COMPANY FEDERAL REGISTER DOCUMENT SUBMISSION TEMPLATE (7/1/2006)
Pendimethalin: amend tolerances for forage grass CG 17; establish
tolerances for animal matrices, March 2014

EPA Registration Division contact: [Kable Bo Davis at<PHONE_NUMBER>]

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:

[BASF Corporation]

[Insert petition number, PP-xxxxxx]

	21 U.S.C. 346 EPA has received a pesticide petition ([Insert petition
number, PP-xxxxxx]) from [BASF Corporation], [26 Davis Drive, Research
Triangle Park, NC, 27709] proposing, pursuant to section 408(d) of the
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d), to
amend 40 CFR part 180.361 by establishing a tolerance for the residues
of [the herbicide pendimethalin, including its metabolites and
degradates, in or on animal commodities. Compliance with the tolerance
levels specified is to be determined by measuring only pendimethalin ,
N-(1-ethylpropyl)-3,4-dimethyl-2,6dinitrobenzenamine, and its animal
metabolite 1-(1-ethyl-propyl)-5, 6 dimethyl-7-nitro-1H-benzoimidazole,
calculated as the stoichiometric equivalent of pendimethalin] in or on
the raw agricultural animal commodities [milk] at [0.04] parts per
million (ppm), [cattle, goat, horse, and sheep, fat] at [0.30] parts per
million (ppm), [cattle, goat, horse, and sheep, liver] at [1.5] parts
per million (ppm), [cattle, goat, horse, and sheep, meat] at [0.10]
parts per million (ppm), and [cattle, goat, horse, and sheep, meat
byproducts except liver] at [3.0] parts per million (ppm), and by
amending the established tolerances for the combined residues of [the
herbicide pendimethalin, including its metabolites and degradates, in or
on feed commodities. Compliance with the tolerance levels specified is
to be determined by measuring only pendimethalin,
N-(1-ethylpropyl)-3,4-dimethyl-2,6dinitrobenzenamine, and its
metabolite, 4-[(1-ethylpropyl)amino]-2-methyl-3,5-dinitrobenzyl alcohol,
calculated as the stoichiometric equivalent of pendimethalin] in or on
the raw agricultural commodities of [Grass forage, fodder, and hay crop
group 17, forage] at [1000] parts per million (ppm), and [Grass forage,
fodder, and hay crop group 17, hay] at [2000] parts per million (ppm).
EPA has determined that the petition contains data or information
regarding the elements set forth in section 408 (d)(2) of the FDDCA;
however, EPA has not fully evaluated the sufficiency of the submitted
data at this time or whether the data supports granting of the petition.
Additional data may be needed before EPA rules on the petition.

A. Residue Chemistry

	1. Plant metabolism.  [The qualitative nature of the residues of
pendimethalin in plants is understood based on adequate studies
conducted with 14C pendimethalin on various crops.  Pendimethalin and
its 3,5-dinitrobenzyl alcohol metabolite (CL202347) are the established
residues of concern.]

	2. Analytical method. [Section 408 (b)(3) of the amended FDCA requires
EPA to determine that there is a practical method for detecting and
measuring levels of the pesticide chemical residue in or on food and
that the tolerance be set at a level at or above of the limit of
detection of the designated method.  In plants, the method is aqueous
organic solvent extraction, column clean up, and quantitation by GC.
The method has a limit of quantitation (LOQ) of 0.05 ppm for
pendimethalin and the alcohol metabolite. In the animal commodity method
D0405, pendimethalin and its metabolites (CL 202347 and Goat Metabolite
6) are extracted from milk and tissue with acidic aqueous methanol. An
aliquot is taken from extract, diluted with water and then cleaned using
a solid phase extraction column. The compounds are eluted from the
column using methanol/water. The eluates are diluted with methanol/water
for analysis via LC/MS/MS. The results are calculated separately by
direct comparison of the sample peak responses to those of external
standards. The method has a limit of quantitation (LOQ) of 0.01 in milk
and 0.05 ppm in tissues for both pendimethalin and the goat metabolite
6.  The method has undergone an independent laboratory validation.]

	3. Magnitude of residues. [Field trials in major growing areas were
conducted in order to determine the magnitude of residues in forage
grass (MRID 47471701) commodities. Field trials were carried out using
the maximum number of applications, the maximum label rate and shortest
pre-harvest interval (PHI) in forage grass at 0 day. Decline data
indicated the average half-lives on the order of 10 days in grass forage
and hay.  Two dairy cattle feeding studies are available to account for
secondary transfer of pendimethalin residues occur from treated
feedstuffs to bovine matrices.  A recent dairy cattle feeding study was
conducted for 29 days with a pendimethalin concentration of 760
mg/kg-feed to cover the proposed use in grasses.  This study also
included a 10-day depuration phase to observe the withdrawal of the
compound from milk and tissues following the last dosing interval.
Observed residue levels of pendimethalin and goat metabolite 6 in milk
and animal tissues support the proposed tolerances in animal matrices.
A previous feeding study (MRID 46591234) was conducted three levels of
10, 30 and 100 mg/kg-feed; at these lower exposure levels, no residues
in milk or any tissue were noted above the LOQ for pendimethalin, or two
metabolite analytes at the highest dose level tested of 100 ppm.  EPA
has determined that the petition contains data or information regarding
the above aforementioned crops and animal feeding study.]

B. Toxicological Profile

	1. Acute toxicity.  [Pendimethalin technical demonstrates low acute
toxicity via the oral, dermal, and inhalation routes of exposure.  The
acute toxicity studies place technical pendimethalin in toxicity
category III for the acute oral, category IV for acute dermal, and
category IV for acute inhalation.  The acute reference dose is based on
reduced motor activity at Day 0 in the acute neurotoxicity study.
Technical pendimethalin is category IV for skin irritation and category
III for eye irritation. Pendimethalin did not cause skin sensitization
in guinea pigs.  Two formulated end use products are registered for use
on crops, an Emulsifiable Concentrate (EC) and an Encapsulated
Suspension (CS).  The EC has an acute oral category of III, acute dermal
category of III, an acute inhalation category of III, eye and skin
irritation of III, and is not a dermal sensitizer.  The CS has an acute
oral category of IV, an acute dermal category of IV, an acute inhalation
category of IV, eye and skin irritation category of IV, and is not a
dermal sensitizer.]

	2. Genotoxicty. [Extensive mutagenicity studies conducted to
investigate point and gene mutations, DNA damage and chromosomal
aberration, both using in vitro and in vivo test systems demonstrate
pendimethalin to be non-genotoxic.

Pendimethalin has been classified as a Group C "possible human
carcinogen," based on a statistically significantly increased incidence
of benign follicular cell adenomas of the thyroid gland in male and
female rats at 5000 ppm (250 mg/kg b.w./day) (highest concentration
tested).  For risk assessment, OPP recommends using the RfD (non-linear)
approach for quantification of human risk.  The Agency Committee has
determined that the hypothesis, that benign thyroid tumors associated
with pendimethalin are due to a thyroid-pituitary imbalance, can be
supported.  Finally, pendimethalin's mechanism of threshold oncogenic
activity only occurs at high doses in rats, a mammalian species that is
expected to be much more sensitive than humans to the induction of
thyroid tumors via conditions which result in hypothyroidism.]

	3. Reproductive and developmental toxicity. [Pendimethalin is not a
selective developmental toxicant.  There is no indication of increased
susceptibility following prenatal/postnatal exposure to pendimethalin.

In a developmental (teratology) toxicity study in the rat, the results
demonstrated that the NOAELs for both maternal toxicity and fetal
(prenatal)/developmental toxicity were 500 mg/kg b.w./day (highest dose
tested) (HDT).  In addition, there were no indications of any
teratogenic effects in the rat fetuses at 500 mg/kg b.w./day (HDT).
Therefore, pendimethalin is considered to be neither a developmental
toxicant nor a teratogenic agent in the rat.

In a developmental (teratology) toxicity study in the rabbit, the
results demonstrated the NOAEL for maternal toxicity was 30 mg/kg
b.w./day, based on increased clinical signs of toxicity and decreased
body weight gain during the treatment period at 60 mg/kg b.w./day (HDT).
 The NOAEL for fetal (prenatal)/developmental toxicity was 60 mg/kg
b.w./day (HDT).  In addition, there were no indications of any
teratogenic effects in the rabbit fetuses at 60 mg/kg b.w./day.
Therefore, pendimethalin is considered to be neither a developmental
toxicant nor a teratogenic agent in the rabbit.

A two-generation reproductive toxicity study in the rat demonstrated an
absence of increased sensitivity for the developing offspring to
pendimethalin.  The NOAEL for parental toxicity was 500 ppm
(approximately 38.5 mg/kg b.w./day), based on reduced food consumption
and decreased body weight/weight gain at 2500 ppm (mid-dietary
concentration).  The NOAEL for pup/offspring toxicity was also 500 ppm,
based on decreased pup body weight gain at 2500 ppm.  Lastly, the NOAEL
for reproductive toxicity was 2500 ppm (approximately 194 mg/kg
b.w./day), based on reduced mean live litter size at 5000 ppm (highest
concentration tested) (HCT).  These reductions in mean live litter size
and pup body weight gain were only observed at dietary concentrations
that were parentally toxic.  As such, there is no evidence that prenatal
or postnatal exposure to pendimethalin results in an increased
sensitivity to developing offspring.]

	4. Sub-chronic toxicity. [Sub-chronic (90-day) feeding studies were
conducted in rats and dogs.  For the rat, the NOAEL for systemic
toxicity was 500 ppm (41 mg/kg b.w./day), based on slightly decreased
body weight, increased absolute and relative liver weights, and liver
histopathology (hepatocellular hypertrophy) in males and females at 5000
ppm (HCT).  For the dog, the NOAEL for systemic toxicity was 2500 ppm
(62.5 mg/kg b.w./day), based on decreased body weight at 10000 ppm (250
mg/kg b.w./day).]

	5. Chronic toxicity. [The chronic Reference Dose (RfD) was established
based on the results of sub-chronic special studies demonstrating the
thyroid hormone related endpoint in rats.  The NOAEL of 10 mg/kg
b.w./day was established from the collective results of the sub-chronic
oral 92-day thyroid function study, the sub-chronic oral 56-day thyroid
function study, and the 14-day intrathyroidal metabolism study.  A LOAEL
of 31 mg/kg b.w./day was based on hormonal and histopathological changes
in the thyroid gland.  The chronic RfD was calculated to be 0.3 mg/kg
b.w./day using an Uncertainty Factor (UF) of 30X (3X for interspecies
extrapolation and 10X for intraspecies variability).  EPA/HED currently
recommends a FQPA Safety Factor of 1X.  Therefore, the chronic
Population Adjusted Dose (PAD) is 0.3 mg/kg b.w./day.

Chronic toxicity studies were conducted in rats, mice, and dogs.  For
the 2-year rat feeding study, the NOAEL for systemic toxicity was 500
ppm (25 mg/kg b.w./day), based on decreased body weight gain
(approximately 20-30%), increased clinical signs of toxicity, increased
relative liver weights, and slight but statistical increase in the
incidence of benign follicular cell adenomas of the thyroid gland in
males and females at 5000 ppm (250 mg/kg b.w./day) (HCT).  For the
18-month mouse feeding study, the NOAEL for systemic toxicity was 500
ppm (75 mg/kg b.w./day), based on slightly decreased mean body weights
and reduced survival at 5000 ppm (750 mg/kg b.w./day) (HCT).  There were
no oncogenic effects up to 5000 ppm (750 mg/kg b.w./day) (HCT).  Lastly,
for the 1-year oral (via gelatin capsules) chronic dog study, the NOAEL
for systemic toxicity was 200 mg/kg b.w./day, the highest dose tested.]

	6. Animal metabolism. [Adequate goat and poultry metabolism studies are
available for pendimethalin. In the rat, pendimethalin is metabolized
mainly through oxidation of the 4-methyl group attached to the benzene
ring as well as oxidation of the alkyl side chain of the N-substituted
dinitroaniline compound.  When C14-pendimethalin is administered to
rats, about 70% of the administered radioactivity is excreted via feces
and 20% via urine within 24 hours.  Within 96 hours, the total
radioactive residues (TRR) found in the tissues was 0.3 ppm, except fat
which was 0.9 ppm.  The major portion of the radioactivity that was
excreted in the feces was identified as the unchanged parent compound.
In the goat metabolism study following administration of radiolabeled
pendimethalin equivalent to 15.35 ppm in the diet for 5 consecutive
days, approximately 94% of the administered radioactivity was recovered
in feces, urine and tissues.  Among the edible tissues, only liver (0.32
ppm) and kidney (0.042 ppm) contained residues >0.01 ppm.  With the
exception of Metabolite 6 (13% TRR), no other component exceeded 10% of
the TRR in liver.  The major metabolite (Metabolite 6) was identified in
feces, bile and urine by LC/MS and high resolution mass spectrometry.
Only trace levels of unchanged parent were detected.]

	7. Metabolite toxicology. [The main pendimethalin plant metabolite, CL
202347, has been tested for acute oral toxicity in the mouse, as well as
genotoxicity (Ames assay).  The acute oral LD50 in the mouse was
determined to be 2140 mg/kg bw, which is considered to be “slightly
toxic by ingestion in single doses.”  An Ames assay demonstrated that
the plant metabolite is non-mutagenic.  In addition, since goat
Metabolite 6 was observed in a recent rat metabolism study, it is
considered to have been evaluated in the existing mammalian toxicity
database for the active ingredient.]

	8. Endocrine disruption. [It is known that pendimethalin affects the
hypothalamus-pituitary-thyroid axis.  However, as the chronic RfD (0.3
mg/kg b.w./day) is based on the thyroid hormone related endpoint in
rats, as noted in the sub-chronic special studies in Section 5 above,
which additionally demonstrated reversibility of the thyroid effects in
the oral 56-day thyroid function study, these effects are already taken
into consideration in the characterization of potential risks to
humans.]

C. Aggregate Exposure [Pendimethalin is a pre-emergent herbicide used to
control broadleaf and grass weeds in food and non-food crops, as well as
non-agricultural use sites including residential lawns. In examining
aggregate exposure, FQPA directs EPA to consider available information
concerning exposures from the pesticide residue in food and water
(dietary) and all other non-occupational exposures. The primary non-food
sources of exposure are through pesticide use in gardens, lawns, or
buildings (residential and other indoor uses). The potential for
aggregate exposure from all registered and proposed uses is discussed
below.]

	1. Dietary exposure. [The updated dietary assessments employed the EPA
posted Dietary Exposure Evaluation Model- Food Consumption Intake
Database (DEEM-FCID) version 3.18 and the residue input files from their
July 2012 dietary assessment DP 401100 for any concentration factors as
a starting point.]

	i. Food. [An assessment was conducted to evaluate the potential risk
due to dietary exposure of the U.S. population to residues of
pendimethalin.  The current tolerance values are listed in the U.S. 40
CFR § 180.361.  The Tier 1 dietary exposure estimates were based on
established and proposed tolerance values, and 100% CT values.  An
updated analysis included all the crops with established tolerance
values as of March 2014 and: the proposed tolerances for hops, dried
cones at 1.0 ppm (pending EPA review, submitted October 2013); the
proposed crop group expansion tolerances to replace current existing
pendimethalin tolerances including onion-bulb subgroup 3-07A = 0.10 ppm,
onion-green subgroup 3-07B = 0.20 ppm, low growing berry subgroup 13-07G
= 0.10 ppm, vegetable-fruiting group 8-10 = 0.10 ppm, fruit-citrus group
10-10, fruit-pome group 11-10 = 0.10 ppm, fruit-stone group 12-12 = 0.10
ppm, sunflower subgroup = 0.1 ppm (pending EPA review, submitted October
2013); the proposed amended tolerances for alfalfa forage and hay
(pending EPA review, submitted February 2014); and the proposed new
tolerances on animal commodities which support the newly proposed
amended tolerances on forage grasses.

Acute Dietary (food + drinking water) Exposure Assessment

No special dietary assessment for females age 13 – 49 years old is
required by EPA because no endpoint was identified for sensitive
populations.  EPA has determined that an acute dietary assessment is
required for the general populations which cover infants and children.
The acute population adjusted dose (aPAD) is 1 mg ai/kg bw/day based on
a NOAEL = 100 mg/kg bw/day and a total safety factor of 100.  The acute
dietary exposure to pendimethalin residues was low for all populations.
At the 95th percentile, the most highly exposed valid sub-population was
“Infants (<1 year old)” and this group utilized only 1.8% aPAD.

Chronic Dietary (food + water) Exposure Assessment

Dietary exposure estimates were compared against the chronic Population
Adjusted Dose (cPAD) of 0.3 mg/kg b.w./day for all populations
subgroups. Results of the chronic dietary assessments are listed in
Table 1 below. The estimated chronic dietary exposure from crops and
animals (both established and proposed tolerances) was <2.2% of the cPAD
for all subpopulations.  Additional refinements such as the use of
anticipated residues, PDP data and percent crop treated values for the
established crop uses would further reduce the estimated chronic dietary
exposure. The results in Table 1 below demonstrate there are no risk
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 1. Summary of Chronic Dietary Exposure (food + drinking water)
Assessment considering crops with established and proposed
tolerances for pendimethalin.

Population

Subgroups	Exposure Estimate

(mg/kg b.w./day)	%cPAD

US Population	0.001928	0.6

All infants (< 1 year)	0.003616	1.2

Children 1-2	0.006486	2.2

Children 3-5	0.004922	1.6

Children 6-12	0.002923	1.0

Youth 13-19	0.001635	0.5

Adults 20-49	0.001500	0.5

Adults 50+ yrs	0.001395	0.5

Females 13 - 49 yrs	0.001463	0.5

%cPAD = percent of chronic population adjusted dose

Exposure estimates based on tolerance values and 100 % CT values

]

	ii. Drinking Water. [The drinking water exposure values used in this
assessment were obtained from the most recent pendimethalin assessment
conducted by EPA published on July 25, 2012. The estimated acute and
chronic surface water concentrations from EPA models were 80.5 µg/L and
6.2 µg/L, respectively. The estimated groundwater concentration was
0.036 µg/L.  These estimated drinking water exposures were included
directly in the dietary assessments. The DEEM critical exposure
contribution analysis calculates estimated model water contributions
(indirect and direct) makeup over 60% of the potential exposure of
pendimethalin for infants within the acute assessment; the modelled
water estimates are understood to be conservative.]

	2. Non-dietary exposure. [The post-application short-term dermal and
incidental oral exposure and risk assessment was determined for
pendimethalin use on residential turf, residential gardens, and golf
course turf. The residential exposure shown in the Table 2 reflects the
most recent EPA human health risk assessment published on July 25, 2012.
 No new uses would impact reuse of this assessment.  The residential
assessment was conducted using the updated Standard Operating Procedures
for Residential Pesticide Exposure Assessment.  The calculated MOEs are
all greater than the MOE level of concern, which is a value of 30.

Table 2.	Pendimethalin Residential Exposure after the use on Residential
Turf, Residential Gardens, and Golf Course Turf.

Population	Scenario-	Route	Exposure  	MOE

Adult	Turf-residential	Dermal	0.032	320

Child 1-2 	Turf-residential	Dermal	0.06	170

 	 	Hand to mouth	0.042	240

 	 	Object to mouth	0.0013	7,700

 	 	soil ingestion	0.000065	150,000

 	 	Granular injestion	0.071	140

Adult	Turf-golf	Dermal	0.0037	2,700

Children 11-16	Turf-Golf	Dermal	0.0043	2,300

Children 6-11	Turf-Golf	Dermal	0.0051	2,000

Adult	Gardening	Dermal	0.078	130

Children 6-11	Gardening 	Dermal	0.053	190

Acute Aggregate Exposure and Risk (Food and water)

It has been previously determined by EPA that the acute aggregate
assessments includes only food and drinking water exposure (DP390457).
Residential exposure is not included in the acute or chronic aggregate
assessment.  The results showed that the acute aggregate exposure from
pendimethalin residues does not exceed the level of concern for any
population.

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

Short-term aggregate risk from pendimethalin 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 residential exposure used in this assessment
is from the most recent EPA human health risk assessment published July
25, 2012, no new residential uses impact the aggregate, so only an
update to the dietary components is needed.  The residential assessment
was conducted using the updated Standard Operating Procedures for
Residential Pesticide Exposure Assessment.  The post-application
residential exposure was determined for the use on residential turf,
residential gardens, and golf course turf.  The highest post-application
exposure from adults was from the garden use and residential turf use
for children 1-2 years old.  The children exposure included dermal and
hand-to-mouth exposure.  The aggregate MOE from food, water, and
residential exposure for children 1-2 years old was 92 and for adults
125.  These MOEs are greater than the target MOE of 30, which indicates
there is no risk concern from the aggregate exposure from pendimethalin.
 The results of the analysis are shown in Tables 3.

Table 3. 	Estimated short/intermediate term aggregate exposure and risk
of pendimethalin.

Population	NOAEL (mg/kg/day)	Target MOE1	Food + Drinking Water Exposure
             (mg/kg/day)

	Residential Exposure (mg/kg/day)	Total Exposure (mg/kg/day)	MOE2

Adult	10	30	0.001928	0.078	0.079928	125

Child

1-2 yr old	10	30	0.006486	0.102	0.108486	92

1 HED’s LOC for the MOE is 30.

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

Chronic Aggregate Exposure and Risk (food and water)

It has been previously determined by EPA that the chronic aggregate
assessments includes only food and drinking water exposure (Table 1),
because exposure is not expected for residential (dermal and inhalation)
exposure pathway (DP390457). Exposures from residential uses are not
included in the chronic aggregate assessment.  The results demonstrate
there are no risk concerns for any subpopulation based on established
and new uses. ]

D. Cumulative Effects

	[Exposure to Substances with Common Mechanism of Toxicity.  The Agency
has not yet published guidelines to determine whether pendimethalin has
a common mechanism of toxicity with other substances or how to include
this pesticide in a cumulative risk assessment.  Unlike other pesticides
for which EPA has followed a cumulative risk approach based on a common
mechanism of toxicity, pendimethalin does not appear to produce a toxic
metabolite produced by other substances.  For the purposes of this
tolerance action, therefore, it is assumed that pendimethalin does not
have a common mechanism of toxicity with other substances.]

E. Safety Determination

	1. U.S. population. [Based on these risk assessments, there is a
reasonable certainty that the aggregate exposure to the general
population or any subpopulation from pendimethalin residues does not
result in an unacceptable risk.]

	2. Infants and children. [EPA has previously recommended the 10X FQPA
safety factor be removed (reduced to 1X) based on reliable data.  Based
on these risk assessments, there is a reasonable certainty that the
aggregate exposure to infants or children, or any subpopulation from
pendimethalin residues does not result in an unacceptable risk.]

F. International Tolerances

	[There are no CODEX, Canadian or Mexican International Maximum Residue
Levels (MRL's) established for residues of pendimethalin in these crops
at this time.]

  PAGE   \* MERGEFORMAT  2

  PAGE   \* MERGEFORMAT  10


                                 Attachment D
     Pesticide Registration Maintenance Fee Filing Form and Instructions:
See web site at: https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2019-11/documents/2020-maintfee-2020-form-8570-30.pdf and https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2019-11/documents/2020-maintfee-instructions.pdf


[Federal Register: October 26, 2011 (Volume 76, Number 207)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 66181]
[DOCID:fr26oc11-5]

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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Bureau of Industry and Security

15 CFR Part 774

The Commerce Control List

CFR Correction

    In Title 15 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Parts 300-799,
revised as of January 1, 2011, on page 684, in Supplement No. 1 to Part
774, in ECCN 1C118, the ``Items'' paragraph is revised to read as
follows:

Supplement No. 1 to PART 774--THE COMMERCE CONTROL LIST

* * * * *
1C118 Titanium-stabilized duplex stainless steel (Ti-DSS), having all
of the following characteristics (see List of Items Controlled).
* * * * *
    Items:
    a. Having all of the following characteristics:
    a.1. Containing 17.0-23.0 weight percent chromium and 4.5-7.0
weight percent nickel;
    a.2. Having a titanium content of greater than 0.10 weight percent;
and
    a.3. A ferritic-austenitic microstructure (also referred to as a
two-phase microstructure) of which at least 10 percent is austenite by
volume (according to ASTM E-1181-87 or national equivalents), and
    b. Having any of the following forms:
    b.1. Ingots or bars having a size of 100 mm or more in each
dimension;
    b.2. Sheets having a width of 600 mm or more and a thickness of 3
mm or less; or
    b.3. Tubes having an outer diameter of 600 mm or more and a wall
thickness of 3 mm or less.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2011-27751 Filed 10-25-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 1505-01-D


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 177 (Thursday, September 16, 2021)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 51600-51604]
[FR Doc No: 2021-19982]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2021-0306; Project Identifier MCAI-2020-01493-E;
Amendment 39-21706; AD 2021-18-05]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Rolls-Royce Deutschland Ltd & Co KG
(Type Certificate Previously Held by Rolls-Royce plc) Turbofan Engines

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is superseding Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2020-15-12
for certain Rolls-Royce Deutschland Ltd & Co KG (RRD) Trent 1000 model
turbofan engines. AD 2020-15-12 required initial and repetitive
ultrasonic or visual inspections of the intermediate-pressure
compressor (IPC) stage 1 rotor blade root (front face), IPC stage 2
rotor blade root (front and rear face), and IPC shaft stage 2 dovetail
post (front face), and removal of any cracked parts from service. AD
2020-15-12 also required an inspection after asymmetric power and cabin
depressurization events. This AD was prompted by IPC rotor blade
separations resulting in engine failures. This AD requires initial and
repetitive ultrasonic or visual inspections of certain IPC stage 1
rotor blade root, IPC stage 2 rotor blade root, and IPC shaft stage 2
dovetail posts until replacement of the IPC stage 1 and stage 2 rotor
blades with redesigned IPC stage 1 and stage 2 rotor blades in kitted
sets. The FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on
these products.

DATES: This AD is effective October 21, 2021.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of October 21,
2021.

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this final rule,
contact Rolls-Royce plc, Corporate Communications, P.O. Box 31, Derby,
DE24 8BJ, United Kingdom; phone: +44 (0)1332 242424; fax: +44 (0)1332
249936; website: https://www.rolls-royce.com/contact-us.aspx. You may
view this service information at the FAA, Airworthiness Products
Section, Operational Safety Branch, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington,
MA 01803. For information on the availability of this material at the
FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. It is also available at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2021-
0306.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket at https://www.regulations.gov by
searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2021-0306; 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: Kevin Clark, Aviation Safety Engineer,
ECO Branch, FAA, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803; phone:
(781) 238-7088; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14
CFR part 39 to supersede AD 2020-15-12, Amendment 39-21175 (85 FR
45081, July 27, 2020), (AD 2020-15-12). AD 2020-15-12 applied to
certain RRD Trent 1000-A2, Trent 1000-AE2, Trent 1000-C2, Trent 1000-
CE2, Trent 1000-D2, Trent 1000-E2, Trent 1000-G2, Trent 1000-H2, Trent
1000-J2, Trent 1000-K2, and Trent 1000-L2 model turbofan engines. The
NPRM published in the Federal Register on April 22, 2021 (86 FR 21233).
The NPRM was prompted by IPC rotor blade separations resulting in
engine failures. Subsequently, the manufacturer identified the need to
add new inspections and an optional terminating action, amend the
asymmetric power condition for engine inspection, and to add an
inspection after a cabin depressurization event. In the NPRM, the FAA
proposed to continue to require initial and repetitive ultrasonic or
visual inspection of the IPC stage 1 rotor blade root (front face), IPC
stage 2 rotor blade root (front and rear face), and IPC shaft stage 2
dovetail post (front face), removal of any cracked parts from service,
and an inspection after asymmetric power and cabin depressurization
events until the installation of the IPC stage 1 and stage 2 rotor
blades with the IPC stage 1 and stage 2 rotor blades in kitted sets.
The FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these
products.
    The European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the
Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has
issued EASA AD 2020-0240, dated November 5, 2020 (referred to after
this as ``the MCAI''), to address the unsafe condition on these
products. The MCAI states:

    Occurrences were reported on Rolls-Royce Trent 1000 `Pack C'
engines, where some IPC Rotor 1 and Rotor 2 blades were found
cracked.
    This condition, if not detected and corrected, could lead to in-
flight blade release, possibly resulting in reduced control of the
aeroplane.
    To address this potential unsafe condition, Rolls-Royce
initially issued Alert NMSB TRENT 1000 72-AJ814 and 72-AJ819 to
provide inspection instructions for IPC Rotor 1 blades, and IPC
Rotor 2 blades and IPC shaft Stage 2 dovetail posts, respectively.
Rolls-Royce also issued NMSB TRENT 1000 72-J871 to provide rework
instructions for the affected parts, and Alert NMSB TRENT 1000 72-
AJ869 to inspect those post-rework parts. Consequently, EASA issued
AD 2017-0248 to require repetitive inspections of the affected IPC
Rotor blades and IPC shaft Stage 2 dovetail posts and, depending on
findings, removal from service of the engine for corrective action.
    After that [EASA] AD was issued, Rolls-Royce issued Alert NMSB
TRENT 1000 72-AK058 to provide instructions for a one-time on-wing
inspection. Consequently, EASA issued AD 2018-0073, retaining the
requirements of EASA AD 2017-0248, which was superseded, to require
an additional borescope inspection of certain engines and, depending
on findings, removal from service of the engine for corrective
action.
    After that [EASA] AD was issued, it was determined that
repetitive borescope inspections are necessary on all engines to
ensure fleet-wide continued safe operation. Consequently, Rolls-
Royce revised Alert NMSB TRENT 1000 72-AJ869, Alert NMSB TRENT 1000
72-AJ814, Alert NMSB TRENT 1000 72-AJ819 and NMSB TRENT 1000 72-
J871, and issued NMSB TRENT 1000 72-AK060 to consolidate all
inspection instructions. Consequently, EASA issued AD 2018-0084
(later revised), retaining the requirements of EASA AD 2018-0073,
which was superseded, and requiring repetitive on-wing borescope
inspections of the affected Rotor 1 parts and affected Rotor 2 parts
and, depending on findings, removal from service of the engine for
corrective action. That [EASA] AD also introduced specific
requirements for engines installed on aeroplanes involved in ETOPS,
and inspection following operation in asymmetric power conditions.
    Rolls-Royce then introduced NMSB Trent 1000 72-AK092 to provide
inspections for the rear face of the Rotor 2 blades and NMSB TRENT
1000 72-AK060 was revised (R1) accordingly. Later, Rolls-Royce
developed mod 72-J941, installing improved IPC Stage 1 and Stage 2
rotor blades, and issued the modification SB, providing the
necessary instructions for in-service application. EASA issued AD
2018-0084R2 to exclude post-mod 72-J941 engines from the
Applicability and introducing the modification SB as terminating
action for the repetitive inspections as required by that [EASA] AD.
    After that [EASA] AD was issued, Rolls-Royce issued NMSB TRENT
1000 72-AK313 and revised Alert NMSB TRENT 1000 72-AJ814, 72-AJ819
and 72-AK092 to introduce new inspections, new thresholds and new
intervals, depending on engine configuration. These inspections are
for all operations, ETOPS and non-ETOPS. The latest revision of the
NMSB also amended the asymmetric power conditions for engine
inspection and introduced cabin depressurisation as an event to
trigger engine inspection(s).
    Consequently, EASA issued AD 2019-0250 to require introduction
of the new inspections, replacing those previously imposed by EASA
AD 2018-0084R2 (through NMSB TRENT 1000 72-AK060), and to remove the
references to Engine Health Monitoring messages and ETOPS-related
requirements.
    Since that [EASA] AD was issued, it was discovered that the
manufacturing distribution of the individual blade frequencies could
differ from the assumed values during certification of the SB TRENT
1000 72-J941, which means there may not be sufficient margin to
prevent the blades from experiencing high vibration levels. Prompted
by these findings, Rolls-Royce issued the modification SB to provide
blade kitting instructions.

    You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD
docket at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating
Docket No. FAA-2021-0306.

Discussion of Final Airworthiness Directive

Comments

    The FAA received comments from 1 commenter. The commenter was The
Boeing Company (Boeing). Boeing supported the NPRM without change.

Conclusion

    The FAA reviewed the relevant data, considered the comment
received, and determined that air safety requires adopting the AD as
proposed. Accordingly, the FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe
condition on these products. Except for minor editorial changes, this
AD is adopted as proposed in the NPRM.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    The FAA reviewed Rolls-Royce Alert Non-Modification Service
Bulletin (NMSB) Trent 1000 72-AK313, Revision 1, dated August 22, 2019;
and Rolls-Royce Alert Service Bulletin (SB) Trent 1000 72-AK430,
Initial Issue, dated August 17, 2020. Rolls-Royce Alert NMSB Trent 1000
72-AK313 defines the initial inspection threshold and repeat inspection
intervals for Trent 1000 IPC stage 1 rotor blade, IPC stage 2 rotor
blade, and IPC shaft stage 2 dovetail posts. Rolls-Royce Alert SB Trent
1000 72-AK430 introduces the IPC stage 1 and stage 2 rotor blades in
kitted sets and provides kitting instructions. This service information
is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to
it through their normal course of business or by the means identified
in ADDRESSES.

Other Related Service Information

    The FAA reviewed Rolls-Royce Alert NMSB Trent 1000 72-AJ814,
Revision 5, dated May 3, 2019; Rolls-Royce Alert NMSB Trent 1000 72-
AJ819, Revision 4, dated May 3, 2019; Rolls-Royce Alert NMSB Trent 1000
72-AK092, Revision 4, dated May 3, 2019; Rolls-Royce SB Trent 1000 72-
J871, Revision 6, dated December 12, 2019; and Rolls-Royce SB Trent
1000 72-J941, Revision 1, dated February 6, 2019.
    Rolls-Royce Alert NMSB Trent 1000 72-AJ814 describes procedures for
performing an ultrasonic inspection (USI) of the IPC stage 1 rotor
blades. Rolls-Royce Alert NMSB Trent 1000 72-AJ819 describes procedures
for performing a visual borescope inspection of the IPC stage 2 rotor
blades and IPC shaft stage 2 dovetail posts. Rolls-Royce Alert NMSB
Trent 1000 72-AK092 describes procedures for performing a USI of the
IPC stage 2 rotor blades. Rolls-Royce SB Trent 1000 72-J871 describes
procedures for reworking or replacing the affected parts. Rolls-Royce
SB Trent 1000 72-J941 specifies procedures for installing the
redesigned IPC stage 1 and stage 2 rotor blades.

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this AD affects 7 engines installed on
airplanes of U.S. registry.
    The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per      Cost on U.S.
                Action                         Labor cost           Parts cost        product        operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inspect the IPC stage 1 rotor blade     20 work-hours x $85 per               $0          $1,700         $11,900
 root (Front Face).                      hour = $1,700.
Inspect the IPC stage 2 rotor blade     6 work-hours x $85 per                 0             510           3,570
 root (Front Face) and IPC shaft stage   hour = $510.
 2 dovetail post (Front Face).
Inspect the IPC stage 2 rotor blade     10 work-hours x $85 per                0             850           5,950
 root (Rear Face).                       hour = $850.
Replace all 34 IPC stage 1 rotor        280 work-hours x $85 per          52,360          76,160         533,120
 blades (mandatory terminating action).  hour = $23,800.
Replace all 49 IPC stage 2 rotor        280 work-hours x $85 per          48,755          72,555         507,885
 blades (mandatory terminating action).  hour = $23,800.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

                                               On-Condition Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per
                    Action                                 Labor cost               Parts cost        product
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Replace all 34 IPC stage 1 rotor blades.......  280 work-hours x $85 per hour =          $52,360         $76,160
                                                 $23,800.
Replace all 49 IPC stage 2 rotor blades.......  280 work-hours x $85 per hour =           48,755          72,555
                                                 $23,800.
Replace the IPC drum assembly.................  144 work-hours x $85 per hour =        1,370,000       1,382,240
                                                 $12,240.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.

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 2020-15-12, Amendment 39-21175
(85 FR 45081, July 27, 2020); and
0
b. Adding the following new airworthiness directive:

2021-18-05 Rolls-Royce Deutschland Ltd & Co KG (Type Certificate
previously held by Rolls-Royce plc): Amendment 39-21706; Docket No.
FAA-2021-0306; Project Identifier MCAI-2020-01493-E.

(a) Effective Date

    This airworthiness directive (AD) is effective October 21, 2021.

(b) Affected ADs

    This AD replaces AD 2020-15-12, Amendment 39-21175 (85 FR 45081,
July 27, 2020).

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Rolls-Royce Deutschland Ltd & Co KG (Type
Certificate previously held by Rolls-Royce plc) Trent 1000-A2, Trent
1000-AE2, Trent 1000-C2, Trent 1000-CE2, Trent 1000-D2, Trent 1000-
E2, Trent 1000-G2, Trent 1000-H2, Trent 1000-J2, Trent 1000-K2, and
Trent 1000-L2 model turbofan engines, except those that have the
redesigned intermediate-pressure compressor (IPC) stage 1 and stage
2 rotor blades introduced by Rolls-Royce (RR) Service Bulletin (SB)
Trent 1000 72-J941, Initial Issue, dated December 6, 2016, or
Revision 1, dated February 6, 2019.

(d) Subject

    Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC) Code 7230, Turbine Engine
Compressor Section.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by IPC rotor blade separations resulting in
engine failures. The FAA is issuing this AD to prevent failure of
the IPC. The unsafe condition, if not addressed, could result in
failure of one or more engines, loss of thrust control, and loss of
the airplane.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Required Actions

    (1) After the effective date of this AD, before exceeding the
initial inspection thresholds and repeat inspection intervals
specified in Table 1 of RR Alert Non-Modification Service Bulletin
(NMSB) Trent 1000 72-AK313, Revision 1, dated August 22, 2019 (RR
NMSB Trent 1000 72-AK313 R1):
    (i) Perform initial ultrasonic inspections (USIs) of the IPC
stage 1 rotor blade root (front face).
    (ii) Thereafter, perform repetitive USIs of the IPC stage 1
rotor blade root (front face).
    (iii) Use the Accomplishment Instructions, paragraph 3.A.(1)(a)
(on-wing) or 3.A.(2)(a) and (b) (in-shop), of RR NMSB Trent 1000 72-
AK313 R1 to perform the inspections.
    (2) After the effective date of this AD, before exceeding the
initial inspection thresholds and repeat inspection intervals
specified in Table 2 of RR NMSB Trent 1000 72-AK313 R1:
    (i) Perform initial visual inspections of the IPC stage 2 rotor
blade root (front face) and IPC shaft stage 2 dovetail post (front
face).
    (ii) Thereafter, perform repetitive visual inspections of the
IPC stage 2 rotor blade root (front face) and IPC shaft stage 2
dovetail post (front face).
    (iii) Use the Accomplishment Instructions, paragraph 3.B.(1)(a)
(on-wing) or 3.B.(2)(b) (in-shop), of RR NMSB Trent 1000 72-AK313 R1
to perform the inspections.
    (3) After the effective date of this AD, before exceeding the
initial inspection threshold and repeat inspection intervals
specified in Table 2 of RR NMSB Trent 1000 72-AK313 R1:
    (i) Perform initial USIs of IPC stage 2 rotor blade root (rear
face).
    (ii) Thereafter, perform repetitive USIs of IPC stage 2 rotor
blade root (rear face).
    (iii) Use the Accomplishment Instructions, paragraph 3.C.(1)(a)
(on-wing) or 3.C.(2)(a) (in-shop), of RR NMSB Trent 1000 72-AK313 R1
to perform the inspections.
    (4) After the effective date of this AD, within 5 engine flight
cycles (FCs) after each occurrence in which any engine operates in
asymmetric power conditions at an altitude of less than 28,000 feet,
perform the following inspections on the engine not affected by the
power reduction or in-flight shutdown (IFSD):
    (i) Perform initial USIs and visual inspections required by
paragraphs (g)(1) through (3) of this AD.
    (ii) Thereafter, perform the repetitive USIs and visual
inspections required by paragraphs (g)(1) through (3) of this AD.
    (iii) Use the service information and repetitive inspection
thresholds required by paragraphs (g)(1)(iii), (2)(iii), and
(3)(iii) to perform the inspections, as applicable.
    (5) After the effective date of this AD, within 5 engine FCs
following a cabin depressurization event, perform the following
inspections on both engines installed on the airplane:
    (i) Perform initial USIs and visual inspections required by
paragraphs (g)(1) through (3) of this AD.
    (ii) Thereafter, perform the repetitive USIs and visual
inspections required by paragraphs (g)(1) through (3) of this AD.
    (iii) Use the service information and repetitive inspection
thresholds required by paragraphs (g)(1)(iii), (2)(iii), and
(3)(iii) to perform the inspections, as applicable.
    (6) If any IPC stage 1 rotor blade root (front face), IPC stage
2 rotor blade root (front face), or IPC stage 2 rotor blade root
(rear face) is found cracked during any inspection required by this
AD, replace the part with a part eligible for installation before
further flight.
    (7) If any IPC shaft stage 2 dovetail post (front face) is found
cracked during any inspection required by this AD, replace the IPC
drum assembly.

(h) Mandatory Terminating Action

    At the next engine shop visit after the effective date of this
AD, replace the IPC stage 1 and stage 2 rotor blades with redesigned
IPC stage 1 and stage 2 rotor blades introduced by RR SB Trent 1000
72-J941, Revision 1, dated February 6, 2019. Install the blades as
kitted sets using the Accomplishment Instructions, paragraph 3.C.
(In-Shop), of RR Alert SB Trent 1000 72-AK430, Initial Issue, dated
August 17, 2020. This replacement of the IPC stage 1 and stage 2
rotor blades as kitted sets is a terminating action for the initial
and repetitive ultrasonic or visual inspection requirements, as
applicable, required by paragraphs (g)(1) through (5) of this AD.

(i) Definitions

    (1) For the purpose of this AD, an ``asymmetric power
condition'' is the operation of the airplane at an altitude of less
than 28,000 feet, experiencing either single engine take-off, engine
fault (reduced power on one engine), or single engine IFSD, which
includes execution of any non-normal checklist procedure.
    (2) For the purpose of this AD, an ``engine shop visit'' is the
induction of an engine into the shop for maintenance involving the
separation of pairs of major mating engine case flanges, except that
the separation of engine flanges solely for the purposes of
transportation without subsequent engine maintenance does not
constitute an engine shop visit.

(j) Credit for Previous Actions

    You may take credit for the initial inspections required by
paragraphs (g)(1) through (5) of this AD if you performed these
inspections before the effective date of this AD using any of the
following.
    (1) RR Alert NMSB Trent 1000 72-AJ819, Revision 3, dated April
13, 2018, or earlier revisions;
    (2) RR Alert NMSB Trent 1000 72-AJ814, Revision 4, dated
September 28, 2018, or earlier revisions;
    (3) RR Alert NMSB Trent 1000 72-AK313, Initial Issue, dated May
2, 2019; or
    (4) RR Alert NMSB Trent 1000 72-AK092, Revision 3, dated
February 28, 2019, or earlier revisions.

(k) Special Flight Permit

    A special flight permit may be issued in accordance with 14 CFR
21.197 and 21.199 to permit a one-time non-revenue ferry flight to a
location where the engine can be removed from service for operators
who are

prohibited from further flight due to a crack finding as a result of
paragraph (g) of this AD. This ferry flight must be performed
without passengers, involve non-ETOPS operation, and consume no more
than three FCs.

(l) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, ECO 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 Related Information. You may email your request 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.

(m) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact Kevin Clark,
Aviation Safety Engineer, ECO Branch, FAA, 1200 District Avenue,
Burlington, MA 01803; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) Refer to European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD
2020-0240, dated November 5, 2020, for more information. You may
examine the EASA AD in the AD docket at https://www.regulations.gov
by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2021-0306.

(n) 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) Rolls-Royce Alert Non-Modification Service Bulletin Trent
1000 72-AK313, Revision 1, dated August 22, 2019.
    (ii) Rolls-Royce Alert Service Bulletin Trent 1000 72-AK430,
Initial Issue, dated August 17, 2020.
    (3) For Rolls-Royce service information identified in this AD,
contact Rolls-Royce plc, Corporate Communications, P.O. Box 31,
Derby, DE24 8BJ, United Kingdom; phone: +44 (0)1332 242424; fax: +44
(0)1332 249936; website: https://www.rolls-royce.com/contact-us.aspx.
    (4) You may view this service information at the FAA,
Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 1200
District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803. For information on the
availability of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (5) You may view this service information that is incorporated
by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA). For information on the availability of this material at
NARA, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or go to: https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued on August 23, 2021.
Gaetano A. Sciortino,
Deputy Director for Strategic Initiatives, Compliance & Airworthiness
Division, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2021-19982 Filed 9-15-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 75 (Tuesday, April 19, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 22937-22939]
[FR Doc No: 2016-08967]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 100

[Docket Number USCG-2016-0048]
RIN 1625-AA08

Special Local Regulation, Jacksonville Grand Prix of the Seas;
St. Johns River, Jacksonville, FL

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to establish a temporary special
local regulation on the waters of the St. Johns River near downtown
Jacksonville, FL during the 3rd Annual Jacksonville Grand Prix of the
Seas, a series of high-speed boat races. This action is necessary to
provide for the safety of life on the navigable waters during the
event. This special local regulation will be enforced daily on June 3rd
and 4th from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. This proposed rulemaking would prohibit
persons and vessels from being in the regulated area unless authorized
by the Captain of the Port (COTP) Jacksonville or a designated
representative. We invite your comments on this proposed rulemaking.

DATES: Comments and related material must be received by the Coast
Guard on or before May 19, 2016.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-
2016-0048 using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. See the ``Public Participation and Request for
Comments'' portion of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for further
instructions on submitting comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions about this
proposed rulemaking, call or email Lieutenant, Allan Storm, Sector
Jacksonville, Waterways Management Division, U.S. Coast Guard;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

CFR Code of Federal Regulations
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
Sec.  Section
U.S.C. United States Code

II. Background, Purpose, and Legal Basis

    On January 6, 2016, Powerboat P1-USA, LLC notified the Coast Guard
that

it will conduct a series of high speed boat races on the St. Johns
River near downtown Jacksonville, FL on June 3rd and 4th, 2016. COTP
Jacksonville determined that the potential hazards associated with high
speed boat races necessitate the establishment of a special local
regulation.
    The purpose of this rulemaking is to ensure the safety of life on
the navigable waters of the United States by prohibiting all vessels
and persons not participating in the event from entering the regulated
area. The Coast Guard proposes this rulemaking under authority in 33
U.S.C. 1233.

III. Discussion of Proposed Rule

    The COTP proposes to establish a special local regulation for the
3rd Annual Jacksonville Grand Prix of the Seas, a series of high-speed
boat races. The regulated area includes the waters of the St. Johns
River near downtown Jacksonville, FL and it will be enforced daily 9
a.m. to 5 p.m. on June 3rd and 4th, 2016. Approximately 10 high-speed
race boats are anticipated to participate in the races. The regulated
area would encompass an area, located just southeast of the Fuller-
Warren Bridge that is approximately 2,730 yards long and approximately
1,215 yards wide. No vessel or person would be permitted to enter the
regulated area without obtaining permission from the COTP or a
designated representative. The regulatory text we are proposing appears
at the end of this document.

IV. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this proposed rule after considering numerous statutes
and Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our
analyses based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders and
we discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits. Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of
quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing
rules, and of promoting flexibility. This NPRM has not been designated
a ``significant regulatory action,'' under Executive Order 12866.
Accordingly, the NPRM has not been reviewed by the Office of Management
and Budget.
    The Coast Guard has determined that this NPRM is not a significant
regulatory action for the following reasons: (1) The special local
regulation would be enforced for a total of only 16 hours over the
course of two days; (2) although persons and vessels would not be able
to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the regulated
area without authorization from the COTP Jacksonville or a designated
representative, they would be able to operate in the surrounding area
during the enforcement period; (3) persons and vessels would still be
able to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the
regulated if authorized by the COTP Jacksonville or a designated
representative; and (4) the Coast Guard would provide advance
notification of the special local regulation to the local maritime
community via Broadcast Notice to Mariners or by on-scene designated
representative.

B. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this
proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
    While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit
through the regulated area may be small entities, for the reasons
stated in section IV.A above, this proposed rule would not have a
significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator.
    If you think that your business, organization, or governmental
jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have
a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see
ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what
degree this rule would economically affect it.
    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this proposed rule. If the rule would affect
your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you
have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance,
please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section. The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that
question or complain about this proposed rule or any policy or action
of the Coast Guard.

C. Collection of Information

    This proposed rule would not call for a new collection of
information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-
3520).

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has 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. We have analyzed this proposed rule under that Order and
have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism
principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order
13132.
    Also, this proposed rule does not have tribal implications under
Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments, because it would not have a substantial direct effect on
one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If
you believe this proposed rule has implications for federalism or
Indian tribes, please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

F. Environment

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland
Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction
M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made
a preliminary determination that this action is one of a category of
actions that

do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the
human environment. This proposed rule involves a special local
regulation that would prohibit persons and vessels from transiting
through an approximated 2,730 yard by 1,215 yard regulated area during
a two day racing event lasting eight hours daily. Normally such actions
are categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(h) of
Figure 2-1 of Commandant Instruction M16475.lD. A preliminary
environmental analysis checklist and Categorical Exclusion
Determination are available in the docket where indicated under
ADDRESSES. We seek any comments or information that may lead to the
discovery of a significant environmental impact from this proposed
rule.

G. Protest Activities

    The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters.
Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section to coordinate protest activities so that
your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or
security of people, places, or vessels.

V. Public Participation and Request for Comments

    We view public participation as essential to effective rulemaking,
and will consider all comments and material received during the comment
period. Your comment can help shape the outcome of this rulemaking. If
you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which
each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or
recommendation.
    We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking
Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. If your material cannot be
submitted using http://www.regulations.gov, contact the person in the
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document for alternate
instructions.
    We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted
without change to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any
personal information you have provided. For more about privacy and the
docket, you may review a Privacy Act notice regarding the Federal
Docket Management System in the March 24, 2005, issue of the Federal
Register (70 FR 15086).
    Documents mentioned in this NPRM as being available in the docket,
and all public comments, will be in our online docket at http://www.regulations.gov and can be viewed by following that Web site's
instructions. Additionally, if you go to the online docket and sign up
for email alerts, you will be notified when comments are posted or a
final rule is published.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 100

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

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes
to amend 33 CFR part 100 as follows:

PART 100--SAFETY OF LIFE ON NAVIGABLE WATERS

0
1. The authority citation for part 100 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1233.

0
2. Add Sec.  100.35T07-0048 to read as follows:

Sec.  100.35T07-0048  Special Local Regulation, Jacksonville Grand Prix
of the Seas; St. Johns River, Jacksonville, FL.

    (a) Regulated Area. The following regulated area is a special local
regulation located on the waters of the St. Johns River near downtown
Jacksonville, FL. All waters of the St. Johns River encompassed within
the following points: Starting at Point 1 in position 30[deg]18.647'
N., 081[deg]40.450' W.; thence southeast to Point 2 in position
30[deg]18.551' N., 081[deg]40.120' W.; thence southwest to Point 3 in
position 30[deg]17.212' N., 081[deg]40.424' W.; thence northwest to
Point 4 in position 30[deg]17.399' N., 081[deg]41.088' W.; thence
northeast to Point 5 in position 30[deg]18.436' N., 081[deg]40.701' W.;
thence northeast back to origin. These coordinates are based on North
American Datum 1983.
    (b) Definition. The term ``designated representative'' means Coast
Guard Patrol Commanders, including Coast Guard coxswains, petty
officers, and other officers operating Coast Guard vessels, and
Federal, state, and local officers designated by or assisting the
Captain of the Port (COTP) Jacksonville in the enforcement of the
regulated area.
    (c) Regulations. (1) All persons and vessels are prohibited from
entering, transiting through, anchoring in, or remaining within the
regulated area unless authorized by the COTP Jacksonville or a
designated representative.
    (2) Persons and vessels desiring to enter, transit through, anchor
in, or remain within the regulated area may contact the COTP
Jacksonville by telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or a designated
representative via VHF-FM radio on channel 16 to request authorization.
If authorization is granted, all persons and vessels receiving such
authorization must comply with the instructions of the COTP
Jacksonville or designated representative.
    (3) The Coast Guard will provide notice of the regulated area
through Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM channel 16 or by on-
scene designated representatives.
    (d) Enforcement Period. This section will be enforced daily 9 a.m.
to 5 p.m. on June 3rd and 4th, 2016.

     Dated: April 12, 2016.
J.F. Dixon,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Jacksonville.
[FR Doc. 2016-08967 Filed 4-18-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register: December 1, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 231)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 72756-72758]
[DOCID:fr01de08-24]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0083; FRL-8747-2]
RIN 2060-AM71

Amendments to National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants for Area Sources: Electric Arc Furnace Steelmaking
Facilities

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to amend the national emission standards for
electric arc furnace (EAF) steelmaking facilities that are area sources
of hazardous air pollutants published on December 28, 2007. The
amendments to the area source standards for EAF steelmaking facilities
would clarify applicability of the opacity limit, make the performance
test requirements for particulate matter consistent with requirements
in the new source performance standards for EAF steelmaking facilities,
allow title V test data to be used to demonstrate compliance, and
revise the definition of ``scrap provider'' to include electric are
furnace steelmaking facilities that own and operate a scrap shredder.
In the ``Rules and Regulations'' section of this Federal Register, we
are amending the area source standards for EAF steelmaking facilities
as a direct final rule without a prior proposed rule. If we receive no
adverse comment, we will not take further action on this proposed rule.

DATES: Written comments must be received by December 31, 2008.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2004-0083, by mail to National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants for Area Sources: Electric Arc Furnace Steelmaking
Facilities Docket, Environmental Protection Agency, Mailcode: 6102T,
1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460. Please include a
total of two copies. Comments may also be submitted electronically or
through hand delivery/courier by following the detailed instructions in
the ADDRESSES section of the direct final rule located in the rules
section of this Federal Register.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Phil Mulrine, Sector Policies and
Programs Division, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (D243-
02), Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North
Carolina 27711, telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number: (919)
541-3207; e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The information presented in this document
is organized as follows:

I. Why is EPA issuing this proposed rule?
II. Does this action apply to me?
III. Where can I get a copy of this document?
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
    A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
    B. Paperwork Reduction Act
    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
    E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
    F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination with
Indian Tribal Governments
    G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from
Environmental Health and Safety Risks
    H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
    I. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act
    J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations

I. Why is EPA issuing this proposed rule?

    This document proposes to take action on amendments to the national
emission standards for EAF steelmaking area sources (40 CFR part 63,
subpart YYYYY). We have published a direct final rule amending the area
source standards for EAF steelmaking facilities in the ``Rules and
Regulations'' section of this Federal Register because we view this as
a noncontroversial action and anticipate no adverse comment. We have
explained our reasons for this action in the preamble to the direct
final rule.
    If we receive no adverse comment, we will not take further action
on this proposed rule. If we receive adverse comment, we will withdraw
the amendments in the direct final rule or certain amendments in the
direct final rule and those amendments will not take effect. We would
address all public comments in any subsequent final rule based on this
proposed rule.
    We do not intend to institute a second comment period on this
action. Any parties interested in commenting must do so at this time.
For further information, please see the information provided in the
ADDRESSES section of this document.

II. Does this action apply to me?

    Categories and entities potentially regulated by the proposed rule
include:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   Examples of regulated
            Category              NAICS code\1\          entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Industry......................   331111........   Steel mills with
                                                   electric arc furnace
                                                   steelmaking
                                                   facilities that are
                                                   area sources.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ North American Industry Classification System.

    This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this
proposed action. To determine whether your facility would be regulated
by this proposed action, you should examine the applicability criteria
in 40 CFR 63.10680 of subpart YYYYY (National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants for Area Sources: Electric Arc Furnace
Steelmaking Facilities). If you have any questions regarding the
applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult either the
air permit authority for the entity or your EPA regional representative
as listed in 40 CFR 63.13 of subpart A (General Provisions).

III. Where can I get a copy of this document?

    In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of
this proposed action will also be available

on the Worldwide Web (WWW) through the Technology Transfer Network
(TTN). Following signature, a copy of this proposed action will be
posted on the TTN's policy and guidance page for newly proposed or
promulgated rules at the following address: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/
oarpg/. The TTN provides information and technology exchange in various
areas of air pollution control.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review

    This proposed action is not a ``significant regulatory action''
under the terms of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993)
and is therefore not subject to review under the Executive Order.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This action does not impose any new information collection burden.
These final amendments clarify applicability of the opacity limit, make
the performance test requirements for particulate matter consistent
with requirements in the new source performance standards for electric
arc furnace steelmaking facilities, allow title V test data to be used
to demonstrate compliance, and revise the definition of ``scrap
provider'' to include electric arc furnace steelmaking facilities that
own and operate a scrap shredder. No new burden is associated with
these requirements because the burden was included in the approved
information request (ICR) for the existing rule. However, the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) has previously approved the information
collection requirements contained in the existing regulations (40 CFR
part 63 subpart YYYYY) under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction
Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. and has assigned OMB control number 2060-
0608. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are
listed in 40 CFR part 9.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act generally requires an agency to
prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice
and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure
Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the rule will
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. Small entities include small businesses, small organizations,
and small governmental jurisdictions.
    For the purposes of assessing the impacts of this proposed rule on
small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business that
meets the Small Business Administration size standards for small
businesses at 13 CFR 121.201 (whose parent company has fewer than 1,000
employees for NAICS code 331111); (2) a small governmental jurisdiction
that is a government of a city, county, town, school district, or
special district with a population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small
organization that is any not-for-profit enterprise which is
independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.
    After considering the economic impacts of this proposed rule on
small entities, I certify that this proposed action will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
We have determined that the nine small entities in this area source
category will not incur any adverse impacts because this proposed
action makes only technical corrections and clarifications that do not
create any new requirements or burdens. No costs are associated with
these proposed amendments to the NESHAP.
    We continue to be interested in the potential impacts of the
proposed corrections and clarifications on small entities and welcome
comments on issues related to such impacts.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    This action contains no Federal mandates under the provisions of
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), 2 U.S.C.
1531-1538 for State, local, or tribal governments or the private
sector. The action imposes no enforceable duty on any State, local or
tribal governments or the private sector. The term ``enforceable duty''
does not include duties and conditions in voluntary Federal contracts
for goods and services.
    Therefore, this action is not subject to the requirements of
sections 202 or 205 of the UMRA.
    This action is also not subject to the requirements of section 203
of UMRA because it contains no regulatory requirements that might
significantly or uniquely affect small governments. The technical
corrections and clarifications made through this action contain no
requirements that apply to such governments, impose no obligations upon
them, and will not result in any expenditures by them or any
disproportionate impacts on them.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) requires EPA
to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful and timely
input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory
policies that have federalism implications.'' ``Policies that have
federalism implications'' is defined in the Executive Order to include
regulations that have ``substantial direct effects on the States, on
the relationship between the national government and the States, or on
the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels
of government.''
    This proposed rule does not have federalism implications. It will
not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship
between the national government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government,
as specified in Executive Order 13132. This proposed rule makes certain
technical corrections and clarifications to the NESHAP for EAF
steelmaking area sources. These proposed corrections and clarifications
do not impose requirements on State or local governments. Thus,
Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this proposed rule.
    In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, and consistent with EPA
policy to promote communications between EPA and State and local
governments, EPA specifically solicits comment on this proposed rule
from State and local officials.

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments

    This proposed action does not have tribal implications, as
specified in Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
This proposed rule makes certain technical corrections and
clarifications to the NESHAP for EAF steelmaking area sources. These
proposed corrections and clarifications do not impose requirements on
tribal governments. They also have no direct effects on tribal
governments, on the relationship between the Federal government and
Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities
between the Federal government and Indian tribes. Thus, Executive Order
13175 does not apply to this proposed action. EPA specifically solicits
additional comment on this proposed action from tribal officials.

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

    EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those
regulatory actions that are based on health or safety risks, such that
the analysis required under section 5-501 of the Order has the
potential to influence the regulation. This proposed action is not
subject to Executive Order 13045 because it makes technical corrections
and clarifications to the area source NESHAP for EAF steelmaking
facilities which is based solely on technology performance.

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

    The proposed action is not subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR
28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not a significant regulatory action
under Executive Order 12866.

I. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer Advancement Act
of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law No. 104-113, Sec.  12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272
note) directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS) in its
regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with
applicable law or otherwise impractical. VCS are technical standards
(e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and
business practices) that are developed or adopted by VCS bodies. The
NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress, through the Office of Management
and Budget, explanations when EPA decides not to use available and
applicable voluntary consensus standards.
    This proposed rule does not involve technical standards. Therefore,
EPA is not considering the use of any VCS.

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

    Executive Order 12848 (58 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) establishes
Federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision
directs Federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and
permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission
by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high
and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs,
policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income
populations in the United States.
    EPA has determined that this proposed rule will not have
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects on minority or low-income populations because it does not
affect the level of protection provided to human health or the
environment. The technical corrections and clarifications in this
proposed rule do not change the level of control required by the
NESHAP.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hazardous
substances, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: November 24, 2008.
Stephen L. Johnson,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. E8-28456 Filed 11-28-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 227 (Friday, November 25, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Page 85237]
[FR Doc No: 2016-28348]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4287-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2016-0001]

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

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of Kansas (FEMA-4287-DR), dated October 20, 2016, and
related determinations.

DATES: Effective Date: November 15, 2016.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of Kansas is hereby amended to include the following area
among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by the
event declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration of
October 20, 2016.

    Phillips County for Public Assistance.

The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA)
are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community
Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling;
97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment
Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048,
Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households In
Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially
Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing Operations for
Individuals and Households; 97.050 Presidentially Declared Disaster
Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other Needs; 97.036,
Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared
Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

W. Craig Fugate,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2016-28348 Filed 11-23-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P