[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 242 (Tuesday, December 21, 2021)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 72190-72193]
[FR Doc No: 2021-27551]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2020-0022; FRL-9123-01-OCSPP]

Spinetoram; Pesticide Tolerances

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes tolerances for residues of
spinetoram in or on multiple commodities which are identified and
discussed later in this document. Clarke Mosquito Control Products,
Inc., requested these tolerances under the Federal Food, Drug, and
Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).

DATES: This regulation is effective December 21, 2021. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received on or before February 22, 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-2020-0022, 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 is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number for the OPP
Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Due to the public health concerns related to COVID-19, the EPA
Docket Center (EPA/DC) and Reading Room is closed to visitors with
limited exceptions. The staff continues to provide remote customer
service via email, phone, and webform. For the latest status
information on EPA/DC services and docket access, visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Marietta Echeverria, 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-2020-0022 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
February 22, 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-2020-0022, 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/contacts.html.
    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 March 3, 2020 (85 FR 12454) (FRL-10005-
58), 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
9F8804) by Clarke Mosquito Control Products, Inc., 675 Sidwell Court,
St. Charles, IL 60174. The petition requested that 40 CFR 180.635 be
amended by establishing tolerances for residues of the insecticide
spinetoram, expressed as a combination of XDE-175-J: 1-H-as-
indaceno[3,2-d]oxacyclododecin-7,15-dione, 2-[(6-deoxy-3-O-ethyl-2,4-
di-O-methyl-mannopyranosyl) oxy]-13-[[(2R,5S,6R)-5-
(dimethylamino)tetrahydro-6-methyl-2H-pyran-2-yl]oxy]-9-ethyl-
2,3,3a,4,5,5a,5b,6,9,10,11,12,13,14,16a,16b-hexadecahydro-14-methyl-,
(2R,3aR, 5aR,5bS,9S,13S,14R,16aS,16bR); XDE-175-L: 1-H-as-indaceno[3,2-
d]oxacyclododecin-7,15-dione, 2-[(6deoxy-3-O-ethyl-2,4-di-O-methyl-
[alpha]-L-mannopyranosyl)oxy]-13-[[(2R,5S,6R)-
5(dimethylamino)tetrahydro-6-methyl-2H-pyran-2-yl];oxy]-9-ethyl-
2,3,3a,5a,5b,6,9,10,11,12,13,14,16a,16b-tetradecahydro-4,14-dimethyl-
(2S,3aR,5aS,5bS,9S,13S,14R,16aS,16bS); ND-J:
(2R,3aR,5aR,5bS,9S,13S,14R,16aS,16bR)-9-ethyl-14-methyl-13[[(2S,5S,6R)-
6-methyl-5-(methylamino)tetrahydro-2H-pyran-2-yl]oxy]-7,15-dioxo-
2,3,3a,4,5,5a,5b,6,7,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16a,16b-octadecahydro-1H-as-
indaceno[3,2-d]oxacyclododecin-2-yl-6-deoxy-3-O-ethyl-2,4-di-O-methyl-
[alpha]-L-mannopyranoside; and NF-J: (2R,3S,6S)-6-
([(2R,3aR,5aR,5bS,9S,13S,14R,16aS,16bR)-2-[(6-deoxy-3-O-ethyl-2,4-di-O-
methyl-[alpha]-L-mannopyranosyl)oxy]-9-ethyl-14-methyl-7,15-dioxo-
2,3,3a,4,5,5a,5b,6,7,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16a,16b-octadecahydro-1H-as-
indaceno[3,2-d]oxacyclododecin-13-yl]oxy)-2-methyltetrahydro-2H-pyran-
3-yl(methyl)formamide, in or on fish at 4.0 parts per million (ppm);
fish-shellfish, crustacean at 4.0 ppm; fish-shellfish, mollusc at 4.0
ppm; grass, forage, fodder and hay, group 17, forage at 10.0 ppm;
grass, forage, fodder and hay, group 17, hay at 5.0 ppm; animal feed,
nongrass, group 18, forage at 35.0 ppm; and animal feed, nongrass,
group 18, hay at 30.0 ppm to account for incidental residues from the
proposed use of spinetoram as a mosquito larvicide in aquatic areas and
standing water within agricultural sites. That document referenced a
summary of the petition prepared by Clarke Mosquito Control Products,
Inc., the petitioner, which is available in the docket, https://www.regulations.gov. Two non-substantive comments were received on the
notice of filing and the notice of receipt and did not result in
changes to EPA's decision. Based upon review of the data supporting the
petition, EPA has removed the trailing zeros on the requested tolerance
values and revised certain commodity terms. The reason for these
changes is explained in Unit 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 spinetoram, including exposure resulting from
the tolerances established by this action. EPA's assessment of
exposures and risks associated with spinetoram 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 rulemakings of the same pesticide
chemical. Where scientific information concerning a particular chemical
remains unchanged, the content of those sections would not vary between
tolerance rulemakings, 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 for spinetoram,
in which EPA concluded, based on the available information, that there
is a reasonable certainty that no harm would result from aggregate
exposure to spinetoram and established tolerances for residues of that
chemical. EPA is incorporating previously published sections of those
rulemakings that remain unchanged as described further in this
rulemaking. While these tolerances are being established for spinetoram
use as a larvicide, the previous spinetoram tolerance rulemaking was
based on the databases for both spinetoram and spinosad.
    Toxicological profile. Spinetoram and spinosad are considered by
EPA to be toxicologically identical for human health risk assessment
based on their very similar chemical structures and similarity of the
toxicological databases for currently available studies. Therefore, the
Agency has assessed and summarized the toxicological profile for both
together. For a discussion of the Toxicological Profile of spinetoram
and spinosad, see Unit III.A. of the previous spinetoram tolerance
rulemaking published in the Federal Register of August 8, 2018 (83 FR
38976) (FRL-9978-83).
    Toxicological points of departure/Levels of concern. Spinetoram and
spinosad should be considered toxicologically identical in the same
manner that metabolites are generally considered toxicologically
identical to the parent. As a result, studies from both toxicological
databases were considered for endpoint selection. For a summary of the
Toxicological Points of Departure/Levels of Concern used for the safety
assessment, see Unit III.B. of the August 8, 2018 rulemaking.
    Exposure assessment. In evaluating dietary exposure to spinetoram
and spinosad, EPA considered exposure under the petitioned-for
spinetoram tolerances as well as all existing spinetoram and spinosad
tolerances. Spinosad is currently registered for use as a mosquito
larvicide in aquatic areas and standing water within agricultural
sites, and there are existing tolerances for incidental residues of
spinosad in or on the same commodities identified in this action.
Because application rates for the proposed mosquito larvicide use of
spinetoram are lower than spinosad, incidental residues of spinetoram
in or on these commodities will not exceed the existing spinosad
tolerances. Moreover, because spinetoram and spinosad are used to
control similar pests and are not likely to be used in combination with
each other, EPA has concluded it would overstate exposure to assume
that residues of both spinetoram and spinosad would appear on the same
commodities. Therefore, much of the dietary exposure assessment remains
unchanged from the August 8, 2018 rulemaking, which included the
existing spinosad tolerances.
    The currently registered maximum application rate for spinosad was
used to assess residential exposure, as this rate is higher than the
proposed application rate for spinetoram. The residential assessment
for spinosad is protective for spinetoram for the reasons described
above.
    For a description of the rest of the EPA approach to and
assumptions for the exposure assessment, including with respect to
dietary exposure, residential exposure, and cumulative effects, see
Unit III.C. of the August 8, 2018 rulemaking.
    Safety factor for infants and children. EPA continues to conclude
that there is reliable data showing that the safety of infants and
children is adequately protected if the Food Quality Protection Act
safety factor is reduced from 10X to 1X. The reasons for that
determination are articulated in Unit III.D. of the August 8, 2018
rulemaking.
    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 (PODs) 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 conducted as
toxicological effects attributable to a single dose were not
identified. Chronic dietary risks are below the Agency's level of
concern of 100% of the cPAD: Children 1 to 2 years old are the
population subgroup with the highest exposure estimate at 72% of the
cPAD. The short-term aggregate MOE (food, water, and residential) is
200 for children 1 to less than 2 years old and 840 for adults. These
MOEs do not exceed the level of concern, which are MOEs of 100 or
below. The short-term aggregate risk assessment is protective of
intermediate-term exposure as the short-term and intermediate-term PODs
are identical. EPA has also concluded that spinetoram is not expected
to pose a cancer risk to humans based on the lack of evidence of
carcinogenicity in the database.
    Determination of safety. 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 spinetoram residues.
More detailed information about the Agency's analysis can be found at
https://www.regulations.gov in the document titled ``Spinetoram: Human
Health Risk Assessment in Support of Proposed New Granular Sand
Formulation for Use as a Mosquito/Larvicide and Proposed Tolerance for
Residues of Spinetoram on Fish; Fish-shellfish, Crustacean; Fish-
Shellfish, Mollusc; Grass, Forage, Fodder and Hay, Group 17, Forage;
Grass, Forage, Fodder and Hay, Group 17, Hay; Animal Feed, Nongrass,
Group 18, Forage; and Animal Feed, Nongrass, Group 18, Hay'' in docket
ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2020-0022.

IV. Other Considerations

A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    For a discussion of the available analytical enforcement method,
see Unit IV.A. of the August 8, 2018 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). EPA may establish a tolerance that is different from
a Codex MRL; however, FFDCA section 408(b)(4) requires that EPA explain
the reasons for departing from the Codex level.
    The Codex has not established MRLs for spinetoram on the
commodities identified in this action.

C. Revisions to Petitioned-For Tolerances

    EPA has removed the trailing zeros on the requested tolerance
values to be consistent with Organization for Economic Co-operation and
Development (OECD) Rounding Class Practice. EPA has also revised the
commodity terms for fish, freshwater, finfish; fish, shellfish,
crustacean; and fish, shellfish, mollusc to be consistent with the
Agency's preferred vocabulary terms for these commodities; see the
document titled ``Preferred Vocabulary for Establishing Pesticide
Tolerances'' dated September 27, 2017 in docket ID

number EPA-HQ-OPP-2020-0022 at https://www.regulations.gov.

V. Conclusion

    Therefore, tolerances are established for residues of spinetoram,
in or on fish, freshwater, finfish at 4 ppm; fish, shellfish,
crustacean at 4 ppm; fish, shellfish, mollusc at 4 ppm; grass, forage,
fodder and hay, group 17, forage at 10 ppm; grass, forage, fodder and
hay, group 17, hay at 5 ppm; animal feed, nongrass, group 18, forage at
35 ppm; and animal feed, nongrass, group 18, hay at 30 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 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: December 10, 2021.
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. In Sec.  180.635, amend table 1 to paragraph (a) by adding in
alphabetical order the entries ``Animal feed, nongrass, group 18,
forage''; ``Animal feed, nongrass, group 18, hay''; ``Fish, freshwater,
finfish''; ``Fish, shellfish, crustacean''; ``Fish, shellfish,
mollusc''; ``Grass, forage, fodder and hay, group 17, forage'' and
``Grass, forage, fodder and hay, group 17, hay'' to read as follows:

Sec.  180.635  Spinetoram; tolerances for residues.

    (a) * * *

                        Table 1 to Paragraph (a)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Parts per
                        Commodity                             million
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                * * * * *
Animal feed, nongrass, group 18, forage.................              35
Animal feed, nongrass, group 18, hay....................              30

                                * * * * *
Fish, freshwater, finfish...............................               4
Fish, shellfish, crustacean.............................               4
Fish, shellfish, mollusk................................               4

                                * * * * *
Grass, forage, fodder and hay, group 17, forage.........              10
Grass, forage, fodder and hay, group 17, hay............               5

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

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2021-27551 Filed 12-20-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 118 (Wednesday, June 21, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 28233-28234]
[FR Doc No: 2017-12716]

========================================================================
Rules and Regulations
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains regulatory documents
having general applicability and legal effect, most of which are keyed
to and codified in the Code of Federal Regulations, which is published
under 50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.

The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by the Superintendent of Documents.

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

Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 118 / Wednesday, June 21, 2017 /
Rules and Regulations

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2016-9374; Airspace Docket No. 16-AGL-23]

Modification of VOR Federal Airways V-55, V-63, V-177, V-228, and
V-246 in the Vicinity of Stevens Point, WI

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action modifies five VHF Omnidirectional Range (VOR)
Federal airways in the vicinity of Stevens Point, WI. The FAA is taking
this action due to the planned decommissioning of the Stevens Point, WI
(STE), VHF Omnidirectional Range/Tactical Air Navigation (VORTAC)
navigation aid (NAVAID) which provides navigation guidance for portions
of the ATS routes amended by this action. This action will enhance the
safe and efficient management of aircraft in the Stevens Point, WI,
area.

DATES: Effective date 0901 UTC, August 17, 2017. The Director of the
Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under
Title 1, Code of Federal Regulations, part 51, subject to the annual
revision of FAA Order 7400.11 and publication of conforming amendments.

ADDRESSES: FAA Order 7400.11A, Airspace Designations and Reporting
Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. For further information, you can
contact the Airspace Policy Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-
8783. The Order is also available for inspection at the National
Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the
availability of FAA Order 7400.11A at NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go
to http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal-regulations/ibr_locations.html.
    FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is
published yearly and effective on September 15.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Colby Abbott, Airspace Policy Group,
Office of Airspace Services, Federal Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-
8783.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106
describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII,
Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's
authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described
in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section,
the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of
the airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the
efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that
authority as it modifies the National Airspace System (NAS) route
structure as necessary to preserve the safe and efficient flow of air
traffic within the NAS.

History

    On February 27, 2017, the FAA published in the Federal Register a
notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) (82 FR 11857), Docket No. FAA-
2016-9374, to amend VOR Federal airways V-55, V-63, V-177, V-228, and
V-246 due to the planned decommissioning of the Stevens Point, WI,
VORTAC. Interested parties were invited to participate in this
rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal. No
comments were received.
    VOR Federal airways are published in paragraph 6010(a) of FAA Order
7400.11A, dated August 3, 2016, and effective September 15, 2016, which
is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The VOR Federal airways
listed in this document will be subsequently published in the Order.

Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

    This document amends FAA Order 7400.11A, Airspace Designations and
Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2016, and effective September 15,
2016. FAA Order 7400.11A is publicly available as listed in the
ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order 7400.11A lists Class A,
B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and
reporting points.

Differences From the NPRM

    In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to remove the V-177 airway segment
between the Madison, WI (MAD), VOR/DME and the Wausau, WI (AUW),
VORTAC. That proposed amendment incorrectly listed the intended
Madison, WI, NAVAID with the identifier ``MAD'' and as a VOR/DME.
However, the NAVAID identifier ``MAD'' identifies the Madison, CT, VOR/
DME. The correct identifier and NAVAID type for the intended Madison,
WI, NAVAID is ``MSN'' and ``VORTAC''. The corrected V-177 amendment is
to remove the airway segment between the Madison, WI (MSN), VORTAC and
the Wausau, WI (AUW), VORTAC.

The Rule

    The FAA is amending Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR)
part 71 to modify the descriptions of VOR Federal airways V-55, V-63,
V-177, V-228, and V-246 due to the planned decommissioning of the
Stevens Point, WI, VORTAC. The route changes are described below.
    V-55: V-55 extends between the Dayton, OH, VOR and the Bismarck,
ND, VOR. The airway segment between the intersection of the Green Bay,
WI, VORTAC 270[deg] and Oshkosh, WI, VORTAC 339[deg] radials (the BIPID
fix) and the Eau Claire, WI, VORTAC is removed. The unaffected portions
of the airway remain as charted.
    V-63: V-63 extends between the Bowie, TX, VORTAC and the Houghton,
MI, VOR/DME. The airway segment between the Oshkosh, WI, VORTAC and the
Wausau, WI, VORTAC is removed. The unaffected portions of the airway
remain as charted.
    V-177: V-177 extends between the Joliet, IL, VORTAC and the Ely,
MN, VOR/DME. The airway segment between the Madison, WI, VORTAC and

the Wausau, WI, VORTAC is removed. The unaffected portions of the
airway remain as charted.
    V-228: V-228 extends between the Stevens Point, WI, VORTAC and the
Gipper, MI, VORTAC. The airway segment between the Stevens Point, WI,
VORTAC and the Dells, WI, VORTAC is removed. The unaffected portions of
the airway remain as charted.
    V-246: V-246 extends between the Janesville, WI, VOR/DME and
Stevens Point, WI, VORTAC. The airway segment between the intersection
of the Nodine, MN, VORTAC 055[deg] and Eau Claire, WI, VORTAC 134[deg]
radials (the MILTO fix) and the Stevens Point, WI, VORTAC is removed.
The unaffected portions of the airway remain as charted.
    All radials in the route descriptions below are stated relative to
True north.

Regulatory Notices and Analyses

    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
Department of Transportation (DOT) Regulatory Policies and Procedures
(44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation
of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal.
Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic
procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when
promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Environmental Review

    The FAA has determined that this action of modifying five VOR
Federal airways qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National
Environmental Policy Act and its implementing regulations at 40 CFR
part 1500, and in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, Environmental
Impacts: Policies and Procedures, Paragraph 5-6.5a, which categorically
excludes from further environmental impact review rulemaking actions
that designate or modify classes of airspace areas, airways, routes,
and reporting points (see 14 CFR part 71, Designation of Class A, B, C,
D, and E Airspace Areas; Air Traffic Service Routes; and Reporting
Points). As such, this action is not expected to cause any potentially
significant environmental impacts. In accordance with FAA Order
1050.1F, paragraph 5-2 regarding Extraordinary Circumstances, The FAA
has reviewed this action for factors and circumstances in which a
normally categorically excluded action may have a significant
environmental impact requiring further analysis. The FAA determined
that no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of
an environmental assessment or environmental impact study.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

Adoption of the Amendment

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

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

0
1. The authority citation for part 71 continues to read as follows:

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

Sec.  71.1   [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.11A,
Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2016 and
effective September 15, 2016, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 6010(a) Domestic VOR Federal Airways.

* * * * *

V-55 [Amended]

From Dayton, OH; Fort Wayne, IN; Goshen, IN; Gipper, MI; Keeler, MI;
Pullman, MI; Muskegon, MI; INT Muskegon 327[deg] and Green Bay, WI,
116[deg] radials; Green Bay; to INT Green Bay 270[deg] and Oshkosh,
WI, 339[deg] radials. From Eau Claire, WI; to Siren, WI. From Park
Rapids, MN; Grand Forks, ND; INT Grand Forks 239[deg] and Bismarck,
ND, 067[deg] radials; to Bismarck.
* * * * *

V-63 [Amended]

From Bowie, TX; Texoma, OK; McAlester, OK; Razorback, AR;
Springfield, MO; Hallsville, MO; Quincy, IL; Burlington, IA; Moline,
IL; Davenport, IA; Rockford, IL; Janesville, WI; Badger, WI; to
Oshkosh, WI. From Wausau, WI; Rhinelander, WI; to Houghton, MI.
Excluding that airspace at and above 10,000 feet MSL from 5 NM north
to 46 NM north of Quincy, IL, when the Howard West MOA is active.
* * * * *

V-177 [Amended]

From Joliet, IL; Janesville, WI; to Madison, WI. From Wausau, WI;
Hayward, WI; Duluth, MN; to Ely, MN.
* * * * *

V-228 [Amended]

From Dells, WI; Madison, WI; INT Madison 138[deg] and Chicago
O'Hare, IL, 316[deg] radials; INT Chicago O'Hare 316[deg] and
Northbrook, IL, 291[deg] radials; Northbrook; INT Northbrook
110[deg] and Gipper, MI, 290[deg] radials; to Gipper.
* * * * *

V-246 [Amended]

From Janesville, WI; Dubuque, IA; Waukon, IA; Nodine, MN; to INT
Nodine 055[deg] and Eau Claire, WI, 134[deg] radials.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on June 13, 2017.
Rodger A. Dean Jr.,
Manager, Airspace Policy Group.
[FR Doc. 2017-12716 Filed 6-20-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 225 (Monday, November 23, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 73034-73035]
[FR Doc No: 2015-29706]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-76451; File No. SR-ISE-2015-37)

Self-Regulatory Organizations; International Securities Exchange,
LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule
Change To Amend the Schedule of Fees

November 17, 2015.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on November 2, 2015, the International Securities Exchange, LLC
(the ``Exchange'' or the ``ISE'') filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission the proposed rule change, as described in Items I,
II, and III below, which items have been prepared by the self-
regulatory organization. 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

    The ISE proposes to amend the Schedule of Fees to introduce a per
trade and per month fee cap for strategy orders as described in more
detail below. The text of the proposed rule change is available on the
Exchange's Web site (http://www.ise.com), at the principal office of
the Exchange, 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, the self-regulatory organization
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. The self-regulatory organization
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
    The Exchange proposes to amend the Schedule of Fees to introduce a
strategy fee cap program that provides a cap on Market Maker, Non-ISE
Market Maker, Firm Proprietary/Broker-Dealer, and Professional Customer
fees charged for six types of strategy trades: Reversals, conversions,
jelly rolls, mergers, short stock interest, and box spreads. These
strategy trades are defined below:
    ``Reversal''--A reversal strategy is defined as transactions that
employ calls, puts and the underlying security to lock in a nearly risk
free profit. Reversals are established by combining a short security
position with a short put and a long call position that shares the same
strike and expiration.
    ``Conversion''--A conversion strategy is defined as transactions
that employ calls, puts and the underlying security to lock in a nearly
risk free profit. Conversions employ long positions in the underlying
security that accompany long puts and short calls sharing the same
strike and expiration.
    ``Jelly Roll''--A jelly roll strategy is defined as a long calendar
call spread combined with the same short calendar put spread, or vice
versa. This option strategy aims to profit from a time value spread
through the purchase and sale of two call and two put options, each
with different expiration dates. A jelly roll is created by entering
into two separate positions simultaneously. One position involves
buying a put and selling a call with the same strike price and
expiration. The second position involves selling a put and buying a
call, with the same strike price, but a different expiration from the
first position.
    ``Merger''--A merger strategy is defined as transactions done to
achieve a merger arbitrage involving the purchase, sale and exercise of
options of the same class and expiration date, each executed prior to
the date on which shareholders of record are required to elect their
respective form of consideration, i.e., cash or stock.
    ``Short Stock Interest''--A short stock interest strategy is
defined as transactions done to achieve a short stock interest
arbitrage involving the purchase, sale and exercise of in-the-money
options of the same class.
    ``Box Spread''--A box spread strategy is defined as transactions
involving a long call option and a short put option at one strike,
combined with a short call option and long put at a different strike,
to create synthetic long and synthetic short stock positions,
respectively.
    Because the strategy trades referenced above are commonly executed
in large volumes with profit margins that are generally narrow, the
Exchange proposes to cap the transaction fees associated with such
executions at $750 per trade for orders executed on the same day in the
same option class.\3\ In addition, strategy trades will be subject to a
monthly cap of $25,000 per member for all strategy executions. All
eligible volume from affiliated members will be aggregated for purposes
of the fee cap, provided there is at least 75% common ownership between
the members as reflected on each member's Form BD, Schedule A. If a
member submits an order that qualifies for the per trade or per month
fee cap for strategy orders, only the amount actually paid for those
trades (i.e., the capped amounts) will be counted towards the Crossing
Fee Cap, if applicable.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Members must submit a form provided by the Exchange to
identify their strategy trades.
    \4\ For example, if a member submits a strategy order that would
normally incur a fee of $2,000 but is capped at $750 per trade, only
the $750 that is actually paid by the member is counted towards the
Crossing Fee Cap, if applicable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Several other options exchanges offer similar strategy cap programs
that reduce members' fees when executing strategy trades.\5\ The
Exchange believes that by adopting a similar program to lower fees for
strategy trades, the Exchange will be able to attract additional
liquidity to the benefit of all market participants that trade on the
Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See e.g. Nasdaq OMX Phlx (``Phlx'') Schedule of Fees,
Section II, Multiply Listed Options Fees, Strategies Defined.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the provisions of Section 6 of the Act,\6\ in general, and Section
6(b)(4) of the Act,\7\ in particular, in that it is designed to provide
for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other
charges among its members and other persons using its facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that it is reasonable and equitable to
introduce a per trade and per month fee cap for strategy trades as this
will reduce the fees charged to members that execute their strategy
trades on the Exchange. The proposed strategy fee cap is designed to
compete with fee caps in place on other options exchanges. By lowering
the cost of strategy executions on the Exchange, the Exchange intends
to attract this order flow, which will

increase available liquidity to the benefit all members and investors
that trade on the Exchange. The Exchange further believes that adopting
a fee cap for strategy trades is not unfairly discriminatory because
all Market Maker, Non-ISE Market Maker, Firm Proprietary/Broker-Dealer,
and Professional Customer that execute strategy trades on the Exchange
will have an opportunity to benefit from this cap. The Exchange does
not believe that it is unfairly discriminatory not to apply a similar
cap for Priority Customer orders as Priority Customers do not generally
enter strategy orders, which involve large volume trades, and already
receive free or heavily discounted execution fees and therefore would
not benefit from a strategy trade fee cap.
    The Exchange also believes that it is reasonable equitable and not
unfairly discriminatory to aggregate affiliates for purposes of the
monthly fee cap for strategy orders as the language permitting
aggregation of volume amongst corporate affiliates is intended to avoid
disparate treatment of firms that have divided their various business
activities between separate corporate entities as compared to firms
that operate those business activities within a single corporate
entity. In this regard, the Exchange notes that the proposed definition
of ``affiliate'' is consistent with the definition used in other parts
of the Schedule of Fees.

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

    In accordance with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act,\8\ the Exchange does
not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on
intermarket or intramarket competition that is not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange
believes that the proposed strategy cap is pro-competitive as it is
designed to compete with strategy caps already in place on other
markets, and will lower the fees charged to members that execute
strategy trades on the Exchange. The Exchange operates in a highly
competitive market in which market participants can readily direct
their order flow to competing venues. In such an environment, the
Exchange must continually review, and consider adjusting, its fees and
rebates to remain competitive with other exchanges. For the reasons
described above, the Exchange believes that the proposed fee changes
reflect this competitive environment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange has not solicited, and does not intend to solicit,
comments on this proposed rule change. The Exchange has not received
any unsolicited written comments from members or other interested
parties.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act \9\ and subparagraph (f)(2) of Rule 19b-4
thereunder,\10\ because it establishes a due, fee, or other charge
imposed by ISE.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \10\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or 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 Email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File No. SR-ISE-2015-37 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-ISE-2015-37. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email 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 Commissions Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be 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 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of the ISE. 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-ISE-2015-37 and should be submitted by
December 14, 2015.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-29706 Filed 11-20-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 72 (Thursday, April 14, 2022)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 22146-22149]
[FR Doc No: 2022-07887]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA 2022-0460; Project Identifier AD-2021-00824-R]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Bell Textron Inc., Helicopters and
Various Restricted Category Helicopters

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD)
for Bell Textron Inc., Model 204B, 205A, 205A-1, 205B, 210, 212, 412,
412CF, and 412EP helicopters and various restricted category
helicopters. This proposed AD was prompted by reports of cracks found
on the main transmission support case. This proposed AD would require
repetitive inspections of the main transmission housing assembly for
cracks, pitting, and corrosion and depending on the results, corrective
action. The FAA is proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition on
these products.

DATES: The FAA must receive comments on this proposed AD by May 31,
2022.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR
11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail address above between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For Bell Helicopter service information identified in this AD,
contact Bell Textron, Inc., P.O. Box 482, Fort Worth, TX, 76101, United
States; phone<PHONE_NUMBER> or<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email [email protected]; or at https://www.bellflight.com/support/contact-support. You may purchase the ASTM International
standard from ASTM International at https://www.astm.org/. You may view
this service information at the FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel,
Southwest Region, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Room 6N-321, Fort Worth, TX
76177. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA,
call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket at https://www.regulations.gov by
searching for and locating Docket No. FAA 2022-0460; or in person at
Docket Operations between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this NPRM, any comments
received, and other information. The street address for Docket
Operations is listed above.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Hye Yoon Jang, Aerospace Engineer,
Delegation Oversight Section, DSCO Branch, Compliance & Airworthiness
Division, FAA, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone
(817) 222-5190; email [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    The FAA invites you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed
under ADDRESSES. Include ``Docket No. FAA 2022-0460; Project Identifier
AD-2021-00824-R'' at the beginning of your comments. The most helpful
comments reference a specific portion of the proposal, explain the
reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. The FAA
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposal because of those comments.
    Except for Confidential Business Information (CBI) as described in
the following paragraph, and other information as described in 14 CFR
11.35, the FAA will post all comments received, without change, to
https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you
provide. The agency will also post a report summarizing each
substantive verbal contact received about this NPRM.

Confidential Business Information

    CBI is commercial or financial information that is both customarily
and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of
Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public
disclosure. If your comments responsive to this NPRM contain commercial
or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that
you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to
this NPRM, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted
comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission containing
CBI as ``PROPIN.'' The FAA will treat such marked submissions as
confidential under the FOIA, and they will not be placed in the public
docket of this NPRM. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to Hye
Yoon Jang, Aerospace Engineer, Delegation Oversight Section, DSCO
Branch, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, FAA, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy.,
Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
[email protected]. Any commentary that the FAA receives which is
not specifically designated as CBI will be placed in the public docket
for this rulemaking.

Background

    The FAA proposes to adopt a new AD for Bell Textron Inc., Model
204B, 205A, 205A-1, 205B, 210, 212, 412, 412CF, and 412EP helicopters
and the following restricted category helicopters:
     Model HH-1K helicopters; current type certificate holders
include but are not limited to Rotorcraft Development Corporation;
     Southwest Florida Aviation International, Inc., Model
SW205A-1 helicopters;

     Model TH-1F helicopters; current type certificate holders
include but are not limited to Robinson Air Crane Inc.; Rotorcraft
Development Corporation; and Tamarack Helicopters, Inc.;
     Model TH-1L helicopters; current type certificate holders
include but are not limited to Bell Textron Inc.; Overseas Aircraft
Support, Inc. (type certificate previously held by JTBAM, Inc.); and
Rotorcraft Development Corporation;
     Model UH-1A helicopters; current type certificate holders
include but are not limited to Richards Heavylift Helo, Inc.;
     Model UH-1B helicopters; current type certificate holders
include but are not limited to International Helicopters, Inc.;
Overseas Aircraft Support, Inc.; Red Tail Flying Services, LLC;
Richards Heavylift Helo, Inc.; Rotorcraft Development Corporation;
Southwest Florida Aviation International, Inc. (helicopters with an
SW204 or SW204HP designation are Southwest Florida Aviation
International, Inc., Model UH-1B helicopters); and WSH, LLC (type
certificate previously held by San Joaquin Helicopters);
     Model UH-1E helicopters; current type certificate holders
include but are not limited to Bell Textron Inc.; Overseas Aircraft
Support, Inc.; Rotorcraft Development Corporation; Smith Helicopters;
and West Coast Fabrications;
     Model UH-1F helicopters; current type certificate holders
include but are not limited to AST, Inc.; California Department of
Forestry; Robinson Air Crane, Inc.; Rotorcraft Development Corporation;
and Tamarack Helicopters, Inc.;
     Model UH-1H helicopters; current type certificate holders
include but are not limited to Arrow Falcon Exporters Inc.; Global
Helicopter Technology, Inc.; Hagglund Helicopters, LLC; JJASPP
Engineering Services, LLC; Northwest Rotorcraft, LLC; Overseas Aircraft
Support, Inc.; Richards Heavylift Helo, Inc.; Rotorcraft Development
Corporation; Southwest Florida Aviation International, Inc.
(helicopters with an SW205 designation are Southwest Florida Aviation
International, Inc., Model UH-1H helicopters); and Tamarack
Helicopters, Inc.;
     Model UH-1L helicopters; current type certificate holders
include but are not limited to Bell Textron Inc.; Overseas Aircraft
Support, Inc.; and Rotorcraft Development Corporation; and
     Model UH-1P helicopters; current type certificate holders
include but are not limited to Robinson Air Crane, Inc.; and Rotorcraft
Development Corporation.
    This proposed AD would require repetitive inspections of the main
transmission housing assembly. This proposed AD was prompted by reports
of main transmission support cases found cracked at one of the lateral
mounts. This condition, if not addressed, could result in cracking at
the upper or lower surfaces of the lateral mounts, loss of load
carrying capabilities of the main transmission, and subsequent loss of
control of the helicopter.

FAA's Determination

    The FAA is issuing this NPRM after determining that the unsafe
condition described previously is likely to exist or develop on other
products of the same type design.

Other Related Service Information

    The FAA reviewed Fluorescent Penetrant Inspection Method (ASTM
E1417) of Chapter 6--Non-Destructive Inspection, of Bell Helicopter,
Standard Practices Manual BHT-ALL-SPM, Revision 8, dated August 30,
2021, and ASTM International Standard Practice for Liquid Penetrant
Testing E1417/E1417M-21, dated September 1, 2021 (ASTM E1417). This
service information specifies procedures for the fluorescent penetrant
inspection.

Proposed AD Requirements in This NPRM

    This proposed AD would require, within 3,000 hours time-in-service
(TIS) accumulated by the main transmission after the effective date of
this proposed AD, and thereafter at intervals not to exceed 3,000 hours
TIS accumulated by the main transmission, removing certain screws and
washers and visually inspecting the upper and lower transmission
support case lateral mount screws for corrosion and thread damage,
washers for corrosion and pitting, bushings for corrosion and pitting,
and lateral mount surfaces for corrosion and mechanical damage such as
any crack or pitting. If there is any corrosion, thread damage, or
mechanical damage, this proposed AD would require removing the affected
parts from service before further flight.
    This proposed AD would also require repetitive fluorescent
penetrant inspections (FPIs) of all surfaces of the main transmission
support case lateral mounts for a crack. For helicopters with a main
transmission that has accumulated 6,000 or more total hours TIS, the
initial FPI would be required before further flight after the effective
date of this AD. For helicopters with a main transmission that has
accumulated less than 6,000 total hours TIS, the initial FPI would be
required before the main transmission accumulates 6,000 total hours
TIS. For all helicopters, following the initial FPI, this proposed AD
would require performing an FPI at intervals not to exceed 6,000 hours
TIS accumulated by the main transmission. If there is any crack, this
proposed AD would require removing the main transmission support case
from service before further flight.

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this proposed AD would affect up to 621
helicopters of U.S. Registry. Labor rates are estimated at $85 per
work-hour. Based on these numbers, the FAA estimates the following
costs to comply with this proposed AD.
    Inspecting the main transmission mount assembly would take about 1
work-hour, for an estimated cost of $85 per helicopter and $52,785 for
the U.S. fleet, per inspection cycle.
    Inspecting the main transmission support case lateral mounts by
fluorescent penetrant method would take about 1 work-hour for an
estimated cost of $85 per helicopter, and $52,785 for the U.S. fleet,
per inspection cycle.
    If required, replacing the transmission support case assembly
hardware parts including 8 washers, 8 screws, and 4 bushings would take
about 1 work-hour and parts would cost up to $100 per part for an
estimated cost of up to $2,000 per helicopter.
    If required, replacing the main transmission support case assembly
would take up to 60 work-hours and parts would cost up to $54,501 for
an estimated cost of up to $59,601 per helicopter.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

    The FAA determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not
have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship
between the national government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed
regulation:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866,
    (2) Would not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
    (3) Would not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Proposed Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

0
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness
directive:

Bell Textron Inc., and Various Restricted Category Helicopters:
Docket No. FAA 2022-0460; Project Identifier AD-2021-00824-R.

(a) Comments Due Date

    The FAA must receive comments on this airworthiness directive
(AD) by May 31, 2022.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to the following:
    (1) Bell Textron Inc., Model 204B, 205A, 205A-1, 205B, 210, 212,
412, 412CF, and 412EP helicopters, certificated in any category; and
    (2) Various restricted category helicopters:
    (i) Model HH-1K helicopters; current type certificate holders
include but are not limited to Rotorcraft Development Corporation;
    (ii) Southwest Florida Aviation International, Inc. Model
SW205A-1 helicopters;
    (iii) Model TH-1F helicopters; current type certificate holders
include but are not limited to Robinson Air Crane Inc.; Rotorcraft
Development Corporation; and Tamarack Helicopters, Inc.;
    (iv) Model TH-1L helicopters; current type certificate holders
include but are not limited to Bell Textron Inc.; Overseas Aircraft
Support, Inc. (type certificate previously held by JTBAM, Inc.); and
Rotorcraft Development Corporation;
    (v) Model UH-1A helicopters; current type certificate holders
include but are not limited to Richards Heavylift Helo, Inc.;
    (vi) Model UH-1B helicopters; current type certificate holders
include but are not limited to International Helicopters, Inc.;
Overseas Aircraft Support, Inc.; Red Tail Flying Services, LLC;
Richards Heavylift Helo, Inc.; Rotorcraft Development Corporation;
Southwest Florida Aviation International, Inc.; and WSH, LLC (type
certificate previously held by San Joaquin Helicopters);
    Note 1 to paragraph (c)(2)(vi): Helicopters with an SW204 or
SW204HP designation are Southwest Florida Aviation International,
Inc., Model UH-1B helicopters.
    (vii) Model UH-1E helicopters; current type certificate holders
include but are not limited to Bell Textron Inc.; Overseas Aircraft
Support, Inc.; Rotorcraft Development Corporation; Smith
Helicopters; and West Coast Fabrications;
    (viii) Model UH-1F helicopters; current type certificate holders
include but are not limited to AST, Inc.; California Department of
Forestry; Robinson Air Crane, Inc.; Rotorcraft Development
Corporation; and Tamarack Helicopters, Inc.;
    (ix) Model UH-1H helicopters; current type certificate holders
include but are not limited to Arrow Falcon Exporters, Inc.; Global
Helicopter Technology, Inc.; Hagglund Helicopters, LLC; JJASPP
Engineering Services LLC; Northwest Rotorcraft, LLC; Overseas
Aircraft Support, Inc.; Richards Heavylift Helo, Inc.; Rotorcraft
Development Corporation; Southwest Florida Aviation International,
Inc.; and Tamarack Helicopters, Inc.;
    Note 2 to paragraph (c)(2)(ix): Helicopters with an SW205
designation are Southwest Florida Aviation International, Inc.,
Model UH-1H helicopters.
    (x) Model UH-1L helicopters; current type certificate holders
include but are not limited to Bell Textron Inc.; Overseas Aircraft
Support, Inc.; and Rotorcraft Development Corporation; and
    (xi) Model UH-1P helicopters; current type certificate holders
include but are not limited to Robinson Air Crane, Inc.; and
Rotorcraft Development Corporation.

(d) Subject

    Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC) Code 6320, Main Rotor
Gearbox.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by reports of cracks found in the main
transmission support case possibly due to corrosion. The FAA is
issuing this AD to detect and address corrosion and other mechanical
damage of the main transmission support case assembly. The unsafe
condition, if not addressed, could result in cracking at the upper
or lower surfaces of the lateral mounts, loss of load carrying
capabilities of the main transmission, and subsequent loss of
control of the helicopter.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Required Actions

    (1) Within 3,000 hours time-in-service (TIS) accumulated by the
main transmission after the effective date of this AD, and
thereafter at intervals not to exceed 3,000 hours TIS accumulated by
the main transmission, remove the screws and washers from the upper
and lower surfaces of the main transmission support case lateral
mounts and accomplish the following:
    (i) Visually inspect each screw for corrosion and thread damage.
If there is any corrosion or thread damage, before further flight,
remove the screw from service.
    (ii) Visually inspect each upper and lower washer for corrosion
and pitting. If there is any corrosion or pitting, before further
fight, remove the washer from service.
    (iii) Visually inspect each installed bushing for corrosion and
pitting. If there is any corrosion or pitting, before further fight,
remove the bushing from service.
    (iv) Visually inspect each upper and lower main transmission
support case lateral mount machined surface adjacent to each washer
and each lateral mount threaded screw hole for corrosion and
mechanical damage. For the purposes of this AD, mechanical damage
may be indicated by a crack or pitting. If there is any corrosion or
mechanical damage, before further flight, remove the main
transmission support case assembly from service.
    (2) Fluorescent penetrant inspect (FPI) all surfaces of the main
transmission support case lateral mounts for a crack at the
compliance times identified in paragraph (g)(2)(i) or (ii) of this
AD.
    (i) For helicopters with a main transmission that has
accumulated 6,000 or more total hours TIS, before further flight
after the effective date of this AD.
    (ii) For helicopters with a main transmission that has
accumulated less than 6,000 total hours TIS, before accumulating
6,000 total hours TIS on the main transmission after the effective
date of this AD.
    (iii) If there is any crack, before further flight, remove the
main transmission support case assembly from service.
    Note 3 to paragraph (g)(2): This note applies to paragraphs
(g)(2) and (3) of this AD. ASTM International Standard Practice for
Liquid Penetrant Testing E1417/E1417M-21, dated September 1, 2021
(ASTM E1417) provides additional information regarding and is an
acceptable method for the fluorescent penetrant inspection.
    (3) Thereafter following paragraph (g)(2) of this AD, at
intervals not to exceed 6,000 hours TIS accumulated by the main

transmission, FPI all surfaces of the main transmission support case
lateral mounts for a crack. If there is any crack, before further
flight, remove the main transmission support case assembly from
service.

(h) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, DSCO Branch, FAA, has the authority to approve
AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR
39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your
principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as
appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the
certification office, send it to the attention of the person
identified in Related Information. Information may be emailed to: [email protected].
    (2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate
principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager
of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding
district office.

(i) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact Hye Yoon Jang,
Aerospace Engineer, Delegation Oversight Section, DSCO Branch,
Compliance & Airworthiness Division, FAA, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Fort
Worth, TX 76177; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
[email protected].
    (2) For ASTM service information identified in this AD, you may
purchase the ASTM standard from ASTM International at https://www.astm.org/. You may view this material at the FAA, Office of the
Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Room 6N-
321, Fort Worth, TX 76177. For information on the availability of
this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Issued on April 7, 2022.
Ross Landes,
Deputy Director for Regulatory Operations, Compliance & Airworthiness
Division, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2022-07887 Filed 4-13-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: August 6, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 152)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 45617-45620]
[DOCID:fr06au08-12]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket No. USCG-2008-0349]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone; Fireworks, Beverly, MA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is creating a temporary safety zone for a
fireworks event being held in Beverly, Massachusetts. This safety zone
will last for the limited duration of the fireworks. The zone is
necessary to protect spectators, participants, and vessels from the
hazards associated with fireworks displays.

DATES: This rule is effective from 9 p.m. through 11 p.m. on August 10,
2008.

ADDRESSES: Comments and material received from the public, as well as
documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket,
are part of docket USCG-2008-0349 and are available online at http://
www.regulations.gov. This material is also available for inspection or
copying at two locations: the Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S.
Department of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140,
1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays, and the U.S.
Coast Guard Sector Boston, 427 Commercial St., Boston, MA 02109 between
7 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call Chief Petty Officer Eldridge McFadden at<PHONE_NUMBER>. If you have
questions on viewing the docket, call Renee V. Wright, Program Manager,
Docket Operations, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Regulatory Information

    On June 4, 2008, we published a notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM) entitled Safety Zones; Fireworks, Central and Northern
Massachusetts in the Federal Register (73 FR 31785). We received no
letters commenting on the proposed rule. No public meeting was
requested, and none was held. Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard
finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than
30 days after publication in the Federal Register. This rule must be in
effect on August 10, 2008, in order to protect the public from the
dangers associated with fireworks displays. Any delay in the
regulation's effective date could expose the public to unnecessary
danger and therefore be contrary to the public's interest.

Background and Purpose

    A Notice of Proposed Rulemaking was published on June 4, 2008 (73
FR 31785), proposing the establishment of six safety zones around
various fireworks displays on or near navigable waterways in
Massachusetts this summer. At this time, five of those events have
already occurred. This temporary rule establishes a safety zone
surrounding the remaining fireworks event as described in the NPRM. The
zone will protect the maritime public from the dangers inherent in
waterborne fireworks displays. The Captain of the Port does not
anticipate any negative impact on vessel traffic due to implementation
of these temporary safety zones. Public notifications will be made
prior to the effective period of the zone via Broadcast and Local
Notice to Mariners.

Discussion of Comments and Changes

    No comments were made. However, the following changes were made to
the original regulatory text proposed by the Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking published on June 4, 2008 (73 FR 31785): Items (a)(2)
through (a)(6) were removed as the events have occurred.

Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and
executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses
based on 13 of these statutes or executive orders.

Regulatory Planning and Review

    This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f)
of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does not
require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section
6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not
reviewed it under that Order.
    No comments were made. However, the following changes were made to
the original regulatory text proposed by the Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking published on June 4, 2008 (73 FR 31785): Items (a)(2)
through (a)(6) were removed as the events have occurred.

Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have
considered whether this rule would have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities. The term ``small entities''
comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are
independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields,
and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000.
    The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities.
    This rule would affect the following entities, some of which may be
small entities: The owners or operators of vessels intending to transit
or anchor in the affected portion of the coastal waterways of
Massachusetts between 9 p.m. and 11 p.m. on August 10, 2008.
    This safety zone will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities for the following reasons: This
rule would be in effect for only two hours, vessel traffic can navigate
around the safety zone during the effective period, and advance
notification via broadcast notice to mariners and Local Notice to
Mariners will be made before and during the effective period.

Assistance for Small Entities

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

Collection of Information

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

Federalism

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local
governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial
direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this rule under
that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for
federalism.
    No comments were made. However, the following changes were made to
the original regulatory text proposed by the Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking published on June 4, 2008 (73 FR 31785): Items (a)(2)
through (a)(6) were removed as the events have occurred.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538)
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary
regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions

that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal
government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000
or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such an
expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this
preamble. No comments were made. However, the following changes were
made to the original regulatory text proposed by the Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking published on June 4, 2008 (73 FR 31785): Items (a)(2)
through (a)(6) were removed as the events have occurred.

Taking of Private Property

    This rule will not effect a taking of private property or otherwise
have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental
Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property
Rights. No comments were made. However, the following changes were made
to the original regulatory text proposed by the Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking published on June 4, 2008 (73 FR 31785): Items (a)(2)
through (a)(6) were removed as the events have occurred.

Civil Justice Reform

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

Protection of Children

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

Indian Tribal Governments

    This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order
13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments,
because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more
Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and
Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities
between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. No comments were
made. However, the following changes were made to the original
regulatory text proposed by the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking published
on June 4, 2008 (73 FR 31785): Items (a)(2) through (a)(6) were removed
as the events have occurred.

Energy Effects

    We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a ``significant
energy action'' under that order because it is not a ``significant
regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to
have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use
of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy
action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects
under Executive Order 13211. No comments were made. However, the
following changes were made to the original regulatory text proposed by
the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking published on June 4, 2008 (73 FR
31785): Items (a)(2) through (a)(6) were removed as the events have
occurred.

Technical Standards

    The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15
U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards
in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress,
through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why
using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., specifications of materials, performance, design, or
operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management
systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus
standards bodies.
    This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not
consider the use of voluntary consensus standards. No comments were
made. However, the following changes were made to the original
regulatory text proposed by the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking published
on June 4, 2008 (73 FR 31785): Items (a)(2) through (a)(6) were removed
as the events have occurred.

Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Commandant Instruction M16475.lD
and Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 5100.1, which
guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA)(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded,
under the instruction, that there are no factors in this case that
would limit the use of a categorical exclusion under section 2.B.2 of
the Instruction. Therefore, this rule is categorically excluded, under
figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(g), of the Instruction, from further
environmental documentation.
    A final environmental analysis checklist and a final categorical
exclusion determination will be available in the docket where indicated
under ADDRESSES.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

    Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, and Waterways.

0
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33
CFR part 165 as follows:

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

0
1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701, 3306,
3703; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1(g), 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and
160.5; Pub. L. 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland
Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

0
2. Add Sec.  165.T01-0349 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T01-0349  Safety Zone; Fireworks, Beverly, MA.

    (a) Location. The following waterborne fireworks events include
safety zones as described herein: (1) Beverly Homecoming Fireworks
Event, Beverly, MA.
    (i) All waters of Beverly Harbor, from surface to bottom, within a
200-yard radius of the fireworks barge located at approximate position
42[deg]32'37'' N, 070[deg]52'09'' W. These coordinates are based upon
NAD83 datum.
    (ii) Effective Date. This rule will be effective from 9 p.m.
through 11 p.m. on August 10, 2008.
    (b) Definition: As used in this section, designated representative
means any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant, or petty officer, or any
Federal, State, or local law enforcement officer authorized to enforce
this regulation on behalf of the Coast Guard Captain of the Port
(COTP).
    (c) Regulations. (1) In accordance with the general regulations in
section 165.23 of this part, entry into or remaining in the safety
zones described in paragraph (a) of this section is prohibited unless
authorized by the Coast Guard Captain of the Port (COTP) Boston, or the
COTP's designated representative.
    (2) Persons desiring to transit within the safety zones established
in this section may contact the Captain of the

Port at telephone number<PHONE_NUMBER> or via on-scene patrol personnel
on VHF channel 16 to seek permission to do so. If permission is
granted, all persons and vessels must comply with the instructions of
the Captain of the Port or his or her designated representative.

    Dated: July 24, 2008.
Claudia C. Gelzer,
Commander, U.S. Coast Guard, Acting Captain of the Port Boston,
Massachusetts.
[FR Doc. E8-18076 Filed 8-5-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-15-P


			  UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

		        DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

			  OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

			          WASHINGTON, D.C.

Issued by the Department of Transportation on August 29, 2003

NOTICE OF ACTION TAKEN -- DOCKET OST-99-5606

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________

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

Applicant:  East Line Airlines						Date Filed:  August 7, 2003

Relief requested: Renew exemption from 49 U.S.C. § 41301 to engage in
charter foreign air transportation of persons, property and mail between
the Russian Federation and the United States; and other charters in
accordance with Part 212 of the Department’s rules.

Date and citation of last action:  August 20, 2002, in this docket

Applicant representative:  Glenn P. Wicks<PHONE_NUMBER>

DOT Analyst:  Gordon H. Bingham<PHONE_NUMBER>

Responsive pleadings:  None filed

	DISPOSITION

Action:  Approved								Action date:  August 29, 2003

Effective dates of authority granted:  August 29, 2003-August 29, 2004

Basis for approval (bilateral agreement/reciprocity):  The Annexes to
the U.S.-Russia Air Transport Agreement expired on January 22, 2001.
However, the operations proposed by East Line are in conformance with
the Annexes agreed to by both sides ad referendum on April 11, 2002.
Both sides, as agreed, have initiated the necessary internal procedures
for bringing these Annexes into force.

Except to the extent exempted/waived, this authority is subject to the
terms, conditions, and limitations indicated:

X Standard exemption conditions (attached)

Special conditions/Partial grant/Denial basis/Remarks:  In the conduct
of the charter services authorized above, East Line Airlines must adhere
to (1) the conditions attached to this notice, (2) FAA-approved flight
routings, and (3) the U.S.-Russia Air Transport Agreement.  In
accordance with sections 212.9(d) and (e) of the Department’s rules,
East Line Airlines shall not perform any charter(s) unless specific
authority in the form of a statement of authorization for such
charter(s) has been granted by the Department.  Applications for
statements of authorization required above shall be filed in accordance
with the procedures set forth in section 212.10.

Action taken by:   Paul L. Gretch, Director

		      Office of International Aviation

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________

Under authority assigned by the Department in its regulations, 14 CFR
Part 385, we found that (1) the applicant was qualified to perform the
proposed operations; (2) our action was consistent with Department
policy; (3) grant of the authority was consistent with the public
interest; and (4) grant of the authority would not constitute a major
regulatory action under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975.
To the extent not granted/deferred/dismissed, we denied all requests in
the referenced Docket.  We may amend, modify, or revoke the authority
granted in this Notice at any time without hearing at our discretion.

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

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

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

Foreign Carrier Conditions

In the conduct of the operations authorized, the foreign carrier
applicant(s) shall:

(1)  Not conduct any operations unless it holds a currently effective
authorization from its homeland for such operations, and it has filed a
copy of such authorization with the Department;

(2)  Comply with all applicable requirements of the Federal Aviation
Administration, including, but not limited to, 14 CFR Parts 129, 91, and
36, and with all applicable U.S. Government requirements concerning
security.  To assure compliance with all applicable U.S. Government
requirements concerning security, the holder shall, before commencing
any new service (including charter flights) from a foreign airport that
would be the holder’s last point of departure for the United States,
contact its Principal Security Inspector (PSI) to advise the PSI of its
plans and to find out whether the Transportation Security Administration
has determined that security is adequate to allow such airport(s) to be
served;

(3)  Comply with the requirements for minimum insurance coverage
contained in 14 CFR Part 205, and, prior to the commencement of any
operations under this authority, file evidence of such coverage, in the
form of a completed OST Form 6411, with the Federal Aviation
Administration’s Program Management Branch (AFS-260), Flight Standards
Service (any changes to, or termination of, insurance also shall be
filed with that office);

(4)  Not operate aircraft under this authority unless it complies with
operational safety requirements at least equivalent to Annex 6 of the
Chicago Convention;

(5)  Conform to the airworthiness and airman competency requirements of
its Government for international air services;

(6)  Except as specifically exempted or otherwise provided for in a
Department Order, comply with the requirements of 14 CFR Part 203,
concerning waiver of Warsaw Convention liability limits and defenses;

(7)  Agree that operations under this authority constitute a waiver of
sovereign immunity, for the purposes of 28 U.S.C. 1605(a), but only with
respect to those actions or proceedings instituted against it in any
court or other tribunal in the United States that are: (a) based on its
operations in international air transportation that, according to the
contract of carriage, include a point in the United States as a point of
origin, point of destination, or agreed stopping place, or for which the
contract of carriage was purchased in the United States; or (b)  based
on a claim under any international agreement or treaty cognizable in any
court or other tribunal of the United States.  In this condition, the
term "international air transportation" means "international
transportation" as defined by the Warsaw Convention, except that all
States shall be considered to be High Contracting Parties for the
purpose of this definition;

(8)  Except as specifically authorized by the Department, originate or
terminate all flights to/from the United States in its homeland;

(9)  Comply with the requirements of 14 CFR Part 217, concerning the
reporting of scheduled, nonscheduled, and charter data;

(10) If charter operations are authorized, except as otherwise provided
in the applicable aviation agreement, comply with the Department's rules
governing charters (including 14 CFR Parts 212 and 380); and

(11) Comply with such other reasonable terms, conditions, and
limitations required by the public interest as may be prescribed by the
Department, with all applicable orders or regulations of other U.S.
agencies and courts, and with all applicable laws of the United States.

This authority shall not be effective during any period when the holder
is not in compliance with the conditions imposed above.  Moreover, this
authority cannot be sold or otherwise transferred without explicit
Department approval under Title 49 of the U.S. Code.

08/2003