace designation listed in this document will be published
subsequently in the Order.

    The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves
an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
It, therefore, (1) is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979);
and (3) does not warrant preparation of a Regulatory Evaluation as the
anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that
will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified that this proposed rule, when promulgated, will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. 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. This proposed rulemaking is promulgated under the authority
described in Subtitle VII, Part, A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under
that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign
the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the
efficient use of airspace. This proposed regulation is within the scope
of that authority as it would establish Class E airspace at Defuniak
Springs Airport, Defuniak Springs, FL.

Environmental Review

    This proposal would be subject to an environmental analysis in
accordance with FAA Order 1050.1E, ``Environmental Impacts: Policies
and Procedures'' prior to any FAA final regulatory action.

Lists of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (Air).

The Proposed Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

PART 71--DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR
TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS

0
1. The authority citation for Part 71 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120, E.O.
10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.9Y,
Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 6, 2014,
effective September 15, 2014, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace areas extending upward from 700
feet or more above the surface of the earth.

* * * * *

ASO FL E5 Defuniak Springs, FL [New]

Defuniak Springs Airport, FL
    (Lat. 30[deg]43'52'' N., long. 86[deg]9'14'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 6.4-mile radius of Defuniak Springs Airport.

    Issued in College Park, Georgia, on April 10, 2015.
Gerald E. Lynch,
Manager, operations Support Group, Eastern Service Center, Air Traffic
Organization.
[FR Doc. 2015-09395 Filed 4-23-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 39 (Thursday, February 27, 2020)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 11319-11322]
[FR Doc No: 2020-03904]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2020-0103; Product Identifier 2019-NM-149-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to supersede Airworthiness Directive (AD)
2012-21-08, which applies to certain The Boeing Company Model 737-600,
-700, -700C, -800, and -900 series airplanes. AD 2012-21-08 requires
inspecting for part numbers of the operational program software (OPS)
of the flight control computers (FCCs) and installing and testing an
updated version of the FCC OPS. Since the FAA issued AD 2012-21-08, the
FAA has determined that there is a new unsafe condition which must be
addressed by an updated version of the FCC OPS. This proposed AD would
retain the requirement to inspect for part numbers of the OPS of the
FCCs, and add a new requirement to update the version of the FCC OPS if
necessary. This proposed AD would also expand the applicability to
include The Boeing Company Model 737-900ER series airplanes. The FAA is
proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: The FAA must receive comments on this proposed AD by April 13,
2020.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR
11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail address above between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this NPRM, contact Boeing
Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data Services (C&DS),
2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110-SK57, Seal Beach, CA 90740-5600;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You may
view this service information at the FAA, Transport Standards Branch,
2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the
availability of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. It is also
available on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by searching
for and locating Docket No. FAA-2020-0103.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2020-
0103; or in person at Docket Operations between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains
this NPRM, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other
information. The street address for Docket Operations is listed above.
Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David Sumner, Aerospace Engineer,
Systems and Equipment Section, FAA, Seattle ACO Branch, 2200 South
216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; phone and fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    The FAA invites you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed
under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2020-0103;
Product Identifier 2019-NM-149-AD'' at the beginning of your comments.
The FAA specifically invites comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this NPRM. The FAA will
consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this
NPRM because of those comments.
    The FAA will post all comments, without change, to https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide.
The FAA will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal
contact the agency receives about this proposed AD.

Discussion

    The FAA issued AD 2012-21-08, Amendment 39-17224 (77 FR 64711,
October 23, 2012) (``AD 2012-21-08''), for certain The Boeing Company
Model 737-600, -700, -700C, -800, and -900 series airplanes. AD 2012-
21-08 requires inspecting for part numbers of the OPS of the FCCs and
installing and testing an updated version of the FCC OPS. AD 2012-21-08
resulted from reports of undetected erroneous output from a single
radio altimeter channel, which resulted in premature autothrottle
retard during approach. The FAA issued AD 2012-21-08 to address this
condition, which, if not detected and corrected, could result in the
loss of automatic speed control, and consequent loss of control of the
airplane.

Actions Since AD 2012-21-08 Was Issued

    Since the FAA issued AD 2012-21-08, the FAA has received reports
that during autopilot coupled Instrument Landing System (ILS)
approaches, the airplane did not capture or track the glideslope
correctly. This caused airplanes to continue descending below the
glideslope without any fault indication from the autopilot system. The
problems were reported with the autopilot engaged while attempting to
capture the glideslope from above, with a high descent rate greater
than 2,000 feet per minute and late arming of approach mode. The high
descent rate is maintained by the autopilot and can result in the
airplane descending below the glideslope beam, which requires the
flight crew to correct the problem manually. Boeing has developed an
upgrade to the FCC OPS for certain affected airplanes equipped with
Rockwell Collins FCCs that corrects the glideslope capture problem. The
FAA is proposing this AD to address this condition, which can result in
controlled flight into terrain on airplanes that do not have the
upgraded FCC OPS installed.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    The FAA reviewed Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 737-22A1322 RB,
dated November 21, 2018. The service information describes procedures
for installing and testing an updated version of the FCC OPS.
    This proposed AD would also require Boeing Alert Service Bulletin
737-

22A1211, dated April 13, 2010, and Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-
22A1224, dated May 18, 2012, which the Director of the Federal Register
approved for incorporation by reference as of November 27, 2012 (77 FR
64711, October 23, 2012).
    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

    The FAA is proposing this AD because the FAA evaluated all the
relevant information and determined the unsafe condition described
previously is likely to exist or develop in other products of the same
type design.

Proposed AD Requirements

    This proposed AD would retain certain requirements of AD 2012-21-
08. This proposed AD would expand the applicability of AD 2012-21-08 to
include The Boeing Company Model 737-900ER series airplanes. This
proposed AD would also require accomplishment of the actions specified
in the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Requirements
Bulletin 737-22A1322 RB, dated November 21, 2018, described previously,
except as discussed under ``Differences Between this Proposed AD and
the Service Information,'' and except for any differences identified as
exceptions in the regulatory text of this proposed AD.
    For information on the procedures and compliance times, see this
service information at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and
locating Docket No. FAA-2020-0103.

Explanation of Requirements Bulletin

    The FAA worked in conjunction with industry, under the
Airworthiness Directive Implementation Aviation Rulemaking Committee
(AD ARC), to enhance the AD system. One enhancement is a process for
annotating which steps in the service information are ``required for
compliance'' (RC) with an AD. Boeing has implemented this RC concept
into Boeing service bulletins.
    In an effort to further improve the quality of ADs and AD-related
Boeing service information, a joint process improvement initiative was
worked between the FAA and Boeing. The initiative resulted in the
development of a new process in which the service information more
clearly identifies the actions needed to address the unsafe condition
in the ``Accomplishment Instructions.'' The new process results in a
Boeing Requirements Bulletin, which contains only the actions needed to
address the unsafe condition (i.e., only the RC actions).

Differences Between This Proposed AD and the Service Information

    The effectivity of Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 737-22A1322
RB, dated November 21, 2018, is limited to The Boeing Company Model
737-600, -700, -700C, -800, -900, and 900ER series airplanes, line
numbers 1270, 1272, and 1278 through 7153 inclusive in one group.
Because the affected software versions are rotable among the airplanes
affected by this proposed AD, the FAA has determined that these parts
could later be installed on airplanes that were initially delivered
with acceptable software versions, thereby subjecting those airplanes
to the unsafe condition. Therefore, the applicability of this proposed
AD includes all The Boeing Company Model 737-600, -700, -700C, -800, -
900, and 900ER series airplanes. The FAA has confirmed with Boeing that
the Accomplishment Instructions in Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin
737-22A1322 RB, dated November 21, 2018, are applicable to the expanded
group of airplanes.
    Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 737-22A1322 RB, dated November
21, 2018, specifies that certain airplane line numbers must accomplish
an update of the FCC OPS. However, this AD requires that only airplanes
equipped with Rockwell Collins FCCs installed with FCC OPS version P8.0
or P9.0 must accomplish an update of the FCC OPS in accordance with the
Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 737-
22A1322 RB, dated November 21, 2018.

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this proposed AD affects 520 airplanes of
U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with
this proposed AD:

                                      Estimated Costs for Required Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                              Cost per          Cost on U.S.
              Action                      Labor cost         Parts cost        product           operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inspection and installation         3 work-hours x $85                 $0            $255  $52,785 (based on 207
 (retained actions from AD 2012-21-  per hour = $255 per                                    affected airplanes).
 08).                                inspection.
Part number inspection (new         1 work-hour x $85 per               0              85  $44,200.
 proposed action).                   hour = $85.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FAA estimates the following costs to do any necessary on-
condition actions that would be required. The FAA has no way of
determining the number of aircraft that might need these on-condition
actions:

                                      Estimated Costs of On-Condition Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per
                    Action                                Labor cost               Parts cost        product
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Install upgraded software....................  1 work-hour x $85 per hour =                 $0              $85
                                                $85.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs,
describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.

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

Regulatory Findings

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

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 removing Airworthiness Directive (AD)
2012-21-08, Amendment 39-17224 (77 FR 64711, October 23, 2012), and
adding the following new AD:

The Boeing Company Airplanes: Docket No. FAA-2020-0103; Product
Identifier 2019-NM-149-AD.

(a) Comments Due Date

    The FAA must receive comments on this AD action by April 13,
2020.

(b) Affected ADs

    This AD replaces AD 2012-21-08, Amendment 39-17224 (77 FR 64711,
October 23, 2012).

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to all The Boeing Company Model 737-600, -700, -
700C, -800, -900, and -900ER series airplanes, certificated in any
category.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 22, Auto flight.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by reports that during autopilot coupled
instrument landing (ILS) approaches, the airplane did not capture or
track the glideslope correctly. The FAA is issuing this AD to
address this condition, which could allow the airplane to descend
below the glideslope beam and result in controlled flight into
terrain.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Retained Part Numbers Inspection, With Revised Paragraph References
and Removed Terminating Action

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (h) of AD
2012-21-08, with revised paragraph references and removed
terminating action. For The Boeing Company Model 737-600, -700, -
700C, -800, and -900 series airplanes, certificated in any category;
delivered with the Rockwell Collins Enhanced Digital Flight Control
System (EDFCS), as identified in the variable number table in
Section 1.A.1., Effectivity, of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-
22A1211, dated April 13, 2010, and not defined by the ``Group 1''
description in Section 1.A. of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-
22A1211, dated April 13, 2010: Within 3 months after November 27,
2012 (the effective date of AD 2012-21-08), inspect to determine the
part number of the operational program software (OPS) of the flight
control computers (FCCs), in accordance with the Accomplishment
Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-22A1211, dated
April 13, 2010, and install the software as required by paragraph
(g)(1) of this AD, or verify that the software is installed as
specified by paragraph (g)(2) of this AD, as applicable.
    (1) For any OPS having a part number identified in table 1 of
the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin
737-22A1211, dated April 13, 2010: Before further flight, do the
actions specified in paragraph (g)(1)(i) or (ii), as applicable.
    (i) Install software identified in table 2 of the Accomplishment
Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-22A1211, dated
April 13, 2010, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions
of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-22A1211, dated April 13, 2010.
    (ii) Install software identified in table 2 of the
Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-
22A1224, dated May 18, 2012.
    (2) For any OPS having a part number identified in table 2 of
the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin
737-22A1211, dated April 13, 2010; or in table 2 of the
Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-
22A1224, dated May 18, 2012: No further action is required by this
paragraph.

(h) Retained Optional Software Installation, With Revised Paragraph
References

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (i) of AD
2012-21-08, with revised paragraph references. Installing a version
of the FCC OPS approved after May 18, 2012 (the issue date of Boeing
Alert Service Bulletin 737-22A1224) terminates the requirements of
paragraph (g) of this AD, provided that the conditions specified in
paragraphs (h)(1) and (2) of this AD are met.
    (1) The version of the FCC OPS must be approved by the Manager,
Seattle ACO Branch, FAA; the Manager, Boeing Aviation Safety
Oversight Office (BASOO), FAA; or The Boeing Company Organization
Designation Authorization (ODA). If approved by the ODA, the
approval must include the ODA-authorized signature.
    (2) The installation must be done in accordance with a method
approved by the Manager, Seattle ACO, FAA; the Manager, BASOO, FAA;
or The Boeing Company ODA. If approved by the ODA, the approval must
include the ODA-authorized signature.

(i) New Requirement of This AD: Inspection

    For all airplanes: Within 12 months after the effective date of
this AD, inspect to determine the FCC OPS vendor and version
installed on FCC A and FCC B. A review of airplane maintenance
records is acceptable in lieu of this inspection if the FCC OPS
vendor and version can be conclusively determined from that review.

(j) New Requirement of This AD: Software Installation

    (1) For airplanes equipped with Rockwell Collins FCCs with FCC
OPS version P8.0 or P9.0 software: Within 12 months after the
effective date of this AD, do all applicable actions identified in,
and in accordance with, the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing
Alert Requirements Bulletin 737-22A1322 RB, dated November 21, 2018.

    Note 1 to paragraph (j)(1):  Guidance for accomplishing the
actions required by paragraph (j)(1) of this AD can be found in
Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-22A1322, dated November 21, 2018,
which is referred to in Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 737-
22A1322 RB, dated November 21, 2018.

    (2) For airplanes not equipped with Rockwell Collins FCCs with
FCC OPS version P8.0 or P9.0 software: No further action is required
by this paragraph.

(k) New Requirement of This AD: Parts Installation Prohibition

    For all airplanes: As of the effective date of this AD, no
person may install Rockwell Collins FCC OPS software version P1.0,
P2.0, P3.0, P8.0, or P9.0, on any airplane.

(l) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Seattle ACO Branch, FAA, has the authority to
approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found
in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request
to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District
Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the
manager of the certification office, send it to the attention of the
person identified in paragraph (m)(1) of this AD. Information may be
emailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate
principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager
of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding
district office.
    (3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be
used for any repair, modification, or alteration required by this AD
if it is approved by The Boeing Company ODA that has been authorized
by the Manager, Seattle ACO Branch, FAA, to make those findings. To
be approved, the repair method, modification deviation, or
alteration deviation must meet the certification basis of the
airplane, and the approval must specifically refer to this AD.

(m) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact David Sumner,
Aerospace Engineer, Systems and Equipment Section, FAA, Seattle ACO
Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; phone and fax:
206-231-3538; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data Services
(C&DS), 2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110-SK57, Seal Beach, CA 90740-
5600; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You may view this referenced service
information at the FAA, Transport Standards Branch, 2200 South 216th
St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this
material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Issued on February 18, 2020.
Gaetano A. Sciortino,
Deputy Director for Strategic Initiatives, Compliance & Airworthiness
Division, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2020-03904 Filed 2-26-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P