         UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

   DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

                      OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

                WASHINGTON, DC

Issued by the Department of Transportation on August 5, 2002

   NOTICE OF ACTION TAKEN -- DOCKET OST-2002-13004

________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________

This serves as notice to the public of the action described below, taken
by the Department official indicated (no additional confirming order
will be issued in this matter).

Application of NORTHWEST AIRLINES, INC  filed  8/02/02  for:

XX  :   Allocation  of a one-half (.5) U.S.-Ukraine weekly roundtrip
frequency in order to expand its third-

            country code-share services with KLM Royal Dutch to daily
service.

Under Annex 1 of the U.S.-Ukraine aviation agreement, there are a total
of 18 weekly roundtrip frequencies for combination services available
for distribution.  Currently, a total of 9 frequencies are allocated as
follows: Delta (2.5 frequencies), Northwest (3.0 frequencies), and
United (3.5 frequencies).  Thus, there are 9 remaining frequencies
currently unallocated.

Allocation of one-half frequency will leave 8.5 remaining frequencies
for distribution.

Applicant rep: Megan Rae Rosia,<PHONE_NUMBER>    DOT Analyst:  Keith
Glatz,<PHONE_NUMBER>

D I S P O S I T I O N

XX  Granted, subject to conditions (see below)

The above action was effective when taken:  August 5, 2002, and will
remain in effect indefinitely.

Action taken by:   Paul L. Gretch, Director

		    Office of International Aviation

XX  The authority granted is consistent with the overall state of
aviation relations between the United States and Ukraine.

Except to the extent exempted or waived, this authority is subject to
the terms, conditions, and limitations indicated:  XX Holder’s
certificates of public convenience and necessity

	   XX  Dormancy Condition:

The frequency allocation is subject to the condition that if any of the
frequencies are not used for a period of 90 days, the allocation as to
each of those frequencies will expire automatically and the unused
frequencies will revert to the Department for reallocation.  The
dormancy condition will begin on the date of this notice.

___________________________________

Under authority assigned by the Department in its regulations, 14 CFR
Part 385, we found that (1) our

action was consistent with Department policy and  (2) grant of the
authority was consistent with the public interest.

Persons entitled to petition the Department for review of the action set
forth in this Notice under the Department’s regulations, 14 CFR
§385.30, may file their petitions within seven (7) days after the date
of issuance of this Notice.  This action was effective when taken, and
the filing of a petition for review will not alter such effectiveness.

An electronic version of this document is available on the World Wide
Web at:

http://dms.dot.gov//reports/reports_aviation.asp

 Under Annex 1 of the U.S.-Ukraine bilateral agreement, frequencies used
to provide third-country code-share service count as one-half of a
frequency.

 Aviation relations between the United States and Ukraine are governed
by a bilateral aviation agreement.  However, the Annexes to the
Agreement, which serve for the basis of authority sought here, expired
on December 31, 2001.  While the Annexes have yet to be formally
extended, both parties have been continuing to observe their provisions
on a comity and reciprocity basis.


[Federal Register: December 15, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 241)]
[Notices]
[Page 76084-76085]
[DOCID:fr15de08-110]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-59063; File No. SR-NYSEArca-2008-114]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Order Approving
Proposed Rule Change To Revise the Listing and Annual Fees Applicable
to Paired Trust Shares

December 5, 2008.

I. Introduction

    On October 22, 2008, NYSE Arca, Inc. (``Exchange'' or ``NYSE
Arca'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a
proposed rule change amending its Schedule of Fees and Charges for
Exchange Services (``Fee Schedule'') to revise the listing and annual
fees applicable to Paired Trust Shares listed on NYSE Arca, LLC (``NYSE
Arca Marketplace''), the equities facility of NYSE Arca Equities, Inc.
(``NYSE Arca Equities''). The proposed rule change was published for
comment in the Federal Register on November 5, 2008.\3\ The Commission
received no comment letters on the proposed rule change. This order
approves the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 58878 (October 29,
2008), 73 FR 65912.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposed Rule Change

    Under the current Fee Schedule, Paired Trust Shares (listed under
NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.400) are classified as ``Derivative
Securities Products.'' NYSE Arca proposes to reclassify Paired Trust
Shares as ``Structured Products'' for purposes of the Fee Schedule.
Specifically, the Exchange proposes to delete the term Paired Trust
Shares from footnote 3 of the Fee Schedule (defining ``Derivative
Securities Products'') and to add such term to footnote 4 of the Fee
Schedule (defining ``Structured Products'').
    As a result of the proposed rule change, the Listing and Annual
Fees for Paired Trust Shares would change accordingly. Under the
current Fee Schedule, the Listing Fee for Paired Trust Shares
(classified as Derivative Securities Products) is $5,000 per issue, and
the Annual Fee for such securities, which is based on the number of
shares outstanding per issue, ranges from $2,000 to $25,000 per issue.
Under the proposal, the Listing Fee for Paired Trust Shares
(reclassified as Structured Products), which is based on the number of
shares outstanding per issue, would range from $5,000 to $45,000 per
issue, and the Annual Fee for such securities, which also is based on
the number of shares outstanding per issue, would range from $10,000 to
$55,000 per issue.
    In addition, the Exchange proposes to make non-substantive changes
to footnote 4 of the Fee Schedule, including updating the title of NYSE
Arca Equities Rule 5.2(j)(6) to include Fixed Income Index-Linked
Securities, Futures-Linked Securities, and Multifactor Index-Linked
Securities.

III. Discussion and Commission's Findings

    The Commission has carefully reviewed the proposed rule change and
finds that it is consistent with the requirements of Section 6 of the
Act \4\ and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a
national securities exchange.\5\ In particular, the Commission finds
that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b)(4) of the
Act,\6\ which requires that the rules of the Exchange provide for the
equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among
its members and issuers and other persons using its facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \5\ In approving this proposed rule change, the Commission has
considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition,
and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission believes that the proposal to reclassify Paired
Trust Shares as Structured Products for purposes of the Fee Schedule
reasonably reflects the similarity of this type of product to other
Structured Products, the issuers of which do not hold underlying
securities, commodities, futures, or other financial instruments (other
than U.S. Treasuries and repurchase agreements on U.S. Treasuries to
secure specified obligations), unlike issuers of Derivative Securities
Products. The Commission notes that, except for the shares of the
MacroShares $100 Oil Up Trust and the MacroShares $100 Oil Down Trust,
for which annual and listing fees for 2008 have been waived,\7\ no
issue of Paired

Trust Shares is currently listed on the Exchange.\8\ As such, the
proposed amendment to the Fee Schedule and the new fee rates for issues
of Paired Trust Shares would equally apply to all future issues of
Paired Trust Shares listed on the Exchange under NYSE Arca Equities
Rule 8.400.\9\ The Commission believes that the proposal is designed to
equitably allocate reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among
issuers of Paired Trust Shares, consistent with the requirements of
Section 6(b)(4) of the Act.\10\ The Commission also believes that the
additional, non-substantive changes to the Fee Schedule further clarify
the format and application of the fees related to Structured Products.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See e-mail from Michael Cavalier, Associate General Counsel,
NYSE Euronext, to Edward Cho, Special Counsel, Division of Trading
and Markets, Commission, dated November 24, 2008 at 12:25 p.m.
(``Nov. 24 E-Mail''); see also Securities Exchange Act Release No.
58598 (September 19, 2008), 73 FR 55888 (September 26, 2008) (SR-
NYSEArca-2008-78) (approving the waiver of all Annual Fees for
securities delisted from Amex and listed on the Exchange in
connection with the closing of the purchase of Amex by NYSE
Euronext).
    \8\ See Nov. 24 E-Mail, supra note 7.
    \9\ The Commission notes that, generally, under the Fee
Schedule, issues of both Derivative Securities Products and
Structured Products are subject to Annual Fees in the year of
listing, pro-rated based on days listed that calendar year. The
Annual Fees for such products are billed in January for the
forthcoming year. See Footnote 8 of the Fee Schedule. The Exchange
states that the 2009 Annual Fees for the MacroShares $100 Oil Up
Trust and the MacroShares $100 Oil Down Trust will be billed in
January 2009 based on the then current Fee Schedule. See Nov. 24 E-
Mail, supra note 7.
    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\11\ that the proposed rule change (SR-NYSEArca-2008-114) be, and
it hereby is, approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-29557 Filed 12-12-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: April 29, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 82)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 22524-22532]
[DOCID:fr29ap10-11]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 228

[EPA-R10-OW-2010-0086; FRL-9143-2]

Ocean Dumping; Designation of Ocean Dredged Material Disposal
Sites Offshore of the Siuslaw River, Oregon

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action finalizes the designation of the Siuslaw River
ocean dredged material disposal sites pursuant to the Marine
Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act, as amended (MPRSA). The new
sites are needed primarily to serve the long-term need for a location
to dispose of material dredged from the Siuslaw River navigation
channel, and to provide a location for the disposal of dredged material
for persons who have received a permit for such disposal. The newly
designated sites will be subject to ongoing monitoring and management
to ensure continued protection of the marine environment.

DATES: Effective Date: This final rule will be effective June 1, 2010.

ADDRESSES: For more information on this final rule, Docket ID No. EPA-
R10-OW-2010-0086 use one of the following methods:
     http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line
instructions for accessing the docket and materials related to this
final rule.
     E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     Mail: Jessica Winkler, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Region 10, Office of Ecosystems, Tribal and Public Affairs
(ETPA-088), Environmental Review and Sediment Management Unit, 1200
Sixth Avenue, Suite 900, Seattle, Washington 98101.
    Publicly available docket materials are available either
electronically at http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy during
normal business hours for the regional library at the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10, Library, 10th Floor, 1200
Sixth Avenue, Suite 900, Seattle, Washington 98101. For access to the
documents at the Region 10 Library, contact the Region 10 Library
Reference Desk at<PHONE_NUMBER>, between the hours of 9 a.m. to 12
p.m., and between the hours of 1 p.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday,
excluding legal holidays, for an appointment.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jessica Winkler, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 10, Office of Ecosystems, Tribal and Public
Affairs (ETPA-088), Environmental Review and Sediment Management Unit,
1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 900, Seattle, Washington 98101, phone number:
(206) 553-7369, e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On February 4, 2010, EPA published a
proposed rule at 75 FR 5708 to designate two new ocean dredged material
disposal sites near the mouth of the Siuslaw River, Oregon. EPA
received three comments on the proposed rule.

1. Potentially Affected Persons

    Persons potentially affected by this action include those who seek
or might seek permits or approval by EPA to dispose of dredged material
into ocean waters pursuant to the Marine Protection, Research, and
Sanctuaries Act, as amended (MPRSA), 33 U.S.C. 1401 to 1445. EPA's
final action would be relevant to persons, including organizations and
government bodies, seeking to dispose of dredged material in ocean
waters offshore of the Siuslaw River, Oregon. Currently, the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers (Corps) would be most affected by this action.
Potentially affected categories and persons include:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   Category                                Examples of potentially regulated persons
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal Government...........................  U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Civil Works Projects, and other
                                                Federal Agencies.
Industry and General Public..................  Port Authorities, Marinas and Harbors, Shipyards and Marine
                                                Repair Facilities, Berth Owners.
State, local and Tribal governments..........  Governments owning and/or responsible for ports, harbors, and/or
                                                berths, Government agencies requiring disposal of dredged
                                                material associated with public works projects.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide for readers regarding persons likely to be affected by this
action. For any questions regarding the applicability of this action to
a particular person, please refer to the contact person listed in the
preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

2. Background

a. History of Disposal Sites Offshore of the Siuslaw River, Oregon

    Three ocean dredged material disposal sites, an Interim Site and
two selected sites were used by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(Corps) for the disposal of sediments dredged from the Siuslaw River
navigation project. The ``Interim Site,'' former Site A, was included
in the list of approved interim ocean disposal sites for dredged
material in the Federal Register in 1977 (42 FR 2461), a status
superseded by later statutory changes to the MPRSA. Mounding at Site A
and concern over the potential for ocean currents to move sediments
from Site A back into the dredged channel resulted in a selection of
disposal Sites B and C by the Corps pursuant to Section 103 of the
MPRSA. That authority allows the Corps to select a site or sites for
disposal when a site has not been designated by EPA. The selection of
Sites B and C was intended to reduce potential hazards associated with
mounding at Site A. The selection of Sites B and C was also intended to
increase long-term disposal site capacity near the mouth of the Siuslaw
River. EPA concurred on the selection and approved the Corps' request
to continue to use Sites B and C through the end of the 2009 dredging
season. To provide for sufficient disposal capacity over the long term,
EPA proposed to designate two sites, a North Site and a South Site, for
the ocean disposal of dredged material near the Siuslaw River in the
vicinity of former Sites A, B and C. Those proposed Sites are finalized
in this action.

b. Location and Configuration of Siuslaw River Ocean Dredged Material
Disposal Sites

    This action finalizes the designation of two Siuslaw River ocean
dredged material sites to the north and south, respectively, of the
mouth of the Siuslaw River. The coordinates, listed below, and Figure
1, below, show the location of the two Siuslaw River ocean dredged
material disposal sites (Siuslaw River ODMD Sites, North and South
Sites, or Sites). The configuration of the North Site is expected to
allow dredged material disposed in shallower portions of the Site to
naturally disperse into the littoral zone and augment shoreline
building processes. This final designation of the Siuslaw River ODMD
Sites will allow EPA to adaptively manage the Sites to avoid creating
mounding conditions that could contribute to adverse impacts to
navigation.
    The coordinates for the two Siuslaw River ODMD Sites are, in North
American Datum 83 (NAD 83):

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            North Siuslaw ODMD Site                                  South Siuslaw ODMD Site
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
44[deg] 01[min] 31.03[sec] N, 124[deg] 10[min]    44[deg] 00[min] 46.72[sec] N, 124[deg] 10[min] 26.55[sec] W
 12.92[sec] W.
44[deg] 01[min] 49.39[sec] N, 124[deg] 10[min]    44[deg] 01[min] 06.41[sec] N, 124[deg] 10[min] 24.45[sec] W
 02.85[sec] W.
44[deg] 01[min] 31.97[sec] N, 124[deg] 09[min]    44[deg] 01[min] 04.12[sec] N, 124[deg] 09[min] 43.52[sec] W
 01.86[sec] W.
44[deg] 01[min] 13.45[sec] N, 124[deg] 09[min]    44[deg] 00[min] 44.45[sec] N, 124[deg] 09[min] 45.63[sec] W
 11.41[sec] W.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The two Sites are situated in approximately 30 to 125 feet of water
located to the north and south of the entrance to the Siuslaw River on
the southern Oregon Coast (see Figure 1). The dimensions of the Sites
are 4,800 by 2,000 feet and 3,000 by 2,000 feet, respectively.
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR29AP10.000

BILLING CODE 6560-50-C

c. Management and Monitoring of the Sites

    The final Siuslaw Sites are expected to receive sediments dredged
by the Corps to maintain the Federally authorized navigation project at
the Siuslaw River, Oregon and dredged material from other persons who
have obtained a permit for the disposal of dredged material at the
Sites. All persons using the Sites are required to follow the final
Site Management and Monitoring Plan (SMMP) for the Sites. The SMMP
finalized in this action includes management and monitoring
requirements to ensure that dredged materials disposed at the Sites are
suitable for disposal in the ocean and that adverse impacts of
disposal, if any, are addressed to the maximum extent practicable. The
final SMMP for the Siuslaw River Sites also addresses management of the
Sites to ensure adverse mounding does not occur and to ensure that
disposal events are timed to minimize interference with other uses of
ocean waters in the vicinity of the proposed Sites.

d. MPRSA Criteria

    EPA assessed the Sites against the criteria of the MPRSA, with
particular emphasis on the general and specific regulatory criteria of
40 CFR part 228 to determine that the final Site designations satisfied
those criteria.
General Criteria (40 CFR 228.5)
    (1) Sites must be selected to minimize interference with other
activities in the marine environment, particularly avoiding areas of
existing fisheries or shellfisheries, and regions of heavy commercial
or recreational navigation (40 CFR 228.5(a)).
    EPA reviewed the potential for the Sites to interfere with
navigation, recreation, shellfisheries, aquatic resources, commercial
fisheries, protected geologic features, and cultural and/or
historically significant areas and found low potential for conflicts.
The final Sites are located close to the approach to the Siuslaw River
entrance channel but are unlikely to cause interference with navigation
or other uses near the mouth of the Siuslaw River provided close
communication and coordination is maintained with other users, vessel
traffic control and the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG). Based on the past
history of fishing and disposal operations near the mouth of the
Siuslaw River, use conflicts are not expected to occur. There is the
potential for other recreational users, for example, surfers, boaters,
boarders, and divers, to use the near-shore area in the vicinity of the
Sites, but EPA does not expect disposal operations at the Sites to
conflict with recreationists. The final SMMP outlines site management
objectives, including minimizing interference with other uses of the
ocean. Should a site use conflict be identified, it is anticipated that
site use would be modified according to the SMMP to minimize that
conflict.
    (2) Sites must be situated such that temporary perturbations to
water quality or other environmental conditions during initial mixing
caused by disposal operations would be reduced to normal ambient levels
or undetectable contaminant concentrations or effects before reaching
any beach, shoreline, marine sanctuary, or known geographically limited
fishery or shellfishery (40 CFR 228.5(b)).
    Based on EPA[min]s review of modeling, monitoring data, analysis of
sediment quality, and history of use, the primary impact of disposal
activities on water quality is expected to be temporary turbidity
caused by the physical movement of sediment through the water column.
All dredged material proposed for disposal will be evaluated according
to the ocean dumping regulations at 40 CFR 227.13 and guidance
developed by EPA and the Corps. In general, dredged material which
meets the criteria under 40 CFR 227.13(b) is deemed environmentally
acceptable for ocean dumping without further testing. Dredged material
which does not meet the criteria of 40 CFR 227.13(b) must be further
tested as required by 40 CFR 227.13(c).
    Disposal of suitable material meeting the regulatory criteria and
deemed environmentally acceptable for ocean dumping will be allowed at
the Sites. Most of the dredged material to be disposed of at the Sites
is expected to come from the entrance channel, where material is
predominantly sand (approximately 97%), while a small amount of
material (up to 3%) would be classified as fine-grained. Based on
modeling work performed by the Corps, the coarser (sandy) material is
expected to settle out of the water column within a few minutes of
disposal while the fine-grained material is expected to settle out of
the water column less rapidly. No increase in turbidity is expected to
be measurable at the beach.
    (3) The sizes of disposal sites will be limited in order to
localize for identification and control any immediate adverse impacts,
and to permit the implementation of effective monitoring and
surveillance to prevent adverse long-range impacts. Size,
configuration, and location are to be determined as part of the
disposal site evaluation (40 CFR 228.5(d)).
    EPA sized the final Sites to meet this criterion. The footprints of
the Sites are based on the presumed northerly movement of coastal
littoral material over the course of the yearly dredging and disposal
cycle and are needed to optimize the dispersal of material into the
active littoral zone, limit wave effects due to mounding, and keep
material from reentering the navigation channel to the south. Use of
the shallower portion of the North Site will facilitate increased
sediment transport thereby increasing long-term site capacity.
Preferential utilization of the shallow portions of the North Site also
meets the management goal of keeping material in the littoral system.
However, as seen in the 1977 Interim Site, mounding could occur if too
much material is placed too quickly in shallow water. EPA's designation
of the two Sites with deeper areas within each Site allows site
managers to be responsive to annual and long-term sediment transport
patterns. Effective monitoring of the Sites is necessary and required.
EPA requires annual bathymetric surveys to monitor each Site for
capacity and potential mounding concerns.
    (4) EPA will, wherever feasible, designate ocean dumping sites
beyond the edge of the continental shelf and other such sites where
historical disposal has occurred (40 CFR 228.5(e)).
    Disposal off the continental shelf would remove natural sediments
from the nearshore littoral transport system, a system that functions
with largely non-renewable quantities of sand in Oregon. Some of the
material disposed at the Sites is expected to be available to the
littoral system. Keeping this material in the littoral system with the
potential to sustain a dynamic equilibrium along the Oregon coast is
perceived as a benefit. The Sites incorporate historic disposal
locations within the footprint of each Site, but have been expanded to
allow more of the material to remain in the littoral system and allow
for increased site capacity.
Specific Criteria (40 CFR 228.6)
    (1) Geographical Position, Depth of Water, Bottom Topography and
Distance from Coast (40 CFR 228.6(a)(1)).
    The geographical position of each Site, including the depth, bottom
topography and distance from the coastline, has been chosen to minimize
adverse effects to the marine environment. As EPA understands the
currents at the Sites and the influence of those currents on the
movement of

material in the area, there is a high likelihood that some of the
material disposed at the Sites, especially within in the shallower
portion of the North site, will be transported to the littoral sediment
circulation system. Disposal at the Sites will be managed to allow for
maximum dispersal of material and minimal impact to each Site.
    (2) Location in Relation to Breeding, Spawning, Nursery, Feeding,
or Passage Areas of Living Resources in Adult or Juvenile Phases (40
CFR 228.6(a)(2)).
    The Sites are not located in exclusive breeding, spawning, nursery,
feeding or passage areas for adult or juvenile phases of living
resources. Near the Sites, a variety of pelagic and demersal fish
species, including salmon, as well as shellfish, are found. The benthic
fauna at the Sites is common to nearshore, sandy, wave-influenced
regions of the Pacific Coast in Oregon and Washington.
    (3) Location in Relation to Beaches and Other Amenity Areas (40 CFR
228.6(a)(3)).
    The Sites, although located in close proximity to the Siuslaw River
navigation channel, and near the northern boundary of the Oregon Dunes
National Recreation Area, are located a sufficient distance offshore to
avoid adverse impacts to beaches and other amenity areas including two
public recreation areas located to the north of the Siuslaw River,
Heceta Beach Park and Harbor Vista Park. Transportation of dredges or
barges to and from the Sites to dispose of dredged material will be
coordinated to avoid disturbance of other activities near the Siuslaw
River entrance channel. There are no rocks or pinnacles in the vicinity
of either Site. The Sites are sized and located to provide long-term
capacity for the disposal of dredged material without causing any
impacts to the wave environment at, or near, the Sites. Site monitoring
and adaptive management are components of the final SMMP.
    (4) Types and Quantities of Wastes Proposed to be Disposed of, and
Proposed Methods of Release, including Methods of Packing the Waste, if
any (40 CFR 228.6(a)(4)).
    Dredged material found suitable for ocean disposal pursuant to the
regulatory criteria for dredged material, or characterized by chemical
and biological testing and found suitable for disposal into ocean
waters, will be the only material allowed to be disposed of at the
Sites. No material defined as ``waste'' under the MPRSA will be allowed
to be disposed of at the Sites. The dredged material to be disposed of
at the Sites will be predominantly marine sand, far removed from known
sources of contamination. Generally, disposal is expected to occur from
a hopper dredge, in which case, material will be released just below
the surface and the disposal vessel will be required to be under power
and to slowly transit the disposal location during disposal. This
method of release is expected to spread material at the Sites to
minimize mounding and to minimize impacts to the benthic community and
to species at the Sites at the time of a disposal event.
    (5) Feasibility of Surveillance and Monitoring (40 CFR
228.6(a)(5)).
    EPA expects monitoring and surveillance at the Sites to be feasible
and readily performed from small surface research vessels. The Sites
are accessible for bathymetric and side-scan sonar surveys. At a
minimum, annual bathymetric surveys will be conducted at each of the
Sites to confirm that no unacceptable mounding is taking place within
the Sites or in their immediate vicinity.
    (6) Dispersal, Horizontal Transport and Vertical Mixing
Characteristics of the Area, Including Prevailing Current Direction and
Velocity, if any (40 CFR 228.6(a)(6)).
    Dispersal, horizontal transport and vertical mixing characteristics
of the area at and in the vicinity of the Sites indicate that the
marine sands and fluvial gravels from the Siuslaw River distribute away
from the river mouth rapidly. The beaches do not show significant
accretion or loss. The bottom current records suggest a bias in
transport to the north. Fine grained material tends to remain in
suspension and to experience rapid offshore transport compared to other
sediment sizes. Sediment transport of sand-sized or coarser material
tends to move directly as bedload, but is occasionally suspended by
wave action near the seafloor. The Sites are not expected to change
these characteristics.
    (7) Existence and Effects of Current and Previous Discharges and
Dumping in the Area (including Cumulative Effects) (40 CFR
228.6(a)(7)).
    Portions of the two Sites were historically used for disposal
activity. Disposal of dredged material is not expected to result in
unacceptable environmental degradation at the Sites or in the vicinity
of the Sites, however mounding will be closely monitored in those
previously used portions and preferential use of the shallower portions
of the North Site is expected. The final SMMP includes monitoring and
adaptive management measures to address potential mounding issues.
    (8) Interference with Shipping, Fishing, Recreation, Mineral
Extraction, Desalination, Fish and Shellfish Culture, Areas of Special
Scientific Importance and Other Legitimate Uses of the Ocean (40 CFR
228.6(a)(8)).
    The Sites are not expected to interfere with shipping, fishing,
recreation or other legitimate uses of the ocean. Disposals at the
Sites will be managed according to the SMMP to minimize interference
with other legitimate uses of the ocean through careful timing and
staggering of disposals in the Sites. Commercial and recreational
fishing and commercial navigation are the primary concerns for which
such timing will be needed. EPA is not aware of any plans for mineral
extraction offshore of the Siuslaw River at this time. EPA would expect
to revise the SMMP if necessary in the event wave energy projects or
other renewable or traditional energy projects were proposed and
potential conflicts seemed likely. Fish and shellfish culture
operations are not under consideration for the area. There are no known
areas of special scientific importance in the vicinity of the Sites.
    (9) The Existing Water Quality and Ecology of the Sites as
Determined by Available Data or Trend Assessment of Baseline Surveys
(40 CFR 228.6(a)(9)).
    EPA did not identify any potential adverse water quality impacts
from ocean disposal of dredged material at the Sites based on water and
sediment quality analyses conducted in the study area of the Sites and
based on experience with past disposals near the mouth of the Siuslaw
River. Fisheries and benthic data show the ecology of the area to be
that of a mobile sand community typical of the Oregon Coast.
    (10) Potentiality for the Development or Recruitment of Nuisance
Species in the Disposal Site (40 CFR 228.6(a)(10)).
    Nuisance species, considered as any undesirable organism not
previously existing at a location, have not been observed at, or in the
vicinity of, the Sites. Material expected to be disposed at the Sites
will be uncontaminated marine sands similar to the sediment present at
the Sites. The final SMMP includes biological monitoring requirements,
which will act to identify any nuisance species and allow EPA to direct
special studies and/or operational changes to address the issue if it
arises.
    (11) Existence at or in Close Proximity to the Site of any
Significant Natural or Cultural Feature of Historical Importance (40
CFR 228.6(a)(11)).
    No significant cultural features were identified at, or in the
vicinity of, the Sites. EPA coordinated with Oregon's State Historic
Preservation Officer and with Tribes in the vicinity of the Sites to
identify any cultural features. No cultural features were identified.
No

shipwrecks were observed or documented within the Sites or their
immediate vicinity.

3. Response to Comments

    EPA received three comments on the proposed rule. All three
comments supported the Site designations. One commenter asked whether
the Sites could be extended to run parallel to the coastline in order
to create a ``speedbump'' resulting in decreased wave energy and
erosion on the beach. The final Sites include shallow areas (less than
50 ft), where more material is expected to remain in the littoral
system, thereby potentially decreasing potential beach erosion. The
creation of a nearshore ``speedbump'' or berm would dissipate wave
energy reaching the beach, but would increase the wave height at the
berm, potentially creating an unacceptable safety risk. The same
commenter asked whether the sandy dredged material could be used to
restore an eroded beach rather than be disposed in the Sites. The sandy
dredged material in the vicinity of these Sites is already found in
abundance onshore in the nearby Oregon Dunes Recreation Area and
onshore dune fields. No eroded beaches in the immediate vicinity of the
Sites for which this material is needed have been identified at this
time.

4. Environmental Statutory Review--National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA); Magnuson-Stevens Act (MSA); Marine Mammal Protection Act
(MMPA); Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA); Endangered Species Act
(ESA); National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA)

a. NEPA

    Section 102 of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as
amended (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. 4321 to 4370f, requires Federal agencies to
prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for major Federal
actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment.
NEPA does not apply to EPA designations of ocean disposal sites under
the MPRSA because the courts have exempted EPA's actions under the
MPRSA from the procedural requirements of NEPA through the functional
equivalence doctrine. EPA has, by policy, determined that the
preparation of non-EIS NEPA documents for certain EPA regulatory
actions, including actions under the MPRSA, is appropriate. EPA's
``Notice of Policy and Procedures for Voluntary Preparation of NEPA
Documents,'' (Voluntary NEPA Policy), 63 FR 58045, (October 29, 1998),
sets out both the policy and procedures EPA uses when preparing such
environmental review documents. EPA's primary voluntary NEPA document
for designating the Sites is the final Siuslaw River, Oregon Ocean
Dredged Material Disposal Sites Evaluation Study and Environmental
Assessment, April 2010 (EA), jointly prepared by EPA and the Corps. The
final EA and its Technical Appendices, which are part of the docket for
this action, provided the threshold environmental review for
designation of the two Sites. The information from the EA was used
extensively in the discussion of the ocean dumping criteria.

b. MSA and MMPA

    EPA prepared an essential fish habitat (EFH) assessment pursuant to
Section 305(b), 16 U.S.C. 1855(b)(2), of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, as
amended (MSA), 16 U.S.C. 1801 to 1891d, and submitted that assessment
to the National Marine Fisheries Service in July, 2009. NMFS reviewed
EPA's EFH assessment and an Endangered Species Act (ESA) Biological
Assessment and addendum thereto for purposes of the Marine Mammal
Protection Act of 1972, as amended (MMPA), 16 U.S.C. 1361 to 1389. NMFS
found that all potential adverse effects to ESA-listed marine mammals
from EPA's action to designate the Siuslaw Sites are discountable or
insignificant. Those findings are documented in the Biological Opinion
issued by NMFS to EPA on April 16, 2010. With respect to EFH, NMFS
concluded that disposal of dredged material will affect turbidity and
sedimentation levels and temporarily decrease prey and nursery
resources for pelagic organisms within the Sites during disposal
events. However, these effects are avoidable or can be offset or
mitigated through further evaluation of the effects and further study
of seasonal distribution, abundance and habitat use. These findings are
documented in the ``Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and
Management Act'' section of the Biological Opinion. NMFS included two
``conservation recommendations'' which encouraged an effects evaluation
and a study on distribution, abundance and habitat use. EPA will
respond in a separate written response to the NMFS recommendations.

c. CZMA

    The Coastal Zone Management Act, as amended (CZMA), 16 U.S.C. 1451
to 1465, requires Federal agencies to determine whether their actions
will be consistent with the enforceable policies of approved State
programs. EPA prepared a consistency determination for the Oregon Ocean
and Coastal Management Program (OCMP), the approved State program in
Oregon, to meet the requirements of the CZMA and submitted that
determination to the Oregon Department of Land Conservation and
Development (DLCD) for review on January 19, 2010. On April 14, 2010,
DLCD concurred in writing with EPA that the Site designations were
consistent to the maximum extent practicable with the enforceable
policies of the OCMP.

d. ESA

    The Endangered Species Act, as amended (ESA), 16 U.S.C. 1531 to
1544, requires Federal agencies to consult with NMFS and the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service (USFWS) to ensure that any action authorized,
funded, or carried out by the Federal agency is not likely to
jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered species or
threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse modification
of any critical habitat. EPA prepared a Biological Assessment (BA) to
assess the potential effects of designating the two Siuslaw River Sites
on aquatic and wildlife species and submitted that BA to the NMFS and
USFWS in July, 2009. Subsequent to preparation of the BA, EPA prepared
an addendum to the BA, which was submitted in December, 2009. EPA found
that site designation does not have a direct impact on any of the
identified ESA species but also found that indirect impacts associated
with reasonably foreseeable future disposal activities had to be
considered. These indirect impacts included a short-term increase in
suspended solids and turbidity in the water column when dredged
material was disposed at the new Sites and an accumulation of material
on the ocean floor when material was disposed at the Sites. EPA
concluded that while its action may affect ESA-listed species, the
action would not be likely to adversely affect ESA-listed species or
critical habitat. On August 24, 2009, the USFWS concurred in writing
with EPA's finding that the Site designations would not likely
adversely affect ESA-listed species or critical habitat.
    NMFS issued a Biological Opinion (BO) on April 21, 2010. NMFS
concluded that EPA's action is not likely to jeopardize the continued
existence of Oregon Coast (OC) coho salmon or southern green sturgeon
(Acipenser medirostris), or to destroy or adversely modify critical
habitat designated for green sturgeon. NMFS

also concluded that EPA's action would not likely adversely affect
southern green sturgeon, euchalon, eastern Stellar sea lions, blue
whales, fin whales, humpback whales, Southern Resident Killer whales,
marine turtle species, or critical habitat designated for southern
green sturgeon or proposed for green leatherback turtles. NMFS
concluded that dredging activities were not interrelated to EPA's
action. However, NMFS did make a finding that disposal of dredged
material at the Sites by the Corps, the anticipated primary user of the
Sites, was interrelated to EPA's action.
    NMFS then focused its effects analysis on the effects of disposal
at the Sites. Looking solely to the effects of disposal of dredged
material at the Sites by the Corps from the Corps' Siuslaw River
Navigation project, NMFS estimated 19 juvenile OC coho salmon per year
were likely to be injured or killed by Corps activities. NMFS
acknowledged that EPA's action does not authorize or compel site use
and will not itself result in disposal of dredged material. NMFS found
that all incidental take will occur at the project-specific level.
Based on this finding, NMFS did not find a basis to provide a take
authorization in the current BO. NMFS stated that all take
authorization will occur in subsequent site-specific consultations.
    Finally NMFS included two discretionary conservation
recommendations in the BO. The first recommendation suggested
collaborating with NMFS and the Corps on a methodology to evaluate the
effects of dredging and disposal on ESA-listed species. The second
recommendation suggested undertaking a study to determine seasonal
distribution, abundance, and habitat use of salmon, sturgeon, and
marine turtles in the nearshore within and near the contour of
designated ocean dredged material disposal sites. Such recommendations
are purely advisory in nature. EPA appreciates that collaboration on a
methodology could be helpful and supports NMFS and Corps efforts in
such an endeavor. EPA also appreciates that the study recommended by
NMFS could contribute to the scientific knowledge base but believes
that NMFS, the expert Federal agency on seasonal distribution,
abundance and habitat use would be better suited than EPA to carry out
such a study.

e. NHPA

    EPA initiated consultation with the State of Oregon's Historic
Preservation Officer (SHPO) on November 24, 2009, to address the
National Historic Preservation Act, as amended (NHPA), 16 U.S.C. 470 to
470a-2, which requires Federal agencies to take into account the effect
of their actions on districts, sites, buildings, structures, or
objects, included in, or eligible for inclusion in the National
Register. EPA determined that no historic properties were affected, or
would be affected, by designation of the Sites. EPA did not find any
historic properties within the geographic area of the Sites. This
determination was based on an extensive review of the National Register
of Historic Districts in Oregon, the Oregon National Register list and
an assessment of cultural resources near the Sites. The SHPO concurred
by letter on December 10, 2009, that the project would have no affect
on any known cultural resources.

4. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This rule finalizes the designation of two ocean dredged material
disposal sites pursuant to Section 102 of the MPRSA. This action
complies with applicable executive orders and statutory provisions as
follows:

a. Executive Order 12866

    This 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 an information collection burden under
the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq.,
because this rule does not establish or modify any information or
recordkeeping requirements for the regulated community.

c. Regulatory Flexibility

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires Federal
agencies 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 purposes of assessing the impacts of this rule on small entities,
small entity is defined as: (1) A small business defined by the Small
Business Administration's size regulations at 13 CFR 121.201; (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. EPA determined that this action will not have a
significant economic impact on small entities because the final rule
will only have the effect of regulating the location of sites to be
used for the disposal of dredged material in ocean waters. After
considering the economic impacts of this final rule, I certify that
this action will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.

d. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    This action contains no Federal mandates under the provisions of
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) of 1995, 2 U.S.C.
1531 to 1538, for State, local, or Tribal governments or the private
sector. This action imposes no new enforceable duty on any State, local
or Tribal governments or the private sector. 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
the UMRA because it contains no regulatory requirements that might
significantly or uniquely affect small government entities. Those
entities are already subject to existing permitting requirements for
the disposal of dredged material in ocean waters.

e. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This action does not have federalism implications. It does 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 various levels of government, as specified
in Executive Order 13132. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to
this action.

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

    This action does not have Tribal implications, as specified in
Executive Order 13175 because the designation of the two ocean dredged
material disposal Sites will not have a direct effect on 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. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does
not apply to this action. Although Executive Order 13175 does not apply
to this action EPA consulted with Tribal

officials in the development of this action, particularly as the action
related to potential impacts to historic or cultural resources.

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

    EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885) as applying only
to those regulatory actions that concern health or safety risks, such
that the analysis required under section 5-501 of the Executive Order
has the potential to influence the regulation. This action is not
subject to Executive Order 13045 because it does not establish an
environmental standard intended to mitigate health or safety risks. The
action concerns the designation of two ocean dredged material disposal
Sites and only has the effect of providing designated locations to use
for ocean disposal of dredged material pursuant to Section 102(c) of
the MPRSA.

h. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, ``Actions
Concerning Regulations that Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355) because it is not a ``significant
regulatory action'' as defined under Executive Order 12866.

i. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (``NTTAA''), Public Law 104-113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272),
directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory
activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling
procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by
voluntary consensus bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress,
through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use available
and applicable voluntary consensus standards. This action includes
environmental monitoring and measurement as described in EPA's SMMP.
EPA will not require the use of specific, prescribed analytic methods
for monitoring and managing the designated Sites. The Agency plans to
allow the use of any method, whether it constitutes a voluntary
consensus standard or not, that meets the monitoring and measurement
criteria discussed in the SMMP.

j. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low Income Populations

    Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629) 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 determined that this 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. EPA assessed the overall protectiveness of designating the
disposal Sites against the criteria established pursuant to the MPRSA
to ensure that any adverse impact to the environment will be mitigated
to the greatest extent practicable.

k. Congressional Review Act

    The Congressional Review Act (CRA), 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added
by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996,
generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency
promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy
of the rule, to the House of the Congress and to the Comptroller
General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this
rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House
of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States
prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule
cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2). This rule will be effective June 1, 2010.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 228

    Environmental protection, Water pollution control.

    Authority: This action is issued under the authority of Section
102 of the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act, as
amended, 33 U.S.C. 1401, 1411, 1412.

    Dated: April 21, 2010.
Dennis J. McLerran,
Regional Administrator, Region 10.

0
For the reasons set out in the preamble, EPA amends chapter I, title 40
of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:

PART 228--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for Part 228 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1412 and 1418.

0
2. Section 228.15 is amended by adding paragraph (n)(14) to read as
follows:

Sec.  228.15  Dumping sites designated on a final basis.

* * * * *
    (n) * * *
    (14) Siuslaw River, OR--North and South Dredged Material Disposal
Sites
    (i) North Siuslaw River Site
(A) Location:

44[deg]01[min]31.03[sec] N, 124[deg]10[min]12.92[sec] W,
44[deg]01[min]49.39[sec] N, 124[deg]10[min]02.85[sec] W,
44[deg]01[min]31.97[sec] N, 124[deg]09[min]01.86[sec] W,
44[deg]01[min]13.45[sec] N, 124[deg]09[min]11.41[sec] W.

    (B) Size: Approximately 1.5 kilometers long and 0.6 kilometers
wide.
    (C) Depth: Ranges from approximately 9 to 35 meters.
    (D) Primary Use: Dredged material.
    (E) Period of Use: Continuing Use.
    (F) Restrictions: (1) Disposal shall be limited to dredged material
determined to be suitable for ocean disposal according to 40 CFR 227.13
from the Siuslaw River navigation channel and adjacent areas;
    (2) Disposal shall be managed by the restrictions and requirements
contained in the currently-approved Site Management and Monitoring Plan
(SMMP);
    (3) Monitoring, as specified in the SMMP, is required.
    (ii) South Siuslaw River Site
    (A) Location:

44[deg]00[min]46.72[sec] N, 124[deg]10[min]26.55[sec] W,
44[deg]01[min]06.41[sec] N, 124[deg]10[min]24.45[sec] W,
44[deg]01[min]04.12[sec] N, 124[deg]09[min]43.52[sec] W,
44[deg]00[min]44.45[sec] N, 124[deg]09[min]45.63[sec] W.

    (B) Size: Approximately 0.9 kilometers long and 0.6 kilometers
wide.
    (C) Depth: Ranges from approximately 24 to 38 meters.
    (D) Primary Use: Dredged material.
    (E) Period of Use: Continuing Use.
    (F) Restrictions: (1) Disposal shall be limited to dredged material
determined to be suitable for ocean disposal according to 40 CFR
227.13, from the Siuslaw River navigation channel and adjacent areas;
    (2) Disposal shall be managed by the restrictions and requirements
contained in the currently-approved Site Management and Monitoring Plan
(SMMP);

    (3) Monitoring, as specified in the SMMP, is required.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2010-9982 Filed 4-28-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 150 (Monday, August 5, 2019)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 37976-37979]
[FR Doc No: 2019-16571]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2019-0584; Product Identifier 2019-NM-096-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Canada Limited Partnership (Type
Certificate Previously Held by C Series Aircraft Limited Partnership
(CSALP); Bombardier, Inc.) Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD)
for certain Airbus Canada Limited Partnership Model BD-500-1A10 and BD-
500-1A11 airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by a determination
that new or more restrictive airworthiness limitations are necessary.
This proposed AD would require revising the existing maintenance or
inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate new or more
restrictive airworthiness limitations. The FAA is proposing this AD to
address the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: The FAA must receive comments on this proposed AD by September
19, 2019.

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
Bombardier, Inc., 400 C[ocirc]te-Vertu Road West, Dorval, Qu[eacute]bec
H4S 1Y9, Canada; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>internet: http://www.bombardier.com. You
may view this service information at the FAA, Transport Standards
Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the
availability of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

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-2019-
0584; 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 NPRM, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other
information. The street address for Docket Operations is listed above.
Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Andrea Jimenez, Aerospace Engineer,
Airframe and Propulsion Section, FAA, New York ACO Branch, 1600 Stewart
Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:
516-794-5531; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    The FAA invites 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-2019-0584;
Product Identifier 2019-NM-096-AD'' at the beginning of your comments.
The FAA specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this NPRM. The FAA will
consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this
NPRM because of those comments.
    The FAA will post all comments received, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide.
The FAA will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal
contact received about this NPRM.

Discussion

    Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the aviation
authority for Canada, has issued Canadian AD CF-2019-14, dated April 5,
2019 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness
Information, or ``the MCAI''), to correct an unsafe condition for
certain Airbus Canada Limited Partnership Model BD-500-1A10 and BD-500-
1A11 airplanes. The MCAI states:

    The Airworthiness Limitations (AWL) for the BD-500-1A10 and BD-
500-1A11 aeroplanes are defined and published in the CSALP AWL
publication, approved by Transport Canada. The instructions
contained in the AWL publication have been identified as mandatory
actions for continued airworthiness. Failure to comply with these
instructions could result in an unsafe condition.
    Since these aeroplanes have entered service, Issue No. 008.00 of
the AWL has been published, including new and/or more restrictive
items. For the reason described above, this [Canadian] AD mandates
incorporation of the actions specified in the AWL Issue No. 008.00
into the aeroplane maintenance schedule.

    You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2019-
0584.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    Bombardier has issued C Series Airworthiness Limitations, BD500-
3AB48-11400-02, Issue 009.00, dated June 6, 2019. This service
information describes airworthiness limitations for fuel tank systems,
safe life limits, and certification maintenance requirements. 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

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another
country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant
to a bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, the FAA
has been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and
service information referenced above. The FAA is proposing this AD
because the agency evaluated all the relevant information and
determined the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist
or develop on other products of the same type design.

Proposed Requirements of This NPRM

    This proposed AD would require revising the existing maintenance or
inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate new or more
restrictive airworthiness limitations.
    This proposed AD would require revisions to certain operator
maintenance documents to include new actions (e.g., inspections) and
Critical Design Configuration Control Limitations (CDCCLs). Compliance
with these actions and CDCCLs is required by 14 CFR 91.403(c). For
airplanes that have been previously modified, altered, or repaired in
the areas addressed by this proposed AD, the operator may not be able
to accomplish the actions described in the revisions. In this
situation, to comply with 14 CFR 91.403(c), the operator must request
approval for an alternative method of compliance according to paragraph
(i)(1) of this proposed AD.

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this proposed AD affects 13 airplanes of
U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with
this proposed AD:
    The FAA has determined that revising the existing maintenance or
inspection program takes an average of 90 work-hours per operator,
although the agency recognizes that this number may vary from operator
to operator. In the past, the FAA has estimated that this action

takes 1 work-hour per airplane. Since operators incorporate maintenance
or inspection program changes for their affected fleet(s), the FAA has
determined that a per-operator estimate is more accurate than a per-
airplane estimate. Therefore, the FAA estimates the total cost per
operator to be $7,650 (90 work-hours x $85 per work-hour).

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.
    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 and associated appliances to the
Director of the System Oversight Division.

Regulatory Findings

    The FAA has 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) 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 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):

Airbus Canada Limited Partnership (Type Certificate Previously Held
by C Series Aircraft Limited Partnership (CSALP); Bombardier, Inc.):
    Docket No. FAA-2019-0584; Product Identifier 2019-NM-096-AD.

(a) Comments Due Date

    The FAA must receive comments by September 19, 2019.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Airbus Canada Limited Partnership (Type
Certificate previously held by C Series Aircraft Limited Partnership
(CSALP); Bombardier, Inc.) Model BD-500-1A10 and BD-500-1A11
airplanes, certificated in any category, identified in paragraphs
(c)(1) and (c)(2) of this AD.
    (1) Model BD-500-1A10 airplanes, serial numbers 50001 and
subsequent with an original airworthiness certificate or original
export certificate of airworthiness issued on or before June 6,
2019.
    (2) Model BD-500-1A11 airplanes, serial numbers 55001 and
subsequent with an original airworthiness certificate or original
export certificate of airworthiness issued on or before June 6,
2019.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 05, Time Limits/
Maintenance Checks.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by a determination that new or more
restrictive airworthiness limitations are necessary. The FAA is
issuing this AD to prevent reduced structural integrity of the
airplane or reduced controllability of the airplane.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Maintenance or Inspection Program Revision

    Within 90 days after the effective date of this AD, revise the
existing maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to
incorporate the information specified in Bombardier C Series
Airworthiness Limitations, BD500-3AB48-11400-02, Issue 009.00, dated
June 6, 2019. The initial compliance time for doing the tasks is at
the time specified in Bombardier C Series Airworthiness Limitations,
BD500-3AB48-11400-02, Issue 009.00, dated June 6, 2019, or within 90
days after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later.

(h) No Alternative Actions, Intervals, or Critical Design Configuration
Control Limitations (CDCCLs)

    After the existing maintenance or inspection program has been
revised as required by paragraph (g) of this AD, no alternative
actions (e.g., inspections), intervals, or CDCCLs may be used unless
the actions, intervals, and CDCCLs are approved as an alternative
method of compliance (AMOC) in accordance with the procedures
specified in paragraph (i)(1) of this AD.

(i) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, New
York 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 ATTN: Program Manager, Continuing Operational
Safety, FAA, New York ACO Branch, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410,
Westbury, NY 11590; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
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.
    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD
to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer, the action must be
accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, New York ACO
Branch, FAA; or Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA); or CSALP's
TCCA Design Approval Organization (DAO). If approved by the DAO, the
approval must include the DAO-authorized signature.

(j) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information
(MCAI) Canadian AD CF-2019-14, dated April 5, 2019, for related
information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the internet
at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket
No. FAA-2019-0584.
    (2) For more information about this AD, contact Andrea Jimenez,
Aerospace Engineer, Airframe and Propulsion Section, FAA, New York
ACO Branch, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590;
telephone:

516-228-7330; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Bombardier, Inc., 400 C[ocirc]te-Vertu Road West, Dorval,
Qu[eacute]bec H4S 1Y9, Canada; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax: 514-
855-7401; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>internet: http://www.bombardier.com. You may view this service information at the
FAA, Transport Standards Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines,
WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA,
call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Issued in Des Moines, Washington, on July 29, 2019.
Dionne Palermo,
Acting Director, System Oversight Division, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2019-16571 Filed 8-2-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 68 (Monday, April 9, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 15194]
[FR Doc No: 2018-07171]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

[Summary Notice No. 2018-28]

Petition for Exemption; Summary of Petition Received; Wittman
Regional Airport

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice contains a summary of a petition seeking relief
from specified requirements of Title 14 of the Code of Federal
Regulations. The purpose of this notice is 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 and must be received on or before April 30, 2018.

ADDRESSES: Send comments identified by docket number FAA-2018-0191
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: Clarence Garden<PHONE_NUMBER>, Office
of Rulemaking, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue
SW, Washington, DC 20591.
    This notice is published pursuant to 14 CFR 11.85.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on March 28, 2018.
Lirio Liu,
Director, Office of Rulemaking.

Petition for Exemption

    Docket No.: FAA-2018-0191.
    Petitioner: Wittman Regional Airport.
    Section(s) of 14 CFR Affected: Sec.  139.101.
    Description of Relief Sought: Wittman Regional Airport is
requesting an exemption to allow certain unscheduled Air Carrier
operations at Wittman Regional Airport (KOSH) at limited times during
Experimental Aircraft Association (EAA) Airventure 2018.

[FR Doc. 2018-07171 Filed 4-6-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 236 (Wednesday, December 9, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 76481-76482]
[FR Doc No: 2015-31055]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0301; FRL-9939-34]

Pesticide Emergency Exemptions; Agency Decisions and State and
Federal Agency Crisis Declarations

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: EPA has granted or denied emergency exemptions under the
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) for use of
pesticides as listed in this notice. The exemptions or denials were
granted during the period July 1, 2015 to September 30, 2015 to control
unforeseen pest outbreaks.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Susan Lewis, Registration Division
(7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency,
1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; main telephone
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
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.
The following list of North American Industrial Classification System
(NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them.
Potentially affected entities may include:
    [emsp14]Crop production (NAICS code 111).
    [emsp14]Animal production (NAICS code 112).
    [emsp14]Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
    [emsp14]Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).
    If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this
action to a particular entity, consult the person listed at the end of
the emergency exemption or denial.

B. How can I get copies of this document and other related information?

    The docket for this action, identified by docket identification
(ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0301 is available at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of Pesticide Programs Regulatory
Public Docket (OPP Docket) in the Environmental Protection Agency
Docket Center (EPA/DC), West William Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334,
1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001. The Public
Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public
Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number for the OPP
Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Please review the visitor instructions and
additional information about the docket available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

II. Background

    EPA has granted or denied emergency exemptions to the following
State and Federal agencies. The emergency exemptions may take the
following form: Crisis, public health, quarantine, or specific. EPA has
also listed denied emergency exemption requests in this notice.
    Under FIFRA section 18 (7 U.S.C. 136p), EPA can authorize the use
of a pesticide when emergency conditions exist. Authorizations
(commonly called emergency exemptions) are granted to State and Federal
agencies and are of four types:
    1. A ``specific exemption'' authorizes use of a pesticide against
specific pests on a limited acreage in a particular State. Most
emergency exemptions are specific exemptions.
    2. ``Quarantine'' and ``public health'' exemptions are emergency
exemptions issued for quarantine or public health purposes. These are
rarely requested.
    3. A ``crisis exemption'' is initiated by a State or Federal agency
(and is confirmed by EPA) when there is insufficient time to request
and obtain EPA permission for use of a pesticide in an emergency.
    EPA may deny an emergency exemption: If the State or Federal agency
cannot demonstrate that an emergency exists, if the use poses
unacceptable risks to the environment, or if EPA cannot reach a
conclusion that the proposed pesticide use is likely to result in ``a
reasonable certainty of no harm'' to human health, including exposure
of residues of the pesticide to infants and children.
    If the emergency use of the pesticide on a food or feed commodity
would result in pesticide chemical residues, EPA establishes a time-
limited tolerance meeting the ``reasonable certainty of no harm
standard'' of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).
    In this document: EPA identifies the State or Federal agency
granted the exemption or denial, the type of exemption, the pesticide
authorized and the pests, the crop or use for which authorized, number
of acres (if applicable), and the duration of the exemption. EPA also
gives the Federal Register citation for the time-limited tolerance, if
any.

III. Emergency Exemptions and Denials

A. U.S. States and Territories

California
Department of Environmental Protection
    Crisis exemption: On August 27, 2015 the California Department of
Environmental Protection declared a crisis for the use of
methoxyfenozide on rice to control armyworms.
Delaware
Department of Agriculture
    Specific Exemption: EPA authorized the use of dinotefuran on pome
fruit and stone fruit to control the brown marmorated stinkbug; July
16, 2015 to October 15, 2015.
Florida
Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services
    Specific Exemption: EPA authorized the use of streptomycin sulfate
on

grapefruit to control citrus canker; July 1, 2015 to July 1, 2016.
Kentucky
Department of Agriculture
    Specific Exemption: EPA authorized the use of sulfoxaflor on
sorghum to control sugarcane aphid; August 10, 2015 to November 30,
2015.
Maryland
Department of Agriculture
    Specific Exemption: EPA authorized the use of dinotefuran on pome
fruit and stone fruit to control the brown marmorated stinkbug; July
16, 2015 to October 15, 2015.
Department of Health and Mental Hygiene
    Crisis exemptions: On July 7, 2015 the Maryland Department of
Health and Mental Hygiene declared crisis exemptions for the use of
ethylene oxide, formaldehyde, hydrogen peroxide, paracetic acid, and
sodium hypochlorite to inactivate Bacillus anthracis (anthrax) spores
in laboratories that processed samples originating from Dugway Proving
Ground potentially containing viable anthrax spores.
Michigan
Department of Agriculture and Rural Development
    Specific Exemption: EPA authorized the use of dinotefuran on pome
fruit and stone fruit to control the brown marmorated stinkbug; July
16, 2015 to November 30, 2015.
Mississippi
Department of Agriculture and Commerce
    Denial: On July 27, 2015 EPA denied the use of a pesticide product
containing the active ingredient thiamethoxam on sorghum to control
sugarcane aphid. This request was denied because the Agency determined
the situation did not meet criteria to be considered an urgent and non-
routine situation, and a specific exemption under section 18 was not
justified.
New Jersey
Department of Environmental Protection
    Specific Exemptions: EPA authorized the use of dinotefuran on pome
fruit and stone fruit to control the brown marmorated stinkbug;
September 15, 2015 to October 15, 2015.
    EPA authorized the use of bifenthrin on apple, peach and nectarine
to control the brown marmorated stinkbug; September 21, 2015 to October
15, 2015.
New Mexico
Department of Agriculture
    Specific Exemption: EPA authorized the use of sulfoxaflor on
sorghum to control sugarcane aphid; August 28, 2015 to November 30,
2015.
New York
Department of Environmental Conservation
    Specific Exemption: EPA authorized the use of bifenthrin on apple,
peach and nectarine to control the brown marmorated stinkbug; July 30,
2015 to October 15, 2015.
North Carolina
Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services
    Specific Exemptions: EPA authorized the use of dinotefuran on pome
fruit and stone fruit to control the brown marmorated stinkbug; July
16, 2015 to October 15, 2015.
    EPA authorized the use of sulfoxaflor on sorghum to control
sugarcane aphid; July 16, 2015 to November 30, 2015.
Pennsylvania
Department of Agriculture
    Specific Exemption: EPA authorized the use of dinotefuran on pome
fruit and stone fruit to control the brown marmorated stinkbug; July
16, 2015 to October 15, 2015.
South Dakota
Department of Agriculture
    Specific Exemption: EPA authorized the use of hop beta acids on
beehives to control the varroa mite; August 19, 2015 to December 31,
2015.
Tennessee
Health Department
    Crisis exemption: On July 29, 2015 the Tennessee Health Department
declared a crisis for the use of hydrogen peroxide to inactivate
Bacillus anthracis (anthrax) spores in laboratories that processed
samples originating from Dugway Proving Ground potentially containing
viable anthrax spores.
Virginia
Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services
    Specific Exemption: EPA authorized the use of dinotefuran on pome
fruit and stone fruit to control the brown marmorated stinkbug; July
16, 2015 to October 15, 2015.
West Virginia
Department of Agriculture
    Specific Exemption: EPA authorized the use of dinotefuran on pome
fruit and stone fruit to control the brown marmorated stinkbug; July
16, 2015 to October 15, 2015.

B. Federal Departments and Agencies

Department of Agriculture
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
    Quarantine Exemptions: EPA authorized the use of sodium chlorite to
produce chlorine dioxide gas for decontamination of poultry facilities
from avian influenza virus; August 4, 2015 to August 4, 2018.
    EPA authorized the use of sodium hypochlorite on surfaces to
decontaminate from foot and mouth disease, African swine flu and
classical swine flu; September 17, 2015 to September 17, 2018.
    EPA authorized the uses of sodium hypochlorite and sodium hydroxide
to decontaminate surfaces potentially exposed to prions, the causal
agents of transmissible spongiform encephalitic diseases in livestock;
September 25, 2015 to September 25, 2018.

    Authority:  7 U.S.C. 136 et seq.

    Dated: December 2, 2015.
Susan Lewis,
Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.
[FR Doc. 2015-31055 Filed 12-8-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P