MEMORANDUM TO: E Docket OAR 2004 0506 FROM: U. S. Environmental Protection Agency/ Office of Air and Radiation/ Office of Atmospheric Programs/ Stratospheric Protection Division RE: Calculations of amounts of Methyl Bromide requested for Critical Use Exemptions for California Tomatoes for the 2005 Supplemental Request This memo concerns modifications made to the U. S. 2005 Supplemental Request for critical use exemptions ( CUEs) for methyl bromide within the tomato sector. Field grown tomatoes were not originally nominated for the 2005 Supplemental Request. The Supplemental Request was submitted to the Ozone Secretariat on February 7, 2004, in conjunction with the annual U. S. nomination requesting exemptions for the 2006 use year.

As part of the original request for the 2005 use year, submitted to the Ozone Secretariat in January 2003, the U. S. technical experts evaluated many factors concerning the technical and economic feasibility of alternatives to methyl bromide. The same factors were considered in the annual U. S. request for the 2006 use year, and the 2005 supplemental request. The evaluation of the applicant's request, which resulted in the reduction of the amount nominated, included consideration of issues such as the area afflicted with the key target pests, the extent of regulatory constraints on the use of registered alternatives ( buffer zones, township caps), environmental concerns such as soil based restrictions due to potential groundwater contamination, and historic use rates.

For the 2005 use year, the U. S. requested 2,865,262 kilograms of methyl bromide for field grown tomatoes nationwide. However, this request did not include California, because the California applicant did not submit data that demonstrated sufficient yield losses without methyl bromide. Therefore, their application was not included in the original U. S. nomination for the 2005 use year. However, during the second round of critical use exemption application evaluations, the applicant supplied additional data on pest pressure and registered alternatives that did not provide consistent control of target pests. In addition, some registered alternatives were problematic due to the hilly terrain in the nominated regions. Therefore, the California applicant requested 102,058 kilograms of methyl bromide for critical uses in 2006; this amount was requested in the subsequent annual nomination. In October, 2004, the Methyl Bromide Technical Options Committee ( MBTOC) and the Technical and Economic Assessment Panel ( TEAP) issued a report recommending an additional 10,746 kilograms of methyl bromide for tomatoes for use year 2005.

At the 16th Meeting of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol, which took place in Prague, Czech Republic, in November 2004, the Parties authorized the 2005 supplemental requests. Decision XVI/ 2, Annex 1A, authorized an additional 10,746 kilograms of methyl bromide for field grown tomatoes in the United States.

The amount of methyl bromide nominated by the United States for critical uses in the tomato sector also incorporates minimum efficacious use rates, mixtures of methyl bromide with chloropicrin, the use of tarps to improve efficacy and reduce emissions, and also includes a small margin of error. More information on the development of the U. S. Nomination for Critical Use Exemptions for the 2005 use year is available on E Docket OAR 2003 0230, document # 104, in a memo titled " Development of 2003 Nomination for a Critical Use Exemption for Methyl Bromide from the United States of America."


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 89 (Monday, May 9, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Page 28065]
[FR Doc No: 2016-10785]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. EL16-59-000]

MidAmerican Energy Company; Notice of Institution of Section 206
Proceeding and Refund Effective Date

    On May 2, 2016, the Commission issued an order in Docket No. EL16-
59-000, pursuant to section 206 of the Federal Power Act (FPA), 16
U.S.C. 824e (2012), instituting an investigation into the justness and
reasonableness of MidAmerican Energy Company's proposed rate reduction.
MidAmerican Energy Company, 155 FERC ] 61, 122 (2016).
    The refund effective date in Docket No. EL16-59-000, established
pursuant to section 206(b) of the FPA, will be the date of publication
of this notice in the Federal Register.

    Dated: May 3, 2016.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-10785 Filed 5-6-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: May 8, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 90)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 25970-25974]
[DOCID:fr08my08-4]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2007-28383; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-180-AD;
Amendment 39-15515; AD 2008-10-09]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Boeing Model 737-100, -200, -200C, -
300, -400, and -500 Series Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all
Boeing Model 737-100, -200, -200C, -300, -400, and -500 series
airplanes. This AD requires revising the FAA-approved maintenance
program to incorporate new airworthiness limitations (AWLs) for fuel
tank systems to satisfy Special Federal Aviation Regulation No. 88
requirements. This AD also requires the initial inspection of a certain
repetitive AWL inspection to phase in that inspection, and repair if
necessary. This AD results from a design review of the fuel tank
system. We are issuing this AD to prevent the potential for ignition
sources inside fuel tanks caused by latent failures, alterations,
repairs, or maintenance actions, which, in combination with flammable
fuel vapors, could result in a fuel tank explosion and consequent loss
of the airplane.

DATES: This AD is effective June 12, 2008.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of June 12,
2008.

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this AD, contact
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, P.O. Box 3707, Seattle, Washington 98124-
2207.

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 address for the
Docket Office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is the Document Management
Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30,
West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE.,
Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sue Lucier, Aerospace Engineer,
Propulsion Branch, ANM-140S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification
Office, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone
(425) 917-6438; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 to include an airworthiness directive (AD) that would apply to
all Boeing Model 737-100, -200, -200C, -300, -400, and -500 series
airplanes. That NPRM was published in the Federal Register on July 6,
2007 (72 FR 36907). That NPRM proposed to require revising the FAA-
approved maintenance program to incorporate new airworthiness
limitations (AWLs) for fuel tank systems to satisfy Special Federal
Aviation Regulation No. 88 requirements. That NPRM also proposed to
require the initial inspection of a certain repetitive AWL inspection
to phase in that inspection, and repair if necessary.

Actions Since NPRM Was Issued

    Since we issued the NPRM, Boeing has issued Revision March 2008 of
the 737-100/200/200C/300/400/500 Airworthiness Limitations (AWLs) and
Certification Maintenance Requirements (CMRs), D6-38278-CMR (hereafter
referred to as ``Revision March 2008 of Document D6-38278-CMR''). The
NPRM referred to Revision May 2006 of Document D6-38278-CMR as the
appropriate source of service information for accomplishing the
proposed actions. Revision March 2008 of Document D6-38278-CMR, among
other actions, includes the following changes:
     Removes the repetitive task interval of 36,000 flight
cycles from AWLs No. 28-AWL-01 and No. 28-AWL-03.
     Revises the task description for AWL No. 28-AWL-01 to
harmonize it with AWL No. 28-AWL-02 by removing references to certain
station numbers.
     Revises AWL No. 28-AWL-03 to reflect the new maximum loop
resistance values associated with the lightning protection of the
unpressurized fuel quantity indicating system (FQIS) wire bundle
installations.
    Accordingly, we have revised paragraphs (f), (g), and (h) of this
AD to refer to Revision March 2008 of Document D6-38278-CMR. We also
have added a new paragraph (j) to this AD specifying that actions done
before the effective date of this AD in accordance with Revisions May
2006 through November 2007 of Document D6-38278-CMR are acceptable for
compliance with the corresponding requirements of paragraphs (g) and
(h) of this AD.
    We also have removed reference to 36,000 total flight hours from
paragraph (h)(1) of this AD and revised the initial threshold for
accomplishing AWL No. 28-AWL-03 to within 120 months since the date of
issuance of the original standard airworthiness certificate or the date
of issuance of the original export certificate of airworthiness.
    Operators should note that paragraph (g) of this AD requires only
incorporating AWLs No. 28-AWL-01 through No. 28-AWL-20 inclusive for
Model 737-100, -200, and -200C series airplanes, and AWLs No. 28-AWL-01
through No. 28-AWL-19 inclusive for Model 737-300, -400, and -500
series airplanes. Revision September 2006 of Document D6-38278-CMR
added AWL inspections of the fuel boost pump auto shutoff system for
the center and auxiliary fuel tanks (specified as AWLs No. 28-AWL-20
and No. 28-AWL-21 for Model 737-300, -400, and -500 series airplanes,
and AWLs No. 28-

AWL-21 and No. 28-AWL-22 for Model 737-100, -200, and -200C series
airplanes). Revision November 2007 of Document D6-38278-CMR added an
AWL inspection of the boost pump ground fault interrupter (specified as
AWL No. 28-AWL-22 for Model 737-300, -400, and -500 series airplanes,
and AWL No. 28-AWL-23 for Model 737-100, -200, and -200C series
airplanes). We might issue additional rulemaking to require the
incorporation of those AWLs. However, as an optional action, operators
may incorporate those AWLs as specified in paragraph (g) of this AD.

Other Changes Made to This AD

    For standardization purposes, we have revised this AD in the
following ways:
     We have added a new paragraph (i) to this AD to specify
that no alternative inspections, inspection intervals, or critical
design configuration control limitations (CDCCLs) may be used unless
they are part of a later approved revision of Revision March 2008 of
Document D6-38278-CMR, or unless they are approved as an alternative
method of compliance (AMOC). Inclusion of this paragraph in the AD is
intended to ensure that the AD-mandated airworthiness limitations
changes are treated the same as the airworthiness limitations issued
with the original type certificate.
     We have revised Note 1 of this AD to clarify that an
operator must request approval for an AMOC if the operator cannot
accomplish the required inspections because an airplane has been
previously modified, altered, or repaired in the areas addressed by the
required inspections.
     We have revised paragraph (h) of this AD to specify that
accomplishing AWL No. 28-AWL-03 as part of an FAA-approved maintenance
program before the applicable compliance time constitutes compliance
with the applicable requirements of that paragraph.
     We have deleted Appendix 1 and Appendix 2 from this AD,
since Revision March 2008 of Document D6-38278-CMR already contains
most of the updated information that is listed in those appendices of
the NPRM.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD. We considered the comments received from the five commenters.

Request To Revise the Loop Resistance Values for AWL No. 28-AWL-03

    Boeing, KLM Royal Dutch Airlines (KLM), and Lufthansa state that
the loop resistance values for AWL No. 28-AWL-03 specified in Revision
May 2006 of Document D6-38278-CMR are going to be revised, since those
values are relevant for production airplanes. The commenters also state
that the revised values will be more representative of the expected
values for in-service airplanes. Boeing points out that, according to
paragraph (h) of the NPRM, the revised values should be able to be used
in accordance with a later revision of the CMR if the revision is
approved by the Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA.
    We agree that operators may use the revised loop resistance values
for AWL No. 28-AWL-03 in accordance with Revision March 2008 of
Document D6-38278-CMR. As stated previously, we have revised this AD
accordingly.

Request To Revise Intervals for Certain AWL Inspections

    KLM, on behalf of several operators, requests that we review a 45-
page proposal to align certain airworthiness limitation item (ALI)
intervals with the applicable maintenance significant item (MSI) and
enhanced zonal analysis procedure (EZAP) intervals for Model 737, 747,
757, 767, and 777 airplanes. The recommendations in that proposal
ensure that the ALI intervals align with the maintenance schedules of
the operators. Among other changes, the proposal recommends extending
certain AWL inspection intervals from 10 years/36,000 flight cycles to
12 years for Model 737-100, -200, -300, -400, and -500 series
airplanes.
    Lufthansa and the Air Transport Association (ATA), on behalf of its
member U.S. Airways, both note an inconsistency between the inspection
interval specified in Revision May 2006 of Document D6-38278-CMR and
the compliance threshold specified in paragraph (h)(1) of the NPRM. The
NPRM specifies accomplishing the initial inspection within 36,000 total
flight hours or 120 months since the date of issuance of the original
standard airworthiness certificate or the date of issuance of the
original export certificate of airworthiness, whichever occurs first.
However, Revision May 2006 of Document D6-38278-CMR specifies a
repetitive interval of 36,000 total flight cycles or 120 months,
whichever occurs first. U.S. Airways requests we verify whether the
initial inspection interval should be in units of flight cycles or
flight hours.
    We disagree with KLM's request to extend certain AWL inspection
intervals to 12 years. However, as stated previously, we have deleted
the 36,000-total-flight-hour parameter from paragraph (h)(1) of this AD
to correspond with the task interval for AWL No. 28-AWL-03 as specified
in Revision March 2008 of Document D6-38278-CMR. In developing an
appropriate compliance time for this action, we considered the urgency
associated with the subject unsafe condition and the practical aspect
of accomplishing the required actions within a period of time that
corresponds to the normal scheduled maintenance for most affected
operators. However, according to the provisions of paragraph (k) of
this AD, we might approve requests to adjust the compliance time if the
request includes data that prove that the new compliance time would
provide an acceptable level of safety.

Request To Revise Note 1

    Boeing requests that we revise Note 1 of the NPRM to clarify the
need for an AMOC. Boeing states that the current wording is difficult
to follow, and that the note is meant to inform operators that an AMOC
to the required AWLs might be required if an operator has previously
modified, altered, or repaired the areas addressed by the limitations.
Boeing requests that we revise Note 1 as follows:
     Add the words ``according to paragraph (g)'' at the end of
the first sentence.
     Replace the words ``revision to'' with ``deviation from''
in the last sentence.
     Delete the words ``(g) or'' and ``as applicable'' from the
last sentence.
    As stated previously, we have clarified the language in Note 1 of
this AD for standardization with other similar ADs. The language the
commenter requests that we change does not appear in the revised note.
Therefore, no additional change to this AD is necessary in this regard.

Request To Extend the Grace Period for AWL No. 28-AWL-03

    KLM expects to have problems accomplishing the initial inspection
of AWL No. 28-AWL-03 within the 24-month grace period. The commenter
states that if it does the check and does not reach the specified
values, then tank entry outside of heavy maintenance would be
necessary. The commenter also states that it would be helpful to plan
to do this inspection during an overhaul.
    We infer that KLM requests that we extend the grace period for AWL
No.

28-AWL-03 in paragraph (h) of this AD to allow accomplishing the
initial inspection during a regularly scheduled ``D'' check (about 6
years). We disagree with extending the grace period to 6 years. In
developing an appropriate compliance time for this action, we
considered the safety implications, the rate of lightning strikes in
the fleet, and the average age of the fleet. In consideration of these
items, we have determined that an initial compliance time of 120 months
(as discussed previously) with a grace period of 24 months will ensure
an acceptable level of safety. We have not changed the grace period for
AWL No. 28-AWL-03 in this regard.

Request To Add Applicability to Paragraph (g)

    Lufthansa states that the applicability of the AWL tasks should be
included in the AWL table of the AD.
    We infer the commenter requests that we include the applicability
for AWL No. 28-AWL-03 in paragraph (g) of this AD. (The commenter made
the same request for a similar NPRM, which contained an ``AWL table.'')
We agree to add the airplane applicability to paragraph (g) of this AD
because AWL No. 28-AWL-03 only applies to airplanes on which certain
design changes have been incorporated. We have revised paragraph (g) of
this AD accordingly.

Request To Clarify Need for AMOCs

    The ATA, on behalf of its member U.S. Airways, requests that we
clarify whether operators must obtain AMOCs for AWLs that are not
applicable to their airplanes. U.S. Airways also requests that we
clarify that some of the items identified in Appendix 2 of the NPRM
might not be applicable to all Model 737-300, -400, and -500 series
airplanes. U.S. Airways states that it will not be able to comply with
certain AWL inspections or CDCCLs because it has not incorporated the
relevant service bulletins identified in Revision May 2006 of Document
D6-38278-CMR on several of its airplanes.
    Document D6-38278-CMR contains an applicability column that
identifies the airplane configuration to which the AWL applies. The AWL
is required only for those airplanes that have that configuration. If
the applicability column identifies a service bulletin, then the
operator would not need to adhere to the AWL until the airplane is
modified in accordance with that service bulletin. There is no need to
obtain an AMOC for airplanes that have not been modified. We agree that
some of the items identified in Appendix 2 of the NPRM might not be
applicable to all Model 737-300, -400, and -500 series airplanes.
However, no change to this AD is necessary in this regard, since we
have deleted Appendix 2 from this AD.

Request To Clarify if Latest Revision of Document D6-38278-CMR is
Required

    The ATA, on behalf of its member U.S. Airways, requests that we
clarify whether the latest revision of Document D6-38278-CMR will be
incorporated into the final rule. The commenters note that Boeing has
published a later revision of Document D6-38278-CMR than the one
referenced in the NPRM.
    We have revised this AD to refer to the latest revision of Document
D6-38278-CMR because paragraphs (g) and (h) of this AD allow the use of
later approved revisions of that document. That document has been
revised since then to include additional AWLs associated with the
incorporation of certain design changes. As stated previously, we might
require those design changes and associated AWLs with separate
rulemaking actions, but operators may choose to incorporate the new
AWLs before then.

Request To Clarify Revision Date of Document D6-38278-CMR

    The ATA, on behalf of its member U.S. Airways, notes that the
``Changes to Fuel Tank System AWLs'' and ``Exceptional Short-Term
Extensions'' sections of the NPRM refer to Revision March 2006 of
Document D6-38278-CMR. U.S. Airways believes that the correct revision
date should be May 2006 to match the rest of the NPRM.
    We infer the commenters request that we change the revision date to
May 2006. We agree that the NPRM should have referred to Revision May
2006 of Document D6-38278-CMR because that revision, and other later
approved revisions, are the subject of this AD. Revision March 2006 of
Document D6-38278-CMR was originally included in the NPRM because the
AWLs for fuel tank systems were first incorporated in that document.
However, we have not changed this AD since the paragraphs that the
commenters refer to are not retained in the final rule.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received,
and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting
the AD with the changes described previously. We also determined that
these changes will not increase the economic burden on any operator or
increase the scope of the AD.

Costs of Compliance

    There are about 2,337 airplanes of the affected design in the
worldwide fleet. The following table provides the estimated costs, at
an average labor rate of $80 per work hour, for U.S. operators to
comply with this AD.

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Number of U.S.-
            Action               Work hours          Parts           Cost per       registered      Fleet cost
                                                                     airplane        airplanes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maintenance program revision.               8  None.............            $640             672        $430,080
Inspection...................               8  None.............             640             672         430,080
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    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 DOT Regulatory Policies and
Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979), and
    (3) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    You can find our regulatory evaluation and the estimated costs of
compliance in the AD Docket.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

0
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:

2008-10-09 Boeing: Amendment 39-15515. Docket No. FAA-2007-28383;
Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-180-AD.

Effective Date

    (a) This airworthiness directive (AD) is effective June 12,
2008.

Affected ADs

    (b) None.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to all Boeing Model 737-100, -200, -200C, -
300, -400, and -500 series airplanes, certificated in any category.

    Note 1: This AD requires revisions to certain operator
maintenance documents to include new inspections. Compliance with
these inspections is required by 14 CFR 91.403(c). For airplanes
that have been previously modified, altered, or repaired in the
areas addressed by these inspections, the operator may not be able
to accomplish the inspections described in the revisions. In this
situation, to comply with 14 CFR 91.403(c), the operator must
request approval for an alternative method of compliance (AMOC)
according to paragraph (k) of this AD. The request should include a
description of changes to the required inspections that will ensure
the continued operational safety of the airplane.

Unsafe Condition

    (d) This AD results from a design review of the fuel tank
systems. We are issuing this AD to prevent the potential for
ignition sources inside fuel tanks caused by latent failures,
alterations, repairs, or maintenance actions, which, in combination
with flammable fuel vapors, could result in a fuel tank explosion
and consequent loss of the airplane.

Compliance

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

Service Information Reference

    (f) The term ``Revision March 2008 of Document D6-38278-CMR,''
as used in this AD, means Boeing 737-100/200/200C/300/400/500
Airworthiness Limitations (AWLs) and Certification Maintenance
Requirements (CMRs), D6-38278-CMR, Revision March 2008.

Maintenance Program Revision

    (g) Before December 16, 2008, revise the FAA-approved
maintenance program to incorporate the information specified in
paragraph (g)(1) or (g)(2) of this AD, as applicable; except that
the initial inspection required by paragraph (h) of this AD must be
done at the applicable compliance time specified in that paragraph.
Accomplishing the revision in accordance with a later revision of
Document D6-38278-CMR is an acceptable method of compliance if the
revision is approved by the Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification
Office (ACO), FAA.
    (1) For Model 737-100, -200, and -200C series airplanes: Section
C, ``FUEL SYSTEMS AIRWORTHINESS LIMITATIONS,'' including AWLs No.
28-AWL-01 through No. 28-AWL-20 inclusive, of Revision March 2008 of
Document D6-38278-CMR. As an optional action, AWLs No. 28-AWL-21
through No. 28-AWL-23 inclusive, as identified in Section C of
Revision March 2008 of Document D6-38278-CMR, also may be
incorporated into the FAA-approved maintenance program.
    (2) For Model 737-300, -400, and -500 series airplanes: Section
C, ``FUEL SYSTEMS AIRWORTHINESS LIMITATIONS,'' including AWLs No.
28-AWL-01 through No. 28-AWL-19 inclusive, Revision March 2008 of
Document D6-38278-CMR. As an optional action, AWLs No. 28-AWL-20
through No. 28-AWL-22 inclusive, as identified in Section C of
Revision March 2008 of Document D6-38278-CMR, also may be
incorporated into the FAA-approved maintenance program.

Initial Inspection and Repair if Necessary

    (h) For the airplanes identified in the ``Applicability'' column
of AWL No. 28-AWL-03 of Section C of Revision March 2008 of Document
D6-38278-CMR: At the later of the compliance times specified in
paragraphs (h)(1) and (h)(2) of this AD, do a special detailed
inspection of the lightning shield to ground termination on the out-
of-tank fuel quantity indication system (FQIS) wiring to verify
functional integrity, in accordance with AWL No. 28-AWL-03 of
Section C of Revision March 2008 of Document D6-38278-CMR. If any
discrepancy is found during the inspection, repair the discrepancy
before further flight in accordance with AWL No. 28-AWL-03 of
Section C of Revision March 2008 of Document D6-38278-CMR.
Accomplishing the actions required by this paragraph in accordance
with a later revision of Document D6-38278-CMR is an acceptable
method of compliance if the revision is approved by the Manager,
Seattle ACO. Accomplishing AWL No. 28-AWL-03 as part of an FAA-
approved maintenance program before the applicable compliance time
specified in paragraph (h)(1) or (h)(2) of this AD constitutes
compliance with the requirements of this paragraph.

    Note 2: For the purposes of this AD, a special detailed
inspection is: ``An intensive examination of a specific item,
installation, or assembly to detect damage, failure, or
irregularity. The examination is likely to make extensive use of
specialized inspection techniques and/or equipment. Intricate
cleaning and substantial access or disassembly procedure may be
required.''

    (1) Within 120 months since the date of issuance of the original
standard airworthiness certification or the date of issuance of the
original export certificate of airworthiness.
    (2) Within 24 months after the effective date of this AD.

No Alternative Inspections, Inspection Intervals, or Critical Design
Configuration Control Limitations (CDCCLs)

    (i) After accomplishing the actions specified in paragraphs (g)
and (h) of this AD, no alternative inspections, inspection
intervals, or CDCCLs may be used unless the inspections, intervals,
or CDCCLs are part of a later revision of Revision March 2008 of
Document D6-38278-CMR that is approved by the Manager, Seattle ACO;
or unless the inspections, intervals, or CDCCLs are approved as an
AMOC in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (k) of
this AD.

Credit for Actions Done According to Previous Revisions of the Service
Information

    (j) Actions done before the effective date of this AD in
accordance with the Boeing 737-100/200/200C/300/400/500
Airworthiness Limitations (AWLs) and Certification Maintenance
Requirements (CMRs), D6-38278-CMR, Revision May 2006; Revision
September 2006; or Revision November 2007; are acceptable for
compliance with the corresponding requirements of paragraphs (g) and
(h) of this AD.

Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (k)(1) The Manager, Seattle ACO, has the authority to approve
AMOCs for this AD, if requested in accordance with the procedures
found in 14 CFR 39.19.

    (2) To request a different method of compliance or a different
compliance time for this AD, follow the procedures in 14 CFR 39.19.
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.

Material Incorporated by Reference

    (l) You must use Boeing 737-100/200/200C/300/400/500
Airworthiness Limitations (AWLs) and Certification Maintenance
Requirements (CMRs), D6-38278-CMR, Revision March 2008, to do the
actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference of this service information under 5
U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, P.O. Box 3707, Seattle, Washington
98124-2207.
    (3) You may review copies of the service information
incorporated by reference at the FAA, Transport Airplane
Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington; or 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/code_of_federal_
regulations/ibr_locations.html.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on April 29, 2008.
Ali Bahrami,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
 [FR Doc. E8-9922 Filed 5-7-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 77 (Monday, April 22, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 23696-23698]
[FR Doc No: 2013-09410]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2013-0020; Directorate Identifier 2010-SW-107-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Eurocopter Deutschland GmbH (ECD)
Helicopters

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for ECD
Model MBB-BK 117 C-2 helicopters. This proposed AD would require
inspecting the rigging of the power-boosted control system and, if
there is a nonparallel gap between the rigging wedges and the inner
sleeves, performing a rigging procedure. This proposed AD is prompted
by the discovery, during rigging of the main rotor controls, of
movement of the longitudinal main rotor actuator piston after shut-down
of the external pump drive. Such movement could cause incorrect rigging
results. The proposed actions are intended to prevent incorrect rigging
results, which could impair freedom of movement of the upper controls
and subsequent reduced control of the helicopter.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by June 21, 2013.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Docket: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for sending your
comments electronically.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Send comments to the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver to the ``Mail'' address between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

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 this proposed AD, the economic
evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street
address for the Docket Operations Office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in
the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket
shortly after receipt.
    For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact
American Eurocopter Corporation, 2701 N. Forum Drive, Grand Prairie, TX
75052, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER> or<PHONE_NUMBER>, fax<PHONE_NUMBER>,
or at http://www.eurocopter.com/techpub. You may review the referenced
service information at the FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel,
Southwest Region, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Room 663, Fort Worth, Texas
76137.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jim Grigg, Manager, FAA, Rotorcraft
Directorate, Safety Management Group, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth,
TX 76137; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting
written comments, data, or views. We also invite comments relating to
the economic, environmental, energy, or federalism impacts that might
result from adopting the proposals in this document. The most helpful
comments reference a specific portion of the proposal, explain the
reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. To
ensure the docket does not contain duplicate comments, commenters
should send only one copy of written comments, or if comments are filed
electronically, commenters should submit only one time.
    We will file in the docket all comments that we receive, as well as
a report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel
concerning this proposed rulemaking. Before acting on this proposal, we
will consider all comments we receive on or before the closing date for
comments. We will consider comments filed after the comment period has
closed if it is possible to do so without incurring expense or delay.
We may change this proposal in light of the comments we receive.

Discussion

    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical
Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued AD No.
2010-0248, dated November 26, 2010 (AD 2010-0248), to correct an unsafe
condition for the ECD Model MBB-BK 117 C-2 helicopters. EASA advises
that during rigging of the main rotor controls, it was

discovered that the piston of the longitudinal main rotor actuator had
moved after shut-down of the external pump drive.

FAA's Determination

    These helicopters have been approved by the aviation authority of
Germany and are approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant
to our bilateral agreement with Germany, EASA, its technical
representative, has notified us of the unsafe condition described in
its AD. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all known
relevant information and determined that an unsafe condition is likely
to exist or develop on other helicopters of the same type design.

Related Service Information

    ECD has issued Alert Service Bulletin ASB MBB BK117 C-2-67A-012,
Revision 0, dated September 20, 2010 (ASB). The ASB specifies a one-
time verification of the correct adjustment of the rigging of the main
rotor controls and provides the corresponding test procedure. The ASB
further provides an improved rigging procedure as a temporary revision
to the ECD BK117C2 Aircraft Maintenance Manual. EASA classified this
ASB as mandatory and issued AD 2010-0248 to ensure the continued
airworthiness of these helicopters.

Proposed AD Requirements

    This proposed AD would require inspecting the rigging of the power-
boosted control system and performing a rigging procedure if there is a
nonparallel gap between the rigging wedges and the inner sleeves.

Differences Between This Proposed AD and the EASA AD

    We do not require inserting temporary changes into the performance
section of the Rotorcraft Flight Manual.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD would affect 108 helicopters of
U.S. registry. We estimate that operators may incur the following costs
in order to comply with this proposed AD:
     $680 for 8 work hours per helicopter to inspect the main
rotor control rigging at an average labor rate of $85 per work hour;
     No additional costs are associated with rigging
adjustment, if necessary; and
     $73,440 for the total cost of the proposed AD on U.S.
operators.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not
have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship
between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed, I certify this proposed regulation:
    1. Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order
12866;
    2. Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
    3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska to the extent that
it justifies making a regulatory distinction; 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 an economic evaluation of the estimated costs to comply
with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Proposed Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

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

EUROCOPTER DEUTSCHLAND GmbH (ECD): Docket No. FAA-2013-0020;
Directorate Identifier 2010-SW-107-AD.

(a) Applicability

    This AD applies to Model MBB-BK 117 C-2 helicopters,
certificated in any category.

(b) Unsafe Condition

    This AD defines the unsafe condition as movement of the
longitudinal main rotor actuator piston after shut-down of the
external pump drive, during rigging of the main rotor controls,
causing an incorrect rigging result. This condition could impair
freedom of movement of the upper controls and subsequently reduce
control of the helicopter.

(c) Compliance

    You are responsible for performing each action required by this
AD within the specified compliance time unless it has already been
accomplished prior to that time.

(d) Required Actions

    Within 300 hours time-in-service:
    (1) Inspect the rigging of the power-boosted control system,
referencing Figure 1 of Eurocopter Alert Service Bulletin ASB MBB
BK117 C-2-67A-012, Revision 0, dated September 20, 2010 (ASB).
Ensure the piston of the longitudinal actuator (right-hand side) is
held in the fully extended position and the piston of the lateral
actuator (left-hand side) is held in the fully retracted position
against the mechanical stop. Also, ensure the gauge block is clamped
between the sliding sleeve and the support tube.
    (2) Insert the rigging wedges with the 25.4 degree (item 8) and
19.5 degree (item 7) markings in the ``A'' side of the guide grooves
of the rigging device (item 3).
    (3) If the gap between the rigging wedges (items 7 and 8) and
the inner sleeves (item 9) is closed, the rigging is correct.
    (4) If there is a nonparallel gap between the rigging wedges
(items 7 and 8) and the inner sleeves (item 9), the rigging is not
correct. Perform a rigging procedure.

(e) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOC)

    (1) The Manager, Safety Management Group, FAA, may approve AMOCs
for this AD. Send your proposal to: Jim Grigg, Manager, Rotorcraft
Directorate, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, TX 76137, telephone
(817) 222-5110, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) For operations conducted under 14 CFR part 119 operating
certificate or under 14 CFR part 91, subpart K, we suggest that you
notify your principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector,
the manager of the local flight standards district office or
certificate holding district office before operating any aircraft
complying with this AD through an AMOC.

(f) Additional Information

    (1) For service information identified in this AD, contact
American Eurocopter Corporation, 2701 N. Forum Drive, Grand Prairie,
TX 75052, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER> or<PHONE_NUMBER>, fax (972) 641-
3775, or at http://www.eurocopter.com/techpub. You may review the
referenced service information at the FAA, Office of the Regional
Counsel, Southwest Region, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Room 663, Fort Worth,
Texas 76137.
    (2) The subject of this AD is addressed in European Aviation
Safety Agency AD No. 2010-0248, dated November 26, 2010.

(g) Subject

    Joint Aircraft Service Component (JASC) Code: 6710 Main Rotor
Control.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on April 11, 2013.
Lance T. Gant,
Acting Directorate Manager, Rotorcraft Directorate, Aircraft
Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2013-09410 Filed 4-19-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 46 (Wednesday, March 9, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 13367-13368]
[FR Doc No: 2022-04947]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

Hazardous Materials: Notice of Applications for New Special
Permits

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

ACTION: List of applications for special permits.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the procedures governing the application
for, and the processing of, special permits from the Department of
Transportation's Hazardous Material Regulations, notice is hereby given
that the Office of Hazardous Materials Safety has received the
application described herein.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before April 8, 2022.

ADDRESSES: Record Center, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety
Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, DC
20590.
    Comments should refer to the application number and be submitted in
triplicate. If confirmation of receipt of comments is desired, include
a self-addressed stamped postcard showing the special permit number.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Donald Burger, Chief, Office of
Hazardous Materials Safety General Approvals and Permits Branch,
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, U.S. Department
of Transportation, East Building, PHH-13, 1200 New Jersey Avenue
Southeast, Washington, DC 20590-0001,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Each mode of transportation for which a
particular special permit is requested is indicated by a number in the
``Nature of Application'' portion of the table below as follows: 1--
Motor vehicle, 2--Rail freight, 3--Cargo vessel, 4--Cargo aircraft
only, 5--Passenger-carrying aircraft.
    Copies of the applications are available for inspection in the
Records Center, East Building, PHH-13, 1200 New Jersey Avenue
Southeast, Washington DC.
    This notice of receipt of applications for special permit is
published in accordance with part 107 of the Federal hazardous
materials transportation law (49 U.S.C. 5117(b); 49 CFR 1.53(b)).

    Issued in Washington, DC, on March 2, 2022.
Donald P. Burger,
Chief, General Approvals and Permits Branch.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    Regulation(s)
    Application No.            Applicant               affected          Nature of the special permits thereof
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Special Permits Data
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
21339-N...............  Department of Defense   173.27(f)(3), 173.202  To authorize the transportation in
                         US Army Military                               commerce of UN2030, hydrazine aqueous
                         Surface Deployment &                           solution in alternative packaging.
                         Distribution Command.                          (modes 1, 2, 3, 4).
21342-N...............  Ultium Cells LLC......  173.185(b)(3)(ii),     To authorize the transportation in
                                                 173.185(b)(6).         commerce of multiple lithium ion cells
                                                                        packaged within a rigid Large UN
                                                                        packaging by highway and rail. (modes 1,
                                                                        2).
21344-N...............  ZF Dongfang Automotive  173.301(h),            To authorize the manufacture, mark, sale,
                         Safety Technology       173.302a(a)(1).        and use of non-DOT specification
                         (Xi'an) Co., Ltd.                              pressure vessels for use as components
                                                                        of safety systems and explosive
                                                                        articles. (modes 1, 2, 3, 4, 5).
21346-N...............  Porsche Motorsport....  172.101(j),            To authorize the transportation in
                                                 173.220(d),            commerce of prototype lithium batteries
                                                 173.185(a)(1).         and vehicles containing prototype
                                                                        lithium batteries. (mode 4).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2022-04947 Filed 3-8-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4909-60-P


[Federal Register: March 16, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 49)]
[Notices]
[Page 11092-11093]
[DOCID:fr16mr09-45]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 12576-004]

CRD Hydroelectric, LLC; Notice of Application Tendered for Filing
With the Commission, Soliciting Additional Study Requests, and
Establishing a Deadline for Submission of Final Amendments

March 9, 2009.
    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been
filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection.
    a. Type of Application: Original License.
    b. Project No.: 12576-004.
    c. Date Filed: February 24, 2009.
    d. Applicant: CRD Hydroelectric, LLC.
    e. Name of Project: Red Rock Hydroelectric Project.
    f. Location: On the Des Moines River, in Marion County, Iowa. The
project would be located at U.S. Army Corps of Engineer facilities.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act 16 U.S.C. 791 (a)-825 (r).
    h. Applicant Contact: Ms. Douglas A. Spaulding, Nelson Energy LLC,
8441 Wayzata Blvd., Suite 101, Golden Valley, MN 55426;<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    i. FERC Contact: Timothy Konnert<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(202)
502-6359.
    j. Cooperating Agencies: We are asking Federal, State, and local
agencies and Indian tribes with jurisdiction and/or special expertise
with respect to environmental issues to cooperate with

us in the preparation of the environmental document. Agencies who would
like to request cooperating status should follow the instructions for
filing comments described in item l below. Cooperating agencies should
note the Commission's policy that agencies that cooperate in the
preparation of the environmental document cannot also intervene. See 94
FERC ] 61,076 (2001).
    k. Pursuant to section 4.32(b)(7) of 18 CFR of the Commission's
regulations, if any resource agency, Indian tribe, or person believes
that an additional scientific study should be conducted in order to
form a factual basis for complete analysis of the application on its
merits, the resource agency, Indian tribe, or person must file a
request for the study with the Commission no later than 60 days from
the application filing date, and serve a copy of the request on the
applicant.
    l. Deadline for filing additional study requests and requests for
cooperating agency status: April 27, 2009.
    All documents (original and eight copies) should be filed with:
Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888
First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    Additional study requests may be filed electronically via the
Internet in lieu of paper. The Commission strongly encourages
electronic filing. See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions
on the Commission's Web site (http://www.ferc.gov) under the
``eFiling'' link. After logging into the eFiling system, select
``Comment on Filing'' from the Filing Type Selection screen and
continue with the filing process.
    m. This application is not ready for environmental analysis at this
time.
    n. The proposed Red Rock Hydroelectric Project would be located at
the existing U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) Red Rock dam, which
was constructed by the Corps in 1969 for flood control. The existing
Corps facilities consist of: (1) A 110-foot-high, 6,260-foot-long
earth-fill dam with a 241-foot-long gated ogee spillway equipped with
five 45-foot-high tainter gates; and (2) a 15,253-acre reservoir at a
normal conservation pool water surface elevation of 742.0 feet National
Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929.
    The proposed project would utilize the head created by the existing
Corps dam and consist of: (1) A new, approximately 127-foot-long by 19-
foot-wide intake structure connected to; (2) three new 19-foot-
diameter, approximately 211-foot-long penstocks passing through the
left side of the spillway leading to; (3) a new 59-foot-long by 132-
foot-wide powerhouse located directly downstream of the existing
spillway structure containing three new 12.13-megawatt (MW) generating
units for a total generating capacity of 36.4 MW; (4) a new
approximately 8.4-mile-long, 69-kilovolt transmission line; and (5)
appurtenant facilities. The estimated average annual generation would
be 158,000 megawatt hours.
    The project would be operated in run-of-river mode in that it would
have no storage and only use flows released by the Corps in accordance
with its present operations.
    o. A copy of the application is on file with the Commission and is
available for public inspection. This filing may also be viewed on the
Web at http://www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the
docket number, excluding the last three digits in the docket number
filed to access the documents. For assistance, please contact FERC
Online Support at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll free at (866) 208-
3676 or for TTY, contact<PHONE_NUMBER>. A copy is also available for
inspection and reproduction at the address in item h above.
    p. You may also register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/
esubscription.asp to be notified via e-mail of new filings and
issuances related to this or other pending projects. For assistance,
contact FERC Online Support.
    q. Procedural schedule and final amendments: The application will
be processed according to the following Hydro Licensing Schedule.
Revisions to the schedule will be made as appropriate. The Commission
staff proposes to issue one environmental assessment rather than issue
a draft and final EA. Comments, terms and conditions, recommendations,
prescriptions, and reply comments, if any, will be addressed in an EA.
Staff intends to give at least 30 days for entities to comment on the
EA, and will take into consideration all comments received on the EA
before final action is taken on the license application.
    Issue Acceptance or Deficiency Letter--May 2009.
    Issue Scoping Document--October 2009.
    Notice of application is ready for environmental analysis--January
2010.
    Notice of the availability of the EA--November 2010.
    Final amendments: Final amendments to the application must be filed
with the Commission no later than 30 days from the issuance date of the
notice of ready for environmental analysis.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-5556 Filed 3-13-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 189 (Tuesday, September 29, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 60992-60993]
[FR Doc No: 2020-21524]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2019-0644; FRL-10010-16-OMS]

Information Collection Request Submitted to OMB for Review and
Approval; Comment Request; Application for New and Amended Pesticide
Registration (Renewal)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has submitted an
information collection request (ICR), Application for New and Amended
Pesticide Registration (EPA ICR Number 0277.20, OMB Control Number
2070-0060) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and
approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act. This is a
proposed extension of the ICR, which is currently approved through
September 30, 2020. Public comments were previously requested via the
Federal Register on February 6, 2020 during a 60-day comment period.
This notice allows for an additional 30 days for public comments. A
fuller description of the ICR is given below, including its estimated
burden and cost to the public. An agency may not conduct or sponsor and
a person is not required to respond to a collection of information
unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

DATES: Additional comments may be submitted on or before October 29,
2020.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments to EPA, referencing Docket ID No. EPA-
HQ-OPP-2019-0644, online using www.regulations.gov (our preferred
method), or by mail to: EPA Docket Center, Environmental Protection
Agency, Mail Code 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC
20460. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in
the public docket without change including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information
claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI), or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
    Submit written comments and recommendations to OMB for the proposed
information collection within 30 days of publication of this notice to
www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain. Find this particular information
collection by selecting ``Currently under 30-day Review--Open for
Public

Comments'' or by using the search function.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Callie Koller, Field and External
Affairs Division, Office of Pesticide Programs, 7650P, Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460;
telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Supporting documents, which explain in
detail the information that the EPA will be collecting, are available
in the public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at
www.regulations.gov or in person at the EPA Docket Center, WJC West,
Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC. The telephone
number for the Docket Center is<PHONE_NUMBER>. For additional
information about EPA's public docket, visit http://www.epa.gov/dockets.
    Abstract: This information collection request (ICR) is designed to
provide the EPA with the necessary information to evaluate an
application for the registration of a pesticide product, as required
under section 3 of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide
Act (FIFRA) and section 408 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act
(FFDCA). FIFRA provides EPA with the authority to regulate the
distribution, sale and use of pesticides in the United States to ensure
that they will not pose unreasonable adverse effects to human health
and the environment. Pesticides that meet this test receive a license
or ``registration.''
    Form Numbers: 8570-1, 8570-4, 8570-27, 8570-34, 8570-35, 8570-36,
8570-37.
    Respondents/affected entities: Pesticide and other agricultural
chemical manufacturing engaged in activities related to the
registration of a pesticide product.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Responses to the collection of
information are mandatory under FIFRA Sec.  3 and FFDCA Sec.  408 as
amended by FQPA.
    Estimated number of respondents: 1,808 (total).
    Frequency of response: On occasion.
    Total estimated burden: 1,562,517 hours (per year). Burden is
defined at 5 CFR 1320.03(b).
    Total estimated cost: $120,563,052 (per year), which includes $0
annualized capital or operation & maintenance costs.
    Changes in the estimates: The activities in this ICR increase net
respondent burden by 37,624 hours annually over the levels in the
currently approved collection. While burden per response levels remain
unchanged, the number of responses expected in certain categories has
shifted as a result of using an updated data set (Section 3
registration actions annually, on average, during the years 2015-2017)
to predict future registration application levels. Additionally, in
this iteration of the ICR, the Agency calculates the expected annual
application burden of three proposed programs that are anticipated to
come online in the next three years.

Courtney Kerwin,
Director, Regulatory Support Division.
[FR Doc. 2020-21524 Filed 9-28-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: February 14, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 31)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 8598]
[DOCID:fr14fe08-11]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 73

[Docket No. FAA-2008-0050; Airspace Docket No. 07-ASO-28]
RIN 2120-AA66

Amendment of Using Agencies for Restricted Areas R-5303A, B, C;
R-5304A, B, C; and R-5306A, C, D, E; NC

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action amends the using agencies for restricted areas R-
5303A, B, and C, Camp Lejeune, NC; R-5304A, B, and C, Camp Lejeune, NC;
and R-5306A, C, D, and E, Cherry Point, NC, to reflect current
organizational assignments and geographic responsibilities. This is an
administrative change that does not alter the boundaries, designated
altitudes, time of designation, or activities conducted within the
restricted areas.

DATES: Effective Date: 0901 UTC, April 10, 2008.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul Gallant, Airspace and Rules
Group, Office of System Operations Airspace and AIM, Federal Aviation
Administration, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591;
telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    At the request of the U.S. Marine Corps, the FAA is amending 14 CFR
part 73 to update the designated using agencies for restricted areas R-
5303A, B, and C; R-5304A, B, and C; and R-5306A, C, D, and E in North
Carolina. This action is the result of organizational realignments by
the Marine Corps.
    Section 73.53 of Title 14 CFR part 73 was republished in FAA Order
7400.8N, effective February 16, 2007.

The Rule

    This action amends the names of the using agencies for the above
restricted areas to replace the title ``Commanding General'' with
``Commanding Officer,'' and reflect the current division of airspace
responsibilities between Marine Corps Air Station Cherry Point, NC, and
Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune, NC. This is an administrative change to
reflect current organizational titles and geographic responsibilities.
The change does not alter the boundaries, designated altitudes, time of
designation, or activities conducted within the restricted areas.
Therefore, notice and public procedures under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) are
unnecessary.
    The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
Therefore, this regulation: (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory
action'' under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule''
under Department of Transportation (DOT) Regulatory Policies and
Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant
preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so
minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air
traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule,
when promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106
describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII,
Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's
authority.
    This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the
FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of the
airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient
use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority
as it amends restricted areas in North Carolina.

Environmental Review

    The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical
exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance
with 311d., FAA Order 1050.1E, ``Environmental Impacts: Policies and
Procedures.'' This airspace action is not expected to cause any
potentially significant environmental impacts, and no extraordinary
circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an environmental
assessment.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 73

    Airspace, Prohibited areas, Restricted areas.

Adoption of the Amendment

0
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration
amends 14 CFR part 73 as follows:

PART 73--SPECIAL USE AIRSPACE

0
1. The authority citation for part 73 continues to read as follows:

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

Sec.  73.53  [Amended]

0
2. Sec.  73.53 is amended as follows:
* * * * *

R-5303A, R-5303B and R-5303C Camp Lejeune, NC [Amended]

    Under Using agency, by removing the words ``USMC, Commanding
General, U.S. Marine Corps Air Station, Cherry Point, NC'' and
inserting the words ``USMC, Commanding Officer, U.S. Marine Corps
Base Camp Lejeune, NC.''
* * * * *

R-5304A, R-5304B and R-5304C Camp Lejeune, NC [Amended]

    Under Using agency, by removing the words ``USMC, Commanding
General, U.S. Marine Corps Air Station, Cherry Point, NC'' and
inserting the words ``USMC, Commanding Officer, U.S. Marine Corps
Base Camp Lejeune, NC.''
* * * * *

R-5306A and R-5306C Cherry Point, NC [Amended]

    Under Using agency, by removing the words ``Commanding General,
U.S. Marine Corps Air Station, Cherry Point, NC'' and inserting the
words ``USMC, Commanding Officer, U.S. Marine Corps Air Station
Cherry Point, NC.''

R-5306D and R-5306E Cherry Point, NC [Amended]

    Under Using agency, by removing the words ``Commanding General,
U.S. Marine Corps Air Station, Cherry Point, NC'' and inserting the
words ``USMC, Commanding Officer, U.S. Marine Corps Base Camp
Lejeune, NC.''
* * * * *

    Issued in Washington, DC, on February 6, 2008.
Ellen Crum,
Acting Manager, Airspace and Rules Group.
[FR Doc. E8-2758 Filed 2-13-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 167 (Wednesday, August 28, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 53144-53146]
[FR Doc No: 2013-20911]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-9900-45-OA]

Request for Nominations of Experts To Augment the Science
Advisory Board Chemical Assessment Advisory Committee for the Review of
the EPA's Draft Toxicological Assessments for Ammonia,
Trimethylbenzenes and the Evaluation of Inhalation Carcinogenicity of
Ethylene Oxide

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The EPA Science Advisory Board (SAB) Staff Office requests
public nominations of scientific experts to augment the SAB Chemical
Assessment Advisory Committee (CAAC) to form three panels for the
review of: (1) The EPA's draft Toxicological Review of Ammonia; (2) the
EPA's draft Toxicological Review of Trimethylbenzenes; and (3) the
EPA's draft Evaluation of the Inhalation Carcinogenicity of Ethylene
Oxide In Support of Summary Information on the Integrated Risk
Information System (IRIS).

DATES: Nominations should be submitted by September 18, 2013 per the
instructions below.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Any member of the public wishing
further information regarding this Notice and Request for Nominations
may contact the appropriate Designated Federal Officer for the specific
review, as identified below. Nominators unable to submit nominations
electronically as described below may contact the Designated Federal
Officers for assistance. General information concerning the EPA SAB can
be found at the EPA SAB Web site at http://www.epa.gov/sab.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Background: The SAB (42 U.S.C. 4365) is a chartered Federal
Advisory Committee that provides independent scientific and technical
peer review, advice, consultation, and recommendations to the EPA
Administrator on the technical basis for EPA actions. As a Federal
Advisory Committee, the SAB conducts business in accordance with the
Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) (5 U.S.C. App. 2) and related
regulations. The SAB Chemical Assessment Advisory Committee (CAAC) is a
subcommittee of the SAB that provides advice through the chartered SAB
regarding assessments of environmental chemicals available on EPA's
Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS). The SAB and the CAAC,
augmented with additional experts, will comply with the provisions of
FACA and all appropriate SAB Staff Office procedural policies.
    The National Center for Environmental Assessment (NCEA) in the
EPA's Office of Research and Development (ORD) develops toxicological
reviews/assessments for various chemicals for EPA's Integrated Risk
Information System (IRIS). NCEA has developed two separate draft IRIS
assessments for ammonia and trimethylbenzenes, and a draft evaluation
of the inhalation carcinogenicity for ethylene oxide for IRIS. NCEA has
asked the SAB to peer review draft documents for ammonia,
trimethylbenzenes, and ethylene oxide. The SAB Staff Office is seeking
experts to augment the SAB CAAC to form three separate panels to
conduct the peer reviews.
    (1) NCEA's draft Toxicological Review of Ammonia (August 2013)
represents a reassessment of the toxicity of ammonia. The assessment
and proposed charge questions may be found at the following URL: http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/fedrgstr_activites/IRIS%20Ammonia?OpenDocument. The ammonia assessment currently posted to
the IRIS database includes an inhalation reference concentration (RfC,
posted in 1991). For the 2013 draft review, NCEA evaluated
epidemiological data, experimental animal data, and other relevant data
from studies of the noncancer and cancer effects of ammonia. This
reassessment includes an inhalation RfC and a qualitative cancer
descriptor. The assessment does not include an oral reference dose
(RfD) or a quantitative cancer assessment because NCEA considered that
adequate information was not available.
    (2) NCEA's draft Toxicological Review of Trimethylbenzenes (August
2013) is the first IRIS assessment developed for trimethylbenzenes
(TMBs), including 1,2,3-TMB; 1,2,4-TMB; 1,3,5-TMB. The assessment and
proposed charge questions may be found at the following URL: http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/fedrgstr_activites/IRIS%20Trimethylbenzenes?OpenDocument. NCEA has evaluated experimental
animal data and other relevant noncancer data in this assessment. The
assessment includes an inhalation RfC, oral RfD, and qualitative cancer
descriptor for each isomer. The assessment does not include a
quantitative cancer assessment.
    (3) NCEA has developed a draft Evaluation of the Inhalation
Carcinogenicity of Ethylene Oxide (July 2013 Draft). The draft
evaluation and

proposed charge questions may be found at the following URL: http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/fedrgstr_activites/Eto%20Inhalation%20Carcinogenicity?OpenDocument. This draft evaluation
has been revised based on recommendations provided by the SAB in 2007
resulting from their peer review of an earlier version of the
carcinogenicity assessment. The SAB report, Review of Office of
Research and Development (ORD) draft assessment entitled, ``Evaluation
of the Carcinogenicity of Ethylene Oxide'' (EPA-SAB-08-004), is
available at: http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/
02ad90b136fc21ef85256eba00436459/5D661BC118B527A3852573B80068C97B/
$File/EPA-SAB-08-004-unsigned.pdf.
    Technical Contact for EPA's draft assessments: For information
concerning the EPA draft assessments, please contact Dr. Samantha
Jones, National Center for Environmental Assessment, Office of Research
and Development, U.S. EPA, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Mail Code
8601P, Washington, DC 20460, phone<PHONE_NUMBER> or via email at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Request For Nominations: The SAB Staff Office is seeking
nominations of nationally and internationally recognized scientists
with demonstrated expertise and research to augment the CAAC for three
separate review panels.
    (1) For the peer review of the EPA's draft Toxicological Review of
Ammonia, the SAB Staff Office seeks experts in one or more of the
following areas, with a particular focus on ammonia: toxicology of
ammonia (and ammonium compounds); epidemiology with experience in
respiratory effects (i.e., irritants and measures of lung function);
toxicokinetics and the role of endogenous ammonia in maintaining
nitrogen homeostasis; and inhalation toxicology. Questions regarding
this review should be directed to Dr. Sue Shallal, Designated Federal
Officer (DFO), SAB Staff Office, by telephone/voice mail at (202) 564-
2057, by fax at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or via email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) For the peer review of the EPA's draft Toxicological Review of
Trimethylbenzenes, the SAB seeks experts in one or more of the
following areas, particularly with respect to trimethylbenzenes:
Developmental neurotoxicity, developmental toxicity, pharmacokinetic
modeling, respiratory and inhalation toxicology, hematological
toxicology, and carcinogenicity. Questions regarding this review should
be directed to Mr. Thomas Carpenter, Designated Federal Officer (DFO),
SAB Staff Office, by telephone/voice mail at<PHONE_NUMBER>, by fax at
(202) 565-2098, or via email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (3) For the peer review of the EPA's draft Evaluation of the
Inhalation Carcinogenicity of Ethylene Oxide, the SAB Staff Office is
seeking expertise in epidemiology, biostatistics, exposure-response
modeling, genotoxicity, cancer biology, and risk assessment. Questions
regarding this review may be directed to Mr. Aaron Yeow, Designated
Federal Officer (DFO), SAB Staff Office, by telephone/voice mail at
(202) 564-2050, by fax at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or via email at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Process and Deadline for Submitting Nominations: Any interested
person or organization may nominate qualified individuals in the areas
of expertise described above for possible service on any of the
augmented CAAC panels identified in this notice.
    Nominations should be submitted in electronic format (preferred
over hard copy) following the instructions for ``Nominating Experts to
Advisory Panels and Ad Hoc Committees Being Formed,'' http://www.epa.gov/sab provided on the SAB Web site (see the ``Nomination of
Experts'' link on the blue navigational bar at http://www.epa.gov/sab).
To receive full consideration, nominations should include all of the
information requested below.
    EPA's SAB Staff Office requests contact information about the
person making the nomination; contact information about the nominee;
the disciplinary and specific areas of expertise of the nominee; the
nominee's resume or curriculum vitae; sources of recent grant and/or
contract support; and a biographical sketch of the nominee indicating
current position, educational background, research activities, and
recent service on other national advisory committees or national
professional organizations.
    Persons having questions about the nomination procedures, or who
are unable to submit nominations through the SAB Web site, should
contact Dr. Sue Shallal, Mr. Thomas Carpenter, or Mr. Aaron Yeow, as
indicated above in this notice. Nominations should be submitted in time
to arrive no later than September 18, 2013. EPA values and welcomes
diversity. In an effort to obtain nominations of diverse candidates,
EPA encourages nominations of women and men of all racial and ethnic
groups.
    The EPA SAB Staff Office will acknowledge receipt of nominations.
The names and biosketches of qualified nominees identified by
respondents to this Federal Register notice, and additional experts
identified by the SAB Staff, will be posted in a List of Candidates for
each of the three panels on the SAB Web site at http://www.epa.gov/sab.
Public comments on each List of Candidates will be accepted for 21
days. The public will be requested to provide relevant information or
other documentation on nominees that the SAB Staff Office should
consider in evaluating candidates.
    For the EPA SAB Staff Office a balanced review panel includes
candidates who possess the necessary domains of knowledge, the relevant
scientific perspectives (which, among other factors, can be influenced
by work history and affiliation), and the collective breadth of
experience to adequately address the charge. In forming these expert
panels, the SAB Staff Office will consider public comments on the Lists
of Candidates, information provided by the candidates themselves, and
background information independently gathered by the SAB Staff Office.
Selection criteria to be used for panel membership include: (a)
Scientific and/or technical expertise, knowledge, and experience
(primary factors); (b) availability and willingness to serve; (c)
absence of financial conflicts of interest; (d) absence of an
appearance of a loss of impartiality; (e) skills working in committees,
subcommittees and advisory panels; and, (f) for the panel as a whole,
diversity of expertise and scientific points of view.
    The SAB Staff Office's evaluation of an absence of financial
conflicts of interest will include a review of the ``Confidential
Financial Disclosure Form for Special Government Employees Serving on
Federal Advisory Committees at the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency'' (EPA Form 3110-48). This confidential form allows government
officials to determine whether there is a statutory conflict between a
person's public responsibilities (which include membership on an EPA
federal advisory committee) and private interests and activities, or
the appearance of a lack of impartiality, as defined by federal
regulation. The form may be viewed and downloaded from the following
URL address http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/Web/ethics?OpenDocument.
    The approved policy under which the EPA SAB Office selects members
for subcommittees and review panels is described in the following
document: Overview of the Panel Formation

Process at the Environmental Protection Agency Science Advisory Board
(EPA-SAB-EC-02-010), which is posted on the SAB Web site at http://www.epa.gov/sab/pdf/ec02010.pdf.

    Dated: August 19, 2013.
Christopher Zarba,
Acting Director, Science Advisory Board Staff Office.
[FR Doc. 2013-20911 Filed 8-27-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P