[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 65 (Wednesday, April 7, 2021)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 17899-17902]
[FR Doc No: 2021-07034]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2020-0848; Product Identifier 2020-NM-088-AD; Amendment
39-21486; AD 2021-07-09]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is superseding Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2007-07-
03, which applied to certain The Boeing Company Model 747-100, 747-
100B, 747-100B SUD, 747-200B, 747-200C, 747-200F, 747-300, 747-400,
747-400D, 747-400F, 747SR, and 747SP series airplanes. AD 2007-07-03
required repetitive tests to detect hot air leaking from the trim air
diffuser ducts or sidewall riser duct assemblies (collectively referred
to as TADDs), related investigative actions, and corrective actions if
necessary. AD 2007-07-03 also provided an optional terminating action
for the repetitive tests. This AD requires repetitive inspections of
all TADD material for damage and applicable on-condition actions. This
AD was prompted by reports that high temperature composite material
TADDs installed as specified in AD 2007-07-03 have also failed. The FAA
is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: This AD is effective May 12, 2021.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of May 12,
2021.

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this final rule,
contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data
Services (C&DS), 2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110-SK57, Seal Beach, CA
90740-5600; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You may view this service information at the
FAA, Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200
South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of
this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. It is also available on
the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and
locating Docket No. FAA-2020-0848.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2020-
0848; or in person at Docket Operations between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains
this final rule, any comments received, and other information. The
address for Docket Operations is 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: Nicole S. Tsang, Aerospace Engineer,
Cabin Safety and Environmental Systems Section, FAA, Seattle ACO
Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; phone and fax: 206-
231-3959; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14
CFR part 39 to supersede AD 2007-07-03, Amendment 39-15003 (72 FR
14395, March 28, 2007) (AD 2007-07-03). AD 2007-07-03 applied to
certain The Boeing Company Model 747-100, 747-100B, 747-100B SUD, 747-
200B, 747-200C, 747-200F, 747-300, 747-400, 747-400D, 747-400F, 747SR,
and 747SP series airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register
on September 22, 2020 (85 FR 59451). The NPRM was prompted by reports
of sealant deteriorating on the outside of the center wing fuel tank
and analysis showing that sealant may deteriorate inside the tank due
to excess heat from TADDs. The NPRM was also prompted by reports
indicating that the high temperature composite material TADDs installed
as specified in AD 2007-07-03 have also failed. The NPRM proposed to
require repetitive inspections of all TADD material for damage and
applicable on-condition actions. The FAA is issuing this AD to address
potential hot air leakage from original fiberglass fabric material or
high temperature composite material TADDs that can cause damage to the
center wing fuel tank secondary fuel barrier coating and primary
sealant, which can cause fuel leakage into an ignition zone, possibly
resulting in a fire or explosion.

Comments

    The FAA gave the public the opportunity to participate in
developing this AD. The following presents the comments received on the
NPRM and the FAA's response to each comment.

Support for the NPRM

    Air Line Pilots Association, International (ALPA), Boeing, and
Jesse Addo expressed support for the NPRM.

Requests To Extend Compliance Times for Initial and Repetitive
Inspections

    Cathay Pacific Airways Limited (CPA), Lufthansa German Airlines
(Lufthansa), and SFN requested that the compliance time for the initial
and repetitive inspection be extended. Lufthansa suggested that an
interval of 11,000 flight hour (FH) would still provide a sufficient
level of safety based on its fleet reliability data. Lufthansa stated
that the proposed interval is not comprehensible based on its data and
would result in an extension of each A-check by 200 percent of normal
and generate a very high economic impact. SFN agreed with Lufthansa's
analysis and requested an interval of 10,000 FH to coincide with the C-
check, because doing the inspection at the 1,200 FH

interval would require the inspection be done at each A-check (1,000
FH). SFN comments that this would be problematic for two reasons: It
would generate a very high economic impact, and it would result in a
higher frequency of floor panel removal/installation that would
increase the risk of wire damage over the center fuel tank. CPA
requested that the compliance time for the initial inspection be
extended. CPA asserted that the replacement of the TADDs at the initial
inspection, to extend the next inspection to 16,000 FH, would not be
possible due to availability of spare TADDs and base maintenance
scheduling. CPA also noted that the 1,200 FH repetitive inspection
interval will impose a huge burden on essential cargo operations. The
commenters noted that the inspections were not suitable for the line
maintenance environment due to the extensive access portion of the
inspection.
    The FAA disagrees with the requests. In developing an appropriate
compliance time, the FAA considered the safety implications, parts
availability, normal maintenance schedules, and the manufacturer's
recommendations, and determined that the 1,200 FH compliance time would
allow for an adequate level of safety. After initial installation of
high temperature TADDs, operators may avoid repeat inspections at 1,200
FH intervals by installing new high temperature TADDs at each 16,000 FH
interval, without an alternative method of compliance (AMOC) or
additional rulemaking, as long as required actions are completed at
that interval. However, under the provisions of paragraph (h) of this
AD, the FAA will consider requests for approval of an extension of the
compliance time if sufficient data are submitted to substantiate that
the extension would provide an acceptable level of safety.
Additionally, as noted in the NPRM, the FAA considers this AD interim
action. The manufacturer is currently developing a modification. Once
the modification is developed, approved, and available, the FAA might
consider additional rulemaking. We have not changed this AD with regard
to this request.

Request To Allow AMOC for Access and Inspection

    KLM Royal Dutch Airlines (KLM) requested that the NPRM be revised
to allow an AMOC to use holes at certain locations in the floor for
access and a borescope for the inspection. KLM outlined a method for
accessing the inspection area more quickly and with less disruption
using borescopes and examination holes in the floor panels, if Boeing
modified the panels. KLM noted that currently more than 38 work hours
are required to remove and replace floor panels--a huge effort for a 5-
hour inspection that is repeated frequently. KLM recalled that a
similar inspection using access holes and borescopes was used in the
1980s to inspect the floors under toilets.
    The FAA disagrees with the need for an alternate inspection method.
Note that this AD does not mandate how to access the inspection site,
it only mandates a detailed inspection of the affected parts. However,
the FAA is not aware of Boeing developing any new design for the floor
panels that includes pluggable holes. As noted, this AD is considered
interim action and if any new design is developed, the FAA might
consider further rulemaking. This AD has not been changed with regard
to this request.

Request To Simplify Language in NPRM

    One commenter requested that the NPRM be written in language more
understandable to the average person to help clarify the unsafe
condition. The commenter stated that the SUMMARY section may be unclear
and confusing and argued that it is the FAA's duty to present the
issues pertaining to TADDs in a more comprehensible way in order to
emphasize the importance and urgency of the identified unsafe
condition. The commenter asserted that the FAA does not clearly explain
why hot air leakage from the TADDs as a result of hot trim air causing
the material properties to degrade is potentially dangerous or creates
an unsafe condition. Therefore, the commenter stated that the FAA
should describe in more detail the dangers and unsafe conditions the
TADDs, especially the high temperature composite material TADDs,
present. The commenter further argued that the FAA should better break
down the focal component of the proposed and former rules, which is the
TADD, and do it while making the terms and concepts understandable to
the layperson.
    The FAA disagrees with changing the nature of the language in this
final rule. The FAA strives to follow guidelines as outlined in FAA
Order 1000.36, FAA Writing Standards,\1\ as well as using plain
language principles \2\ to draft regulations, but a certain level of
subject matter knowledge is assumed on the part of the reader. As noted
by the commenter, ADs are written for the owners and operators of the
affected airplanes, for the purpose of increasing aviation safety.
Therefore, it is important that the content of an AD is written for the
understanding of those individuals required to comply with the
requirements of the AD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ FAA Order 1000.36, FAA Writing Standards, dated March 31,
2003 (https://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/
rgOrders.nsf/0/880c01691d0546c386256cfc005ec613/$FILE/
Order_1000.36.pdf).
    \2\ Plain Writing Act of 2010 (https://www.plainlanguage.gov/).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It is also important to note that information that is appropriate
for inclusion in the SUMMARY section of a rule is driven by the Office
of the Federal Register (OFR).\3\ Additional detail may not be added to
the SUMMARY. Additional detail in the Discussion is also unnecessary.
The unsafe condition was clearly stated in the proposed AD to be damage
to the center wing fuel tank secondary fuel barrier coating and primary
sealant, which can cause fuel leakage into an ignition zone, possibly
resulting in a fire or explosion--caused by potential hot air leakage
from original fiberglass fabric material or high temperature composite
material TADDs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ This information may be found in the OFR's Document Drafting
Handbook (https://www.archives.gov/files/federal-register/write/handbook/ddh.pdf).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We have not changed this AD in this regard.

Request To Clarify Necessity for Supersedure of AD 2007-07-03

    A commenter also requested that the NPRM be revised to clearly
state why it is necessary to supersede AD 2007-07-03, given the high
labor costs of performing the newly required actions.
    The FAA agrees to clarify the need to supersede AD 2007-07-03. The
FAA issues ADs, including any necessary supersedures, whenever there is
an unsafe condition that must be addressed. As described under the
section, ``Actions Since AD 2007-07-03 Was Issued,'' operators reported
that high temperature composite material TADDs installed as specified
in AD 2007-07-03 have also failed. Further inspection showed that the
high temperature composite material TADDs were ruptured, with damaged
insulation in poor condition. Analysis showed that hot trim air was
causing material properties degradation of both the original fiberglass
fabric material and high temperature composite material TADDs, which
potentially causes hot air leakage from the TADD(s). Since the unsafe
condition has been reported even with AD 2007-07-03 in effect, the FAA
has determined that it is necessary to issue this AD, which supersedes
AD 2007-07-03, to adequately address

possible hot air leaks that can damage the secondary fuel barrier of
the center wing fuel tank. As noted in this final rule, a damaged fuel
barrier could allow fuel to leak into an area where it may cause a fire
or explosion. The FAA has not changed this AD with regard to this
request.

Conclusion

    The FAA reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments
received, and determined that air safety and the public interest
require adopting this AD as proposed, except for minor editorial
changes. The FAA has determined that these minor changes:
     Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the
NPRM for addressing the unsafe condition; and
     Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was
already proposed in the NPRM.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    The FAA reviewed Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 747-21A2577 RB,
dated February 18, 2020. The service information describes procedures
for repetitive detailed inspections of TADDs made of original
fiberglass fabric material and high temperature composite material for
damage and applicable on-condition actions. On-condition actions
include TADD replacement, detailed inspection of the center wing tank
secondary fuel barrier and the center wing tank primary sealant for
damage, a measurement of the electrical conductivity change of the
upper skin of the center wing tank for indications of damage, other
replacement as applicable, and repair. This service information is
reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it
through their normal course of business or by the means identified in
the ADDRESSES section.

Interim Action

    The FAA considers this AD interim action. The manufacturer is
currently developing a modification that will address the unsafe
condition identified in this AD. Once this modification is developed,
approved, and available, the FAA might consider additional rulemaking.

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this AD affects 188 airplanes of U.S.
registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:

                                      Estimated Costs for Required Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost on U.S.
             Action                     Labor cost          Parts cost     Cost per  product       operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Repetitive inspections.........  Up to 44 work-hours x                $0  Up to $3,740 per    Up to $703,120 per
                                  $85 per hour = Up to                     inspection cycle.   inspection cycle.
                                  $3,740 per inspection
                                  cycle.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FAA has received no definitive data that would enable providing
cost estimates for the on-condition actions specified in this AD.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

    The FAA has determined that this 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) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
    (3) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

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:
0
a. Removing Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2007-07-03, Amendment 39-15003
(72 FR 14395, March 28, 2007), and
0
b. Adding the following new AD:

2021-07-09 The Boeing Company: Amendment 39-21486; Docket No. FAA-
2020-0848; Product Identifier 2020-NM-088-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This airworthiness directive (AD) is effective May 12, 2021.

(b) Affected ADs

    This AD replaces AD 2007-07-03, Amendment 39-15003 (72 FR 14395,
March 28, 2007).

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to all The Boeing Company Model 747-100, 747-
100B, 747-100B SUD, 747-200B, 747-200C, 747-200F, 747-300, 747-400,
747-400D, 747-400F, 747SR, and 747SP series airplanes, certificated
in any category.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 21, Air
conditioning.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by reports of sealant deteriorating on the
outside of the center wing fuel tank and analysis showing that
sealant may deteriorate inside the tank due to excess heat from
leaking trim air diffuser ducts or sidewall riser duct assemblies
(collectively referred to as TADDs). This AD was also prompted by
reports indicating that the high temperature composite material
TADDs installed as

specified in AD 2007-07-03 have also failed. The FAA is issuing this
AD to address potential hot air leakage from original fiberglass
fabric material or high temperature composite material TADDs that
can cause damage to the center wing fuel tank secondary fuel barrier
coating and primary sealant, which can cause fuel leakage into an
ignition zone, possibly resulting in a fire or explosion.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Required Actions

    Except as specified by paragraph (h) of this AD: At the
applicable times specified in the ``Compliance,'' paragraph of
Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 747-21A2577 RB, dated February
18, 2020, do all applicable actions identified in, and in accordance
with, the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Requirements
Bulletin 747-21A2577 RB, dated February 18, 2020.
    Note 1 to paragraph (g): Guidance for accomplishing the actions
required by this AD can be found in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin
747-21A2577, dated February 18, 2020, which is referred to in Boeing
Alert Requirements Bulletin 747-21A2577 RB, dated February 18, 2020.

(h) Exceptions to Service Information Specifications

    (1) Where Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 747-21A2577 RB,
dated February 18, 2020, uses the phrase ``the original issue date
of Requirements Bulletin 747-21A2577 RB,'' this AD requires using
``the effective date of this AD.''
    (2) Where Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 747-21A2577 RB,
dated February 18, 2020, specifies contacting Boeing for repair
instructions: This AD requires doing the repair before further
flight using a method approved in accordance with the procedures
specified in paragraph (j) of this AD.

(i) Parts Installation Prohibition

    As of the effective date of this AD, no person may install an
original fiberglass fabric material TADD assembly, having a part
number listed in Appendix A of Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin
747-21A2577 RB, dated February 18, 2020, on any airplane.

(j) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

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

 (k) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact Nicole S. Tsang,
Aerospace Engineer, Cabin Safety and Environmental Systems Section,
FAA, Seattle ACO Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198;
phone and fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) Service information identified in this AD that is not
incorporated by reference is available at the addresses specified in
paragraphs (l)(3) and (4) of this AD.

(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.
    (i) Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 747-21A2577 RB, dated
February 18, 2020.
    (ii) [Reserved]
    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data Services
(C&DS), 2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110-SK57, Seal Beach, CA 90740-
5600; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com.
    (4) You may view this service information at the FAA,
Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200
South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability
of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (5) You may view this service information that is incorporated
by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA). For information on the availability of this material at
NARA, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or go to: https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued on March 22, 2021.
Lance T. Gant,
Director, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2021-07034 Filed 4-6-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 162 (Wednesday, August 23, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 39992-39993]
[FR Doc No: 2017-17847]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket Nos. CP17-26-000; CP15-499-000; CP15-499-001]

Pomelo Connector, LLC, Texas Eastern Transmission, LP; Notice of
Schedule for Environmental Review of the Pomelo Connector Pipeline and
South Texas Expansion Projects

    On May 22, 2015 and December 30, 2016 Texas Eastern Transmission,
LP (Texas Eastern) filed an application and supplements/amendments in
Docket No. CP15-499-000/CP15-499-001 and Pomelo Connector, LLC (Pomelo)
filed an application on December 22, 2016 in Docket No. CP17-26-000
requesting a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity pursuant
to Section 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act to abandon, construct, modify,
and operate gas pipeline facilities in Texas. Pomelo's project known as
the Pomelo Connector Pipeline Project (Pomelo Connector Pipeline) would
provide up to 400,000 dekatherms per day (Dth/d) of firm transportation
service from an interconnection with Texas Eastern at the proposed
Pomelo Petronila Compressor Station in Nueces County, Texas, to the
Nueces Header pipeline system. Texas Eastern's project, known as the
South Texas Expansion Project (STEP), would provide approximately
396,000 Dth/d of firm natural gas transportation service to an
interconnection with the Nueces Header. Collectively, the STEP and
Pomelo Connector Pipeline projects are referred to as the Projects.
    On June 5, 2015, and January 4, 2017 the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission (Commission or FERC) issued its Notice of Applications for
the Projects. Among other things, that notice alerted agencies issuing
federal authorizations of the requirement to complete all necessary
reviews and to reach a final decision on a request for a federal
authorization within 90 days of the date of issuance of the Commission
staff's Environmental Assessment (EA) for the Projects. This instant
notice identifies the FERC staff's planned schedule for the completion
of the EA for the Projects.

Schedule for Environmental Review

Issuance of EA--September 18, 2017
90-day Federal Authorization Decision Deadline--December 17, 2017

    If a schedule change becomes necessary, additional notice will be
provided so that the relevant agencies are kept informed of the
Project's progress.

Project Description

    Pomelo Connector Pipeline consists of construction and operation of
approximately 14 miles of 30-inch-diameter pipeline, a new 5,000
horsepower (hp) compressor station, approximately 0.2 mile of new 30-
inch-diameter pipeline, and associated aboveground facilities in Nueces
County, Texas. Pomelo would engage in certain construction, operation,
maintenance, and abandonment activities under blanket construction
certificate authorization, and abandon all of the capacity of the
Pomelo Connector Pipeline upon the in-service date by lease to Texas
Eastern. STEP consists of construction and operation of a new 8,400 hp
gas turbine unit in Nueces County, Texas; piping modifications at its
existing Angleton Station property in Brazoria County, Texas; a new
8,400 hp gas turbine unit at its existing Blessing Compressor Station
in Matagorda County, Texas; clean burn emission work and piping
modifications at its existing Mont Belvieu Compressor Station in
Chambers County, Texas; and piping modifications at its existing Vidor
Compressor Station in Orange County, Texas.

Background

    On April 6, 2017, the Commission issued a Notice of Intent to
Prepare an Environmental Assessment for the Proposed Projects and
Request for Comments on Environmental Issues (NOI). The NOI was sent to
affected landowners; Federal, state, and local government agencies;
elected officials; environmental and public interest groups; Native
American tribes; other interested parties; and local libraries and
newspapers. In response to the NOI, the Commission received a total of
five comment letters from the following: The Texas Parks and Wildlife
Department, Union Pacific Railroad, Gary Pyraon--an adjacent landowner
to the proposed Petronila Compressor Station site, John Young--an
individual, and the Teamsters National Pipeline Labor Management
Cooperation Trust. The comments addressed related and non-
jurisdictional facilities, air quality/greenhouse gas emissions,
alternatives, biological resources, migratory birds, habitat and
wildlife, water resources, hazards/safety concerns, stormwater, and
general support for the Projects.

Additional Information

    In order to receive notification of the issuance of the EA and to
keep track of

all formal issuances and submittals in specific dockets, the Commission
offers a free service called eSubscription. This can reduce the amount
of time you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing
you with notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct
links to the documents. Go to www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp.
    Additional information about the Project is available from the
Commission's Office of External Affairs at (866) 208-FERC or on the
FERC Web site (www.ferc.gov). Using the ``eLibrary'' link, select
``General Search'' from the eLibrary menu, enter the selected date
range and Docket Number excluding the last three digits (i.e., CP17-26
and CP15-499), and follow the instructions. For assistance with access
to eLibrary, the helpline can be reached at<PHONE_NUMBER>, TTY (202)
502-8659, or at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>The eLibrary link on the
FERC Web site also provides access to the texts of formal documents
issued by the Commission, such as orders, notices, and rule makings.

    Dated: August 17, 2017.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-17847 Filed 8-22-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


MEETING SUMMARY NACEPT Superfund Subcommittee March 10  12, 2003 Phoenix Pointe Hilton Squaw Peak Resort Phoenix, Arizona   Prepared by Meridian Institute April, 2003 NACEPT Superfund Subcommittee March 10  12, 2003 Phoenix, Arizona The NACEPT Superfund Subcommittee held its fourth meeting March 10 12, 2003 in Phoenix, AZ. This document summarizes discussion topics and key decisions made during the meeting. The meeting was open to the public and audio recorded. Interested individuals and members of the press were present as observers. The Subcommittee's agenda designated several opportunities for public comment as summarized in the appropriate sections of this document. A written transcript was prepared and is available through the Environmental Protection Agency's ( EPA) Docket # SFUND 2002 0005. Angelo Carasea, the Designated Federal Officer ( DFO), is the primary point of contact for all public and press inquiries.

The objectives of the March 2003 meeting were to:

  Provide an opportunity for the Site Types and Cleanup Programs Work Groups to report on their process and status of their deliberations.   Engage the full Subcommittee in discussions regarding preliminary conclusions, policy options and recommendations developed by the Work Groups.   Provide input from the state of Arizona and EPA, Region 9 regarding experience relevant to the Subcommittee's Charge.   Provide input from community members with experience in the state and federal cleanup programs.   Determine the Work Groups and the focus of activities between the March 2003 and June 2003 plenary meetings.   Review the Subcommittee schedule and determine a path forward.   Provide an opportunity for public comment.   Provide Subcommittee Members an opportunity to visit a large complex mining site being addressed through the State cleanup program.

Monday, March 10, 2003, 2: 00 p. m.   6: 00 p. m.

Dr. Raymond Loehr, Chairman of the Subcommittee, opened the meeting and presented welcoming remarks. He introduced Angelo Carasea, the DFO for the Subcommittee and John Ehrmann, the lead facilitator for the group, from Meridian Institute. Dr. Loehr summarized the Subcommittee's charge, its activity since the third meeting and the goals for the fourth meeting. The Introductory Statement was available as a handout and is included in Attachment A. Dr. Loehr asked each Subcommittee Member to briefly introduce him or herself.

NACEPT Superfund Subcommittee 2 March 10 12, 2003 Meeting Summary Developed by Meridian Institute Agenda Review John Ehrmann, Meridian Institute facilitator, reviewed the progress to date, discussed the status of key work group activities and explained the agenda for the meeting.

Opening Remarks Terry Goddard, Attorney General for the State of Arizona, was introduced by Subcommittee member Jim Derouin. Mr. Goddard offered insights with regard to the Subcommittee based on his extensive experience as Attorney General and Mayor of Phoenix. The Subcommittee had the opportunity to ask Mr. Goddard questions in follow up to his presentation. Topics addressed in the presentation and discussion included:

  Arizona's State Hazardous Waste Program   Local involvement in cleanup decision making   Redevelopment of sites   Financial assurances   The manner in which Arizona appropriates its state hazardous waste tax funds.

Work Group Presentations Representatives from both the Site Types and Cleanup Programs Work Groups presented a summary of their research and deliberations to date. Copies of the PowerPoint Presentations from both groups were handed out and are included in Attachment B.

Site Types Work Group Molly Mayo summarized the activity of the work group since the January Subcommittee meeting. Members of the work group met in Dallas on January 29th and 30th and held several conference calls and small group calls to advance their deliberations. Draft documents summarizing policy options developed by the work group were circulated to Subcommittee members for review prior to the meeting. Representatives of the work group presented the outcomes of several sub work group level efforts to date. The following topics were addressed:   NPL Listing   The HRS   Funding Prioritization   Mega Sites   Overarching Comment Cleanup Programs Work Group Elizabeth McManus summarized the activity of the work group since the January Subcommittee meeting. Members of the work group met in Washington D. C. on February 11th and 12th and participated in conference calls and small group activities to advance their deliberations. Summaries and conclusions regarding State programs were developed by the work group and circulated to Subcommittee members for review and consideration. Steve Elbert led the PowerPoint presentation. The following topics were addressed: NACEPT Superfund Subcommittee 3 March 10 12, 2003 Meeting Summary Developed by Meridian Institute   Summary of Federal Programs   Findings from analyses of State Programs   Funding and Efficiencies Following the presentations, the group discussed the variety of issues that had been raised. The Chair asked the Subcommittee members to consider the ideas that had been introduced in the presentations and come prepared to deliberate the following day.

Public Comment: Members of the public were invited to comment on their perspectives and concerns regarding Superfund and the work of the Subcommittee. Dan Randolph from the Mineral Policy Center offered remarks. His testimony is included in the meeting transcript.

Tuesday, March 11, 2003 Miscellaneous Business Wilma Subra and Ed Lorenz reported on the Technical Advisory Grant Recipient Workshop that was held in Albuquerque, New Mexico, Feb. 28   March 1. They summarized the briefing they provided to the group and the feedback they received. The primary message received was the recommendation of an increase in funding of the Superfund Program from the current level to a level that will be sufficient to fully fund the Program. Additional comments and recommendations were summarized in a handout included in Attachment B.

Barry Breen provided a report from the Environmental Financing Advisory Board ( EFAB) meeting held in Washington, D. C. on March 4. He summarized the feedback and suggestions provided by the EFAB regarding 1) opportunities for cross work between the two groups and 2) the ( environmental finance) needs of the EPA land protection programs Topics the EFAB is currently address that may overlap with the NACEPT Subcommittee include: tax increment financing, how to help states meet their cost share, and assessing whether there is a value in helping to make capital markets work more efficiently through standardized terms in financial instruments.

John Ehrmann reviewed the agenda for the day. During the first half of the day, the Subcommittee would take the work group issues raised the previous day one at a time to discuss opinions, recommendations and next steps.

Work Group Issues Discussion The Subcommittee members went through the issues raised by both of the work groups to discuss the draft recommendations, policy issues and driving questions.

NACEPT Superfund Subcommittee 4 March 10 12, 2003 Meeting Summary Developed by Meridian Institute Site Types Work Group Discussions NPL Screening and Coordinating Committee Discussion Key Discussion Questions:   Do you support moving forward the work group's consensus on ways to improve early screening?   Can these ideas be combined with the ongoing evaluation of a coordinating committee?   What are your views on the two NPL scenarios? Should sites on the NPL compete for funding ( Scenario 1)? or Should sites compete to get on the NPL ( Scenario 2)? Which scenario should be carried forward or should both be evaluated further?

HRS Discussion Questions to lead discussion:   Does the Subcommittee support capturing " observations" on the HRS in its report to EPA?   Is it worth pursuing a more detailed analysis of the HRS?   What additional analysis or evaluation on the HRS is needed short/ long term to support Subcommittee deliberations?

Funding Prioritization Questions to lead discussion:   Does the Subcommittee want to recommend a system of funding prioritization for sites on the NPL?   Is the current system a good place to start?   What additional evaluation and analysis of funding prioritization criteria is needed?

Arizona and Region 9 Cleanup Programs Panel Shannon Davis, Director of the Waste Programs Division of the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality, moderated a panel of Regional, State and local representatives who addressed their experiences with the Arizona state program and the integration of federal and state cleanup programs. Members of the Panel included the following individuals:

  Keith Takata, Superfund Director, Region IX, EPA   Patrick Cunningham, Deputy Director, ADEQ   Philip McNeely, Manager, Superfund Programs Section, ADEQ   Rick Lavis, Chairman of the Advisory Board for the state's Water Quality Assurance Revolving Fund   Karen Masbruch, Director of Environmental Services, City of Tucson NACEPT Superfund Subcommittee 5 March 10 12, 2003 Meeting Summary Developed by Meridian Institute Discussion followed the presentations. Key points raised during the presentations and the subsequent discussion included the following:

  There is more than enough work out there for all of the different programs   every year, every month, discovering new sites.   Threat of the NPL is important, but it is not the first option considered in Region 9. Other options are considered first to decide if it is the right tool.   Extremely recalcitrant PRPs or very complex sites may necessitate a combination of legal authorities.   There is a need to fit the site to the program.   if you only have a hammer then everything looks like a nail.   A lot of the other statutes cannot deal with the worst sites.   It is important to have a strong Superfund Program. It helps the local authorities and creates a back up for the other programs  helps make them strong.   Appropriators in the Arizona legislature have been using some of the money from the state tax that was supposed to go to the program and using it for other purposes.   The state has made an effort to enhance community involvement by requiring Community Advisory Boards for each site, which help to determine uses and outcomes for the site.   The state program is facing a serious lack of funding despite the assumption of " assured" funding when the law was created. As a result, financial assurances are not adequate to address existing cleanup liabilities.   Federal Superfund programs may address a broader range of contamination than the state program ( e. g. aquifer restoration)

Site Specific Example of Cleanup Program Integration South Indian Bend Wash ( SIBW) was featured as a case example of a site cleanup that has integrated federal and state cleanup programs. The site illustrated key issues relevant to the Subcommittee's deliberations. Shannon Davis, Director of the Waste Programs Division of the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality, moderated the session. Panelists included the following individuals:

  Karen Gaylord, Salman, Lewis & Weldon   Phil Lagas, Brown and Caldwell   Amanda Stone, Capacity Development Section, ADEQ   Brad Wilde, M& B Capital Partners, L. L. C.

The purpose of the SIBW collaborative effort was to jointly redevelop the Superfund site. Presenters provided the following information:   Background on the site   Details on the history of redevelopment area   Obstacles   Future direction NACEPT Superfund Subcommittee 6 March 10 12, 2003 Meeting Summary Developed by Meridian Institute Following the panel discussions, the Subcommittee resumed discussions of work group issues.

Continuation of Work Group Topic Discussions Mega Sites Discussion Discussion Questions   Does the Subcommittee want to pursue further an alternative approach to classifying big complex sites?   For these sites should we further consider recommendations related to:  Subdividing  Identifying specific categories of sites and alternative approaches for them  Enforcement   Would it be better to look at the mega site issue in isolation or to fuse it into other related topics ( e. g., early screening/ Coordinating Committee, funding prioritization)?

Cleanup Programs Work Group Discussions Discussion of Federal Programs   Does the Subcommittee support carrying forward the observations on Federal programs in its report to EPA?   What are your views on the Coordinating Committee? How should this idea be carried forward?   What additional analyses or evaluations on Federal Programs are needed to support deliberations ( short and long term)?

Discussion of State Programs   Does the Subcommittee support carrying forward observations on state programs in its report to EPA?   Should there be further inquiry into state programs' innovations/ good practices?   What additional analyses or evaluations on state programs are needed to support deliberations ( short and long term)?

Discussion of Funding & Efficiencies   Does the Subcommittee support moving forward with further analysis and evaluation of funding/ efficiencies around options 2 or 3?   What additional analysis or evaluation is needed to support deliberations ( short and long term)?

Public Comment Members of the public were invited to comment on their perspectives and concerns regarding Superfund and the work of the Subcommittee. Dan Randolph from the Mineral Policy Center offered remarks. His testimony is included in the meeting transcript.

The public meeting adjourned at approximately 5: 45 P. M. Members of the public were welcome to stay for the Community Involvement Panel.

NACEPT Superfund Subcommittee 7 March 10 12, 2003 Meeting Summary Developed by Meridian Institute Community Involvement Panel Community Advisory Board members and other public interest perspectives participated in a panel and interactive discussion with the Subcommittee. Panel members included the following individuals:   Karen Peters, East Washington Fluff Community Advisory Board   Frank Connell, Central Camelback Community Advisory Board   Dan Randolf, Mineral Policy Center   Terry Davis, West Van Buren Community Advisory Board   Louis Rhodes, West Van Buren Community Advisory Board A few of the topics addressed in the presentations and discussion included the following:

  State officials in Arizona have shown that they were willing to integrate the perspectives and interests of the community into their plans for sites.   When developing relationships with the impacted communities, there is a need for true transparency, clarity of cleanup goals, listening and an indication that the input received will change actions.   It is important to recognize the difference between restoration and closure and the clear difference in the perception of the two. ( e. g. healing the site for the community vs. meeting regulatory requirements)   There is a need for Technical Advisory Grants ( TAGs) to help the communities participate effectively and engage independent experts.   Cleanup activities can stimulate the economy of an area. The stigma of Superfund is that it is has a negative economic impact on communities.   Personal contact and connection is the most important part of connecting with the community.   Trust is earned   and takes a lot of time.   The expenses of involving the community are a drop in the bucket compared to site costs, and it is an investment worth making.

Wednesday, March 12, 2003 Work Group Session   Closed to the Public John Ehrmann and Ray Loehr reviewed a proposed work plan and path forward for the group. The work of the Subcommittee was organized according to sub group efforts as follows:

Writing Teams ( 2 3 person teams to develop the ideas/ sections that have already been developed in draft, discussed by the Subcommittee and ready for preliminary drafting of text for the Final Report).   HRS   Program Funding and Efficiencies   Federal Programs   Prevention Issues   Characteristics that define large complex sites ( Mega sites)

NACEPT Superfund Subcommittee 8 March 10 12, 2003 Meeting Summary Developed by Meridian Institute Creating Teams ( For issues somewhat developed, but needing more discussion among a small group of members)   Prioritization of Sites once they are on the NPL   Use of NPL ( AKA " NPL Scenarios")   Subdividing Sites   State Programs Work Groups 1) NPL Listing   Early Screening   Community Involvement, TAGs and Tribal role   Coordinating Committee   RI/ FS development for more sites   Preliminary RI and other special approaches to large complex sites 2) Measuring Program Progress ( Lead: Ed Lorenz, Mike Tilchin)

NEXT MEETING Location: The next plenary meeting of the Subcommittee will be held in New Bedford, MA from June 17 19th . The group agreed that the goal will be to schedule the main meeting for a half day on the 17th , a full day on the 18th and a closed working group session for half the day on the 19th . Additionally, a field trip will be scheduled for the morning of the 17th .

Agenda: The majority of the meeting agenda will focus on review, comment and deliberation over the draft materials for the final report. Additionally, the following topics were suggested by the members:   Environmental Justice Panel   Sediment Management Working Group   Experience of local community from Aniston, AL   Local perspectives from New Bedford.

Subcommittee members should assume that both evenings ( 17th and 18th ) are likely to include working group meetings and/ or panel presentations.

The Subcommittee meeting adjourned at approximately12: 30 p. m.

NACEPT Superfund Subcommittee 9 March 10 12, 2003 Meeting Summary Developed by Meridian Institute ATTACHMENTS A. Meeting Purpose Statement B. Presentations 1. Report from Technical Assistance Grant Recipients Workshop in Albuquerque 2. Site Types Work Group Presentation 3. Cleanup Programs Work Group Presentation 4. Keith Takata   Region 9 EPA Presentation NACEPT Superfund Subcommittee 10 March 10 12, 2003 Meeting Summary Developed by Meridian Institute Introductory Information NACEPT Superfund Subcommittee March 10 12, 2003 Meeting The Superfund Subcommittee of the National Advisory Council for Environmental Policy and Technology ( NACEPT) was established in June 2002 for the purpose of assisting EPA in identifying the future direction of the Superfund Program in the context of other federal and state waste and site cleanup programs. Specifically, the Subcommittee will review the relevant documentation and, to the extent possible, provide answers to questions that relate to: a) the role of the NPL, b) mega sites, and c) measuring program performance. The Subcommittee will operate as and be subject to the requirements of a Federal Advisory Committee.

Membership on the committee represents a diversity of interests. Subcommittee members include senior level decision makers and experts from: academia, business and industry, community and environmental advocacy groups, state, local and tribal governments, environmental justice, and non governmental and professional organizations. Dr. Raymond Loehr, Professor of Civil Engineering at the University of Texas in Austin, is the chair of the Subcommittee.

The Subcommittee is working to accomplish its Charge through quarterly Subcommittee meetings and interim Work Group meetings over about an 18 month period. It is anticipated that one or a series of consensus reports will result from the Subcommittee deliberations. However, where consensus cannot be reached, a written discussion of the views of Subcommittee members is to be provided. As appropriate, the Subcommittee may also respond to issues in the form of " consultation," i. e., dialogue, rather than a formal written report.

Interactive discussion and questioning for the purpose of probing an issue and clarifying a point will be encouraged. As such, any material developed by any work group, any presentations by a work group or work group member, or comments made by Subcommittee Members at this and future meetings should neither be interpreted to reflect their current position on the subject under discussion nor their future position as it may evolve over the course of deliberation. Additionally, the comments of a work group or an individual Subcommittee Member should not be interpreted as positions of the Subcommittee or the EPA.

The Subcommittee will deliberate thoroughly before developing consensus findings, conclusions or recommendations. Any report on the opinion of the group will undergo rigorous review by all Subcommittee Members before it is considered final and transmitted to EPA.

NACEPT Superfund Subcommittee A 1 March 10 12, 2003 Meeting Summary Developed by Meridian Institute Subcommittee Meetings To date, the Subcommittee has held three meetings in Washington D. C. ( June 17 19, 2002; September 23 24, 2002 and January 7 8, 2003). A summary of the meetings can be obtained via the EPA website at ( http:// www. epa. gov/ oswer/ SFsub. htm ). Highlights from the most recent meeting are included below.

January 2003 Meeting The NACEPT Superfund Subcommittee held its third meeting January 7 through 8, 2002 in Washington, DC. The meeting was open to the public. The following information provides a brief overview of that meeting.

The main purposes of the meeting included the following:

  Provide an opportunity for each of the three Work Groups to report on the status of their deliberations and engage in discussions with the diverse perspectives on the Subcommittee regarding the direction of assumptions, policy options and information gathering.   Provide educational information on Tribal issues relevant to the Subcommittee's Charge.   Provide a briefing from and opportunity for discussion with the EPA Administrator.   Provide an opportunity for Work Groups to meet face to face.   Review the Subcommittee schedule and determine a path forward; and   Provide an opportunity for public comment.

As a result of the deliberations during the January 2003 meeting, the Subcommittee agreed to maintain the three work groups established at the September 2002 meeting. The Site Types Work Group was asked to focus on the listing process; the future role of the NPL given the number and types of cleanup sites that are expected; the prioritization of funding for sites once they are listed on the NPL and how to address large, complex sites that may become very costly (" mega" sites). The Cleanup Programs Work Group was asked to focus its efforts on completing its research of other cleanup programs so that the NPL can be considered in the broader context of other cleanup programs. Additionally, they were asked to consider other sources of funding possibilities for increasing efficiencies to Program implementation. The Measuring Program Progress Work Group chose to take a hiatus between the January and March meetings in order to focus the efforts of the group members on the increasing demands of the other two groups. When the Work Group reconvenes, they will continue to provide advice to the Agency on its internal efforts to develop Superfund Program performance measures while developing additional options for program measurements to be considered by the Subcommittee.

NACEPT Superfund Subcommittee A 2 March 10 12, 2003 Meeting Summary Developed by Meridian Institute Summary of Activity Since Last Meeting During the period of time between the January 2003 meeting and the March 2003 meeting, the Subcommittee members participated in work group activities via conference calls and face to face meetings. Subcommittee members supported the implementation of work group activities by drafting and reviewing summaries of background information, and developing assumptions and policy options for future consideration by the Subcommittee. The results of the work group efforts will be presented and discussed with the full Subcommittee at the March 2003 meeting.

Objectives of the March 10 12 Meeting The March 10 12, 2003 meeting is intended to accomplish the following objectives:

  Provide an opportunity for the Site Types and Cleanup Programs Work Groups to report on their process and status of their deliberations.   Engage the full Subcommittee in discussions regarding preliminary conclusions, policy options and recommendations developed by the Work Groups.   Provide input from the state of Arizona EPA, Region 9 regarding experience relevant to the Subcommittee's Charge.   Provide input from Community members with experience in the state and federal cleanup programs.   Determine the Work Groups and the focus of activities between the March 2003 and June 2003 plenary meetings.   Review the Subcommittee schedule and determine a path forward; and   Provide an opportunity for public comment.   Provide Subcommittee Members an opportunity to visit a large complex mining site being addressed through the State cleanup program.

This is an open session for public record. Interested individuals and members of the press have been invited to attend as observers. We will be entertaining questions from the floor during the designated times on the agenda. Angelo Carasea, the Designated Federal Officer, will be available to assist reporters and other interested individuals who would like additional information. His contact information is available on the Roster at the registration table.

NACEPT Superfund Subcommittee A 3 March 10 12, 2003 Meeting Summary Developed by Meridian Institute NACEPT Superfund Subcommittee B 1 March 10 12, 2003 Meeting Summary Developed by Meridian Institute Attachment B   Presentations Attachment B   Presentations available electronically as separate documents:

1. Report from Technical Assistance Grant Recipients Workshop in Albuquerque 2. Site Types Work Group Presentation 3. Cleanup Programs Work Group Presentation 4. Keith Takata   Region 9 EPA Presentation


  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 FILE NAME:   company.wpt   (1/1/2005) (xml)

Template Number P25

ATTENTION:

	All commodity terms must comply with the Food and Feed Commodity
Vocabulary database (http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/foodfeed/).

	All text in blue font (instructions for preparing the document), should
be removed prior to sending the document to the Federal Register Staff.
Instructional text and prompts in green font should also be removed.

COMPANY FEDERAL REGISTER DOCUMENT SUBMISSION TEMPLATE

(1/1/2005)

EPA Registration Division contact: [Tony Kish, Product Manager 22
(703)-308-9443]

INSTRUCTIONS:  Please utilize this outline in preparing tolerance
petition documents.  In cases where the outline element does not apply
please insert “NA-Remove” and maintain the outline.  The comment
notes that appear on the left margin represent hidden typesetting codes
designed to expedite the processing of the Federal Register document.
Please do not remove or alter these comment notes or change the margins,
font, or format  in your document. Simply replace the instructions that
appear in italics and brackets, i.e., “[insert company name],” with
the information specific to your action.

TEMPLATE:

 by establishing a tolerance for residues of the fungicide
pyraclostrobin, carbamic acid,
[2-[[[1-(4-chlorophenyl)-1H-pyrazol-3-yl]oxy]methyl]phenyl]methoxy-,
methyl ester and its metabolite methyl-N-[[[1-(4-chlorophenyl)
pyrazol-3-yl]oxy]o-tolyl] carbamate (BF 500-3); expressed as parent
compound in or on the raw agricultural commodities [oat, grain] at[ 1.0]
parts per million (ppm), [oat, hay] at [17] ppm, [oat, straw] at [17]
ppm, and [oilseed, group[ at [0.4] ppm.  EPA has determined that the
petition contains data or information regarding the elements set forth
in section 408(d)(2) of the FFDCA; however, EPA has not fully evaluated
the sufficiency of the submitted data at this time or whether the data
supports granting of the petition.  Additional data may be needed before
EPA rules on the petition.

.  The reproductive and developmental toxicity of pyraclostrobin was
investigated in a 2-generation rat reproduction study as well as in rat
and rabbit teratology studies.  There were no adverse effects on
reproduction, systemic toxicity to adults or developmental toxicity in
the two-generation study so the NOAEL is the highest dose tested of 300
ppm (approximately 32.6 mg/kg bw/day).

No teratogenic effects were noted in either the rat or rabbit
developmental studies.  In the rat study, maternal toxicity observed at
the mid and high dose consisted of decreased food consumption and body
weight gain.  Developmental changes noted at the high dose were
increased incidences of dilated renal pelvis and cervical ribs with no
cartilage.  The maternal NOAEL was 10 mg/kg bw and the developmental
NOAEL was 25 mg/kg bw.

The subchronic toxicity of pyraclostrobin was investigated in 90-day
feeding studies with rats, mice and dogs, and in a 28-day dermal
administration study in rats.  A 90-day neurotoxicity study in rats was
also performed.  Generally, mild toxicity was observed.  At high dose
levels in feeding studies, general findings in all three species were
decreased food consumption and body weight gain and a thickening of the
duodenum.  Anemia occurred at high dose levels in both rats and mice
with accompanying extramedullary hematopoiesis of the spleen in rats.
In rats only, a finding of liver cell hypertrophy was indicative of a
physiological response to the handling of the chemical.   The lowest
NOAEL in the 90-day feeding studies was from the dog study and
determined to be 5.8 mg/kg bw/day.

In the 28-day repeat dose dermal study, no systemic effects were noted
up to the highest dose tested of 250 mg/kg bw/day.

. Pyraclostrobin was administered to groups of 5 male and 5 female
purebred Beagle dogs in the diet at concentrations of 0, 100, 200 and
400 ppm over a period of 12 months.   Signs of toxicity were observed at
the high dose.  Diarrhea was observed throughout the study period for
both sexes. High dose males and females initially lost weight and body
weight gain was decreased for the entire study period for females.
Hematological changes observed were an increase in white blood cells in
males, and an increase in platelets in both sexes at the high dose.
Clinical chemistry demonstrated a decrease in serum total protein,
albumin, globulins and cholesterol in high dose animals of both sexes
possibly due to the diarrhea and reduced nutritional status of the
animals.  The NOAEL was 200 ppm (ca. 5.5 mg/kg bw/day males; 5.4 mg/kg
bw/day females).

In an oncogenicity study, pyraclostrobin was administered to groups of
50 male and 50 female Wistar rats at dietary concentrations of 0; 25;
75, and 200 ppm for 24 months.  In a companion chronic toxicity study,
20 rats/sex were used at the same dose levels as in the oncogenicity
study.  A body weight gain depression of 10-11% in males and 14-22% in
females with an accompanying decrease in food efficiency was observed at
the high dose.  There was no evidence that pyraclostrobin produced a
carcinogenic effect in rats.  The NOAEL for the chronic rat and the
cancer rat study is 75 ppm (ca. 3.4 mg/kg bw/day males; 4.7 mg/kg bw/day
females).

Pyraclostrobin was administered to groups of 50 male and 50 female
B6C3F1 mice at dietary concentrations of 0, 10, 30, 120 and 180 ppm
(females only) for 18 months.  Body weights were reduced at the highest
doses tested in both males and females.  At the high dose, body weight
gain decreases of 27% in females and 29% in males with an accompanying
decrease in food efficiency were observed.  No other signs of toxicity
were noted at any dose level.  The NOAEL  was found to be 30 ppm (ca.
4.1 mg/kg bw/day) for males. The Agency determined that the body weight
effect at the high dose in females was not sufficient to determine an
MTD.  Therefore the NOAEL for females is considered greater than the
highest dose tested of 32.8 mg/kg bw/day.   There was no evidence that
pyraclostrobin produced a carcinogenic effect in mice.

. Exposure assessments were conducted to evaluate the potential risk due
to acute and chronic dietary exposure of the U.S. population to residues
of pyraclostrobin.  This fungicide and its desmethoxy metabolite, in or
on raw agricultural commodities, and metabolites in or on animal fat,
liver, meat and meat byproducts were expressed as the parent compound.
The tolerance values previously established for various cereals,
vegetables, fruits, and animal products are listed in the U.S. EPA final
rule published in the Federal Register October 29, 2004 (Vol 69, No.
209, p 63083 – 63100) and U.S. 40 CFR § 180.582.  This analysis
included all current and proposed tolerance values for pyraclostrobin,
including oat, grain (1.0 ppm), oat, hay (17 ppm), oat, straw (17 ppm),
and oil seed, group (0.4 ppm):

The pyraclostrobin chronic reference dose (cRfD) is 0.034 mg/kg bw/day
based on the NOAEL of 3.4 mg/kg bw/day in the rat chronic toxicity study
and a 100X safety factor.  The acute reference dose (aRfD) is 3 mg/kg
b.w./day for the general population based on a NOAEL from the acute
neurotoxicity study of 300 mg/kg bw/day and a 100X safety factor.  For
females of child bearing years (13-49 years), the aRfD is 0.05 mg/kg
b.w./day based on the NOAEL of 5 mg/kg bw/day from the rabbit teratology
study and a 100X safety factor.  The EPA determined that the FQPA safety
factor should be 1X for all exposure scenarios.  Therefore, the acute
Population Adjusted Dose (aPAD) and the chronic Population Adjusted Dose
(cPAD) are the same as the aRfD and cRfD, respectively.

Acute Dietary Exposure Assessment

The acute dietary exposure estimates were based on tolerance values,
default process factors, 100% crop treated values for all commodities
except for leafy vegetables, pome fruit, stone fruit, and citrus crop
groups where the percent crop treated (%CT) values listed in the U.S.
EPA document DP Barcode No. D323632 (November 30, 2005) were utilized.
The consumption data was from the USDA Continuing Survey of Food Intake
by Individuals (CSFII 1994 - 1996, 1998) and the EPA Food Commodity
Ingredient Database (FCID) using Exponent's Dietary Exposure Evaluation
Module (DEEM-FCID) software.

The acute population adjusted dose (aPAD) used for females 13-49 years
of age was 0.05 mg/kg bw/day and 3.0 mg/kg bw/day for all other
sub-populations.   Considering the exposure assumptions discussed above,
pyraclostobin acute dietary exposure from food is less than 5.1 % aPAD
for the U.S. population and all sub-populations except females 13-49
years of age that occupies 85.4 % of the aPAD.  The results of the acute
dietary assessment are presented in Table 1.

Table 1.	Results for Pyraclostrobin Acute Dietary Exposure Analysis
Considering all Current and Proposed Tolerances Including Oat and Oil
Seed Group Using DEEM-FCID at the 95th Percentile

Population	Exposure Estimate	%aPAD

Subgroups	(mg/kg b.w./day)*

U.S. Population	0.056138	1.87

All Infants (< 1 year old)	0.12302	4.10

Children (1-2 years old)	0.148364	4.95

Children (3-5 years old)	0.106797	3.56

Children (6-12 years old)	0.061887	2.06

Youth (13-19 years old)	0.042725	1.42

Females (13-49 years old)	0.042689	85.38

Adults (20-49 years old)	0.041876	1.40

Adults (50+ years old)	0.041314	1.38

aPAD = acute population adjusted dose

* Exposure Estimate (95th percentile) was based on tolerance values,
default processing factors, and considering 100% crop treated for all
commodities except for leafy vegetables, pome fruit, stone fruit, and
citrus fruit groups which included the percent crop treated values
listed in U.S. EPA document DP Barcode No. D323632 (November 30, 2005)

The results of the analysis show that for all sub-populations, the
exposures are below the Agency's level of concern (< 100% aPAD).
Additional refinements in the dietary risk assessment (i.e. utilizing
anticipated residue values, process factors, percent crop treated values
for all crops) would further reduce the estimated exposure values.

Chronic Dietary Exposure Assessment

The chronic dietary exposure estimates were based on tolerance values
for all commodities with the exception that anticipated residues were
utilized for leafy vegetables, apples, and pears; default process
factors; % crop treated values listed in the U.S. EPA document DP
Barcode No. D323632 (November 30, 2005); and 100% crop treated values
for oat and oil seed.  The consumption data was from the USDA Continuing
Survey of Food Intake by Individuals (CSFII 1994 - 1996, 1998) and the
EPA Food Commodity Ingredient Database (FCID) using Exponent's Dietary
Exposure Evaluation Module (DEEM-FCID) software.  The tolerance values
included the proposed 1.0 ppm for oat grain, 17 ppm for oat (straw and
hay), and 0.4 ppm for oil seed.

The chronic population adjusted dose (cPAD) used for U.S. population and
all sub-populations is 0.034 mg/kg bw/day. Considering the exposure
assumptions discussed above, pyraclostobin chronic dietary exposure from
food for the U.S. population was 16.0 % of the cPAD.  The most highly
exposure population sub group was children 1-2 years of age at 47.3%
cPAD.   The results of the chronic dietary assessment are presented in
Table 2.

Table 2. 	Results for Pyraclostrobin Chronic Dietary Exposure Analysis
Considering all Current and Proposed Tolerances Including Oat and Oil
Seed Using DEEM-FCID

Population	Exposure Estimate	%cPAD

Subgroups	(mg/kg b.w./day)

U.S. Population	0.005447	16.0

All Infants (< 1 year old)	0.011588	34.1

Children (1-2 years old)	0.016084	47.3

Children (3-5 years old)	0.012817	37.7

Children (6-12 years old)	0.007984	23.5

Youth (13-19 years old)	0.004461	13.1

Females (13-49 years old)	0.003899	11.5

Adults (20-49 years old)	0.004061	11.9

Adults (50+ years old)	0.00422	12.4

cPAD = chronic  population adjusted dose

* Exposure estimates based on tolerance values for all commodities with
the exception of anticipated residues for leafy vegetables, apples, and
pears; default processing factor; and considering % crop treated values
listed in the U.S. EPA document DP Barcode No. D323632 (November 30,
2005); and 100% crop treated values for oat and oil seed group.

The results of the analysis show that for all sub-populations, the
exposures are below a level of concern (< 100% cPAD).  Additional
refinements in the chronic dietary risk assessment (i.e. utilizing
anticipated residue values for all crops) would further reduce the
estimated exposure values.

. Based on the PRZM/EXAMS and SCIGROW models, the peak EDWCs of
pyraclostrobin for acute exposure are estimated to be 22.6 ug/L (ppb) in
surface water and 0.02 ug/L in shallow ground water.  The peak EDWCs for
chronic exposure are estimated to be 1.9 ug/L in surface water and 0.02
ug/L in shallow ground water.  These concentrations are based on maximum
applications to turf, which have the highest labeled application rate of
any pyraclostrobin use.

Drinking water contributions were assessed based on the maximum
estimated pyraclostrobin water concentrations (acute - 22.6 ug/L,
chronic 1.9 ug/L), and water consumption and body weights reported in
CSFII, using DEEM-FCID software.  The acute and chronic estimated water
exposure values are summarized in Tables 3 and 4, respectively.  Minimal
exposure of pyraclostrobin occurs through drinking water with < 0.5% the
aPAD and cPAD for all subpopulations with the exception of females 13-49
years of age with a 2.2% aPAD.

Table 3. 	Results for Pyraclostrobin Acute Water Exposure Analysis
Considering the Maximum Estimated Acute Drinking Water Concentration
using

DEEM-FCID

Population	Water Exposure Estimate	%aPAD

Subgroups	(mg/kg b.w./day)

U.S. Population	0.001181	0.04

All Infants (< 1 year old)	0.004451	0.15

Children (1-2 years old)	0.001852	0.06

Children (3-5 years old)	0.001692	0.06

Children (6-12 years old)	0.001178	0.04

Youth (13-19 years old)	0.000958	0.03

Females (13-49 years old)	0.001100	2.20

Adults (20-49 years old)	0.001094	0.04

Adults (50+ years old)	0.000988	0.03

aPAD = acute  population adjusted dose

Based on estimated acute surface water value of 22.6 ug/L

Table 4. 	Results for Pyraclostrobin Chronic Water Exposure Analysis
Considering the Maximum Estimated Chronic Drinking Water Concentration
using DEEM-FCID

Population	Water Exposure Estimate	%cPAD

Subgroups	(mg/kg b.w./day)

U.S. Population	0.00004	0.1

All Infants (< 1 year old)	0.000131	0.4

Children (1-2 years old)	0.000059	0.2

Children (3-5 years old)	0.000056	0.2

Children (6-12 years old)	0.000038	0.1

Youth (13-19 years old)	0.000029	0.1

Females (13-49 years old)	0.000037	0.1

Adults (20-49 years old)	0.000037	0.1

Adults (50+ years old)	0.000039	0.1

cPAD = chronic  population adjusted dose

Based on estimated chronic surface water value of 1.9 ug/L

Acute Aggregate Exposure and Risk (Food and water)

The aggregate acute risk includes residues of pyraclostrobin from food
and water (Table 5). Exposures from residential uses are not included in
the acute aggregate assessment.  The results demonstrate that there are
no safety concerns for any subpopulation based on established and new
uses, and that the results clearly meet the FQPA standard of reasonable
certainty of no harm.

Table 5. 	Estimated Acute Aggregate Exposure and Risk of Pyraclostrobin

Population Subgroup	aPAD (mg/kg/day)	Food Exposure (mg/kg/day)	Water
Exposure (mg/kg/day)	Total Exposure (mg/kg/day)	% aPAD

U.S. Population	3	0.056138	0.001181	0.057319	1.91

All Infants (< 1 yr old)	3	0.12302	0.004451	0.127471	4.25

Children 1-2 years	3	0.148364	0.001852	0.150216	5.01

Children 3-5 years	3	0.106797	0.001692	0.108489	3.62

Children 6 – 12 years	3	0.061887	0.001178	0.063065	2.10

Youth 13-19 years	3	0.042725	0.000958	0.043683	1.46

Females 13-49 years	0.05	0.042689	0.0011	0.043789	87.58

Adults 20-49 years	3	0.041876	0.001094	0.04297	1.43

Adults + 50	3	0.041314	0.000988	0.042302	1.41

Short- and Intermediate Term Aggregate Exposure and Risk (food,water,
and residential)

Short-term aggregate risk from pyraclostrobin takes into account
exposures from dietary consumption (food and water) and residential
exposure from turf use.  Post application exposure from the turf use is
considered short-term.  The aggregate MOE from food, water, and
residential exposure are 110 and 237 for the children 1-2 years old and
the US population, respectively.  These MOE are greater than the target
MOE of 100 which indicates there is no safety concern.  The results of
the analysis are shown in Table 6.

Table 6. 	Estimated Short/Intermediate Term Aggregate Exposure and Risk
of Pyraclostrobin

Population	NOAEL (mg/kg/day)	Target MOE1	Food Exposure (mg/kg/day)	Water
Exposure (mg/kg/day)	Residential Exposure2 (mg/kg/day)	Total Exposure
(mg/kg/day)	MOE3

US	5.8	100	0.005447	0.00004	0.019	0.024487	237

Child 1-2 yr old	5.8	100	0.016084	0.000059	0.036425	0.052568	110

1 Target MOE is 100.

2  Residential Exposure = Exposure to adult while playing golf.

3 Aggregate MOE = (NOAEL / (Food + Water + Residential Exposure)

 Chronic Aggregate Exposure and Risk (food and water)

The aggregate chronic risk includes residues of pyraclostrobin from food
and water (Table 7). Exposures from residential uses are not included in
the chronic aggregate assessment.  The results demonstrate there are no
safety concerns for any subpopulation based on established and new uses,
and that the results clearly meet the FQPA standard of reasonable
certainty of no harm.

  Table 7. 	Estimated Chronic Aggregate Exposure and Risk of
Pyraclostrobin

Population Subgroup	cPAD (mg/kg/day)	Food Exposure (mg/kg/day)	Water
Exposure (mg/kg/day)	Total Exposure (mg/kg/day)	% cPAD

U.S. Population	0.034	0.005447	0.00004	0.005487	16.14

All Infants (< 1 yr old)	0.034	0.011588	0.000131	0.011719	34.47

Children 1-2 years	0.034	0.016084	0.000059	0.016143	47.48

Children 3-5 years	0.034	0.012817	0.000056	0.012873	37.86

Children 6 – 12 years	0.034	0.007984	0.000038	0.008022	23.59

Youth 13-19 years	0.034	0.004461	0.000029	0.00449	13.21

Females 13-49 years	0.034	0.003899	0.000037	0.003936	11.58

Adults 20-49 years	0.034	0.004061	0.000037	0.004098	12.05

Adults + 50	0.034	0.00422	0.000039	0.004259	12.53

Aggregate Cancer Risk for U.S. Population

The aggregate MOE value (considering food and drinking water) was
calculated for pyraclostrobin and is shown in Table 8.  The 36-year
average of pyraclostrobin in surface water that was estimated by
PRZM/EXAMS for use in the chronic/cancer risk assessment is 1.2 ug/L.
The results demonstrate there are no safety concerns for US population
based on established and new uses, and that the results clearly meet the
FQPA standard of reasonable certainty of no harm.

Table 8. 	Aggregate Cancer Risk of Pyraclostrobin to the U.S. Population

Population	NOAEL (mg/kg/day)	Food Exposure (mg/kg/day)	Water Exposure
(mg/kg/day)	Total Exposure (mg/kg/day)	Total MOE

U.S. Population	32.80	0.005447	0.000025	0.005472	5994

	Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) 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.'  Pyraclostrobin is a foliar fungicide
which belongs to the new class of strobilurin chemistry.  It is a
synthetic analog of strobilurin A, a naturally occurring antifungal
metabolite of the mushroom Strobillurus tenacellus (Anke et. al., 1977).
The active ingredient acts in the fungal cell through inhibition of
electron transport in the mitochondrial respiratory chain at the
position of the cytochrome-bc1 complex.  The protective effect is due to
the resultant death of the fungal cells by disorganization of the fungal
membrane system.  Pyraclostrobin also acts curatively to prevent the
increase and spread of fungal infections by inhibiting mycelial growth
and sporulation on the leaf surface. Pyraclostrobin inhibits spore
germination, germ tube growth and penetration into the host tissues

{<HD1>}

{</HD1>}

{<HD2>}

{</HD2>}

{<P>}

{</P>}

{<HD2>}

{</HD2>}

{<P>}

{<E T=’03'>}

{</E>}

{</P>}

{<P>}

{<E T=’03'>}

{</E>}

{</P>}

{<P>}

{<E T=’03'>}

{</E>}

{</P>}

{<HD2>}

{</HD2>}

{<P>}

{<E T=’03'>}

{</E>}

{</P>}

{<P>}

{<E T=’03'>}

{</E>}

{</P>}

{<P>}

{<E T=’03'>}

{</E>}

{</P>}

{<P>}

{<E T=’03'>}

{</E>}

{</P>}

{<P>}

{<E T=’03'>}

{</E>}

{</P>}

{<P>}

{<E T=’03'>}

{</E>}

{</P>}

{<P>}

{<E T=’03'>}

{</E>}

{</P>}

{<P>}

{<E T=’03'>}

{</E>}

{</P>}

{<HD2>}

{</HD2>}

{<P>}

{<E T=’03'>}

{</E>}

{<P>}

{<E T=’03'>}

{</E>}

{</P>}

{<P>}

{<E T=’03'>}

{</E>}

{<P>}

{<E T=’03'>}

{</E>}

{</P>}

{<HD2>}

{</HD2>}

{<P>}

{</P>}

{<HD2>}

{</HD2>}

{<P>}

{<E T=’03'>}

{</E>}

{</P>}

{<P>}

{<E T=’03'>}

{</E>}

{</P>}

{<HD2>}

{</HD2>}

{<P>}

{</P>}


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 185 (Monday, September 24, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 48307]
[FR Doc No: 2018-20634]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0200, FRL-9984-25-OEI]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to OMB for
Review and Approval; Comment Request; Final Authorization for Hazardous
Waste Management Programs (Renewal)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has submitted an
information collection request (ICR), Final Authorization for Hazardous
Waste Management Programs (EPA ICR Number 0969.11, OMB Control Number
2050-0041) 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, 2018. Public comments were previously requested via the
Federal Register on May 8, 2018 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 24,
2018.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OLEM-
2018-0200, to (1) EPA, either online using www.regulations.gov (our
preferred method), or by email to [email protected], or by mail to:
RCRA Docket (2822T), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20460; and (2) OMB via email to
[email protected]. Address comments to OMB Desk Officer for
EPA.
    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.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Peggy Vyas, (mail code 5303P),
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington,
DC 20460; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email address: [email protected].

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: In order for a State to obtain final authorization for a
State hazardous waste program or to revise its previously authorized
program, it must submit an official application to the EPA Regional
office for approval. The purpose of the application is to enable the
EPA to properly determine whether the State's program meets the
requirements of Sec.  3006 of RCRA. A State with an approved program
may voluntarily transfer program responsibilities to EPA by notifying
the EPA of the proposed transfer, as required by section 271.23.
Further, the EPA may withdraw a State's authorized program under
section 271.23.
    State program revision may be necessary when the controlling
Federal or State statutory or regulatory authority is modified or
supplemented. In the event that the State is revising its program by
adopting new Federal requirements, the State shall prepare and submit
modified revisions of the program description, Attorney General's
statement, Memorandum of Agreement, or such other documents as the EPA
determines to be necessary. The State shall inform the EPA of any
proposed modifications to its basic statutory or regulatory authority
in accordance with section 271.21. If a State is proposing to transfer
all or any part of any program from the approved State agency to any
other agency, it must notify the EPA in accordance with section 271.21
and submit revised organizational charts as required under section
271.6, in accordance with section 271.21. These paperwork requirements
are mandatory under Sec.  3006(a). The EPA will use the information
submitted by the State in order to determine whether the State's
program meets the statutory and regulatory requirements for
authorization.
    Form numbers: None.
    Respondents/affected entities: State/territorial governments.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (RCRA Sec.  3006(a)).
    Estimated number of respondents: 50.
    Frequency of response: Annual.
    Total estimated burden: 9,996 hours per year. Burden is defined at
5 CFR 1320.03(b).
    Total estimated cost: $386,618 (per year), includes $386,618 in
annualized labor and $0 in annualized capital or operation &
maintenance costs.
    Changes in the estimates: There is decrease of 3,864 hours in the
total estimated respondent burden compared with the ICR currently
approved by OMB. This is due to the decrease in the number of States
revising their base RCRA programs from 10 to 6.

Courtney Kerwin,
Director, Regulatory Support Division.
[FR Doc. 2018-20634 Filed 9-21-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 104 (Wednesday, June 2, 2021)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 29489-29491]
[FR Doc No: 2021-11429]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2021-0042; Airspace Docket No. 20-AEA-13]
RIN 2120-AA66

Amendment VOR Federal Airway V-487; Eastern New York and Northern
Vermont

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action amends VOR Federal airway V-487 in the vicinity of
Glens Falls, NY, and Burlington, VT. The change substitutes a radial
from the Burlington, VT, VOR/DME (BTV), in place of a radial from the
Glens Falls, NY, VOR/DME (GFL) that is used to define a navigation fix
along the route. Additionally, this action removes segments of V-487
between Burlington, VT, and St Jean, Canada. These changes are
necessary due to the decommissioning of the Glens Falls, NY, VOR/DME,
and the decommissioning of the St Jean, Canada, VOR/DME (YJN).

DATES: Effective date 0901 UTC, August 12, 2021. The Director of the
Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under
1 CFR part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.11 and
publication of conforming amendments.

ADDRESSES: FAA Order 7400.11E, Airspace Designations and Reporting
Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. For further information, you can
contact

the Rules and Regulations Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-
8783. The Order is also available for inspection at the National
Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the
availability of FAA Order 7400.11E at NARA, email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or go to https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul Gallant, Rules and Regulations
Group, Office of Policy, Federal Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-
8783.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority for This Rulemaking

    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 modifies the route structure as necessary to preserve
the safe and efficient flow of air traffic within the National Airspace
System.

History

    The FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking for Docket No.
FAA-2021-0042 in the Federal Register (86 FR 12865; March 5, 2021),
amending VOR Federal airway V-487, in eastern New York and northern
Vermont. Interested parties were invited to participate in this
rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal. No
comments were received.
    VOR Federal airways are published in paragraph 6010(a) of FAA Order
7400.11E dated July 21, 2020, and effective September 15, 2020, which
is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The VOR Federal airways
listed in this document will be subsequently published in the Order.

Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

    This document amends FAA Order 7400.11E, Airspace Designations and
Reporting Points, dated July 21, 2020, and effective September 15,
2020. FAA Order 7400.11E is publicly available as listed in the
ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order 7400.11E lists Class A,
B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and
reporting points.

The Rule

    This action amends 14 CFR part 71 by amending VOR Federal airway V-
487 in the vicinity of Glens Falls, NY, and Burlington, VT. The change
substitutes a radial from the Burlington, VT, VOR/DME, in place of the
Glens Falls, NY, VOR/DME radial, that defines the ENSON, VT, navigation
fix. Currently, the ENSON, VT, navigation fix is defined by the
intersection of the Cambridge, NY, VOR/DME (CAM) 002[deg] radial, and
the Glens Falls, NY, VOR/DME 032[deg] radial.
    This change is necessary because the Glens Falls VOR/DME has been
decommissioned and is no longer in service. As amended, the ENSON fix
is defined by the intersection of the Burlington, VT, 187[deg], and the
Cambridge, NY 002[deg] radials. This change does not affect navigation
along that portion of V-487.
    Additionally, this action removes the segment of V-487 that extends
between the Burlington, VT, VOR/DME, and the St Jean, Canada VOR/DME
due to the decommissioning of the St Jean VOR/DME. The amended route V-
487 extends between LaGuardia, NY, and Burlington, VT.
    FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is
published yearly and effective on September 15.

Regulatory Notices and Analyses

    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.
It, therefore: (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 only affects air traffic procedures
and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated,
does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Environmental Review

    The FAA has determined that this airspace action of amending VOR
Federal airway V-487 due to the decommissioning of the Glens Falls, NY,
VOR/DME, and the decommissioning of the St Jean, Canada, VOR/DME,
qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental
Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and its implementing regulations at
40 CFR part 1500, and in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F,
Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures, paragraph 5-6.5a, which
categorically excludes from further environmental impact review
rulemaking actions that designate or modify classes of airspace areas,
airways, routes, and reporting points (see 14 CFR part 71, Designation
of Class A, B, C, D, and E Airspace Areas; Air Traffic Service Routes;
and Reporting Points). As such, this action is not expected to result
in any potentially significant environmental impacts. In accordance
with FAA Order 1050.1F, paragraph 5-2 regarding Extraordinary
Circumstances, the FAA has reviewed this action for factors and
circumstances in which a normally categorically excluded action may
have a significant environmental impact requiring further analysis.
Accordingly, the FAA has determined that no extraordinary circumstances
exist that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment or
environmental impact study.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

Adoption of the Amendment

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

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

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

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

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.11E,
Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated July 21, 2020, and
effective September 15, 2020, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 6010(a) Domestic VOR Federal Airways.

* * * * *

V-487 [Amended]

    From LaGuardia, NY; Bridgeport, CT; INT Bridgeport 343[deg] and
Cambridge, NY, 189[deg] radials; Cambridge; INT Burlington, VT,
187[deg] and Cambridge 002[deg] radials; Burlington.
* * * * *

    Issued in Washington, DC, on May 25, 2021.
George Gonzalez,
Acting Manager, Rules and Regulations Group.
[FR Doc. 2021-11429 Filed 6-1-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P