[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 151 (Tuesday, August 8, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 37160]
[FR Doc No: 2017-16642]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

[Summary Notice No. PE-2017-67]

Notice: Extension

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice: Extension.

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

SUMMARY: This notice contains a summary of a petition seeking relief
from specified requirements of Federal Aviation Regulations. The
purpose of this notice is to extend the comment period to improve the
public's awareness of, and participation in, the FAA's exemption
process. Neither publication of this notice nor the inclusion or
omission of information in the summary is intended to affect the legal
status of the petition or its final disposition.

DATES: Comments on this petition must identify the petition docket
number involved and must be received on or before September 22, 2017.

ADDRESSES: Send comments identified by docket number FAA-2017-0613
using any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and follow the online instructions for sending your
comments electronically.
     Mail: Send comments to Docket Operations, M-30; U.S.
Department of Transportation (DOT), 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room
W12-140, West Building Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: Take comments to Docket
Operations in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Fax: Fax comments to Docket Operations at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Privacy: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments
from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT posts
these comments, without edit, including any personal information the
commenter provides, to http://www.regulations.gov, as described in the
system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at
http://www.dot.gov/privacy.
    Docket: Background documents or comments received may be read at
http://www.regulations.gov at any time. Follow the online instructions
for accessing the docket or go to the Docket Operations in Room W12-140
of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except
Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  Lynette Mitterer, AIR673, Federal
Aviation Administration, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356,
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>phone<PHONE_NUMBER>; or Alphonso
Pendergrass, ARM-200, Office of Rulemaking, Federal Aviation
Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591, email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>phone<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    This notice is published pursuant to 14 CFR 11.85.

    Issued in Renton, Washington.
Victor Wicklund,
Manager, Transport Standards Branch.

PETITION FOR EXEMPTION

    Docket No.: FAA-2017-0613.
    Petitioner: The Boeing Company.
    Section of 14 CFR Affected: Sec.  25.807(g)(7).
    Description of Relief Sought: Allow up to 200 passenger seats when
a third pair of Type III exits are installed on the Boeing Model 737-
8200, 737-9, and 737-900ER airplanes.

[FR Doc. 2017-16642 Filed 8-7-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: June 4, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 108)]
[Notices]
[Page 31862-31864]
[DOCID:fr04jn08-60]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0046; FRL-8365-3]

Notice of Filing of Pesticide Petitions for Residues of Pesticide
Chemicals in or on Various Commodities

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces the initial filing of pesticide
petitions proposing the establishment or modification of regulations
for residues of pesticide chemicals in or on various commodities.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before July 7, 2008.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by docket identification
(ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0046 and the pesticide petition number (PP)
of interest, by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal:  http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
     Mail: Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) Regulatory Public
Docket (7502P), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001.
     Delivery: OPP Regulatory Public Docket (7502P),
Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South
Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. Deliveries are only
accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation (8:30 a.m. to 4
p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays). Special
arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. The
Docket Facility telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0046 the
assigned docket ID number and the pesticide petition number of
interest. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the docket without change and may be made available on-line at
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through regulations.gov or e-
mail. The regulations.gov website is an ``anonymous access'' system,
which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information
unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-
mail comment directly to EPA without going through regulations.gov,
your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part
of the comment that is placed in the docket and made available on the
Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you
include your name and other contact information in the body of your
comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the docket index
available in regulations.gov. To access the electronic docket, go to
http://www.regulations.gov, select ``Advanced Search,'' then ``Docket
Search.'' Insert the docket ID number where indicated and select the
``Submit'' button. Follow the instructions on the regulations.gov
website to view the docket index or access available documents.
Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly
available, e.g., CBI or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted
material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available
only in hard copy. Publicly available docket materials are available
electronically at http://www.regulations.gov, or, if only available in
hard copy, at the OPP Regulatory Public Docket in Rm. S-4400, One
Potomac Yard (South Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. The
hours of operation of this Docket Facility are from 8:30 a.m. to 4
p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The Docket
Facility telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The person listed at the end of the
pesticide petition summary of interest.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this Action Apply to Me?

    You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an
agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer.
Potentially affected entities may include, but are not limited to:
     Crop production (NAICS code 111).
     Animal production (NAICS code 112).
     Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
     Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).
    This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides
a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this
action. Other types of entities not listed in this unit could also be
affected. The North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS)
codes have been provided to assist you and others in determining
whether this action might apply to certain entities. If you have any
questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular
entity, consult the person listed at the end of the pesticide petition
summary of interest.

B. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA?

     1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through
regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly mark the part or all of the
information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or
CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as
CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the
specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one
complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as
CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information
claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket.
Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with
procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
     2. Tips for preparing your comments. When submitting comments,
remember to:
    i. Identify the document by docket ID number and other identifying
information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number).
    ii. Follow directions. The Agency may ask you to respond to
specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
    iii. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and
substitute language for your requested changes.
    iv. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information
and/or data that you used.
    v. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you
arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be
reproduced.
    vi. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns and
suggest alternatives.
    vii. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of
profanity or personal threats.
    viii. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period
deadline identified.

II. Docket ID Numbers

    When submitting comments, please use the docket ID number and the
pesticide petition number of interest, as shown in the table.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 PP Number                        Docket ID Number
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PP 8E7325                                   EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0362
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PP 8E7341                                   EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0361
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PP 7F7279                                   EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0327
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PP 8F7335                                   EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0322
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PP 8F7343                                   EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0360
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PP 8E7325                                   EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0362
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PP 8E7332                                   EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0346
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PP 8E7333                                   EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0059
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PP 7F7311                                   EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0093
------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. What Action is the Agency Taking?

    EPA is printing notice of the filing of pesticide petitions
received under section 408 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act
(FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 346a, proposing the establishment or modification of
regulations in 40 CFR part 180 for residues of pesticide chemicals in
or on various food commodities. EPA has determined that the pesticide
petitions described in this notice contain data or information
regarding the elements set forth in FFDCA section 408(d)(2); however,
EPA has not fully evaluated the sufficiency of the submitted data at
this time or whether the data support granting of the pesticide
petitions. Additional data may be needed before EPA rules on these
pesticide petitions.
    Pursuant to 40 CFR 180.7(f), a summary of each of the petitions
included in this notice, prepared by the petitioner, is included in a
docket EPA has created for each rulemaking. The docket for each of the
petitions is available on-line at http://www.regulations.gov.

A. New Tolerance

     1. PP 8E7325. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0362). The Interregional Research
Project No. 4 (IR-4), 500 College Rd. East, Suite 201 W, Princeton, NJ
08540, proposes to establish a tolerance for residues of the fungicide
quinoxyfen, 5,7-dichloro-4-(4-fluorophenoxy)quinoline in or on food
commodities artichoke, globe at 1.4 parts per million (ppm); fruit,
stone, group 12 at 0.70 ppm; squash, winter at 0.20 ppm; pumpkin at
0.20 ppm; and gourd, edible at 0.20 ppm. A practical analytical method
is available to monitor and enforce the tolerances of quinoxyfen
residues in crops. The analytical method uses a capillary gas
chromatography and mass selective detection (GC-MSD) with limits of
quantitation (LOQ) of <0.01. The method is adequate for collecting data
and enforcing tolerances for quinoxyfen residues in/on the subject
crops. Contact: Sidney Jackson,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>     2. PP 8E7341. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0361). IR-4, 500 College Rd. East,
Suite 201W, Princeton, NJ 08540, proposes to establish a tolerance for
the combined residues of the herbicide cyhalofop (cyhalofop-butyl, R-
(+)-n-butyl-2-(4(4-cyano-2-fluorophenoxy)-phenoxy)propionate, plus
cyhalofop acid, R-(+)-2-(4(4-cyano-2-fluorophenoxy)-
phenoxy)propionicacid) and the di-acid metabolite, (2R)-4-[4-(1-
carboxyethoxy)phenoxy]-3-fluorobenzoic acid in or on food commodity
rice, wild, grain at 0.03 ppm. An adequate analytical method is
available for enforcement purposes; the method has been developed and
validated to determine the residues of cyhalofop-butyl, cyhalofop (acid
form) and the diacid metabolite in rice grain, straw and processed
products. The method was based on capillary gas chromatography with
mass selective detection. Contact: Sidney Jackson,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     3. PP 7F7279. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0327). Bayer CropScience, P.O. Box
12014, 2 T.W. Alexander Dr., Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, proposes
to establish a tolerance for residues of the fungicide prothioconazole
in or on food commodity wheat, forage at 8.0 ppm. The analytical method
for determining residues of concern in plants extracts residues of
prothioconazole and JAU6476-desthio and converts the prothioconazole to
JAU6476-desthio and JAU6476-sulfonic acid. Following addition of
internal standards the sample extracts are analyzed by liquid
chromatography/mass spectrometry

(LC/MS/MS). Radiovalidation and independent laboratory validation have
shown that the method adequately quantifies prothioconazole residues in
treated commodities. The analytical method for analysis of large animal
tissues includes extraction of the residues of concern, followed by
addition of an internal standard to the extract. The extract is then
hydrolyzed to release conjugates, partitioned and analyzed by LC/MS/MS
as prothioconazole, JAU6476-desthio and JAU6476-4-hydroxy. The method
for analysis of milk eliminated the initial extraction step in the
tissue method. Contact: Bryant Crowe,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     4. PP 8F7335. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0322). Bayer CropScience, P.O. Box
12014, 2 T.W. Alexander Dr., Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, proposes
to establish a tolerance for residues of the insecticide tebupirimphos;
[O-[2-(1,1-dimethylethyl)-5-pyrimidinyl] O-ethyl O-(1-methylethyl)
phosphorothioate in or on food commodities corn, field, forage at 0.01
ppm; corn, field, stover at 0.01 ppm; corn, pop, forage at 0.01 ppm;
corn, pop, stover at 0.01 ppm; corn, sweet, forage at 0.01 ppm; corn,
sweet, stover at 0.01 ppm; corn, field, grain at 0.01 ppm; corn, pop,
grain at 0.01 ppm; corn, sweet, kernel plus cob with husks removed at
0.01 ppm. Adequate validated analytical methodology is available for
enforcement purposes. Contact: Marilyn Mautz,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     5. PP 8F7343. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0360). Nichino America, Inc. (NAI),
4550 New Linden Hill Rd., Suite 501, Wilmington, DE 19808, proposes to
establish a tolerance for residues of the insecticide buprofezin in or
on food commodity Brassica, head and stem, subgroup 5A at 7.0 ppm. The
proposed analytical method involves extraction, partition, clean-up and
detection of residues by gas chromatography using nitrogen phosphorous
detection. Contact: Melody Banks,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
B. Amendment to Existing Tolerance

     PP 8E7325. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0362). IR-4, 500 College Road East,
Suite 201W, Princeton, NJ 08540, proposes, upon approval of the
aforementioned tolerance for fruit, stone, group 12 in Unit III.A.1.,
to amend remove the established tolerances for the residues of the
fungicide quinoxyfen, 5,7-dichloro-4-(4-fluorophenoxy)quinoline in 40
CFR 180.588 (a) in or on the food commodities cherry, sweet at 0.3
parts per million (ppm) and cherry, tart at 0.3 ppm. Contact: Sidney
Jackson,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
C. New Exemption From Tolerance

     1. PP 8E7332. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0346). Bayer CropScience, P.O. Box
12014, 2 T.W. Alexander Dr., Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, proposes
to establish amend 40 CFR part 180 by establishing an exemption from
the requirement of a tolerance under 40 CFR 180.920 for residues of the
triethanolamine (TEA)(CAS Reg. No. 102-71-6) when used as a pesticide
inert ingredient stabilizer at no more than 2% in pesticide
formulations that are used for post-emergence treatment on small grain
cereal crops before the edible parts of the plant consumed by humans
are exposed. Because this petition is a request for an exemption from
the requirement of a tolerance, no analytical method is required.
Contact: Karen Samek,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>     2. PP 8E7333. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0059). Whitmire Micro-Gen c/o
Landis International, Inc., P.O. Box 5126, Valdosta, GA 31603-5126,
proposes to amend 40 CFR part 180 by establishing an exemption from the
requirement of a tolerance under 40 CFR 180.930 for residues of the
potassium benzoate (CAS Reg. No. 582-25-2) when used as a pesticide
inert ingredient in a pesticide product when used in accordance with
good agricultural practice as a preservative in pesticide formulations
applied to animals. Because this petition is a request for an exemption
from the requirement of a tolerance, no analytical method is required.
Contact: Karen Samek,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>     3. PP 7F7311. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0093). SynTech Global LLC on behalf
of BioNext sprl, Passage des deportes, 2, B-5030 Gembloux, Belgium,
proposes to establish amend 40 part CFR 180 by establishing an
exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of the
calcium lactate pentahydrate (CAS Reg. No. 5743-47-5) on stored apples
and pears when used as a pesticide inert ingredient in pesticide
formulations of the active ingredient Candida oleophila strain O, as a
post-harvest treatment to control Botrytis cinerea (grey mold) and
Penicillium expansum (blue mold). Because this petition is a request
for an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance, no analytical
method is required. Contact: Karen Samek,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
List of Subjects

    Environmental protection, Agricultural commodities, Feed additives,
Food additives, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.

    Dated: May 19, 2008.
Lois Rossi,
Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.
[FR Doc. E8-12249 Filed 6-3-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-S


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 179 (Monday, September 20, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 52162-52166]
[FR Doc No: 2021-20298]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

[Docket Number USCG-2021-0738]

Offshore Patrol Cutter Acquisition Program; Draft Programmatic
Environmental Impact Statement/Overseas Environmental Impact Statement

AGENCY: Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security (DHS).

ACTION: Notice of availability of a Draft Programmatic Environmental
Impact Statement/Overseas Environmental Impact Statement; request for
comments.

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

SUMMARY: The United States (U.S.) Coast Guard (Coast Guard), as the
lead agency, announces the availability of the Draft Programmatic
Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS)/Overseas Environmental Impact
Statement (POEIS) for the Offshore Patrol Cutter (OPC) Program's Stage
2 acquisition of up to 21 OPCs and for the operation of up to 25 total
OPCs. The complete OPC Program of Record comprises 25 OPCs. OPC Stage 1
is already under contract to provide the first 4 OPCs. OPC Stage 2 is
the focus of this PEIS/POEIS and will provide the remaining 21 OPCs.
This PEIS/POEIS is being prepared in compliance with the National
Environmental Policy Act and the regulations implemented by the Council
on Environmental Quality (CEQ) and

the Executive order titled ``Environmental Effects Abroad of Major
Federal Actions.'' The Coast Guard has determined that a PEIS/POEIS is
the most appropriate type of NEPA document for this action because of
the scope and complexity of the proposed acquisition and operation of
up to 25 OPCs. This Notice of Availability (NOA) announces the start of
the public review and comment period on this PEIS/POEIS. After the
Coast Guard addresses comments provided, Coast Guard will publish a
final PEIS/POEIS.

DATES: Comments and related material must be post-marked or received by
the Coast Guard on or before November 4, 2021.

ADDRESSES:
    Obtaining Documents: You may access the Draft PEIS/POEIS using the
Federal eRulemaking Portal at https://www.regulations.gov. Search using
docket number USCG-2021-0738 to access the Draft PEIS/POEIS.
    Submitting Comments: You may submit comments on the Draft PEIS/
POEIS by one of the following methods:
     Via the Web: You may submit comments identified by docket
number USCG-2021-0738 using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at https://www.regulations.gov. See the ``Public Scoping Process'' portion of the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for further instructions on
submitting comments.
     Via U.S. Mail: OPC Program Manager (CG-9322), U.S. Coast
Guard Headquarters, 2703 Martin Luther King Jr. Ave. SE, Stop 7800,
Washington, DC 20593. Please note that mailed comments must be
postmarked on or before the comment deadline of 45 days following
publication of this notice to be considered.
    Before including your address, phone number, email address, or
other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be
aware that your entire comment--including your personal identifying
information--may be made publicly available at any time. While you can
ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying
information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be
able to do so.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information about this document
contact Andrew Haley, Chief, Office of Environmental Management, Coast
Guard at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This NOA briefly summarizes the proposed
project, including the purpose and need and reasonable alternatives. As
required by NEPA and CEQ implementing regulations (40 CFR parts 1500
through 1508, specifically Sec.  1502.3), a Federal agency must prepare
an EIS if it is proposing a major Federal action to analyze the
environmental consequences of implementing each of the alternatives, if
carried forward for full review, following public scoping, by assessing
the effects of each alternative on the human environment.

Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action

    The Coast Guard's current fleet of Medium Endurance Cutters (MEC)
consists of 28 operational vessels homeported in the Coast Guard's Area
of Responsibility (AOR) in the Atlantic, Pacific, and Gulf of Mexico.
MECs primarily operate outside the 12 nautical mile (nm) territorial
seas and within the 200 nm Exclusive Economic Zone and primarily
execute maritime law enforcement and search and rescue missions.
Additional MEC operations occur in the Gulf of Mexico, the Caribbean
Sea, and the Pacific between California and Panama. Current operational
MECs have exceeded their designed 30-year service life and can no
longer meet this need for the Coast Guard. Therefore, the Coast Guard
must replace the aging MECs because they are too old and costly to be
operationally effective. Some of the oldest MECs are already more than
55 years old and do not have sufficient hull life remaining to justify
any attempts to modernize them. Therefore, the purpose of the Proposed
Action is the acquisition and operation of up to 25 OPCs to replace the
capabilities of the current operational MECs. OPCs have identical
missions and operational characteristics as the MECs they replace. OPC
differences include increased length to accommodate a fixed hanger for
assigned aircraft, larger flight deck, greater at-sea endurance, an
increased number of cutter boats, and modernized Command, Control,
Computers, Navigation, and Combat systems. OPCs also feature enhanced
environmental standards for clean air, noise, sewage, trash, and
ballast.

Proposed Action and Alternative

    Coast Guard has identified and analyzed three action alternatives
and the No Action Alternative in the PEIS/POEIS for public review and
comment.
    Proposed Action (Alternative 1, Preferred Alternative): Under the
Proposed Action, the Coast Guard would acquire and operate up to 25
OPCs with planned design lives of 30 years to fulfill mission
requirements in the proposed action areas in the Atlantic Ocean, Gulf
of Mexico, the Caribbean Sea, and Pacific Ocean, including the ice-free
waters of Alaska, Hawaii, and Pacific Islands. Similar to the current
fleet's operations, the Proposed Action would include vessel and
aircraft operations as well as shipboard training exercises to meet the
Coast Guard's mission responsibilities. OPCs would support the Coast
Guard's missions that generally occur more than 50 nm (92 km) from
shore and require long transit time to reach the farthest extent of the
Coast Guard's AORs, forward deployment of forces with the U.S. Navy for
National Defense, and an extended on-scene vessel presence.
    An OPC's typical deployment schedule would be to perform law
enforcement activities, which include interdicting any vessel suspected
of illegal or unsafe activity in U.S. waters (e.g., fishing without
appropriate permits, carrying excessive passengers, or transporting
contraband). However, the OPC would be expected to perform other
federally-mandated emergent (e.g., hurricane disaster response) or non-
emergent missions, typically without sufficient time to return to port
for additional provisions or reconfiguration. These missions include
Ports, Waterways, and Coastal Security, Search and Rescue, Drug
Interdiction, Migrant Interdiction, Living Marine Resource, Other Law
Enforcement, and Defense Readiness. The OPC would also be required to
enforce maritime environmental laws and regulations, escort vessels to
protect national security, and to ensure safe maritime navigation.
Coast Guard mandated missions are covered under Title 14 U.S.C. and 6
U.S.C. 468.
    OPCs would carry up to three small, rigid-hull inflatable Over the
Horizon (OTH) boats, but only one to two OTH boats would be launched at
any one time in support of OPC operations. Operations with OTH boats
would enhance operational effectiveness by allowing for simultaneous
boarding, inspecting, seizing, and neutralizing of surface targets of
interest (i.e., civilians suspected of breaking the law or requiring
assistance). The OTH boats would also perform in situations and areas
where it is either physically impossible or dangerous for the OPC to
navigate. OTH boats would support activities such as vessel boarding,
passenger transfer, and rescue of persons in distress.
    All OPCs would be flight deck-equipped with the ability to launch,
recover, hangar, and maintain helicopters. The flight deck of the OPC
would be capable of launching and recovering all variants of
helicopters up

to equivalent weight of a Sikorsky S-92. In general, helicopters
supporting an OPC would either be from an embarked aviation detachment,
or would fly from an established airstrip on shore either to the OPC or
from the OPC to shore. Helicopter flights associated with the Proposed
Action would occur in all Coast Guard AORs, and could be used for
transport of personnel and equipment and for conducting training (e.g.,
landing qualifications), in addition to supporting all OPC missions.
All aircraft would follow the Coast Guard's Air Operations Manual
(COMDTINST M3710.1H, October 2018).
    All OPCs would also have the ability to launch, recover, hangar,
and maintain an Unmanned Aircraft System (UAS). Depending on available
space, multiple UAS may be utilized. The OPC would have the capability
to operate video-equipped UAS that would extend the visual capability
of the OPC when conducting operations. The UAS would be deployed and
recovered from the OPC. At this time, the specific type of UAS that
would be deployed from the OPC is not known because the Coast Guard
would acquire the most current UAS technology available after the OPCs
are operational. Coast Guard UAS Division sets policies and Standard
Operating Procedures specific to UAS operations, including regulations
that differ from those governing manned flight operations.
    Every 18-24 months, the OPC crew would undergo 3-4 weeks of
training and evaluation, including over 100 drills and exercises in
different scenarios (e.g., flooding, combat, fires, refueling at sea,
towing, active shooter) to demonstrate the crew's abilities to safely
and effectively run the ship. During this training evaluation, a
significant administrative portion is dedicated to ensure the ship's
compliance with applicable laws, regulations, and policies. Some of the
activities are integral to Coast Guard emergency response. Although
emergency response is not a part of the Proposed Action, training is
required. Therefore, training on an OPC for an emergency response is
considered part of the Proposed Action. Training would entail
practicing response to a simulated emergency while continuing the safe
operation and navigation of the OPC.
    Gunnery training may occur up to four times per year on each OPC
vessel and would only occur in ranges authorized by the Coast Guard and
when possible, in established Navy ranges, particularly when live
ammunition is used. Areas with sensitive marine resources would not be
used for gunnery training.
    Vessel performance testing would occur up to annually and would
typically occur near that vessel's homeport similar to testing
currently conducted for MECs.
    Coast Guard OPC operations and training would occur after delivery
of each OPC from the shipbuilder to the Coast Guard. For example, OPC-1
delivery to the Coast Guard is expected in 2023 and would undergo
approximately one year of training to become ``Ready for Operations.''
OPC-1 would then become operational in 2024. The last OPC (i.e., OPC-
25) is expected to be delivered in 2037 and would then become
operational in 2038.
    Alternative 2, Reduced Acquisition: The Coast Guard would explore
the acquisition of fewer OPCs after the completion of OPC-1 through
OPC-4 which are under contract. The Coast Guard would consider five,
ten, or fifteen OPCs via a re-competition of the original OPC contract
as replacements for a corresponding number of in-service MECs. The
Coast Guard would then need to replace the remaining MECs on a one-for-
one basis, using whatever replacement hulls the Coast Guard could
obtain when deterioration or obsolescence requires decommissioning. The
life cycle training and logistical costs of maintaining several unique
hulls would exceed the corresponding costs of maintaining a class of 25
cutters that would be built specifically to conduct missions in the
Coast Guard's AORs. Costs and challenges are similar to what is
described under Alternative 3. Operations and training using OPCs
acquired under Alternative 2 are the same as for Alternative 1.
    Alternative 3, Purchase, Lease, and Inherit: The Coast Guard would
explore various forms of cutter purchase or lease, or inherit vessels
from the U.S. Navy, as the need arises. This would mean that as a MEC
reaches or surpasses the end of its economic service life, that cutter
would not necessarily be replaced with the same type of asset or by an
asset with similar capabilities. One-for-one MEC replacement cost would
increase more per replacement hull because it eliminates any workforce
savings associated with ship capabilities designed specifically to
conduct Coast Guard missions in areas that may exceed 50 nm (93 km)
from shore. The purchase, lease, and inherit alternative include the
lack of an existing domestic commercial vessel capable of meeting
available options to Purchase and Build-to-Lease. This approach would
not properly integrate Coast Guard systems, limiting ability of assets
to communicate in real time and resulting in decreased efficiency
throughout the system, as well as higher maintenance costs. Operations
and training using OPCs acquired under Alternative 2 are the same as
for Alternative 1.
    No Action Alternative: The evaluation of a No Action Alternative is
required by the regulations implementing NEPA. Under the No Action
Alternative, the Coast Guard would acquire OPC-1 through OPC-4, then
would fulfill its missions in the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans and Gulf
of Mexico using existing assets, which are reaching the end of their
service lives. The existing assets would continue to age, causing a
decrease in efficiency of machinery as well as an increased risk of
equipment failure or damage, and would not be considered reliable for
immediate emergency response. In addition, it would become more
difficult for an ageing fleet to remain in compliance with
environmental laws and regulations and standards for safe operation.
Further Service Life Extensions become more challenging as significant
systems and parts are no longer available, which requires contracting
for systems or parts to be made specifically for the vessel. Therefore,
the No Action Alternative would not meet the Coast Guard's statutory
mission requirements in the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans and Gulf of
Mexico to provide air, surface, and shore-side presence in those areas.
    The Coast Guard also enforces the Marine Mammal Protection Act
(MMPA) and Endangered Species Act (ESA), and without reliable Coast
Guard presence, enforcement of these laws would be significantly
reduced. As such, the No Action Alternative does not meet the purpose
and need.

Summary of Expected Impacts

    While the Coast Guard must work toward environmental compliance
during the design and acquisition of OPCs, each vessel is not expected
to impact the environment or biological resources until it is
operational. In addition, vessel construction in commercial shipyards
is not expected to impact any physical or biological resources.
    Although the total number of OPCs may be subject to change,
Congressional Authorization is for no more than 25. Therefore, the
PEIS/POEIS analyzes the potential impact associated with the proposed
acquisition and operation of up to 25 OPCs, as this would be the
highest number projected to be operational in the Coast Guard's AORs.
    Acoustic and physical stressors associated with the Proposed Action
may potentially impact the physical and

biological environment in the AORs. Potential acoustic stressors
include: The fathometer and Doppler speed log noise (navigation
system), vessel noise, aircraft noise, and gunnery noise. Potential
physical stressors include: Vessel movement, aircraft movement
(helicopters, UAS), and marine expended materials (MEM).
    Since the OPC AORs cover a broad geographic area, stressors
associated with the Proposed Action are assessed to determine if they
potentially impact air quality, ambient sound, biological resources
(including critical habitat), and socioeconomic resources.
    The PEIS/POEIS evaluates the likelihood that a resource would be
exposed to or encounter a stressor and identify the potential impact
associated with that exposure or encounter. The likelihood of an
exposure or encounter is based on the stressor, location, and timing
relative to the spatial and temporal distribution of each biological
resource or critical habitat. No significant impacts to environmental
resources were identified.

Anticipated Permits and Authorizations

    The Proposed Action is programmatic in nature and each OPC would
have a design service life of 30 years. As such, potential permits and
authorizations are identified in the PEIS/POEIS. Certain approvals may
be completed as part of the PEIS/POEIS, but specific permits and
authorizations under the laws listed below will be determined through
consultations with the appropriate regulatory agencies, and would not
necessarily be issued until an OPC is operational in a specific
geographic area. Implementation of all alternatives will ultimately
require compliance with the following laws and regulations through
issuance of permits and/or authorizations:
    The Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA; 16 U.S.C. 1451 et seq.) was
enacted to protect the coastal environment from demands associated with
residential, recreational, and commercial uses. The Coast Guard would
determine the impact of the Proposed Action and provide a Coastal
Consistency Determination or Negative Determination to the appropriate
state agency for anticipated concurrence once the homeports are
selected for the OPCs.
    The Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.)
provides for the conservation of endangered and threatened species and
the ecosystems on which they depend. The Coast Guard anticipates
engaging with the National Marine Fisheries Service and the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service, pursuant to Section 7 of the ESA, which have
jurisdiction over ESA-listed species and critical habitat (50 CFR
402.14(a)).
    The Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA; 16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.)
regulates ``take'' of marine mammals in U.S. waters. The term ``take''
as defined in Section 3 (16 U.S.C. 1362) of the MMPA, means ``to
harass, hunt, capture, or kill, or attempt to harass, hunt, capture, or
kill any marine mammal.'' ``Harassment'' was further defined in the
1994 amendments to the MMPA as any act of pursuit, torment, or
annoyance which (i) has the potential to injure a marine mammal or
marine mammal stock in the wild (i.e., Level A Harassment); or (ii) has
the potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the
wild by causing disruption of behavioral patterns, including, but not
limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or
sheltering (i.e., Level B Harassment). The Coast Guard anticipates
engaging with the National Marine Fisheries Service and the U.S Fish
and Wildlife Service for potential Level B Harassment of marine mammals
under their respective jurisdiction from proposed action activities.
    The National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA; 16 U.S.C. 470, et
seq.), Section 106, requires that each Federal agency identify and
assess the effects its actions may have on historic resources,
including potential effects on historic structures, archaeological
resources, and tribal resources. The Coast Guard would determine if any
historic resources are present in the project area, evaluate the
potential for the proposed action to adversely affect these resources,
and consult with the appropriate state agency and any interested or
affected Tribes to resolve any adverse effects by developing and
evaluating alternatives or measures that could avoid, minimize, or
mitigate impacts.
    The Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq.) regulates emissions
from both stationary (industrial) sources and mobile sources. The Coast
Guard evaluated the potential for increased emissions during proposed
action activities to determine if the emissions would be in conformity
with the State Implementation Plan for attainment of National Ambient
Air Quality Standards.

Schedule for the Decision-Making Process

    Following the comment period announced in this Notice of
Availability, and after consideration of all comments received, Coast
Guard will prepare a Final PEIS/POEIS for the acquisition of 21 OPCs
and operation of up to 25 OPCs. In meeting CEQ regulations requiring
EISs to be completed within 2 years the Coast Guard anticipates the
Final PEIS/POEIS would be available in 2022. Availability of the Final
PEIS/POEIS would be published in the Federal Register and would be
available for a 30-day waiting period. Because new information may
become available after the completion of the Draft or Final PEIS/POEIS,
supplemental NEPA documentation may be prepared in support of new
information or changes in the Proposed Action considered under the
PEIS/POEIS.

Public Scoping Process

    The Coast Guard is seeking comments on the potential environmental
impacts that may result from the Proposed Action or preliminary
Alternatives. The Coast Guard is also seeking input on relevant
information, studies, or analyses of any kind concerning impacts
potentially affecting the quality of the human environment as a result
of the Proposed Action. NEPA requires Federal agencies to consider
environmental impacts that may result from a Proposed Action, to inform
the public of potential impacts and alternatives, and to facilitate
public involvement in the assessment process. The PEIS/POEIS includes,
among other topics, discussions of the purpose and need for the
Proposed Action, a description of alternatives, a description of the
affected environment, and an evaluation of the environmental impact of
the Proposed Action and alternatives.
    E.O. 12114, Environmental Effects Abroad of Major Federal Actions
(44 FR 1957), directs Federal agencies to be informed of and take
account of environmental considerations when making decisions regarding
major Federal actions outside of the U.S., its territories, and
possessions. E.O. 12114 requires Federal agencies to assess the effects
of their actions outside the U.S. that may significantly harm the
physical and natural environment. A PEIS/POEIS would include, among
other topics, discussions of the purpose and need for the Proposed
Action, a description of alternatives, a description of the affected
environment, and an evaluation of the environmental impact of the
Proposed Action and alternatives. The Coast Guard proposes to combine
the PEIS and POEIS into one document, as permitted under NEPA and E.O.
12114, to reduce duplication.
    The Coast Guard intends to follow the CEQ regulations implementing
NEPA (40 CFR parts 1500 through 1599) by scoping through public
comments. Scoping, which is integral to the process for implementing
NEPA, provides a

process to ensure that (1) issues are identified early and properly
studied; (2) issues of little significance do not consume substantial
time and effort; (3) the Draft PEIS/POEIS is thorough and balanced; and
(4) delays caused by an inadequate PEIS/POEIS are avoided.
    Public scoping is a process for determining the scope of issues to
be addressed in this PEIS/POEIS and for identifying the issues related
to the Proposed Action that may have a significant effect on the
environment. The scoping process began with publication of the Notice
of Intent to prepare the PEIS/POEIS, published November 18, 2020 (85 FR
73491). The Coast Guard did not receive any comments or input on
alternatives, information, or analysis relating to the Proposed Action
during the 45-day public scoping period that began November 18, 2020
and ended January 4, 2021. In this Notice of Availability, the Coast
Guard is providing the public with the opportunity to comment on the
Draft PEIS/POEIS. After Coast Guard considers those comments, the Final
PEIS/POEIS will be prepared and its availability similarly announced to
solicit public review and comment. Comments received during the Draft
PEIS/POEIS review period will be available in the public docket and
made available in the Final PEIS/POEIS.
    Pursuant to the CEQ regulations, Coast Guard invites public
participation in the NEPA process. This notice requests public
comments, establishes a public comment period, and provides information
on how to participate.
    The 45-day public comment period begins September 20, 2021 and ends
November 4, 2021. Comments and related material submitted to the online
docket via https://www.regulations.gov/ must be received by the Coast
Guard on or before November 4, 2021, and mailed submission, must be
postmarked on or before that same date.
    We encourage you to submit specific, timely, substantive, and
relevant comments through the Federal portal at https://www.regulations.gov, on the site provided when searching the above
docket number or searching for ``Offshore Patrol Cutter.'' If comments
cannot be submitted using https://www.regulations.gov, contact the OPC
program manager at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you cannot submit
comments electronically, written comments can be sent to: OPC Program
Manager (CG-9322), U.S. Coast Guard Headquarters, 2703 Martin Luther
King Jr. Ave. SE, Stop 7800, Washington, DC 20593.
    In submissions, please include the docket number for this Notice of
Availability and provide reasoning for comments. To be considered
timely, comments must be received on or before November 4, 2021 to be
considered in the Draft PEIS/POEIS. Comments mailed to the contact
above must be postmarked by November 4, 2021. We will consider all
substantive and relevant comments received during the comment period.
    We accept anonymous comments. Comments posted to https://www.regulations.gov will include any personal information you have
provided. For more about privacy and submissions in response to this
document, see DHS's eRulemaking System of Records notice (85 FR 14226,
March 11, 2020).
    We review all comments received, but we will only post comments
that address the topic of the notice. We may choose not to post off-
topic, inappropriate, or duplicate comments that we receive. Documents
mentioned in this Notice of Availability as being available in the
docket, and posted public comments, will be in the online docket at
https://www.regulations.gov and can be viewed by following that
website's instructions.
    Comments received in response to this solicitation, including names
and addresses of those who comment, will be part of the public record
for this Proposed Action.

    Dated: September 15, 2021.
Andrew T. Pecora,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, OPC Program Manager (CG-9322).
[FR Doc. 2021-20298 Filed 9-16-21; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 114 (Friday, June 13, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 33942]
[FR Doc No: 2014-13915]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4171-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2014-0003]

Tennessee; 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 Tennessee (FEMA-4171-DR), dated April 11, 2014, and
related determinations.

DATES: Effective Date: April 30, 2014.

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 Tennessee is hereby amended to include the following
areas among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by
the event declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration
of April 11, 2014.

    Fayette and Hickman Counties 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. 2014-13915 Filed 6-12-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 83 (Monday, May 3, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 23395]
[FR Doc No: 2021-09144]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4505-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2021-0001]

Rhode Island; Amendment No. 4 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 Rhode Island (FEMA-4505-DR), dated March 30, 2020, and
related determinations.

DATES: This amendment was issued March 11, 2021.

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 Rhode Island is hereby amended to include Individual
Assistance limited to COVID-19 Funeral Assistance under Other Needs
Assistance for those areas determined to have been adversely affected
by the event declared a major disaster by the President in his
declaration of March 30, 2020.

    Individual Assistance limited to COVID-19 Funeral Assistance
under Other Needs Assistance for all areas in the State of Rhode
Island (already designated for Individual Assistance, limited to the
Crisis Counseling Program and emergency protective measures
[Category B] not authorized under other Federal statutes, including
direct Federal 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.)

Robert J. Fenton,
Senior Official Performing the Duties of the Administrator, Federal
Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2021-09144 Filed 4-30-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 154 (Friday, August 11, 2017)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 37546-37549]
[FR Doc No: 2017-16358]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2017-0766; Product Identifier 2017-NM-046-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all
The Boeing Company Model 737-100, -200, -200C, -300, -400, and -500
series airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by an evaluation by the
design approval holder (DAH) indicating that the gore web lap splices
of the aft pressure bulkhead are subject to widespread fatigue damage
(WFD). This proposed AD would require repetitive inspections of the
gore webs, gore web lap splices, and repair webs, as applicable, of the
aft pressure bulkhead, and applicable on-condition actions. We are
proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by September 25,
2017.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR
11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail address above between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this NPRM, contact 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 referenced service information at the FAA, Transport
Standards Branch, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on
the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-

1221. It is also available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2017-
0766.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2017-
0766; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and
5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket
contains this proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments
received, and other information. The street address for the Docket
Office (phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will
be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lu Lu, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe
Section, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO) Branch, 1601
Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax: 425-
917-6590; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed
under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2017-0766;
Product Identifier 2017-NM-046-AD'' at the beginning of your comments.
We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic,
environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider
all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed
AD because of those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this proposed AD.

Discussion

    Fatigue damage can occur locally, in small areas or structural
design details, or globally, in widespread areas. Multiple-site damage
is widespread damage that occurs in a large structural element such as
a single rivet line of a lap splice joining two large skin panels.
Widespread damage can also occur in multiple elements such as adjacent
frames or stringers. Multiple-site damage and multiple-element damage
cracks are typically too small initially to be reliably detected with
normal inspection methods. Without intervention, these cracks will
grow, and eventually compromise the structural integrity of the
airplane. This condition is known as WFD. It is associated with general
degradation of large areas of structure with similar structural details
and stress levels. As an airplane ages, WFD will likely occur, and will
certainly occur if the airplane is operated long enough without any
intervention.
    The FAA's WFD final rule (75 FR 69746, November 15, 2010) became
effective on January 14, 2011. The WFD rule requires certain actions to
prevent structural failure due to WFD throughout the operational life
of certain existing transport category airplanes and all of these
airplanes that will be certificated in the future. For existing and
future airplanes subject to the WFD rule, the rule requires that DAHs
establish a limit of validity (LOV) of the engineering data that
support the structural maintenance program. Operators affected by the
WFD rule may not fly an airplane beyond its LOV, unless an extended LOV
is approved.
    The WFD rule (75 FR 69746, November 15, 2010) does not require
identifying and developing maintenance actions if the DAHs can show
that such actions are not necessary to prevent WFD before the airplane
reaches the LOV. Many LOVs, however, do depend on accomplishment of
future maintenance actions. As stated in the WFD rule, any maintenance
actions necessary to reach the LOV will be mandated by ADs through
separate rulemaking actions.
    In the context of WFD, this action is necessary to enable DAHs to
propose LOVs that allow operators the longest operational lives for
their airplanes, and still ensure that WFD will not occur. This
approach allows for an implementation strategy that provides
flexibility to DAHs in determining the timing of service information
development (with FAA approval), while providing operators with
certainty regarding the LOV applicable to their airplanes.
    We have received reports of cracks in critical fastener rows of the
gore web lap splices that are outside of the inspection area specified
in AD 2012-18-13 R1, Amendment 39-17429 (78 FR 27020, May 9, 2013)
(``AD 2012-18-13 R1''), which extends approximately 7 inches radially
outboard from the center of the aft pressure bulkhead.
    Cracks in the critical lap splice fastener rows of the hidden
forward gore web were found on airplanes with 37,000 to 66,000 total
flight cycles. Cracks in the critical lap splice fastener rows of the
visible aft gore web were also found on airplanes with 42,000 to 62,000
total flight cycles. Cracking in the gore web lap splices of the aft
pressure bulkhead could result in possible rapid decompression and loss
of structural integrity of the airplane.

Related AD

    AD 2012-18-13 R1 requires repetitive inspections to detect cracking
in the web of the aft pressure bulkhead at body station 1016 at the aft
fastener row attachment to the ``Y'' chord, various inspections for
discrepancies at the aft pressure bulkhead, and related investigative
and corrective actions if necessary. The inspection areas of AD 2012-
18-13 R1 and the proposed inspections of this proposed AD are both
related to the aft pressure bulkhead. However, this proposed AD would
require separate inspections on a subset of the aft pressure bulkhead
inspections required by AD 2012-18-13 R1.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    We reviewed Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1355, dated March
10, 2017. The service information describes procedures for repetitive
inspections of the gore web in Zone 1 (i.e., inspections around
fastener locations in the gore web lap splices and around fastener
locations in the apex area outside the gore web lap splices) and gore
web lap splices in Zone 2 (i.e., inspections around fastener locations
in the gore web lap splices) of the aft pressure bulkhead, and
applicable on-condition actions. The service information also
describes, for airplanes with an existing single gore web repair,
procedures for repetitive inspections of the gore web (i.e.,
inspections around fastener locations in the gore web lap splices) and
repair webs (i.e., inspections around fastener locations in the gore
web lap splices and around fastener locations in the apex area outside
the gore web lap splices); and, for airplanes with an existing all gore
web repair, procedures for repetitive inspections of the repair webs
(i.e., inspections around fastener locations in the repair gore web lap
splices and around fastener locations in the apex area outside the
repair gore web lap splices); and procedures for applicable on-
condition actions. This service information is reasonably available
because the interested parties have access to it through their normal
course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

FAA's Determination

    We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all the relevant
information and determined that the unsafe condition described
previously is likely to exist or develop in other products of the same
type design.

Proposed AD Requirements

    This proposed AD would require accomplishment of the actions
identified as ``RC'' (required for compliance) in the Accomplishment
Instructions of the service information described previously, except
for differences between this proposed AD and the service information
that are identified in the regulatory text of this proposed AD. For
information on the procedures and compliance times, see this service
information at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating
Docket No. FAA-2017-0766.

Difference Between Proposed AD and Service Bulletin

    Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1355, dated March 10, 2017,
specifies to contact the manufacturer for certain instructions, but
this proposed AD would require using repair methods, modification
deviations, and alteration deviations in one of the following ways:
     In accordance with a method that we approve; or
     Using data that meet the certification basis of the
airplane, and that have been approved by the Boeing Commercial
Airplanes Organization Designation Authorization (ODA) whom we have
authorized to make those findings.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 281 airplanes of U.S.
registry. We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed
AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Action                Labor cost           Parts cost       Cost per product     Cost on U.S. operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inspection.............  46 work-hours x $85                 $0   $3,910 per inspection   $1,098,710 per
                          per hour = $3,910 per                    cycle.                  inspection cycle.
                          inspection cycle.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We estimate the following costs to do any necessary on-condition
actions that would be required based on the results of the proposed
inspection. We have no way of determining the number of aircraft that
might need these on-condition actions:

                                               On-Condition Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per
                    Action                                 Labor cost               Parts cost        product
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inspection of previous single gore web repair.  8 work-hours x $85 per hour =                 $0            $680
                                                 $680.
Inspection of previous all gore web repair....  10 work-hours x $85 per hour =                 0             850
                                                 $850.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide
cost estimates for the repairs specified in this proposed 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.
    We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: ``General
requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing
regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator
finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within
the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition
that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this
rulemaking action.
    This proposed AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated
by the Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as
authorized by FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order,
issuance of ADs is normally a function of the Compliance and
Airworthiness Division, but during this transition period, the
Executive Director has delegated the authority to issue ADs applicable
to transport category airplanes to the Director of the System Oversight
Division.

Regulatory Findings

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Proposed Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

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

The Boeing Company: Docket No. FAA-2017-0766; Product Identifier
2017-NM-046-AD.

(a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by September 25, 2017.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

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

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 53; Fuselage.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by an evaluation by the design approval
holder (DAH) indicating that the gore web lap splices of the aft
pressure bulkhead are subject to widespread fatigue damage (WFD). We
are issuing this AD to detect and correct cracking in the gore webs,
gore web lap splices, and repair webs of the aft pressure bulkhead,
which could result in possible rapid decompression and loss of
structural integrity.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Required Actions for Group 1 Airplanes

    For airplanes identified as Group 1 in Boeing Alert Service
Bulletin 737-53A1355, dated March 10, 2017: Within 120 days after
the effective date of this AD, inspect the airplane, using a method
approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph
(j) of this AD.

(h) Actions Required for Compliance

    Except as required by paragraph (i) of this AD: For airplanes
identified as Group 2 in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1355,
dated March 10, 2017, at the applicable times specified in paragraph
1.E., ``Compliance,'' of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1355,
dated March 10, 2017, do all applicable actions identified as
required for compliance (``RC'') in, and in accordance with, the
Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-
53A1355, dated March 10, 2017.

(i) Exceptions to Service Information Specifications

    (1) Where paragraph 1.E., ``Compliance,'' of Boeing Alert
Service Bulletin 737-53A1355, dated March 10, 2017, uses the phrase
``after the original issue date of this service bulletin,'' for
purposes of determining compliance with the requirements of this AD,
the phrase ``after the effective date of this AD'' must be used.
    (2) Although Boeing Service Bulletin Boeing Alert Service
Bulletin 737-53A1355, dated March 10, 2017, specifies to contact
Boeing for repair instructions, and specifies that action as ``RC''
(Required for Compliance), this AD requires repair before further
flight using a method approved in accordance with the procedures
specified in paragraph (j) of this AD.

(j) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office (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)(2) 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 Commercial Airplanes Organization
Designation Authorization (ODA) that has been authorized by the
Manager, Los Angeles ACO Branch, 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.
    (4) Except as required by paragraph (i)(2) of this AD: For
service information that contains steps that are labeled as Required
for Compliance (RC), the provisions of paragraphs (j)(4)(i) and
(j)(4)(ii) of this AD apply.
    (i) The steps labeled as RC, including substeps under an RC step
and any figures identified in an RC step, must be done to comply
with the AD. If a step or substep is labeled ``RC Exempt,'' then the
RC requirement is removed from that step or substep. An AMOC is
required for any deviations to RC steps, including substeps and
identified figures.
    (ii) Steps not labeled as RC may be deviated from using accepted
methods in accordance with the operator's maintenance or inspection
program without obtaining approval of an AMOC, provided the RC
steps, including substeps and identified figures, can still be done
as specified, and the airplane can be put back in an airworthy
condition.

(k) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact Lu Lu, Aerospace
Engineer, Airframe Section, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification
Office (ACO) Branch, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356;
phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) For information about AMOCs, contact George Garrido,
Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Section, FAA, Los Angeles ACO Branch,
3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, CA 90712-4137; phone: 562-627-
5232; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (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. You may view this referenced service
information at the FAA, Transport Standards Branch, 1601 Lind Avenue
SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this
material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on July 26, 2017.
Jeffrey E. Duven,
Director, System Oversight Division, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2017-16358 Filed 8-10-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 77 (Tuesday, April 22, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 22492]
[FR Doc No: 2014-09137]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-9909-84-OA]

Notification of a Correction Regarding a Public Teleconference of
the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC) Ozone Review Panel

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Science Advisory
Board (SAB) Staff Office published a notice in the Federal Register on
April 9, 2014, concerning a public teleconference of the Clean Air
Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC) and the CASAC Ozone Review Panel.
The notice contained an incorrect date and time of the teleconference.
    In the Federal Register of April 9, 2014, in 79 FR 19613 in the
second column, correct the DATES caption to read:

DATES: If additional time is needed following the May 28, 2013,
teleconference, CASAC and the CASAC Panel will hold a teleconference on
Wednesday, June 4, 2014, from 9:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. (Eastern Time).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Holly Stallworth, Designated Federal
Officer,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: April 16, 2014.
Thomas H. Brennan,
Deputy Director, EPA Science Advisory Board Staff Office.
[FR Doc. 2014-09137 Filed 4-21-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P