EPA Registration Division contact: Laura Nollen,<PHONE_NUMBER>
Interregional Research Project Number 4 (IR-4)
Petition Number 1E7864

EPA has received a pesticide petition, 1E7864, from Interregional Research Project Number 4 (IR-4), 500 College Road East, Suite 201W, Princeton, NJ 08540 proposing, pursuant to section 408(d) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d), to amend 40 CFR part 180.599 by establishing a tolerance for residues of acequinocyl [2-(acetyloxy)-3-dodecyl-1,4-naphthalenedione] and its metabolite, 2-dodecyl-3-hydroxy-1,4-naphthoquinone, expressed as acequinocyl equivalents in or on bean, succulent shelled at 0.15 parts per million (ppm); caneberry subgroup 13-07A at 4.5 ppm; cherry at 0.8 ppm; cowpea, forage at 9.0 ppm; cucumber at 0.15 ppm; melon subgroup 9A at 0.06 ppm; soybean, vegetable, succulent at 0.25 ppm; fruit, small vine climbing, except fuzzy kiwifruit, subgroup 13-07F at 1.6 ppm; and berry, low growing, subgroup 13-07G at 0.4 ppm. The petitioner further requests to remove the existing tolerance entries for grape at 1.6 ppm and strawberry at 0.4 ppm, as they will be superseded by inclusion in subgroup 13-07F and 13-07G, respectively. EPA has determined that the petition contains data or information regarding the elements set forth in section 408(d)(2) of the FFDCA; however, EPA has not fully evaluated the sufficiency of the submitted data at this time or whether the data supports granting of the petition. Additional data may be needed before EPA rules on the petition.
A.	Residue Chemistry
 Plant metabolism. The nature of the residues of acequinocyl in plants is adequately understood based on three crops; apples, oranges and eggplant. The major residue in all plant metabolism studies is acequinocyl. A minor but significant metabolite is acequinocyl-OH (2-dodecyl-3-hydroxy-l,4-naphthoquinone). The proposed tolerance expression is the parent, acequinocyl and its hydroxy metabolite, acequinocyl-OH.
 Analytical method. The analytical method to quantitate residues of acequinocyl and acequinocyl-OH in/on food crops utilizes high pressure liquid chromatography with tandem mass spectrometric detection (LC/MS/MS) all crops listed in the petition. The lowest level of method validation (LLMV) for acequinocyl and acequinocyl-OH varied with the crop matrix.
 Magnitude of residues. The proposed use of acequinocyl calls for a maximum of 2 applications per season at 0.3 lb a.i. per acre per application (maximum 0.6 lb a.i. per acre per season), with a 21-day interval between applications. The pre-harvest interval is 1 day for melon, cucumber, and caneberry; 7 days for cherry, and bean, succulent shelled. The maximum residue and lowest level for method validation (LLMV) for each commodity are shown in the following table.

Sample Type
                                  Acequinocyl
                       Maximum Residue (ppm)/LLMV (ppm)
                                Acequinocyl-OH
                       Maximum Residue (ppm)/LLMV (ppm)
Bean, succulent shelled
                                   0.11/0.02
                                < 0.02/0.02
Caneberry
                                 2.28[1]/0.01
                                    NA/0.01
Cherry
                                   0.47/0.01
                                  0.036/0.01
Cowpea, forage
                                    2.6/.02
                                   0.43/0.02
Cucumber
                                 0.174[1]/0.01
                                    NA/0.01
Musk Melon (Cantaloupe)
                                 0.045[1]/0.01
                                    NA/0.01
[1] Highest sum of acequinocyl plus acequinocyl-OH from a single sample in a single field
The crop field trial data are adequate to support the proposed tolerances requested in Section F.
B.	Toxicological Profile
       1. Acute toxicity. Acequinocyl technical has low acute, dermal and inhalation toxicity in laboratory animals. The oral LD50 (M/F) in the rat and mouse was > 5000 mg/kg. The dermal LD50 (M/F) was > 2000 mg/kg. The inhalation LC50 was reported as > 0.84 mg/1. In the eye and dermal irritation studies, acequinocyl technical was not an eye or skin irritant to rabbits and was not a skin sensitizer in guinea pigs.
 Genotoxicty. Acequinocyl was found to be negative in the Ames reverse mutation, mouse lymphoma, Chinese hamster lung (CHL) chromosome aberration and mouse micronucleus assays.
 Reproductive and developmental toxicity. i. Rat teratology. Acequinocyl technical was administered by oral gavage to pregnant Sprague Dawley rats at dose levels of 0, 50,150, 500 or 750 mg/kg/day on gestation days 7-17. Common signs in the descendants included vaginal discharge, pallor, pale eyes, hypoactivity, piloerection, slow or irregular breathing, intra-uterine hemorrhage and blood stained stomach and/or intestinal contents. Maternal NOEL=150 mg/kg/day based on these signs. Developmental NOEL=500 mg/kg/day based on an increase in certain skeletal variants that may be attributed to the observed maternal toxicity.

ii. Rabbit teratology. Groups of New Zealand white rabbits received acequinocyl technical by gavage at doses of 0, 30, 60 or 120 mg/kg/day. Maternal NOEL=60 mg/kg/day based on reduction in maternal body weight and 5 females were sacrificed at 120 mg/kg/day. Fetal NOEL=60 mg/kg/day due to skeletal variations in the thoracic-lumbar ribs.

iii. Rat reproduction study. Acequinocyl technical was fed to two generations of male and female Sprague Dawley rats at dietary concentrations of 0,100, 800, or 1500 ppm (0, 7.3, 59 or 111 mg/kg/day for males and 0, 8.7, 69 or 134 mg/kg/day for females). Systemic and pup NOEL=100 ppm (7.3 and 8.7 mg/kg/day). Systemic: Hemorrhage and swollen body parts were seen at 800 and 1500 ppm in Fl males. At 800 and 1500 ppm, treatment related clinical signs, hemorrhagic effects, subcutaneous bleeding on body parts and/or cranium and/or brain were seen in the Fl pups. At 800 and 1500 ppm toxicity seen in F2 pups included subcutaneous bleeding on body parts and/or cranium and/or brain at weaning.
 Subchronic toxicity. i. Rat feeding study. Fischer rats received acequinocyl technical at dietary concentrations of 0, 100, 400, 1600 or 3200 ppm (0, 7.57, 30.4, 120, 253 mg/kg/day, respectively for males and 0, 8.27, 32.2,129, 286 mg/kg/day, respectively for females) for 13 consecutive weeks. Treatment related yellow brown urine in all animals of both sexes at 400 ppm suggested the presence of a metabolite of the test material. Macroscopic examination on the surviving animals revealed no treatment related abnormalities. At 3200 and 1600 ppm, macroscopic and microscopic examination of the mortalities revealed hemorrhaging of muscle and other organs. NOEL = 400 ppm (30.4 mg/kg/day for males and 32.2 mg/kg/day for females).
 ii. Mouse feeding study. Groups of CD-I (ICR) BR mice received acequinocyl technical by oral route at concentrations of 0, 100, 500, 1000 or 1500 ppm (0,16,81,151, 295 mg/kg/day respectively for males and 0, 21, 100, 231, 342 mg/kg/day respectively for females) for 13 weeks. At 100 ppm, there were hepatic histopathological lesions and an increase in relative liver weight. A clear NOEL for both sexes was not determined.
iii. Dog feeding study. Acequinocyl technical was administered via gelatin capsule to male and female beagle dogs at dose levels of 0, 40, 160, 640 or 1000 mg/kg/day once a day 7 days a week for 13 weeks. At 40, 160 and 640 mg/kg/day colored feces were observed in both sexes.  At 160 and 640 mg/kg/day, treatment related decrease in body weight gain in males and an increase platelet count for females was observed. Macroscopic and microscopic examinations on the surviving animals revealed no treatment related abnormalities. A clear NOEL was not determined.
iv. 28-day dermal toxicity. Groups of Sprague Dawley rats received daily dermal applications of acequinocyl technical at doses of 0, 40, 200 or 1000 mg/kg/day for 6 hours/day for 28 days followed by a 14 day treatment free period only in the high dose group. There were no macroscopic findings. Red staining occurred on the back of the animals and was only seen in the morning after dosing. There was no evidence of systemic toxicity. NOEL=1000 mg/kg/day.
 Chronic toxicity. i. Dog feeding study. Beagle dogs were dosed by capsule at 0,5,20, 80 or 320 mg/kg/day for 1 year with acequinocyl technical. Minor disturbances in platelet counts were observed in both sexes at 80 and 320 mg/kg/day. There were no treatment related macroscopic histopathological findings. Colored feces and/or abnormally stained sawdust were observed for all treatment groups. Varying degrees of discoloration of the urine was observed for animals receiving 20 mg/kg/day or more. The discoloration was considered to be attributable to a colored metabolite of the test substance. NOEL = 20 mg/kg/day.

ii Rat feeding/oncogenicity study. Groups of F344 rats received acequinocyl technical at dietary levels of 0, 50, 200, 800 or 1600 ppm (0, 2.25, 9.02, 36.4, 74.0 mg/kg/day for males and 0, 2.92, 11.6, 46.3, 93.6 mg/kg/day for females) for 2 years. The NOEL = 200 ppm (9.02 and 11.6 mg/kg/day for males and females, respectively). Corneal abnormalities and hypertrophy of the eye were observed in 800 ppm and 1600 ppm males and 1600 ppm females. At 800 ppm and 1600 ppm, PT was observed to be longer in males and shorter in females and APTT longer in females. Reddish brown urine was observed in both males and females. There was no incidence of tumors.

iii. Mouse oncogenicity study. Acequinocyl technical was administered in the diet of Crl:CD-l(ICR)BR mice at 0, 20, 50, 150 or 500 ppm for 80 weeks. NOEL=20 ppm (lowest dose tested equal to 2.7 and 3.5 mg/kg/day in males and females respectively), based on brown pigmented cells. At 50 and 500 ppm in both sexes, there was an increase incidence of fatty hepatocytes. Other associated findings were increased liver weight, slight increase in pale livers or pale areas within livers. Glomerular amyloidosis was statistically increased in the 150 and 500 ppm males. Yellow brown urine was consistently found in both sexes at high dose. There was no increase in the incidence of tumors.
6.	Animal metabolism. Sprague Dawley rats were dosed orally with acequinocyl labeled 14C-phenyl or 14C-dodecyl. Both labels were used in the single low dose (10 mg/kg) study. The high dose (500 mg/kg) and 14-day repeat dose studies (10 mg/kg/day) were conducted with 14C-phenyl acequinocyl only. Excretion was rapid, with most of the dose in the feces. Less than 15% of the radioactivity was found in the urine. Absorption was about 25-42% based on the bile duct cannulation studies, which found 20-33% of the administered dose in bile, plus 5-9% in urine plus cage wash. Acequinocyl was not detected in urine and was only a minor component (1-2%) in the feces. The major fecal metabolite (12-36%) was the 2-hydroxy-3-dodecyl-l, 4-naphthalenedione (acequinocyl-OH or designated Rl). Subsequent oxidation of the dodecyl chain yielded butanoic and hexanoic acids, the only measurable identified urinary metabolites. 2-(l, 2-dioxotetradecyl)-benzoic acid comprised 19-40% of the radioactivity in the feces. There were no remarkable differences in metabolite disposition due to gender and no effect of pre-dosing for 2 weeks. The large dose slowed transit time and reduced absorption.
       Metabolite toxicology. NA-Remove.
 Endocrine disruption. A standard battery of toxicity tests have been conducted on acequinocyl. No effects were seen to indicate that acequinocyl has an effect on the endocrine system.
C. Aggregate Exposure
1. Dietary exposure. The tolerances for bean, succulent shelled at 0.15 ppm; caneberry (Subgroup 13-07A) at 4.5 ppm; cherry at 0.08 ppm; cowpea, forage at 9.0 parts per million (ppm); cucumber at 0.15 ppm; melon (Subgroup 9A) at 0.06 ppm; and soybean, vegetable, succulent (edamame) at 0.25 ppm; low growing berry (Subgroup 13-07G) at 0.4 ppm; and small fruit vine, climbing, except fuzzy kiwi (Subgroup 13-07F) at 1.6 ppm along with the previously established tolerances for acequinocyl were incorporated into the aggregate exposure results presented below. An aggregate risk assessment was conducted to include the potential chronic dietary exposure from applications of acequinocyl on these crops. This chronic risk assessment was conducted to assess dietary exposures from acequinocyl in food using DEEM FCID[TM] and the following input parameters: tolerance level residues; consumption data from the USDA 1994-1996 and 1998 Continuing Survey of Food Intakes by Individuals (CSFII); 100 percent crop treated for all commodities; default processing factors for all commodities, if applicable; and a chronic toxicological endpoint of 2.7 mg/kg bw (NOAEL); 0.027 mg/kg bw (chronic RfD) from the chronic mouse study. Tolerance values used in the new Tier I DEEM analysis for current registered uses were obtained from the most recent HED human health assessments (FR Notice, April 2, 2008).  Please note that EPA has determined that there is no endpoint of concern attributable to a single dose and, therefore, an acute reference dose (aRfD) was not established. Therefore, no acute exposure assessment is necessary (FR, Vol. 69, No. 139, 7/21/04, page 43528).

      i. Food. The previous chronic dietary food exposure estimates to acequinocyl were all less than 100% of chronic RfD.  When the previous risk assessment is revised to include bean, succulent shelled; caneberry (Subgroup 13-07A); cherry; cucumber; melon (Subgroup 9A); soybean, vegetable, succulent (edamame); low growing berry (Subgroup 13-07G); and small fruit vine, climbing, except fuzzy kiwi (Subgroup 13-07F); the chronic dietary food exposure estimates to acequinocyl are still not a concern for the US population as a whole or for any population subgroup.  The new chronic dietary exposure estimate for the US population is 12.9% of the cPAD, indicating that there is plenty of room in the risk cup even with the addition of these proposed new crops.  The previous DEEM analysis without these new proposed IR-4 uses indicated 12.4% of the cPAD for the total US population (Levy, 2007).  The most highly exposed population subgroup is children aged 1-2 years old at 53.6% of the cPAD; this compares to 52.6% of the cPAD without the addition of the new proposed IR-4 uses.

In order to determine which of the registered and proposed commodities were driving the revised dietary risk assessment; a critical commodity contribution analysis was conducted for two subpopulation groups, children 1-2 years old and children 3-5 years old.  This analysis identified (a) crop groups with greater than 5% of the total exposure contribution; and (b) those foods or food-forms within the crop groups contributing more than 1% of the total exposure.  For both of these subpopulations, the grape crop group (includes fresh grapes, grape juice and raisins) was the largest contributor.  For children 1-2, this food group contributed 32.9% of the total exposure; for children 3-5, the contribution was 29.5% of the total exposure.  The next highest contributor to the 1-2 year olds was the pome fruit grouping, with apple juice being the highest individual contributor.  The pome fruit group contributed 31.1% and 26.1% of total exposure for children aged 1-2 and 3-5, respectively.  The third highest crop group contributor was the fruiting vegetables, with fresh tomatoes, tomato sauce, and tomato puree being the highest individual food contributors within that crop group.  This group accounted for 21.4% and 27.4% of total exposure for children aged 1-2 and 3-5, respectively.

      ii. Drinking water. The available environmental fate data indicate that acequinocyl does not persist in the environment nor does it have the ability to leach into groundwater resources. Acequinocyl degrades rapidly in the environment. Aqueous photolysis, Tl/2 = 14 minutes, soil photolysis, Tl/2 = 2 days, aerobic soil metabolism (4 soils) Tl/2 = <3 days, aerobic aquatic metabolism Tl/2 = 0.39 day in water and sediment, hydrolysis Tl/2 = 74 days (pH 4), = 2.2 days (pH 7), =1.3 hours (pH 9). Acequinocyl shows low soil mobility.  Drinking water data was incorporated directly into the DEEM dietary assessment under "drinking water" for both direct and indirect sources using the chronic concentration of parent-only (acequinocyl) residues modeled from surface water using PRZM-EXAMS by EFED and used in their revised human health risk assessment (Levy, S., 2007).  This was a very conservative estimate because it was assumed that acequinocyl was stable to all routes of degradation.  As a result, this model produced the highest estimated drinking water concentration (EDWC), 2.73 ppb, which was considered to be the most protective.  Using these considerations, exposures to acequinocyl in drinking water do not pose a significant human health risk.
iii. Non-dietary exposure. The proposed expansion of the registration for applications to bean, succulent shelled; caneberry (Subgroup 13-07A); cherry; cucumber; melon (subgroup 9A); and soybean, vegetable, succulent (edamame); requires evaluation of occupational handler and postapplication exposures in addition to dietary exposures for consumers.

      a. Occupational Handler Exposure: The following handler scenarios were evaluated:
      1. Mix/load liquid open-pour for groundboom applications
      2. Mix/load liquid open-pour for airblast applications
      3. Application by groundboom, open-cab
      4. Application by airblast, open-cab
Exposure data from PHED were used to assess dermal and inhalation risks.  Since the application rate for these new crops did not exceed the application rate of crops currently on the label, all short-term and intermediate-term occupational risks are acceptable (MOEs exceeded 100).Based on the anticipated occupational use patterns for acequinocyl products, long-term (several months to lifetime) exposures are not expected for occupational handlers of acequinocyl.

b. Occupational Postapplication Exposure: Since re-entry activities occur after the sprays have dried, post-application inhalation exposures are not assessed.  Post-application exposures to acequinocyl are expected to be of short-term duration only (1 to 30 days) based on the limited use pattern.  Short-term dermal post-application exposures were assessed against the NOAEL for short-term dermal exposures (200 mg/kg/day).  The risks are not of concern (MOEs > 100) on day 0 for all potential re-entry activities associated with the new proposed uses.  As such, the REI of 12 hours is appropriately protective.  .

      c. Residential Handler exposure: Residential handler risks were calculated by HED in the 2007 Human Health Risk Assessment document (Levy, S., 2007).  Two scenarios, mixing/loading and applying liquids by low-pressure hand-wand and mixing/loading and applying liquids with a hose-end sprayer, were identified and evaluated for short-term residential risks.  Based on the HED residential handler assessment, there are no risks of concern for residential handlers (MOEs > 100).  The lowest MOE, 2,900, was associated with dermal exposure when using the hose-end sprayer was used to calculate the short term aggregate risk assessment.  The value of the aggregate MOE is 2,600, considerably higher that the level of concern of 100, indicating acceptable risk.

      d. Residential Postapplication exposures: Current HED policy indicates that there is no significant post-application exposure to treated residential ornamentals; therefore, no residential re-entry risk assessment was performed.
In summary, all residential and occupational exposure scenarios are associated with a reasonable certainty of no harm for the US population and all subpopulations.

D.	Cumulative Effects
There is no information available to indicate that toxic effects produced by acequinocyl are cumulative with those of any other compound.
E.	Safety Determination
 U.S. population. . The chronic dietary food and drinking water exposure (including all current and proposed uses) to acequinocyl was estimated at 12.9% of the cPAD for the total US population. The calculated chronic dietary risks included contributions of modeled residues from drinking water (direct and indirect, all sources).  The groundwater EDWC for acequinocyl was estimated to be 0.0036 ppb, while surface water EDWCs were estimated to be 0.37 and 2.73 ppb, using two different approaches (Levy, 2007).  The most conservative value, 2.73 ppb, was chosen for use in the chronic dietary assessment. Acequinocyl concentrations in the source surface water are not expected to exceed 2.73 ppb in chronic scenarios due to the conservative high-end assumptions used in the model. The Tier 1 chronic dietary risk assessment took into account tolerance-level residues, 100% crop treated, and a drinking water modeled concentration of 2.73 ppb. The result of this assessment indicated exposures to the general US population were not of concern.
 Infants and children. The chronic dietary food exposure to acequinocyl was estimated at 23.2% of cPAD for all infants (<1 year), and 53.7% of cPAD for children 1-2 years (most highly exposed). The calculated chronic dietary risks included contributions of modeled residues from drinking water (direct and indirect, all sources).  The most conservative value, 2.73 ppb obtained from PRZM-EXAMS surface water model, was chosen for use in the chronic dietary assessment. Acequinocyl concentrations in the source surface water are not expected to exceed the EDWC of 2.73 ppb in chronic scenarios due to the conservative high-end assumptions used in the model.  The Tier 1 chronic dietary risk assessment took into account tolerance-level residues, 100% crop treated, and a drinking water modeled concentration of 2.73 ppb. The result of this assessment indicated exposures to the most exposed subpopulation, children aged 1 to 2 years, were not of concern.
F.	International Tolerances
      To date, no Codex, Canadian or Mexican tolerances exists for acequinocyl.

REFERENCES:
      1. Levy, Sarah.  Amendment to PP#s 6F7040 and #7F176.  Human Health Risk Assessment for the Proposed Uses of Acequinocyl on Grapes, the Tree Nut Crop Group, and Residential Sites (Ornamentals). December 12, 2007.


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 144 (Thursday, July 26, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 43741-43742]
[FR Doc No: 2012-18226]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Parts 151, 155, 156, and 157

46 CFR Part 197

[Docket Number USCG-2010-0194]
RIN 1625-AB57

MARPOL Annex I Amendments; Extension of Comment Period

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Extension of comment period.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is extending the comment period for the notice
of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) entitled ``MARPOL Annex I Amendments,''
published on April 9, 2012, for 60 days. We have decided to extend the
comment period at the request of industry because we omitted from the
docket the accompanying Regulatory Analysis, which informs the
proposal.

DATES: Comments and related material must be submitted to the docket by
September 7, 2012.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number using
any one of the following methods:
    (1) Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
    (2) Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (3) Mail or Delivery: 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. Deliveries
accepted between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except
federal holidays. The telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    See the ``Public Participation and Request for Comments'' portion
of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below for further instructions
on submitting comments. To avoid duplication, please use only one of
these three methods.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or email Scott E. Hartley, U.S. Coast Guard Office of Operating
and Environmental Standards, (CG-OES-2); 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:

A. 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.

1. Submitting Comments

    If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which
each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or
recommendation. You may submit your comments and material online at
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, 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,
type the docket number (USCG-2010-0194) in the ``SEARCH'' box and click
``SEARCH.'' Click on ``Submit a Comment'' on the line associated with
this rulemaking.
    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.

2. 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,
type the docket number (USCG-2010-0194) in the ``SEARCH'' box and click
``SEARCH.'' Click on Open Docket Folder on the line associated with
this rulemaking. 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.

3. 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).

B. Regulatory History and Information

    The Coast Guard published an NPRM entitled ``MARPOL Annex I
Amendments'' on April 9, 2012 (77 FR 21360) proposing to align Coast
Guard regulations with recent amendments to Annex I of the
International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships,
1973, as modified by the Protocol of 1978. The NPRM also proposed to
incorporate some elements from the International Convention for the
Safety of Life at Sea into our regulations. All comments on this NPRM
were originally due by July 9, 2012.

C. Background and Purpose

    On June 14, 2012, we received a letter from the American Petroleum
Institute requesting a 60-day extension of the comment period. It noted
that the Regulatory Analysis had not been posted to the docket, and
that examination of that document was important in analyzing the
proposal. We found that the Regulatory Analysis was in fact not
available in the docket as stated in the NPRM, and promptly made it
available and ensured it was properly posted to the docket. However, as
we wish to give commenters the full amount of time originally provided
to review our analysis, we are reopening the comment period to allow
commenters the full period to comment on the Regulatory Analysis.

D. Authority

    This notice is issued under authority of 5 U.S.C. 552(a).

    Dated: July 17, 2012.
F.J. Sturm,
Acting Director of Commercial Regulations, and Standards, U.S. Coast
Guard.
[FR Doc. 2012-18226 Filed 7-25-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 191 (Thursday, October 1, 2020)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 61881-61883]
[FR Doc No: 2020-21565]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2020-0859; Product Identifier 2020-NM-084-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier, Inc., Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD)
for certain Bombardier, Inc., Model BD-100-1A10 airplanes. This
proposed AD was prompted by reports of failure of a certain fire
detection and extinguishing (FIREX) control unit. This proposed AD
would require replacing FIREX control units having a certain part
number. 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 November
16, 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
Bombardier, Inc., 200 C[ocirc]te Vertu Road West, Dorval, Qu[eacute]bec
H4S 2A3, Canada; North America toll-free telephone 1-866-538-1247 or
direct-dial telephone 1-514-855-2999; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
internet https://www.bombardier.com. You may view this service
information at the FAA, Airworthiness Products Section, Operational
Safety Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on
the availability of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

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-2020-0859; or in person at Docket
Operations between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except
Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this NPRM, any comments
received, and other information. The street address for Docket
Operations is listed above. Comments will be available in the AD docket
shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Siddeeq Bacchus, Aerospace Engineer,
Mechanical Systems and Administrative Services Section, FAA, New York
ACO Branch, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    The FAA invites you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting
written comments, data, or views about this proposal. The most helpful
comments reference a specific portion of the proposal, explain the
reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. To
ensure the docket does not contain duplicate comments, commenters
should send only one copy of written comments, or if comments are filed
electronically, commenters should submit only one time. Send your
comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include
``Docket No. FAA-2020-0859; Product Identifier 2020-NM-084-AD'' at the
beginning of your comments. Except for Confidential Business
Information (CBI) as described in the following paragraph, and other
information as described in 14 CFR 11.35, the FAA will post all
comments received, without change, as well as a report summarizing each
substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerning this proposed
rulemaking. Before acting on this proposal, the FAA will consider all
comments received by the closing date for comments. The FAA will
consider comments filed after the comment period has closed if it is
possible to do so without incurring expense or delay. The FAA may
change this NPRM because of those comments.

Confidential Business Information

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

Discussion

    Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the aviation
authority for Canada, has issued Canadian AD CF-2020-12, dated April
17, 2020 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing
Airworthiness Information, or ``the MCAI''), to correct an unsafe
condition for certain Bombardier, Inc., Model BD-100-1A10 airplanes.
You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2020-
0859.
    This proposed AD was prompted by reports of failure of a certain
FIREX control unit. The subsequent investigation determined that the
potential cause of these failures is the FIREX control unit's
susceptibility to internal electrical noise. The FAA is proposing this
AD to address the failure of a FIREX control unit, which could result
in the loss of the ability to detect a fire. See the MCAI for
additional background information.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    Bombardier, Inc., has issued Service Bulletin 100-26-01, Revision
01, dated December 5, 2019; and Service Bulletin 350-26-001, Revision
01, dated December 5, 2019. This service information describes
procedures for replacing FIREX control units having part number (P/N)
474112-2 with units having P/N 474112-3. These documents are distinct
since they apply to different airplane configurations. 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

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another
country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant
to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, the FAA
has been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and
service information referenced above. 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
on other products of the same type design.

Proposed Requirements of This NPRM

    This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions specified
in the service information described previously.

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this proposed AD affects 223 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.
                          Labor cost                              Parts cost        product         operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 work-hour x $85 per hour = $85.............................          $6,389           $6,474       $1,443,702
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    According to the manufacturer, some or 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 known 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 determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not
have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship
between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed
regulation:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866,
    (2) 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 adding the following new airworthiness
directive (AD):

Bombardier, Inc.: Docket No. FAA-2020-0859; Product Identifier 2020-
NM-084-AD.

(a) Comments Due Date

    The FAA must receive comments by November 16, 2020.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Bombardier, Inc., Model BD-100-1A10
airplanes, certificated in any category, serial numbers 20003
through 20500 inclusive, and 20501 through 20669 inclusive, fitted
with fire detection and extinguishing (FIREX) control unit part
number (P/N) 474112-2.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 26, Fire
protection.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by reports of failure of a certain FIREX
control unit. The FAA is issuing this AD to address failure of a
FIREX control unit, which could result in the loss of the ability to
detect a fire.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Replacement

    Within 24 months after the effective date of this AD: Replace
any FIREX control unit having P/N 474112-2 with a unit having P/N
474112-3, in accordance with paragraphs 2.B.(1) and (3) of the
Accomplishment Instructions of the applicable Bombardier, Inc.,
service bulletin specified in paragraphs (g)(1) and (2) of this AD.
    (1) For airplanes having serial numbers 20003 through 20500
inclusive: Bombardier Service Bulletin 100-26-01, Revision 01, dated
December 5, 2019.
    (2) For airplanes having serial numbers 20501 through 20669
inclusive: Bombardier Service Bulletin 350-26-001, Revision 01,
dated December 5, 2019.

(h) Parts Installation Prohibition

    As of the effective date of this AD, no person may install a
FIREX control unit having P/N 474112-2 on any airplane.

(i) Credit for Previous Actions

    This paragraph provides credit for the actions required by
paragraph (g) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the
effective date of this AD using Bombardier Service Bulletin 100-26-
01, dated December 20, 2016; or Bombardier Service Bulletin 350-26-
001, dated December 20, 2016, as applicable.

(j) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, New
York 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 ATTN: Program Manager, Continuing Operational
Safety, FAA, New York ACO Branch, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410,
Westbury, NY 11590; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>. Before
using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal
inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the
local flight standards district office/certificate holding district
office.
    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD
to obtain instructions from a manufacturer, the instructions must be
accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, New York ACO
Branch, FAA; or Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA); or
Bombardier Inc.'s TCCA Design Approval Organization (DAO). If
approved by the DAO, the approval must include the DAO-authorized
signature.

(k) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information
(MCAI) TCCA AD CF-2020-12, dated May 1, 2020, for related
information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the internet
at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket
No. FAA-2020-0859.
    (2) For more information about this AD, contact Siddeeq Bacchus,
Aerospace Engineer, Mechanical Systems and Administrative Services
Section, FAA, New York ACO Branch, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410,
Westbury, NY 11590; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Bombardier, Inc., 200 C[ocirc]te Vertu Road West, Dorval,
Qu[eacute]bec H4S 2A3, Canada; North America toll-free telephone 1
866 538 1247 or direct-dial telephone 1<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>internet https://www.bombardier.com. You
may view this service information at the FAA, Airworthiness Products
Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des
Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this material at
the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Issued on September 24, 2020.
Gaetano A. Sciortino,
Deputy Director for Strategic Initiatives, Compliance & Airworthiness
Division, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2020-21565 Filed 9-30-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 186 (Tuesday, September 27, 2022)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 58466-58469]
[FR Doc No: 2022-20857]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2022-1239; Project Identifier MCAI-2022-00301-E]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; GE Aviation Czech s.r.o. (Type
Certificate Previously Held by WALTER Engines a.s., Walter a.s., and
MOTORLET a.s.) Turboprop Engines

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD)
for certain GE Aviation Czech s.r.o. (GEAC) M601D-11, M601E-11, M601E-
11A, M601E-11AS, M601E-11S, M601F, H75-100, H75-200, H80, H80-100, H80-
200, H85-100, and H85-200 model turboprop engines. This proposed AD was
prompted by reports of cracks in dilution tube weld areas of the
combustion chamber outer liner. This proposed AD would require initial
and repetitive borescope inspections (BSIs) of the dilution tube weld
areas of the combustion chamber outer liner and, depending on the
results of the inspections, replacement of the combustion chamber outer
liner with a part eligible for installation. The FAA is proposing this
AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: The FAA must receive comments on this NPRM by November 14, 2022.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR
11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to regulations.gov. Follow
the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail address above between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    AD Docket: You may examine the AD docket at regulations.gov under
Docket No. FAA-2022-1239; or in person at Docket Operations between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD
docket contains this NPRM, the mandatory continuing airworthiness
information (MCAI), any comments received, and other information. The
street address for Docket Operations is listed above.
    Material Incorporated by Reference:
     For GEAC service information identified in this NPRM,
contact GE Aviation Czech s.r.o., Beranov[yacute]ch 65, 199 02 Praha 9,
Let[ncaron]any, Czech Republic; phone: +420 222 538 111.
     You may view this service information at the FAA,
Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 1200
District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803. For information on the
availability of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Barbara Caufield, Aviation Safety
Engineer, ECO Branch, FAA, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803;
phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    The FAA invites you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed
under ADDRESSES. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2022-1239; Project Identifier
MCAI-2022-00301-E'' at the beginning of your comments. The most helpful
comments reference a specific portion of the proposal, explain the
reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. The FAA
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposal because of those comments.
    Except for Confidential Business Information (CBI) as described in
the following paragraph, and other information as described in 14 CFR
11.35, the FAA will post all comments received, without change, to
regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. The
agency will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal
contact received about this NPRM.

Confidential Business Information

    CBI is commercial or financial information that is both customarily
and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of
Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public
disclosure. If your comments responsive to this NPRM contain commercial
or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that
you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to
this NPRM, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted
comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission containing
CBI

as ``PROPIN.'' The FAA will treat such marked submissions as
confidential under the FOIA, and they will not be placed in the public
docket of this NPRM. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to
Barbara Caufield, Aviation Safety Engineer, ECO Branch, FAA, 1200
District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803. Any commentary that the FAA
receives which is not specifically designated as CBI will be placed in
the public docket for this rulemaking.

Background

    The European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the
Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued
EASA AD 2022-0034, dated March 4, 2022 (referred to after this as ``the
MCAI''), to correct an unsafe condition on M601D, M601D-1, M601D-2,
M601D-11, M601D-11NZ, M601E, M601E-11, M601E-11A, M601E-11AS, M601E-
11S, M601E-21, M601F, M601FS, M601Z, H75-100, H75-200, H80, H80-100,
H80-200, H85-100, and H85-200 engines, all serial numbers. The MCAI
states that occurrences of cracks in dilution tube weld areas of the
combustion chamber outer liner have been reported. These cracks can
lead to crack propagation, possibly resulting in part separation, loss
of engine power, and reduced control of the aircraft.
    As a result of this unsafe condition, the MCAI specifies initial
and repetitive BSIs of the dilution tube weld areas of the combustion
chamber outer liner and, depending on the outcome of the inspections,
corrective action in accordance with the service information.
    You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket at regulations.gov under
Docket No. FAA-2022-1239.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    The FAA reviewed GEAC Alert Service Bulletin (ASB) ASB-H75-72-40-
00-0056 [01], ASB-M601E-72-40-00-0113 [01], ASB-H80-72-40-00-0099 [01],
ASB-M601D-72-40-00-0081[01], ASB-M601F-72-40-00-0064[01], ASB-M601Z-72-
40-00-0063 [01], and ASB-H85-72-40-00-0045 [01], (single document;
formatted as service bulletin identifier [revision number]), dated
February 16, 2022. This service information specifies procedures for
BSIs of the dilution tube weld areas of the combustion chamber outer
liner and replacement of the combustion chamber outer liner.
    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 ADDRESSES.

FAA's Determination

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

Proposed AD Requirements in This NPRM

    This proposed AD would require initial and repetitive BSIs of the
dilution tube weld areas of the combustion chamber outer liner and,
depending on the results of the inspections, corrective action in
accordance with the service information.

Differences Between This Proposed AD and the MCAI

    EASA AD 2022-0034 applies to GEAC M601D, M601D-1, M601D-2, M601D-
11, M601D-11NZ, M601E, M601E-11, M601E-11A, M601E-11AS, M601E-11S,
M601E-21, M601F, M601FS, M601Z, H75-100, H75-200, H80, H80-100, H80-
200, H85-100, and H85-200 model turboprop engines, all serial numbers.
GEAC M601D, M601D-1, M601D-2, M601D-11NZ, M601E, M601E-21, M601FS, and
M601Z model turboprop engines are not certificated by the FAA and are
not included on the U.S. type certificate data sheet; this proposed AD
therefore does not include those engines in the applicability.

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this AD, if adopted as proposed, would
affect 33 engines installed on airplanes of U.S. registry.
    The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this proposed
AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per      Cost on U.S.
                Action                         Labor cost           Parts cost        product        operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BSI of combustion chamber outer liner.  2.5 work-hours x $85 per              $0         $212.50       $7,012.50
                                         hour = $212.50.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FAA estimates the following costs to do any necessary
replacements that would be required based on the results of the
proposed inspection. The agency has no way of determining the number of
aircraft that might need these replacements:

                                                On-Condition Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per
                    Action                                 Labor cost               Parts cost        product
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On-wing replacement of combustion chamber       64 work-hours x $85 per hour =          *$74,909         $80,349
 outer liner.                                    $5,440.
In-shop replacement of combustion chamber       56 work-hours x $85 per hour =            74,909          79,669
 outer liner.                                    $4,760.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FAA has included all known costs in its cost estimate.
According to the manufacturer, however, some of the costs of this
proposed AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost
impact on affected operators.

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I,

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

Regulatory Findings

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Proposed Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

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

GE Aviation Czech s.r.o (Type Certificate previously held by WALTER
Engines a.s., Walter a.s., and MOTORLET a.s.): Docket No. FAA-2022-
1239; Project Identifier MCAI-2022-00301-E.

(a) Comments Due Date

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

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to GE Aviation Czech s.r.o. (GEAC) M601D-11,
M601E-11, M601E-11A, M601E-11AS, M601E-11S, M601F, H75-100, H75-200,
H80, H80-100, H80-200, H85-100, and H85-200 model turboprop engines
installed on single-engine airplanes, with an installed combustion
chamber outer liner having part numbers (P/Ns) M601-229.3, M601-
229.3A, M601-229.3B, M601-229.31A, or M601-229.31B.

(d) Subject

    Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC) Code 7240, Turbine Engine
Combustion Section.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by reports of cracks in dilution tube weld
areas of the combustion chamber outer liner. The FAA is issuing this
AD to prevent failure of the combustion chamber outer liner. The
unsafe condition, if not addressed, could result in uncontained
release of the combustion chamber outer liner, loss of engine power,
and reduced control of the airplane.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Required Actions

    (1) At the next 300-hour (Type 3) engine inspection, or within
25 flight hours (FHs) after the effective date of this AD, whichever
occurs later, and thereafter at intervals not to exceed 300 FHs,
perform a borescope inspection (BSI) of the dilution tube weld areas
of the combustion chamber outer liner in accordance with the
Accomplishment Instructions, paragraph 2.1 of GEAC Alert Service
Bulletin (ASB) ASB-H75-72-40-00-0056 [01], ASB-M601E-72-40-00-0113
[01], ASB-H80-72-40-00-0099 [01], ASB-M601D-72-40-00-0081[01], ASB-
M601F-72-40-00-0064[01], ASB-M601Z-72-40-00-0063 [01], and ASB-H85-
72-40-00-0045 [01] (single document; formatted as service bulletin
identifier [revision number]), dated February 16, 2022 (the ASB).
    (2) If a crack is detected during any BSI required by paragraph
(g)(1) of this AD, before further flight, perform the applicable
corrective actions in accordance with the Accomplishment
Instructions, paragraph 2.1, Table 1 of the ASB.

(h) Terminating Action

    Replacing the affected combustion chamber outer liner with a
combustion chamber outer liner that does not have P/N M601-229.3,
M601-229.3A, M601 229.3B, M601-229.31A, or M601-229.31B, constitutes
a terminating action for the repetitive inspections required by
paragraph (g)(1) of this AD.

(i) Conditional Part Installation

    (1) After the effective date of this AD, it is permissible to
install an engine having an affected combustion chamber outer liner
installed on a single-engine airplane, provided that prior to
operation, the BSI required by paragraph (g)(1) of this AD is
performed and, depending on the findings, the applicable corrective
actions are performed as required by paragraph (g)(2) of this AD.
    (2) After the effective date of this AD, it is permissible to
install an affected combustion chamber outer liner on the engine of
a single-engine airplane, provided that it is a part eligible for
installation, as defined in paragraph (j) of this AD, and provided
that prior to operation, the BSI required by paragraph (g)(1) of
this AD is performed and, depending on the findings, the applicable
corrective actions are performed as required by paragraph (g)(2) of
this AD.

 (j) Definitions

    For the purpose of this AD, a ``part eligible for installation''
is an affected combustion chamber outer liner, which was not
previously installed on an engine, or an affected combustion chamber
outer liner that, before installation, has passed an inspection (no
defects found) in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions,
paragraphs 2.2 and 2.3 of the ASB, or a combustion chamber outer
liner that does not have P/Ns M601-229.3, M601-229.3A, M601-229.3B,
M601-229.31A, or M601-229.31B.

(k) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    The Manager, ECO Branch, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs
for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in Sec.  39.19.
In accordance with Sec.  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 (l)(2) of this AD or email to: [email protected]. 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.

(l) Additional Information

    (1) Refer to European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD
2022-0034, dated March 4, 2022, for related information. This EASA
AD may be found in the AD docket at regulations.gov under Docket No.
FAA-2022-1239.
    (2) For more information about this AD, contact Barbara
Caufield, Aviation Safety Engineer, ECO Branch, FAA, 1200 District
Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
[email protected].

(m) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference of the service information listed in this

paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) GE Aviation Czech s.r.o. (GEAC) Alert Service Bulletin (ASB)
ASB-H75-72-40-00-0056 [01], ASB-M601E-72-40-00-0113 [01], ASB-H80-
72-40-00-0099 [01], ASB-M601D-72-40-00-0081[01], ASB-M601F-72-40-00-
0064[01], ASB-M601Z-72-40-00-0063 [01], and ASB-H85-72-40-00-0045
[01] (single document; formatted as service bulletin identifier
[revision number]), dated February 16, 2022.
    (ii) [Reserved]
    (3) For GEAC service information identified in this AD, contact
GE Aviation Czech s.r.o., Beranov[yacute]ch 65, 199 02 Praha 9,
Let[ncaron]any, Czech Republic; phone: +420 222 538 111.
    (4) You may view this service information at the FAA,
Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 1200
District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803. For information on the
availability of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (5) You may view this service information that is incorporated
by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA). For information on the availability of this material at
NARA, email: [email protected], or go to: www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued on September 21, 2022.
Christina Underwood,
Acting Director,Compliance & Airworthiness Division,Aircraft
Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2022-20857 Filed 9-26-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 198 (Friday, October 14, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 62494-62496]
[FR Doc No: 2022-22394]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2020-0071]

Denial of Motor Vehicle Defect Petition, DP20-002

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation.

ACTION: Denial of a petition for a defect investigation.

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

SUMMARY: This notice sets forth the reasons for the denial of a defect
petition, DP20-002, submitted by Mr. V.T. Wakefield (the Petitioner) to
NHTSA (the Agency) by a letter dated December 12, 2019. The petition

requested that the Agency initiate a safety defect investigation of
passenger compartment fires attributed to HVAC blower motor connectors
overheating in Model Year (MY) 2006-2010 Pontiac Solstice and Saturn
Sky vehicles (the ``subject vehicles''). After conducting a technical
review of: (1) consumer complaints identified by the petitioner; (2)
consumer complaint information in NHTSA's databases; and (3)
information provided by General Motors (GM) in response to the Agency's
information request regarding vehicle fires and complaints received by
GM, NHTSA's Office of Defect Investigations (ODI) has concluded that
the issues raised by the petition do not warrant a defect
investigation. Accordingly, the Agency has denied the petition.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Alexander Argant, Vehicle Defect
Division A, Office of Defects Investigation, NHTSA 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590. Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>. Email:
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Introduction

    Interested persons may petition NHTSA requesting that the Agency
initiate an investigation to determine whether a motor vehicle or an
item of replacement equipment does not comply with an applicable motor
vehicle safety standard or contains a defect that relates to motor
vehicle safety. 49 U.S.C. 30162(a)(2); 49 CFR 552.1. Upon receipt of a
properly filed petition, the Agency conducts a technical review of the
petition, material submitted with the petition and any additional
information. 49 U.S.C. 30162(a)(2); 49 CFR 552.6. The technical review
may consist solely of a review of information already in the possession
of the Agency or it may include the collection of information from the
motor vehicle manufacturer and/or other sources. After conducting the
technical review and considering appropriate factors, which may
include, but are not limited to, the nature of the complaint,
allocation of Agency resources, Agency priorities, the likelihood of
uncovering sufficient evidence to establish the existence of a defect
and the likelihood of success in any necessary enforcement litigation,
the Agency will grant or deny the petition. See 49 U.S.C. 30162(a)(2);
49 CFR 552.8.

Background Information

    In a letter dated December 12, 2019, the petitioner, Mr. V.T.
Wakefield, requested that NHTSA initiate an investigation into
passenger compartment fires in Model Years (MY) 2006-2010 Saturn Sky
and Pontiac Solstice vehicles. The petitioner alleged the fires were
caused by the overheating of the HVAC blower motor connector. The
petitioner further alleged that Saturn Sky and Pontiac Solstice
vehicles experience the same electrical problem (overheating HVAC
blower resistor) addressed by NHTSA Safety Recall 15V-421, which
involved MY2006-2010 Hummer H3 and 2009-2010 Hummer H3T vehicles. The
petitioner's complaint reported that the affected parts in the Sky and
Solstice vehicles are identical to those covered by Recall 15V-421.
    NHTSA has based its decision on a review of the material cited by
the petitioner in his complaint and petition, information submitted by
GM in response to the Agency's information request letter, and other
pertinent information in NHTSA's databases.

Summary of the Petition

    The petitioner alleges that MY2006-2010 Saturn Sky and Pontiac
Solstice vehicles can pose a fire risk due to the overheating of the
HVAC blower motor connectors. The petitioner cites the fact the Sky and
Solstice vehicles use the same blower motor parts as the Hummer H3 and
H3T vehicles that were recalled under Safety Recall 15V-421 for a
potential fire risk.
    GM filed Safety Recall 15V-421 on June 15, 2015 to remedy the
connector module that controls the blower motor speed in the HVAC
system of MY2006-2010 Hummer H3 and 2009-2010 Hummer H3T vehicles. The
module may overheat under extended operational periods at high and
medium-high blower speeds in those vehicles. The recall followed eleven
(11) related fires affecting a fleet of 165,000 vehicles with five to
ten years of time in service.

Office of Defects Investigation Analysis

    An analysis of General Motors (GM) complaint data and information
in NHTSA's databases identified thirteen unique vehicle identification
numbers (VINs) with reported incidents that could pertain to blower
motor overheating, smoking, or melting in the 90,938 MY2006-2010 Saturn
Sky and Pontiac Solstice vehicles produced. Two of the thirteen cited
incidents reported smoke and thermal damage that may be attributed to
the HVAC blower motor although neither incident was confirmed through
vehicle inspection. One incident was with a MY2008 Saturn Sky that had
substantial field exposure including a frontal crash that occurred one
month prior to the August 2017 thermal incident. The Saturn Sky thermal
incident was reported as plastic dripping from the dash and a fire in
the carpet. A root cause could not be identified for this thermal
event.
    The other incident was with a MY2007 Pontiac Solstice. The owner
did not inform the manufacturer nor take their vehicle to a dealer for
evaluation after reporting an electrical smell and observing smoke in
the glove box in December 2016. No inspection of the vehicle was
conducted.
    Most of the 13 incidents reported an overheated or discolored
connector with attendant loss of HVAC blower fan function. GM reported
354 warranty claims with the subject components for the Sky and
Solstice, none of which included a report of fire and only one report
of smoke. Over a period of ten to fourteen years in service, there are
two reports of smoke or thermal damage.
    While the subject Sky and Solstice vehicles and the recalled Hummer
H3 and H3T vehicles do share common components, the Sky and Solstice
vehicles have demonstrated very different behavior and the HVAC system
has a lower power draw than the recalled Hummer H3 and H3T vehicles.
The recalled H3 and H3T vehicles generate over triple the failure rate
of the Sky and Solstice vehicles. GM suggested in its response to the
Agency's information request that this difference was due to the larger
interior volume of a recalled Hummer vehicle imposing a heavier
electrical load and duty cycle on its HVAC blower. The duty cycle is
defined as how long it takes for the vehicle to cool down enough before
the HVAC blower motor fan speed is lowered or turned off completely.
    Additionally, due to the size differential between the Sky and
Solstice vehicles and the recalled Hummer H3 and H3T vehicles, the
parts have a different power draw. The Sky and Solstice vehicles, due
to their smaller size, draw less wattage, which reduces the likelihood
of a thermal event. This condition in the Sky and Solstice vehicles
typically leads to an inoperable HVAC blower motor as opposed to a
thermal event.
    Despite the commonality of parts in the Sky and Solstice vehicles
with those that were the basis of a safety recall, the subject vehicles
have not demonstrated a safety defect trend that would likely lead to a
safety recall or merit further investigation by the Agency. The subject
vehicles have a low rate of reported thermal events over the ten to
fourteen years they have been in service with the most recent occurring
in 2017. The HVAC blower motor was not confirmed

to be the root cause for either thermal event cited above.
    After thoroughly assessing the material submitted by the
petitioner, information already in NHTSA's possession, information
submitted by GM in response to an information request, and the
potential risks to safety implicated by the petitioner's allegation,
NHTSA does not believe that the petition warrants a formal
investigation at this time. Consequently, the petition is denied. As
with all potential motor vehicle safety risks, NHTSA will continue to
review any new information or incidents as they are submitted to the
Agency. The denial of this petition does not foreclose the Agency from
taking further action if warranted or making a future finding that a
safety-related defect exists based on additional information the Agency
may receive.
    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30162(d); delegations of authority at CFR1.95
and 501.8.

Anne L. Collins,
Associate Administrator for Enforcement.
[FR Doc. 2022-22394 Filed 10-13-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P