[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 180 (Wednesday, September 16, 2020)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 57799-57802]
[FR Doc No: 2020-20274]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2020-0796; Project Identifier MCAI-2020-00902-T]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Gulfstream Aerospace LP Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD)
for certain Gulfstream Aerospace LP Model Gulfstream G280 airplanes.
This proposed AD was prompted by a determination that new or more
restrictive airworthiness limitations are necessary. This proposed AD
would require revising the existing maintenance or inspection program,
as applicable, to incorporate new or more restrictive airworthiness
limitations, as specified in a Civil Aviation Authority of Israel
(CAAI) AD, which will be incorporated by reference. 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 November 2,
2020.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR
11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For material that will be incorporated by reference (IBR) in this
AD, contact the CAAI, Mr. Vladimir Novicov, Engineering Branch, CAAI--
P.O. Box 1101, 3 Golan Street, Airport City, Israel, 70151; phone: 972-
3-9774529; fax: 972-3-9774592; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>You may find
this IBR material on the CAA website at www.caa.gov.il. You may view
this IBR material at the FAA, Airworthiness Products Section,
Operational Safety Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For
information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 206-
231-3195. It is also available in the AD docket on the internet at
https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No.
FAA-2020-0796.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2020-
0796; 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. Comments will be
available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tom Rodriguez, Aerospace Engineer,
Large Aircraft Section, International Validation Branch, FAA, 2200
South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; phone and fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    The FAA invites you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting
written comments, data, or views about this proposal. The most helpful
comments reference a specific portion of the proposal, explain the
reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. To
ensure the docket does not contain duplicate comments, commenters
should send only one copy of written comments, or if comments are filed
electronically, commenters should submit only one time. Send your
comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include
``Docket No. FAA-2020-0796; Project Identifier MCAI-2020-00902-T'' at
the beginning of your 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, as well
as a report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA
personnel concerning this proposed rulemaking. Before acting on this
proposal, the FAA will consider all comments received by the closing
date for comments. The FAA will consider comments filed after the
comment period has closed if it is possible to do so without incurring
expense or delay. The FAA may change this NPRM because of those
comments.

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 the
person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. Any
commentary that the FAA receives which is not specifically designated
as CBI will be placed in the public docket for this rulemaking.

Discussion

    The CAAI, which is the aviation authority for Israel, has issued
CAAI AD ISR-I-04-2020-06-02, dated June 28, 2020 (``CAAI AD ISR-I-04-
2020-06-02'') (also referred to as the Mandatory Continuing
Airworthiness Information, or ``the MCAI''), to correct an unsafe
condition for all Gulfstream Aerospace LP Model Gulfstream G280
airplanes. Airplanes with an original airworthiness certificate or
original export certificate of airworthiness issued after September 15,
2019 must comply with the airworthiness limitations specified as part
of the approved type design and referenced on the type certificate data
sheet; this AD therefore does not include those airplanes in the
applicability.
    This proposed AD was prompted by a determination that new or more
restrictive airworthiness limitations are necessary. The FAA is
proposing this AD to address solder cracking of the flight control
electronic control units (FCECUs), which, combined with latent failure
of the horizontal stabilizer trim actuator (HSTA) ``no-back''
mechanism, could result in uncontrolled HSTA operation. See the MCAI
for additional background information.

Related Material Under 1 CFR part 51

    CAAI AD ISR-I-04-2020-06-02 describes new or more restrictive
airworthiness limitations for airplane structures and safe life limits.
This material is reasonably available because the interested parties
have access to it through their normal course of business or by the
means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD

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

Proposed AD Requirements

    This proposed AD would require revising the existing maintenance or
inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate new or more
restrictive airworthiness limitations, which are specified in CAAI AD
ISR-I-04-2020-06-02 described previously, as incorporated by reference.
Any differences with CAAI AD ISR-I-04-2020-06-02 are identified as
exceptions in the regulatory text of this AD.
    This proposed AD would require revisions to certain operator
maintenance documents to include new actions (e.g., inspections) and
Critical Design Configuration Control Limitations (CDCCLs). Compliance
with these actions and CDCCLs is required by 14 CFR 91.403(c). For
airplanes that have been previously modified, altered, or repaired in
the areas addressed by this proposed AD, the operator may not be able
to accomplish the actions described in the revisions. In this
situation, to comply with 14 CFR 91.403(c), the operator must request
approval for an alternative method of compliance according to paragraph
(j)(1) of this proposed AD.

Explanation of Required Compliance Information

    In the FAA's ongoing efforts to improve the efficiency of the AD
process, the FAA initially worked with Airbus and EASA to develop a
process to use certain EASA ADs as the primary source of information
for compliance with requirements for corresponding FAA ADs. The FAA has
since coordinated with other manufacturers and civil aviation
authorities (CAAs) to use this process. As a result, CAAI AD ISR-I-04-
2020-06-02 will be incorporated by reference in the FAA final rule.
This proposed AD would, therefore, require compliance with CAAI AD ISR-
I-04-2020-06-02 in its entirety, through that incorporation, except for
any differences identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of this
proposed AD.
    Service information specified in CAAI AD ISR-I-04-2020-06-02 that
is required for compliance with CAAI AD ISR-I-04-2020-06-02 will be
available on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by searching
for and locating Docket No. FAA-2020-0796 after the FAA final rule is
published.

Airworthiness Limitation ADs Using the New Process

    The FAA's process of incorporating by reference MCAI ADs as the
primary source of information for compliance with corresponding FAA ADs
has been limited to certain MCAI ADs (primarily those with service
bulletins as the primary source of information for accomplishing the
actions required by the FAA AD). However, the FAA is now expanding the
process to include MCAI ADs that require a change to airworthiness
limitation documents,

such as airworthiness limitation sections.
    For these ADs that incorporate by reference an MCAI AD that changes
airworthiness limitations, the FAA requirements are unchanged.
Operators must revise the existing maintenance or inspection program,
as applicable, to incorporate the information specified in the new
airworthiness limitation document. The airworthiness limitations must
be followed according to 14 CFR 91.403(c) and 91.409(e).

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this proposed AD affects 160 airplanes of
U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with
this proposed AD:
    The FAA has determined that revising the existing maintenance or
inspection program takes an average of 90 work-hours per operator,
although the agency recognizes that this number may vary from operator
to operator. In the past, the agency has estimated that this action
takes 1 work-hour per airplane. Since operators incorporate maintenance
or inspection program changes for their affected fleet(s), the FAA has
determined that a per-operator estimate is more accurate than a per-
airplane estimate. Therefore, the agency estimates the average total
cost per operator to be $7,650 (90 work-hours x $85 per work-hour).

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Proposed Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13   [Amended]

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

Gulfstream Aerospace LP: Docket No. FAA-2020-0796; Project
Identifier MCAI-2020-00902-T.

(a) Comments Due Date

    The FAA must receive comments by November 2, 2020.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to all Gulfstream Aerospace LP Model Gulfstream
G280 airplanes, certificated in any category, with an original
airworthiness certificate or original export certificate of
airworthiness issued on or before September 15, 2019.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 27, Flight
controls.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by a determination that new or more
restrictive airworthiness limitations are necessary. The FAA is
issuing this AD to address solder cracking of the flight control
electronic control units (FCECUs), which, combined with latent
failure of the horizontal stabilizer trim actuator (HSTA) ``no-
back'' mechanism, could result in uncontrolled HSTA operation.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Requirements

    Except as specified in paragraph (h) of this AD: Comply with all
required actions and compliance times specified in, and in
accordance with, Civil Aviation Authority of Israel (CAAI) AD ISR-I-
04-2020-06-02, dated June 28, 2020 (``CAAI AD ISR-I-04-2020-06-
02'').

(h) Exceptions to CAAI AD ISR-I-04-2020-06-02

    (1) Where CAAI AD ISR-I-04-2020-06-02 refers to its effective
date, this AD requires using the effective date of this AD.
    (2) Where CAAI AD ISR-I-04-2020-06-02 refers to the date of its
issuance, this AD requires using the effective date of this AD.

(i) Provisions for Alternative Actions, Intervals, and Critical Design
Configuration Control Limitations (CDCCLs)

    After the existing maintenance or inspection program has been
revised as required by paragraph (g) of this AD, no alternative
actions (e.g., inspections), intervals, and CDCCLs are allowed
unless they are approved as specified in the provisions of CAAI AD
ISR-I-04-2020-06-02.

(j) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
Large Aircraft Section, International Validation 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 Large Aircraft Section, International Validation
Branch, send it to the attention of the person identified in
paragraph (k)(2) of this AD. Information may be emailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Before using any approved AMOC, notify your
appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector,
the manager of the local flight standards district office/
certificate holding district office.
    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD
to obtain instructions from a manufacturer, the instructions must be
accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, Large Aircraft
Section, International Validation Branch, FAA; or CAAI; or CAAI's
authorized Designee. If approved by the CAAI Designee, the approval
must include the Designee's authorized signature.

(k) Related Information

    (1) For information about CAAI AD ISR-I-04-2020-06-02, contact
the CAAI, Mr. Vladimir Novicov, Engineering Branch, CAAI--P.O. Box
1101, 3 Golan Street, Airport City, Israel, 70151, phone: 972-3-
9774529, fax: 972-3-9774592; email:

<EMAIL_ADDRESS>You may find this IBR material on the CAA
website at www.caa.gov.il. You may view this material at the FAA,
Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200
South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability
of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. This material may be
found in the AD docket on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-
2020-0796.
    (2) For more information about this AD, contact Tom Rodriguez,
Aerospace Engineer, Large Aircraft Section, International Validation
Branch, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; phone and
fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Issued on September 3, 2020.
Lance T. Gant,
Director, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2020-20274 Filed 9-15-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


MEMORANDUM

To:	Erin Birgfeld

CC:	Margaret Sheppard

From:	Sarah Percy, Kara Altshuler, Nikki Maples, Mike Ragan, Meg McVey,
Mark Wagner

Date:	January 19, 2004

Re:	nPB Aquatic Toxicity

(EPA Contract Number 68-D-00-266, WA 3-05 Task 02)

Summary

	At EPA's request, ICF has prepared this memorandum to help inform a
decision regarding the acute ecotoxicity of n-propyl bromide (nPB).
Based on the information presented in the following sections, it can be
concluded that nPB does not persist for long in the environment.  The
compound is not expected to bioconcentrate significantly in animals or
plants.  Further, its toxicity in indicator species suggests that it is
of low to medium concern for acute aquatic toxicity and would not be
listed in the Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) due to aquatic toxicity.

Fate and Transport in the Environment

n-propyl bromide's production and subsequent use as a solvent could
result in its release to the environment through various waste streams.
If released to the atmosphere, nPB will exist solely in the vapor phase
based on its vapor pressure of 110.8 mm Hg.  It should react fairly
rapidly with hydroxyl radicals in the vapor phase with an estimated
half-life of 17.5 days.  Based on an estimated Koc (organic-carbon
partition coefficient) of 330, nPB has medium mobility in soil.  Given a
measured water solubility of 2450 mg/L, some leaching may be possible in
cases where nPB is present in soil.  In moist soils, hydrolysis should
occur; nPB has a measured hydrolysis half-life of 26 days at 25° C and
pH 7.  n-propyl bromide is expected to volatilize from moist soil
surfaces, based on an estimated Henry's Law constant of 7.32x10-3 atm
m3/mole.

From dry soil surfaces, nPB should quickly volatilize due to its high
vapor pressure.  It is also expected to volatilize rapidly from water
surfaces based on its Henry's Law constant.  The volatilization
half-life from a model river was calculated as 3.4 hours, from a model
lake, 4.4 days.  This compound will also hydrolyze in water with a
measured half-life of 26 days.  Biodegradation may occur in soil.
n-propyl bromide may biodegrade in water based upon a number of studies
using pure cultures that have indicated that nPB may be converted to
1-propanol.  The compound has a log Kow value of 2.10 and should not
bioconcentrate in aquatic organisms based on a bioconcentration factor
(BCF) of 23 (HSDB 2004).  Further, a similar BCF of 18 for freshwater
fish was calculated using structure-activity relationships for
environmental toxicants provided in Clements (1996).

Aquatic Toxicity

The following databases were queried regarding ecotoxicity of nPB:
ECOTOX database and the TOXNET database, which includes HSDB, IRIS,
GENE-TOX, CCRIS, Multi-Databases, TOXLINE, DART/ETIC, TRI, and
CHEMIDplus databases.  Only one relevant article was identified which
specifically addressed aquatic or terrestrial toxicity of nPB. Geiger et
al. (1988) reported 96-hour LC50 and EC50 values for nPB in 30-day old
fathead minnows.  Both the 96-hour LC50 and EC50 values were 67.3 mg/L.
Affected fish reportedly lost schooling behavior and swam near the tank
surface.  In general, they were hypoactive, underreactive to external
stimuli, had increased respiration, and were darkly colored.  Fish lost
equilibrium prior to death.

Estimated Ecotoxicity Values

	EPA has developed a methodology for estimating lethal concentrations
and exposure concentrations for effects on growth and reproduction in
aquatic, marine, and terrestrial indicator species (Clements 1996).
This methodology utilizes structure-activity relationships of compounds
within general chemical classes, as well as certain physical-chemical
characteristics to predict these effective concentrations.  Equations
specific for neutral organics are used to predict ecotoxicity values for
alkyl halides such as nPB.  ICF has used the appropriate equations to
estimate these concentrations for acute exposures, as given below in
Table 1.

Table 1: Predicted Ecotoxicity Values for nPB in Aquatic Speciesa

Species	Endpoint	Estimated Concentration (mg/L)	Equation Used

Fish (freshwater)	96 hr LC50	73	log LC50 = 1.75 - 0.94log Kow

Fish (marine), sheepshead minnow	96 hr LC50	18	log LC50 = 0.69 - 0.73log
Kow

Daphnid (water flea)	48 hr LC50	79	log LC50 = 1.72 - 0.91log Kow

Lysid Shrimp	96 hr LC50 	19.7	log LC50 = 1.83 - 1.25log Kow

Green algae	96 hr EC50 (growth)	50	log EC50b = 1.466 - 0.885log Kow

a Values are determined using equations provided in Clements 1996;
concentrations are provided in mM/L and are converted to mg/L using the
molecular weight of nPB (122.99 g/mole), and log Kow = 2.1.

b  EC50= Exposure concentration that causes a change in the endpoint in
50% of the test species.

As indicated in the data above, the estimated LC50 value for fish above,
73 mg/L, is very close to the experimental LC50 of 67 mg/L (Geiger et
al. 1988).

Hazard Ranking for n-Propyl Bromide as an Environmental Toxicant

To determine whether there should be concern for aquatic toxicity of
nPB, ideally one would estimate possible surface water concentrations
under appropriate exposure scenarios (e.g., a spill) and compare those
to appropriate toxicity values.  However, EPA often must screen
chemicals for potential environmental hazards in the absence of
estimated environmental concentrations.  Different EPA programs have
established toxicity criteria by which to determine whether a chemical
might be considered of low, medium, or high concern based on the results
of various toxicity tests.  The criteria differ somewhat by risk
management context (e.g., a new chemical proposed for manufacture, an
existing chemical proposed for new uses, prioritizing chemicals for
additional toxicity testing).

ICF examined how several different EPA hazard ranking systems would
categorize the level of concern for the acute aquatic toxicity of nPB
and found it to be of low-to-medium concern:

By the classification criteria for environmental toxicity and fate of
industrial chemicals developed by EPA’s Office of Pollution Prevention
and Toxics (OPPT), the acute aquatic toxicity of nPB of 67 mg/L
(identified experimentally) would be considered of medium concern (i.e.,
between 1 and 100 mg/L) (USEPA 1992a, Smrchek et al. 1993).  Chemicals
with LC50/EC50 values greater than 100 mg/L are considered of low
concern, while values less than or equal to 1 mg/L are considered of
high concern.  In general, that concern level triggers additional
toxicity testing (Tier II testing) if available data are limited.

Those same criteria are used as aquatic toxicity scoring
“fencelines” for prioritizing chemicals for waste minimization
efforts under EPA’s Waste Minimization National Plan (USEPA 1997),
indicating that the acute aquatic toxicity of nPB can be considered
moderate (rather than low or high).

In its hazard assessment guidelines for listing chemicals in the Toxic
Release Inventory (TRI), OPPT uses numerical screening criteria for
listing (USEPA 1992b).  In this program, an acute aquatic toxicity value
of greater than 10 ppm (mg/L) is considered “insufficient” for
listing; whereas an LC50 between 10 ppm and 0.1 ppm “may be
sufficient” for listing, and an LC50 less than or equal to 0.1 ppm
“is sufficient” for listing.  Thus, in this scheme, the available
data for nPB indicate that EPA would not list it on the TRI due to its
acute aquatic toxicity.

Note that these hazard ranking systems also consider bioconcentration
factors (BCFs) in combination with persistence in determining the
potential hazard of a chemical.  Chemicals with persistence in surface
water of less than two weeks and with a BCF of less than 100 are
considered of low concern.  The low estimated persistence of nPB in
surface waters (3.4 hours to 4.4 days), together with BCF values of 18
and 23 discussed above, represent low levels of concern for each
attribute, respectively (USEPA 1992a,b; 1997).

References

Clements, R.G.  1996. Estimating Toxicity of Industrial Chemicals using
Structure-Activity Relationships. U.S. EPA.  Health and Environmental
Review Division.  OPPT.

Geiger, D.L., Call, D.J., and Brooke, L.T.  1988.  Acute Toxicities of
Organic Chemicals to Fathead Minnows (Pimephales promelas), Vol. 4.  In:
Center for Lake Superior Environmental Stud., Univ.of
Wisconsin-Superior, Superior, WI I:355.

HSDB.  2004.  Hazardous Substances Databank File for 1-Bromopropane.
Accessed 1/2004 from the World Wide Web at
http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/cgi-bin/sis/search/f?./temp/~dLwM9e:1

Smrchek, J., Clements, R., Morcock, R., and Rabert,W.  1993.  Assessing
ecological hazard under TSCA: methods and evaluation of data.  In:
Landis, W.G., Hughes, J.S., and Lewis, M.A. (eds.), Environmental
Toxicology and Risk Assessment, ASTM STP 1179.  Philadelphia, PA:
American Society for Testing and Materials, pp. 22-39.

USEPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency).  1992a.
Classification Criteria for Environmental Toxicity and Fate of
Industrial Chemicals.  Washington, DC:  Office of Pollution, Prevention
and Toxics, Chemical Control Division.

USEPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency).  1992b.  Hazard
Assessment Guidelines for Listing Chemicals on the Toxic Release
Inventory, Revised Draft.  Washington, DC:  Office of Pollution,
Prevention and Toxics.

USEPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency).  1997.  Waste
Minimization Prioritization Tool, Beta Test Version 1.0: User’s Guide
and System Documentation.  Draft.  Washington, DC:  Offices of Solid
Waste and Emergency Response and Pollution Prevention and Toxics.
EPA530-R-97-019.

***DRAFT (January 19, 2000) – DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE***


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 66 (Tuesday, April 7, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 18643]
[FR Doc No: 2015-07939]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

[Docket No. USCG-2015-0231]

Distant Water Tuna Fleet Manning Exemption

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of availability.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard announces the availability of an updated
policy letter entitled ``Distant Water Tuna Fleet (DWTF) Vessels
Manning Exemption Guidance.'' The letter provides revised guidance on
procedures for requesting and issuing a Manning Exemption Letter as a
result of recent statutory changes that affected the previous 2013
guidance.

DATES: The revised policy guidance is effective May 1, 2015.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information about this document
call or email Mr. Jack Kemerer, Coast Guard; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>,
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For information about viewing or
submitting material to the docket, call Cheryl Collins, Program
Manager, Docket Operations, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, toll free 1-800-
647-5527.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    The revised policy letter is available at www.fishsafe.info. It
updates guidance on the issuance of Distant Water Tuna Fleet Manning
Exemption Letters. Similar guidance was issued in 2013, and is being
brought up to date in light of recent statutory changes.
    The DWTF consists of U.S. commercial purse seine fishing vessels,
under masters who are U.S. citizens, that operate in the tuna fisheries
of the Western Pacific Ocean far from U.S. territories other than Guam
and American Samoa. Because of the difficulty of hiring U.S. merchant
mariners (other than vessel masters) to serve in this fleet, the law
authorizes foreign citizens to hold required navigation and engineering
positions, if they are properly licensed by their countries, and
subject to certain restrictions and limitations, and if qualified U.S.
citizens are not readily available. Vessels that comply with these
conditions may apply for and receive a Coast Guard Manning Exemption
Letter attesting to compliance. The letter may expedite a vessel
boarding or examination process.
    This notice is issued under authority of 5 U.S.C. 552(a).

    Dated: April 2, 2015.
J.C. Burton,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Director of Prevention and Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2015-07939 Filed 4-6-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE CODE 9110-04-P