[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 53 (Friday, March 18, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 14869-14870]
[FR Doc No: 2016-06208]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

[Docket No. USCG-2016-0152]

Cooperative Research and Development Agreement--Robotic Aircraft
for Maritime Public Safety

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of intent; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard announces its intent to enter into a
cooperative research and development agreement (CRADA) with several
companies to evaluate small unmanned aircraft systems (SUAS) and their
airborne sensors, to determine their potential for use in a maritime
environment by a first responder and DHS operational components. The
Coast Guard will conduct flight testing and evaluation of SUAS under a
wide variety of simulated but realistic and relevant real-world
maritime operational scenarios, such as law enforcement, search and
rescue, and maritime environmental response. While the Coast Guard is
currently considering partnering with Physical Sciences, Inc., it
solicits public comment on the possible participation of other parties
in the proposed CRADA, and the nature of that participation. The Coast
Guard also invites other potential non-Federal participants, who have
the interest and capability to bring similar contributions to this type
of research, to consider submitting proposals for consideration in
similar CRADAs.

DATES: Comments must be submitted to the online docket via http://www.regulations.gov, or reach the Docket Management Facility, on or
before April 18, 2016.
    Synopses of proposals regarding future CRADAs must reach the Coast
Guard (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT) on or before April 18,
2016.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments using one of the listed methods, and see
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for more information on public comments.
     Online--http://www.regulations.gov following Web site
instructions.
     Fax--202-493-2251.
     Mail or hand deliver--Docket Management Facility (M-30),
U.S. Department of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001. Hours
for hand delivery are 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except
Federal holidays (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this notice
or wish to submit proposals for future CRADAs, contact Mr. Steve Dunn,
Project Official, Aviation Branch, U.S. Coast Guard Research and
Development Center, 1 Chelsea Street, New London, CT 06320, telephone
860-271-2789, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have questions on
viewing or submitting material to the docket, call Cheryl Collins,
Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, toll free
1-800-647-5527.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Public Participation and Request for Comments

    We encourage you to submit comments and related material on this
notice. All comments received will be posted, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any personal information you have
provided.
    Do not submit detailed proposals for future CRADAs to the Docket
Management Facility. Instead, submit them directly to the Coast Guard
(see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT) .
    Comments should be marked with docket number USCG-2016-0152 and
should provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation. You
should provide personal contact information so that we can contact you
if we have questions regarding your comments; but please note that all
comments will be posted to the online docket without change and that
any personal information you include can be searchable online (see the
Federal Register Privacy Act notice regarding our public dockets, 73 FR
3316, Jan. 17, 2008).
    Mailed or hand-delivered comments should be in an unbound 8\1/2\ x
11 inch format suitable for reproduction. The Docket Management
Facility will acknowledge receipt of mailed comments if you enclose a
stamped, self-addressed postcard or envelope with your submission.
    Documents mentioned in this notice, and all public comments, are in
our online docket at http://www.regulations.gov and can be viewed by
following the Web site's instructions. You can also view the docket at
the Docket Management Facility (see the mailing address under
ADDRESSES) between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except
Federal holidays.

Discussion

    CRADAs are authorized under 15 U.S.C. 3710(a).\1\ A CRADA promotes
the transfer of technology to the private sector for commercial use, as
well as specified research or development efforts that are consistent
with the mission of the Federal parties to the CRADA. The Federal party
or parties agree with one or more non-Federal parties to share research
resources, but the Federal party does not contribute funding.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The statute confers this authority on the head of each
Federal agency. The Secretary of DHS's authority is delegated to the
Coast Guard and other DHS organizational elements by DHS Delegation
No. 0160.1, para. II.B.34.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    CRADAs are not procurement contracts. Care is taken to ensure that
CRADAs are not used to circumvent the contracting process. CRADAs have
a specific purpose and should not be confused with other types of
agreements such as procurement contracts, grants, and cooperative
agreements.
    Under the proposed CRADA, the Coast Guard's Research and
Development Center (R&DC) will collaborate with one or more non-Federal
participants. Together, the R&DC and the non-Federal participants will
evaluate SUAS and their airborne sensors to determine their potential
for use in a maritime environment by a first responder and DHS
operational components.

    We anticipate that the Coast Guard's contributions under the
proposed CRADA will include the following:
    (1) Develop the demonstration test plan to be executed under the
CRADA;
    (2) Provide the SUAS test range, test range support, facilities,
and all approvals required for a 5 day demonstration under the CRADA;
    (3) Conduct the privacy threshold analysis required for the
demonstration;
    (4) Conduct the privacy impact assessment required for the
demonstration;
    (5) Coordinate any required spectrum approval for the SUAS;
    (6) Coordinate and receive any required interim flight clearance
for the demonstration;
    (7) Provide any required airspace coordination and de-confliction
for the demonstration test plan;
    (8) Collect and analyze demonstration test plan data; and
    (9) Develop a demonstration final report documenting the
methodologies, findings, conclusions, and recommendations of this CRADA
work.
    We anticipate that the non-Federal participants' contributions
under the proposed CRADA will include the following:
    (1) Provide SUAS all other equipment to conduct the demonstration
described in the demonstration test plan;
    (2) Provide all required operators and technicians to conduct the
demonstration;
    (3) Provide technical data for the SUAS to be utilized;
    (4) Provide shipment and delivery of all SUAS equipment required
for the demonstration; and
    (5) Provide travel and associated personnel and other expenses as
required.
    The Coast Guard reserves the right to select for CRADA participants
all, some, or no proposals submitted for this CRADA. The Coast Guard
will provide no funding for reimbursement of proposal development
costs. Proposals and any other material submitted in response to this
notice will not be returned. Proposals submitted are expected to be
unclassified and have no more than five single-sided pages (excluding
cover page, DD 1494, JF-12, etc.). The Coast Guard will select
proposals at its sole discretion on the basis of:
    (1) How well they communicate an understanding of, and ability to
meet, the proposed CRADA's goal; and
    (2) How well they address the following criteria:
    (a) Technical capability to support the non-Federal party
contributions described; and
    (b) Resources available for supporting the non-Federal party
contributions described.
    Currently, the Coast Guard is considering Physical Sciences, Inc.
for participation in this CRADA, because each has demonstrated the
ability to operate SUAS in a maritime environment. However, we do not
wish to exclude other viable participants from this or future similar
CRADAs.
    This is a technology demonstration effort. The goal of this CRADA
is to identify and investigate the potential of the SUAS and their
airborne sensors to determine their potential use in a maritime
environment by the first responder and the DHS operational components.
Special consideration will be given to small business firms/consortia,
and preference will be given to business units located in the U.S.
    This notice is issued under the authority of 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 15
U.S.C. 3710(a).

    Dated: February 25, 2016.
Captain Dennis C. Evans,
Commanding Officer, USCG, U.S. Coast Guard Research and Development
Center.
[FR Doc. 2016-06208 Filed 3-17-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 155 (Monday, August 12, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 48800-48802]
[FR Doc No: 2013-18841]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 97

[Docket No. 30911; Amdt. No. 3546]

Standard Instrument Approach Procedures, and Takeoff Minimums and
Obstacle Departure Procedures; Miscellaneous Amendments

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This rule establishes, amends, suspends, or revokes Standard
Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAPs) and associated Takeoff Minimums
and Obstacle Departure Procedures for operations at certain airports.
These regulatory actions are needed because of the adoption of new or
revised criteria, or because of changes occurring in the National
Airspace System, such as the commissioning of new navigational
facilities, adding new obstacles, or changing air traffic requirements.
These changes are designed to provide safe and efficient use of the
navigable airspace and to promote safe flight operations under
instrument flight rules at the affected airports.

DATES: This rule is effective August 12, 2013. The compliance date for
each SIAP, associated Takeoff Minimums, and ODP is specified in the
amendatory provisions.
    The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in
the regulations is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as
of August 12, 2013.

ADDRESSES: Availability of matters incorporated by reference in the
amendment is as follows:
    For Examination--
    1. FAA Rules Docket, FAA Headquarters Building, 800 Independence
Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591;
    2. The FAA Regional Office of the region in which the affected
airport is located;
    3. The National Flight Procedures Office, 6500 South MacArthur
Blvd., Oklahoma City, OK 73169 or,
    4. The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For
information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-
6030, or go to:http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html.
    Availability--All SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs are available
online free of charge. Visit http://www.nfdc.faa.gov to register.
Additionally, individual SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and ODP copies may
be obtained from:
    1. FAA Public Inquiry Center (APA-200), FAA Headquarters Building,
800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; or
    2. The FAA Regional Office of the region in which the affected
airport is located.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Richard A. Dunham III, Flight
Procedure Standards Branch (AFS-420), Flight Technologies and Programs
Divisions, Flight Standards Service, Federal Aviation Administration,
Mike Monroney Aeronautical Center, 6500 South MacArthur Blvd. Oklahoma
City, OK 73169 (Mail Address: P.O. Box 25082, Oklahoma City, OK 73125)
Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This rule amends Title 14 of the Code of
Federal Regulations, Part 97 (14 CFR part 97), by establishing,
amending, suspending, or revoking SIAPS, Takeoff Minimums and/or ODPS.
The complete regulators description of each SIAP and its associated
Takeoff Minimums or ODP for an identified airport is listed on FAA form
documents which are incorporated by reference in this amendment under 5
U.S.C. 552(a), 1 CFR part 51, and 14 CFR 97.20. The applicable FAA
Forms are FAA Forms 8260-3, 8260-4, 8260-5, 8260-15A, and 8260-15B when
required by an entry on 8260-15A.
    The large number of SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, in addition
to their complex nature and the need for a special format make
publication in the Federal Register expensive and impractical.
Furthermore, airmen do not use the regulatory text of the SIAPs,
Takeoff Minimums or ODPs, but instead refer to their depiction on
charts printed by publishers of aeronautical materials. The advantages
of incorporation by reference are realized and publication of the
complete description of each SIAP, Takeoff Minimums and ODP listed on
FAA forms is unnecessary. This amendment provides the affected CFR
sections and specifies the types of SIAPs and the effective dates of
the, associated Takeoff Minimums and ODPs. This amendment also
identifies the airport and its location, the procedure, and the
amendment number.

The Rule

    This amendment to 14 CFR part 97 is effective upon publication of
each

separate SIAP, Takeoff Minimums and ODP as contained in the
transmittal. Some SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and textual ODP amendments
may have been issued previously by the FAA in a Flight Data Center
(FDC) Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) as an emergency action of immediate
flight safety relating directly to published aeronautical charts. The
circumstances which created the need for some SIAP and Takeoff Minimums
and ODP amendments may require making them effective in less than 30
days. For the remaining SIAPS and Takeoff Minimums and ODPS, an
effective date at least 30 days after publication is provided.
    Further, the SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPS contained in this
amendment are based on the criteria contained in the U.S. Standard for
Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS). In developing these SIAPS and
Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, the TERPS criteria were applied to the
conditions existing or anticipated at the affected airports. Because of
the close and immediate relationship between these SIAPs, Takeoff
Minimums and ODPs, and safety in air commerce, I find that notice and
public procedures before adopting these SIAPS, Takeoff Minimums and
ODPs are impracticable and contrary to the public interest and, where
applicable, that good cause exists for making some SIAPs effective in
less than 30 days.

Conclusion

    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.
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. For the same reason, the FAA
certifies that this amendment will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of
the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 97

    Air Traffic Control, Airports, Incorporation by reference, and
Navigation (Air).

    Issued in Washington, DC on July 19, 2013.
John Duncan
Deputy Director, Flight Standards Service.

Adoption of the Amendment

    Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, Title 14,
Code of Federal Regulations, Part 97 (14 CFR part 97) is amended by
establishing, amending, suspending, or revoking Standard Instrument
Approach Procedures and/or Takeoff Minimums and/or Obstacle Departure
Procedures effective at 0902 UTC on the dates specified, as follows:

PART 97--STANDARD INSTRUMENT APPROACH PROCEDURES

0
1. The authority citation for part 97 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40106, 40113, 40114, 40120,
44502, 44514, 44701, 44719, 44721-44722.

0
2. Part 97 is amended to read as follows:

Effective 22 August 2013

Soldotna, AK, Soldotna, RNAV (GPS) RWY 25, Amdt 1
Dumas, AR, Billy Free Muni, RNAV (GPS) RWY 36, Amdt 1
Fresno, CA, Fresno Yosemite Intl, VOR/DME OR TACAN RWY 29R, Amdt 2
Washington, DC, Manassas Rgnl/Harry P. Davis Field, RNAV (GPS) RWY
34R, Amdt 2
Palm Coast, FL, Flagler County, VOR-A, Amdt 1A, CANCELED
Panama City, FL, Northwest Florida Beaches Intl, ILS OR LOC/DME RWY
16, Amdt 2
Panama City, FL, Northwest Florida Beaches Intl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 16,
Amdt 2
Panama City, FL, Northwest Florida Beaches Intl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 34,
Amdt 2
West Palm Beach, FL, Palm Beach County Park, RNAV (GPS)-A, Orig
West Palm Beach, FL, Palm Beach County Park, RNAV (GPS)-B, Orig
West Palm Beach, FL, Palm Beach County Park, VOR OR GPS RWY 15, Amdt
2C, CANCELED
Atlanta, GA, Atlanta South Rgnl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 6, Amdt 1
Atlanta, GA, Atlanta South Rgnl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 24, Amdt 1
Atlanta, GA, Atlanta South Rgnl, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP,
Amdt 1
Butler, GA, Butler Muni, RNAV (GPS) RWY 18, Amdt 1
Butler, GA, Butler Muni, RNAV (GPS) RWY 36, Amdt 1
Butler, GA, Butler Muni, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 1
Burlington, IA, Southeast Iowa Rgnl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 12, Amdt 1
Burlington, IA, Southeast Iowa Rgnl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 30, Amdt 1
Marshalltown, IA, Marshalltown Muni, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle
DP, Amdt 1
Effingham, IL, Effingham County Memorial, LOC RWY 29, Amdt 1E
Effingham, IL, Effingham County Memorial, VOR RWY 1, Amdt 10B
Robinson, IL, Crawford Co, RNAV (GPS) RWY 9, Amdt 1
Robinson, IL, Crawford Co, RNAV (GPS) RWY 17, Orig
Robinson, IL, Crawford Co, RNAV (GPS) RWY 27, Amdt 1
Robinson, IL, Crawford Co, VOR OR GPS RWY 17, Amdt 4A, CANCELED
Robinson, IL, Crawford Co, VOR OR GPS RWY 27, Amdt 4A, CANCELED
Frankfort, IN, Frankfort Muni, RNAV (GPS) RWY 9, Amdt 1
Frankfort, IN, Frankfort Muni, RNAV (GPS) RWY 27, Amdt 1
Indianapolis, IN, Hendricks County-Gordon Graham Fld, RNAV (GPS) RWY
18, Amdt 1
Indianapolis, IN, Hendricks County-Gordon Graham Fld, RNAV (GPS) RWY
36, Orig
Sullivan, IN, Sullivan County, RNAV (GPS) RWY 36, Orig-A
Wichita, KS, Beech Factory, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 1
Jamestown, KY, Russell County, RNAV (GPS) RWY 17, Amdt 1
Jamestown, KY, Russell County, RNAV (GPS) RWY 35, Amdt 1
Tompkinsville, KY, Tompkinsville-Monroe County, RNAV (GPS) RWY 22,
Amdt 1
Rayville, LA, John H Hooks Jr Memorial, RNAV (GPS) RWY 18, Amdt 1
Rayville, LA, John H Hooks Jr Memorial, RNAV (GPS) RWY 36, Amdt 2
Shreveport, LA, Shreveport Rgnl, LOC RWY 6, Amdt 2
Shreveport, LA, Shreveport Rgnl, RADAR-1, Amdt 5
Shreveport, LA, Shreveport Rgnl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 6, Amdt 2
Shreveport, LA, Shreveport Rgnl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 24, Amdt 1
Shreveport, LA, Shreveport Rgnl, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP,
Amdt 1
Hagerstown, MD, Hagerstown Rgnl-Richard A Henson Fld, COPTER RNAV
(GPS) RWY 9, Orig
Hagerstown, MD, Hagerstown Rgnl-Richard A Henson Fld, COPTER RNAV
(GPS) RWY 27, Orig
Hagerstown, MD, Hagerstown Rgnl-Richard A Henson Fld, ILS OR LOC RWY
9, Amdt 1
Hagerstown, MD, Hagerstown Rgnl-Richard A Henson Fld, ILS OR LOC RWY
27, Amdt 11
Hagerstown, MD, Hagerstown Rgnl-Richard A Henson Fld, RNAV (GPS) RWY
27, Amdt 1
Machias, ME, Machias Valley, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt
2
Perham, MN, Perham Muni, RNAV (GPS) RWY 13, Orig
Perham, MN, Perham Muni, RNAV (GPS) RWY 31, Amdt 1
Perham, MN, Perham Muni, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 1
Slayton, MN, Slayton Muni, GPS RWY 35, Orig, CANCELED
Slayton, MN, Slayton Muni, RNAV (GPS) RWY 17, Orig
Slayton, MN, Slayton Muni, RNAV (GPS) RWY 35, Orig
Waseca, MN, Waseca Muni, RNAV (GPS) RWY 15, Amdt 1

Waseca, MN, Waseca Muni, RNAV (GPS) RWY 33, Orig
Kaiser Lake Ozark, MO, Lee C Fine Memorial, VOR RWY 4, Amdt 7A
St Louis, MO, Lambert-St Louis Intl, ILS PRM RWY 11, ILS PRM RWY 11
(CAT II), ILS PRM RWY 11 (CAT III) (SIMULTANEOUS CLOSE PARALLEL),
Orig-C, CANCELED
St Louis, MO, Lambert-St Louis Intl, ILS PRM RWY 12L, ILS PRM RWY
12L (CAT II), ILS PRM RWY 12L (CAT III) (SIMULTANEOUS CLOSE
PARALLEL), Amdt 1A, CANCELED
St Louis, MO, Lambert-St Louis Intl, ILS PRM RWY 29 (SIMULTANEOUS
CLOSE PARALLEL), Amdt 1B, CANCELED
St Louis, MO, Lambert-St Louis Intl, ILS PRM RWY 30R, ILS PRM RWY
30R (CAT II), ILS PRM RWY 30R (CAT III) (SIMULTANEOUS CLOSE
PARALLEL), Amdt 1C, CANCELED
Batesville, MS, Panola County, LOC/DME RWY 19, Amdt 1
Batesville, MS, Panola County, RNAV (GPS) RWY 1, Amdt 1
Batesville, MS, Panola County, RNAV (GPS) RWY 19, Amdt 1
Batesville, MS, Panola County, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP,
Amdt 1
Jackson, MS, Jackson-Medgar Wiley Evers International, RNAV (GPS)
RWY 16L, Amdt 2
Jackson, MS, Jackson-Medgar Wiley Evers International, RNAV (GPS)
RWY 16R, Amdt 2
Jackson, MS, Jackson-Medgar Wiley Evers International, RNAV (GPS)
RWY 34L, Amdt 3
Jackson, MS, Jackson-Medgar Wiley Evers International, RNAV (GPS)
RWY 34R, Amdt 2
Kosciusko, MS, Kosciusko-Attala County, RNAV (GPS) RWY 14, Orig-A
Kosciusko, MS, Kosciusko-Attala County, RNAV (GPS) RWY 32, Orig-A
Meridian, MS, Key Field, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 5
Raymond, MS, John Bell Williams, RNAV (GPS) RWY 12, Amdt 3
Raymond, MS, John Bell Williams, RNAV (GPS) RWY 30, Amdt 3
Wilmington, NC, Wilmington Intl, ILS Y OR LOC RWY 24, Amdt 1
Wilmington, NC, Wilmington Intl, ILS Y OR LOC RWY 35, Amdt 22
Wilmington, NC, Wilmington Intl, ILS Y OR LOC/DME RWY 6, Amdt 2
Wilmington, NC, Wilmington Intl, ILS Z RWY 6, Orig
Wilmington, NC, Wilmington Intl, ILS Z RWY 24, Orig
Wilmington, NC, Wilmington Intl, ILS Z RWY 35, Orig
Wilmington, NC, Wilmington Intl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 6, Amdt 3
Wilmington, NC, Wilmington Intl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 17, Amdt 3
Wilmington, NC, Wilmington Intl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 24, Amdt 2
Wilmington, NC, Wilmington Intl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 35, Amdt 3
Scribner, NE., Scribner State, RNAV (GPS) RWY 17, Amdt 1
Scribner, NE., Scribner State, RNAV (GPS) RWY 35, Amdt 1
Clayton, NM, Clayton Muni Arpk, RNAV (GPS) RWY 2, Amdt 2
Clayton, NM, Clayton Muni Arpk, RNAV (GPS) RWY 20, Amdt 2
Columbus, OH, Port Columbus Intl, ILS OR LOC RWY 10L, Amdt 19
Columbus, OH, Port Columbus Intl, ILS OR LOC RWY 10R, ILS RWY 10R
(SA CAT I), Amdt 9
Columbus, OH, Port Columbus Intl, ILS OR LOC RWY 28L, ILS RWY 28L
(SA CAT I), Amdt 29
Columbus, OH, Port Columbus Intl, ILS OR LOC RWY 28R, Amdt 4
Columbus, OH, Port Columbus Intl, RNAV (GPS) Y RWY 10L, Amdt 3
Columbus, OH, Port Columbus Intl, RNAV (GPS) Y RWY 10R, Amdt 3
Columbus, OH, Port Columbus Intl, RNAV (GPS) Y RWY 28L, Amdt 3
Columbus, OH, Port Columbus Intl, RNAV (GPS) Y RWY 28R, Amdt 2
Columbus, OH, Port Columbus Intl, RNAV (RNP) Z RWY 10L, Amdt 1
Columbus, OH, Port Columbus Intl, RNAV (RNP) Z RWY 10R, Amdt 1
Columbus, OH, Port Columbus Intl, RNAV (RNP) Z RWY 28L, Amdt 1
Columbus, OH, Port Columbus Intl, RNAV (RNP) Z RWY 28R, Amdt 1
Columbus, OH, Port Columbus Intl, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP,
Amdt 7
Union, SC, Union County, Troy Shelton Field, RNAV (GPS) RWY 5, Orig
Union, SC, Union County, Troy Shelton Field, RNAV (GPS) RWY 23, Orig
Union, SC, Union County, Troy Shelton Field, Takeoff Minimums and
Obstacle DP, Amdt 1
Walterboro, SC, Lowcountry Rgnl, ILS OR LOC/DME RWY 23, Amdt 1
Walterboro, SC, Lowcountry Rgnl, NDB RWY 23, Amdt 12, CANCELED
Walterboro, SC, Lowcountry Rgnl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 5, Amdt 1
Walterboro, SC, Lowcountry Rgnl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 23, Amdt 1
Midland, TX, Midland Intl, ILS OR LOC RWY 10, Amdt 16
Midland, TX, Midland Intl, LOC BC RWY 28, Amdt 13, CANCELED
Sherman, TX, Sherman Muni, RNAV (GPS) RWY 16, Orig
Sherman, TX, Sherman Muni, RNAV (GPS) RWY 34, Orig
Sherman, TX, Sherman Muni, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 1
Sherman, TX, Sherman Muni, VOR/DME-A, Orig-C
Stafford, VA, Stafford Rgnl, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt
1
Port Townsend, WA, Jefferson County Intl, RNAV (GPS)-A, Orig
Port Townsend, WA, Jefferson County Intl, Takeoff Minimums and
Obstacle DP, Orig
Spokane, WA, Felts Field, ILS OR LOC/DME RWY 22R, Amdt 1
Spokane, WA, Felts Field, RNAV (GPS) RWY 4L, Amdt 1
Spokane, WA, Felts Field, RNAV (GPS)-A, Amdt 1
Spokane, WA, Felts Field, VOR RWY 4L, Amdt 5
Oshkosh, WI, Wittman Rgnl, ILS OR LOC RWY 36, Amdt 7
Oshkosh, WI, Wittman Rgnl, LOC/DME BC RWY 18, Amdt 7
Oshkosh, WI, Wittman Rgnl, NDB RWY 36, Amdt 6
Oshkosh, WI, Wittman Rgnl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 9, Amdt 1
Oshkosh, WI, Wittman Rgnl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 18, Amdt 1
Oshkosh, WI, Wittman Rgnl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 27, Amdt 1
Oshkosh, WI, Wittman Rgnl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 36, Amdt 2
Oshkosh, WI, Wittman Rgnl, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 1
Oshkosh, WI, Wittman Rgnl, VOR RWY 9, Amdt 10
Oshkosh, WI, Wittman Rgnl, VOR RWY 18, Amdt 8
Oshkosh, WI, Wittman Rgnl, VOR RWY 27, Amdt 5
Oshkosh, WI, Wittman Rgnl, VOR RWY 36, Amdt 17

[FR Doc. 2013-18841 Filed 8-9-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


Name:           CRISWELL ROBERT E JR
Organization:   CI ENGINEERING
Date:           20050829
Address1:       13 HERITAGE PARK
Address2:
City:           HUNTINGTON
Country:
State:          WV
Zip Code:       25704
Docket Number:  H023
Exhibit Number: 3-9
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Notice of a section 610 review; request for comments.

The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) is conducting a review of the lead in construction standard under section 610 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act and section 5 of Executive Order 12866 on Regulatory Planning and Review. In 1993, in response to a statutory mandate to adopt a standard to protect construction workers from lead exposures, OSHA promulgated a standard that requires testing of construction sites for lead exposures, provisions to protect workers from exposure where lead is present, and medical monitoring of exposed workers.  The purpose of this review is to determine whether there are ways to modify this standard to make implementation more practical, to reduce regulatory burden on small business, and to improve its effectiveness, while still protecting worker health. OSHA solicits comments from the public on these and other relevant issues.

If you would like to submit an online comment in response to this notice,  please enter the information below.  Online submissions must be received by 11:59 pm, ET, September 6, 2005.  Note that you can also upload comments and any supporting materials as electronic document files on this Web site.

Thank you for your interest in occupational safety and health.

One of the hardest issues to continue to be in compliance with the Lead Standards is keeping your past data current.  I feel that data collected should have a more active life than one year.  Also, why can't OSHA solicit information from various construction companies to detemine an acceptable "Lead Free Determination?"

There are many times that companies perform work and have all the requirements fullfilled to find that the action levels were not exceeded.  Why can't different companies share information for similar work?  This would allow a wider spectrum of past history for companies to work with.  It would also make the cost of compliance go down.


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 150 (Monday, August 7, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 52149-52150]
[FR Doc No: 2023-16785]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. EL23-88-000]

Energy Harbor LLC; Notice of Institution of Section 206
Proceeding and Refund Effective Date

    On July 31, 2023, the Commission issued an order in Docket No.
EL23-88-000, pursuant to section 206 of the Federal Power Act (FPA), 16
U.S.C. 824e, instituting an investigation into whether Energy Harbor
LLC's Rate Schedule 1 and Rate Schedule 2 are unjust, unreasonable,
unduly discriminatory or preferential, or otherwise unlawful. Energy
Harbor LLC, 184 FERC ] 61,068 (2023).
    The refund effective date in Docket No. EL23-88-000, established
pursuant to section 206(b) of the FPA, will be the date of publication
of this notice in the Federal Register.
    Any interested person desiring to be heard in Docket No. EL23-88-
000 must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as
appropriate, with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, in
accordance with Rule 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and

Procedure, 18 CFR 385.214 (2022), within 21 days of the date of
issuance of the order.
    In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
Federal Register, the Commission provides all interested persons an
opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the
internet through the Commission's Home Page (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. At this time,
the Commission has suspended access to the Commission's Public
Reference Room, due to the proclamation declaring a National Emergency
concerning the Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19), issued by the
President on March 13, 2020. For assistance, contact FERC at
[email protected] or call toll-free,<PHONE_NUMBER> or TYY,
(202) 502-8659.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments,
protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFile'' link at
http://www.ferc.gov. In lieu of electronic filing, you may submit a
paper copy. Submissions sent via the U.S. Postal Service must be
addressed to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, 888 First Street NE, Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426.
Submissions sent via any other carrier must be addressed to: Kimberly
D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 12225 Wilkins
Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
    The Commission's Office of Public Participation (OPP) supports
meaningful public engagement and participation in Commission
proceedings. OPP can help members of the public, including landowners,
environmental justice communities, Tribal members and others, access
publicly available information and navigate Commission processes. For
public inquiries and assistance with making filings such as
interventions, comments, or requests for rehearing, the public is
encouraged to contact OPP at<PHONE_NUMBER> or [email protected].

    Dated: August 1, 2023.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-16785 Filed 8-4-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 79 (Monday, April 26, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 21686-21688]
[FR Doc No: 2010-9549]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-61938; File No. SR-FINRA-2010-014]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Financial Industry Regulatory
Authority, Inc.; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change Relating to
FINRA Rule 9554 To Eliminate Explicitly the Inability-To-Pay Defense in
the Expedited Proceedings Context

April 19, 2010.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on March 31, 2010, Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc.
(``FINRA'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``SEC''
or ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I,
II, and III below, which Items have been substantially prepared by
FINRA. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on
the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance
of the Proposed Rule Change

    FINRA is proposing to amend FINRA Rule 9554 to eliminate explicitly
the inability-to-pay defense in the expedited proceedings context when
a member or associated person fails to pay an arbitration award to a
customer.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on FINRA's Web
site at http://www.finra.org, at the principal office of FINRA and at
the Commission's Public Reference Room.

II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, FINRA included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. FINRA has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A,
B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.

A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    FINRA Rule 9554 allows FINRA to bring expedited actions to address
failures to pay FINRA arbitration awards.\3\ Once a monetary award has
been issued in a FINRA arbitration proceeding, the party that must pay
the award, the respondent (i.e., a member or an associated person), has
thirty days to do so.\4\ FINRA coordinates between FINRA Dispute
Resolution's arbitration forum and FINRA's enforcement program by
verifying whether a respondent has paid the monetary award within
thirty days. If the respondent has not paid, FINRA initiates an
expedited proceeding by sending a notice explaining that the respondent
will be suspended unless the respondent pays the award or requests a
hearing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Expedited actions allow FINRA to address certain types of
misconduct more quickly than would be possible using the ordinary
disciplinary process. In general, these actions focus on encouraging
respondents to comply with the law or take corrective action rather
than on sanctioning them for past misconduct. As discussed in detail
below, moreover, the Act uses a different standard of review for
expedited actions than it does for disciplinary cases.
    \4\ FINRA Rule 10330(h).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A respondent that requests a hearing may raise a number of defenses
to the suspension. One of the current defenses is establishing a bona
fide inability-to-pay. When a respondent successfully demonstrates a
bona fide inability-to-pay, that is a complete defense to the
suspension. Consequently, the inability-to-pay defense currently
precludes a harmed customer from obtaining payment of a valid
arbitration award.
    FINRA's expedited proceedings for failure to pay an arbitration
award use the leverage of a potential suspension to help ensure that a
member or an associated person promptly pays a valid arbitration award.
However, if a respondent demonstrates a financial inability-to-pay the
award--regardless of the reason--the leverage is removed. When FINRA's
efforts to suspend a respondent who has not paid the award have been
defeated, a claimant is much less likely to be paid. By eliminating the
inability-to-pay defense, FINRA will increase the probability of
customers having their awards paid, or, at a minimum, it should prompt
meaningful settlement discussions between claimants and respondents.
FINRA believes that eliminating this defense would further its goal of
investor protection by facilitating the payment of arbitration awards
to customers harmed by the actions of members and associated persons.
Accordingly, FINRA proposes amending Rule 9554 to eliminate explicitly
the inability-to-pay defense in the expedited proceedings context when
a member or associated person fails to pay an arbitration award to a
customer.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The rule change would not affect the defenses available in
actions that do not involve customers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The ability to work in the securities industry carries with it,
among other things, an obligation to comply with the Federal securities
laws, FINRA rules, and orders imposed by the disciplinary and
arbitration processes. Allowing members or their associated persons
that fail to pay arbitration awards to remain in the securities
industry presents regulatory risks and is unfair to harmed customers.
    Although FINRA proposes to eliminate the inability-to-pay defense,
a respondent would still have available the following four defenses:
     The member or person paid the award in full or fully
complied with the settlement agreement;
     The arbitration claimant has agreed to installment
payments or has otherwise settled the matter;
     The member or person has filed a timely motion to vacate
or modify the arbitration award and such motion has not been denied;
and
     The member or person has filed a petition in bankruptcy
and the bankruptcy proceeding is pending or the award or payment owed
under the settlement agreement has been discharged by the bankruptcy
court.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ In its order approving changes to the predecessor to Rule
9554, the SEC noted that the issues in these types of cases are
narrow and generally limited to determining whether the respondent
has proven any of these four defenses or an inability-to-pay the
award. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 40026 (May 26, 1998),
63 FR 30789, 30790 (June 5, 1998).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regarding the last defense, FINRA believes that a Federal
bankruptcy court is the best forum for adjudicating a financial
condition defense. Bankruptcy judges are experts in evaluating whether
a debtor's obligations should be legally discharged. The bankruptcy
process and associated filings are designed to consider fully and
evaluate the financial condition of bankruptcy debtors.\7\ In addition,
bankruptcy filings, which are subject to Federal perjury charges,
provide greater penalties for hiding assets.\8\ FINRA's lack of
subpoena power over banks and other third parties raises practical
concerns regarding its ability to confirm accurately the assets of the
firm or person asserting the defense.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See 4 Collier on Bankruptcy, ]] 521.01, 521.09 (15th ed.
2009).
    \8\ See 18 U.S.C. 151-58 (2010). Bankruptcy fraud is punishable
by a fine, or by up to five years in prison, or both. Id.
    \9\ The ability to legally discharge debts, the more thorough
and accurate verification of a bankruptcy debtor's financial
condition, and possible criminal prosecution for intentionally
inaccurate disclosures, among other aspects, distinguish bankruptcy
from inability-to-pay.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The inability-to-pay defense emerged from a series of SEC decisions
that require FINRA to consider the defense in disciplinary cases (as
opposed to expedited actions), including disciplinary cases involving
failures to pay arbitration awards and restitution.\10\ The legal
underpinnings that support the inability-to-pay defense in disciplinary
cases are not, however, present in the expedited proceedings context.
SEC cases largely rely on the ``excessive and oppressive'' language in
Section 19(e) of the Exchange Act in requiring FINRA to consider
inability-to-pay. Section 19(e) of the Exchange Act provides authority
to the SEC to review and affirm, modify or set aside any final
disciplinary sanctions imposed by FINRA on its members. Section 19(e),
however, does not apply to expedited proceedings. Expedited proceedings
are reviewed under Section 19(f), which requires that ``the specific
grounds'' on which FINRA based its action ``exist in fact,'' that FINRA
followed its rules, and that those rules are consistent with the Act.
The different focus of these two standards and the more limited review
for

expedited actions are understandable and support eliminating the
inability-to-pay defense in expedited actions.\11\ Unlike disciplinary
cases, FINRA is not imposing a monetary sanction in these expedited
actions; it is suspending a respondent for failing to pay a previously
imposed arbitration award. There also is an explicit procedural
mechanism built into these expedited actions that allows a suspension
to be lifted once respondents satisfy any of the four defenses
highlighted above. The main goal is to encourage respondents to comply
with the law or previously imposed orders, not to sanction them for
past misconduct.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See Toney L. Reed, 52 S.E.C. 944 (1996), recons. denied,
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 39354 (Nov. 25, 1997); Bruce M.
Zipper, 51 S.E.C. 928 (1993). In addition, in an order approving a
rule change for a predecessor to Rule 9554, the SEC noted that it
had previously recognized that a bona fide inability-to-pay an
arbitration award is an important consideration in determining
whether any sanction for failing to pay an arbitration award is
``excessive or oppressive.'' See Securities Exchange Act Release No.
40026 (May 26, 1998), 63 FR 30789 (June 5, 1998). Without further
discussion, the order cited the SEC's decision in Zipper, which was
a disciplinary case, not an expedited action.
    \11\ In William J. Gallagher, Securities Exchange Act Release
No. 47501, 2003 SEC LEXIS 599 (March 14, 2003), the SEC emphasized
that expedited actions are reviewed under Section 19(f) of the Act
not Section 19(e). The SEC stated, ``Gallagher misconstrues the
applicable review standard when he argues that [FINRA's] sanction is
`excessive and oppressive' and that [FINRA's] indefinite suspension
order is inconsistent with the [FINRA] Sanction Guidelines,
standards relevant in the Commission's review of [FINRA]
disciplinary proceedings under Section 19(e) of the Exchange Act.''
Id. at *6. The SEC explained that its review is limited to analyzing
whether ``the specific ground on which [FINRA] based its
suspension--failure to pay in full an arbitration award--`exists in
fact[,]''' the ``SRO's determination was in accordance with its
rules, and * * * those rules are, and were applied in a manner,
consistent with the purposes of the Exchange Act.'' Id. at *5 & *7.
In Gallagher, FINRA and the SEC rejected the respondent's claim of
inability-to-pay on factual grounds. The issue of whether a
respondent was permitted to raise the defense as a matter of law was
neither raised nor decided.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In sum, members and associated persons that fail to pay arbitration
awards to customers should not be allowed to remain in the securities
industry by relying on the inability-to-pay defense in expedited
actions. This is especially true because they can avoid regulatory
action by paying the award, reaching a settlement with the customers
(which can include payment plans), moving to vacate the award, or
filing for bankruptcy. FINRA believes that, in its expedited actions
involving respondents that have failed to pay arbitration awards to
customers; the inability-to-pay defense should be eliminated.
    The proposed rule change will automatically become effective 30
days following Commission approval.
2. Statutory Basis
    The proposed rule change is consistent with the provisions of
Section 15A(b)(6) of the Act,\12\ which requires, among other things,
that FINRA's rules must be designed to prevent fraudulent and
manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable
principles of trade, and, in general, to protect investors and the
public interest. The proposal also is consistent with Section 15A(b)(7)
of the Act,\13\ which provides that FINRA must take appropriate action
when members and associated persons violate provisions of the Act or
FINRA rules. The proposed rule change is consistent with these purposes
because it would promote a fair and efficient process for taking action
to encourage members and associated persons to pay arbitration awards
to customers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-3(b)(6).
    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-3(b)(7).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    FINRA does not believe that the proposed rule change will result in
any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed
Rule Change Received From Members, Participants, or Others

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received.

III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for
Commission Action

    Within 35 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register or within such longer period (i) as the Commission may
designate up to 90 days of such date if it finds such longer period to
be appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or (ii) as to
which the self-regulatory organization consents, the Commission will:
    (A) By order approve such proposed rule change, or
    (B) Institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule
change should be disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of
the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-FINRA-2010-014 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-1090.

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-FINRA-2010-014. This
file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used.
To help the Commission process and review your comments more
efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all
comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Comments are also available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10
a.m. and 3 p.m. All comments received will be posted without change;
the Commission does not edit personal identifying information from
submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make
available publicly.
    All submissions should refer to File Number SR-FINRA-2010-014 and
should be submitted on or before May 17, 2010.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-9549 Filed 4-23-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 47 (Thursday, March 10, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 13636-13640]
[FR Doc No: 2022-05060]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2021-0355; FRL-9565-01-OCSPP]

Novaluron; Pesticide Tolerances

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes tolerances for residues of
novaluron in or on Almond, hulls and the Tree nut group 14-12.
Makhteshim Agan of North America (ADAMA) requested these tolerances
under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).

DATES: This regulation is effective March 10, 2022. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received on or before May 9, 2022, and
must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR
part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION).

ADDRESSES: The docket for this action, identified by docket
identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2021-0355, is available at
https://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of Pesticide Programs
Regulatory Public Docket (OPP Docket) in the Environmental Protection
Agency Docket Center (EPA/DC), West William Jefferson Clinton Bldg.,
Rm. 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001. The
Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public
Reading Room and the OPP Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Due to the public health concerns relating to COVID-19, the EPA
Docket Center (EPA/DC) and Reading Room is closed to visitors with
limited exceptions. The staff continues to provide customer service via
email, phone, and webform. For the latest status information on EPA/DC
services, docket access, visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Marietta Echeverria, Acting Director,
Registration Division (7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington,
DC 20460-0001; main telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address:
[email protected].

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. How can I get electronic access to other related information?

    You may access a frequently updated electronic version of EPA's
tolerance regulations at 40 CFR part 180 through the Office of the
Federal Register's e-

CFR site at https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-40.

C. How can I file an objection or hearing request?

    Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a(g), any person may file
an objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a
hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a
hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided
in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify
docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2021-0355 in the subject line on the first
page of your submission. All objections and requests for a hearing must
be in writing and must be received by the Hearing Clerk on or before
May 9, 2022. Addresses for mail and hand delivery of objections and
hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b).
    In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the
Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of
the filing (excluding any Confidential Business Information (CBI)) for
inclusion in the public docket. Information not marked confidential
pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without
prior notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your objection or hearing
request, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2021-0355, by one of
the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Do not submit
electronically any information you consider to be 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 https://www.epa.gov/dockets/where-send-comments-epa-dockets.
    Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along
with more information about dockets generally, is available at https://www.epa.gov/dockets.

II. Summary of Petitioned-For Tolerance

    In the Federal Register of June 28, 2021 (86 FR 33922) (FRL-10025-
08) EPA issued a document pursuant to FFDCA section 408(d)(3), 21
U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a pesticide petition (PP
0F8872) by Makhteshim Agan of North America, Inc. (d/b/a ADAMA), 3120
Highwoods Boulevard, Suite 100, Raleigh, NC 27604. The petition
requested to establish tolerances for residues of the insecticide
novaluron in or on Tree nuts, nutmeat (Crop Group 14-12) at 0.07 parts
per million (ppm) and Almond, hulls at 15.0 ppm. That document
referenced a summary of the petition, which is available in the docket,
https://www.regulations.gov. There were no comments received in
response to the notice of filing.
    Based upon review of the data supporting the petition and in
accordance with its authority under FFDCA section 408(d)(4)(A)(i), EPA
is establishing the tolerances at different levels than petitioned for
and is modifying the crop group definition to be consistent with Agency
terminology. A discussion of these modifications can be found in
section IV.C.

III. Aggregate Risk Assessment and Determination of Safety

    Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish a
tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a
food) only if EPA determines that the tolerance is ``safe.'' Section
408(b)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines ``safe'' to mean that ``there is a
reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure
to the pesticide chemical residue, including all anticipated dietary
exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable
information.'' This includes exposure through drinking water and in
residential settings but does not include occupational exposure.
Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA requires EPA to give special
consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide
chemical residue in establishing a tolerance and to ``ensure that there
is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and
children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue . .
. .''
    Consistent with FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), and the factors
specified therein, EPA has reviewed the available scientific data and
other relevant information in support of this action. EPA has
sufficient data to assess the hazards of and to make a determination on
aggregate exposure for novaluron including exposure resulting from the
tolerances established by this action. EPA's assessment of exposures
and risks associated with novaluron follows.
    In an effort to streamline its publications in the Federal
Register, EPA is not reprinting sections that repeat what has been
previously published for tolerance rulemaking of the same pesticide
chemical. Where scientific information concerning a particular chemical
remains unchanged, the content of those sections would not vary between
tolerance rulemaking, and EPA considers referral back to those sections
as sufficient to provide an explanation of the information EPA
considered in making its safety determination for the new rulemaking.
    EPA has previously published tolerance rulemakings as well as an
interim decision to support registration review for novaluron in which
EPA concluded, based on the available information, that there is a
reasonable certainty that no harm would result from aggregate exposure
to novaluron and established tolerances for residues of that chemical.
EPA is incorporating previously published sections from these
rulemakings as described further in this rulemaking, as they remain
unchanged.
    Toxicological profile. For a discussion of the Toxicological
Profile of novaluron, see Unit III.A. of the novaluron tolerance
rulemaking published in the Federal Register of July 22, 2015 (80 FR
43329) (FRL-9929-57), which was not modified by the Novaluron Interim
Registration Review Decision (https://www.regulations.gov/document/EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0171-0063).
    Toxicological Points of Departure/Levels of Concern. For a summary
of the Toxicological Points of Departure/Levels of Concern for
novaluron used for human risk assessment, please reference Unit III.B.
of the July 22, 2015, rulemaking as well as the Novaluron Interim
Registration Review Decision.
    Exposure assessment. EPA's dietary exposure assessments have been
updated to include the additional exposure from the new uses of
novaluron on the tree nut group 14-12 and almond hulls. An acute
dietary exposure assessment was not performed as there are no
appropriate toxicological effects attributable to a single exposure
(dose). A partially refined chronic dietary (food and drinking water)
exposure and risk assessment was conducted that incorporated tolerance-
level residues for the proposed new uses. The chronic dietary exposure
and risk assessment also incorporated average percent crop treated
(PCT) data for several registered commodities. For the remaining
commodities, 100 PCT was assumed. Anticipated residues for meat, milk,
hog, and poultry commodities were incorporated as well. A cancer
dietary assessment was not conducted because novaluron is classified as
``not likely to be carcinogenic to humans.''

    Anticipated residue and PCT information. Section 408(b)(2)(E) of
FFDCA authorizes EPA to use available data and information on the
anticipated residue levels of pesticide residues in food and the actual
levels of pesticide residues that have been measured in food. If EPA
relies on such information, EPA must require pursuant to FFDCA section
408(f)(1) that data be provided 5 years after the tolerance is
established, modified, or left in effect, demonstrating that the levels
in food are not above the levels anticipated. For the present action,
EPA will issue such data call-ins as are required by FFDCA section
408(b)(2)(E) and authorized under FFDCA section 408(f)(1). Data will be
required to be submitted no later than 5 years from the date of
issuance of these tolerances.
    Section 408(b)(2)(F) of FFDCA states that the Agency may use data
on the actual percent of food treated for assessing chronic dietary
risk only if:
     Condition a: The data used are reliable and provide a
valid basis to show what percentage of the food derived from such crop
is likely to contain the pesticide residue.
     Condition b: The exposure estimate does not underestimate
exposure for any significant subpopulation group.
     Condition c: Data are available on pesticide use and food
consumption in a particular area, and the exposure estimate does not
understate exposure for the population in such area.
    In addition, the Agency must provide for periodic evaluation of any
estimates used. To provide for the periodic evaluation of the estimate
of PCT as required by FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(F), EPA may require
registrants to submit data on PCT.
    Updated average percent crop treated values were used for the
following crops that are currently registered for novaluron: Apples
(10%), broccoli (<1%), cabbage (5%), cantaloupe (<1%), cauliflower
(<1%), cherries (<1%), cotton (5%), dry beans/peas (<1%), peaches
(<1%), peanuts (5%), pears (25%), peppers (5%), plums/prunes (<1%),
potatoes (5%), pumpkins (<1%), sorghum (<1%), squash (<1%),
strawberries (45%), sugarcane (<1%), sweet corn (<1%), tomatoes
(<2.5%), and watermelons (<1%).
    In most cases, EPA uses available data from United States
Department of Agriculture/National Agricultural Statistics Service
(USDA/NASS), proprietary market surveys, and California Department of
Pesticide Regulation (CalDPR) Pesticide Use Reporting (PUR) for the
chemical/crop combination for the most recent 10 years. EPA uses an
average PCT for chronic dietary risk analysis and a maximum PCT for
acute dietary risk analysis. The average PCT figure for each existing
use is derived by combining available public and private market survey
data for that use, averaging across all observations, and rounding to
the nearest 5%, except for those situations in which the average PCT is
less than 1% or less than 2.5%. In those cases, the Agency would use
less than 1% or less than 2.5% as the average PCT value, respectively.
The maximum PCT figure is the highest observed maximum value reported
within the most recent 10 years of available public and private market
survey data for the existing use and rounded up to the nearest multiple
of 5%, except where the maximum PCT is less than 2.5%, in which case,
the Agency uses less than 2.5% as the maximum PCT.
    The Agency believes that Conditions a, b, and c discussed above
have been met. With respect to Condition a, PCT estimates are derived
from Federal and private market survey data, which are reliable and
have a valid basis. The Agency is reasonably certain that the
percentage of the food treated is not likely to be an underestimation.
As to Conditions b and c, regional consumption information and
consumption information for significant subpopulations is taken into
account through EPA's computer-based model for evaluating the exposure
of significant subpopulations including several regional groups. Use of
this consumption information in EPA's risk assessment process ensures
that EPA's exposure estimate does not understate exposure for any
significant subpopulation group and allows the Agency to be reasonably
certain that no regional population is exposed to residue levels higher
than those estimated by the Agency. Other than the data available
through national food consumption surveys, EPA does not have available
reliable information on the regional consumption of food to which
novaluron may be applied in a particular area.
    Drinking water and non-occupational exposures. An updated drinking
water assessment (DWA) for the proposed use of novaluron on tree nuts
(Crop Group 14-12) was conducted. The maximum screening-level estimated
drinking water concentrations (EDWCs) for uses on tree nuts are 9.6 ppb
(acute) and 0.89 ppb (chronic) from surface water sources. The
calculated EDWCs for these commodities do not supersede the previously
used EDWCs of 31 ppb (acute) and 8.4 ppb (chronic). Therefore, the
previously recommended EDWCs remain current and are considered
protective potential drinking water residue levels anticipated from the
proposed tolerance updates to tree nuts. As stated in the August 13,
2020, rulemaking (85 FR 49261) (FRL-10011-78), the chronic dietary
exposure and risk assessment incorporate the highest total EDWC of 8.4
parts per billion directly into this dietary assessment. The
residential exposure assessment has not changed since the 2015 final
rule because there are no proposed new residential uses. For a summary
of the residential exposure analysis for novaluron used for the human
risk assessment, please reference Unit III.C.3. of the July 22, 2015,
rulemaking.
    Cumulative exposure. Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of FFDCA requires
that, when considering whether to establish, modify, or revoke a
tolerance, the Agency consider ``available information'' concerning the
cumulative effects of a particular pesticide's residues and ``other
substances that have a common mechanism of toxicity.'' Unlike other
pesticides for which EPA has followed a cumulative risk approach based
on a common mechanism of toxicity, EPA has not made a common mechanism
of toxicity finding as to novaluron and any other substances and
novaluron does not appear to produce a toxic metabolite produced by
other substances. For the purposes of this action, therefore, EPA has
not assumed that novaluron has a common mechanism of toxicity with
other substances.
    Safety Factor for Infants and Children. EPA continues to conclude
that there are reliable data to support the reduction of the Food
Quality Protection Act (FQPA) safety factor from 10X to 1X. See Unit
III.D. of the July 22, 2015, rulemaking for a discussion of the
Agency's rationale for that determination.
    Aggregate risks and determination of safety. EPA determines whether
acute and chronic dietary pesticide exposures are safe by comparing
aggregate exposure estimates to the acute population-adjusted dose
(aPAD) and chronic population-adjusted dose (cPAD). Short-,
intermediate-, and chronic-term risks are evaluated by comparing the
estimated aggregate food, water, and residential exposure to the
appropriate points of departure to ensure that an adequate margin of
exposure (MOE) exists. For linear cancer risks, EPA calculates the
lifetime probability of acquiring cancer given the estimated aggregate
exposure.
    An acute dietary exposure assessment was not performed as there
were no

appropriate toxicological effects attributable to a single exposure
(dose) observed in available oral toxicity studies, including maternal
toxicity in the developmental toxicity studies. Chronic dietary risks
are below the Agency's level of concern of 100% of the cPAD; they are
47% of the cPAD for children 1 to 2 years old, the group with the
highest exposure. The combined short- and intermediate-term food,
water, and residential exposures result in aggregate MOEs of 3,500 for
adults and 250 for children 1 to 2 years old. These MOEs are greater
than the level of concern of 100 and are therefore not of concern.
Novaluron is classified as ``Not Likely to Be Carcinogenic to Humans'';
therefore, EPA does not expect novaluron exposures to pose an aggregate
cancer risk.
    Therefore, based on the risk assessments and information described
above, EPA concludes there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will
result to the general population, or to infants and children, from
aggregate exposure to novaluron residues. More detailed information on
this action can be found in the document titled ``Novaluron. Human
Health Risk Assessment for Proposed New Uses on Nut, Tree, Group 14-
12'' in docket ID EPA-HQ-OPP-2021-0355.

IV. Other Considerations

A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    For a discussion of the available analytical enforcement method,
see Unit IV.A. of the July 22, 2015, rulemaking.

B. International Residue Limits

    In making its tolerance decisions, EPA seeks to harmonize U.S.
tolerances with international standards whenever possible, consistent
with U.S. food safety standards and agricultural practices. EPA
considers the international maximum residue limits (MRLs) established
by the Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex), as required by FFDCA
section 408(b)(4).
    There are no Codex MRLs for either Almond, hulls or the Nut, tree,
group 14-12 crop group; therefore, harmonization is not an issue.

C. Revisions to Petitioned-For Tolerances

    The Agency is establishing a 0.08 ppm tolerance level for Nut,
tree, group 14-12, rather than at 0.07 ppm as proposed by the
petitioner. The petitioner used the Organization for Economic Co-
operation and Development (OECD) tolerance calculator but combined the
almond and pecan data sets. EPA separately input the almond and pecan
nutmeat data, which resulted in the higher residue. EPA is therefore
using a tolerance level of 0.08 ppm (from almond data) as it is the
higher of the two results. The commodity definition for ``Tree nuts,
nutmeat (Crop Group 14-12)'' is also being modified to ``Nut, tree,
group 14-12'' to be consistent with Agency nomenclature. EPA also
revised the tolerance level for Almond, hulls to be consistent with the
OECD rounding class practice.

V. Conclusion

    Therefore, tolerances are established for residues of novaluron in
or on Almond, hulls at 15 ppm and the Nut, tree, group 14-12 at 0.08
ppm.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This action establishes tolerances under FFDCA section 408(d) in
response to a petition submitted to the Agency. The Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these types of actions from
review under Executive Order 12866, entitled ``Regulatory Planning and
Review'' (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Because this action has been
exempted from review under Executive Order 12866, this action is not
subject to Executive Order 13211, entitled ``Actions Concerning
Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or
Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001), or to Executive Order 13045,
entitled ``Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and
Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). This action does not
contain any information collections subject to OMB approval under the
Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), nor does it
require any special considerations under Executive Order 12898,
entitled ``Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority
Populations and Low-Income Populations'' (59 FR 7629, February 16,
1994).
    Since tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis
of a petition under FFDCA section 408(d), such as the tolerances in
this final rule, do not require the issuance of a proposed rule, the
requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et
seq.), do not apply.
    This action directly regulates growers, food processors, food
handlers, and food retailers, not States or Tribes, nor does this
action alter the relationships or distribution of power and
responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions
of FFDCA section 408(n)(4). As such, the Agency has determined that
this action will not have a substantial direct effect on States or
Tribal Governments, on the relationship between the National Government
and the States or Tribal Governments, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government or between
the Federal Government and Indian Tribes. Thus, the Agency has
determined that Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR
43255, August 10, 1999) and Executive Order 13175, entitled
``Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR
67249, November 9, 2000) do not apply to this action. In addition, this
action does not impose any enforceable duty or contain any unfunded
mandate as described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
(UMRA) (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.).
    This action does not involve any technical standards that would
require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant
to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note).

VII. Congressional Review Act

    Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.),
EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required
information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and
the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of
the rule in the Federal Register. This action is not a ``major rule''
as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Agricultural commodities, Pesticides, and pests, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: March 4, 2022.
Marietta Echeverria,
Acting Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.

    Therefore, for the reasons stated in the preamble, EPA is amending
40 CFR chapter I as follows:

PART 180--TOLERANCES AND EXEMPTIONS FOR PESTICIDE CHEMICAL RESIDUES
IN FOOD

0
1. The authority citation for part 180 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371.

0
2. Section 180.598(a) is amended by:
0
a. Adding a table heading; and

0
b. Adding the commodities ``Almond, hulls'' and ``Nut, tree, group 14-
12'' to the table in alphabetical order.
    The additions read as follows:

Sec.  180.598   Novaluron; tolerances for residues.

    (a) * * *

                        Table 1 to Paragraph (a)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Parts per
                          Commodity                             million
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Almond, hulls...............................................          15

                                * * * * *
Nut, tree, group 14-12......................................        0.08

                                * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2022-05060 Filed 3-9-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 189 (Friday, September 28, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 48935-48938]
[FR Doc No: 2018-20929]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2018-0509; Product Identifier 2017-NM-076-AD; Amendment
39-19429; AD 2018-19-28]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Embraer S.A. Airplanes

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain
Embraer S.A. Model ERJ 190-100 STD, -100 LR, -100 ECJ, and -100 IGW
airplanes; and Model ERJ 190-200 STD, -200 LR, and -200 IGW airplanes.
This AD was prompted by reports of bushing migration and loss of nut
torque on the engine pylon lower inboard and outboard link fittings.
This AD requires modification of the attaching parts of the left-hand
(LH) and right-hand (RH) pylon lower link fittings, inboard and
outboard positions. We are issuing this AD to address the unsafe
condition on these products.

DATES: This AD is effective November 2, 2018.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of November 2,
2018.

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this final rule,
contact Embraer S.A., Technical Publications Section (PC 060), Av.
Brigadeiro Faria Lima, 2170--Putim--12227-901 S[atilde]o Jose dos
Campos--SP--Brazil; phone: +55 12 3927-5852 or +55 12 3309-0732; fax:
+55 12 3927-7546; email: [email protected]; internet: http://www.flyembraer.com. You may view this service information at the FAA,
Transport Standards Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For
information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 206-
231-3195. It is also available on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2018-
0509

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2018-
0509; 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 final rule, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and
other information. The address for Docket Operations (phone: 800-647-
5527) is U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30,
West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE,
Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Krista Greer, Aerospace Engineer,
International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 2200 South
216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; phone and fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain Embraer S.A. Model
ERJ 190-100 STD, -100 LR, -100 ECJ, and -100 IGW airplanes; and Model
ERJ 190-200 STD, -200 LR, and -200 IGW airplanes. The NPRM published in
the Federal Register on June 11, 2018 (83 FR 26877). The NPRM was
prompted by reports of bushing migration and loss of nut torque on the
engine pylon lower inboard and outboard link fittings. The NPRM
proposed to require modification of the attaching parts of the LH and
RH pylon lower link fittings, inboard and outboard positions. The NPRM
also specified that accomplishing certain proposed actions would
terminate certain requirements in AD 2014-16-16, Amendment 39-17940 (79
FR 48018, August 15, 2014).
    We are issuing this AD to address loss of integrity of the engine
pylon lower link fittings, possibly resulting in separation of the
engine from the wing.
    Ag[ecirc]ncia Nacional de Avia[ccedil][atilde]o Civil (ANAC), which
is the aviation authority for Brazil, has issued Brazilian AD 2017-04-
01, effective April 25, 2017 (referred to after this as the Mandatory
Continuing Airworthiness Information, or ``the MCAI''), to correct an
unsafe condition for certain Embraer S.A. Model ERJ 190-100 STD, -100
LR, -100 ECJ, and -100 IGW airplanes; and Model ERJ 190-200 STD, -200
LR, and -200 IGW airplanes. The MCAI states:

    This [Brazilian] AD was prompted by reports of bushing migration
and loss of nut torque on the engine pylon lower inboard and
outboard link fittings. We are issuing this [Brazilian] AD to
prevent loss of integrity of the engine pylon lower link fittings,
which could result in separation of the engine from the wing.
    This [Brazilian] AD requires modifications of the attaching
parts of the left handle (LH) and right handle (RH) pylon lower link
fittings, inboard and outboard positions.

    You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2018-
0509.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this final rule. We have considered the comment received. The Air Line
Pilots Association, International (ALPA) stated that it supported the
intent of the NPRM.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comment received, and
determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting
this final rule as proposed, except for minor editorial changes. We
have determined that these minor changes:
     Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the
NPRM for addressing the unsafe condition; and
     Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was
already proposed in the NPRM.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    Embraer S.A. has issued Embraer Service Bulletin 190-54-0016,
Revision 04, dated December 7, 2017; and Embraer Service Bulletin
190LIN-54-0008, Revision 02, dated May 9, 2018. The service information
describes procedures for modification of the attaching parts of the LH
and RH pylon lower link fittings, inboard and outboard positions. These
documents are distinct since they apply to different airplane models.
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.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 85 airplanes of U.S. registry.
    We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Action                Labor cost      Parts cost       Cost per product        Cost on U.S. operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Modification..............  Up to 270 work-         $3,200  Up to $26,150............  Up to $2,222,750.
                             hours x $85 per
                             hour = $22,950.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    According to the manufacturer, some of the costs of this AD may be
covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on affected
individuals. We do not control warranty coverage for affected
individuals. As a result, we have included all available costs in our
cost estimate.

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,
describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
    We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: ``General
requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing
regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator
finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within
the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition
that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this
rulemaking action.
    This 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

    This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order
13132. This AD will 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 that this AD:
    (1) Is not a ``Significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866,
    (2) Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
    (3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
    (4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the FAA amends 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):

2018-19-28 Embraer S.A.: Amendment 39-19429; Docket No. FAA-2018-
0509; Product Identifier 2017-NM-076-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective November 2, 2018.

(b) Affected ADs

    This AD affects AD 2014-16-16, Amendment 39-17940 (79 FR 48018,
August 15, 2014) (``AD 2014-16-16'').

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to the Embraer S.A. airplanes identified in
paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) of this AD, certificated in any
category.
    (1) Model ERJ 190-100 STD, -100 LR, and -100 IGW airplanes; and
Model ERJ 190-200 STD, -200 LR, and -200 IGW airplanes; as
identified in Embraer Service Bulletin 190-54-0016, Revision 04,
dated December 7, 2017.
    (2) Model ERJ 190-100 ECJ airplanes as identified in Embraer
Service Bulletin 190LIN-54-0008, Revision 02, dated May 9, 2018.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 54, Nacelles/
pylons.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by reports of bushing migration and loss of
nut torque on the engine pylon lower inboard and outboard link
fittings. We are issuing this AD to prevent loss of integrity of the
engine pylon lower link fittings, possibly resulting in separation
of the engine from the wing.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Definitions

    (1) Group 1 airplanes are defined as: Serial numbers 19000002,
19000004, 19000006 through 19000108 inclusive, 19000110 through
19000139 inclusive, 19000141 through 19000158 inclusive, 19000160
through 19000176 inclusive, 19000178 through 19000202 inclusive,
19000204 through 19000224 inclusive, 19000226 through 19000235
inclusive, 19000237 through 19000242 inclusive, 19000244 through
19000260 inclusive, 19000262 through 19000277 inclusive, 19000279
through 19000295 inclusive, 19000297 through 19000306 inclusive,
19000308 through 19000316 inclusive, 19000318 through 19000361
inclusive, 19000363 through 19000437 inclusive, 19000439 through
19000452 inclusive, 19000454 through 19000466 inclusive, 19000468
through 19000525 inclusive, 19000527 through 19000533 inclusive,
19000535 through 19000558 inclusive, 19000560 through 19000570
inclusive, 19000572 through 19000610 inclusive, 19000612 through
19000631 inclusive, and 19000633 through 19000636 inclusive.
    (2) Group 2 airplanes are defined as: Serial numbers 19000637
through 19000640 inclusive, 19000642 through 19000655 inclusive,
19000657 through 19000682 inclusive, 19000684 through 19000686
inclusive, 19000688, 19000689, and 19000692 through 19000694
inclusive.

(h) Left-Hand (LH) Pylon Lower Link Fitting Attaching Parts
Modification

    (1) For Group 1 airplanes as identified in paragraph (g)(1) of
this AD: Within 15,000 flight hours or 48 months after the effective
date of this AD, whichever occurs later, replace the plain bushings
of the lower inboard and outboard link fittings, install the lock
washers with the L-profile on the fuse pin's head side, and replace
the internal shear pin of the fuse pins with new ones having larger
head diameter, in accordance with ``PART I'' of the Accomplishment
Instructions of Embraer Service Bulletin 190-54-0016, Revision 04,
dated December 7, 2017.
    (2) For Group 2 airplanes as identified in paragraph (g)(2) of
this AD: Within 15,000 flight hours or 48 months after the effective
date of this AD, whichever occurs later, replace the internal shear
pin of the fuse pins with new ones having larger head diameter, in
accordance with ``PART I'' of the Accomplishment Instructions of
Embraer Service Bulletin 190-54-0016, Revision 04, dated December 7,
2017.
    (3) For airplanes identified as Group 1 in Embraer Service
Bulletin 190LIN-54-0008, Revision 02, dated May 9, 2018: Within 48
months after the effective date of this AD, replace the plain
bushings of the lower inboard and outboard link fittings, install
the lock washers with the L-profile on the fuse pin's head side, and
replace the internal shear pin of the fuse pins with new ones having
larger head diameter, in accordance with ``PART I'' of the
Accomplishment Instructions of Embraer Service Bulletin 190LIN-54-
0008, Revision 02, dated May 9, 2018.
    (4) For airplanes identified as Group 2 in Embraer Service
Bulletin 190LIN-54-0008, Revision 02, dated May 9, 2018: Within 48
months after the effective date of this AD, replace the internal
shear pin of the fuse pins with new ones having larger head
diameter, in accordance with ``PART I'' of the Accomplishment
Instructions of Embraer Service Bulletin 190LIN-54-0008, Revision
02, dated May 9, 2018.

(i) Right-Hand (RH) Pylon Lower Link Fitting Attaching Parts
Modification

    (1) For Group 1 airplanes as identified in paragraph (g)(1) of
this AD: Within 15,000 flight hours or 48 months after the effective
date of this AD, whichever occurs later, replace the plain bushings
of the lower inboard and outboard link fittings, install the lock
washers with the L-profile on the fuse pin's head side, and replace
the internal shear pin of the fuse pins with new ones having larger
head diameter, in accordance with ``PART II'' of the Accomplishment
Instructions of Embraer Service Bulletin 190-54-0016, Revision 04,
dated December 7, 2017.
    (2) For Group 2 airplanes as identified in paragraph (g)(2) of
this AD: Within 15,000 flight hours or 48 months after the effective
date of this AD, whichever occurs later, replace the internal shear
pin of the fuse pins with new ones having larger head diameter, in
accordance with ``PART II'' of the Accomplishment Instructions of
Embraer Service Bulletin 190-54-0016, Revision 04, dated December 7,
2017.
    (3) For airplanes identified as Group 1 in Embraer Service
Bulletin 190LIN-54-0008, Revision 02, dated May 9, 2018: Within 48
months after the effective date of this AD, replace the plain
bushings of the lower inboard and outboard link fittings, install
the lock washers with the L-profile on the fuse pin's head side, and
replace the internal shear pin of the fuse pins with new ones having
larger head diameter, in accordance with ``PART II'' of the
Accomplishment Instructions of Embraer Service Bulletin 190LIN-54-
0008, Revision 02, dated May 9, 2018.
    (4) For airplanes identified as Group 2 in Embraer Service
Bulletin 190LIN-54-0008, Revision 02, dated May 9, 2018: Within 48
months after the effective date of this AD, replace the internal
shear pin of the fuse pins with new ones having larger head
diameter, in accordance with ``PART II'' of the Accomplishment
Instructions of Embraer Service Bulletin 190LIN-54-0008, Revision
02, dated May 9, 2018.

(j) Terminating Action for AD 2014-16-16

    (1) Accomplishing the actions required by paragraph (h)(1) or
(h)(2) of this AD, as applicable, terminates the requirements of
paragraphs (g)(1), (h)(1), and (i)(1) of AD 2014-16-16 for that LH
pylon lower link fitting.
    (2) Accomplishing the actions required by paragraph (h)(3) or
(h)(4) of this AD, as applicable, terminates the requirements of
paragraphs (g)(2), (h)(2), and (i)(2) of AD 2014-16-16 for that LH
pylon lower link fitting.
    (3) Accomplishing the actions required by paragraph (i)(1) or
(i)(2) of this AD, as applicable, terminates the requirements of
paragraphs (g)(1), (h)(1), and (i)(1) of AD 2014-16-16 for that RH
pylon lower link fitting.
    (4) Accomplishing the actions required by paragraph (i)(3) or
(i)(4) of this AD, as applicable, terminates the requirements of
paragraphs (g)(2), (h)(2), and (i)(2) of AD 2014-16-16 for that RH
pylon lower link fitting.

(k) Credit for Previous Actions

    (1) This paragraph provides credit for actions required by
paragraphs (h)(1), (h)(2), (i)(1), and (i)(2) of this AD, if those
actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using
Embraer Service Bulletin 190-54-0016, dated September 22, 2015;
Embraer Service Bulletin 190-54-0016, Revision 01, dated January 18,
2016; Embraer Service Bulletin 190-54-0016, Revision 02, dated
September 12, 2016; or Embraer Service Bulletin 190-54-0016,
Revision 03, dated May 18, 2017.
    (2) This paragraph provides credit for actions required by
paragraphs (h)(3), (h)(4), (i)(3), and (i)(4) of this AD, if those
actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using
Embraer Service Bulletin 190LIN-54-0008, dated October 2, 2015; or
Embraer Service Bulletin 190LIN-54-0008, Revision 01, dated April
13, 2017.

(l) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
International Section, Transport Standards 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 International Section, send it to the attention of
the person identified in paragraph (m)(2) of this AD. Information
may be emailed to: [email protected]. Before using any
approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or
lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight
standards district office/certificate holding district office.
    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD
to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer, the action must be
accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, International
Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA; or the Ag[ecirc]ncia
Nacional de Avia[ccedil][atilde]o Civil (ANAC); or ANAC's authorized
Designee. If approved by the ANAC Designee, the approval must
include the Designee's authorized signature.

    (3) Required for Compliance (RC): For service information that
contains steps that are labeled as RC, the provisions of paragraphs
(l)(3)(i) and (l)(3)(ii) of this AD apply.
    (i) The steps labeled as RC, including substeps under an RC step
and any figures identified in an RC step, must be done to comply
with the AD. If a step or substep is labeled ``RC Exempt,'' then the
RC requirement is removed from that step or substep. An AMOC is
required for any deviations to RC steps, including substeps and
identified figures.
    (ii) Steps not labeled as RC may be deviated from using accepted
methods in accordance with the operator's maintenance or inspection
program without obtaining approval of an AMOC, provided the RC
steps, including substeps and identified figures, can still be done
as specified, and the airplane can be put back in an airworthy
condition.

(m) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information
(MCAI) Brazilian AD 2017-04-01, effective April 25, 2017, for
related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the
internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating
Docket No. FAA-2018-0509.
    (2) For more information about this AD, contact Krista Greer,
Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport Standards
Branch, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; phone and
fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

(n) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed
in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) Embraer Service Bulletin 190-54-0016, Revision 04, dated
December 7, 2017.
    (ii) Embraer Service Bulletin 190LIN-54-0008, Revision 02, dated
May 9, 2018.
    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Embraer S.A., Technical Publications Section (PC 060), Av.
Brigadeiro Faria Lima, 2170--Putim--12227-901 S[atilde]o Jose dos
Campos--SP--Brazil; phone: +55 12 3927-5852 or +55 12 3309-0732;
fax: +55 12 3927-7546; email: [email protected]; internet:
http://www.flyembraer.com.
    (4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport
Standards Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For
information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call
206-231-3195.
    (5) You may view this service information that is incorporated
by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA). For information on the availability of this material at
NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued in Des Moines, Washington, on September 14, 2018.
John P. Piccola,
Acting Director, System Oversight Division, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2018-20929 Filed 9-27-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P