[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 237 (Monday, December 10, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 73270-73273]
[FR Doc No: 2012-28173]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2012-0590; Directorate Identifier 2011-NM-112-AD;
Amendment 39-17265; AD 2012-23-09]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Embraer S.A. Airplanes

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are superseding an existing airworthiness directive (AD)
for all Embraer S.A. Model ERJ 190-100 STD, -100 LR, -100 IGW, -200
STD, -200 LR, and -200 IGW airplanes. That AD currently requires
revising the maintenance program to incorporate modifications in the
Airworthiness Limitation Section (ALS) of the EMBRAER ERJ 190
Maintenance Review Board Report (MRBR). This new AD requires revising
the maintenance program to incorporate modifications in the ALS of the
EMBRAER ERJ 190 MRBR to include new inspection tasks and their
respective thresholds and intervals. This AD was prompted by issuance
of new inspection tasks and their respective thresholds and intervals.
We are issuing this AD since failure to inspect these structural
components according to the new ALS tasks, thresholds, and intervals
could prevent a timely detection of fatigue cracking, which if not
properly addressed, could result in reduced structural integrity of the
airplane.

DATES: This AD becomes effective January 14, 2013.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of January 14,
2013.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of July 6, 2010
(75 FR 30277, June 1, 2010).

ADDRESSES: You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov or in person at the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 to include an AD that would apply to the specified products.
That NPRM was published in the Federal Register on June 6, 2012 (77 FR
33334), and proposed to supersede AD 2010-11-14, Amendment 39-16319 (75
FR 30277, June 1, 2010). That NPRM proposed to correct an unsafe
condition for the specified products. The MCAI states:

    During the airplane full scale fatigue test, cracks were found
in some structural components of the airplane. Analysis of these
cracks resulted in modifications on the Airworthiness Limitation
Section (ALS) of Embraer ERJ 190 Maintenance Review Board Report
(MRBR), to include new inspections tasks and its respective
thresholds and intervals.
    Failure to inspect these structural components, according to the
new tasks, thresholds and intervals, could prevent a timely
detection of fatigue cracking. These cracks, if not properly
addressed, could adversely affect the structural integrity of the
airplane.
    Since this condition may occur in other airplanes of the same
type and affects flight safety, a corrective action is required.
Thus, sufficient reason exists to request compliance with this
[Ag[ecirc]ncia Nacional de Avia[ccedil][atilde]o Civil (ANAC)] AD in
the indicated time limit.

    You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD
docket.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD. We have considered the comments received.

Request To Incorporate New and Revised Structural Airworthiness
Limitations

    Embraer requested that we include EMBRAER Temporary Revision (TR)
5-5, dated May 24, 2012; and EMBRAER TR 5-7, dated August 12, 2012; to
Appendix A, Part 2, Airworthiness Limitation Inspections (ALI)--
Structures, of the EMBRAER 190 MRBR, MRB-1928, in the operators'

maintenance programs. Embraer points out that those TRs include
additional maintenance tasks that were approved in recent design
changes, which identify and mitigate potential premature structural
cracks.
    We disagree. There have been numerous changes to the structural
inspection requirements intended to identify potential premature cracks
since the last structural airworthiness limitations (EMBRAER TR 2-5,
dated December 6, 2007; and EMBRAER TR 2-6, dated February 12, 2008; to
Appendix A, Part 2, Airworthiness Limitation Inspections (ALI) -
Structures, of the EMBRAER 190 MRBR, MRB-1928 were mandated in FAA AD
2010-11-14, Amendment 39-16319 (75 FR 30277, June 1, 2010).
    The requested changes would alter the actions currently required by
this AD, so additional rulemaking would be required. We find that
delaying this action would be inappropriate in light of the identified
unsafe condition.
    In addition, we have contacted the ANAC, the aviation authority for
Brazil. ANAC has indicated it intends to mandate the maintenance
actions in Appendix A, Parts I, II, and IV of EMBRAER 190 MRBR, MRB-
1928, Revision 5, dated November 11, 2010; including EMBRAER TR 5-3,
dated November 11, 2010; and EMBRAER TR 5-6, dated November 11, 2010,
in addition to the TRs referred to by the commenter. These new
maintenance actions include certification maintenance requirements
(CMRs) and life-limited parts, in addition to the structural
inspections from the TRs referred to by the commenter. As we stated
previously, we consider that to delay this AD action would be
inappropriate, since we have determined that an unsafe condition
exists. When ANAC issues mandatory continued airworthiness instructions
that encompass all appropriate airworthiness limitations, including the
commenter's recommended action, we might consider additional
rulemaking. We have not changed the AD in this regard.

Explanation of Changes Made to This AD

    We have deleted Note 1 to paragraph (g)(1) of the NPRM (77 FR
33334, June 6, 2012). Instead, we have added the same information in
paragraph (g)(2) of this AD.
    We also revised the compliance times specified in table 1 to
paragraph (g)(1) of this AD to correctly identify the effective date of
AD 2010-11-14, Amendment 39-16319 (75 FR 30277, June 1, 2010).

Conclusion

    We reviewed the available data, including the comment received, and
determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting the
AD with the changes described previously and minor editorial changes.
We have determined that these minor changes:
     Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the
NPRM (77 FR 33334, June 6, 2012) for correcting the unsafe condition;
and
     Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was
already proposed in the NPRM (77 FR 33334, June 6, 2012).

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD will affect about 88 products of U.S.
registry.
    The actions that are required by AD 2010-11-14, Amendment 39-16319
(75 FR 30277, June 1, 2010), and retained in this AD take about 1 work-
hour per product, at an average labor rate of $85 per work-hour. Based
on these figures, the estimated cost of the currently required actions
is $85 per product.
    We estimate that it will take about 1 work-hour per product to
comply with the new basic requirements of this AD. The average labor
rate is $85 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost
of this AD to the U.S. operators to be $7,480, or $85 per product.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this AD will not have federalism implications
under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct
effect on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
    1. Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order
12866;
    2. Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
    3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and
    4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to
comply with this AD and placed it in the AD docket.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov; or in person at the Docket Operations office
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains the NPRM (77 FR 33334, June 6, 2012),
the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other
information. The street address for the Docket Operations office
(telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will
be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by removing airworthiness directive (AD)
2010-11-14, Amendment 39-16319 (75 FR 30277, June 1, 2010), and adding
the following new AD:

2012-23-09 Embraer S.A.: Amendment 39-17265. Docket No. FAA-2012-
0590; Directorate Identifier 2011-NM-112-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This airworthiness directive (AD) becomes effective January 14,
2013.

(b) Affected ADs

    This AD supersedes AD 2010-11-14, Amendment 39-16319 (75 FR
30277, June 1, 2010).

(c) Applicability

    (1) This AD applies to Embraer S.A. Model ERJ 190-100 STD, -100
LR, and -100 IGW airplanes; and Model ERJ 190-200 STD, -200 LR, and
-200 IGW airplanes; certificated in any category; all serial
numbers.
    (2) This AD requires revisions to certain operator maintenance
documents to include new actions (e.g., inspections). Compliance
with these actions is required by 14 CFR 91.403(c). For airplanes
that have been previously modified, altered, or repaired in the
areas addressed by this AD, the operator may not be able to
accomplish the actions described in the revisions. In this
situation, to comply with 14 CFR 91.403(c), the operator must
request approval of an alternative method of compliance (AMOC)
according to paragraph (j)(1) of this AD. The request should include
a description of changes to the required actions that will ensure
the continued operational safety of the airplane.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 52, Doors; 53,
Fuselage; 54, Nacelles/Pylons; 55, Stabilizers; 57, Wings; 71,
Powerplant; and 78, Engine Exhaust.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by reports of cracks in some of the
structural components of the airplane. We are issuing this AD since
failure to inspect these structural components according to the new
airworthiness limitation section (ALS) tasks, thresholds, and
intervals could prevent a timely detection of fatigue cracking,
which if not properly addressed, could result in reduced structural
integrity of the airplane.

(f) Compliance

    You are responsible for having the actions required by this AD
performed within the compliance times specified, unless the actions
have already been done.

(g) Restated Actions: Revision and Compliance Times

    This paragraph restates the actions required by paragraph (f) of
AD 2010-11-14, Amendment 39-16319 (75 FR 30277, June 1, 2010).
    (1) Within 90 days after July 6, 2010 (the effective date of AD
2010-11-14, Amendment 39-16319 (75 FR 30277, June 1, 2010)), revise
the ALS of the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness (ICA) to
include the tasks specified in table 1 to paragraph (g)(1) of this
AD. These tasks are identified in EMBRAER Temporary Revision (TR) 2-
5, dated December 6, 2007; and EMBRAER TR 2-6, dated February 12,
2008; to Appendix A, Part 2, Airworthiness Limitation Inspections
(ALI) -Structures, of the EMBRAER 190 Maintenance Review Board
Report (MRBR), MRB-1928.

                Table 1 to Paragraph (g)(1) of This AD--MRBR TRs and Tasks, With Compliance Times
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
           EMBRAER MRBR TR                    Subject           MRBR Task No.            Compliance time
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TR 2-5, dated December 6, 2007......  Wing stub main box        57-01-002-0002  250 flight cycles after July 6,
                                       lower skin and                            2010 (the effective date of AD
                                       splices--internal.                        2010-11-14, Amendment 39-16319
                                                                                (75 FR 30277, June 1, 2010)).
TR 2-5, dated December 6, 2007......  Wing stub spar 3--        57-01-008-0003  500 flight cycles after July 6,
                                       internal/external.                        2010 (the effective date of AD
                                                                                2010-11-14, Amendment 39-16319
                                                                                (75 FR 30277, June 1, 2010)).
TR 2-5, dated December 6, 2007......  Wing stub spar 3--        57-01-008-0004  500 flight cycles after July 6,
                                       external.                                 2010 (the effective date of AD
                                                                                2010-11-14, Amendment 39-16319
                                                                                (75 FR 30277, June 1, 2010)).
TR 2-5, dated December 6, 2007......  Wing lower skin panel     57-10-007-0004  500 flight cycles after July 6,
                                       stringers--internal.                      2010 (the effective date of AD
                                                                                2010-11-14, Amendment 39-16319
                                                                                (75 FR 30277, June 1, 2010)).
TR 2-5, dated December 6, 2007......  Wing main box rib 11--    57-10-012-0003  500 flight cycles after July 6,
                                       internal.                                 2010 (the effective date of AD
                                                                                2010-11-14, Amendment 39-16319
                                                                                (75 FR 30277, June 1, 2010)).
TR 2-6, dated February 12, 2008.....  Nose landing gear         53-10-021-0004  500 flight cycles after July 6,
                                       wheel well metallic                       2010 (the effective date of AD
                                       structure.                                2010-11-14, Amendment 39-16319
                                                                                (75 FR 30277, June 1, 2010)).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

     (2) The actions required by paragraph (g)(1) of this AD may be
done by inserting a copy of EMBRAER TR 2-5, dated December 6, 2007;
and EMBRAER TR 2-6, dated February 12, 2008; to Appendix A, Part 2,
Airworthiness Limitation Inspections (ALI) -Structures, of the
EMBRAER 190 MRBR, MRB-1928, into the ALS of the EMBRAER 190 MRBR,
MRB-1928. When these TRs have been included in general revisions of
the EMBRAER 190 MRBR, MRB-1928, the general revisions may be
inserted, provided the relevant information in the general revision
is identical to that in EMBRAER TR 2-5, dated December 6, 2007; and
EMBRAER TR 2-6, dated February 12, 2008, and these TRs may be
removed.
    (3) The initial compliance times for the tasks specified in
EMBRAER TR 2-5, dated December 6, 2007; and EMBRAER TR 2-6, dated
February 12, 2008; to Appendix A, Part 2, Airworthiness Limitation
Inspections (ALI)--Structures, of the EMBRAER 190 MRBR, MRB-1928;
start at the later of the times specified in paragraphs (g)(3)(i)
and (g)(3)(ii) of this AD. For certain tasks, the compliance times
depend on the pre-modification and post-modification condition of
the associated service bulletin, as specified in the
``Applicability'' column of these TRs.
    (i) Within the applicable threshold times specified in the TRs
specified in table 1 to paragraph (g)(1) of this AD.
    (ii) At the applicable compliance time specified in table 1 to
paragraph (g)(1) of this AD.
    (iii) Thereafter, except as provided in paragraphs (h) and (j)
of this AD, no alternative replacement times or structural
inspection intervals may be approved for the tasks specified in the
TRs specified in table 1 to paragraph (g)(1) of this AD.

(h) New Requirements of This AD: Revision of the Maintenance Program

    Within 90 days after the effective date of this AD, revise the
maintenance program to incorporate the tasks specified in Part 2--
Airworthiness Limitation Inspections (ALI)--Structures, of Appendix
A, Airworthiness Limitations (AL), of the EMBRAER 190 Maintenance
Review Board Report, MRB-1928, Revision 5, dated November 11, 2010;
and EMBRAER TR 5-1, dated February 11, 2011, to Part 2--
Airworthiness Limitation Inspections (ALI)--Structures, of Appendix
A, Airworthiness Limitations (AL), of the EMBRAER 190 Maintenance
Review Board Report, MRB-1928, Revision 5, dated November 11, 2010;
with the thresholds and intervals stated in these documents. The
initial compliance times for the tasks are stated in the
``Implementation Plan'' section of Appendix A, Airworthiness
Limitations (AL), of the EMBRAER 190 Maintenance Review Board
Report, MRB-1928, Revision 5, dated November 11, 2010. Doing the
revision required by this paragraph terminates the revision required
by paragraph (g) of this AD.

(i) No Alternative Actions or Intervals

    After accomplishing the revision required by paragraph (h) of
this AD, no alternative actions (e.g., inspections) or intervals,
may be used, unless the actions or intervals are approved as an AMOC
in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (j)(1) of
this AD.

(j) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA,
has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using
the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR
39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight
Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information
directly

to the International Branch, send it to ATTN: Cindy Ashforth,
Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport
Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-
3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>. Information may
be emailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Before using any
approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or
lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight
standards district office/certificate holding district office. The
AMOC approval letter must specifically reference this AD.
    (2) Airworthy Product: For any requirement in this AD to obtain
corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these
actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered
FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority
(or their delegated agent). You are required to assure the product
is airworthy before it is returned to service.

(k) Related Information

    Refer to MCAI Brazilian Airworthiness Directive 2011-05-04,
effective June 16, 2011, and the service information specified in
paragraphs (k)(1) through (k)(4) of this AD, for related
information.
    (1) EMBRAER Temporary Revision (TR) 2-5, dated December 6, 2007,
to Appendix A, Part 2--Airworthiness Limitation Inspections (ALI)--
Structures, of the EMBRAER 190 Maintenance Review Board Report, MRB-
1928.
    (2) EMBRAER TR 2-6, dated February 12, 2008, to Appendix A, Part
2--Airworthiness Limitation Inspections (ALI)--Structures, of the
EMBRAER 190 Maintenance Review Board Report, MRB-1928.
    (3) EMBRAER TR 5-1, dated February 11, 2011, to Part 2--
Airworthiness Limitation Inspections (ALI)--Structures, of Appendix
A, Airworthiness Limitations (AL), of the EMBRAER 190 Maintenance
Review Board Report, MRB-1928, Revision 5, dated November 11, 2010.
    (4) Part 2--Airworthiness Limitation Inspections (ALI)--
Structures, of Appendix A, Airworthiness Limitations (AL), of the
EMBRAER 190 Maintenance Review Board Report, MRB-1928, Revision 5,
dated November 11, 2010.

(l) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed
in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
    (3) The following service information was approved for IBR on
January 14, 2013.
    (i) EMBRAER Temporary Revision (TR) 5-1, dated February 11,
2011, to Part 2--Airworthiness Limitation Inspections (ALI)--
Structures, of Appendix A, Airworthiness Limitations (AL), of the
EMBRAER 190 Maintenance Review Board Report, MRB-1928, Revision 5,
dated November 11, 2010.
    (ii) Appendix A, Airworthiness Limitation (AL), of the EMBRAER
190 Maintenance Review Board Report, MRB-1928, Revision 5, dated
November 11, 2010.
    (4) The following service information was approved for IBR on
July 6, 2012 (75 FR 30277, June 1, 2010).
    (i) EMBRAER TR 2-5, dated December 6, 2007, to Appendix A, Part
2--Airworthiness Limitation Inspections (ALI)--Structures of the
EMBRAER 190 Maintenance Review Board Report, MRB-1928.
    (ii) EMBRAER TR 2-6, dated February 12, 2008, to Appendix A,
Part 2--Airworthiness Limitation Inspections (ALI)--Structures of
the EMBRAER 190 Maintenance Review Board Report, MRB-1928.
    (5) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Embraer S.A., Technical Publications Section (PC 060), Av.
Brigadeiro Faria Lima, 2170--Putim--12227-901 S[atilde]o Jose dos
Campos--SP--BRASIL; telephone +55 12 3927-5852 or +55 12 3309-0732;
fax +55 12 3927-7546; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet http://www.flyembraer.com.
    (6) You may review copies of the service information at the FAA,
Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA.
For information on the availability of this material at the FAA,
call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (7) 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, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on November 13, 2012.
John P. Piccola,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2012-28173 Filed 12-7-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


EPA REGISTRATION DIVISION COMPANY NOTICE OF FILING FOR PESTICIDE PETITIONS PUBLISHED IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER

EPA Registration Division contact: PV Shah,<PHONE_NUMBER>

INSTRUCTIONS:  Please utilize this outline in preparing the pesticide petition.  In cases where the outline element does not apply, please insert "NA-Remove" and maintain the outline. Please do not change the margins, font, or format in your pesticide petition. Simply replace the instructions that appear in green, i.e., "[insert company name]," with the information specific to your action.

BYK Additives Inc.

[IN-10780]

	EPA has received a pesticide petition (IN-10780) from BYK Additives Inc., 1600 W. Hill Street, Louisville, KY 40210 requesting, 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 to establish an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for Quaternary ammonium compounds, benzylbis(hydrogenated tallow alkyl)methyl, bis(hydrogenated tallow alkyl)dimethylammonium salts with saponite (CAS #1588523-05-0) when used as an inert suspending or structuring agent applied to growing crops under 40 CFR 180.920 in pesticide formulations. The inert substance will be used as part of an inert mixture intended for use in pesticides. EPA has determined that the petition contains data or information regarding the elements set forth in section 408 (d)(2) of  FDDCA; 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 NA remove

	1. Plant metabolism.

	2. Analytical method. NA remove

	3. Magnitude of residues. NA remove

B. Toxicological Profile

	1. Acute toxicity.  Acute oral and inhalation studies have been conducted in animals with many of the organoclay materials and give consistent results that classify these materials as Toxicity Category IV for these two endpoints. Oral LD50 values exceed 5000 mg/kg bw and inhalation LD50 values were consistently greater than 2 mg/L.   An acute dermal toxicity study was conducted on stearalkonium bentonite; this substance was classified as Toxicity Category III for acute dermal toxicity based on the LD50 of >2000 mg/kg bw. Quaternary ammonium compounds, benzylbis(hydrogenated tallow alkyl)methyl, bis(hydrogenated tallow alkyl)dimethylammonium salts with saponite is not expected to be irritating to the skin, based on results in other organoclays.  Minimal eye irritation may occur in humans as a result of the physical nature of the clay particles, although moderate irritation has been reported in animals exposed to organoclays via the eye. Sensitization reactions were not observed in two structurally similar treated clays when tested in guinea pigs and humans.

	2. Genotoxicty. Treated clays similar to quaternary ammonium compounds, benzylbis(hydrogenated tallow alkyl)methyl, bis(hydrogenated tallow alkyl)dimethylammonium salts with saponite have been studied in a variety of bacterial and mammalian cell genotoxicity studies as well as in vivo genotoxicity studies. All of the genotoxicity studies on treated clays have been negative. These include an in vivo micronucleus assay and a modified mammalian bone marrow chromosome aberration assay.

	3. Reproductive and developmental toxicity. A one-generation reproductive toxicity study was carried out on the structurally similar substance, Quaternary ammonium compounds, benzylbis(hydrogenated tallow alkyl)methyl, salts with hectorite (CAS #121888-67-3) using OECD guideline 415. Female and male Sprague Dawley rats (24 sex/group) were dosed with 0, 50, 225, and 1000 mg/kg bw during mating and through post natal day 21. The following endpoints were assessed: morbidity/mortality, clinical signs, body weight, food consumption, mating, gestation, number of live/dead offspring, litter body weight, litter clinical signs; food conversion ratio; mating performance and fertility; pre-coital interval; fertility indices (mating index and pregnancy index); gestation length; gestation and parturition index; lactation data including live birth index, viability indices; sex ratio; and offspring physical development and reflexology. A difference in mean litter body weights was not considered to be toxicologically important and there were no effects on other developmental endpoints.  The study authors determined the NOAEL for systemic and reproductive/developmental effects to be the highest dose, 1000 mg/kg bw/day. In a 28-day toxicity study of stearalkonium bentonite, there were no histopathological findings in any reproductive organ including testis, epididymis, ovary, prostate, or uterus.

	4. Subchronic toxicity. Three 28-day OECD test guideline 407 studies (or close variations) were identified for three structurally similar treated clays. Study authors considered the highest dose (1000 mg/kg bw/day) in each test to be the NOAEL. In the first study, rats receiving stearalkonium bentonite at 0, 100, 316, or 1000 mg/kg bw/day showed no test substance-related effects after 28 days of dosing. A parallel high dose plus recovery group showed some differences from controls, but these were not seen in the high dose/non-recovery rats and therefore were not considered test substance -related.  In the second study, a 1000 mg/kg/day dose of quaternary ammonium compounds, benzyl(hydrogenated tallow alkyl)dimethyl, chlorides, compounds with bentonite for 28 days resulted in no mortalities, clinical signs of toxicity, effects on body weight or food consumption, or statistically significant findings for hematology or clinical chemistry in Charles River/CD rats. Changes in organ weights of treated animals were not considered toxicologically relevant. In the third study, quaternary ammonium compounds, benzylbis(hydrogenated tallow alkyl)methyl, salts with hectorite was dosed to Charles River/CD rats at 0 or 1000 mg/kg bw/day. There were no mortalities, clinical signs of toxicity, changes in body weight gains, food consumption or hematological parameters. There were some differences from controls in clinical chemistry parameters and adrenal weights (males). None of the effects were considered toxicologically relevant based on their appearance in only one sex and their small deviation from control values, which were often still within the historical range of normal values. The authors considered the NOAEL to be 1000 mg/kg bw/day.

	5. Chronic toxicity. N/A Remove

	6. Animal metabolism. A guideline study of the treated clay quaternary ammonium compounds, benzylalkyl (C14-C22) dimethyl, salts with bentonite (CAS #71011-24-0) showed that only a negligible concentration of treated clays is absorbed by orally dosed rats. After 48 hours, 0.16% and 0.95% of the administered dose remained in the carcass of rats dosed with 5 and 500 mg/kg bw, respectively. Deposition and kinetics of radiolabelled fused montmorillonite, a smectite group clay like saponite, after inhalation exposure have been studied in multiple species. Deposition of montmorillonite in the nasopharynx region increases with particle size in tests in rodents and dogs, while tracheobronchial deposition was low and independent of particle size. Pulmonary deposition decreased with increasing particle size and was much higher in dogs than in rodents. The elimination of particles took place by solubilization (dogs) and physical clearance (rodents). In humans, rapid initial clearance of 8% and 40% of aluminosilicate particles with aerodynamic diameters of 1.9 and 6.1 μm respectively, from the lung region occurred over the initial 6 days. Following this, 4% and 11% of the two particle sizes were removed at half-rate of 20 days, and the rest with half-rates of 330 and 420 days.

	7. Metabolite toxicology. N/A Remove

	8. Endocrine disruption. In the available toxicity studies on treated clays, there was no evidence of endocrine disruptor effects.

C. Aggregate Exposure

	1. Dietary exposure. The estimated dietary exposure to quaternary ammonium compounds, benzylbis(hydrogenated tallow alkyl)methyl, bis(hydrogenated tallow alkyl)dimethylammonium salts with saponite was determined using methods to estimate chronic dietary exposure for a generic inert ingredient. This assessment considers drinking water and crop-specific residues from pre-harvest applications of agricultural insecticides, herbicides and fungicides, assuming the highest established tolerance level residue for each commodity. The assessment assumes that the inert ingredient is used on all crops, and that 100% of all crops are treated with the inert. The inert ingredient is assumed to be present in all commodities treated with 57 of the most significant active ingredients at the maximum tolerance level as identified by the U.S. EPA for the default assessment. Chronic dietary exposure estimates were derived for the general US population and sub-groups of the population using the Dietary Exposure Evaluation Model, DEEM(TM). The I-DEEM residue data set developed by EPA was used for the analysis. The inert ingredient is assumed to be in the formulation at a concentration of 50% for the default assessment, but this has been amended to account for the actual use level of Quaternary ammonium compounds, benzylbis(hydrogenated tallow alkyl)methyl, bis(hydrogenated tallow alkyl) dimethylammonium salts with saponite in the end use product. The estimated chronic exposure for the total US population is 0.0019 mg/kg/day about 0.019% of the chronic Population Adjusted Dose (cPAD). Children age 1 to 2 years old have the highest estimated exposure at 0.0069 mg/kg/day, about 0.069% of the cPAD. Both of these estimates give a margin of exposure that exceeds 1x10[5].

	i. Food. There are no other known dietary sources of quaternary ammonium compounds, benzylbis(hydrogenated tallow alkyl)methyl, bis(hydrogenated tallow alkyl)dimethylammonium salts with saponite.

	ii. Drinking water. Quaternary ammonium compounds, benzylbis(hydrogenated tallow alkyl)methyl, bis(hydrogenated tallow alkyl)dimethylammonium salts with saponite exposure via drinking water from use as an inert ingredient is not expected to be significant. Based on the physical chemical characteristics of the treated clays, the substance is expected to settle out in water. Exposure via drinking water was estimated in the DEEM dietary exposure assessment assuming a concentration of 100 ppb.

	2. Non-dietary exposure. There are no known non-dietary sources of exposure to quaternary ammonium compounds, benzylbis(hydrogenated tallow alkyl)methyl, bis(hydrogenated tallow alkyl)dimethylammonium salts with saponite.

D. Cumulative Effects

	Section 408(b)(2)(D) (9v) of the FFDCA requires that, when considering whether to establish, modify, or revoke a tolerance, the Agency consider "available information" concerning the cumulative effects of a particular pesticide's residues and "other substances that have a common mechanism of toxicity." EPA has not made a common mechanism of toxicity finding as to quaternary ammonium compounds, benzylbis(hydrogenated tallow alkyl)methyl, bis(hydrogenated tallow alkyl)dimethylammonium salts with saponite and other compounds. Quaternary ammonium compounds, benzylbis(hydrogenated tallow alkyl)methyl, bis(hydrogenated tallow alkyl)dimethylammonium salts with saponite does not appear to produce toxic metabolites in common with other substances. For the purpose of the tolerance exemption actions proposed, it is assumed that quaternary ammonium compounds, benzylbis(hydrogenated tallow alkyl)methyl, bis(hydrogenated tallow alkyl)dimethylammonium salts with saponite does not share a common mechanism of toxicity with other substances.

E. Safety Determination

	1. U.S. population. There is a reasonable certainty that no harm to humans will result from the use of quaternary ammonium compounds, benzylbis(hydrogenated tallow alkyl)methyl, bis(hydrogenated tallow alkyl)dimethylammonium salts with saponite as an inert ingredient in pesticide products. A NOAEL of 1000 mg/kg/day obtained in three 28-day toxicity tests and the one-generation reproductive toxicity test was used as the point of departure for the chronic population adjusted dose (cPAD).  Intraspecies and interspecies uncertainty factors were combined for a total uncertainty factor of 100. The resulting cPAD is 10 mg/kg/day. For the total US population, the estimated chronic dietary exposure from food and drinking water for this treated clay, calculated as 0.49% of all agricultural formulations, is less than 0.1% of the cPAD. This estimated exposure to quaternary ammonium compounds, benzylbis(hydrogenated tallow alkyl)methyl, bis(hydrogenated tallow alkyl)dimethylammonium salts with saponite is well below any level of potential concern.

	2. Infants and children. There is a reasonable certainty that no harm to infants and children will result from the use of quaternary ammonium compounds, benzylbis(hydrogenated tallow alkyl)methyl, bis(hydrogenated tallow alkyl)dimethylammonium salts with saponite as an inert ingredient in pesticide products. A one-generation reproductive toxicity study in rats demonstrated no reproductive effects or effects on developmental endpoints. A cPAD of 10 mg/kg/day is protective of infants and children. The cPAD was derived for quaternary ammonium compounds, benzylbis(hydrogenated tallow alkyl)methyl, bis(hydrogenated tallow alkyl)dimethylammonium salts with saponite based on the NOAEL of 1000 mg/kg bw/day in the reproductive study as well as multiple subchronic studies. The estimated chronic dietary exposure from food and drinking water was highest (0.069% of cPAD) for children aged 1 to 2 years old. Estimated exposure of all infants to quaternary ammonium compounds, benzylbis(hydrogenated tallow alkyl)methyl, bis(hydrogenated tallow alkyl)dimethylammonium salts with saponite, was estimated to bes 0.039% of the cPAD. These estimated exposures are well below any level of potential concern.

F. International Tolerances

	N/A Remove


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 93 (Monday, May 14, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 28255-28258]
[FR Doc No: 2012-11539]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket No. USCG-2012-0315]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone; Upper Mississippi River, Mile 183.0 to 183.5

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone for
all waters of the Upper Mississippi River, from mile 183.0 to mile
183.5, in the vicinity of the Merchants Bridge and extending the entire
width of the river. This safety zone is needed to protect repair
workers and vessels transiting the area on the Upper Mississippi River
to complete bridge repairs. Entry into this zone is prohibited unless
specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port Upper Mississippi
River or a designated representative.

DATES: Effective Date: This rule is effective in the CFR from May 14,
2012 until 7 p.m. on December 31, 2012. This rule is effective with
actual notice for purposes of enforcement beginning 7 a.m. on April 10,
2012.

ADDRESSES: Documents indicated in this preamble as being available in
the docket are part of docket USCG-2012-0315 and are available online
by going to http://www.regulations.gov, selecting the Advanced Docket
Search option on the right side of the screen, inserting USCG-2012-0315
in the Docket ID box, pressing Enter, and then clicking on the item in
the Docket ID column. They are also available for inspection or copying
at the 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, between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this
temporary rule, call or email Chief Petty Officer Ryan Christensen,
Sector Upper Mississippi River Waterways Management Department at
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email

<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have questions on viewing the
docket, call Renee V. Wright, Program Manager, Docket Operations,
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Regulatory Information

    The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary final rule without prior
notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section
4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This
provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and
opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those
procedures are ``impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public
interest.''
    Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause
exists for not using the NPRM process. On April 10, 2012, the Coast
Guard received notice that a marine casualty caused damage to a railway
bridge on April 9, 2012. Immediate repairs are now required for the
bridge. This short notice did not allow for the time needed to publish
a NPRM and provide for a comment period. Delaying this rule by
publishing a NPRM would be contrary to the public interest by
unnecessarily delaying the bridge repairs and the safety zone needed to
protect repair workers and vessels transiting the area on the Upper
Mississippi River. Additionally, delaying the repairs and inspections
for the NPRM process would unnecessarily impede the flow of commercial
river traffic and railroad traffic. This rule is needed to protect
repair workers and vessels transiting this area on the Upper
Mississippi River.
    For the same reasons, under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard
finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than
30 days after publication in the Federal Register. Delaying this rule
by providing 30 days notice would be contrary to the public interest by
unnecessarily delaying the bridge repairs and the safety zone needed to
protect repair workers and vessels transiting the area on the Upper
Mississippi River.

Basis and Purpose

    On April 9, 2012, a marine casualty involving a down bound crane
barge striking the Merchants Bridge resulted in structural damage to
the bridge, reduced vertical clearance, hanging wreckage, and a North-
side railroad track closure. Initial repairs to the bridge started
immediately with Saint Louis Bridge Construction performing a series of
repairs and inspections on the Merchants Bridge in the vicinity of mile
183.0 to 183.5 on the Upper Mississippi River. After initial repairs,
ongoing and intermittent inspections and full repairs will continue and
the Coast Guard determined that a temporary safety zone is necessary to
protect repair workers and marine traffic. Establishing this safety
zone around the Merchants Bridge and repair personnel and equipment is
intended to safeguard against disruption of positioned repair
equipment, potential large falling debris, and possible hazards related
to ongoing repairs in and around commercial traffic in the vicinity of
mile 183.0 to 183.5 on the Upper Mississippi River.

Discussion of Rule

    The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone for all
waters of the Upper Mississippi River, from mile 183.0 to 183.5, in the
vicinity of Merchants Bridge and extending the entire width of the
river. Entry into this zone is prohibited to all vessels and persons
unless specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port Upper
Mississippi River. This rule is effective from 7 a.m. on April 10, 2012
through 7 p.m. on December 31, 2012, but will only be enforced during
intermittent repair and inspection operation periods that will be
announced by broadcast notices to mariners with the greatest advance
notice possible. Due to the unpredictability of the Upper Mississippi
River, National Weather Service's forecasts will be used to determine
the most suitable conditions for bridge repairs and inspections.
Advanced notice will be given to the maximum extent possible, but
despite best efforts, the safety zone may be established with minimal
notice when ideal work conditions are identified. The Captain of the
Port Upper Mississippi River will inform the public and maritime
industry through broadcast notice to mariners of the enforcement
periods and changes to the safety zone and its enforcement.

Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this 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

    This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f)
of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, as
supplemented by Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and
Regulatory Review, and does not require an assessment of potential
costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Executive Order 12866
or under section 1 of Executive Order 13563. The Office of Management
and Budget has not reviewed it under that those Orders.
    Although this rule will be effective until December 31, 2012 unless
repairs and inspections are completed sooner, it will only be enforced
for limited time periods during days scheduled for repair work or
bridge inspections. By enforcing this safety zone for limited periods
of time throughout the effective period, marine traffic will not be
significantly impacted. Entry into or passage through the safety zone
will be considered on a case-by-case basis by the Captain of the Port
Upper Mississippi or designated representative. Notifications of, and
changes to, the enforcement period will be made via broadcast notice to
mariners.

Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have
considered whether this 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 will affect the following entities, some of which
may be small entities: the owners or operators of vessels intending to
transit the Upper Mississippi River, mile 183.0 to 183.5 during
enforcement periods. The enforcement periods will be for a limited
duration. By enforcing this safety zone for a limited duration of time
intermittently throughout the effective period, marine traffic will not
be significantly impacted. This safety zone will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because this
rule will only be enforced during limited periods of time throughout
the effective period.
    If you are a small business entity and are significantly affected
by this regulation, please contact Chief Petty Officer Ryan
Christensen, Sector Upper Mississippi River Response Department at
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we offer to assist small
entities in understanding the rule so that they can better evaluate its
effects on them and participate in the rulemaking process.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small businesses. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or
action of the Coast Guard.

Collection of Information

    This rule calls 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 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 or more in any
one year. Though this rule will not result in such expenditure, we do
discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.

Taking of Private Property

    This rule will not affect 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 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 rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection
of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule
is not an economically significant rule and does not create an
environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may
disproportionately affect children.

Indian Tribal Governments

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

Energy Effects

    We have analyzed this 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 rule does not use technical standards.
Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus
standards.

Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Commandant Instruction M16475.lD,
which guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and
have concluded that there are no factors in this case that would limit
the use of a categorical exclusion under section 2.B.2 of the
Instruction. This rule establishes a safety zone related to effecting
bridge repairs and is categorically excluded, under figure 2-1,
paragraph (34)(g), of the Instruction, from further environmental
documentation because this rule is not expected to result in any
significant adverse environmental impact as described in the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA).
    An environmental analysis checklist and a categorical exclusion
determination are available in the docket where indicated under
ADDRESSES.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

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

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

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

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

    Authority:  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.
0
2. A new temporary Sec.  165.T08-0315 is added to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T08-0315  Safety Zone; Upper Mississippi River, Mile 183.0 to
183.5.

    (a) Location. The following area is a safety zone: All waters of
the Upper Mississippi River, mile 183.0 to 183.5, in the vicinity of
the Merchants Bridge, extending the entire width of the waterway.
    (b) Effective date. This rule is effective from 7 a.m. on April 10,
2012 through 7 p.m. on December 31, 2012.
    (c) Periods of Enforcement. This rule will be enforced
intermittently during the effective period when conditions are
conducive for bridge repairs and inspections based on contractor

availability, river forecasts, and observed weather. The Captain of the
Port Upper Mississippi River will inform the public of the enforcement
periods and any changes through broadcast notice to mariners.
    (d) Regulations. (1) In accordance with the general regulations in
Sec.  165.23 of this part, entry into this zone is prohibited unless
authorized by the Captain of the Port Upper Mississippi River or a
designated representative.
    (2) Persons or vessels requiring entry into or passage through the
zone must request permission from the Captain of the Port Upper
Mississippi River or a designated representative. The Captain of the
Port Upper Mississippi River may be contacted at<PHONE_NUMBER> or VHF-FM
16.
    (3) All persons and vessels shall comply with the instructions of
the Captain of the Port Upper Mississippi River or their designated
representative. Designated Captain of the Port representatives include
United States Coast Guard commissioned, warrant, and petty officers.

    Dated: April 10, 2012.
B.L. Black,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Upper Mississippi River.
[FR Doc. 2012-11539 Filed 5-11-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 121 (Thursday, June 23, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 40887-40888]
[FR Doc No: 2016-14863]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings #2

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER10-1987-002.
    Applicants: Ontario Power Generation Energy Trading, Inc.
    Description: Notice of Non-Material Change in Status of Ontario
Power Generation Energy Trading, Inc.
    Filed Date: 6/17/16.
    Accession Number: 20160617-5119.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/8/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-2137-016; ER14-2798-008; ER14-2799-008; ER16-
750-004; ER12-164-015; ER15-1873-006; ER10-2130-016; ER10-2131-016;
ER10-2138-016; ER10-2139-016; ER10-2140-016; ER10-2141-016; ER14-2187-
010; ER11-4044-017; ER11-4046-016; ER10-2127-015; ER10-2125-016; ER16-
1406-002; ER15-1041-006; ER15-2205-006; ER10-2133-016; ER10-2124-015;
ER11-3872-017; ER10-2764-015; ER10-2132-015; ER10-2128-015.
    Applicants: Beech Ridge Energy LLC, Beech Ridge Energy II LLC,
Beech Ridge Energy Storage LLC, Bethel Wind Farm LLC, Forward Energy
LLC, Bishop Hill Energy III LLC, Grand Ridge Energy LLC, Grand Ridge
Energy II LLC, Grand Ridge Energy III LLC, Grand Ridge Energy IV LLC,
Grand Ridge Energy V LLC, Grand Ridge Energy Storage LLC, Gratiot
County Wind LLC, Gratiot County Wind II LLC, Invenergy TN LLC, Judith
Gap Energy LLC, Peak View Wind Energy LLC, Prairie Breeze Wind Energy
II LLC, Prairie Breeze Wind Energy III LLC, Sheldon Energy LLC, Spring
Canyon Energy LLC, Stony Creek Energy LLC, Vantage Wind Energy LLC,
Willow Creek Energy LLC, Wolverine Creek Energy LLC, Buckeye Wind
Energy LLC.
    Description: Notification of Change in Facts of Beech Ridge Energy
LLC, et al.
    Filed Date: 6/16/16.
    Accession Number: 20160616-5175.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/7/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-1193-001.
    Applicants: West Deptford Energy, LLC.
    Description: Compliance filing: Informational Filing Regarding
Planned Transfer to be effective N/A.
    Filed Date: 6/17/16.
    Accession Number: 20160617-5113.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/8/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-1637-001.
    Applicants: UIL Distributed Resources, LLC.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: Supplement to Application for
Market-Based Rate Authorization to be effective 5/7/2016.
    Filed Date: 6/17/16.
    Accession Number: 20160617-5171.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/8/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-1833-000.
    Applicants: Sempra Gas & Power Marketing, LLC.
    Description: Supplement to June 1, 2016 Sempra Gas & Power
Marketing, LLC tariff filing.
    Filed Date: 6/16/16.
    Accession Number: 20160616-5172.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/7/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-1952-000.
    Applicants: Boulder Solar Power, LLC.
    Description: Initial rate filing: Boulder Shared Facilities
Agreement No. 1 to be effective 7/1/2016.
    Filed Date: 6/17/16.
    Accession Number: 20160617-5086.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/8/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-1953-000.
    Applicants: Boulder Solar II, LLC.
    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: Boulder Shared Facilities
Agreement No. 1 to be effective 7/1/2016.
    Filed Date: 6/17/16.
    Accession Number: 20160617-5088.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/8/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-1954-000.
    Applicants: Boulder Solar III, LLC.
    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: Boulder Shared Facilities
Agreement No. 1 to be effective 7/1/2016.
    Filed Date: 6/17/16.
    Accession Number: 20160617-5089.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/8/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-1955-000.
    Applicants: Antelope DSR 2, LLC.
    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: Antelope DSR 2, LLC MBR
Tariff to be effective 6/18/2016.
    Filed Date: 6/17/16.
    Accession Number: 20160617-5096.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/8/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-1956-000.
    Applicants: Western Antelope Dry Ranch LLC.
    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: Western Antelope Dry Ranch
LLC MBR Tariff to be effective 6/18/2016.
    Filed Date: 6/17/16.
    Accession Number: 20160617-5102.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/8/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-1957-000.
    Applicants: Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation, New York Independent
System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: NMPC filing SA 2283
Commercial Agreement between NMPC & NYSEG to be effective 4/20/2016.
    Filed Date: 6/17/16.

    Accession Number: 20160617-5114.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/8/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-1958-000.
    Applicants: Panda Patriot LLC.
    Description: Initial rate filing: Reactive Supply and Voltage
Control from Generation or Other Sources Service to be effective 7/1/
2016.
    Filed Date: 6/17/16.
    Accession Number: 20160617-5164.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/8/16.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the
proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: June 17, 2016.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-14863 Filed 6-22-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


Name	Affiliation	Address	Telephone	E-Mail Address

Howard Schmidt	EPA R3	1650 Arch St.

Philadelphia, PA 19103<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS> Maria Zufall

	Georgia Pacific	133 Peachtree St.

Atlanta, GA 30303<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS> Hope Moorer

	Georgia Ports	PO Box 2406

Savannah, GA 31402<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS> Jane Spann

	EPA R4	61 Forsyth St.

Atlanta, GA 30303<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS> Stacy Harder

	EPA R4	61 Forsyth St.

Atlanta, GA 30303

Rick Gillam

	EPA R4	61 Forsyth St.

Atlanta, GA 30303<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS> Michiko Kono

	EPA R4	61 Forsyth St.

Atlanta, GA 30303

Todd Rinck

	EPA R4	61 Forsyth St.

Atlanta, GA 30303

Darren Palmer

	EPA R4	61 Forsyth St.

Atlanta, GA 30303

Daniel Garver

	EPA R4	61 Forsyth St.

Atlanta, GA 30303

Rosa Chi

	Georgia Power	241 Ralph McGill Blvd.

Atlanta, GA 30312<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS> Frank Redmond	Sen. Johnny Isakson’s Office	3625 Cumberland Blvd.

Ste. 970

Atlanta, GA 30339<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS> June Deen	ALA	2452 Spring Rd.

Smyrna, GA 30080<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS> Tommy Flynn

	SC DHEC	2600 Bull St

Columbia, SC 29201<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS> AFTER LUNCH

Steven Scofield

	EPA R4	61 Forsyth St.

Atlanta, GA 30303<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS> Twunjala Bradley

	EPA R4	61 Forsyth St.

Atlanta, GA 30303<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS> Douglas Fulle	Oglethorpe Power	2100 East Exchange Pl.

Tucker, GA 30084<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS> Christine Greene

List of Attendees for Atlanta SO2 NAAQS Public Hearing – January 5, 2010

 PAGE

List of Attendees for Atlanta SO2 NAAQS Public Hearing – January 5, 2010


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 103 (Wednesday, May 29, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 32081-32084]
[FR Doc No: 2013-12517]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2013-0456; Directorate Identifier 2013-CE-011-AD;
Amendment 39-17462; AD 2013-11-02]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Aircraft Industries a.s. Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for
Aircraft Industries a.s. Model L-420 airplanes. This AD results from
mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) issued by the
aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe
condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe
condition as in-flight engine flame out occurred at take-off with water
injection after reduction of engine power. We are issuing this AD to
require actions to address the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: This AD is effective June 18, 2013.
    We must receive comments on this AD by July 15, 2013.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    You may review copies of the referenced service information at the
FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri
64106.

For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call
(816) 329-4148.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov; or in person at the Docket Management Facility
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation,
any comments received, and other information. The street address for
the Docket Office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the ADDRESSES
section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after
receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Doug Rudolph, Aerospace Engineer, FAA,
Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri
64106; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical
Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued AD
No. 2013-0097, dated April 24, 2013 (referred to after this as ``the
MCAI''), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The
MCAI states:

    Currently, the automatic switching off of the water injection
system as installed on L-410 and L-420 aeroplanes stops the water
injection into the engines during engine power reduction when
throttle control levers pass the position corresponding to 88-92% of
gas generator speed.
    During a recent event, in-flight engine flame out occurred at
take-off with water injection after reduction of engine power.
    This condition, if not corrected, could lead to further events
of uncommanded in-flight engine shut-down or power loss, possibly
resulting in forced landing, with consequent damage to the aeroplane
and injury to occupants.
    Prompted by this occurrence, a procedure has been developed,
instructing the flight crew to switch off the water injection
system, prior to engine power reduction, to prevent any possible
engine flame out.
    For the reasons described above, this AD requires an amendment
of the Aircraft Flight Manual (AFM) by implementation of a procedure
to manually switch off the water injection system, prior to any
engine power reduction.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of the AD

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

FAA's Determination of the Effective Date

    An unsafe condition exists that requires the immediate adoption of
this AD. The FAA has found that the risk to the flying public justifies
waiving notice and comment prior to adoption of this rule because there
are no airplanes currently on the U.S. registry and thus, does not have
any impact upon the public. Therefore, we find that notice and
opportunity for prior public comment are unnecessary and that good
cause exists for making this amendment effective in less than 30 days.

Comments Invited

    This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight
safety, and we did not precede it by notice and opportunity for public
comment. We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this AD. Send your comments to an address listed under
the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2013-0456; Directorate
Identifier 2013-CE-011-AD'' at the beginning of your comments. We
specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic,
environmental, and energy aspects of this AD. We will consider all
comments received by the closing date and may amend this AD because of
those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this AD.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD will affect 0 products of U.S. registry.
We also estimate that it will take about 1 work-hour per product to
comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate
is $85 per work-hour.
    Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the AD on U.S.
operators to be $0, or $0 per product.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this AD will not have federalism implications
under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct
effect on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866,
    (2) Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
    (3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
    (4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

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

2013-11-02 Aircraft Industries a.s.: Amendment 39-17462; Docket No.
FAA-2013-0456; Directorate Identifier 2013-CE-011-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This airworthiness directive (AD) becomes effective June 18,
2013.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Aircraft Industries a.s. Model L-420
airplanes, all serial numbers, certificated in any category.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association of America (ATA) Code 82: Water
Injection.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by mandatory continuing airworthiness
information (MCAI) originated by an aviation authority of another
country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation
product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as in-flight engine
flame out occurred at take-off with water injection after reduction
of engine power. We are issuing this AD to correct this condition,
which, if not corrected, could lead to further events of uncommanded
in-flight engine shut-down or power loss, possibly resulting in
forced landing, with consequent damage to the airplane and injury to
occupants.

(f) Actions and Compliance

    Unless already done, within 30 days after June 18, 2013 (the
effective date of this AD), amend the applicable airplane flight
manual (AFM) by inserting a copy of Appendix 1 of this AD, opposite
the appropriate AFM page on which the water injection procedure is
described.

(g) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
Standards Office, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this
AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send
information to ATTN: Doug Rudolph, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Small
Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri
64106; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane
to which the AMOC applies, notify your appropriate principal
inspector (PI) in the FAA Flight Standards District Office (FSDO),
or lacking a PI, your local FSDO.
    (2) Airworthy Product: For any requirement in this AD to obtain
corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these
actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered
FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority
(or their delegated agent). You are required to assure the product
is airworthy before it is returned to service.

(h) Related Information

    Refer to MCAI European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD No.:
2013-0097, dated April 24, 2013, for related information.

Appendix 1 to AD 2013-11-02

AIRPLANE FLIGHT MANUAL (AFM)

PROCEDURE TO CONTROL WATER INJECTION SYSTEM for Aircraft Industries
a.s. Model L-420 Airplanes

Appendix 1--AFM procedure

Procedure to Control Water Injection System

    WATER INJECTION circuit        ON
     breakter.
    TCL..........................  TQ=min. 60%
    WATER INJECTION/ON push-       Push and hold till amber
     button.                       WATER INJECTION signal comes on (on
                                    the front control panel)
Before throttling back power:      .....................................
    WATER INJECTION/OFF push-      Push and check amber
     button.                       WATER INJECTION signal extinguishes

                                   [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR29MY13.000

    Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on May 20, 2013.
Earl Lawrence,
Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2013-12517 Filed 5-28-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 6 (Wednesday, January 9, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 1858]
[FR Doc No: 2013-00250]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-9769-1]

Notice of Administrative Settlement Agreement for Recovery of
Past and Future Response Costs Pursuant to the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, as
Amended

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice; request for public comment.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act (``CERCLA''), notice is hereby given
that a proposed administrative settlement agreement for recovery of
past and future response costs (``Proposed Agreement'') associated with
the DuPont-Newport Superfund Site, Newcastle County, Delaware, was
executed by the Environmental Protection Agency (``EPA'') and by the
United States Department of Justice (``DOJ'') pursuant to the authority
of the Attorney General of the United States to settle and compromise
claims of the United States. The Proposed Agreement is now subject to
public comment, after which EPA and DOJ may modify or withdraw their
consent if comments received disclose facts or considerations that
indicate that the Proposed Agreement is inappropriate, improper, or
inadequate. The Proposed Agreement would resolve potential EPA claims
under Section 107(a) of CERCLA, against E.I. DuPont de Nemours and
Company and BASF Corporation (``Settling Parties''). The Proposed
Agreement would require Settling Parties to reimburse EPA $178,646.09
for past response costs paid by EPA or DOJ on behalf of EPA and to pay
future response costs for the Site.
    For thirty (30) days following the date of publication of this
notice, EPA will receive written comments relating to the Proposed
Agreement. EPA's response to any comments received will be available
for public inspection at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before February 8, 2013.

ADDRESSES: The Proposed Agreement and additional background information
relating to the Proposed Agreement are available for public inspection
at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch
Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103. A copy of the Proposed Agreement may be
obtained from Mary E. Rugala (3RC43), Senior Assistant Regional
Counsel, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1650 Arch Street,
Philadelphia, PA 19103. Comments should reference the ``DuPont-Newport
Superfund Site, Proposed Administrative Settlement Agreement for
Recovery of Past and Future Response Costs'' and ``EPA Docket No. CERC-
03-2013-0003CR,'' and should be forwarded to Mary E. Rugala at the
above address.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mary E. Rugala (3RC43), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, PA
19103, Phone:<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Dated: December 18, 2012.
Ronald J. Borsellino,
Director, Hazardous Site Cleanup Division, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region III.
[FR Doc. 2013-00250 Filed 1-8-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 155 (Friday, August 12, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 49768]
[FR Doc No: 2022-16965]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2022-0253; Airspace Docket No. 21-ANM-9]
RIN 2120-AA66

Modification of Class E Airspace; Coeur D'Alene--Pappy Boyington
Field, ID; Correction

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

ACTION: Final rule; correction.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is correcting a final rule that appeared in the
Federal Register on June 10, 2022. The rule modified the Class E
surface airspace, and the Class E airspace extending upward from 700
feet above the surface at Coeur D'Alene--Pappy Boyington Field, ID. The
final rule's Class E5 airspace legal description was missing verbiage.
This action adds that missing verbiage to correct the Class E5 airspace
legal description.

DATES: Effective 0901 UTC, September 8, 2022. The Director of the
Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference under 1 CFR
part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order JO 7400.11,
Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and publication of
conforming amendments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nathan A. Chaffman, Federal Aviation
Administration, Western Service Center, Operations Support Group, 2200
S 216th Street, Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

History

    The FAA published a final rule in the Federal Register (87 FR
35384; June 10, 2022) for Docket FAA-2022-0253, which modified the
Class E surface airspace, and the Class E airspace extending upward
from 700 feet above the surface at Coeur D'Alene--Pappy Boyington
Field, ID. Subsequent to publication, the FAA identified that the Class
E5 airspace legal description was incorrect. Class E5 airspace is that
airspace which extends ``upward from 700 feet or more above the surface
of the Earth.'' The first line of the E5 legal description is missing
the phrase ``extending upward from 700 feet above the surface.'' This
action corrects that error.
    The Class E5 airspace designation is published in paragraph 6005 of
FAA Order JO 7400.11F, dated August 10, 2021, and effective September
15, 2021, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class
E airspace designation listed in this document will be published
subsequently in FAA Order JO 7400.11.

Correction to Final Rule

    Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to the FAA,
``Modification of Class E Airspace; Coeur D'Alene--Pappy Boyington
Field, ID'', published in the Federal Register of June 10, 2022 (87 FR
35384), FR Doc. 2022-12479, is corrected as follows:

0
1. On page 35385, in the third column, beginning on line 11, the legal
description for ANM ID E5 Coeur D'Alene, ID is corrected to read:

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 4.4-mile radius of the Coeur D'Alene--Pappy Boyington
Field, and within 2.2 miles each side of the 193[deg] bearing from
the airport extending from the 4.4-mile radius to 9 miles south of
the airport, and that airspace 4.4 miles each side of the 251[deg]
bearing from the Coeur D'Alene--Pappy Boyington Field extending from
the 4.4-mile radius to 16 miles west of the airport and that
airspace 1.8 miles west and 4 miles east of the 013[deg] bearing
from the Coeur D'Alene--Pappy Boyington Field extending from the
4.4-mile radius to 8.5 miles northeast from the airport.

Joseph M. Bert,
Acting Group Manager, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2022-16965 Filed 8-11-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


                 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                       RESEARCH TRIANGLE PARK, NC  27711

      MEMORANDUM
      To: 		Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0199
      From:		U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air and Radiation
      Date:		August 2015
Subject:	Gas Shift Emission Rate Credit (GS-ERC) Technical Support Document (TSD)

INTRODUCTION

This memorandum and appended spreadsheet (GS-ERC Calculations.xlsx) provide the calculations that EPA used in determining the calculations for Gas-Shift Emission Rate Credits (GS-ERCs). Building Block 2 (BB2) of the Best System of Emission Reduction (BSER) determination in the Clean Power Plan EGs describes shifting generation from fossils steam units to NGCC units because NGCC units generate electricity at a less carbon intensive rate. BB2 describes NGCC units generating at 75 percent of the unit's annual operating capacity. This level of generation, for most NGCC units, would represent an increase in annual generation from a 2012 baseline and for every hour of electricity generated by an NGCC unit beyond its 2012 baseline (i.e., incremental generation), there is a corresponding emission reduction in the power system. The EPA is proposing to reflect the emission reductions of BB2 by crediting all NGCC generation on a pro rata basis that reflects expected incremental NGCC generation to 75 percent capacity. This means that for every hour that an NGCC unit generates electricity, it will also generate a partial credit associated with the generation shift from fossil steam to NGCC units. All affected NGCC generation will be credited, with ERCs, by a factor that represents the described emission reductions from incremental generation; ERCs credited in this are proposed to be designated as Gas Shift ERCs (GS-ERCs). Most specifically the spreadsheet shows the proposed determination of the least stringent regional Incremental Generation Factor (IGF) and values that all facilities subject to the a rate-based federal plan would use under the proposal. The IGF is one of three factors proposed to be used to calculate GS-ERC generation for a given NGCC unit and is the only factor in the calculation that is not unit specific. The IGF would be determined by the EPA as shown in the spreadsheet. The IGF and the other two factors (GS-ERC Emission Factor and NGCC Generation) are used through the following expression to calculate the amount of GS-ERCs that a facility generates:

GS-ERCs = NGCC Generation * Incremental Generation Factor * GS-ERC Emission Factor

The data in this spreadsheet is the same data that was used to determine the subcategorized standards for NGCC units and steam generating units.

The EPA is proposing that the IGF used for each compliance period be based on which region, on average, produces GS-ERCs at the highest rate (i.e., GS-ERCs generated per MWh). To do that the EPA calculated the anticipated average GS-ERC Emission Factor (column X) and multiplied it by the IGF (column Y) which gives the average GS-ERC Generation Rate for the region for the given year as shown in column Z.  Note that although an average GS-ERC Emission Factor is used in determining the least stringent IGF, for compliance calculations determining the quantity of GS-ERCs that an individual NGCC earns the GS-ERC Emission Factor is a unit level calculation. The region with the highest average GS-ERC Generation Rate (Column Z) averaged over the compliance period is proposed to be the least stringent region. Each region's average annual GS-ERC generation rate is calculated as shown in cells AD13:AI17. The least stringent average (i.e., maximum) of the GS-ERC Generation Rates for each compliance period is used as the determination to designate which region is "least stringent" and the IGF values to be used. The corresponding region's IGF values for the compliance period are averaged and shown in cells AD20:AI22. These values are the proposed IGF values to be used in calculating GS-ERC generation for a NGCC unit.

GS-ERC FACTORS

As described above, there are three factors that go into determining the generation of GS-ERCs by an NGCC unit. The first factor that determines GS-ERC generation is the IGF. The IGF is an EPA calculated value that varies from compliance period to compliance period, and is based on calculations involving the projections of NGCC generation growth and renewable energy replacement. These calculations are shown in the spreadsheet. This factor distributes the anticpated collective incremental NGCC generation, as described by Building Block 2 of the CPP's BSER determination, over all NGCC generation. The purpose of the IGF is to allow NGCC units to generate GS-ERCs for all MWh of generation. This factor distributes the anticipated incremental NGCC generation and the GS-ERCs associated with it over all NGCC generation.

The IGF is calculated by taking the number of MWh beyond the 2012 baseline needed for the corresponding region to reach the BSER level of NGCC generation capacity and dividing it by the NGCC BSER regional capacity for that compliance period, which produces the factor. Or in other words, it is taking the complement of the regional 2012 NGCC baseline generation (MWh) divided by NGCC BSER regional capacity for the compliance period (MWh). The NGCC BSER regional capacity is the level of generation that the BSER assumes a region can reach for that year. This NGCC BSER regional capacity also accounts for both the growth of NGCC generation in each compliance period, reaching the 75% capacity factor in 2030, and for the replacement of fossil fuel generation via Building Block 3. The IGF can be summarized by the following expression:

Incremental Generation Factor=1-Regional 2012 NGCC BaselineNGCC BSER Regional Capacity

The IGF is a factor that the EPA calculates and determines as described above and shown in the spreadsheet. The value of the IGF is transparently provided by the EPA.. The number of GS-ERCs generated is also dependent on the other two factors described below, which are unit specific. The IGF is proposed to be calculated for every compliance period based on the least stringent region's IGF, which is based on increased utilization of RE and its replacement of fossil fuel fired generation (i.e., based on Building Block 3 of the CPP EGs). For the calculation of this factor the EPA is proposing to use the least stringent region for each compliance period and applying it for all GS-ERC calculations subject to the federal plan. The EPA is requesting comment on an alternative approach that IGFs are calculated and applied at a regional level; this may better align with the relative emission reduction value of incremental NGCC generation than a nationalized "least stringent" approach. The EPA also requests comment on whether the "least stringent" region should be based on the least stringent IGF values or the least stringent regional average GS-ERC generation rate (column Z), as proposed.

The result of the IGF for each compliance period is shown in the cell block AD25:AI27. The interim goal IGF (cell AH27) is not being incorporated into the proposed federal plan, but is shown for consistency with the CPP Emission Guidelines.

The second factor is the GS-ERC Emission Factor. The purpose of this factor is to measure the degree that an NGCC unit is emitting at a rate less than the average fossil steam unit. This measure reflects the shift in generation from fossil steam to NGCC units and quantifies the avoided emissions through this shift. For purposes of calculating an IGF, the spreadsheet uses an anticipated average GS-ERC Emission Factor. When the EPA calculates the number of GS-ERCs a NGCC generates, the GS-ERC Emission Factor will be unit-specific, by incorporating its own emission rate, as described below (note that the NGCC Generation term will also be unit specific).

For the IGF calculations, the anticipated average GS-ERC Emission Factor for each region and each year are calculated (column X). These values are used in the proposed calculation and determination of the least stringent region and the IGF value. The anticipated average GS-ERC Emission Factor is calculated by taking the least stringent fossil steam rate standard among the regions (maximum value for the year in column V) and using it against that specific region's historical average emission rate (column I) to calculate the anticipated average GS-ERC emission factor (column X). The GS-ERC Emission Factor is expressed by taking the complement of the ratio of the NGCC standard to the fossil-steam standard. It can be summarized by the following expression:
GS-ERC Emission Factor =1- NGCC emission rate Steam Standard

The EPA is using the least stringent steam rate standard because that is the value that has been used in the the goal setting calculations. The EPA is using the average NGCC emission rate of the region in which a given NGCC unit is located to determine the GS-ERC Emission Factor for the IGF determination. This average GS-ERC emission factor is being used solely for the determination of calculating the IGF value described above.

The calculation of a GS-ERC Emission Factor is unit specific. The NGCC unit takes the complement of its emission rate divided by the steam standard (note: this proposed treatment of GS-ERCs is solely intended for use in the subcategorized two-rate system where fossil steam units and NGCC units have different emission standards). An example of this is illustrated below.

The third factor in calculating an NGCC's generaton of GS-ERCs is the NGCC Generation. The NGCC Generation is the total net energy output generation of the affected NGCC unit during the year that GS-ERCs are being calculated. This factor is not incorporated into the spreadsheet and played no role in determining the IGF. The three factors combine to make the following equation:

GS-ERCs = NGCC Generation * Incremental Generation Factor * GS-ERC Emission Factor

The GS-ERC equation above gives the number of GS-ERCs that an NGCC will generate. The IGF and GS-ERC Emission Factor combine to make the GS-ERC generating rate for a given NGCC unit. This functions by the IGF prorating all incremental NGCC generation and the GS-ERC Emission Factor designating the proportion of the incremental NGCC generation that will generate ERCs. The GS-ERC generating rate multiplied by the total NGCC Generation gives the total GS-ERCs generated by the NGCC for the year. The GS-ERC generating rate, as described in relation to the IGF determination, is the proposed method for determining the least stringent region.

The calculation of GS-ERCs for an NGCC is independent of the calculation of ERCs generated or owed against the NGCC standard. It is possible that an NGCC will owe ERCs against its assigned emission standard for every MWh generated, but still be generating GS-ERCs. GS-ERCs may only be used to meet steam generation units' compliance obligations.

The EPA is using all values from a region for a particular year (with the exception of fossil steam rate) to calculate the factors that determine the least stringent region. Once all of the factors are calculated and used, the least stringent region is determined. This process identifies the least stringent region for purposes of calculating GS-ERCs. The EPA solicits comment on the determinations made in defining the least stringent region for a given year.

EXAMPLE

As an example that was used in the proposal preamble, an NGCC unit is connected to the grid and generates 1 million MWh of electric output for the first year of the final performance period (i.e., 2030). During this year it emits 850 million pounds of CO2 giving it an emission rate of 850 lbs CO2/MWh. The NGCC unit is subject to a Final Period emission rate limit of 771 lbs CO2/MWh. Since the NGCC unit is always subject to its NGCC rate-based emission standard of 771 lbs/MWh and it is operating at a rate above that standard it will owe non-GS-ERCs for its own compliance. The ERCs owed are calculated by solving for the number of ERC MWh the NGCC unit will need to adjust its rate down to its emission rate limit. This is shown in the following equation:

        850,000,000 lbs CO2 / [1,000,000 MWh+ERC MWh] = 771 lbs CO2/MWh

When that equation is solved for the number of ERC MWh needed, the NGCC unit would need to acquire 102,465 ERCs to adjust its emission rate to its rate-based emission standard.

Additionally, the GS-ERC Emission Factor for this NGCC unit is calculated by using 850 lbs CO2/MWh for the NGCC emission rate and 1,305 lbs CO2/MWh for the SGU emission standard in the equation described above.

             GS-ERC Emission Factor =1- 850 lbs/MWh 1,305 lbs/MWh
This calculation results in a GS-ERC Emission Factor of 0.35. The IGF is calculated by the EPA and is found in cell AI27 of the attached spreadsheet to be 0.26. By using the GS-ERC Emission Factor and Incremental Generation Factor calculated above with the NGCC unit's generation for the year, the number of GS-ERCs for this NGCC unit can be calculated as follows:

                      0.35*0.26*1,000,000=91,000 GS-ERCs

The calculation results in 91,000 GS-ERCs being generated. Because an NGCC unit cannot use the GS-ERCs it generates to meet its compliance obligations, this NGCC unit will both generate ERCs (91,000 GS-ERCs) and owe ERCs (102,464 non-GS-ERCs against the NGCC standard). This NGCC unit may sell (or otherwise transfer) or bank its GS-ERCs. If a GS-ERC is sold, those proceeds may, in turn, be used to acquire non-GS-ERCs to satisfy the NGCC unit's compliance obligations.


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 41 (Thursday, March 1, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 12608-12609]
[FR Doc No: 2012-4893]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4045-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2012-0002]

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

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration
for the Commonwealth of Virginia (FEMA-4045-DR), dated November 17,
2011, and related determinations.

DATES: Effective Date: February 7, 2012.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) hereby gives notice that pursuant to the authority vested in the
Administrator, under Executive Order 12148, as amended, Daniel T.
Alexander, of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating
Officer for this disaster.
    This action terminates the appointment of Donald L. Keldsen as
Federal Coordinating Officer for this disaster.

    The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers
(CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030,
Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis
Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster
Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance
Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and
Households in Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049,

Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing
Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially
Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other
Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially
Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

W. Craig Fugate,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2012-4893 Filed 2-29-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P