[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 28 (Friday, February 9, 2018)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 5738-5740]
[FR Doc No: 2018-02197]

========================================================================
Proposed Rules
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of
the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these
notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in
the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.

========================================================================

Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 28 / Friday, February 9, 2018 /
Proposed Rules

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2018-0073; Product Identifier 2017-NM-100-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
certain The Boeing Company Model 767-300 and -300F series airplanes.
This proposed AD was prompted by reports of fatigue cracking in the
lower outboard wing skin at the farthest outboard fastener of the
inboard segment of a certain stringer. This proposed AD would require
repetitive high frequency eddy current (HFEC) inspections for cracking
of the lower outboard wing skin at the inboard segment of a certain
stringer, and repair if necessary. We are proposing this AD to address
the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by March 26, 2018.

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 proposed AD, contact
Aviation Partners Boeing, 2811 S. 102nd Street, Suite 200, Seattle, WA
98168; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; internet https://www.aviationpartnersboeing.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>. It is also available on the internet at
http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No.
FAA-2018-0073.

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-2018-
0073; 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 NPRM, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received,
and other information. The street address for the Docket Office (phone:
800-647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available
in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Allen Rauschendorfer, Aerospace
Engineer, Airframe Section, FAA, Seattle ACO Branch, 1601 Lind Avenue
SW, Renton, WA 98057-3356; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email: [email protected].

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-2018-0073;
Product Identifier 2017-NM-100-AD'' at the beginning of your comments.
We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic,
environmental, and energy aspects of this NPRM. We will consider all
comments received by the closing date and may amend this NPRM 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 NPRM.

Discussion

    We have received reports of fatigue cracking in the lower outboard
wing skin at the farthest outboard fastener of the inboard segment of
stringer L-9.5 on Model 767-300 airplanes with Aviation Partners Boeing
winglets installed. The cracks were found at the fastener holes common
to the stringer on the left- and right-hand wings. Investigation
revealed that these were fatigue cracks related to Aviation Partners
Boeing supplemental type certificate (STC) ST01920SE winglet retrofit
kit installations. If not corrected, these cracks could extend to
adjacent structure and could lead to reduced load carrying capability
in the lower skin. These conditions, if not corrected, could result in
failure and subsequent separation of the wing and winglet, and
consequent reduced controllability of the airplane.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    We reviewed Aviation Partners Boeing (APB) Service Bulletin AP767-
57-013, Revision 1, dated April 11, 2017. The service information
describes procedures for an HFEC inspection for cracking of the lower
outboard wing skin at the inboard segment of stringer L-9.5, and on-
condition actions that include repetitive HFEC inspections; a
preventative modification (repair) that includes installing new
stringers; repetitive post-modification (repair) HFEC inspections for
cracking; and repair. This service information is reasonably available
because the interested parties have access to it through their normal
course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

FAA's Determination

    We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all the relevant
information and determined 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 accomplishing the actions specified
in the service information described previously, except as discussed
under ``Difference Between this Proposed Rule and the Service
Information.''

Difference Between Proposed Rule and Service Information

    Aviation Partners Boeing Service Bulletin AP767-57-013, Revision 1,
dated April 11, 2017, specifies to contact the manufacturer for
instructions on how to repair certain conditions, but this proposed AD
would require repairing those conditions 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.

Compliance Times

    The initial compliance time is the later of: 1,500 flight cycles or
7,500 flight cycles after winglet installation, whichever occurs first;
or 18 months after the effective date of the AD.
    The repetitive compliance times vary depending on inspection
findings. The shortest repetitive interval is 1,500 flight cycles or
7,500 flight hours, whichever occurs first. The longest repetitive
interval is 6,000 flight cycles or 18,000 flight hours, whichever
occurs first.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 140 airplanes of U.S.
registry. We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed
AD:

                                        Estimated Costs--Required Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost on U.S.
             Action                    Labor cost         Parts cost      Cost per product        operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HFEC Inspections................  1 work-hour x $85                $0   $85, per inspection  $11,900, per
                                   per hour = $255,                      cycle.               inspection cycle.
                                   per inspection
                                   cycle.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                      Estimated Costs--On-Condition Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per
                    Action                                 Labor cost               Parts cost        product
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Preventative Modification (Repair)............  50 work-hours x $85 per hour =                $0          $4,250
                                                 $4,250.
Post-modification (repair) Inspections........  1 work-hour x $85 per hour =                   0              85
                                                 $255.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide
cost estimates for on-condition repairs that might be necessary as a
result of the post-modification (repair) inspections specified in this
proposed AD.
    According to the manufacturer, some of the costs of this proposed
AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on
affected individuals. We do not control warranty coverage for affected
individuals. As a result, we have included all available costs in our
cost estimate.

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-2018-0073; Product Identifier
2017-NM-100-AD.

(a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by March 26, 2018.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to The Boeing Company Model 767-300 and -300F
series airplanes, certificated in any category, with Aviation
Partners Boeing winglets installed; as identified in Aviation
Partners Boeing Service Bulletin AP767-57-013, Revision 1, dated
April 11, 2017.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 57, Wings.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by reports of fatigue cracking in the lower
outboard wing skin at the farthest outboard fastener of the inboard
segment of stringer L-9.5 on airplanes with winglets installed per
Supplemental Type Certificate ST01920SE. We are issuing this AD to
prevent fatigue cracking in the lower outboard wing skin, which
could result in failure and subsequent separation of the wing and
winglet and consequent reduced controllability of the airplane.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Repetitive Inspections, Preventative Modification (Repair),
Repetitive Post-Modification (Repair) Inspections, and Repair

    At the applicable time specified in paragraph 1.E.,
``Compliance,'' of Aviation Partners Boeing Service Bulletin AP767-
57-013, Revision 1, dated April 11, 2017, except as required by
paragraph (h) of this AD: Do a high frequency eddy current (HFEC)
inspection for cracking of the lower outboard wing skin at the
inboard segment of stringer L-9.5, in accordance with Part 1 of the
Accomplishment Instructions of Aviation Partners Boeing Service
Bulletin AP767-57-013, Revision 1, dated April 11, 2017.
    (1) For airplanes on which ``Condition 1'' is found, as defined
in the Accomplishment Instructions of Aviation Partners Boeing
Service Bulletin AP767-57-013, Revision 1, dated April 11, 2017,
during any inspection required by paragraph (g) or (g)(1)(i) of this
AD: Do the actions required by paragraph (g)(1)(i) or (g)(1)(ii) of
this AD.
    (i) Repeat the inspection specified in paragraph (g) of this AD
thereafter at the applicable times specified in paragraph 1.E.,
``Compliance,'' of Aviation Partners Boeing Service Bulletin AP767-
57-013, Revision 1, dated April 11, 2017.
    (ii) Do the actions required by paragraphs (g)(1)(ii)(A) and
(g)(1)(ii)(B) of this AD:
    (A) Before further flight, do the preventative modification in
accordance with Part 2 of the Accomplishment Instructions of
Aviation Partners Boeing Service Bulletin AP767-57-013, Revision 1,
dated April 11, 2017.
    (B) At the applicable time specified in paragraph 1.E.,
``Compliance,'' of Aviation Partners Boeing Service Bulletin AP767-
57-013, Revision 1, dated April 11, 2017, do an HFEC inspection for
cracking, in accordance with Part 3 of the Accomplishment
Instructions of Aviation Partners Boeing Service Bulletin AP767-57-
013, Revision 1, dated April 11, 2017; and repeat the inspection
thereafter at the applicable times specified in paragraph 1.E.,
``Compliance,'' of Aviation Partners Boeing Service Bulletin AP767-
57-013, Revision 1, dated April 11, 2017.
    (2) For airplanes on which ``Condition 2'' is found as defined
in the Accomplishment Instructions of Aviation Partners Boeing
Service Bulletin AP767-57-013, Revision 1, dated April 11, 2017,
during any inspection required by paragraph (g) or (g)(1)(i) of this
AD: Do the actions required by paragraph (g)(2)(i) and (g)(2)(ii) of
this AD.
    (i) Before further flight, repair in accordance with Part 2 of
the Accomplishment Instructions of Aviation Partners Boeing Service
Bulletin AP767-57-013, Revision 1, dated April 11, 2017.
    (ii) At the applicable time specified in paragraph 1.E.,
``Compliance,'' of Aviation Partners Boeing Service Bulletin AP767-
57-013, Revision 1, dated April 11, 2017, do an HFEC inspection for
cracking, in accordance with Part 3 of the Accomplishment
Instructions of Aviation Partners Boeing Service Bulletin AP767-57-
013, Revision 1, dated April 11, 2017; and repeat the inspection
thereafter at the applicable times specified in paragraph 1.E.,
``Compliance,'' of Aviation Partners Boeing Service Bulletin AP767-
57-013, Revision 1, dated April 11, 2017.
    (3) If any crack is found during any inspection required by
paragraph (g)(1)(ii)(B) or (g)(2)(ii) of this AD, repair before
further flight using a method approved in accordance with the
procedures specified in paragraph (j) of this AD. Although Aviation
Partners Boeing Service Bulletin AP767-57-013, Revision 1, dated
April 11, 2017, specifies to contact Boeing for repair instructions,
and specifies that action as ``RC'' (Required for Compliance), this
AD requires repair as specified in this paragraph.

(h) Exception to Service Information Specifications

    Where paragraph 1.E., ``Compliance,'' of Aviation Partners
Boeing Service Bulletin AP767-57-013, Revision 1, dated April 11,
2017, specifies a compliance time of ``after the initial issue date
of this service bulletin,'' this AD requires compliance within the
specified compliance time after the effective date of this AD.

(i) Credit for Previous Actions

    For Group 2 airplanes: This paragraph provides credit for the
actions specified in Part 1 and Part 2 of the Accomplishment
Instructions of Aviation Partners Boeing Service Bulletin AP767-57-
013, Revision 1, dated April 11, 2017, that are required by
paragraph (g) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the
effective date of this AD using Aviation Partners Boeing Service
Bulletin AP767-57-013, dated November 30, 2016.

(j) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Seattle ACO Branch, FAA, has the authority to
approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found
in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request
to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District
Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the
manager of the certification office, send it to the attention of the
person identified in paragraph (k)(1) of this AD. Information may be
emailed to: [email protected].
    (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, Seattle 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 (g)(3) 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 Allen
Rauschendorfer, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Section, FAA, Seattle
ACO Branch, 1601 Lind Avenue SW, Renton, WA 98057-3356; phone: 425-
917-6450; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email: [email protected].
    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Aviation Partners Boeing, 2811 S. 102nd Street, Suite 200, Seattle,
WA 98168; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; internet https://www.aviationpartnersboeing.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 January 25, 2018.
Michael Kaszycki,
Acting Director, System Oversight Division, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2018-02197 Filed 2-8-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 124 (Wednesday, June 27, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 38282-38285]
[FR Doc No: 2012-15540]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPPT-2009-0154; FRL-9333-1]

Final Test Guidelines; OCSPP 850 Series; Notice of Availability

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is announcing the availability of the final test
guidelines for Series 850--Ecological Effects Test Guidelines,
consisting of Groups B, C, D, and F. These test guidelines are part of
a series of test guidelines established by Office of Chemical Safety
and Pollution Prevention (OCSPP) for use in testing pesticides and
chemical substances to develop data for submission to the Agency under
the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), the Federal Insecticide,
Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), and section 408 of the Federal
Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA). As guidance documents, the test
guidelines are not binding on either EPA or any outside parties.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For general information contact:
Melissa Chun, Regulatory Coordination Staff (7101M), Office of Chemical
Safety and Pollution Prevention, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:
(202) 564-1605; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    For technical information contact: Amy Blankinship, Environmental
Fate and Effects Division (7507P), Office of Pesticide Programs,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW.,
Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or Kathryn Gallagher, Risk Assessment
Division (7403M), Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW.,
Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Introduction

    These test guidelines are part of a series of test guidelines
established by OCSPP for use in testing pesticides and chemical
substances to develop data for submission to the Agency under TSCA (15
U.S.C. 2601 et seq.), FIFRA (7 U.S.C. 136 et seq.), and section 408 of
FFDCA (21 U.S.C. 346a).
    The test guidelines serve as a compendium of accepted scientific
methodologies and protocols that are intended to provide data to inform
regulatory decisions under TSCA, FIFRA, and/or FFDCA. The test
guidelines provide guidance for conducting the test, and are also used
by EPA, the public, and the companies that are subject to data
submission requirements under TSCA, FIFRA, and/or FFDCA.
    As guidance documents, the test guidelines are not binding on
either EPA or any outside parties, and EPA may depart from the test
guidelines where circumstances warrant and without prior notice. At
places in this guidance, the Agency uses the word ``should.'' In this
guidance, use of ``should'' with regard to an action means that the
action is recommended rather than mandatory. The procedures contained
in the test guidelines are recommended for generating the data that are
the subject of the test guideline, but EPA recognizes that departures
may be appropriate in specific situations. Alternatives to the
recommendations described in the test guidelines may be proposed, and
the Agency will assess them for appropriateness on a case-by-case
basis.

II. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    This action is directed to the public in general. Although this
action may be of particular interest to those persons who are or may be
required to conduct testing of pesticides and chemical substances for
submission to EPA under TSCA, FIFRA, and/or FFDCA, the Agency has not
attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be affected by
this action. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of
this action to a particular entity, consult the technical person listed
under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

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

    1. Docket for this document. The docket for this action, identified
by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2009-0154, is
available at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of Pollution
Prevention and Toxics Docket (OPPT Docket), Environmental Protection
Agency Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301
Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. 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 (202)
566-1744, and the telephone number for the OPPT Docket is (202) 566-
0280. Please review the visitor instructions and additional information
about the docket available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.
    2. Electronic access to OCSPP test guidelines. To access OCSPP test
guidelines electronically, please go to http://www.epa.gov/ocspp/pubs/frs/home/testmeth.htm. You may also access the test guidelines at
http://www.regulations.gov grouped by series under docket ID numbers:
EPA-HQ-OPPT-2009-0150 through EPA-HQ-OPPT-2009-0159 and EPA-HQ-OPPT-
2009-0576.

III. Overview

A. What action is EPA taking?

    EPA is announcing the availability of final test guidelines under
Series 850--Ecological Effects Test Guidelines, consisting of Groups B,
C, D, and F:
     Group B--Terrestrial Wildlife.
     Group C--Terrestrial Beneficial Insects, Invertebrates,
and Soil and Wastewater Microorganisms.
     Group D--Terrestrial and Aquatic Plants, Cyanobacteria,
and Terrestrial Soil Core Microcosm.
     Group F--Field Test Data Reporting Guidelines.
    OCSPP, formerly the Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic
Substances (OPPTS), established a unified library of test guidelines
for use in developing data for submission to EPA under TSCA, FFDCA,
and/or FIFRA. Beginning in 1991, EPA initiated an effort to harmonize
the test guidelines within OCSPP, as well as to harmonize the OCSPP
test guidelines with those of the Organization for Economic Cooperation
and Development (OECD). The process for developing and amending these
test guidelines has included public participation and the extensive
involvement of the scientific community, including peer review by the
FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel (SAP), the Scientific Advisory Board
(SAB), and other expert scientific organizations. With this notice, EPA
is announcing the availability of the final test guidelines OCSPP 850
Series, consisting of Groups B, C, D, and F dealing with ecological
effects for use in testing chemical substances and developing data for
submission to EPA. Test guidelines in this series were made available
for public comment by a notice document published in the Federal
Register issue of March 4, 1996 (61 FR 8279) (FRL-4990-3). The peer
review on May 29, 1996 by FIFRA SAP was announced in a meeting notice
published in the Federal Register issue of May 1, 1996 (61 FR 19276)
(FRL-

5366-3). The test guidelines were subsequently revised in response to
FIFRA SAP and public comments.
    Based on comments from FIFRA SAP and from the public, the following
changes were made in the final test guidelines:
    1. Group titles and organization changes. EPA is changing the title
of Group D ``Nontarget Plants Test Guidelines'' to ``Terrestrial and
Aquatic Plants, Cyanobacteria, and Terrestrial Soil Core Microcosm Test
Guidelines.'' The term ``nontarget,'' which is not applicable to OPPT,
is removed from the Group D title, broadening the scope to all test
guidelines evaluating effects to plants. The following test guidelines
involving plants are renumbered and moved to Group D: OCSPP 850.4500
``Algal Toxicity'' (Public Draft OPPTS 850.5400) and OCSPP 850.4900
``Terrestrial Soil-Core Microcosm Test'' (Public Draft OPPTS 850.2450).
    EPA is changing the title of Group C ``Beneficial Insects and
Invertebrates Test Guidelines'' to ``Terrestrial Beneficial Insects,
Invertebrates, and Soil and Wastewater Microorganism Test Guidelines,''
expanding the scope to include testing of microorganisms other than the
aquatic algae. The following microorganism test guidelines are
renumbered and moved to Group C: OCSPP 850.3200 ``Soil Microbial
Community Toxicity Test'' (Public Draft OPPTS 850.5100) and OCSPP
850.3300 ``Modified Activated Sludge, Respiration Inhibition Test''
(Public Draft OPPTS 850.6800).
    EPA is moving the ``Earthworm Subchronic Toxicity Test'' test
guideline from the Public Draft Group F ``Chemical Specific Test
Guidelines'' to Group C and renumbering it from OPPTS 850.6200 to OCSPP
850.3100. The earthworm is being added to Group C since it is a
beneficial soil invertebrate.
    EPA is changing the Group G designation to Group F, and the test
guideline contained within it (Public Draft OPPTS 850.7100) is
renumbered OCSPP 850.6100. The title for Group E is removed as it no
longer contains any test guidelines; however, Group E and its title are
reserved.
    2. Title change for OCSPP 850.4000. EPA is changing the title of
OCSPP 850.4000 ``Background--Nontarget Plant Testing'' to ``Background
and Special Considerations: Tests with Terrestrial and Aquatic Plants,
Cyanobacteria, and Terrestrial Soil-Core Microcosms.'' The new title
reflects the change in the Group D title.
    3. Background and special consideration test guideline addition for
Group B and Group C and content revision of Group D. EPA is adding two
background and special consideration test guidelines: OCSPP 850.2000
``Background and Special Considerations: Terrestrial Wildlife'' and
OCSPP 850.3000 ``Background and Special Considerations: Terrestrial
Beneficial Insects, Invertebrates, and Soil and Wastewater
Microorganisms.'' The addition of these test guidelines are in response
to comments regarding harmonizing the organization of test guidelines
and improving the consistency of terminology and guidance applicable
across test guidelines in a group. These test guidelines provide
general guidance on test methods, statistics, and data reporting and an
overview of the use for OPPT and OPP. Such test guidelines already
exist for Group A (OPPTS 850.1000) and Group D (OCSPP 850.4000).
Information contained within the OCSPP 850.2000 and OCSPP 850.3000 is
based on information extracted from the test guidelines within their
respective group and on general statistical methods applicable to
toxicity testing.
    With the addition of test guidelines from other groups, OCSPP
850.4000 was updated to reflect general information applicable across
test guidelines in Group D. This information was extracted from the
existing test guidelines. Additionally, a description of the meaning of
the terms ``Tier I,'' ``Tier II,'' and ``Tier III,'' under TSCA in
contrast to their definitions under FIFRA, was added.
    4. Title changes and merging and splitting of test guidelines--i.
Removal of terms ``Tiers I, II, and III'' from test guideline titles
and consolidation of resulting common test guidelines. The terms ``Tier
I,'' ``Tier II,'' or ``Tier III'' used in these test guideline titles
are not necessary and are misleading as they have different regulatory
meanings under OPP and OPPT. These tests, though, are used by both
programs. EPA is changing the OPPTS 850.4400 ``Aquatic Plant Toxicity
Test Using Lemna Spp., Tiers I and II'' and OPPTS 850.5400 (now OCSPP
850.4500) ``Algal Toxicity, Tiers I and II'' test guideline titles by
removing ``Tiers I and II.''
    EPA is also removing the terms ``Tier I'' and ``Tier II'' and then
consolidating and harmonizing the ``Tier I'' test guidelines with their
``Tier II'' test guideline counterparts for the following test
guidelines: The ``Terrestrial Plant Toxicity, Tier I (Seedling
Emergence)'' and ``Seedling Emergence, Tier II'' test guidelines
(Public Drafts OPPTS 850.4100 and OPPTS 850.4225, respectively). These
test guidelines were merged and harmonized into OCSPP 850.4100
``Seedling Emergence and Seedling Growth.'' The ``Terrestrial Plant
Toxicity, Tier I (Vegetative Vigor)'' and ``Vegetative Vigor, Tier II''
test guidelines (Public Draft OPPTS 850.4150 and OPPTS 850.4250,
respectively) were merged and harmonized into OCSPP 850.4150
``Vegetative Vigor.'' For these test guidelines, except for the number
of treatment levels, ``Tier I'' test conditions (referred to as limit
tests) are essentially the same as ``Tier II'' (definitive tests) test
conditions.
    EPA is changing the title of OPPTS 850.4450 ``Aquatic Plants Field
Study, Tier III'' test guideline by removing the term, ``Tier III.''
    EPA is also removing the term ``Tier III'' from the OPPTS 850.4300
``Terrestrial Plants Field Study, Tier III'' test guideline. Public
Draft OPPTS 850.4025 ``Target Area Phytotoxicity'' was merged with
Public Draft OPPTS 850.4300 to create a single test guideline, OCSPP
850.4300 ``Terrestrial Plants Field Study.'' The target area test
guideline covers a special case of a terrestrial plant field study for
OPP, where the study area is the area intentionally treated with a
pesticide when label use directions are followed. The OCSPP 850.4300
``Terrestrial Plants Field Study'' provides flexibility to cover this
special case for OPP, if needed.
    ii. Division of the Algal Toxicity Test into two separate
guidelines. EPA split the Public Draft OPPTS 850.5400 ``Algal Toxicity,
Tiers I and II'' test guideline into two test guidelines: OCSPP
850.4500 ``Algal Toxicity'' and OCSPP 850.4550 ``Cyanobacteria
(Anabaena flos-aquae) Toxicity'' (in addition to removing ``Tiers I and
II''). This division of the unicellular species into two different test
guidelines provides a clearer differentiation between methodological
approaches prescribed for testing cyanobacteria and those for testing
the unicellular algae. Additionally, this division addresses the
reclassification of blue-green algae as cyanobacteria.
    5. Standardization of test guideline organization. The FIFRA SAP
recommended that the ecological effects test guidelines include the
same organizational format and that the tables summarizing test
conditions for appropriate test guidelines contain consistent concepts
across test guidelines. As a result of these suggestions, information
was moved within the test guidelines, but the information remained the
same. Tables summarizing test conditions and test validity elements
were added to test guidelines in which species specific or

laboratory measurements were defined. In all test guidelines where a
calculated response measure (e.g., average specific growth rate) was
derived from direct response measures (e.g., weight), equations were
provided.
    6. Highlights of technical changes--i. Addition of a limit test
option. Public comments indicated that a limit test could be an option
to a definitive test in additional test guidelines. A limit test
provides an opportunity to reduce the number of animals to be tested
and/or resources. Test guidelines where a limit test is appropriate and
a limit test option was added include the following: OCSPP 850.2200
``Avian Dietary Toxicity Test;'' OCSPP 850.2400 ``Wild Mammal Toxicity
Test;'' OCSPP 850.3100 ``Earthworm Subchronic Toxicity Test;'' OCSPP
850.3300 ``Modified Activated Sludge, Respiration Inhibition Test;''
OCSPP 850.4230 ``Early Seedling Growth Toxicity Test;'' and OCSPP
850.4600 ``Rhizobium-Legume Toxicity.'' Although a limit test option is
available for OCSPP 850.2100, OCSPP 850.2200, and OCSPP 850.2400,
language was added that if sublethal effects are observed at the limit
dose, a definitive test should be conducted.
    ii. Modification of limit dosage or concentration ``cut-off''
values. The limit dosage or concentration values for tests for
pesticides were originally set at values seen in the literature as
``cut off'' values. It was believed that few, if any, pesticides would
be applied at a label rate that would result in residues equal to or
greater than these values. Based on current exposure models used within
the Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP), though, there are cases where
estimated environmental residue values are higher than limit values
provided in the public drafts, and there are also cases where actual or
expected environmental exposure levels may be higher than the limit
values for industrial chemicals. To address these case-by-case
occurrences, language was added saying that the limit value should be
adjusted upward if environmental exposure concentrations are expected
to be higher than the limit value. In addition, guidance on how to
calculate a pesticide estimated environmental concentration for
comparison to a typical limit value was included in each test guideline
with a limit test option.
    iii. Group B test guidelines. In OCSPP 850.2100 ``Avian Acute Oral
Toxicity Test,'' passerine species and alternative species were added
as test species in response to FIFRA SAP comments for additional
alternative test species and the new passerine 40 CFR part 158 data
requirement published in the Federal Register issue of October 26, 2007
(72 FR 60934-60988) (FRL-8106-5). Furthermore, the option of testing
additional sex and age groups (including breeding females) on a case-
by-case basis, as well as confirmation of dosing solutions, were added
to address comments. OCSPP 850.2200 ``Avian Dietary Toxicity'' was
modified to specify that young birds cannot survive 5 days without
feeding. Additionally, when delayed effects are observed or expected,
the guidance extending the observation period recommends testing for at
least 14 days but continuing until overt evidence of toxicity has
subsided.
    There were also issues raised with the cage sizes provided in OCSPP
850.2300 ``Avian Reproduction Test.'' In response to these comments,
the specific cage sizes provided in OCSPP 850.2300 were removed and
replaced with a recommendation to follow current best practices for the
care and testing of laboratory animals, as recommended cage sizes for
avian species for use in reproductive tests are evolving. The health
and presence/absence of signs of stress in control animals are used to
help evaluate housing and handling conditions. Additionally, language
was added to increase the minimum number of replicate pens per
treatment to 16, and the measurement endpoint of hatchling body weight
was added. Furthermore, the initial test subject age was reduced to as
low as 16 weeks to address comments on problems of starting with older
test subjects and impacts on acclimation, holding, and initial
photoperiod during the reproduction phase.
    iv. Group C test guidelines. In OCSPP 850.3020 ``Honey Bee Acute
Contact Toxicity'' and OCSPP 850.3030 ``Honey Bee Toxicity of Residues
on Foliage,'' the age of test bees was harmonized with that in OECD 214
``Honeybees, Acute Contact Toxicity Test'' and with FIFRA SAP comments.
A method for immobilizing bees using cold temperature was included and
the wording on the source of bees was changed to an ``apparently
disease-free colony'' in response to comments on collection techniques
and source of bees. In addition, language regarding measurements of
residue concentrations on the foliage was added.
    v. Group D test guidelines. In conducting ecological risk
assessments, both hypothesis-based endpoints (No Observed Effect
Concentration/Lowest Observed Effect Concentration (NOEC/LOEC)) and
regression-based endpoints (e.g., inhibition concentration
IC25 or IC50) are recommended in OCSPP 850.4100
``Seedling Emergence and Seedling Growth,'' OCSPP 850.4150 ``Vegetative
Vigor,'' OCSPP 850.4400 ``Aquatic Plant Toxicity Test Using Lemna
spp.,'' OCSPP 850.4500 ``Algal Toxicity,'' and OCSPP 850.4550
``Cyanobacteria (Anabaena flos-aquae) Toxicity.'' Within these test
guidelines, text was modified to clarify both objectives and test
acceptability in terms of both definitive and limit tests. A number of
modifications to OCSPP 850.4400 were made to harmonize the test
guideline with OECD 221 ``Lemna sp Growth Inhibition.'' A change in the
period of testing from 14 days to 7 days was made in alignment with the
OECD 221 guideline based on bridging data between 7-day and 14-day
results. An evaluation of in-house toxicity data on Lemna gibba
demonstrated no significant difference between the inhibition
concentration endpoint values at 7 days versus 14 days.
    The minimum number of replicates has been increased to 4 for OCSPP
850.4100 ``Seedling Emergence and Seedling Growth,'' OCSPP 850.4150
``Vegetative Vigor,'' OCSPP 850.4400 ``Aquatic Plant Toxicity Testing
Using Lemna spp.,'' OCSPP 850.4500 ``Algal Toxicity,'' and OCSPP
850.4550 ``Cyanobacteria (Anabaena flos-aquae) Toxicity'' to reflect
the objective of these tests within OPP in which a hypothesis-based no
observable adverse effect concentration (NOAEC) in addition to the
regression-based ICX is calculated. The NOAEC is used in
endangered and threatened species assessments and there are cases where
nonparametric tests, which require a minimum of 4 replicates, are
needed to evaluate the results. Additional modifications to OCSPP
850.4550 were made to reflect FIFRA SAP recommendations of not
continuously shaking test vessels during the test and using
sonification only to facilitate counting.

B. How were these test guidelines developed?

    OCSPP has developed a unified library of test guidelines, which are
used in the testing of pesticides and toxic substances, and in the
development of test data to meet the data requirements of the Agency or
for voluntary testing purposes. Test guidelines are documents that
specify methods that EPA recommends for generating data to support the
registration of a pesticide, for setting of a tolerance or tolerance
exemption for pesticide residues, or for the decisionmaking process for
an industrial chemical. These test data are used by the Agency to
perform risk assessments and make regulatory decisions. Studies
conducted according to these test guidelines may be required

under FIFRA (7 U.S.C. 136) for pesticide registration, pursuant to 40
CFR part 158. Test guideline studies may also be useful for satisfying
FIFRA data requirements either in data call-ins issued pursuant to
FIFRA section 3(c)(2)(B) or as needed to satisfy data requirements
appropriate for specific pesticide registration applications, or for
satisfying data requirements to demonstrate the safety of a tolerance
or tolerance exemption under FFDCA section 408 (21 U.S.C. 346a).
    Test guidelines used in regulatory actions as the basis for test
standards under TSCA (15 U.S.C. 2601) are typically promulgated in 40
CFR part 799. They may also be written into specific TSCA rules such as
TSCA section 4 test rules or consent orders or they may be used as
recommended test guidelines as part of voluntary testing. Note that
where data will be required under a TSCA rule, such as a test rule
under TSCA section 4, a TSCA-specific version of the applicable test
guideline may be promulgated as a rule. Examples of specific chemical
test rules and consent orders may be found in 40 CFR part 799, subparts
B and C.
    The availability of public draft test guidelines for public comment
was announced in a March 4, 1996 Federal Register notice. The public
draft test guidelines were placed in the EPA Docket for public access.
These public draft test guidelines were also submitted by EPA to FIFRA
SAP on May 29, 1996, for peer review and was announced in a May 1, 1996
Federal Register notice. These final test guidelines incorporate
changes recommended by FIFRA SAP and other changes resulting from the
public comments received in response to the 1996 public draft test
guidelines. The majority of comments and changes dealt with the
organizational structure of the test guideline groups, consistency of
organization and format across the ecological effects guidelines,
addition of tables summarizing test conditions, addition of tables
summarizing test validity elements, consistency in use of terminology,
and updating of references. The reporting section of each test
guideline now provides a list of study specific information to include
in a study report based on study reporting requirements specified in 40
CFR 160.185 for FIFRA and 40 CFR 792.185 for TSCA.

List of Subjects

    Environmental protection, Chemical testing, Test guideline.

    Dated: June 19, 2012.
James Jones,
Acting Assistant Administrator, Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution
Prevention.
[FR Doc. 2012-15540 Filed 6-26-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 35 (Tuesday, February 22, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 9868-9869]
[FR Doc No: 2011-3795]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

Office of Hazardous Materials Safety; Notice of Application for
Special Permits

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

ACTION: List of Applications for Special Permits.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the procedures governing the application
for, and the processing of, special permits from the Department of
Transportation's Hazardous Material Regulations (49 CFR Part 107,
Subpart B), notice is hereby given that the Office of Hazardous
Materials Safety has received the application described herein. Each
mode of transportation for which a particular special permit is
requested is indicated by a number in the ``Nature of Application''
portion of the table below as follows: 1--Motor vehicle, 2--Rail
freight, 3--Cargo vessel, 4--Cargo aircraft only, 5--Passenger-carrying
aircraft.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before March 24, 2011.
    Address Comments To: Record Center, Pipeline and Hazardous
Materials Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation,
Washington, DC 20590.
    Comments should refer to the application number and be submitted in
triplicate. If confirmation of receipt of comments is desired, include
a self-addressed stamped postcard showing the special permit number.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Copies of the applications are
available for inspection in the Records Center, East Building, PHH-30,
1200 New Jersey Avenue Southeast, Washington DC or at http://regulations.gov.
    This notice of receipt of applications for special permit is
published in accordance with Part 107 of the Federal hazardous
materials transportation law (49 U.S.C. 5117(b); 49 CFR 1.53(b)).

    Issued in Washington, DC, on February 15, 2011.
Donald Burger,
Chief, Special Permits and Approvals Branch.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Nature of special
   Application No.        Docket No.          Applicant        Regulation(s) affected        permits thereof
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               NEW SPECIAL PERMITS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
15213-N..............  ................  Centronic LLC,       49 CFR 172.101 Column 9   To authorize the
                                          Houston, TX.         and 173.310.              transportation in
                                                                                commerce of Boron
                                                                                Trifluoride in electron
                                                                                tubes that are part of
                                                                                a radiation detector.
                                                                                (modes 1, 2, 3, 4, 5)
15229-N..............  ................  Linde Gas North      49 CFR 179.300-15.......  To authorize the
                                          America LLC, NEW                               transportation in
                                          PROVIDENCE, NJ.                                commerce of certain DOT
                                                                                106 tank cars
                                                                                containing chlorine
                                                                                that are not fitted
                                                                                with a pressure relief
                                                                                device. (modes 1, 2, 3)
15235-N..............  ................  Enco Industries,     49 CFR 173,173(b) and     To authorize the
                                          Inc., Plaistow, NH.  173.242.                  manufacture, marking,
                                                                                sale and use of UN 11G
                                                                                fiberboard intermediate
                                                                                bulk containers for use
                                                                                as the outer packaging
                                                                                for certain Class waste
                                                                                paints and waste paint
                                                                                related material. (mode
                                                                                1)
15238-N..............  ................  Reeder Flying        49 CFR 49 CFR Table Sec.  To authorize the
                                          Service, Inc.,         172.101, Column (9B),   transportation in
                                          Twin Falls, ID.      Sec.   172.204(c)(3),     commerce of Acetylene,
                                                               Sec.   173.27(b)(2)       dissolved exceeding the
                                                               Sec.   175.30(a)(1)       quantity limitations
                                                               Sec.   172.200,           for transportation by
                                                               172.300, and 172.400.     cargo only aircraft.
                                                                                (mode 4)
15240-N..............  ................  R&R Hunting &        49 CFR 49 CFR, 172.101    To authorize the
                                          Outdoor              column (8C), 173.241,     transportation in
                                          Adventures, LLC,     173.242, 175.310.         commerce of certain
                                          Anchorage, AK.                                 flammable and
                                                                                combustible liquids in
                                                                                alternative packaging
                                                                                having a capacity of
                                                                                119 gallons or more by
                                                                                air. (mode 4)

15256-N..............  ................  Suretank Group Ltd,  49 CFR 173.243(c).......  To authorize the
                                          Houma, LA.                                     manufacture, marking,
                                                                                and sale of non-DOT
                                                                                specification portable
                                                                                tank equipped with an
                                                                                external bottom
                                                                                discharge valve. (modes
                                                                                1, 3)
15258-N..............  ................  Air Products and     49 CFR 180.205 and        To authorize the
                                          Chemicals, Inc.,     173.302a.                 ultrasonic testing of
                                          Tamaqua, PA.                                   DOT-3A and DOT-3AA
                                                                                specification cylinders
                                                                                for use in transporting
                                                                                Division 2.1, 2.2 or
                                                                                2.3 material. (modes 1,
                                                                                2, 3, 4, 5)
15260-N..............  ................  Structural           49 CFR 173.302a and       To authorize the
                                          Composites           173.304a.                 manufacture, marking,
                                          Industries, (SCI),                             sale and use of non-DOT
                                          Pomona, CA.                                    specification fully
                                                                                wrapped carbon-fiber
                                                                                reinforced aluminum
                                                                                lined cylinders. (modes
                                                                                1, 2, 3, 4, 5)
15263-N..............  ................  Alaska Central       49 CFR 175.501(e)(3)(i).  To authorize the
                                          Express,                                       transportation in
                                          Anchorage, AK.                                 commerce of cylinders
                                                                                containing oxidizing
                                                                                gases without
                                                                                outerpackaging that
                                                                                conforms to the
                                                                                performance criteria of
                                                                                Air Transport
                                                                                Association
                                                                                Specification 300.
                                                                                (modes 4, 5)
15264-N..............  ................  Digital Wave         49 CFR 180.209 and        To authorize the
                                          Corporation,         180.205.                  transportation in
                                          Englewood, CO.                                 commerce of medical
                                                                                compressed oxygen in
                                                                                DOT Specification 3AL
                                                                                cylinders manufactured
                                                                                from aluminum alloy
                                                                                6061-T6 that are
                                                                                requalified every ten
                                                                                years rather than every
                                                                                five years using 100%
                                                                                ultrasonic examination.
                                                                                (modes 1, 2, 3, 4, 5)
15265-N..............  ................  Valjean              49 CFR 173.306(a)(3)(v).  To authorize the
                                          Corporation,                                   manufacture, marking,
                                          Indian Harbour                                 sale and use of a bag-
                                          Beach, FL.                                     on-valve spray
                                                                                packaging similar to an
                                                                                aerosol container
                                                                                without requiring the
                                                                                hot water bath test.
                                                                                (modes 1, 2, 3, 4, 5)
15266-N..............  ................  3AL Testing Corp.,   49 CFR 180.205 and        To authorize the
                                          Denver, CO.          180.209.                  transportation in
                                                                                commerce of certain DOT
                                                                                3AL 6061-T6 cylinders
                                                                                used exclusively in
                                                                                medical oxygen service
                                                                                to be requalified every
                                                                                10 years rather than
                                                                                every 5 years. (modes
                                                                                1, 2, 3, 4, 5)
15267-N..............  ................  SMI Companies,       49 CFR 171.8............  To authorize the
                                          Franklin, LA.                                  manufacture, marking,
                                                                                and sale of non-DOT
                                                                                specification
                                                                                intermodal tanks with a
                                                                                capacity of 150 liters
                                                                                for transportation of
                                                                                liquid bromine. (modes
                                                                                1, 2, 3, 4, 5)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2011-3795 Filed 2-18-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4909-60-M


[Federal Register: October 15, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 200)]
[Notices]
[Page 61187]
[DOCID:fr15oc08-159]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Office of the Secretary

[Docket No. DOT-OST-2007-0108]

National Task Force to Develop Model Contingency Plans to Deal
with Lengthy Airline On-Board Ground Delays

AGENCY: Office of the Secretary (OST), Department of Transportation
(DOT).

ACTION: Notice of advisory committee meeting.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces a meeting of the National Task Force to
Develop Model Contingency Plans to Deal with Lengthy Airline On-Board
Ground Delays.

DATES: The Task Force meeting is scheduled for November 12, 2008, from
8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m., Eastern Time.

ADDRESSES: The Task Force meeting will be held at the U.S. Department
of Transportation (U.S. DOT), 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington,
DC, in the Oklahoma City Conference Room on the lobby level of the West
Building.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION OR TO CONTACT THE DEPARTMENT CONCERNING THE
TASK FORCE: Livaughn Chapman, Jr., or Kathleen Blank-Riether, Office of
the General Counsel, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey
Ave., SE., W-96-429, Washington, DC 20590-0001; Phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In accordance with the Federal Advisory
Committee Act (FACA), 5 U.S.C. App. 2, and the General Services
Administration regulations covering management of Federal advisory
committees, 41 CFR Part 102-3, this notice announces a meeting of the
National Task Force to Develop Model Contingency Plans to Deal with
Lengthy Airline On-Board Ground Delays. The meeting will be held on
November 12, 2008, between 8:30 a.m. and 5 p.m. at the U.S. Department
of Transportation (U.S. DOT), 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington,
DC, in the Oklahoma City Conference Room on the lobby level of the West
Building.
    DOT's Office of Inspector General recommended, in its audit report,
entitled ``Actions Needed to Minimize Long, On-Board Flight Delays,''
issued on September 25, 2007, that the Secretary of Transportation
establish a national task force of airlines, airports, and the Federal
Aviation Administration (FAA) to coordinate and develop contingency
plans to deal with lengthy delays, such as working with carriers and
airports to share facilities and make gates available in an emergency.
To effectuate this recommendation, on January 3, 2008, the Department,
consistent with the requirements of the FACA, established the National
Task Force to Develop Model Contingency Plans to Deal with Lengthy
Airline On-Board Ground Delays. The first meeting of the Task Force
took place on February 26, 2008. The November 12, 2008, meeting will be
the seventh and final meeting of the task force.
    The agenda topics for the November 12, 2008, meeting will include a
vote by Task Force members for or against recommending the contingency
planning document to the Secretary of Transportation as a tool to help
manage/minimize the impact of lengthy on-board ground delays, and
presentations by Task Force members on their views of the contingency
planning document.
    Attendance is open to the public, and time will be provided for
comments by members of the public. Since access to the U.S. DOT
headquarters building is controlled for security purposes, any member
of the general public who plans to attend this meeting must notify the
Department contact noted above no later than ten (10) calendar days
prior to the meeting. Attendance will be necessarily limited by the
size of the meeting room.
    Members of the public may present written comments at any time and,
at the discretion of the Chairman and time permitting, oral comments at
the meeting. Any oral comments permitted must be limited to agenda
items and will be limited to five (5) minutes per person. Members of
the public who wish to present oral comments must notify the Department
contact noted above via e-mail at least ten (10) calendar days prior to
the meeting that they wish to attend and present oral comments. For the
November 12, 2008, meeting, no more than one hour will be set aside for
oral comments. Although written material may be filed in the docket at
any time, comments regarding upcoming meeting topics should be sent to
the Task Force docket, (10) calendar days prior to the meeting. Members
of the public may also contact the Department contact noted above to be
placed on the Task Force mailing list.
    Persons with a disability requiring special accommodations, such as
an interpreter for the hearing impaired, should get in touch with the
Department contact noted above at least seven (7) calendar days prior
to the meeting.
    Notice of this meeting is provided in accordance with the FACA and
the General Service Administration regulations covering management of
Federal advisory committees.

    Issued on: October 9, 2008.
Samuel Podberesky,
Assistant General Counsel for Aviation Enforcement & Proceedings, U.S.
Department of Transportation.
[FR Doc. E8-24538 Filed 10-14-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-9X-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 6 (Monday, January 11, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 1955]
[FR Doc No: 2021-00255]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 2146-256]

Alabama Power Company; Notice of Application Accepted for Filing
and Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and Protests

    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been
filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection:

    a. Type of Application: Non-Project Use of Project Lands and
Waters.
    b. Project No.: 2146-256.
    c. Date Filed: November 19, 2020.
    d. Applicant: Alabama Power Company.
    e. Name of Project: Coosa River Hydroelectric Project.
    f. Location: The Neely-Henry Development of the Coosa River
Hydroelectric Project is in Calhoun, Etowah, and St. Clair counties,
Alabama; the non-project use of project lands and waters is in Etowah
County. The project does not occupy federal land.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 791a-825r.
    h. Applicant Contact: Justin Bearden, Alabama Power Company at
(205) 257-6769 or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    i. FERC Contact: Shana High at<PHONE_NUMBER> or
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    j. Deadline for filing motions to intervene and protests: February
4, 2021.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file
comments, motions to intervene, and protests using the Commission's
eFiling system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp.
Commenters can submit brief comments up to 6,000 characters, without
prior registration, using the eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You must include your name and contact
information at the end of your comments. For assistance, please contact
FERC Online Support at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(866) 208-3676 (toll
free), or<PHONE_NUMBER> (TTY). In lieu of electronic filing, you may
submit a paper copy. Submissions sent via the U.S. Postal Service must
be addressed to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, 888 First Street NE, Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426.
Submissions sent via any other carrier must be addressed to: Kimberly
D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 12225 Wilkins
Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852. The first page of any filing should
include docket number P-2146-256. Comments emailed to Commission staff
are not considered part of the Commission record.
    The Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure require all
intervenors filing documents with the Commission to serve a copy of
that document on each person whose name appears on the official service
list for the project. Further, if an intervenor files comments or
documents with the Commission relating to the merits of an issue that
may affect the responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they
must also serve a copy of the document on that resource agency.
    k. Description of Request: Alabama Power Company is requesting
Commission approval to permit Godfrey's Marina, LLC to expand their
existing marina on the Neely-Henry Development to accommodate an
additional 24 watercraft.
    l. Locations of the Application: This filing may be viewed on the
Commission's website at http://www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary''
link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the
docket number field to access the document. You may also register
online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be
notified via email of new filings and issuances related to this or
other pending projects. For assistance, call 1-866-208-3676 or email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>for TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. Agencies may
obtain copies of the application directly from the applicant.
    m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing
list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
    n. Comments, Protests, or Motions to Intervene: Anyone may submit
comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the
requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211,
.214, respectively. In determining the appropriate action to take, the
Commission will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only
those who file a motion to intervene in accordance with the
Commission's Rules may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments,
protests, or motions to intervene must be received on or before the
specified comment date for the particular application.
    o. Filing and Service of Documents: Any filing must (1) bear in all
capital letters the title ``COMMENTS'', ``PROTEST'', or ``MOTION TO
INTERVENE'' as applicable; (2) set forth in the heading the name of the
applicant and the project number of the application to which the filing
responds; (3) furnish the name, address, and telephone number of the
person commenting, protesting or intervening; and (4) otherwise comply
with the requirements of 18 CFR 385.2001 through 385.2005. All
comments, motions to intervene, or protests must set forth their
evidentiary basis. Any filing made by an intervenor must be accompanied
by proof of service on all persons listed in the service list prepared
by the Commission in this proceeding, in accordance with 18 CFR
385.2010.

    Dated: January 5, 2021.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-00255 Filed 1-8-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 13 (Tuesday, January 21, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 3362-3365]
[FR Doc No: 2014-01059]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project Nos. P-13404-002, P-13405-002, P-13406-002, et al.]

Notice of Application Ready for Environmental Analysis and
Soliciting Comments, Recommendations, Terms and Conditions, and
Prescriptions

Clean River Power MR-1, LLC............  Project Nos. P-13404-002, P-
                                          13405-002, P-13406-002, P-
                                          13407-002, P-13408-002, and P-
                                          13411-002
Clean River Power MR-2, LLC............
Clean River Power MR-3, LLC............
Clean River Power MR-5, LLC............
Clean River Power MR-6, LLC............
Clean River Power MR-7, LLC............

    Take notice that the following hydroelectric applications have been
filed with the Commission and are available for public inspection.
    a. Type of Applications: Original Major Licenses
    b. Project Nos.: 13404-002, 13405-002, 13406-002, 13407-002, 13408-
002, and 13411-002
    c. Date filed: October 31, 2012
    d. Applicants: Clean River Power MR-1, LLC; Clean River Power MR-2,
LLC; Clean River Power MR-3, LLC; Clean River Power MR-5, LLC; Clean
River Power MR-6, LLC; and Clean River Power MR-7, LLC (Clean River
Power), subsidiaries of Free Flow Power Corporation
    e. Name of Projects: Beverly Lock and Dam Water Power Project, P-
13404-002; Devola Lock and Dam Water Power Project, P-13405-002; Malta/
McConnelsville Lock and Dam Water Power Project, P-13406-002; Lowell
Lock and Dam Water Power Project, P-13407-002; Philo Lock and Dam Water
Power Project, P-13408-002; and Rokeby Lock and Dam Water Power
Project, P-13411-002.
    f. Locations: At existing locks and dams on the Muskingum River in
Washington, Morgan, and Muskingum counties, Ohio (see table below for
specific project locations). The locks and dams were formally owned and
operated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, but are currently owned
and operated by the Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Division of
Parks and Recreation.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Project No.                      Projects                  County(s)                 City/town
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
P-13404-002......................  Beverly Lock and Dam.....  Washington and Morgan...  Upstream of the City of
                                                                                Beverly, OH.
P-13405-002......................  Devola Lock and Dam......  Washington..............  Near the City of Devola,
                                                                                OH.
P-13406-002......................  Malta/McConnelsville Lock  Morgan..................  On the southern shore of
                                    and Dam.                                             the Town of
                                                                                McConnelsville, OH.
P-13407-002......................  Lowell Lock and Dam......  Washington..............  West of the City of
                                                                                Lowell, OH.
P-13408-002......................  Philo Lock and Dam.......  Muskingum...............  North of the City of
                                                                                Philo, OH.
P-13411-002......................  Rokeby Lock and Dam......  Morgan and Muskingum....  Near the City of Rokeby,
                                                                                OH.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act 16 U.S.C. 791 (a)-825(r)
    h. Applicant Contacts: Ramya Swaminathan, Chief Operating Officer,
Free Flow Power Corporation, 239 Causeway Street, Suite 300, Boston, MA
02114; or at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Daniel Lissner, General Counsel, Free Flow Power Corporation, 239
Causeway Street, Suite 300, Boston, MA 02114; or at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    i. FERC Contact: Aaron Liberty at<PHONE_NUMBER>; or email at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    j. Deadline for filing comments, recommendations, terms and
conditions, and prescriptions: 60 days from the issuance date of this
notice; reply comments are due 105 days from the issuance date of this
notice.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file
the requested information using the Commission's eFiling system at
http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. For assistance, please
contact FERC Online Support at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(866) 208-
3676 (toll free), or<PHONE_NUMBER> (TTY). In lieu of electronic
filing, please send a paper copy to: Secretary, Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426. The
first page of any filing should include docket numbers P-13404-002,
13405-002, 13406-002, 13407-002, 13408-002, and/or 13411-002, as
appropriate.
    The Commission's Rules of Practice require all intervenors filing
documents with the Commission to serve a copy of that document on each
person on the official service list for the project. Further, if an
intervenor files comments or documents with the Commission relating to
the merits of an issue that may affect the responsibilities of a
particular resource agency, they must also serve a copy of the document
on that resource agency.
    k. These applications have been accepted for filing and are now
ready for environmental analysis.
    l. The proposed Beverly Lock and Dam Project would be located at
the existing Beverly Lock and Dam on the Muskingum River at river mile
(RM) 24.6. The Beverly dam is a 535-foot-long, 17-foot-high dam that
impounds a 490-acre reservoir at a normal pool elevation of 616.36
North American Vertical Datum of 1988 (NAVD 88). The project would also
consist of the following new facilities: (1) A 37-foot-long, 52-foot-
high, 88-foot-wide intake structure with trash racks containing 2-inch
clear bar spacing; (2) a 75-foot by 160-foot powerhouse located
downstream of the dam on the left bank of the Muskingum River; (3) two
turbine-generator units providing a combined installed capacity of 3.0
megawatts (MW); (4) a 65-foot-long, 75-foot-wide draft tube; (5) a 90-
foot-long, 150-foot-wide tailrace; (6) a 40-foot by 40-foot substation;
(7) a 970-foot-long, three-phase, overhead 69-kilovolt (kV)
transmission line to connect the project substation to the local
utility distribution lines; and (8) appurtenant facilities. The average
annual generation would be about 17,853 megawatt-hours (MWh).
    The proposed Devola Lock and Dam Project would be located at the
existing Devola Lock and Dam on the Muskingum River at RM 5.8. The
Devola dam is a 587-foot-long, 17-foot-high dam that impounds a 301-
acre reservoir at a normal pool elevation of 592.87 NAVD 88. The
applicant proposes to remove 187 feet of the existing dam to construct
a 154-foot-long overflow weir. The project would also consist of the
following new facilities: (1) A 37-foot-long, 52-foot-high, 80-foot-
wide intake structure with trash racks containing 2-inch clear bar
spacing; (2) a 80-foot by 160-foot powerhouse located on the bank of
the Muskingum River opposite the existing lock; (3) two turbine-
generator units providing a combined installed capacity of 4.0 MW; (4)
a 65-foot-long, 80-foot-wide draft tube; (5) a 125-foot-long, 140-foot-
wide tailrace; (6) a 40-foot by 40-foot substation; (7) a

3,600-foot-long, three-phase, overhead 69-kV transmission line to
connect the project substation to the local utility distribution lines;
and (8) appurtenant facilities. The average annual generation would be
about 20,760 MWh.
    The proposed Malta/McConnelsville Lock and Dam Project would be
located at the existing Malta/McConnelsville dam on the Muskingum River
at RM 49.4. The Malta/McConnelsville dam is a 605.5-foot-long, 15.2-
foot-high dam that impounds a 442-acre reservoir at a normal pool
elevation of 649.48 NAVD 88. The applicant proposes to remove 187.5
feet of the existing dam to construct a 100-foot-long overflow weir.
The project would also consist of the following new facilities: (1) A
37-foot-long, 52-foot-high, 80-foot-wide intake structure with trash
racks containing 2-inch clear bar spacing; (2) a 80-foot by 160-foot
powerhouse located adjacent to the right bank of the dam; (3) two
turbine-generator units providing a combined installed capacity of 4.0
MW; (4) a 65-foot-long, 80-foot-wide draft tube; (5) a 100-foot-long,
130-foot-wide tailrace; (6) a 40-foot by 40-foot substation; (7) a
1,500-foot-long, three-phase, overhead 69-kV transmission line to
connect the project substation to the local utility distribution lines;
and (8) appurtenant facilities. The average annual generation would be
about 21,895 MWh.
    The proposed Lowell Lock and Dam Project would be located at the
existing Lowell dam on the Muskingum River at RM 13.6. The Lowell dam
is a 840-foot-long, 18-foot-high dam that impounds a 628-acre reservoir
at a normal pool elevation of 607.06 NAVD 88. The applicant proposes to
remove 204 feet of the existing dam to construct a 143.5-foot-long
overflow weir. The project would also consist of the following new
facilities: (1) A 37-foot-long, 23-foot-high, 80-foot-wide intake
structure with trash racks that contain 2-inch clear bar spacing; (2) a
75-foot by 160-foot powerhouse located adjacent to the left bank of the
dam; (3) two turbine-generator units providing a combined installed
capacity of 5 MW; (4) a 65-foot-long, 75-foot-wide draft tube; (5) a
100-foot-long, 125-foot-wide tailrace; (6) a 40-foot by 40-foot
substation; (7) a 1,200-foot-long, three-phase, overhead 69-kV
transmission line to connect the project substation to the local
utility distribution lines; and (8) appurtenant facilities. The average
annual generation would be about 30,996 MWh.
    The proposed Philo Lock and Dam Project would be located at the
existing Philo dam on the Muskingum River at RM 68.6. The Philo dam is
a 730-foot-long, 17-foot-high dam that impounds a 533-acre reservoir at
a normal pool elevation of 671.39 NAVD 88. The applicant proposes to
remove 128 feet of the existing dam to construct a 40-foot-long flap
gate. The project would also consist of the following new facilities:
(1) A 37-foot-long, 52-foot-high, 80-foot-wide intake structure with
trash racks that contain 2-inch clear bar spacing; (2) a 75-foot by
160-foot powerhouse located on the bank of the Muskingum River opposite
the existing lock; (3) two turbine-generator units providing a combined
installed capacity of 3 MW; (4) a 65-foot-long, 80-foot-wide draft
tube; (5) a 140-foot-long, 180-foot-wide tailrace; (6) a 40-foot by 40-
foot substation; (7) a 1,600-foot-long, three-phase, overhead 69-kV
transmission line to connect the project substation to the local
utility distribution lines; and (8) appurtenant facilities. The average
annual generation would be about 15,957 MWh.
    The proposed Rokeby Lock and Dam Project would be located at the
existing Rokeby dam on the Muskingum River at RM 57.4. The Rokeby dam
is a 525-foot-long, 20-foot-high dam that impounds a 615-acre reservoir
at a normal pool elevation of 660.3 NAVD 88. The project would also
consist of the following new facilities: (1) A 37-foot-long, 52-foot-
high, 80-foot-wide intake structure with trash racks that contain 2-
inch clear bar spacing; (2) a 75-foot by 160-foot powerhouse located on
the bank of the Muskingum River opposite the existing lock; (3) two
turbine-generator units providing a combined installed capacity of 4
MW; (4) a 65-foot-long, 75-foot-wide draft tube; (5) a 160-foot-long,
200-foot-wide tailrace; (6) a 40-foot by 40-foot substation; (7) a 490-
foot-long, three-phase, overhead 69-kV transmission line to connect the
project substation to the local utility distribution lines; and (8)
appurtenant facilities. The average annual generation would be about
17,182 MWh.
    The applicant proposes to operate all six projects in a run-of-
river mode, such that the water surface elevations within each project
impoundment would be maintained at the crest of each respective dam
spillway.
    m. Copies of the applications are available for review at the
Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the
Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary''
link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the
docket number field to access the document. For assistance, contact
FERC Online Support. Copies are also available for inspection and
reproduction at the address in item h above.
    All filings must (1) bear in all capital letters the title
``COMMENTS,'' ``REPLY COMMENTS,'' ``RECOMMENDATIONS,'' ``TERMS AND
CONDITIONS,'' or ``PRESCRIPTIONS;'' (2) set forth in the heading the
name of the applicant and the project number of the application to
which the filing responds; (3) furnish the name, address, and telephone
number of the person submitting the filing; and (4) otherwise comply
with the requirements of 18 CFR 385.2001 through 385.2005. All
comments, recommendations, terms and conditions or prescriptions must
set forth their evidentiary basis and otherwise comply with the
requirements of 18 CFR 4.34(b). Agencies may obtain copies of the
application directly from the applicant. Each filing must be
accompanied by proof of service on all persons listed on the service
list prepared by the Commission in this proceeding, in accordance with
18 CFR 4.34(b), and 385.2010.
    You may also register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be notified via email of new filings and issuances
related to these or other pending projects. For assistance, contact
FERC Online Support.
    n. Public notice of the filing of the initial development
applications, which has already been given, established the due date
for filing competing applications or notices of intent. Under the
Commission's regulations, any competing development application must be
filed in response to and in compliance with public notice of the
initial development application. No competing applications or notices
of intent may be filed in response to this notice.
    o. A license applicant must file no later than 60 days following
the date of issuance of this notice: (1) A copy of the water quality
certification(s); (2) a copy of the request(s) for certification,
including proof of the date on which the certifying agency received the
request(s); or (3) evidence of waiver of water quality certification
for each project.
    p. Procedural Schedule:
    The applications will be processed according to the following
revised Hydro Licensing Schedule. Revisions to the schedule may be made
as appropriate.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Milestone                           Target date
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Filing of Comments, Recommendations,     March 15, 2014.
 Terms and Conditions, and
 Prescriptions.

Filing of Reply Comments...............  April 29, 2014.
Commission issues EA...................  October 29, 2014.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Dated: January 14, 2014.
 Kimberly D. Bose,
 Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-01059 Filed 1-17-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P