[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 76 (Friday, April 19, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 23557-23558]
[FR Doc No: 2013-09285]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2013-0216; FRL-9383-3]

Fipronil; Receipt of Application for Emergency Exemptions,
Solicitation of Public Comment

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: EPA has received specific exemption requests from the Oregon
Department of Agriculture to use the pesticide fipronil (CAS No.
120068-37-3) to treat up to 600 acres of turnips and rutabagas to
control the cabbage maggot.
    The applicant proposes a use which is supported by the
Interregional Research Project No. 4 (IR-4) and has been requested in 5
or more previous years, and a petition for tolerance has not yet been
submitted to the Agency. EPA is soliciting public comment before making
the decision whether or not to grant the exemption.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before May 6, 2013.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by docket identification
(ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2013-0216, by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Do not submit
electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted
by statute.
     Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental Protection Agency Docket
Center (EPA/DC), (28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC
20460-0001.
     Hand Delivery: To make special arrangements for hand
delivery or delivery of boxed information, please follow the
instructions at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.htm.
    Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along
with more information about dockets generally, is available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Andrea Conrath, Registration Division
(7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency,
1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax 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:
     Crop production (NAICS code 111).
     Animal production (NAICS code 112).
     Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
     Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).

B. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?

    1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through
www.regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark the part or all of the
information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or
CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as
CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the
specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one
complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as
CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information
claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket.
Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with
procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
    2. Tips for preparing your comments. When submitting comments,
remember to:
    i. Identify the document by docket ID number and other identifying
information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number).
    ii. Follow directions. The Agency may ask you to respond to
specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
    iii. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and
substitute language for your requested changes.
    iv. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information
and/or data that you used.
    v. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you
arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be
reproduced.
    vi. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns and
suggest alternatives.
    vii. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of
profanity or personal threats.
    viii. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period
deadline identified.
    3. Environmental justice. EPA seeks to achieve environmental
justice, the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of any group,
including minority and/or low income populations, in the development,
implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and
policies. To help address potential environmental justice issues, the
Agency seeks information on any groups or segments of the population
who, as a result of their location, cultural practices, or other
factors, may have atypical or disproportionately high and adverse human
health impacts or environmental effects from exposure to the pesticide
discussed in this document, compared to the general population.

II. What action is the agency taking?

    Under section 18 of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and
Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) (7 U.S.C. 136p), at the discretion of the EPA
Administrator, a Federal or State agency may be exempted from any
provision of FIFRA if the EPA Administrator determines that emergency
conditions exist which require the exemption. The Oregon Department of
Agriculture has requested the EPA Administrator to issue specific
exemptions for the use of fipronil on turnip and rutabaga to control
the cabbage maggot. Information in accordance with 40 CFR part 166 was
submitted as part of this request.
    As part of this request, the applicant asserts that an emergency
situation exists based upon three factors: A severe increase in cabbage
maggot populations; apparent increasing resistance of the maggot to the
registered alternative; and phytotoxicity of the registered alternative
to emerging seedlings. The applicant states that significant economic
losses will be suffered without adequate control of the cabbage

maggot in turnip and rutabaga production. The applicant indicates that
fipronil has been shown to provide excellent crop safety, and overall
provides better control than the registered alternative.
    The Applicant proposes to make no more than one application at 4.16
fluid oz. of product per acre, to a maximum of 600 acres of rutabagas
and turnips, for use of up to a potential maximum of 19.5 gallons of
product. Applications would potentially be made from April 1 through
September 30, 2013, in the Oregon counties of Clackimas, Marion,
Multnomah, and Umatilla.
    This notice does not constitute a decision by EPA on the
application itself. The regulations governing FIFRA section 18 require
publication of a notice of receipt of an application for a specific
exemption proposing a use which is supported by the IR-4 program and
has been requested in 5 or more previous years, and a petition for
tolerance has not yet been submitted to the Agency. The notice provides
an opportunity for public comment on the application. The Agency will
review and consider all comments received during the comment period in
determining whether to issue the specific exemption requested by the
Oregon Department of Agriculture.

List of Subjects

    Environmental protection, Pesticides and pests.

    Dated: April 12, 2013.
Daniel J. Rosenblatt,
Acting Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.
[FR Doc. 2013-09285 Filed 4-18-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: March 3, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 41)]
[Notices]
[Page 9592-9593]
[DOCID:fr03mr10-42]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 11834-057]

FPL Energy Maine Hydro, LLC; Notice of Intent To Prepare an
Environmental Document and Soliciting Comments

February 24, 2010.
    Take notice that the following material addressing required dam
safety measures has been filed with the Commission and is available for
public inspection:
    a. Filing: Maine Waterway Development and Conservation Act Permit
and Water Quality Certification Application for replacement of the
spillway at the Upper Dam Development, which is being required under
Part 12 of the Commission's regulations.
    b. Project No: 11834-057.
    c. Date Filed: January 28, 2010.
    d. Licensee: FPL Energy Maine Hydro, LLC.
    e. Name of Project: Upper and Middle Dam Storage Project.
    f. Location: The Upper and Middle Dam Storage Project is located on
the Rapid River in Oxford and Franklin Counties, Maine.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 791a-825r.
    h. Licensee Contact: Bill Scott, NextEra Energy Maine Operating
Services, LLC, 160 Capitol Street, Suite 8, Augusta, Maine 04330, (207)
795-1342 ext. 246.
    i. FERC Contact: Rebecca Martin,<PHONE_NUMBER>, and e-mail:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    j. Deadline for filing comments: March 24, 2010.
    Comments may be filed electronically via the Internet, see 18 CFR
385.2001 (a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site
at http://www.ferc.gov under the ``e-filing'' link. If unable to be
filed electronically, documents may be paper-filed. To paper-file, an
original and eight copies should be mailed to: The Secretary, Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC
20426. For more information on how to submit these types of filings,
please go to the Commission's Web site located at http://
www.ferc.gov.filing-comments.asp.
    Please include the project number (P-11834-057) on any comments.
    k. Description of material: FPL Energy Maine Hydro, LLC has filed a
copy of its application for a Maine Waterway Development and
Conservation Act Permit filed with the Maine Land Use Regulation
Commission for its proposed replacement of the spillway at the Upper
Dam Development, which is part of the Upper and Middle Dam Storage
Project (FERC No. 11834). Replacement of the Upper Dam Development
spillway is being required under Part 12 of the Commission's
regulations for safety of water power projects and project works.
    The proposal involves removal of the existing gated spillway
structure and gatehouse, construction of a new

spillway designed for the capacity and elevation required for a
probable maximum flood, and modification of the existing earthen
embankments for improved slope stability and safety. The proposed
remedial measures would not alter the basic footprint of the existing
dam or involve substantial modification of the licensed operation of
the project. Work is proposed to begin on July 1, 2010, and be
completed by December 2011.
    The Commission intends to prepare an environmental document, under
the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), for the proposed Upper
Dam spillway replacement. The NEPA document will analyze the
environmental impacts that would be caused by the proposed replacement
activities, and identify measures that would help mitigate adverse
effects.
    l. Locations of the Filing: A copy of the filing is available for
inspection and reproduction at the Commission's Public Reference Room,
located at 888 First Street, NE., Room 2A, Washington, DC 20426, or by
calling<PHONE_NUMBER>. This filing may also 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. You may also register
online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be
notified via e-mail of new filings and issuances related to this or
other pending projects. For assistance, call 1-866-208-3676 or e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>for TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    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: Anyone may submit comments on the material described
in this notice. In completing its environmental review, the Commission
will consider all comments filed. Any comments must be received on or
before the deadline for filing comments specified above.
    o. Any filing made with the Commission in response to this notice
must bear in all capital letters the title ``COMMENTS'' and the Project
Number: P-11834-057.
    p. Agency Comments: Federal, state, and local agencies are invited
to file comments on the material described in this notice. A copy of
the filing may be obtained by agencies directly from the licensee. If
an agency does not file comments within the time specified for filing
comments, it will be presumed to have no comments. One copy of an
agency's comments must also be sent to the licensee's representatives.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-4355 Filed 3-2-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


 M  1  Appendix M. AgDrift Model ( spray drift estimates)

Surface water modeling using PRZM/ EXAMS assumes 5% and 1% drift deposition integrated across the surface of a pond adjacent to a treated field for aerially and ground applied pesticides, respectively. A comparison of these default values can be made with those from the first screening level spray drift predictions from the AgDRIFT model ( Version 2.01). The following table presents AgDRIFT predictions for deposition of spray drift ( fraction of application rate) integrated across the surface of a standard pond which is immediately adjacent and downwind to a treated field and which has a 208.7 foot downwind width. In situations where the Agency's screening models suggest that spray drift is a significant source of exposure and therefore risk, the following information is considered in the risk characterization to evaluate the confidence of risk assessment conclusions.

Application Method PRZM/ EXAMS Drift AgDRIFT Model Drift Ground Low Boom Height 1% 1.5 % very fine to fine spray, 50th percentile 2.7 % very fine to fine spray, 90th percentile 0.9 % fine to medium/ coarse spray, 50th percentile 1.1 % fine to medium/ coarse spray, 90th percentile High Boom Height 1% 5.5 % very fine to fine spray, 50th percentile 6.2 % very fine to fine spray, 90th percentile 1.5 % fine to medium/ coarse spray, 50th percentile 1.7 % fine to medium/ coarse spray, 90th percentile Application Method PRZM/ EXAMS Drift AgDRIFT Model Median Drift, 90th Percentile Application Conditions ( Based on Best Professional Judgment)

Aerial 5% 6.9 % coarse to very coarse spray 8.9 % medium to coarse spray 12.7% fine to medium spray 24.3% very fine to fine spray From this comparison, the baseline assumptions of drift currently used for PRZM/ EXAMS modeling exceed the 90th percentile of drift predictions from AgDRIFT modeling for ground applications only for the medium/ coarse spray from low boom sprayer ( 50th percentile assumption). Aerial drift assumptions are below drift levels predicted by AgDRIFT for all droplet spectra sprays using 90th percentile application conditions. The exact extent to which the currently used aerial drift assumption represents more frequently encountered application conditions is not presently quantified.

The extent to which a 5% versus another drift assumption alters estimated aqueous  M  2  concentration estimates depends on specific use scenarios and can be influenced by the degree to which runoff contributes to the overall receiving water concentration. For example, if a persistent pesticide with low affinity for soils is used in a high runoff potential use area, drift may be only a minor route for pesticide loading to the receiving waters and the magnitude of assumed drift may have a limited effect on the concentration estimate. However, for non persistent chemicals with high affinity for soils used in low runoff areas, drift may be the dominant route of pesticide entering receiving waters, and the particular level of spray drift chosen may appreciably influence aqueous pesticide concentration estimates.

It should be noted that the baseline drift assumptions for a water body located adjacent to a treated field are much higher than upper bound values for water bodies located at greater distances from the treated area. The table below shows distances from the treated area where AgDRIFT assumptions for aerial drift to a water body would be approximated by the baseline drift assumption of 5%. Water bodies located closer to the treated field than shown below would be predicted to have drift loadings greater than the 5% assumption. The greater the distance from the treated field required to reach 5% drift, the greater the likelihood that actual water bodies could receive drift levels higher than the baseline 5% assumption.

Spray Category Water Body Distance from Treated Field to Reach 5% Surface Integrated Drift in AgDRIFT Model ( ft)

Coarse to very coarse spray 13.12 Medium to coarse spray 39.4 Fine to medium spray 105 Very fine to fine spray 643 This comparison suggests that the OPP assumption of 5% aerial drift would reasonably represent high end estimates of drift for most water bodies when medium to very coarse sprays are used because a few water bodies are usually found within 40 feet of treatment areas. However, for very fine to medium spray uses, the confidence that the 5% drift assumption adequately characterizes drift to water bodies is diminished because a higher number of water bodies can be assumed to be located within 650 feet from treated fields. It should be noted that quantitative probabilities of water body locations from treated fields are likely to be crop and regionally specific.

The Agency includes a discussion of the impacts of chemical use specific estimates of drift as computed by AgDRIFT in the risk characterization and evaluates the extent to which alternative drift estimates may impact overall risk conclusions. Pesticide application conditions indicated by the product labels or agronomic practices associated with a specific crop or target pest are evaluated with respect to their associated droplet spectra. These expected spectra are compared with the AgDRIFT model predictions of drift to determine if drift assumptions employed in EEC modeling are likely to be over or underestimates. The degree to which drift is over or underestimated is considered when establishing bounds around EEC predictions and the extent to which these bounds lead to RQs that exceed listed species LOCs, or not, is presented.  M  3  A. Terrestrial Assessment: Aerial Applications I. Based on an application rate of 1.5 lb ae/ A applied by air.  M  4  II. Based on an application rate of 0.9 lb ae/ A applied by air.  M  5  III. Based on an application rate of 0.5 lb ae/ A applied by air  M  6  IV. Based on an application rate of 0.014 lb ae/ A applied by air.  M  7  B. Terrestrial Assessment: Ground Applications.

I. Based on an application rate of 1.5 lb ae/ A applied by ground  M  8  II. Based on an application rate of 0.9 lb ae/ A applied by ground.

III. Based on an application rate of 0.5 lb ae/ A applied by ground.  M  9   M  10  IV. Based on an application rate of 0.014 lb ae/ A applied by ground.  M  11  C. Aquatic Assessment: Aerial applications to EPA standard pond from spray drift due to agricultural use.

I. Based on an application rate of 1.5 lb ae/ A, applied by air.  M  12  D. Aquatic Assessment: Aerial applications to EPA standard wetland from spray drift due to agricultural use.

I. Based on an application rate of 1.5 lb ae/ A, applied by air.  M  13  E. Aquatic Assessment: Ground applications to EPA standard pond from spray drift due to agricultural use.

I. Based on an application rate of 1.5 lb ae/ A, applied by ground.  M  14  F. Aquatic Assessment: Ground applications to EPA standard wetland from spray drift due to agricultural use.

I. Based on an application rate of 1.5 lb ae/ A, applied by ground.


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 223 (Tuesday, November 19, 2019)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 63825-63827]
[FR Doc No: 2019-24835]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2019-0871; Product Identifier 2019-NM-139-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company 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 The Boeing Company Model 787-8 airplanes. This proposed AD
was prompted by a report of fatigue cracking at certain frame tie rod
locations of the wing. This proposed AD would require repetitive
inspections for cracking of the left- and right-side frame tie rod
assemblies and stub beam upper chords, and applicable on-condition
actions. 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 January 3,
2020.

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 https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail address above between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this NPRM, contact Boeing
Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data Services (C&DS),
2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110-SK57, Seal Beach, CA 90740-5600;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You may
view this referenced service information at the FAA, Transport
Standards Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information
on the availability of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. It
is also available on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by
searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2019-0871.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2019-
0871; 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: Greg Rutar, Aerospace Engineer,
Airframe Section, FAA, Seattle ACO Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des
Moines, WA 98198; phone and fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; 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-2019-0871;
Product Identifier 2019-NM-139-AD'' at the beginning of your comments.
The FAA specifically invites 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 https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide.
The FAA will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal
contact received about this proposed AD.

Discussion

    The FAA has received a report indicating fatigue cracks were found
at 3 of 8 frame tie rod locations in Section 11 of the wing during
full-scale fatigue testing. The cracks were located at the frame tie
rod end lugs or in the typical frame tie rod section. At 77,640 fatigue
test cycles, the right-side station (STA) 1089 corrosion resistant
steel (CRES) frame tie rod lug had failed and was replaced. At 132,000
fatigue test cycles, the left-side STA 1041 aluminum frame tie rod had
failed in the typical section, and was replaced. At 152,879 fatigue
test cycles, the left-side STA 1089 CRES frame tie rod lug had failed
and was replaced. This condition, if not addressed, could result in
failure of a principal structural element to sustain limit load, which
could adversely affect the structural integrity of the airplane and
result in possible decompression of the airplane.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    The FAA reviewed Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin B787-81205-
SB570041-00 RB, Issue 001, dated March 7, 2019. The service information
describes procedures for repetitive high frequency eddy current (HFEC)
inspections for cracking of the left- and right-side frame tie rod
assemblies, and repetitive ultrasonic (UT) inspections for cracking of
the left- and right-side stub beam upper chords, and applicable on-
condition actions. On-condition actions include 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

    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 in other products of the same
type design.

Proposed AD Requirements

    This proposed AD would require accomplishment of the actions
identified in Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin B787-81205-SB570041-00
RB, Issue 001, dated March 7, 2019, described previously.
    For information on the procedures and compliance times, see this
service information at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and
locating Docket No. FAA-2019-0871.

Explanation of Requirements Bulletin

    The FAA worked in conjunction with industry, under the
Airworthiness Directive Implementation Aviation Rulemaking Committee
(AD ARC), to enhance the AD system. One enhancement is a process for
annotating which steps in the service information are ``required for
compliance'' (RC) with an AD. Boeing has implemented this RC concept
into Boeing service bulletins.

    In an effort to further improve the quality of ADs and AD-related
Boeing service information, a joint process improvement initiative was
worked between the FAA and Boeing. The initiative resulted in the
development of a new process in which the service information more
clearly identifies the actions needed to address the unsafe condition
in the ``Accomplishment Instructions.'' The new process results in a
Boeing Requirements Bulletin, which contains only the actions needed to
address the unsafe condition (i.e., only the RC actions).

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this proposed AD affects 55 airplanes of
U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with
this proposed AD:

                                      Estimated Costs for Required Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost on U.S.
         Action                   Labor cost            Parts cost      Cost per product          operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inspections.............  19 work-hours x $85 per                 $0  $1,615 per            $88,825 per
                           hour = $1,615 per                           inspection cycle.     inspection cycle.
                           inspection cycle.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,
describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
    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 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):

The Boeing Company: Docket No. FAA-2019-0871; Product Identifier
2019-NM-139-AD.

(a) Comments Due Date

    The FAA must receive comments by January 3, 2020.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to The Boeing Company Model 787-8 airplanes,
certificated in any category, as identified in Boeing Alert
Requirements Bulletin B787-81205-SB570041-00 RB, Issue 001, dated
March 7, 2019.

(d) Subject

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

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by a report of fatigue cracking at certain
frame tie rod locations of the wing. The FAA is issuing this AD to
address cracking in the frame tie rod assemblies and consequent
failure of a principal structural element to sustain limit load,
which could adversely affect the structural integrity of the
airplane and result in possible decompression of the airplane.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Required Actions

    Except as specified by paragraph (h) of this AD: At the
applicable times specified in the ``Compliance'' paragraph of Boeing
Alert Requirements Bulletin B787-81205-SB570041-00 RB, Issue 001,
dated March 7, 2019, do all applicable actions identified in, and in
accordance with, the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert
Requirements Bulletin B787-81205-SB570041-00 RB, Issue 001, dated
March 7, 2019.

    Note 1 to paragraph (g) of this AD:  Guidance for accomplishing
the actions required by this AD can be found in Boeing Alert Service
Bulletin B787-81205-SB570041-00, Issue 001, dated March 7, 2019,
which is referred to in Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin B787-
81205-SB570041-00 RB, Issue 001, dated March 7, 2019.

(h) Exceptions to Service Information Specifications

    (1) For purposes of determining compliance with the requirements
of this AD: Where Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin B787-81205-
SB570041-00 RB, Issue 001, dated March 7, 2019, uses the phrase
``the issue 001 date of Requirements Bulletin B787-81205-SB570041-00
RB,'' this AD requires using the effective date of this AD.
    (2) Where Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin B787-81205-
SB570041-00 RB, Issue 001, dated March 7, 2019, specifies contacting
Boeing for repair instructions:

This AD requires doing the repair and applicable on-condition
actions before further flight using a method approved in accordance
with the procedures specified in paragraph (i) of this AD.

(i) 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 (j)(1) of this AD. Information may be
emailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate
principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager
of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding
district office.
    (3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be
used for any repair, modification, or alteration required by this AD
if it is approved by The Boeing Company Organization Designation
Authorization (ODA) that has been authorized by the Manager, Seattle
ACO Branch, FAA, to make those findings. To be approved, the repair
method, modification deviation, or alteration deviation must meet
the certification basis of the airplane, and the approval must
specifically refer to this AD.

(j) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact Greg Rutar,
Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Section, FAA, Seattle ACO Branch, 2200
South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; phone and fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data Services
(C&DS), 2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110-SK57, Seal Beach, CA 90740-
5600; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You may view this referenced service
information at the FAA, Transport Standards Branch, 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 November 5, 2019.
Michael Kaszycki,
Acting Director, System Oversight Division, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2019-24835 Filed 11-18-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: September 25, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 187)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 55438]
[DOCID:fr25se08-4]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2008-0211; Airspace Docket No. 08-AWP-3]

Establishment of Class D Airspace; San Bernardino International
Airport, San Bernardino, CA

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This rule establishes Class D airspace at San Bernardino
International Airport, San Bernardino, CA. The FAA is taking this
action to provide controlled airspace for the safety of aircraft
executing Standard Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAPs) and other
Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) operations at San Bernardino
International Airport. The configuration of this airspace has been
modified to accommodate airspace design changes that would enhance the
safety and efficiency of air traffic operations at San Bernardino
International Airport and continue general aviation access to Redlands
Municipal Airport 4.5 nautical miles to the east.

DATES: Effective Date: 0901 UTC, November 20, 2008. The director of the
Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under
Title 1, Code of Federal Regulations, part 51, subject to the annual
revision of FAA Order 7400.9 and publication of conforming amendments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Larry Tonish, Operations Support
Specialists, Federal Aviation Administration, Western Service Area,
1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, WA 98057; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

History

    On March 14, 2008, the FAA published a notice of proposed
rulemaking in the Federal Register to establish Class D airspace at San
Bernardino Airport, San Bernardino, CA, (73 FR 13811). On April 17,
2008, the FAA published an extension to the comment period in the
Federal Register (73 FR 20843). This rule is the result of the airport
proprietor's intent to contract a non-federal Airport Traffic Control
Tower (ATCT) at San Bernardino International Airport, which will meet
criteria for Class D airspace, and is necessary for the safety of
aircraft executing these SIAPs and IFR operations.
    There were 14 comments submitted regarding the proposed
configuration of this Class D airspace. All of the comments referenced
the cutout for the nearby Redlands Municipal Airport 4.5 nautical miles
to the east. Several commenters recommended aligning the Redlands
Municipal Airport cutout with visual landmarks. One commenter
recommended the ceiling of the proposed San Bernardino Class D airspace
be raised to accommodate terminal operations within the proposed Class
D airspace.
    The FAA has considered the recommendations to the NPRM and found
they have merit and would enhance the safety and efficiency of the
proposed airspace. The San Bernardino Class D airspace is being
modified in this final rule to exclude the airspace north of Highland
Avenue and east of Church Street, which would provide greater access to
Redlands Municipal Airport. The ceiling of the San Bernardino Class D
airspace area is also being raised to 3,200 feet mean sea level (MSL).

The Rule

    This amendment to 14 CFR Part 71 establishes Class D airspace at
San Bernardino International Airport, San Bernardino, CA. An ATCT is
being established at San Bernardino International Airport, San
Bernardino, CA, which will meet criteria for Class D airspace.
    Class D airspace areas are published in Paragraph 5000 of FAA Order
7400.9R, dated August 15, 2007, and effective September 15, 2007, which
is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class D airspace
designations listed in this document would be published subsequently in
the Order.
    The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
Therefore, this regulation: (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory
action'' under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule''
under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26,
1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation
as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter
that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified that this rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the
criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, section 40103. The FAA is charged with
prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to
ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This
regulation is within the scope of that authority as it would provide
for the safety of aircraft operations at San Bernardino International
Airport.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

Adoption of the Amendment

0
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration
amends 14 CFR Part 71 as follows:

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

0
1. The authority citation for 14 CFR Part 71 continues to read as
follows:

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

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of the Federal
Aviation Administration Order 7400.9R, Airspace Designations and
Reporting Points, dated August 15, 2007, and effective September 15,
2007, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 5000 Class D Airspace area.

* * * * *

AWP CA D San Bernardino, CA [New]

San Bernardino International Airport, San Bernardino, CA
    (Lat. 34[deg]05'43'' N., long. 117[deg]14'06'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from the surface to and including
3,200 feet MSL beginning at lat. 34[deg]08'09'' N., long.
117[deg]18'40'' W.; to lat. 34[deg]08'09'' N., long. 117[deg]11'13''
W.; to lat. 34[deg]07'42'' N., long. 117[deg]10'26'' W.; to lat.
34[deg]02'24'' N., long. 117[deg]10'26'' W.; thence via the 4.5
nautical mile radius of the San Bernardino Airport clockwise to the
point of beginning. This Class D airspace area is effective during
the specific dates and times established in advance by a Notice to
Airmen. The effective dates and times will thereafter be
continuously published in the Airport/Facility Directory.
* * * * *

    Issued in Seattle, Washington, on September 16, 2008.
Kevin Nolan,
Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center.
[FR Doc. E8-22438 Filed 9-24-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: October 21, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 203)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 64970-64971]
[DOCID:fr21oc10-18]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2010-0937; Airspace Docket No. 10-ASO-35]

Proposed Amendment of Class E Airspace; Henderson, KY

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: This action proposes to amend Class E Airspace at Henderson,
KY, as the Geneva Non-Directional Beacon (NDB) has been decommissioned
and new Standard Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAPs) have been
developed at Henderson City-County Airport. This action would enhance
the safety and airspace management of Instrument Flight Rules (IFR)
operations at the airport.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before December 6, 2010.

ADDRESSES: Send comments on this rule to: U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12-140, 1200 New Jersey, SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001; Telephone: 1-
800-647-5527; Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>. You must identify the Docket Number
FAA-2010-0937; Airspace Docket No. 10-ASO-35, at the beginning of your
comments. You may also submit and review received comments through the
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Melinda Giddens, Operations Support
Group, Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, P.O.
Box 20636, Atlanta, Georgia 30320; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    Interested persons are invited to comment on this rule by
submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as they may desire.
Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and
suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned
regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited
on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and
energy-related aspects of the proposal.
    Communications should identify both docket numbers (FAA Docket No.
FAA-2010-0937; Airspace Docket No. 10-ASO-35) and be submitted in
triplicate to the Docket Management System (see ADDRESSES section for
address and phone number). You may also submit comments through the
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov.
    Comments wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments
on this action must submit with those comments a self-addressed stamped
postcard on which the following statement is made: ``Comments to Docket
No. FAA-2010-0937; Airspace Docket No. 10-ASO-35.'' The postcard will
be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.
    All communications received before the specified closing date for
comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule.
The proposal contained in this notice may be changed in light of the
comments received. A report summarizing each substantive public contact
with FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the
docket.

Availability of NPRMs

    An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded from and
comments submitted through http://www.regulations.gov. Recently
published rulemaking documents can also be accessed through the FAA's
Web page at http://www.faa.gov/airports_airtraffic/air_traffic/
publications/airspace_amendments/.
    You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any
comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets
Office (see the ADDRESSES section for address and phone number) between
9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays. An
informal docket may also be examined during normal business hours at
the office of the Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation
Administration, room 210, 1701 Columbia Avenue, College Park, Georgia
30337.
    Persons interested in being placed on a mailing list for future
NPRM's should contact the FAA's Office of Rulemaking,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
to request a copy of Advisory circular No. 11-2A, Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking distribution System, which describes the application
procedure.

The Proposal

    The FAA is considering an amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal
Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 to amend Class E airspace extending upward
from 700 feet above the surface to support new SIAPs developed at
Henderson City-County Airport, Henderson, KY. Airspace reconfiguration
is necessary due to the decommissioning of the Geneva NDB and
cancellation of the NDB approach, and for continued safety and
management of IFR operations at the airport.
    Class E airspace designations are published in Paragraph 6005 of
FAA order 7400.9U, dated August 18, 2010, and effective September 15,
2010, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E
airspace designation listed in this document will be published
subsequently in the Order.
    The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves
an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
It, therefore, (1) is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979);
and (3) does not warrant preparation of a Regulatory Evaluation as the
anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that
will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified that this proposed rule, when promulgated, would not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, section 106
describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII,
Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's
authority. This proposed rulemaking is promulgated under the authority
described in subtitle VII, part, A, subpart I, section 40103. Under
that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign
the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the
efficient use of airspace. This proposed regulation is within the scope
of that authority as it would amend Class E airspace at Henderson City-
County Airport, Henderson, KY.

Lists of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (Air).

The Proposed Amendment

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

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

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

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

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

    2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of Federal
Aviation Administration Order 7400.9U, Airspace Designations and
Reporting Points, dated August 18, 2010, effective September 15, 2010,
is amended as follows:

Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace areas extending upward from 700
feet or more above the surface of the earth.

* * * * *

ASO KY E5 Henderson, KY [Amended]

Henderson City-County Airport, KY
    (Lat. 37[deg]48'28'' N., long. 87[deg]41'09'' W.)
Pocket City VORTAC, Evansville, IN
    (Lat. 37[deg]55'42'' N., long. 87[deg]45'45'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 6.5-mile radius of the Henderson City-County Airport and
within 1.0 miles each side of the 153[deg] radial from the Pocket
City VORTAC extending from the 6.5-mile radius to 8.2 miles
southeast of the VORTAC.

    Issued in College Park, Georgia, on October 12, 2010.
Mark D. Ward,
Manager, Operations Support Group, Eastern Service Center, Air Traffic
Organization.
[FR Doc. 2010-26567 Filed 10-20-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 203 (Monday, October 21, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 56188-56189]
[FR Doc No: 2019-22883]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP19-517-000]

Gulf South Pipeline Company, LP; Notice of Application

    Take notice that on September 30, 2019, Gulf South Pipeline
Company, LP (Gulf South), 9 Greenway Plaza, Suite 2800, Houston, Texas
77046, filed an application in Docket No. CP19-517-000, pursuant to
section 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act (NGA) and the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission's (Commission) regulations seeking authorization
to construct, operate, and maintain (i) an approximately 3.4 mile 20-
inch diameter natural gas delivery lateral, (ii) a new delivery meter
station, and (iii) a new compressor station with approximately 5,000
horsepower and other associated auxiliary appurtenant buildings and
facilities, all located in Lamar and Forrest counties, Mississippi,
(Lamar County Expansion Project), all as more fully described in the
application which is on file with the Commission and open to public
inspection. The filing may also be viewed on the web 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 at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call toll-free,<PHONE_NUMBER> or TTY,
(202) 502-8659.
    Specifically, the proposed Lamar County Expansion Project will
allow

Gulf South to provide up to 200,000 dekatherm per day of firm
transportation service to Cooperative Entergy Texas, Inc.'s proposed
550 megawatt combined cycle gas turbine generation facility to be
located in Lamar County, near Purvis, Mississippi. Gulf South also
requests as part of its Application that the Commission approve the
refunctionalization of its Hattiesburg 20-inch pipeline from storage to
transmission in order to provide supplemental transportation service.
    Any questions regarding this application may be directed to Juan
Eligio Jr., Supervisor of Regulatory Affairs, Gulf South Pipeline
Company, LP, 9 Greenway Plaza, Suite 2800, Houston, Texas 77046; by
telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER> or by email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or Payton Barrientos, Senior Regulatory Analyst, Gulf South Pipeline
Company, LP, 9 Greenway Plaza, Suite 2800, Houston, Texas 77046; by
telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER> or by email at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Pursuant to section 157.9 of the Commission's rules, 18 CFR 157.9,
within 90 days of this Notice the Commission staff will either:
Complete its environmental assessment (EA) and place it into the
Commission's public record (eLibrary) for this proceeding; or issue a
Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review. If a Notice of Schedule
for Environmental Review is issued, it will indicate, among other
milestones, the anticipated date for the Commission staff's issuance of
the final environmental impact statement (FEIS) or EA for this
proposal. The filing of the EA in the Commission's public record for
this proceeding or the issuance of a Notice of Schedule for
Environmental Review will serve to notify federal and state agencies of
the timing for the completion of all necessary reviews, and the
subsequent need to complete all federal authorizations within 90 days
of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's FEIS or EA.
    There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of
this project. First, any person wishing to obtain legal status by
becoming a party to the proceedings for this project should, on or
before the comment date stated below file with the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426, a
motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or
385.211) and the Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.10). A person
obtaining party status will be placed on the service list maintained by
the Secretary of the Commission and will receive copies of all
documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties. A party must
submit 3 copies of filings made in the proceeding with the Commission
and must provide a copy to the applicant and to every other party. Only
parties to the proceeding can ask for court review of Commission orders
in the proceeding.
    However, a person does not have to intervene in order to have
comments considered. The second way to participate is by filing with
the Secretary of the Commission, as soon as possible, an original and
two copies of comments in support of or in opposition to this project.
The Commission will consider these comments in determining the
appropriate action to be taken, but the filing of a comment alone will
not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. The Commission's
rules require that persons filing comments in opposition to the project
provide copies of their protests only to the party or parties directly
involved in the protest.
    Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of
this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments
to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commentors will be
placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, and will be
notified of any meetings associated with the Commission's environmental
review process. Environmental commentors will not be required to serve
copies of filed documents on all other parties. However, the non-party
commentors will not receive copies of all documents filed by other
parties or issued by the Commission and will not have the right to seek
court review of the Commission's final order.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments,
protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link
at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should
submit an original and 3 copies of the protest or intervention to the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington,
DC 20426.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on November 5, 2019.

    Dated: October 15, 2019.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-22883 Filed 10-18-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 167 (Thursday, August 28, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 51395-51396]
[FR Doc No: 2014-20509]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

[Docket Number FRA-2012-0054]

Petition To Amend Waiver of Compliance

    In accordance with part 211 of Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR), this document provides the public notice that by a letter dated
July 23, 2014, the National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) has
petitioned the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) for an amendment
of a previously approved waiver granted in Docket Number FRA-2012-0054
on December 13, 2012, that provided relief from certain provisions of
the Federal railroad safety regulations contained at 49 CFR part 242,
Qualification and Certification of Conductors, for a period of 5 years.
The relief was granted to Amtrak contingent on participation in the
Confidential Close Call Reporting System (C3RS) pilot project.

    On January 24, 2013, Amtrak modified the C3RS Implementing
Memorandum of Understanding (IMOU) provisions to extend boundaries for
relief and include additional protection for tenant operations within
the limits of Amtrak's Sunnyside Yard. FRA granted relief for the
changes on May 8, 2013.
    The July 23, 2014, petition states that the current IMOU, dated May
11, 2010, and subsequent amendments that govern the pilot program will
be replaced with a new IMOU. Amtrak, employees represented by the
Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen (BLET) and the Sheet
Metal, Air, Rail and Transportation Workers Transportation Division
(SMART-TD), and FRA intend to sign the new IMOU that will be effective
on December 1, 2014, replacing the original IMOU as current relief
expires.
    The new IMOU is based on a revised template provided by FRA and
will provide provisions similar to the current IMOU plus Article 3.2
that will extend protections to tenant locomotive engineers and
conductors in tenant/host operations.
    Amtrak, BLET, and SMART-TD seek to shield the reporting employees
and the railroad from punitive sanctions that would otherwise arise as
provided in 49 CFR 242.403, Criteria for revoking certification, to
encourage locomotive engineer reporting of close calls and to protect
locomotive engineers and Amtrak from discipline or sanctions arising
from the incidents reported pursuant to the new IMOU.
    A copy of the petition, as well as any written communications
concerning the petition, is available for review online at
www.regulations.gov and in person at the U.S. Department of
Transportation's (DOT) Docket Operations Facility, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE., W12-140, Washington, DC 20590. The Docket Operations
Facility is open from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except
Federal Holidays.
    Interested parties are invited to participate in these proceedings
by submitting written views, data, or comments. FRA does not anticipate
scheduling a public hearing in connection with these proceedings since
the facts do not appear to warrant a hearing. If any interested party
desires an opportunity for oral comment, they should notify FRA, in
writing, before the end of the comment period and specify the basis for
their request.
    All communications concerning these proceedings should identify the
appropriate docket number and may be submitted by any of the following
methods:
     Web site: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Docket Operations Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., W12-140, Washington, DC
20590.
     Hand Delivery: 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room W12-140,
Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal Holidays.
    Communications received within October 14, 2014 of the date of this
notice will be considered by FRA before final action is taken. Comments
received after that date will be considered as far as practicable.
    Anyone is able to search the electronic form of any written
communications and comments received into any of our dockets by the
name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the document,
if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.).
See http://www.regulations.gov/#!privacyNotice for the privacy notice
of regulations.gov or interested parties may review DOT's complete
Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on April 11,
2000 (65 FR 19477).

    Issued in Washington, DC, on August 20, 2014.
Ron Hynes,
Director, Office of Safety Assurance and Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2014-20509 Filed 8-27-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-06-P


UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

WASHINGTON, D.C.  20460

OFFICE OF

PREVENTION, PESTICIDES AND

TOXIC SUBSTANCES

Memorandum								February 15, 2007

SUBJECT:	Chlorflurenol: Response to comments from Maui Pineapple
Company, Ltd.

FROM:	Shanna Recore, Industrial Hygienist

		Reregistration Branch II

Health Effects Division (7509P)

THROUGH:	Alan Nielsen, Branch Senior Scientist

		Reregistration Action Branch II

Health Effects Division (7509P)

TO:		Tracy Perry

		Special Review and Reregistration Division (7508P)

PC Code:	098801

DP Barcode:	336736

	Attached are HED’s response to comments from the Maui Pineapple
Company, Ltd .

Comment from Maui Pineapple Company, Ltd:  Maintain CF-125
(chlorflurenol) is used for rapid production of pineapple planting
material.  It has been used in Hawaii safely without any incidents since
the early 1980’s.  Chlorflurenol is applied at 1.0 lb. active
ingredient in 250 gallons of water per acre using foliar groundboom
application methods.  A second application may be applied 4 to 7 days
after the first application to ensure maximum planting material
production. . . . . Agricultural workers are well protected by the
Agricultural Worker Protection Standards.  Mixers, handlers, and
applicators use rubber boots, long pants, short-sleeve shirts, tyvek
coveralls, eye protection, and half face respirators.  Applicators apply
chlorflurenol from enclosed cabs increasing worker safety through
engineering controls.  The current restricted entry interval of 12 hours
can be increased to 5 days to further mitigate risks that may be
associated with occupational exposure.  Personal protective equipment
requirements and restricted entry intervals can be changed on product
labels to decrease calculated occupational risks to below levels of
concern. . . .  Pineapple will suffer severe economic hardships if
chlorflurenol is voluntarily cancelled.

HED Response:  The occupational exposure and risk assessment indicates
that handler exposures to chlorflurenol related to applications to
pineapple are not a concern for systemic toxicity provided all handlers
(i.e., mixers, loaders, applicators) wear long-sleeve shirts, long
pants, shoes, socks, and, when mixing and loading, chemical-resistant
gloves.  The more stringent personal protective equipment requirements
for handlers on the Maintain CF-125 label are the default requirements
in the Worker Protection Standard for Agricultural Pesticides (WPS),
which are triggered by the corrosive nature of the product.  Increasing
personal protective equipment requirements for handlers is not proposed
for chlorflurenol and is not necessary to mitigate handler risk.

Similarly, the occupational exposure and risk assessment indicates that
postapplication worker exposures to chlorflurenol related to
applications to pineapple are not a concern for systemic toxicity
provided a 12-hour restricted entry interval is observed.  The 48-hour
restricted entry interval and the more stringent personal protective
equipment requirements for early entry workers on the Maintain CF-125
label are the default requirements in the Worker Protection Standard for
Agricultural Pesticides (WPS), which are triggered by the corrosive
nature of one or more of the active ingredients in the product.
Lengthening the restricted entry interval or increasing personal
protective equipment requirements for early entry workers is not
proposed for chlorflurenol and is not necessary to mitigate
postapplication worker risk.