[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 76 (Wednesday, April 20, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 23514]
[FR Doc No: 2022-08466]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP22-15-000]

Texas Eastern Transmission, LP; Notice of Additional Virtual
Public Scoping Session

    On March 16, 2022, the Commission issued a notice stating it would
conduct a virtual public scoping session on March 30, 2022, requesting
comments on the Venice Extension Project in Pointe Coupee, Iberville,
Lafourche, and Plaquemines Parishes, Louisiana. However, technical
difficulties at the start of this meeting prevented stakeholders from
accessing the private room to relay their verbal comments to the court
reporter. Therefore, we have rescheduled this meeting to occur on April
26, 2022, as identified below.

Date and Time

Tuesday, April 26, 2022, 5:00 p.m.-7:00 p.m. (EST), Call in number:
888-391-6570, Participant code: 6282096

    This notice is being sent to the Commission's current environmental
mailing list for the Project. Public sessions or site visits will be
posted on the Commission's calendar located at https://www.ferc.gov/news-events/events along with other related information.

    Dated: April 14, 2022.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-08466 Filed 4-19-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: December 5, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 235)]
[Notices]
[Page 74163-74164]
[DOCID:fr05de08-65]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. IC09-567-000, FERC-567]

Commission Information Collection Activities, Proposed
Collection; Comment Request; Extension

November 28, 2008.
AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

ACTION: Notice of proposed information collection and request for
comments.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the requirements of section 3506(c)(2)(a)
of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13), the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) is soliciting public comment
on the specific aspects of the information collection described below.

DATES: Comments in consideration of the collection of information are
due January 30, 2009.

ADDRESSES: An example of this collection of information may be obtained
from the Commission's Web site (at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/
elibrary.asp). Comments may be filed either electronically or in paper
format, and should refer to Docket No. IC09-567-000. Documents must be
prepared in an acceptable filing format and in compliance with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission submission guidelines at http://
www.ferc.gov/help/submission-guide.asp.
    Comments may be filed electronically via the eFiling link on the
Commission's Web site at www.ferc.gov. First time users will have to
establish a user name and password (http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/
eregistration.asp) before eFiling. The Commission will send an

automatic acknowledgement to the sender's e-mail address upon receipt
of comments through eFiling.
    Commenters filing electronically should not make a paper filing.
Commenters that are not able to file electronically must send an
original and 14 copies of their comments to: Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, Secretary of the Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426.
    Users interested in receiving automatic notification of activity in
this docket may do so through eSubscription (at http://www.ferc.gov/
docs-filing/esubscription.asp). In addition, all comments and FERC
issuances may be viewed, printed or downloaded remotely through FERC's
Web site using the ``eLibrary'' link and searching on Docket Number
IC09-567. For user assistance, contact FERC Online Support (e-mail at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call toll-free at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or for
TTY, contact<PHONE_NUMBER>).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael Miller may be reached by
telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>, by fax at<PHONE_NUMBER>, and by e-mail at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FERC is requesting comments on the FERC-
567, Gas Pipeline Certificates: Annual Reports of System Flow Diagrams
and System Capacity. FERC-567 is an existing data collection, (OMB
Control No. 1902-0005), consisting of a set of filing requirements, as
contained in 18 CFR Parts 260.8 and 284.13.
    The information from the FERC-567 is used by the Commission staff
to obtain accurate data on pipeline facilities and the peak capacity of
these facilities and to validate the need for new facilities proposed
by pipelines in certificate applications. In modeling a pipeline
applicant's system, Commission staff utilizes the FERC-567 data to
determine configuration and location of installed pipeline facilities;
verify and determine the receipt and delivery points between shippers,
producers and pipeline companies; determine the location of receipt and
delivery points and emergency interconnections on a pipeline system;
determine the location of pipeline segments, laterals and compressor
stations on a pipeline system; verify pipeline segment lengths and
pipeline diameters; justify the maximum allowable operating pressures
and suction and discharge pressures at compressor stations; verify the
installed horsepower and volumes compressed at each compressor station;
determine the existing shippers and producers currently using each
pipeline company; verify peak capacity on the system; and develop and
evaluate alternatives to the proposed facilities as a means to mitigate
environmental impact of new pipeline construction.
    18 CFR 260.8 requires each major natural gas pipeline with a system
delivery capacity exceeding 100,000 Mcf per day to file, to submit by
June 1 of each year, diagrams reflecting operating conditions on the
pipeline's main transmission system during the previous 12 months ended
December 31. Section 284.13 of 18 CFR requires each interstate pipeline
that provides transportation subject to the provisions of Subparts B
and G of Part 284 to make an annual filing by March 1 of each year
showing the estimated peak day capacity of the pipeline's system. These
data are physical/engineering data which are not included as part of
any other data collection requirement.
    Action: The Commission is requesting a three-year extension of the
current expiration date, with no changes to the existing reporting
requirements.
    Burden Statement: Public reporting burden for this collection is
estimated as:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Number of         Number of      Average  burden
          FERC data collection               respondents     responses  per      hours  per       Total annual
                                              annually         respondent         response        burden hours
                                                       (1)               (2)               (3)   (1) x (2) x (3)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FERC-567................................               100             1.714             81.28         13,931.39
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the FERC-567, the estimated cost burden to respondents is
$846,492.80 (13,931.39 hours/2080 hours per year times $126,384 per
year average per employee = $846,492.80). The estimated cost per
respondent is $8,464.93.
    The reporting burden includes the total time, effort, or financial
resources expended to generate, maintain, retain, disclose, or provide
the information including: (1) Reviewing instructions; (2) developing,
acquiring, installing, and utilizing technology and systems for the
purposes of collecting, validating, verifying, processing, maintaining,
disclosing and providing information; (3) adjusting the existing ways
to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements;
(4) training personnel to respond to a collection of information; (5)
searching data sources; (6) completing and reviewing the collection of
information; and (7) transmitting, or otherwise disclosing the
information.
    The estimate of cost for respondents is based upon salaries for
professional and clerical support, as well as direct and indirect
overhead costs. Direct costs include all costs directly attributable to
providing this information, such as administrative costs and the cost
for information technology. Indirect or overhead costs are costs
incurred by an organization in support of its mission. These costs
apply to activities which benefit the whole organization rather than
any one particular function or activity.
    Comments are invited on: (1) Whether the proposed collection of
information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of
the Commission, including whether the information will have practical
utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the
proposed collection of information, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality,
utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to
minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are
to respond, including the use of appropriate automated, electronic,
mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms
of information technology, e.g. permitting electronic submission of
responses.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E8-28773 Filed 12-4-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 76 (Friday, April 19, 2019)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 16406-16407]
[FR Doc No: 2019-07797]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 62

[EPA-R07-OAR-2018-0837; FRL-9992-09-Region 7]

Approval of State Plans for Designated Facilities and Pollutants;
Missouri; Diammonium Phosphate Fertilizer Units

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking final
action to rescind the current state plan and associated regulation and
to accept the negative declaration submitted by the State of Missouri
for Diammonium Phosphate Fertilizer units. The negative declaration
submitted by the Missouri Department of Natural Resources (MoDNR)
certifies that Diammonium Phosphate Fertilizer (DPF) units subject to
section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) do not operate within the
jurisdiction of the State of Missouri. The EPA is accepting the
negative declaration in accordance with the requirements of the CAA.

DATES: This final rule is effective on May 20, 2019.

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under
Docket ID No. EPA-R07-OAR-2018-0837. All documents in the docket are
listed on the https://www.regulations.gov website. Although listed in
the index, some information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or
other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain
other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the
internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form.
Publicly available docket materials are available through https://www.regulations.gov or please contact the person identified in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section for additional information.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Larry Gonzalez, Environmental
Protection Agency, Air Planning and Development Branch, 11201 Renner
Boulevard, Lenexa, Kansas 66219 at<PHONE_NUMBER> or by email at
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document ``we,'' ``us,'' or
``our'' refer to the EPA.

Table of Contents

I. Background
II. What action is the EPA taking?
III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background

    The Clean Air Act (CAA) requires that state regulatory agencies
implement emission guidelines and associated compliance times using a
state plan developed under sections 111(d) of the CAA. The general
provisions for the submittal and approval of state plans are codified
in 40 CFR part 60, subpart B and 40 CFR part 62, subpart A. Section
111(d) establishes general requirements and procedures on state plan
submittals for the control of designated pollutants. States have
options other than submitting a state plan in order to fulfill their
obligations under CAA section 111(d). If a state does not have any
existing units for the relevant emission guidelines, a letter can be
submitted certifying that no such units exist within the state (i.e., a
negative declaration) in lieu of a state plan, in accordance with 40
CFR 60.5010. The negative declaration exempts the state from the
requirements of subpart B that would otherwise require the submittal of
a CAA section 111(d) plan.
    On August 6, 1975, the EPA finalized standards of performance for
new stationary sources from the phosphate fertilizer industry which
included diammonium phosphate fertilizer production plants under the
authority of section 111 of the CAA. As required by the CAA 111(d) and
40 CFR part 60, subpart B, each state must adopt and submit a plan for
the control of pollutants from existing facilities regulated under
section 111(b) New Source Performance Standards following publication
of a notice of availability of an applicable emission control guideline
unless no such facilities exist within the state. If there are no
facilities in the state, the state is required to submit a letter of
certifying that fact.
    In response to these requirements, the State of Missouri submitted
a plan for the control of fluoride emissions from phosphate fertilizer
plants on January 3, 1985. The state plan was based on the state
regulation 10 CSR 10-3.160 ``Restriction of Emissions from Diammonium
Phosphate Fertilizer Plants''. At the time of the submittal there was a
single operating phosphate fertilizer plant in the State located in
Joplin, Missouri. On March 14, 1986, the EPA approved the state plan
and associated regulation submitted by the State of Missouri pursuant
to CAA section 111(d) and 40 CFR part 60, subpart B. Subsequent to this
state plan approval, the single phosphate fertilizer plant operating in
Joplin, Missouri ceased fertilizer production and dismantled its
fertilizer production equipment in between the years of 2003 and 2004.
    On December 3, 2018, MoDNR submitted a negative declaration to the
EPA, certifying that there are no operating phosphate fertilizer plants
in Missouri, and requested that the EPA rescind its previous state plan
applicable to phosphate fertilizer production facilities. Additionally,
MoDNR notified the EPA that it would rescind its 10 CSR 10-3.160 rule
that controlled emissions of fluoride from diammonium phosphate
fertilizer plants.
    On February 4, 2019, the EPA published in the Federal Register (84
FR 1039) a rule proposing to accept

MoDNR's certification that there are no diammonium phosphate fertilizer
production units operating in the State of Missouri subject to 40 CFR
part 60, subpart V. In response to the proposal, the EPA received no
adverse comments.

II. What action is the EPA taking?

    The EPA is taking final action to amend 40 CFR part 62 by accepting
withdrawal of Missouri's 111(d) plan for control of fluoride emissions
from existing phosphate fertilizer plants and accepting MoDNR's
negative declaration certifying that there are no phosphate fertilizer
production facilities operating in Missouri subject to 40 CFR part 60,
subpart V. This action applies to the state's regulatory requirements
for existing facilities and not new sources. Simultaneously, we are
amending 40 CFR part 62, subpart AA, to remove phosphate fertilizer
plants from the list of affected source categories found at 40 CFR
62.6350(c)(1).

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this
action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and therefore is not
subject to review under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 (76 FR 3821,
January 21, 2011). This final action is also not subject to Executive
Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This
action merely approves the state's negative declaration as meeting
Federal requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond
those imposed by state law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies
that this rulemaking will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility
Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because this action does not impose an
enforceable duty upon State, local, or tribal governments, and does not
reduce or eliminate the amount of authorization of Federal
appropriations, and because it contains no regulatory requirements
applicable to small governments, this action does not contain any
unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments,
as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-
4).
    This action is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land
or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated
that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the
rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial
direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified
by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
    This action also does not have Federalism implications because it
does not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August
10, 1999). Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this action.
This action merely approves a state negative declaration submitted in
response to a Federal standard and does not alter the relationship or
the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the CAA.
This rulemaking also is not subject to Executive Order 13045,
``Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) because it approves a state
submission in response to a Federal standard.
    This action does not impose an information collection burden under
the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
et seq.). Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. The EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by June 18, 2019. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of
judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for
judicial review may be filed and shall not postpone the effectiveness
of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in
proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 62

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Phosphate fertilizer plants.

    Dated: April 12, 2019.
James Gulliford,
Regional Administrator, Region 7.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, the EPA is amending 40 CFR
part 62 as set forth below:

PART 62--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF STATE PLANS FOR DESIGNATED
FACILITIES AND POLLUTANTS

0
1. The authority citation for part 62 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

Subpart AA--Missouri

0
2. Amend Sec.  62.6350 by adding paragraph (b)(7) and revising
paragraph (c) to read as follows:

Sec.  62.6350  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (7) A withdrawal of Missouri's 111(d) plan, including state rule 10
CSR 10.3.160, for control of fluoride emissions from existing phosphate
fertilizer plants was state effective on September 30, 2018 and was
submitted on December 3, 2018.
    (c) Designated facilities. The plan applies to existing facilities
in the following categories of sources:
    (1) Primary aluminum reduction plants.
    (2) Sulfuric acid production plants.

0
3. Section 62.6351 is revised to read as follows:

Sec.  62.6351  Identification of plan--negative declaration.

    Letter from the Missouri Department of Natural Resources, submitted
December 3, 2018, certifying that there are no Diammonium Phosphate
Fertilizer Units subject to 40 CFR part 60, subpart V of this chapter.
Effective date: The effective date of the negative declaration and EPA
withdrawal of the prior plan approval is May 20, 2019.

[FR Doc. 2019-07797 Filed 4-18-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 143 (Wednesday, July 25, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 43514-43517]
[FR Doc No: 2012-18127]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 110

[Docket No. USCG-2009-1131]
RIN 1625-AA01

Anchorage Regulations; Narragansett Bay and Rhode Island Sound,
RI

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is removing an obsolete naval explosives
anchorage in Narragansett Bay, Rhode Island, and adding an offshore
anchorage in Rhode Island Sound south of Brenton Point, Rhode Island,
for use by vessels waiting to enter Narragansett Bay.

DATES: This rule is effective August 24, 2012.

ADDRESSES: Comments and material received from the public, as well as
documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket,
are part of docket USCG-2009-1131 and are available online by going to
http://www.regulations.gov, inserting USCG-2009-1131 in the ``Keyword''
box, and then clicking ``Search.'' This material is also available for
inspection or copying at the Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S.
Department of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140,
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call Mr. Edward G. LeBlanc at Coast Guard Sector Southeastern New
England,<PHONE_NUMBER>. If you have questions on viewing the docket,
please call Renee V. Wright, Program Manager, Docket Operations,
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Regulatory Information

    On March 21, 2011, we published a notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM) entitled ``Anchorage Regulations; Narragansett Bay and Rhode
Island Sound, RI,'' in the Federal Register (76 FR 15246). We received
nine comments on the proposed rule.

Basis and Purpose

    The Secretary of Homeland Security has delegated to the Coast Guard
the authority to establish and regulate anchorage grounds in accordance
with 33 U.S.C. 471; 1221 through 1236, 2030, 2035, 2071; 33 CFR 1.05-1;
and Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1. The purpose
of this rule is to remove an obsolete and no longer used anchorage in
Narragansett Bay from the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), and
formalize and codify an area of Rhode Island Sound that under current
informal practice is routinely used by mariners as an anchorage while
waiting to enter Narragansett Bay.

Background

    This rule removes the Naval explosives anchorage described in 33
CFR 110.145(a)(2)(ii). Naval Station Newport, Rhode Island had
indicated to the Coast Guard that this anchorage is obsolete and no
longer necessary for naval purposes. Leaving this obsolete anchorage in
the CFR and on navigation charts leaves mariners with the mistaken
impression that the area is reserved for a special purpose (i.e.,
explosives vessel anchoring) when in fact, it is no longer used or
needed for that purpose.
    The rule also adds a new anchorage to formalize and codify the
current practice of commercial vessels that anchor in an area south of
Brenton Point, Newport, Rhode Island, while waiting to enter
Narragansett Bay. Establishing this anchorage in the CFR, and placing
it on navigation charts, will remove ambiguity and clarify for mariners
the preferred and safest area in which to anchor offshore when waiting
to enter Narragansett Bay.
    The new anchorage area would encroach on a Navy Restricted Area (33
CFR 334.78). According to the regulation, anchoring within the
Restricted Area is precluded only during periods of mine warfare
training. However, mine warfare training is no longer conducted in that
area. Thus, the Coast Guard requested that the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers remove the now-defunct area from the Code of Federal
Regulations. In a letter received by the Corps of Engineers on May 5,
2011, the U.S. Navy also requested that the Corps of Engineers
disestablish the Restricted Area as it is no longer needed. (A copy of
the letter from the Commanding Officer, Naval Station Newport, is
included in the docket for this rule.) In February 2012 the Corps of
Engineers initiated the rulemaking process to remove the Restricted
Area from the Code of Federal Regulations.

Discussion of Comments and Changes

    We received nine comments on the proposed rule. One letter, from
the Office of Environmental Policy and Compliance, U.S. Department of
the Interior (DOI), stated that DOI had no comment on the proposed
rule.
    The Coast Guard received no comments opposed to the section of this
rule that disestablishes the obsolete naval explosives anchorage in
Narragansett Bay.
    The other comments were from private citizens, municipalities in
the Narragansett Bay area, a Rhode Island state representative, and the
Massachusetts Attorney General, among others. These comments expressed
a generally consistent theme: Comments requested that the Coast Guard
conduct a more thorough environmental impact analysis consistent with
the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Specifically, comments
requested that the Coast Guard's NEPA analysis discuss the possible
adverse impacts to the environment from potential use of the proposed
anchorage by tankers that may deliver liquefied natural gas (LNG) to
the proposed Weaver's Cove LLC import facility in Mt. Hope Bay,
Massachusetts. Several comments requested a public meeting to discuss
the NEPA issue vis [agrave] vis the Weaver's Cove LNG proposal.
    At the time the Coast Guard published its March 2011 NPRM for this
rulemaking, Weaver's Cove LLC was seeking approval from the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) to build and operate a waterfront
LNG facility in Fall River, Massachusetts. On June 20, 2011, Weaver's
Cove LLC formally notified FERC that it was withdrawing its proposals.
On July 6, 2011, FERC issued documentation vacating its July 15, 2005,
authorization to Weaver's Cove for a waterfront facility in Fall River,
Massachusetts, and terminating its (FERC's) processing of the Weaver's
Cove application for an LNG offload facility in Mt. Hope Bay.

These two documents issued by FERC officially terminated the Weaver's
Cove proposal. (Copies of the Weaver's Cove letter to FERC of June 20,
2011, and FERC's documentation issued on July 6, 2011, are included in
the docket for this rule.) There are no other proposals before FERC to
import LNG into Narragansett Bay or Mt. Hope Bay.
    Because there are no proposals to import LNG into Narragansett Bay
or Mt. Hope Bay, there are no LNG-related impacts to be analyzed. Some
comments challenge the Coast Guard's use of and reliance upon its
directives while other comments assert the Coast Guard must comply with
other federal laws. Responses to those comments immediately follow.
Additionally, the methodology used by the Coast Guard to conduct its
environmental analysis in compliance with NEPA is discussed in the
Environment section below.
    With respect to a public meeting, the Coast Guard believes a public
meeting is not necessary because all requests for a public meeting were
made in connection with concern about a (now-withdrawn) plan for the
creation of an LNG terminal in the Fall River area. Because there is no
foreseeable plan for an LNG terminal in the Fall River area, the Coast
Guard does not believe that a public meeting would aid this rulemaking.
The Coast Guard contacted the Corporation Counsel for the city of Fall
River, which was a leading opponent to the Weaver's Cove LNG proposal
and had requested a public meeting, and learned that with the
withdrawal of the Weaver's Cove LNG proposal, and there being no other
LNG proposals pending or anticipated, Fall River believes there is no
longer a need for a public meeting to discuss this anchorage
regulation.
    Even though the LNG-related concerns raised in the comments are no
longer relevant, the Coast Guard wishes to clarify that it is incorrect
to view the establishment of this anchorage as giving permission for
vessels to anchor. Rather, commercial vessels of all kinds already can
and do anchor in this area; the act of designating this anchorage is
intended simply to reflect current practices for the purpose of
promoting safety of navigation.
    One comment, expressly adopted by the comments of four others,
challenges the Coast Guard's use of categorical exclusion 34(f) in
accordance with Section 2.B.2 and Figure 2-1 of the NEPA Implementing
Procedures and Policy for Considering Environmental Impacts, Commandant
Instruction M164175.1D, and Department of Homeland Security Management
Directive 023-01.
    We determined that reliance on the Coast Guard-specific categorical
exclusion is proper despite the fact that at the time the NPRM was
published, Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01
did not contain unique categorical exclusions for the Coast Guard.
However, that directive was updated on October 3, 2011, to reflect the
Council on Environmental Quality-approved categorical exclusions for
the Coast Guard.
    The same comment also alleges that the Coast Guard action adding
the anchorage is a piece of a larger action in contravention of
Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01.
    We determined that the proposed action adding the anchorage is not
a piece of a larger action. The designation by the Coast Guard of an
anchorage that overlaps an obsolete U.S. Navy restricted area is not
part of an action by the Army Corps of Engineers to remove the
restricted area designation and vice versa. In its determination
whether to designate the area as an anchorage, the Coast Guard
contacted Commanding Officer, Naval Station Newport to verify that
there are no unexploded devices that would pose a hazard to navigation.
Commanding Officer, Naval Station Newport, confirmed that there are no
unexploded devices and wrote a letter to Chief, Regulatory Division,
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to disestablish the restricted area as it
is no longer used by the Navy. Thus, the Army Corps of Engineers'
ability to remove the designation is not an integral part of nor
required for the establishment of the anchorage area. A copy of
Commanding Officer, Naval Station Newport's letter of 5 May 2011 is
included in the docket for this rule.
    One comment states that the Coast Guard failed to acknowledge the
designation of the entire Narragansett Bay as an environmentally
sensitive area and that the proposed impact on the entire bay area must
be analyzed.
    The Coast Guard acknowledges that Narragansett Bay is an
environmentally sensitive area designated by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency under the National Estuary Program. In conducting our
Categorical Exclusion Determination, we identified the closest waterway
location designated as an environmentally sensitive area. We determined
that establishing an anchorage in this area would not affect the
designated environmental area because the area is already used as an
anchorage and our action is administrative in nature. Therefore, we
concluded that if the proposed action did not affect the closest
environmentally sensitive area, it would also not affect the other
environmentally sensitive areas further from the proposed anchorage.
    Four comments claimed that the Coast Guard action establishing the
anchorage must undergo a NEPA Environmental Assessment (EA) before
mariners would be regularly using the anchorage area.
    We determined that we are not required to conduct an EA under this
line of reasoning because mariners have historically used the area as
an anchorage, and this usage was not the result of a Coast Guard
action. The Coast Guard action of placing the existing anchorage area
in the public notice and on navigation charts does not alter the
current activity at that location. The Coast Guard action simply
removes ambiguity and clarifies for mariners the preferred and safest
area in which to anchor offshore when waiting to enter Narragansett
Bay.
    Two comments recommended the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
determine whether the proposed action establishing the anchorage would
have adverse impacts.
    We determined that because the U.S. Department of the Interior
under which the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service operates responded that
the Department has no comment on the proposed rulemaking, consultation
with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service was not necessary.
    One comment requested that we clearly state the size of the new
anchorage. The new Brenton Point anchorage established by this rule is
a parallelogram-shaped box approximately 4.98 nautical miles by 1.95
nautical miles, which produces an anchorage of approximately 9.7 square
nautical miles. Designing the size and shape of anchorages is a
subjective process that considers many factors, including type and
number of vessels that may use the anchorage, water depth, bottom
topography, nearby vessel traffic patterns, etc. All of those factors
were considered in designing the Brenton Point anchorage. The size of
this anchorage is considered to be the minimum necessary to safely
accommodate the type and number of commercial vessels that may use it,
and its size is consistent with or smaller than many other anchorages
in the southeastern New England area.

Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and
executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses

based on 13 of these statutes or executive orders.

Executive Order 12866 and Executive Order 13563

    This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f)
of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, as
supplemented by Executive Order 13563, and does not require an
assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of
that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it
under that Order.
    We expect minimal additional cost impacts to the industry because
this rule is not imposing fees, permits, or specialized requirements
for the maritime industry to utilize this anchorage area. The effect of
this rule is not significant as it removes one obsolete anchorage that
is no longer used by the U.S. Navy, and documents and codifies another
area that is currently used by commercial vessels. This improves safety
for vessels using the anchorage grounds, facilitates the transit of
deep draft vessels through the area, and improves safety for other
vessels transiting in the vicinity of the new anchorage area.

Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have
considered whether this rule would have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities. The term ``small entities''
comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are
independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields,
and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000.
The Coast Guard received no comments from the Small Business
Administration on this rule.
    The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. This rule may affect the following entities, some of which
might be small entities: The owners or operators of vessels that have a
need to anchor in Narragansett Bay or Rhode Island Sound at the
entrance to Narragansett Bay.
    This rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities for the following reasons: This
rule only codifies current navigation practices that are already in use
by small entities in this area. The anchorage will not affect vessels'
schedules or their ability to freely transit within these areas of
Narragansett Bay or Rhode Island Sound. The anchorage imposes no
monetary expenses on small entities since it does not require them to
purchase any new equipment, hire additional crew, or make any other
expenditures.

Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), in the NPRM we offered to
assist small entities in understanding this rule so that they can
better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking
process.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or
action of the Coast Guard.

Collection of Information

    This rule calls for no new collection of information under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

Federalism

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local
governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial
direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this rule under
that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for
federalism.

Protest Activities

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

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

Taking of Private Property

    This rule will not cause a taking of private property or otherwise
have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental
Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property
Rights.

Civil Justice Reform

    This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2)
of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation,
eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.

Protection of Children

    We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection
of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule
is not an economically significant rule and does not create an
environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may
disproportionately affect children.

Indian Tribal Governments

    This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order
13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments,
because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more
Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and
Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities
between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

Energy Effects

    We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a ``significant
energy action'' under that order because it is not a ``significant
regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to
have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use
of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy
action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects
under Executive Order 13211.

Technical Standards

    The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15
U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards
in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress,
through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why
using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., specifications of materials, performance, design, or
operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management
systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus
standards bodies.
    This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not
consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which
guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded
that this action is one of a category of actions that do not
individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human
environment. The evaluation of the impact of LNG vessels on the
anchorage is not required because the proposed LNG facility at Weaver's
Cove has been withdrawn as documented above, and thus there are no
reasonably foreseeable LNG-related impacts that need to be considered.
    In accordance with the Coast Guard NEPA implementing Instruction,
this rule is categorically excluded from further analysis and
documentation under NEPA. Since this rule involves removal of an
obsolete anchorage area and establishment of another, Categorical
Exclusion (34)(f) under Figure 2-1 of the Instruction applies. The rule
is no longer controversial. Public comments and input primarily
addressed issues arising from the now-abandoned proposal to create an
LNG facility at Weaver's Cove, Fall River, Massachusetts. The Coast
Guard has no evidence to suggest that any other criteria noted in DHS D
023-01, Section V.F.12 or COMDTINST 16475.1D Chapter 2 B 2(b) would
suggest an inquiry beyond the categorical exclusion. An environmental
analysis checklist and a categorical exclusion determination are
available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 110

    Anchorage grounds.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends
33 CFR part 110 as follows:

PART 110--ANCHORAGE REGULATIONS

0
1. The authority citation for part 110 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 471; 1221 through 1236, 2030, 2035, 2071;
33 CFR 1.05-1; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No.
0170.1.

0
2. Remove and reserve Sec.  110.145(a)(2)(ii).

0
3. Add Sec.  110.149 to subpart B to read as follows:

Sec.  110.149  Narragansett Bay, RI.

    (a) Brenton Point anchorage ground. An area bounded by the
following coordinates: 41[deg]22'37.1'' N, 71[deg]14'40.3'' W; thence
to 41[deg]20'42.8'' N, 71[deg]14'40.3'' W; thence to 41[deg]18'24.1''
N, 71[deg]20'32.5'' W; thence to 41[deg]20'22.6'' N, 71[deg]20'32.5''
W; thence back to point of origin.
    (b) The following regulations apply in the Brenton Point anchorage
ground.
    (1) Prior to anchoring within the anchorage area, all vessels shall
notify the Coast Guard Captain of the Port via VHF-FM Channel 16.
    (2) Except as otherwise provided, no vessel may occupy this
anchorage ground for a period of time in excess of 96 hours without
prior approval of the Captain of the Port.
    (3) If a request is made for the long-term lay up of a vessel, the
Captain of the Port may establish special conditions with which the
vessel must comply in order for such a request to be approved.
    (4) No vessel in such condition that it is likely to sink or
otherwise become a menace or obstruction to navigation or anchorage of
other vessels shall occupy an anchorage except in cases where
unforeseen circumstances create conditions of imminent peril to
personnel and then only for such period as may be authorized by the
Captain of the Port.
    (5) Anchors shall be placed well within the anchorage areas so that
no portion of the hull or rigging will at any time extend outside of
the anchorage area.
    (6) The Coast Guard Captain of the Port may close the anchorage
area and direct vessels to depart the anchorage during periods of
adverse weather or at other times as deemed necessary in the interest
of port safety and security.
    (7) Any vessel anchored in these grounds must be capable of getting
underway if ordered by the Captain of the Port and must be able to do
so within two hours of notification by the Captain of the Port. If a
vessel will not be able to get underway within two hours of
notification, permission must be requested from the Captain of the Port
to remain in the anchorage. No vessel shall anchor in a ``dead ship''
status (propulsion or control unavailable for normal operations)
without prior approval of the Captain of the Port.
    (8) Brenton Point anchorage ground is a general anchorage area
reserved primarily for commercial vessels waiting to enter Narragansett
Bay.
    (9) Temporary floats or buoys for marking anchors or moorings in
place will be allowed in this area. Fixed mooring piles or stakes will
not be allowed.
    (10) All coordinates referenced use datum: NAD 83.

    Dated: July 13, 2012.
Daniel B. Abel,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, First Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2012-18127 Filed 7-24-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 81 (Thursday, April 26, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 24952-24954]
[FR Doc No: 2012-10101]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0162; FRL-9665-9]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection;
Comment Request; Regional Haze Regulations; EPA ICR No. 1813.08

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), this document announces that the EPA is planning
to submit a request to renew an existing approved Information
Collection Request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
This ICR is scheduled to expire on October 31, 2012. Before submitting
the ICR to OMB for review and approval, the EPA is soliciting comments
on specific aspects of the proposed information collection as described
below.

DATES: Comments. Written comments must be received on or before June
25, 2012.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2003-0162, by one of the following methods:
     www.regulations.gov: follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.

     Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Attention Docket ID No.
EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0162.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>. Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2003-0162.
     Mail: EPA Docket Center, EPA West (Air Docket), Attention
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0162, Environmental Protection Agency,
Mailcode: 2822T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460.
     Hand Delivery: EPA Docket Center (Air Docket), Attention
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0162, Environmental Protection Agency,
1301 Constitution Avenue NW., Room 3334, Washington, DC. Such
deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of
operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of
boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2003-0162. The EPA's policy is that all comments received will be
included in the public docket without change and may be made available
online at www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov
or email. The www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access''
system, which means the EPA will not know your identity or contact
information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you
send an email comment directly to the EPA without going through
www.regulations.gov, your email address will be automatically captured
and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket
and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic
comment, the EPA recommends that you include your name and other
contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or
CD-ROM you submit. If the EPA cannot read your comment due to technical
difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, the EPA may not
be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use
of special characters and any form of encryption, and be free of any
defects or viruses. For additional information about the EPA's public
docket, visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
in www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the EPA Docket Center EPA/DC,
EPA West, Room 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<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number for the EPA
Docket Center is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Gobeail McKinley<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards,
Air Quality Policy Division, Mail Code C539-04, Research Triangle Park,
NC 27711.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

How can I access the docket and/or submit comments?

    The EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket
ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0162, which is available for online viewing at
www.regulations.gov, or in-person viewing at the Air Docket in the EPA
Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave.
NW., Washington, DC. The EPA/DC 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 Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the
telephone number for the Air Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Use www.regulations.gov to obtain a copy of the draft collection of
information, submit or view public comments, access the index listing
of the contents of the docket, and to access those documents in the
public docket that are available electronically. Once in the system,
select ``search,'' then key in the docket ID number identified in this
document.

What information is the EPA particularly interested in?

    Pursuant to section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, the EPA specifically
solicits comments and information to enable it to:
    (i) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is
necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency,
including whether the information will have practical utility;
    (ii) evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden
of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of
the methodology and assumptions used; (iii) enhance the quality,
utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and (iv)
minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are
to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated
electronic, mechanical or other technological collection techniques or
other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic
submission of responses. In particular, the EPA is requesting comments
from very small businesses (those that employ less than 25) on examples
of specific additional efforts that the EPA could make to reduce the
paperwork burden for very small businesses affected by this collection.

What should I consider when I prepare my comments for the EPA?

    You may find the following suggestions helpful for preparing your
comments:
    1. Explain your views as clearly as possible and provide specific
examples.
    2. Describe any assumptions that you used.
    3. Provide copies of any technical information and/or data you used
that support your views.
    4. If you estimate potential burden or costs, explain how you
arrived at the estimate that you provide.
    5. Offer alternative ways to improve the collection activity.
    6. Make sure to submit your comments by the deadline identified
under DATES.
    7. To ensure proper receipt by the EPA, be sure to identify the
docket ID number assigned to this action in the subject line on the
first page of your response. You may also provide the name, date, and
Federal Register citation.

What information collection activity or ICR does this apply to?

    Affected entities: Entities potentially affected by this action are
state, local and tribal air quality agencies, regional planning
organizations and facilities potentially regulated under the regional
haze rule.
    Title: Regional Haze Regulations; EPA ICR No. 1813.08, OMB Control
No. 2060-0412.
    ICR numbers: EPA ICR No. 1813.08, OMB Control No. 2060-0412.
    ICR status: This ICR is currently scheduled to expire on October
31,

2012. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not
required to respond to, a collection of information, unless it displays
a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for the
EPA's regulations in title 40 of the CFR, after appearing in the
Federal Register when approved, are listed in 40 CFR part 9, and are
displayed either by publication in the Federal Register or by other
appropriate means, such as on the related collection instrument or
form, if applicable. The display of OMB control numbers in certain EPA
regulations is consolidated in 40 CFR part 9.
    Abstract: This ICR is for activities related to the implementation
of the EPA's regional haze regulations, for the time period between
October 31, 2012, and October 30, 2015, and renews the previous ICR.
The regional haze rule codified at 40 CFR parts 308 and 309, as
authorized by sections 169A and 169B of the Clean Air Act (CAA),
requires states to develop implementation plans to protect visibility
in 156 federally-protected Class I areas. Tribes may choose to develop
implementation plans. For this time period, states will be revising
their implementation plans to comply with the regulations. An agency
may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to,
a collection of information request unless it displays a currently
valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for the EPA's
regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter
15.
    Burden Statement: The annual public reporting and recordkeeping
burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 320
hours per response. Burden means the total time, effort or financial
resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or
disclose or provide information to or for a federal agency. This
includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire,
install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of
collecting, validating and verifying information, processing and
maintaining information and disclosing and providing information;
adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable
instructions and requirements which have subsequently changed; train
personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search
data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and
transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
    The ICR provides a detailed explanation of the agency's estimate,
which is only briefly summarized here:
    Estimated total number of potential respondents: 34.
    Frequency of response: Every 5 years.
    Estimated total average number of responses for each respondent: 1.
    Estimated total annual burden hours: 4,080 hours.
    Estimated total annual costs: $198,084. This includes an estimated
burden cost of $198,084 and an estimated cost of $0 for capital
investment or maintenance and operational costs.

Are there changes in the estimates from the last approval?

    There are revisions to the cost estimates since the last renewal of
this ICR (August 26, 2009; 74 FR 43118). The last collection request
anticipated the program progressing from the planning stages to
implementation. The last renewal estimate was 31,841 hours and
$2,563,000. The current estimate represents a decrease in hours and in
the costs. The change in burden is a program adjustment, reflecting
changes in labor rates, changes in the activities conducted due to the
normal progression of the program, and the fact that the aggregate
initial regional haze SIPs and best available retrofit technology
(BART) determinations will have been acted upon by the EPA by November
2012 and the states will be shifting their focus to development of
interim progress reports required by the regional haze rule.

What is the next step in the process for this ICR?

    The EPA will consider the comments received and amend the ICR as
appropriate. The final ICR package will then be submitted to OMB for
review and approval pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.12. At that time, the EPA
will issue another Federal Register notice pursuant to 5 CFR
1320.5(a)(1)(iv) to announce the submission of the ICR to OMB and the
opportunity to submit additional comments to OMB. If you have any
questions about this ICR or the approval process, please contact the
technical person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

    Dated: April 20, 2012.
Mary E. Henigin,
Acting Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards.
[FR Doc. 2012-10101 Filed 4-25-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


EPA REGISTRATION DIVISION COMPANY NOTICE OF FILING FOR PESTICIDE PETITIONS PUBLISHED IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER

EPA Registration Division contact: Barbara Madden;<PHONE_NUMBER>

Interregional Research Project No. 4

PP# 6E8477

	EPA has received a pesticide petition (PP# 6E8477) from Interregional Research Project No. 4, 500 College Road East, Suite 201W, Princeton, NJ 08540 requesting, pursuant to section 408(d) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d), to amend 40 CFR part 180 by establishing tolerances for residues of chlorantraniliprole, 3-bromo-N-[4-chloro-2-methyl-6-[(methylamino)-carbonyl]phenyl]-1-(3-chloro-2-pyridinyl)-1H-pyrazole-5-carboxamide in or on the raw agricultural commodities teff, forage at 40 parts per million (ppm); teff, grain at 6.0 ppm; teff, hay at 40 ppm; teff, straw at 40 ppm; quinoa, forage at 40 ppm; quinoa, grain at 6.0 ppm; quinoa, hay at 40 ppm; and quinoa, straw at 40 ppm.  EPA has determined that the petition contains data or information regarding the elements set forth in section 408 (d)(2) of FDDCA; however, EPA has not fully evaluated the sufficiency of the submitted data at this time or whether the data supports granting of the petition. Additional data may be needed before EPA rules on the petition.

A. Residue Chemistry

 Plant metabolism. The metabolism of chlorantraniliprole is adequately understood to support the proposed exemption from the requirement of tolerances. Studies in apple, lettuce, rice, tomato, and cotton when treated at proposed label rates showed no significant metabolites.  The only significant residue is the parent compound.              Livestock Metabolism. The metabolism of chlorantraniliprole in ruminants and poultry is adequately understood to support the exemption from the requirement of tolerances.  Lactating goat and laying hen metabolism studies were conducted.  The goat and hen rapidly excreted >93% and >98% of the dosed radiolabeled residues, respectively.                The metabolic pathway in poultry and ruminant (goat) animals was consistent. There is no reasonable expectation of transfer of finite residues of chlorantraniliprole and its metabolites to fat, meat, milk, and eggs.

 Analytical method. Since chlorantraniliprole and its metabolic degradates are not of toxicological concern, analytical methods are not applicable.

 Magnitude of residues. Numerous residue studies have been conducted on many crops in the United States and globally by the registrant and by other organizations such as the IR-4 Project.  The relevant U.S. and foreign residue study reports required to support use of chlorantraniliprole and existing tolerances in the United States have been submitted to EPA and reviewed as part of prior registration actions for this active ingredient.

B. Toxicological Profile

 Acute toxicity.  Based on EPA criteria, chlorantraniliprole is classified as follows for Toxicity Categories: Guideline Title Results Category 870.1100

870.1200

870.1300

870.2400

870.2500

870.2600 Acute Oral Toxicity

Acute Dermal Toxicity

Acute Inhalation Toxicity

Primary Eye Irritation

Primary Dermal Irritation

Skin Sensitization LD50: >5,000 mg/kg (Rat)

LD50: >5,000 mg/kg (Rat)

LC50: >5.1 mg/L (Rat)

Mild irritation (Rabbit)

No irritation (Rabbit)

Not a sensitizer (Mouse LLNA) Category IV

Category IV

Category IV

Category IV

Category IV

---------------           Formulated products are as equally non-toxic following acute exposures as is technical chlorantraniliprole.  The acute inhalation toxicity for the suspension concentrate formulation could not be determined above the maximum practically attainable atmospheric aerosol concentration of 2 mg/L.             There was no evidence of neurotoxicity in rats following a single limit dose of 2,000 mg/kg

 Genotoxicty. Chlorantraniliprole has shown no genotoxic activity in the following listed in vitro and in vivo tests:                     	Bacterial reverse mutation            	In vitro mammalian gene mutation (CHO/HGPRT)           	In vitro chromosomal aberration (human lymphocytes)           	In vivo mouse micronucleus

3.	Reproductive and developmental toxicity. In developmental toxicity studies in rats and rabbits, chlorantraniliprole exhibited no effects on any parameter in pregnant females or their offspring at levels up to and including the maximum tested dose of 1,000 mg/kg bw/day.

No reproductive toxicity was observed in a two-generation reproduction study with chlorantraniliprole in rats.  No adverse effects were observed on reproduction, fertility, sperm parameters, estrous cycle, litter size, pup survival and developmental landmarks up to the maximum tested dose of 20,000 ppm in the diet.  There were no adverse histological findings indicative of reproductive toxicity.  There was a slight reduction in the F1 pup (but not F2 pup) weight during lactation at the highest dose level (mean maternal intake during lactation equal to 3,118 mg/kg bw/day); this was attributed, in part, to weight loss in one dehydrated dam during lactation which had a litter with some of the lowest pup weights.  The slight change in pup weight was without subsequent effects since overall body weight, weight gain and development in F1 rats fed 20,000 ppm were similar to control animals.

4.	Subchronic toxicity. Subchronic (90 day) feeding studies were conducted with rats, mice and dogs. No adverse effects were observed at the highest dietary concentrations tested of 20,000 ppm in rats (1,188 mg/kg bw/day for males and 1,526 mg/kg bw/day for females), 7,000 ppm in mice (1,135 mg/kg bw/day for males and 1,539 mg/kg bw/day for females) and 40,000 ppm in dogs (1,163 mg/kg bw/day for males and 1,220 mg/kg bw/day for females).  Chlorantraniloprole showed no evidence of immunotoxicity in 28-day feeding studies in rats or mice and no evidence of neurotoxicity in a 90-day feeding study in rats at dietary concentrations greater than the limit dose of 1,000 mg/kg bw/day.

A 28-day dermal toxicity study in rats was conducted at doses of 100, 300 and 1,000 mg/kg bw/day.  The NOAEL for male and female rats was 300 mg/kg bw/day based on reductions in body weight gain and food efficiency at 1,000 mg/kg bw/day.

No adverse target organ effects were observed in any subchronic toxicity study.

5. Chronic toxicity. Chlorantraniliprole was not carcinogenic in either a 2-year study in rats or an 18-month study in mice.  The NOAEL for chronic toxicity in the 18-month mouse study was 1,200 ppm (158 mg/kg bw/day in males) and was based on eosinophilic foci accompanied by hepatocellular hypertrophy and increased liver weight.   In rats, there were no adverse effects on any in-life parameter in either males or females administered chlorantraniliprole up to and including a maximum dietary concentration of 20,000 ppm for 2 years (805 and 1,076 mg/kg bw/day, respectively).

In a one-year feeding study in dogs, the NOAEL was the highest dose tested, 40,000 ppm (1,164 and 1,233 mg/kg/day in males and females, respectively).

6. Animal (Rat) metabolism. The absorption of [14C]-chlorantraniliprole in rats was rapid with peak concentrations occurring at 5-12 hours after single dose administration. Tissue distribution of the absorbed dose was extensive and indicated low potential for accumulation.  Excretion was substantially complete by 48-72 hours after dosing (>90%).

Following 14 days of oral administration 14C residues were readily eliminated from the plasma and tissues and confirmed minimal potential for accumulation. The profile of metabolites in urine and feces indicated extensive metabolism consistent with that observed for the single dose study.

7. Metabolite toxicology. Due to the extremely low toxicity of the parent compound and the extensive metabolism observed in mammalian systems, chlorantraniliprole metabolites are not expected to result in any significant toxicity.  Toxicology studies conducted with metabolites support this conclusion

8. Endocrine disruption. No adverse effects were observed on any endocrine tissue in short- and long-term studies in rats, mice and dogs.

C. Aggregate Exposure

1. Dietary exposure.

i. Food. Because an endpoint attributable to a single dose was not identified, the dietary exposure assessment considered only chronic exposure.          Chronic dietary exposure assessments were conducted using the Dietary Exposure Evaluation Model (DEEM-FCID(TM), Version 2.03) which uses food consumption data from the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Continuing Surveys of Food Intakes by Individuals (CSFII) from 1994-1996 and 1998. The chronic dietary exposure assessment was conducted using a chronic reference dose of 1.58 mg/kg bw/day based on the NOAEL established in the 18-month study in mice.  DuPont has conducted chronic assessments which assume that 100% of all crops  -  including those not labeled - are treated with chlorantraniliprole and that all crops contain residues at tolerance level or at residue levels equal to tolerance levels for similar crops.  In particular all leafy vegetables, including leaves of root and tuber vegetables and leafy vegetables including brassica vegetables, are assumed to have residues of 15 parts per million.  All other human foods (including plant and animal commodities) are assumed to have residues of 2 parts per million.        These assumptions result in conservative, health-protective estimates of exposure which are well below the Agency's level of concern (100% of the cPAD). The maximum estimate is less than 11% of the cPAD for all population subgroups.

ii. Drinking water. A drinking water assessment for chlorantraniliprole, conducted based on PRZM/EXAMS (Pesticide Root Zone Model/Exposure Analysis Modeling System), was used to calculate the surface water estimated drinking water concentrations (EDWCs) and the Screening Concentration in Ground Water (SCI-GROW) model was used to calculate the groundwater EDWC. The EDWCs do not exceed the Agency's level of concern.

2. Non-dietary exposure. Residential exposure (non-occupational, non-dietary exposure to consumers) was conservatively assessed for dermal post-application exposure (children and adults), and for children the oral exposures via hand-to-mouth, object-to-mouth, and incidental ingestion of soil were also assessed.  The margins of exposure (MOE) greatly exceed the 100-fold MOE required for these routes and from the combined children's incidental oral ingestion.  Therefore, residential non-dietary exposure is not a concern.

D. Cumulative Effects

It is not necessary at this time to consider cumulative effects because there is no indication that toxic effects of chlorantraniliprole have a common mechanism with those of any other chemical compounds.

E. Safety Determination

1. U.S. population. Based on risk assessments performed using worst-case exposure assumptions there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to the general population from the aggregate exposure to chlorantraniliprole.  No additional safety factors are warranted.

2. Infants and children. Based on the risk assessments performed using worst-case exposure assumptions there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to the infants and children from the aggregate exposure to chlorantraniliprole.  No additional safety factors are warranted.

F. International Tolerances

Numerous chlorantraniliprole MRLs have been established or are expected to be established supporting registrations in 82 countries.  Codex MRLs have also been established for chlorantraniliprole on numerous crops.


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 45 (Monday, March 9, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 12548-12549]
[FR Doc No: 2015-05409]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Twenty Eighth Meeting; RTCA Special Committee 213, Enhanced
Flight Vision Systems/Synthetic Vision Systems (EFVS/SVS)

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), U.S. Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Meeting Notice of RTCA Special Committee 213, Enhanced Flight
Vision Systems/Synthetic Vision Systems (EFVS/SVS).

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is issuing this notice to advise the public of the
twenty eighth meeting of the RTCA Special Committee 213, Enhanced
Flight Vision Systems/Synthetic Vision Systems (EFVS/SVS).

DATES: The meeting will be held April 14-16th 2015 from 8:30 a.m.-5:00
p.m. on April 14-15 and 8:30 a.m.-4:00 p.m. on April 16.

ADDRESSES: Dassault Aviation, 78 qual Marcel Dassault 92214 Saint-Cloud
France.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tim Etherington,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(319) 295-5233 or mobile at (319) 431-
7154, Patrick Krohn<EMAIL_ADDRESS>telephone<PHONE_NUMBER> or
mobile at<PHONE_NUMBER> and The RTCA Secretariat, 1150 18th Street,
NW., Suite 910, Washington, DC 20036, or by telephone at (202) 330-
0652/(202) 833-9339, fax at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or Web site at http://www.rtca.org. Additional contact information: RTCA contact is Jennifer
Iverson<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(202) 330-0662.
    All attendees are required to provide the following information by
email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>and
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>no later than March 27th. If this
information is not provided, you will be unable to attend the meeting.
     Last and first name
     Date and place of birth

     Nationality
     Passport number (ID number will be ok for French citizens)
     Company and position.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to section 10(a) (2) of the Federal
Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 5 U.S.C., App.), notice is
hereby given for a meeting of Special Committee 213. The agenda will
include the following:

Tuesday, April 14

 Plenary discussion (sign-in at 08:00 a.m.)
    [cir] Introductions and administrative items
    [cir] Review and approve minutes from last full plenary meeting
    [cir] Review of terms of reference (if needed)
    [cir] WG1, WG2 and WG3 status updates
    [cir] Industry updates
    [cir] WG2 Draft Document

Wednesday, April 15

 Plenary discussion
     WG2 Draft Document
     WG3 discussion
     WG1 discussion

Thursday, April 16

 Plenary discussion
     WG2 Draft Document
     WG3 discussion
     Administrative items (new meeting location/dates, action
items etc.)
    Attendance is open to the interested public but limited to space
availability. With the approval of the chairman, members of the public
may present oral statements at the meeting. Persons wishing to present
statements or obtain information should contact the person listed in
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. Members of the public may
present a written statement to the committee at any time.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on March 4, 2015.
Mohannad Dawoud,
Management Analyst, NextGen, Program Oversight and Administration,
Federal Aviation Administration.
[FR Doc. 2015-05409 Filed 3-6-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: April 29, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 83)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 23132-23133]
[DOCID:fr29ap08-17]

========================================================================
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.

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2008-0416; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-297-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Empresa Brasileira de Aeronautica S.A.
(EMBRAER) Model EMB-135BJ Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for the
products listed above. This proposed AD results from mandatory
continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) originated by an aviation
authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe
condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe
condition as:

    It has been found the occurrence of cable guard pins not
installed in the aileron control system, which may lead to jamming
of the aileron control cables, reducing the aircraft
controllability.

The proposed AD would require actions that are intended to address the
unsafe condition described in the MCAI.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by May 29, 2008.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments 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: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-40, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://
www.regulations.gov; or in person at the Docket Operations office
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory
evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street
address for the Docket Operations office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is
in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket
shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sanjay Ralhan, Aerospace Engineer,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA,
1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone (425)
227-1405; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address
listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2008-0416;
Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-297-AD'' at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposed AD based on those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this proposed AD.

Discussion

    The Ag[ecirc]ncia Nacional de Avia[ccedil][atilde]o Civil (ANAC),
which is the aviation authority for Brazil, has issued Brazilian
Airworthiness Directive 2006-07-01, effective July 31, 2006 (referred
to after this as ``the MCAI''), to correct an unsafe condition for the
specified products. The MCAI states:

    It has been found the occurrence of cable guard pins not
installed in the aileron control system, which may lead to jamming
of the aileron control cables, reducing the aircraft
controllability.

The corrective actions include inspecting for possible absence of the
cable guard pins in the aileron control system inside the wings, and
installing new ones bearing the same part number. You may obtain
further information by examining the MCAI in the AD docket.

Relevant Service Information

    EMBRAER has issued Service Bulletin 145LEG-27-0023, dated January
24, 2006. The actions described in this service information are
intended to correct the unsafe condition identified in the MCAI.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another
country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant
to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have
been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service
information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we
evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition
exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same
type design.

Differences Between This AD and the MCAI or Service Information

    We have reviewed the MCAI and related service information and, in
general, agree with their substance. But we might have found it
necessary to use different words from those in the MCAI to ensure the
AD is clear for U.S. operators and is enforceable. In making these
changes, we do not intend to differ substantively from the information
provided in the MCAI and related service information.
    We might also have proposed different actions in this AD from those
in the MCAI in order to follow FAA policies. Any such differences are
highlighted in a NOTE within the proposed AD.

Costs of Compliance

    Based on the service information, we estimate that this proposed AD
would affect about 13 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that
it would take

about 2 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of
this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $80 per work-hour. Based on
these figures, we estimate the cost of the proposed AD on U.S.
operators to be $2,080, or $160 per product.

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.

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); 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.
    We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to
comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, 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

    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]

    2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new AD:

Empresa Brasileira De Aeronautica S.A. (EMBRAER): Docket No. FAA-
2008-0416; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-297-AD.

Comments Due Date

    (a) We must receive comments by May 29, 2008.

Affected ADs

    (b) None.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to EMBRAER Model EMB-135BJ airplanes,
certificated in any category, serial numbers 145363, 145412, 145462,
145484, 145495, 145505, 145516, 145528, 145540, 145549, 145555,
145586, 145591, 145625, 145637, 145642, 145644, 145678, 145686,
145699, 145706, 145711, 145717, 145730, 145770, 145775, 145780,
145789, 145796, 14500802, and 14500809.

Subject

    (d) Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 27: Flight
Controls.

Reason

    (e) The mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI)
states:
    It has been found the occurrence of cable guard pins not
installed in the aileron control system, which may lead to jamming
of the aileron control cables, reducing the aircraft
controllability.
The corrective actions include inspecting for possible absence of
the cable guard pins in the aileron control system inside the wings,
and installing new ones bearing the same part number.

Actions and Compliance

    (f) Within 270 calendar days after the effective date of this
AD, unless already done, do the following actions.
    (1) Do a detailed inspection with the aid of a borescope for
possible absence of the cable guard pins in the aileron control
system inside the wings.
    (i) If any cable guard pin having part number (P/N) NAS427K8,
NAS427K28, or NAS427K36 is missing in the internal part of the left
and right halfwing spar boxes, before further flight, install a new
one bearing the same part number, in accordance with EMBRAER Service
Bulletin 145LEG-27-0023, dated January 24, 2006.
    (ii) If any cable guard pin P/N NAS427K26 is missing in the
aileron control cable pulleys in the internal part of the wing
leading edge III, before further flight, remove the corresponding
leading edge and install a new cable guard pin bearing the same part
number, in accordance with EMBRAER Service Bulletin 145LEG-27-0023,
dated January 24, 2006.

FAA AD Differences

    Note: This AD differs from the MCAI and/or service information
as follows:
    The MCAI includes airplanes in addition to those specified in
the applicability of this AD. Those airplanes are not included in
this AD because they are modified by Supplemental Type Certificates
(STC) that are not FAA-approved. This AD includes only the U.S.
certified airplanes identified in the referenced service
information.

Other FAA AD Provisions

    (g) The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA,
has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using
the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send information to ATTN:
Sanjay Ralhan, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116,
Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton,
Washington 98057-3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.
Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC
applies, notify your appropriate principal inspector (PI) in the FAA
Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local
FSDO.
    (2) Airworthy Product: For any requirement in this AD to obtain
corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these
actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered
FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority
(or their delegated agent). You are required to ensure the product
is airworthy before it is returned to service.
    (3) Reporting Requirements: For any reporting requirement in
this AD, under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has approved the information
collection requirements and has assigned OMB Control Number 2120-
0056.

Related Information

    (h) Refer to MCAI Brazilian Airworthiness Directive 2006-07-01,
effective July 31, 2006; and EMBRAER Service Bulletin 145LEG-27-
0023, dated January 24, 2006; for related information.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on April 18, 2008.
Ali Bahrami,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
 [FR Doc. E8-9313 Filed 4-28-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P