[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 122 (Tuesday, June 25, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 37958-37962]
[FR Doc No: 2013-13841]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 23

[Docket No. FAA-2013-0493; Special Conditions No. 23-260-SC]

Special Conditions: Cessna Aircraft Company, Model J182T;
Electronic Engine Control System Installation

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final special conditions; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: These special conditions are issued for the Cessna Aircraft
Company (Cessna) Model J182T airplane. This airplane will have a novel
or unusual design feature(s) associated with the installation of an
electronic engine control. The applicable airworthiness regulations do
not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for this design
feature. These special conditions contain the additional safety
standards that the Administrator considers necessary to establish a
level of safety equivalent to that established by the existing
airworthiness standards.

DATES: The effective date of these special conditions is June 25, 2013.
    We must receive your comments by July 25, 2013.

ADDRESSES: Send comments identified by docket number [FAA-2013-0493]
using any of the following methods:
    [ssquf] Federal eRegulations Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and follow the online instructions for sending your
comments electronically.
    [ssquf] Mail: Send comments to Docket Operations, M-30, U.S.
Department of Transportation (DOT), 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room
W12-140, West Building Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
    [ssquf] Hand Delivery of Courier: Take comments to Docket
Operations in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    [ssquf] Fax: Fax comments to Docket Operations at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Privacy: The FAA will post all comments it receives, without
change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal
information the commenter provides. Using the search function of the
docket Web site, anyone can find and read the electronic form of all
comments received into any FAA docket, including the name of the
individual sending the comment (or signing the comment for an
association, business, labor union, etc.). DOT's complete Privacy Act
Statement can be found in the Federal Register published on April 11,
2000 (65 FR 19477-19478), as well as at http://DocketsInfo.dot.gov.
    Docket: Background documents or comments received may be read at
http://www.regulations.gov at any time. Follow the online instructions
for accessing the docket or go to the Docket Operations in Room W12-140
of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Peter Rouse, Federal Aviation
Administration, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, MO 64106; telephone (816)
329-4135; facsimile<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FAA has determined that notice and
opportunity for prior public comment hereon are impracticable because
these procedures would significantly delay issuance of the design
approval and thus delivery of the affected aircraft. In addition, the
substance of these special conditions has been subject to the public
comment process in several prior instances with no substantive comments
received. The FAA therefore finds that good cause exists for making
these special conditions effective upon issuance.

Comments Invited

    We invite interested people to take part in this rulemaking by
sending written comments, data, or views. The most helpful comments
reference a specific portion of the special conditions, explain the
reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. We ask
that you send us two copies of written comments.
    We will consider all comments we receive on or before the closing
date for comments. We will consider comments filed late if it is
possible to do so without incurring expense or delay. We may change
these special conditions based on the comments we receive.

Background

    On April 2, 2012, Cessna Aircraft Company applied for an amendment
to Type Certificate No. 3A13 to include the new model J182T which will
incorporate the installation of the Societe de Motorisation
Aeronautiques (SMA) Engines, Inc. SR305-230E-C1 which is a four-stroke,
air cooled, diesel cycle engine that uses turbine (jet) fuel. The J182T
incorporates an engine controlled by an electronic engine

control (EEC), also known as a Full Authority Digital Engine Control
(FADEC). The EEC system performs critical functions throughout the
operational envelope such as the control of the fuel flow and ignition.
These functions and their impact on the engine are required by 14 CFR
parts 33 and 23. Additionally, the EEC systems have incorporated
functions, that while not required in either parts 33 or 23, have
potential failure(s) and malfunction(s) that may be catastrophic or
unacceptably degrade the airplane level of safety. Examples of the
additional functions include thrust management, engine parameter
indication, engine speed synchronization, engine torque equalization,
etc. Considerations for installation of EEC systems were not envisaged
and are not adequately addressed in part 23. Therefore, special
conditions are required to define the additional safety standards the
Administrator considers necessary to establish a level of safety
equivalent to the existing airworthiness standards. Cessna will use an
EEC instead of a traditional mechanical control system on the J182T
airplane. The J182T, which is a derivative of the T182T currently
approved under Type Certificate No. 3A13, is an aluminum, four place,
single engine airplane with a cantilever high wing, with the SMA SR305-
230E-C1 diesel cycle engine and equipped with an electronic engine
control.
    The EEC is part 33 certified as part of the engine, and the
certification requirements for engine control systems are driven by
part 33 requirements. The guidance for the part 33 EEC certification
requirement is contained in two advisory circulars: AC 33.28-1 and AC
33.28-2. The EEC certification, as part of the engine, addresses those
aspects of the engine specifically addressed by part 33 and is not
intended to address part 23 installation requirements. However, the
guidance does highlight some of the installation aspects that the
engine applicant should consider during engine certification. The
installation of an engine with an EEC system requires evaluation of
environmental effects and possible effects on or by other airplane
systems, including the part 23 installation aspects of the EEC
functions. For example, the indirect effects of lightning, radio
interference with other airplane electronic systems, and shared engine
and airplane data and power sources.
    The regulatory requirements in part 23 for evaluating the
installation of complex electronic systems are contained in Sec.
23.1309. However, when Sec.  23.1309 was developed, the requirements of
the rule excluded powerplant systems as part of the certificated engine
(reference Sec.  23.1309(f)(1), amendment No. 23-49). Although the
parts of the system that are not certificated with the engine could be
evaluated using the criteria of Sec.  23.1309, the analysis would be
incomplete because it would not include the effects of the aircraft
supplied power and data failures on the engine control system, and the
resulting effects on engine power/thrust. The integral nature of EEC
installations require review of EEC functionality at the airplane level
because behavior acceptable for part 33 certification may not be
acceptable for part 23 certification.
    The Small Airplane Directorate has applied a Special Condition for
over a decade that required all EEC installations to comply with the
requirements of Sec. Sec.  23.1309(a) through (e), amendment No. 23-49.
The rationale for applying Sec.  23.1309 was that it was an existing
rule that contained the best available requirements to apply to the
installation of a complex electronic system; in this case, an
electronic engine control with aircraft interfaces. Additionally,
Special Conditions for High Intensity Radiated Fields (HIRF) were also
applied prior to the codification of Sec.  23.1308.
    There are several difficulties for propulsion systems directly
complying with the requirements of Sec.  23.1309. There are conflicts
between the guidance material for Sec.  23.1309 and propulsion system
capabilities and failure susceptibilities. The following figure is an
excerpt from AC 23.1309-1E showing the relationship among airplane
classes, probabilities, severity of failure conditions, and software
and complex hardware Development Assurance Level.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
     Classification of failure           No safety effect             Minor                  Major                Hazardous             Catastrophic
             conditions             --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------      No probability
 Allowable qualitative probability         requirement               Probable                Remote            Extremely remote    Extremely  improbable
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Effect on Airplane.................  No effect on             Slight reduction in    Significant reduction  Large reduction in     Normally with hull
                                      operational              functional             in functional          functional             loss.
                                      capabilities or safety.  capabilities or        capabilities or        capabilities or
                                                               safety margins.        safety margins.        safety margins.
Effect on Occupants................  Inconvenience for        Physical discomfort    Physical distress to   Serious or fatal       Multiple fatalities.
                                      passengers.              for passengers.        passengers, possibly   injury to an
                                                                                including injuries.    occupant.
Effect on Flight Crew..............  No effect on flight      Slight increase in     Physical discomfort    Physical distress or   Fatal Injury or
                                      crew.                    workload or use of     or a significant       excessive workload     incapacitation.
                                                               emergency procedures.  increase in workload.  impairs ability to
                                                                                perform tasks.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Classes of Airplanes         Allowable Quantitative Probabilities and Software (SW) and Complex Hardware (HW) Development Assurance Levels (Note
                                                                                2)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Class I (Typically SRE 6,000 pounds  No Probability or SW     <10-\3\ Note 1 P=D...  <10-\4\ Notes 1 and 4  <10-\5\ Note 4 P=C,    <10-\6\ Note 3 P=C,
 or less).                            and HW Development                              P=C, S=D.              S=D.                   S=C.
                                      Assurance Levels
                                      Requirement.
Class II (Typically MRE, STE, or     No Probability or SW     <10-\3\ Note 1 P=D...  <10-\5\ Notes 1 and 4  <10-\6\ Note 4 P=C,    <10-\7\ Note 3 P=C,
 MTE 6,000 pounds or less).           and HW Development                              P=C, S=D.              S=C.                   S=C.
                                      Assurance Levels
                                      Requirement.

Class III (Typically SRE, STE, MRE,  No Probability or SW     <10-\3\ Note 1 P=D...  <10-\5\ Notes 1 and 4  <10-\7\ Note 4 P=C,    <10-\8\ Note 3 P=B,
 and MTE greater than 6,000 pounds).  and HW Development                              P=C, S=D.              S=C.                   S=C.
                                      Assurance Levels
                                      Requirement.
Class IV (Typically Commuter         No Probability or SW     <10-\3\ Note 1 P=D...  <10-\5\ Notes 1 and 4  <10-\7\ Note 4 P=B,    <10-\9\ Note 3 P=A,
 Category).                           and HW Development                              P=C, S=D.              S=C.                   S=B.
                                      Assurance Levels
                                      Requirement.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note 1: Numerical values indicate an order of probability range and are provided here as a reference.
Note 2: The letters of the alphabet denote the typical SW and HW Development Assurance Levels for Primary System (P) and Secondary System (S). For
  example, HW or SW Development Assurance Level A on Primary System is noted by P=A.
Note 3: At airplane function level, no single failure will result in a Catastrophic Failure Condition.
Note 4. Secondary System (S) may not be required to meet probability goals. If installed, S should meet stated criteria.

Difference Between Part 23 and Part 33 Guidance, Loss of Thrust or
Power Control

    There is a conflict between the EEC system loss-of-thrust-control
(LOTC), or loss-of-power control (LOPC), probability per hour
requirements given in part 33 guidance material and the failure rate
requirements associated with the hazard created by a total loss of
power/thrust as given in part 23 AC 23.1309-1E guidance. The part 33
requirements for engine control LOTC/LOPC probabilities are shown
below:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Engine type                       Average LOTC/LOPC  events per million hours            Maximum LOTC/LOPC  events per million hours
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Turbine Engine...........................  10 (1 x 10-05 per hour)...............................  100 (1 x 10-04 per hour).
Reciprocating Engine.....................  45 (4.5 x 10-05 per hour).............................  450 (4.5 x 10-04 per hour).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: See AC 33.28-1, AC 33.28-2 and ANE-1993-33.28TLD-Rl for further guidance.

    The part 23 classification of the failure condition for LOTC/LOPC
event on a single engine airplane ranges from Hazardous to
Catastrophic. The classification of the failure condition for a single
engine LOTC/LOPC event on a multi-engine airplane ranges from Major to
Catastrophic. The classification of the failure condition for a multi-
engine LOTC/LOPC event on a multi-engine airplane is Catastrophic. From
the AC 23.1309-lE failure probability values, it is obvious that a
single engine airplane electronic engine control system will not be
able to meet the failure probabilities as shown in the guidance
material for Sec.  23.1309. As a result, applicants have
inappropriately declared a reduced hazard severity for a failure of the
electronic engine control system. This is not the intent of Sec.
23.1309. The greater hazard severity should be associated with lower
probabilities of failure, and higher probabilities of failure should
not artificially establish lower hazard severities. There is also a
conflict between the classification of the failure condition of an
electronic engine control system and the required test levels for the
effects of lightning and high intensity radiated frequency (HIRF).
Testing to a level lower than required for a catastrophic failure
results in a lower level of safety than the mechanical system it
replaces. This is contrary to the intent of certification requirements.

Time Limited Dispatch

    The advent of electronic engine controls also created the ability
to dispatch with certain allowable loss of functionality and/or
redundancy. This is known as Time Limited Dispatch (TLD). The TLD
allowable configurations must meet the specific risk LOTC/LOPC failure
probabilities. FAA Policy Statement, ANE-1993-33.28TLD-Rl, defines the
full up and TLD allowable failure probabilities for turbine engines.
The ability to use TLD is a risk management endeavor that uses a
limited time between inspection/maintenance intervals to mitigate the
hazard. As such, the FAA has issued specific guidance for part 23
aircraft in addition to Policy Statement, ANE-1993-33.28TLD-Rl, in
order to capture the necessary time limits between maintenance
intervals.

Additional Functions

    The advent of electronic engine controls also led to incorporating
functions that; while not required by the CFRs; also introduce
potentially catastrophic failure(s) and malfunction(s). Consequently,
incorporation of these additional functions must be shown to retain
part 23 safety levels. These additional functions have included thrust
management, portions of engine indication otherwise provided as part of
the engine installation, engine speed synchronization, ignition
control, auto-feather, etc.
    Part 25, unlike part 23, does not apply Sec.  25.1309 via special
condition to the electronic engine control installation. Section
25.1309 is applicable to the powerplant installations in general and as
a whole. The part 25 hazard classifications for LOTC/LOPC differ from
part 23 due to the required multi-engine configuration of part 25
aircraft. Additional applicable part 25 subpart E requirements are
those contained within Sec.  25.901(b)(2) and (c):

Sec. 25.901--Installation.

    a. Rule Text.
    (b) For each powerplant--
    (2) The components of the installation must be constructed,
arranged, and installed so as to ensure their continued safe
operation between normal inspections or overhauls;
    (c) For each powerplant and auxiliary power unit installation,
it must be established that no single failure or malfunction or
probable combination of failures will jeopardize the safe operation
of the airplane except that the failure of structural elements need
not be considered if the probability of such failure is extremely
remote.

    The following are excerpts from guidance provided in FAA Policy
Statement, PS-ANM100-2002-00073:

Section 25.901--Installation.

    b. Intent of Rule:
     Sec.  25.901(b)(2) is intended to require such
preventative maintenance as is necessary to ensure that components
of the powerplant installation do not cease safe functioning.
     Sec.  25.901(c) is intended to define, in general
terms, the foreseeable failures that each powerplant and auxiliary
power unit installation must be shown to safely accommodate.

(7) Sec.  25.901(c): Section 25.901(c) is intended to provide an
overall safety assessment of the powerplant installation. It is
intended to augment rather than replace other, more specific
applicable Part 25 design and performance standards for transport
category airplanes. When assessing the potential hazards to the
aircraft caused by the powerplant installation, the effects of an
engine case rupture, uncontained engine rotor failure, engine case
burnthrough, and propeller debris release are excluded from Sec.
25.901(c). The effects and rates of these failures are minimized by
compliance with Part 33 (``Airworthiness Standards: Aircraft
Engines''; Part 35 (``Airworthiness Standards: Propellers''; Sec.
25.903(d)(l) (``Engines''; Sec.  25.905(d) (``Propellers''; and
Sec.  25.1193 (``Cowling and nacelle skin''. Furthermore, the
effects of encountering environmental threats or other operating
conditions more severe than those for which the aircraft is
certified (such as volcanic ash or operation above placard speeds)
need not be considered in the Sec.  25.901(c) compliance process.
However, if a failure or malfunction can affect the subsequent
environmental qualification or other operational capability of the
installation, this effect should be accounted/or in the Sec.
25.901(c) assessment.
(a) Compliance with Sec.  25.901(c) may be shown by a System Safety
Assessment (SSA) substantiated by appropriate testing and/or
comparable service experience. Such an assessment may range from a
simple report that offers descriptive details associated with a
failure condition, interprets test results, compares two similar
systems, or offers other qualitative information; to a detailed
failure analysis that may include estimated numerical probabilities.
The depth and scope of an acceptable SSA depends on:
     the complexity and criticality of the functions
performed by the system(s) under consideration,
     the severity of related failure conditions,
     the uniqueness of the design and extent of relevant
service experience,
     the number and complexity of the identified causal
failure scenarios, and
     the detectability of contributing failures.

(b) Historically, the use of a ``bottom-up single failure
analysis,'' such as a Failure Modes and Effects Analysis (FMEA), has
been a popular safety assessment method with many applicants.
Wherever the effects of a failure are found to be operationally
``latent,'' then the effects of the ``next worst'' failure are
assessed. In this approach, the ``probable combinations of
failures'' are assumed only to be a single latent failure plus ``the
next worst'' failure. When assessing the failure effects of a simple
mechanical, hydro-mechanical, or electrical system, where
independence from the effects of failures elsewhere in the aircraft
can be assumed, this can be an effective and relatively simple means
of assuring that the design is adequately ``fail-safe.'' However, as
the integration and diversity of functions and technologies in the
subject design increase, particularly when digital avionics are
involved, the resulting increases in complexity, interdependence,
and parts count make this ``latents-plus-one'' assumption about the
``probable combinations of failure'' questionable. Consequently, to
ensure that the design is ``fail-safe'' for a sufficient number of
co-existing failures, probability methods are typically necessary.

(d) In carrying out the SSA for the powerplant installation for
Sec.  25.90I(c), the results of the engine (and propeller) failure
analyses (reference Sec.  33.28 and Sec.  33.75) should be used as
inputs for those powerplant failure effects that can have an impact
on the aircraft. However, the SSA undertaken in response to Part 33
and Part 35 may not address all the potential effects that an engine
and propeller as installed may have on the aircraft. For those
failure conditions covered by analysis under Part 33 and/or Part 35,
and for which the installation has no effect on the conclusions
derived from these analyses, no additional analyses will be required
to demonstrate compliance to Sec.  25.901(c).

    There is language similar to Sec.  25.901(c) contained in Sec.
23.1141(e):

Sec.  23.1141--Powerplant controls: General.

    (e) For turbine engine powered airplanes, no single failure or
malfunction, or probable combination thereof, in any powerplant
control system may cause the failure of any powerplant function
necessary for safety.

    The requirements contained within Sec.  23.114l(e) were originally
intended for the mechanical control interfaces on turbine engines. The
rule was first promulgated at amendment 23-7, effective on September
14, 1969. The preamble justifying the rule change states:

This proposal would, in effect require that the need for system
redundancy, alternate devices, and duplication of functions be
determined in the design of turbine powerplant control systems.

    The overall intent of the above cited rules is to provide a robust
and fault tolerant engine control installation that ensures that no
single failure or malfunction or probable combination of failures will
jeopardize the safe operation of the airplane.

Type Certification Basis

    Under the provisions of Sec.  21.101, Cessna must show that the
model J182T meets the applicable provisions of the regulations
incorporated by reference in Type Certificate No. 3A13 or the
applicable regulations in effect on the date of application for the
change to the model T182T. The regulations incorporated by reference in
the type certificate are commonly referred to as the ``original type
certification basis.'' In addition, the J182T certification basis
includes special conditions and equivalent levels of safety.
    If the Administrator finds that the applicable airworthiness
regulations (i.e., 14 CFR part 23) do not contain adequate or
appropriate safety standards for the J182T because of a novel or
unusual design feature, special conditions are prescribed under the
provisions of Sec.  21.16.
    In addition to the applicable airworthiness regulations and special
conditions, the J182T must comply with the fuel vent and exhaust
emission requirements of 14 CFR part 34 and the noise certification
requirements of 14 CFR part 36.
    The FAA issues special conditions, as defined in Sec.  11.19, under
Sec.  11.38 and they become part of the type certification basis under
Sec.  21.101.
    Special conditions are initially applicable to the model for which
they are issued. Should the type certificate for that model be amended
later to include any other model that incorporates the same novel or
unusual design feature, or should any other model already included on
the same type certificate be modified to incorporate the same novel or
unusual design feature, the special conditions would also apply to the
other model.

Novel or Unusual Design Features

    The J182T will incorporate the following novel or unusual design
features: Electronic engine control system.

Discussion

    These special conditions address the certification requirements for
the installation of Electronic Engine Control (EEC) systems on part 23
airplanes. As described in the background section, the advisory
circular and policy guidance between part 33 and part 23 contains
differences that can lead to conflicting certification requirements. As
such, these special conditions are necessary in order to provide a
reasonable means of compliance that removes the conflicts between part
33 and part 23. The intent of these special conditions is to provide a
robust and fault tolerant electronic engine control installation that
ensures no single failure or malfunction or probable combination of
failures will jeopardize the safe operation of the airplane.

Applicability

    As discussed above, these special conditions are applicable to the
model J182T. Should Cessna apply at a later date for a change to the
type certificate to include another model incorporating the same novel
or unusual design feature, the special conditions would apply to that
model as well.

Conclusion

    This action affects only certain novel or unusual design features
on one model of airplane. It is not a rule of general applicability and
affects only the applicant who applied to the FAA for approval of these
features on the airplane.
    The substance of these special conditions has been subjected to the
notice and comment period in several prior instances and has been
derived without substantive change from those previously issued. It is
unlikely that prior public comment would result in a significant change
from the substance contained herein. Therefore, because a delay would
significantly affect the certification of the airplane, which is
imminent, the FAA has determined that prior public notice and comment
are unnecessary and impracticable, and good cause exists for adopting
these special conditions upon issuance. The FAA is requesting comments
to allow interested persons to submit views that may not have been
submitted in response to the prior opportunities for comment described
above.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 23

    Aircraft, Aviation safety, Signs and symbols.

Citation

    The authority citation for these special conditions is as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113 and 44701; 14 CFR 21.16 and
21.101; and 14 CFR 11.38 and 11.19.

The Special Conditions

    Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the following special conditions are issued as part of
the type certification basis for Cessna Model J182T airplanes.
1. Electronic Engine Control
    a. For electronic engine control system installations, it must be
established that no single failure or malfunction or probable
combinations of failures of Electronic Engine Control (EEC) system
components will have an effect on the system, as installed in the
airplane, that causes the loss-of-thrust-control (LOTC), or loss-of-
power-control (LOPC) probability of the system to exceed those allowed
in part 33 certification.
    b. Electronic engine control system installations must be evaluated
for environmental and atmospheric conditions, including lightning. The
EEC system lightning and High-Intensity Radiated Fields (HIRF) effects
that result in LOTC/LOPC must be shown to comply with the HIRF and
lightning requirements appropriate for catastrophic failure conditions.
    c. The components of the installation must be constructed,
arranged, and installed so as to ensure their continued safe operation
between normal inspections or overhauls.
    d. Functions incorporated into any electronic engine control that
make it part of any equipment, systems or installation whose functions
are beyond that of basic engine control, and which may also introduce
system failures and malfunctions, are not exempt from Sec.  23.1309 and
must be shown to meet part 23 levels of safety as derived from Sec.
23.1309. Part 33 certification data, if applicable, may be used to show
compliance with any part 23 requirements. If part 33 data is to be used
to substantiate compliance with part 23 requirements, then the part 23
applicant must be able to provide this data for their showing of
compliance.

    Note: The term ``probable'' in the context of ``probable
combination of failures'' does not have the same meaning as in AC
23.1309-1E. The term ``probable'' in ``probable combination of
failures'' means ``foreseeable,'' or (in AC 23.1309-1E terms), ``not
extremely improbable.''

    Issued in Kansas City, Missouri on May 29, 2013.
Earl Lawrence,
Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2013-13841 Filed 6-24-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


Working on the Apron or Highline in Marine Terminals

Employees involved in marine cargo handling are exposed to many unique
hazards.  Employees should be aware of the dangers while working of foot
on the highline or apron.

Safety zones are provided for the protection of persons working on foot
on the highline or apron.  Employees should stay within the safety zones
at all times when haulage equipment is in motion or passing by.

Traffic Lanes are provided to guide and align container haulage
equipment under the crane.  Traffic lanes should be wide enough so that
haulage equipment never intrudes into the Safety Zone.  Tractor drivers
should ensure that they position the equipment so that it stays entirely
within the Traffic Lane and control their speed especially when passing
employees working in a Safety Zone.

Cone Bins are to be placed in the Safety Zones to allow adequate spacing
for employees to walk around the cone box without stepping outside of
the Safety Zone into moving traffic.  Forklift drivers should ensure
that all employees on foot are clear of the fork lift and its load while
moving the cone boxes.

Employees assigned to work on foot on the Apron or Highline area should
wear proper PPE:  high visibility vests, hard hats and safety toe
footwear at all times.  Employees should remain aware of haulage
equipment and forklift positions at all times and make eye contact with
equipment operators to ensure that they are seen.  Employees should stay
well clear of the bight created by chassis bolsters, bombcart flanges
and wheels.  Employees should be aware of the traffic patterns and turn
out points in use at the time.

Remember:

Focus attention toward oncoming traffic

Maintain eye contact with haulage equipment operators.

Report haulage equipment which deviates into a Safety Zone to a
supervisor immediately.

Alert coworkers to approaching equipment.

  SHAPE  \* MERGEFORMAT

DRAFT– Not for Distribution Rev 1-19-10


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 6 (Monday, January 11, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Page 1287]
[FR Doc No: 2016-201]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

[Docket Number FRA-2009-0078]

Petition for Waiver of Compliance

    In accordance with part 211 of Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR), this document provides the public notice that by a document
dated December 21, 2015, the American Short Line and Regional Railroad
Association (ASLRRA) petitioned the Federal Railroad Administration
(FRA) for an amended waiver of compliance from certain provisions of
the Federal hours of service (HOS) laws contained at 49 U.S.C.
21103(a)(4), which, in part, require a train employee to receive 48
hours off duty after initiating an on-duty period for 6 consecutive
days. FRA assigned the petition Docket Number FRA-2009-0078.
    In its petition, ASLRRA seeks to amend its existing waiver to add
two member railroads, the Plainsman Switching Company and the South
Kansas & Oklahoma Railroad Company. The existing HOS waiver was granted
in a February 27, 2012, letter from FRA. The waiver allows a train
employee to initiate an on-duty period each day for 6 consecutive days
followed by 24 hours, rather than 48 hours, off duty.
    Each railroad that seeks to be added to the waiver executed a
compliance letter, attesting that it complies with all of the employee
consent requirements that FRA set forth in its initial March 5, 2010,
decision letter. Additionally, each railroad will maintain the
underlying employee consent or employee representative consent
documents in its files for FRA inspection.
    A copy of the petition, as well as any written communications
concerning the petition, is available for review online at
www.regulations.gov and in person at the U.S. Department of
Transportation's (DOT) Docket Operations Facility, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE., W12-140, Washington, DC 20590. The Docket Operations
Facility is open from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except
Federal Holidays.
    Interested parties are invited to participate in these proceedings
by submitting written views, data, or comments. FRA does not anticipate
scheduling a public hearing in connection with these proceedings since
the facts do not appear to warrant a hearing. If any interested party
desires an opportunity for oral comment, they should notify FRA, in
writing, before the end of the comment period and specify the basis for
their request.
    All communications concerning these proceedings should identify the
appropriate docket number and may be submitted by any of the following
methods:
     Web site: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Docket Operations Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., W12-140, Washington, DC
20590.
     Hand Delivery: 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room W12-140,
Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal Holidays.
    Communications received by February 25, 2016 will be considered by
FRA before final action is taken. Comments received after that date
will be considered as far as practicable.
    Anyone is able to search the electronic form of any written
communications and comments received into any of our dockets by the
name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the document,
if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.).
In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the
public to better inform its processes. DOT posts these comments,
without edit, including any personal information the commenter
provides, to www.regulations.gov, as described in the system of records
notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at www.dot.gov/privacy.
See also http://www.regulations.gov/#!privacyNotice for the privacy
notice of regulations.gov.

Robert C. Lauby,
Associate Administrator for Railroad Safety, Chief Safety Officer.
[FR Doc. 2016-201 Filed 1-8-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-06-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 35 (Friday, February 21, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 9909-9910]
[FR Doc No: 2014-03703]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2014-N-0001]

Blood Products Advisory Committee; Notice of Meeting

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

    This notice announces a forthcoming meeting of a public advisory
committee of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). At least one
portion of the meeting will be closed to the public.
    Name of Committee: Blood Products Advisory Committee.
    General Function of the Committee: To provide advice and
recommendations to the Agency on FDA's regulatory issues.
    Date and Time: The meeting will be held on March 18, 2014, from
8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. and March 19, 2014, from 9 a.m. to 11:30 a.m.
    Location: FDA White Oak Campus, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 31
Conference Center, the Great Room (Rm. 1503), Silver Spring, MD 20993-
0002. Information regarding special accommodations due to a disability,
visitor parking, and transportation may be accessed at: http://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/default.htm; under the heading
``Resources for You,'' click on ``Public Meetings at the FDA White Oak
Campus.'' Please note that visitors to the White Oak Campus must enter
through Building 1. For those unable to attend in person, the meeting
will also be Webcast. The Webcast will be available at the following
link: https://collaboration.fda.gov/bpac2014/. On link please enter as
a guest to the site.
    Contact Person: Bryan Emery or Pearline Muckelvene, Center for
Biologics Evaluation and Research (HFM-71), Food and Drug
Administration, 1401 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852,<PHONE_NUMBER>
or<PHONE_NUMBER>, or FDA Advisory Committee Information Line, 1-800-741-
8138<PHONE_NUMBER> in the Washington, DC area). A notice in the Federal
Register about last minute modifications that impact a previously
announced advisory committee meeting cannot always be published quickly
enough to provide timely notice. Therefore, you should always check the
Agency's Web site at http://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/default.htm
and scroll down to the appropriate advisory committee meeting link, or
call the advisory committee information line to learn about possible
modifications before coming to the meeting.
    Agenda: On the morning of March 18, 2014, the committee will meet
in open session to discuss the evaluation of the safety and
effectiveness of the Immucor PreciseTypeTM HEA Molecular
BeadChip Assay, manufactured by BioArray Solutions Limited. In the
afternoon, the committee will hear update presentations on the
following topics: (1) Report from the Presidential Commission for the
Study of Bioethical Issues on the ethical implications of incidental
findings in clinical, research, and direct-to-consumer contexts; (2)
summary of the January 28-29, 2014, FDA public workshop on immune
globulin-associated hemolysis; and (3) a summary of the December 4-5,
2013, HHS Advisory Committee on Blood and Tissue Safety and
Availability. On the morning of March 19, 2014, the committee will meet
in open session to

hear presentations on the research programs of the Laboratory
Hemostasis, Division of Hematology, Office of Blood Research and
Review, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, FDA.
    FDA intends to make background material available to the public no
later than 2 business days before the meeting. If FDA is unable to post
the background material on its Web site prior to the meeting, the
background material will be made publicly available at the location of
the advisory committee meeting, and the background material will be
posted on FDA's Web site after the meeting. Background material is
available at http://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/Calendar/default.htm. Scroll down to the appropriate advisory committee meeting
link.
    Procedure: On March 18, 2014, from 8:30 a.m. to approximately 4:30
p.m., the meeting is open to the public. Interested persons may present
data, information, or views, orally or in writing, on issues pending
before the committee. Written submissions may be made to the contact
person on or before March 11, 2014. Oral presentations from the public
on March 18, 2014, will be scheduled between approximately 1:30 p.m.
and 2 p.m. On March 19, 2014, from 9 a.m. to approximately 11 a.m., the
meeting is open to the public. Oral presentations from the public on
March 19, 2014, will be scheduled between approximately 10:30 a.m. and
11 a.m. Those individuals interested in making formal oral
presentations should notify the contact person and submit a brief
statement of the general nature of the evidence or arguments they wish
to present, the names and addresses of proposed participants, and an
indication of the approximate time requested to make their presentation
on or before March 3, 2014. Time allotted for each presentation may be
limited. If the number of registrants requesting to speak is greater
than can be reasonably accommodated during the scheduled open public
hearing session, FDA may conduct a lottery to determine the speakers
for the scheduled open public hearing session. The contact person will
notify interested persons regarding their request to speak by March 4,
2014.
    Closed Committee Deliberations: On March 19, 2014, from
approximately 11 a.m. to 11:30 a.m., the meeting will be closed to
permit discussion where disclosure would constitute a clearly
unwarranted invasion of personal privacy (5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(6)). The
committee will discuss the site visit report of the intramural research
programs and make recommendations regarding personnel staffing
decisions.
    Persons attending FDA's advisory committee meetings are advised
that the Agency is not responsible for providing access to electrical
outlets. Seating for this meeting may be limited, so the public is
encouraged to watch the free Webcast if unable to attend. The Webcast
will be available at 8:30 a.m. on March 18, 2014, and on March 19,
2014, at 9 a.m. at the link provided.
    FDA welcomes the attendance of the public at its advisory committee
meetings and will make every effort to accommodate persons with
physical disabilities or special needs. If you require special
accommodations due to a disability, please contact Bryan Emery at least
7 days in advance of the meeting.
    FDA is committed to the orderly conduct of its advisory committee
meetings. Please visit our Web site at http://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/AboutAdvisoryCommittees/ucm111462.htm for procedures
on public conduct during advisory committee meetings.
    Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory
Committee Act (5 U.S.C. app. 2).

    Dated: February 18, 2014.
Leslie Kux,
Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2014-03703 Filed 2-20-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-P


[Federal Register: July 20, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 137)]
[Notices]
[Page 35200-35201]
[DOCID:fr20jy09-72]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

[USCG-2009-0086]

Collection of Information Under Review by Office of Management
and Budget: OMB Control Number: 1625-0071

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Thirty-day notice requesting comments.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this
request for comments announces that the U.S. Coast Guard is forwarding
an Information Collection Request (ICR), abstracted below, to the
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) requesting an extension of its approval for
the following collection of information: 1625-0071, Boat Owner's
Report, Possible Safety Defect. Our ICR describes the information we
seek to collect from the public. Review and comments by OIRA ensure we
only impose paperwork burdens commensurate with our performance of
duties.

DATES: Please submit comments on or before August 19, 2009.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by Coast Guard docket
number [USCG-2009-0086] to the Docket Management Facility (DMF) at the
U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) or to OIRA. To avoid
duplication, please submit your comments by only one of the following
means:
    (1) Electronic submission. (a) To Coast Guard docket at http://
www.regulations.gov. (b) To OIRA by e-mail via: oira_
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) Mail or Hand delivery. (a) DMF (M-30), DOT, West Building
Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC
20590-0001. Hand deliver between the hours of 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays. The telephone number is 202-
366-9329. (b) To OIRA, 725 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503,
attention Desk Officer for the Coast Guard.
    (3) Fax. (a) To DMF,<PHONE_NUMBER>. (b) To OIRA at<PHONE_NUMBER>. To
ensure your comments are received in time, mark the fax, attention Desk
Officer for the Coast Guard.
    The DMF maintains the public docket for this Notice. Comments and
material received from the public, as well as documents mentioned in
this Notice as being available in the docket, will become part of the
docket and will be available for inspection or copying at room W12-140
on the West Building Ground Floor, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE.,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. You may also find the docket on the Internet
at http://www.regulations.gov.
    A copy of the ICR is available through the docket on the Internet
at http://www.regulations.gov. Additionally, copies are available from:
    Commandant (CG-611), Attn Paperwork Reduction Act Manager, U.S.
Coast Guard, 2100 2nd St., SW., Stop 7101, Washington, DC 20593-7101.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Contact Mr. Arthur Requina, Office of
Information Management, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER> or fax<PHONE_NUMBER>, for
questions on these documents. Contact Ms. Renee V. Wright, Program
Manager, Docket Operations,<PHONE_NUMBER>, for questions on the docket.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Coast Guard invites comments on whether
this ICR should be granted based on it being necessary for the proper
performance of Departmental functions. In particular, the Coast Guard
would appreciate comments addressing: (1) The practical utility of the
collections; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden of the
collections; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of
information subject to the collections; and (4) ways to minimize the
burden of collections on respondents, including the use of automated
collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
    Comments to Coast Guard or OIRA must contain the OMB Control Number
of the ICR. They must also contain the docket number of this request
[USCG 2009-0086]. For your comments to OIRA to be considered, it is
best if they are received on or before August 19, 2009.
    Public participation and request for comments: We encourage you to
respond to this request by submitting comments and related materials.
We will post all comments received,

without change, to http://www.regulations.gov. They will include any
personal information you provide. We have an agreement with DOT to use
their DMF. Please see the ``Privacy Act'' paragraph below.
    Submitting comments: If you submit a comment, please include the
docket number [USCG-2009-0086], indicate the specific section of the
document to which each comment applies, providing a reason for each
comment. We recommend you include your name, mailing address, an e-mail
address, or other contact information in the body of your document so
that we can contact you if we have questions regarding your submission.
You may submit comments and material by electronic means, mail, fax, or
delivery to the DMF at the address under ADDRESSES; but please submit
them by only one means. If you submit them by mail or delivery, submit
them in an unbound format, no larger than 8\1/2\ by 11 inches, suitable
for copying and electronic filing. If you submit them by mail and would
like to know that they reached the Facility, please enclose a stamped,
self-addressed postcard or envelope. In response to your comments, we
may revise the ICR or decide not to seek an extension of approval for
this collection. The Coast Guard and OIRA will consider all comments
and material received during the comment period.
    Viewing comments and documents: Go to http://www.regulations.gov to
view documents mentioned in this Notice as being available in the
docket. Enter the docket number [USCG-2009-0086] in the Search box, and
click, ``Go>>. You may also visit the DMF in room W12-140 on the West
Building Ground Floor, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC,
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays.
    Privacy Act: Anyone can search the electronic form of all comments
received in dockets by the name of the individual submitting the
comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an
association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review the Privacy
Act statement regarding our public dockets in the January 17, 2008
issue of the Federal Register (73 FR 3316).

Previous Request for Comments

    This request provides a 30-day comment period required by OIRA. The
Coast Guard has published the 60-day notice (74 FR 10751, March 12,
2008) required by 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2). That Notice elicited no
comments.

Information Collection Request

    Title: Boat Owner's Report, Possible Safety Defect.
    OMB Control Number: 1625-0071.
    Type of Request: Revision of a currently approved collection.
    Respondents: Owners and users of recreational boats and items/
designated associated equipment.
    Abstract: Title 46 U.S.C. 4310 gives the Coast Guard authority to
require manufacturers of recreational boats and certain items/
designated associated equipment to notify owners and remedy: (1)
Defects that create a substantial risk of personal injury to the
public; and (2) failures to comply with applicable Federal safety
standards.
    Forms: CG-5578.
    Burden Estimate: The estimated annual burden has increased from
13.2 hours to 17.8 per year.

    Authority: The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C.
Chapter 35, as amended.

    Dated: July 13, 2009.
M.B. Lytle,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard Acting Assistant Commandant for Command,
Control, Communications, Computers and Information Technology.
[FR Doc. E9-17095 Filed 7-17-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-15-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 226 (Friday, November 23, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 59447-59448]
[FR Doc No: 2018-25508]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Office of the Secretary

[Docket No. DOT-OST-2018-0190]

Advisory Committee on Aviation Consumer Protection Matters;
Subcommittee on In-Flight Sexual Misconduct

AGENCY: Office of the Secretary (``OST''), Department of Transportation
(``DOT'').

ACTION: Notice of reestablishment and first meeting of the Aviation
Consumer Protection Advisory Committee.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Transportation (``Department'') has
reestablished the Aviation Consumer Protection Advisory Committee
(``ACPAC'' or ``Committee''), formerly known as the Advisory Committee
on Aviation Consumer Protection, as a Federal advisory committee. The
Department has also established a National In-Flight Sexual Misconduct
Task Force (``Task Force'') as an ACPAC Subcommittee. The Task Force
will develop recommendations for the ACPAC's consideration on best
practices and protocols for air carriers relating to training,
reporting, and data collection of sexual assault onboard commercial
aircraft. The Department anticipates the first meeting of the ACPAC
will be held on January 16, 2019. The meeting will be held in the Media
Center (located on the lobby level of the West Building) at the U.S.
Department of Transportation Headquarters,1200 New Jersey Ave, SE,
Washington, DC 20590. Three topics will be discussed at that meeting--
(1) establishment of the Task Force (including the tasks to be carried
out by the Task Force); (2) transparency of airline ancillary service
fees; and (3) involuntary changes to travel itineraries.

DATES: The first meeting of the reestablished ACPAC will be held on
January 16, 2019, from 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Eastern Time.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: To register to attend the meeting,
please contact Stuart Hindman, Senior Attorney, Office of Aviation
Enforcement and Proceedings, by email at [email protected], or by
telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>; or Zeenat Iqbal, Senior Attorney, Office of
Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings, by email at [email protected],
or by telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>. Attendance is open to the public up to
the room's capacity of 100 attendees. Since space is limited and access
to the DOT headquarters building is controlled for security purposes,
any member of the general public who plans to attend this meeting must
notify the registration contact identified no later than Wednesday,
January 2, 2019.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On May 24, 2012, the Department established an advisory committee
on aviation consumer protection, known as the Advisory Committee on
Aviation Consumer Protection, as mandated by section 411 of the FAA
Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 (Pub. L. 112-95, 126 Stat. 11
(2012)) (2012 FAA Act) and the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA),
as amended. The original Committee held nine meetings and examined a
broad range of issues affecting consumers. The Committee has
contributed significantly to the Department's aviation consumer
protection program as it provides a forum for stakeholders, including
representatives of airlines, airports and consumers, to discuss
important consumer issues.
    The statutory termination date for the Committee was originally
established by the 2012 FAA Act as September 30, 2015, but has been
extended several times, most recently by the FAA Reauthorization Act of
2018 (Pub. L. No: 115-254) (2018 FAA Act) to the current termination
date of September 30, 2023.
    The Department has updated the Committee's charter to clarify that
the Committee's work should concern aviation consumer protection issues
that fall within the current statutory authority of the Department and
establish a subcommittee to be called the ``National In-Flight Sexual
Misconduct Task Force.''

Appointment of New Members

    The Secretary has appointed four new members to the Committee. The
appointed members are: (1) Patricia Vercelli, General Counsel, Airlines
for America, as the airline representative; (2) Mario Rodriguez,
Executive Director of the Indianapolis Airport Authority, as the
airport operator representative; (3) Pete K. Rahn, Maryland Secretary
of Transportation, as the State or local government representative; and
(4) Frances Smith, Adjunct Fellow, Competitive Enterprise Institute, as
the consumer representative. Mr. Rahn will serve as the Chair of the
Committee. The Department chose the Committee members based on two main
criteria: (1) Representativeness (does the individual represent one of
the four groups mentioned above); and (2) expertise (does the
individual bring essential knowledge, expertise, or experience
regarding consumer protection).

National In-Flight Sexual Misconduct Task Force Subcommittee

    Recent reports of increased incidents of sexual assault and
misconduct onboard aircraft have highlighted concerns regarding the
response to such incidents. The Joint Explanatory Statement of the 2018
Consolidated Appropriations Act requested that the Department establish
a Task Force to provide recommendations in this area. In addition, the
Task Force is mandated by the 2018 FAA Act. Accordingly, a Task Force
has been established as a subcommittee under the ACPAC to consider best
practices and protocols for air carriers relating to training,
reporting, and data collection of sexual misconduct by passengers
onboard commercial aircraft. The Task Force will include
representatives from the Department of Transportation, Department of
Justice (including the Federal Bureau of Investigations, Office of
Victims of Crime and Office on Violence Against Women), Department of
Health and Human Services, national organizations which specialize in
providing services to sexual assault

victims, national consumer protection organizations, national travel
organizations, labor organizations representing flight attendants and
pilots, State and local law enforcement agencies, airports, and air
carriers. As a subcommittee, the Task Force will report its
recommendations to the ACPAC for deliberation and not provide its
recommendations directly to the Department. The Task Force's report of
its findings and recommendations to the ACPAC will be released to the
public.

ACPAC Administrative Matters; Upcoming Meeting; and Topics

    The first meeting of the reestablished ACPAC will take place at the
Department's headquarters in Washington, DC on January 16, 2019. During
the first meeting, the Department will announce the members of the Task
Force and there will be a discussion of the duties of the Task Force
members. In addition, two other topics--the transparency of airline
ancillary service fees and involuntary changes to itineraries--will be
discussed. The Joint Explanatory Statement of the 2018 Consolidated
Appropriations Act requests that the Department work in collaboration
with industry, consumers and other stakeholders to establish guidelines
on transparency of airline ancillary fees. In addition, the 2018 FAA
Act mandates that the Department review and make recommendations with
regard to air carriers' handling of involuntary changes to passengers'
travel itineraries, and that the Department may consult with the
Committee for this purpose. Accordingly, the Committee will discuss
these issues during the meeting.
    The Department's Office of Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings,
within the Office of the General Counsel, will provide appropriate
funding, logistics, administrative, and technical support for the
Committee. The Department's subject matter experts will also provide
support to the Committee.

Viewing Documents

    You may view any documents mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket at http://www.regulations.gov. After entering
the docket number, click the link to ``Open Docket Folder'' and choose
the document to review. If you do not have access to the internet, you
may view the docket online by visiting the Docket Management Facility
in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the DOT West Building, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
E.T., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

    Dated: November 8, 2018.
Steven G. Bradbury,
General Counsel.
[FR Doc. 2018-25508 Filed 11-21-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-P


Appendix C2. Other Data on Effects of Copper on Saltwater Organisms Species Methoda Chemical Salinity ( g/ kg) Duration Effect Total Concentration ( µ g/ L) b Dissolved Concentration ( µ g/ L) Reference Natural phytoplankton populations    5 days Reduced chlorophyll a 19  Hollibaugh et al. 1980 Natural phytoplankton populations    4 days Reduced biomass 6.4  Hollibaugh et al. 1980 Dinoflagellate,

Glenodinium halli S, U  28 48 hr No growth 10 160  Wilson and Freeberg 1980 Dinoflagellate,

Glenodinium halli S, U  28 48 hr No effect on growth 2 120  Wilson and Freeberg 1980 Dinoflagellate,

Gymnodinium splendens S, U  28 48 hr No growth 10 100  Wilson and Freeberg 1980 Dinoflagellate,

Gymnodinium splendens S, U  28 48 hr No effect on growth 5 90  Wilson and Freeberg 1980 Phytoflagellate,

Isochrysis galbana S, U  28 48 hr No growth 100 1,000  Wilson and Freeberg 1980 Phytoflagellate,

Isochrysis galbana S, U  28 48 hr No effect on growth 20 300  Wilson and Freeberg 1980 Alga, Laminaria hyperboria    28 days Growth decrease 50  Hopkins and Kain 1971 Diatom, Asterionella japonica S, U Copper sulfate  72 hr EC50 ( growth) 12.7  Fisher and Jones 1981 Diatom, Thalassiosira pseudonana S, U Copper chloride 30 34 72 hr EC50 ( growth rate) 6  Erickson 1972 Diatom, Thalassiosira pseudonana S, U  28 48 hr No growth 80 500  Wilson and Freeberg 1980 Diatom, Thalassiosira pseudonana S, U  28 48 hr No effect on growth 50 70  Wilson and Freeberg 1980 Red alga ( gametophytes),

Ceramium strictum S, U  34 24 hr EC50 ( fertilization) 10 15  Eklund 1993 Red alga ( mature),

Champia parvula S, U  30 48 hr LOEC ( reproduction) 2.0  U. S. EPA 1988 Red alga ( mature),

Champia parvula S, U Copper sulfate 30 48 hr IC50 ( fertilization) 1.4  Morrison et al. 1989 Red alga ( female),

Chondrus crispus Copper sulfate  24 hr 14% reduction in growth 10  Staples et al. 1995 Bladderwrack ( zygotes),

Fucus vesiculosis S, U  6 24 hr EC50 ( germination) 60  Andersson and Kautsky 1996 Kelp ( mature sporophyte),

Laminaria saccharina S, U Copper sulfate  1 hr LOEC ( 28% decrease is meiospore release) 50  Chung and Brinkhuis 1986 Giant kelp ( spores),

Macrocystis pyrifera S, M, T Copper chloride 33 48 hr NOEC ( Germination) < 40.8  Anderson et al. 1990 Giant kelp ( spores),

Macrocystis pyrifera S, M, T Copper chloride 33 48 hr NOEC ( Germination) 99.1  Anderson et al. 1990 Giant kelp ( spores),

Macrocystis pyrifera S, M, T Copper chloride 33 48 hr NOEC ( Germination) 19.4  Anderson et al. 1990 C2 1 Appendix C2. Other Data on Effects of Copper on Saltwater Organisms Species Methoda Chemical Salinity ( g/ kg) Duration Effect Total Concentration ( µ g/ L) b Dissolved Concentration ( µ g/ L) Reference Giant kelp ( spores),

Macrocystis pyrifera S, M, T Copper chloride 33 48 hr NOEC ( Germination) 54.1  Anderson et al. 1990 Giant kelp ( spores),

Macrocystis pyrifera S, M, T Copper chloride 33 48 hr NOEC ( Germination) 55.8  Anderson et al. 1990 Giant kelp ( spores),

Macrocystis pyrifera S, M, T Copper chloride 33 48 hr NOEC ( Germination) 94.5  Anderson et al. 1990 Giant kelp ( spores),

Macrocystis pyrifera S, M, T Copper chloride 33 48 hr NOEC ( Germination) 50.1  Anderson et al. 1990 Giant kelp ( spores),

Macrocystis pyrifera S, M, T Copper chloride 33 48 hr NOEC ( Germination) < 40.8  Anderson et al. 1990 Giant kelp ( spores),

Macrocystis pyrifera S, M, T Copper chloride 33 48 hr NOEC ( Germination) < 40.8  Anderson et al. 1990 Giant kelp ( spores),

Macrocystis pyrifera S, M, T Copper chloride 33 48 hr NOEC ( Germination) < 31.1  Anderson et al. 1990 Giant kelp ( spores),

Macrocystis pyrifera S, M, T Copper chloride 33 48 hr NOEC ( Germination) < 10.1  Anderson et al. 1990 Giant kelp ( spores),

Macrocystis pyrifera S, M, T Copper chloride 33 48 hr NOEC ( Germination) 18.8  Anderson et al. 1990 Giant kelp ( spores),

Macrocystis pyrifera S, M, T Copper chloride 33 48 hr NOEC ( Germination) 8.8  Anderson et al. 1990 Giant kelp ( spores),

Macrocystis pyrifera S, M, T Copper chloride 33 48 hr NOEC ( Germination) 9.3  Anderson et al. 1990 Giant kelp ( spores),

Macrocystis pyrifera S, M, T Copper chloride 33 48 hr NOEC ( Germination) 10.2  Anderson et al. 1990 Giant kelp, Macrocystis pyrifera R, M, T Copper chloride 33 35 42 hr NOEC ( Spore germination) 20  Garman et al. 1994 Giant kelp, Macrocystis pyrifera R, M, T Copper chloride 33 35 42 hr LOEC ( Spore germination) 40  Garman et al. 1994 Giant kelp, Macrocystis pyrifera R, M, T Copper chloride 33 35 42 hr NOEC ( Germ tube growth) 20  Garman et al. 1994 Giant kelp, Macrocystis pyrifera R, M, T Copper chloride 33 35 42 hr NOEC ( Germ tube growth) 40  Garman et al. 1994 Giant kelp, Macrocystis pyrifera R, M, T Copper chloride 33 35 42 hr NOEC ( Nuclear migration) 10  Garman et al. 1994 Giant kelp, Macrocystis pyrifera R, M, T Copper chloride 33 35 42 hr NOEC ( Nuclear migration) 20  Garman et al. 1994 Hydroid, Campanularia flexuosa S, U Copper chloride FSW 11 days Threshold reduced growth rate 13  Stebbing 1976 Hydroid, Campanularia flexuosa S, U Copper chloride FSW 11 days Glucosamidase increased 1.43  Moore and Stebbing 1976 Hydromedusa,

Phialidium sp. S, U   24 hr LC50 36  Reeve et al. 1976 Ctenophore, Pleurobrachia plicatilis S, U   24 hr LC50 33  Reeve et al. 1976 C2 2 Appendix C2. Other Data on Effects of Copper on Saltwater Organisms Species Methoda Chemical Salinity ( g/ kg) Duration Effect Total Concentration ( µ g/ L) b Dissolved Concentration ( µ g/ L) Reference Ctenophore,

Mnemiopsis mccradyi S, U   24 hr LC50 17 29  Reeve et al. 1976 Rotifer, Brachionus plicatilis S, U   24 hr LC50 100  Reeve et al. 1976 Rotifer (< 3 hr),

Brachionus plicatilis S, U Copper sulfate 15 24 hr LC50 120  Snell and Persoone 1989a Rotifer (< 3 hr),

Brachionus plicatilis S, U Copper sulfate 30 24 hr LC50 130  Snell and Persoone 1989a Rotifer (< 3 hr),

Brachionus plicatilis S, U  15 24 hr LC50 63  Snell et al. 1991a Rotifer (< 3 hr),

Brachionus plicatilis S, U  15 24 hr LC50 35  Snell et al. 1991a Rotifer (< 3 hr),

Brachionus plicatilis S, U  15 24 hr LC50 170  Snell et al. 1991a Rotifer (< 5 hr),

Brachionus plicatilis S, U Copper chloride 15 1 hr NOEC ( ingestion) 100  Juchelka and Snell 1995 Polychaete worm ( embryos),

Hediste diversicolor R, U Copper nitrate 14.6 6 days Severe reduction in hatching 100  Ozoh and Jones 1990a Polychaete worm ( embryos),

Hediste diversicolor R, U Copper nitrate 21.9 6 days Severe reduction in hatching 100  Ozoh and Jones 1990a Polychaete worm ( embryos),

Hediste diversicolor R, U Copper nitrate 29.2 6 days Severe reduction in hatching 100  Ozoh and Jones 1990a Polychaete worm,

Phyllodoce maculata R, U Copper sulfate  9 days LC50 80  McLusky and Phillips 1975 Polychaete worm,

Neanthes arenaceodentata F, M, T Copper nitrate 31 28 days LC50 44  Pesch and Morgan 1978 Polychaete worm,

Neanthes arenaceodentata F, M, T Copper nitrate 31 28 days LC50 100  Pesch and Morgan 1978 Polychaete worm,

Neanthes arenaceodentata F, M, T Copper nitrate 31 7 days LC50 137  Pesch and Hoffman 1982 Polychaete worm,

Neanthes arenaceodentata F, M, T Copper nitrate 31 10 days LC50 98  Pesch and Hoffman 1982 Polychaete worm,

Neanthes arenaceodentata F, M, T Copper nitrate 31 28 days LC50 56  Pesch and Hoffman 1982 Polychaete worm ( 21 day),

Neanthes arenaceodentata F, M, T Copper chloride 29 28 days LC50 83  Pesch et al. 1986 Polychaete worm ( 21 day),

Neanthes arenaceodentata F, M, T Copper chloride 29 28 days LC50 81  Pesch et al. 1986 Polychaete worm ( 21 day),

Neanthes arenaceodentata F, M, T Copper chloride 29 28 days LC50 86  Pesch et al. 1986 Polychaete worm,

Ophrytrocha diadema S, U Copper chloride FSW 98% 48 hr LC50 100 330  Parker 1984 Polychaete worm,

Ophrytrocha diadema S, U Copper chloride FSW 98% 48 hr LC50 60 80  Parker 1984 C2 3 Appendix C2. Other Data on Effects of Copper on Saltwater Organisms Species Methoda Chemical Salinity ( g/ kg) Duration Effect Total Concentration ( µ g/ L) b Dissolved Concentration ( µ g/ L) Reference Polychaete worm,

Ophrytrocha diadema S, U Copper chloride FSW 98% 48 hr LC50 80 100  Parker 1984 Polychaete worm,

Ophrytrocha diadema S, U Copper chloride FSW 98% 48 hr LC50 80 110  Parker 1984 Polychaete worm,

Cirriformia spirabranchia R, U Copper sulfate 29 26 days LC50 40  Milanovich et al. 1976 Annelids ( larvae),

mixed species S, U   24 hr LC50 89  Reeve et al. 1976 Black abalone.

Haliotis cracherodii    96 hr Histopathological gill abnormalities > 32  Martin et al. 1977 Red abalone.

Haliotis rufescens    96 hr Histopathological gill abnormalities > 32  Martin et al. 1977 Coral ( embryos),

Montastraea faveolata S, U Copper sulfate 36.0 24 hr EC50 ( normal development) 24.9  Rumbold and Snedaker 1997 Channeled whelk,

Busycon canaliculatum R, U Copper chloride  77 days LC50 470  Betzer and Yevich 1975 Mudsnail, Nassarius obsoletus    72 hr Decrease in oxygen consumption 100  MacInnes and Thurberg 1973 Mudsnail ( embryo),

Ilyanassa obsoleta S, U Copper chloride  ca. 3 hr Abnormal development 63.5  Conrad 1988 Queen conch ( embryo),

Strombus gigas S, U Copper sulfate 36.8 24 hr EC50 ( normal development) 21.3  Rumbold and Snedaker 1997 Bivalve mollusk ( embryo),

Isognomon californicum S, U Copper chloride 16 96 hr LC50 7 Ringwood 1992 Blue mussel ( 1 2 cm),

Mytilus edulis S, U Copper chloride  7 days LC50 100 200  Scott and Major 1972 Blue mussel ( ca, 2 cm),

Mytilus edulis R, U Copper sulfate 16.5 7 days LC50 200  Huilsom 1983 Blue mussel ( ca, 2 cm),

Mytilus edulis R, U Copper sulfate 16.5 14 days LC50 100  Huilsom 1983 Blue mussel ( 1.0 1.5 cm),

Mytilus edulis F, M, T Copper chloride  10 days EC50 ( growth) 6  Redpath 1985 Blue mussel ( 0.5 1.5 cm),

Mytilus edulis S, U Copper sulfate brackish 24 hr LC50 ( after 3 weeks) 420  Sunila and Lindstrom 1985 Blue mussel ( 2.0 3.0 cm),

Mytilus edulis S, U Copper sulfate brackish 24 hr LC50 ( after 3 weeks) 270  Sunila and Lindstrom 1985 Blue mussel ( 1 1.9 cm),

Mytilus edulis F, U Copper sulfate 32.1 144 hr EC20 ( growth rate) 3  Stromgren 1986 Blue mussel ( 2 3.5 cm),

Mytilus edulis S, U Copper sulfate  24 hr Gill histopathology 1 yr later 100  Sunila 1986 Blue mussel ( 2 3.5 cm),

Mytilus edulis S, U Copper sulfate  24 hr Renal cysts 4 months later 200  Sunila 1989 Blue mussel ( larvae),

Mytilus edulis R, U Copper chloride 32 15 days LC50 270  Beaumont et al. 1987 C2 4 Appendix C2. Other Data on Effects of Copper on Saltwater Organisms Species Methoda Chemical Salinity ( g/ kg) Duration Effect Total Concentration ( µ g/ L) b Dissolved Concentration ( µ g/ L) Reference Blue mussel ( 5 6 cm),

Mytilus edulis S, U   5 days EC50 ( filtration rate) 2  Grace and Gainey 1987 Blue mussel ( 5 6 cm),

Mytilus edulis S, U   96 hr EC50 ( heart rate) 170  Grace and Gainey 1987 Blue mussel ( 49.5 mm),

Mytilus edulis F, U Copper chloride 26 126 days Significant increase in mortality 5  Nelson et al. 1988 Blue mussel ( 4 6 cm),

Mytilus edulis F, M, T Copper chloride 35 Several hr Halted pumping 20.8 25.6  Redpath and Davenport 1988 Blue mussel ( 7 9 cm),

Mytilus edulis R, U Copper sulfate 32 20 days LC100 150  Hawkins et al. 1989 Blue mussel ( 4.76 cm),

Mytilus edulis F, U Copper sulfate 30 7 days LOEC ( scope for growth) 32  Sanders et al. 1991 Blue mussel ( maturing),

Mytilus edulis R, M, T Copper sulfate 32 1 mo IC50 ( no. spawning w/ KCl injection) 3.3  Stromgren and Nielsen 1991 Blue mussel ( 150 um),

Mytilus edulis R, M, T Copper sulfate 32 10 days EC50 ( growth) 5  Stromgren and Nielsen 1991 Blue mussel ( 5.7 cm),

Mytilus edulis R, U Copper chloride 36 9 days LC50 894  Weber et al. 1992 Blue mussel ( 5.7 cm),

Mytilus edulis R, U Copper chloride 36 14 days LC50 146  Weber et al. 1992 Blue mussel ( embryo),

Mytilus edulis S, U Copper chloride FSW 3 days 23% fewer normal larvae 10  Hoare et al. 1995a Blue mussel ( embryo),

Mytilus edulis S, U Copper chloride FSW 3 days 49% fewer normal larvae 10  Hoare et al. 1995a Blue mussel ( embryo),

Mytilus edulis S, U Copper chloride FSW 3 days 80% fewer survivors after 5 mo 10  Hoare et al. 1995b Bay scallop,

Argopecten irradians F, M, T Copper chloride 27.4 31.5 42 days EC50 ( growth) 5.8  Pesch et al. 1979 Bay scallop,

Argopecten irradians F, M, T Copper chloride 29 32 119 days 100% mortality 5  Zaroogian and Johnson 1983 Bay scallop ( 31.2 mm),

Argopecten irradians F, U Copper chloride 26 126 days Significant increase in mortality 5  Nelson et al. 1988 Giant sea scallop ( 107 mm ht.),

Placopectin magellanicus F, M Copper sulfate 24.7 8 wk Significant decrease in gonad weight,

protein, RNA 20  Gould et al. 1988 Bivalve mollusk ( sperm),

Isognomen californicum S, U Copper chloride 16 1 hr EC50 ( fertilization) 55  Ringwood 1992 Eastern oyster ( larva),

Crassostrea virginica S, U Copper chloride 25 12 days LC50 46  Calabrese et al. 1977 Eastern oyster ( embryo),

Crassostrea virginica S, U Copper chloride 25  LC50 128  Calabrese et al. 1973 Pearl oyster ( embryos),

Pteria colymbus S, U Copper sulfate 36.6 24 hr EC50 ( normal development) < 7  Rumbold and Snedaker 1997 Common rangia,

Rangia cuneata S, U  < 1.0 96 hr LC50 210  Olson and Harrel 1973 C2 5 Appendix C2. Other Data on Effects of Copper on Saltwater Organisms Species Methoda Chemical Salinity ( g/ kg) Duration Effect Total Concentration ( µ g/ L) b Dissolved Concentration ( µ g/ L) Reference Surf clam ( 30.4 mm),

Spisula solidissima F, U Copper chloride 26 126 days Significant increase in mortality 5  Nelson et al. 1988 Clam, Macoma inquinata F, U Copper sulfate  30 days LC50 15.7  Crecelius et al. 1982 Clam, Macoma inquinata F, U Copper sulfate  30 days LC50 20.7  Crecelius et al. 1982 Quahog clam ( larva),

Mercenaria mercenaria R, U Copper chloride 24 8 10 days LC50 30  Calabrese et al. 1977 Quahog clam,

Mercenaria mercenaria F, M, T  31 11 15 wk LC50 25  Shuster and Pringle 1968 Common Pacific littleneck,

Protothaca staminea    17 days LC50 39  Roesijadi 1980 Soft shell clam ( 3.9 4.9 cm),

Mya arenaria S, U Copper chloride 30 7 days LC50 35  Eisler 1977 Horseshoe crab ( embryo),

Limulus polyphemus R, U Copper sulfate 20 72 hr LC50 2,000  Botton et al. 1998 Horseshoe crab ( embryo),

Limulus polyphemus R, U Copper sulfate 20 72 hr LC50 171,000  Botton et al. 1998 Horseshoe crab ( blastula and gastrula stage embryo),

Limulus polyphemus R, U Copper sulfate  24 hr Total mortality 100,000  Itow et al. 1998 Horseshoe crab ( post gastrula embryo),

Limulus polyphemus R, U Copper sulfate  24 hr < 50% mortality 100,000  Itow et al. 1998 Copepod,

Enidula vulgaris S, U   24 hr LC50 192  Reeve et al. 1976 Copepod, Euchaeta marina S, U   24 hr LC50 188  Reeve et al. 1976 Copepod,

Metridia pacifica S, U   24 hr LC50 176  Reeve et al. 1976 Copepod ( 24 hr),

Eurytemora affinis R, M, T Copper in HNO3 FSW 96 hr LOEC ( development) 27.2  Sullivan et al. 1983 Copepod ( 24 hr),

Eurytemora affinis R, M, T Copper in HNO3 FSW 96 hr LOEC ( development) 23.5  Sullivan et al. 1983 Copepod ( 24 hr),

Eurytemora affinis S, M, D Copper chloride 14 16 8 days LOEC ( survival, gravid females, maturation)  79.9c Hall et al. 1997 Copepod Labidocera scotti S, U   24 hr LC50 132  Reeve et al. 1976 Copepod,

Acartia clausi S, U Copper sulfate FSW 48 hr LC50 34  Moraitou Apostolopoulou 1978 Copepod,

Acartia clausi S, U Copper sulfate FSW 96 hr LC50 < 10  Moraitou Apostolopoulou 1978 Copepod,

Acartia tonsa F, U Copper nitrate 30 6 days LC50 9 78  Sosnowski et al. 1979 Copepod,

Acartia tonsa    24 hr LC50 104 311  Reeve et al. 1976 C2 6 Appendix C2. Other Data on Effects of Copper on Saltwater Organisms Species Methoda Chemical Salinity ( g/ kg) Duration Effect Total Concentration ( µ g/ L) b Dissolved Concentration ( µ g/ L) Reference Copepod,

Acartia tonsa R, U Copper sulfate 38 10 days Decrease mean lifespan by about 40% 1  Verriopoulous 1992 Copepod ( adult female),

Tisbe holothuriae S, U  FSW 48 hr LC50 80  Moraitou Apostolopoulou and Verriopoulos 1982 Copepod ( nauplii),

mixed species S, U   24 hr LC50 90  Reeve et al. 1976 Barnacle ( nauplii),

Balanus amphitrite S, U Copper chloride FSW 22 24 hr LC50 480  Sasikumar et al. 1995 Barnacle ( 3 hr nauplii),

Balanus improvisus S, M, T Copper oxide FSW 96 hr LC50 20  Koryakova and Korn 1993 Mysid shrimp, Americamysis bahia S, U Copper chloride 20 48 hr LC50  423 PBS& J 1999 Mysid shrimp, Americamysis bahia S, U Copper chloride 20 48 hr LC50  284 PBS& J 1999 Mysid shrimp, Americamysis bahia S, U Copper chloride 20 48 hr LC50  403 PBS& J 1999 Mysid shrimp, Americamysis bahia S, U Copper chloride 20 48 hr LC50  367 PBS& J 1999 Mysid ( 7 day),

Americamysis bahia R, U Copper sulfate 20 30 7 days LC50 169.3  Morrison et al. 1989 Mysid shrimp, Americamysis bahia R, M, D Copper chloride 30 96 hr LC50  164 SAIC 1993 Mysid, Mysidopsis bahia LC  30  Reduction in reproduction 54.1 44.9 Lussier et al. 1985 Amphipod,

Ampelisca abdita F Copper nitrate 30 7 days LC50 86.8  Scott et al. Manuscript Euphausiid,

Euphausia pacifica S, U   24 hr LC50 14 30  Reeve et al. 1976 Pink shrimp ( 3 5 day postlarvae Penaeus duorarum S, U Copper chloride 25 96 hr LC50 832  Cripe 1994 Grass shrimp, Palaemonetes pugio S, M Copper acetate 25 96 hr LC50 12,600  Curtis et al. 1979;

Curtis and Ward 1981 Grass shrimp, Palaemonetes pugio S, M, T Copper acetate 25 96 hr LC50 35,900  Curtis et al. 1979 Grass shrimp (< 20 mm),

Palaemonetes pugio S, M, T Copper sulfate 8 12 48 hr LC50 2,100  Burton and Fisher 1990 Coon stripe shrimp,

Pandalus danae F, U Copper sulfate  30 days LC50 27.0  Crecelius et al. 1982 Pink shrimp,

Pandalus montagui R, M, T Copper chloride  7 days LC50 50  McLeese and Ray 1986 Sand shrimp,

Crangon septemspinosa R, M, T Copper chloride  7 days LC50 1,400  McLeese and Ray 1986 American lobster ( 450 g adult),

Homarus americanus F, M, T Copper sulfate 30 96 hr LC50 100  McLeese 1974 C2 7 Appendix C2. Other Data on Effects of Copper on Saltwater Organisms Species Methoda Chemical Salinity ( g/ kg) Duration Effect Total Concentration ( µ g/ L) b Dissolved Concentration ( µ g/ L) Reference American lobster,

Homerus americanus F, M, T Copper sulfate 30 13 days LC50 56  McLeese 1974 Yellow crab ( embryo),

Cancer anthonyi R, U Copper chloride 34 7 days LC50 7,080  Macdonald et al. 1988 Yellow crab ( embryo),

Cancer anthonyi R, U Copper chloride 34 7 days 28% reduction in hatching 10  Macdonald et al. 1988 Sea urchin ( sperm),

Arbacia punctulata S, U Copper chloride FSW 12 min 42% decrease in sperm motility 318  Young and Nelson 1974 Sea urchin ( embryo),

Arbacia punctulata S, U Copper sulfate 30 4 hr EC50 ( growth as thymidine incorporation) 14  Nacci et al. 1986 Sea urchin ( sperm),

Arbacia punctulata S, U Copper sulfate 30 1 hr EC50 ( fertilization) 12  Nacci et al. 1986 Sea urchin ( sperm),

Arbacia punctulata S, U  30 1 hr EC50 ( fertilization) 7.3  Neiheisel and Young 1992 Sea urchin ( sperm),

Arbacia punctulata S, U  30 1 hr EC50 ( fertilization) 20.9  Neiheisel and Young 1992 Sea urchin ( sperm),

Arbacia punctulata S, U  30 1 hr EC50 ( fertilization) 11.9  Neiheisel and Young 1992 Sea urchin ( sperm),

Arbacia punctulata S, U  30 1 hr EC50 ( fertilization) 19.3  Neiheisel and Young 1992 Sea urchin ( sperm),

Arbacia punctulata S, U  30 1 hr EC50 ( fertilization) 79.2  Neiheisel and Young 1992 Sea urchin ( sperm),

Arbacia punctulata S, U Copper sulfate 30 1 hr EC50 ( fertilization) 33.3  Morrison et al. 1989 Rock boring urchin ( embryo),

Echinometra lucunter S, U Copper sulfate 36 24 hr EC50 ( normal development) 21.9  Rumbold and Snedaker 1997 Sea urchin ( sperm),

Echinometra mathaei S, U Copper chloride FSW 1 hr EC50 ( fertilization) 14  Ringwood 1992 Variegated urchin ( embryo),

Lytechinus variegatus S, U Copper sulfate 35.7 24 hr EC50 ( normal development) 33.8  Rumbold and Snedaker 1997 Green sea urchin ( sperm),

Strongylocentrotus droebachiensis S, M, T Copper chloride 30 1 hr EC50 ( fertilization) 59  Dinnel et al. 1989 Green sea urchin ( embryo),

Strongylocentrotus droebachiensis S, M, T Copper chloride 30 120 hr EC50 ( development) 21  Dinnel et al. 1989 Red sea urchin ( sperm),

Strongylocentrotus franciscanus S, M, T Copper chloride 30 1 hr EC50 ( fertilization) 1.9  Dinnel et al. 1989 Sea urchin ( sperm),

Strongylocentrotus purpuratus S, M, T Copper chloride 30 1 hr EC50 ( fertilization) 25  Dinnel et al. 1989 Sea urchin ( embryo),

Strongylocentrotus purpuratus S, M, T Copper chloride 30 120 hr EC50 ( development) 6.3  Dinnel et al. 1989 Sea urchin ( sperm),

Strongylocentrotus purpuratus S, U Copper sulfate 30 20 min LOEC ( fertilization) 40  Bailey et al. 1995 Sea urchin ( sperm),

Strongylocentrotus purpuratus S, U Copper sulfate 30 20 min LOEC ( fertilization) 39.4  Bailey et al. 1995 C2 8 Appendix C2. Other Data on Effects of Copper on Saltwater Organisms Species Methoda Chemical Salinity ( g/ kg) Duration Effect Total Concentration ( µ g/ L) b Dissolved Concentration ( µ g/ L) Reference Sand dollar ( sperm),

Dendraster excentricus S, M, T Copper chloride 30 1 hr EC50 ( fertilization) 26  Dinnel et al. 1989 Sand dollar ( embryo),

Dendraster excentricus S, M, T Copper chloride 31 72 hr EC50 ( development) 33  Dinnel et al. 1989 Sand dollar ( sperm),

Dendraster excentricus S, U Copper sulfate 30 20 min LOEC ( fertilization) 20  Bailey et al. 1995 Sand dollar ( sperm),

Dendraster excentricus S, U Copper sulfate 30 20 min LOEC ( fertilization) 26.2  Bailey et al. 1995 Sand dollar ( sperm),

Dendraster excentricus S, U Copper sulfate 30 20 min LOEC ( fertilization) 10.8  Bailey et al. 1995 Sand dollar ( sperm),

Dendraster excentricus S, U Copper sulfate 30 20 min LOEC ( fertilization) 7.6  Bailey et al. 1995 Sand dollar ( sperm),

Dendraster excentricus S, U Copper sulfate 30 20 min LOEC ( fertilization) 16  Bailey et al. 1995 Arrow worm,

Sagita hispida S, U   24 hr LC50 43 460  Reeve et al. 1976 Atlantic menhaden,

Brevoortia tyrannus F,   14 days LC50 610  Engel et al. 1976 Atlantic herring ( embryo),

Clupea harengus R, U Copper sulfate 20 15 days brain cell size reduced, perinuclear space increased 30  Abbasi et al. 1995 Atlantic herring ( embryo),

Clupea harengus R, U Copper sulfate 20  spinal deformities 50  Abbasi and Sheckley 1995 Pacific herring ( 1 hr larva),

Clupea harengus pailasi F, M, T Copper chloride  6 days LC50 33  Rice and Harrison 1978 Pacific herring ( 12 hr embryo),

Clupea harengus pailasi F, M, T Copper chloride  6 days LC50 900  Rice and Harrison 1978 Northern Anchovy ( 8 10 hr embryo), Engraulis mordax F, M, T, I  SW 25 hr LC50 186  Rice and Harrison 1979 Pink salmon ( 4.1 cm),

Oncorhynchus gorbuscha S, U Copper nitrate 16.6 5 days LC50 563  Holland et al. 1960 Hardhead catfish ( 26 29 cm),

Arius felis S, U Copper chloride 30 32 72 hr hyperactivity 100  Steele 1985 Hardhead catfish ( 26 29 cm),

Arius felis S, U Copper chloride 30 32 72 hr 7 day latent hypoactivity 100  Steele 1985 Hardhead catfish ( 26 29 cm),

Arius felis S, U Copper chloride 30 32 72 hr 57% mortality after 3 weeks 100  Steele 1985 Atlantic cod ( embryo),

Gadus morhua    14 days LC50 10  Swedmark and Granmo 1981 Sheepshead minnow (< 24 hr),

Cyprinodon variegatus R, M, T Copper chloride or sulfate 30 7 days Chronic value ( survival) 253  Hughes et al. 1989 Sheepshead minnow (< 24 hr),

Cyprinodon variegatus R, M, T Copper chloride or sulfate 30 7 days Chronic value ( growth and survival) 177  Hughes et al. 1989 Sheepshead minnow (< 24 hr),

Cyprinodon variegatus R, M, T Copper chloride or sulfate 30 7 days Chronic value ( growth) 44  Hughes et al. 1989 C2 9 Appendix C2. Other Data on Effects of Copper on Saltwater Organisms Species Methoda Chemical Salinity ( g/ kg) Duration Effect Total Concentration ( µ g/ L) b Dissolved Concentration ( µ g/ L) Reference Sheepshead minnow (< 24 hr),

Cyprinodon variegatus R, M, T Copper chloride or sulfate 30 7 days Chronic value ( growth and survival) 177  Hughes et al. 1989 Sheepshead minnow (< 24 hr),

Cyprinodon variegatus R, M, T Copper chloride or sulfate 30 7 days Chronic value ( growth and survival) 177  Hughes et al. 1989 Sheepshead minnow (< 24 hr),

Cyprinodon variegatus R, M, T Copper chloride or sulfate 30 7 days Chronic value ( growth) 177  Hughes et al. 1989 Sheepshead minnow ( 24 hr),

Cyprinodon variegatus R, U Copper sulfate 32 7 days LC50 471.5  Morrison et al. 1989 Sheepshead minnow ( 24 hr),

Cyprinodon variegatus R, U Copper sulfate 32 7 days IC50 ( growth) 351.6  Morrison et al. 1989 Sheepshead minnow ( 24 hr),

Cyprinodon variegatus R, M, T Copper nitrate 34 35 96 hr LC50 > 220  Hutchinson et al. 1994 Mummichog,

Fundulus heteroclitus R, U Copper chloride 20 21 days Histopathology ( lesions) < 500  Gardner and LaRoche 1973 Mummichog,

Fundulus heteroclitus S, M, T Copper chloride  96 hr Enzyme inhibition 600  Jackim 1973 Mummichog (< 23 days),

Fundulus heteroclitus S, M, T Copper sulfate 8 12 48 hr LC50 19,000  Burton and Fisher 1990 Topsmelt ( sperm),

Atherinops affinis S, M, T Copper chloride  15 min EC50 ( fertilization) 109  Anderson et al. 1991 Topsmelt ( embryo),

Atherinops affinis S, M, T Copper chloride 33 12 days EC50 ( hatching) 146  Anderson et al. 1991 Topsmelt (< 24 hr)

Atherinops affinis R, M, T Copper chloride  7 days LC50 365  McNulty et al. 1994 Topsmelt ( 9 day)

Atherinops affinis R, M, T Copper chloride  7 days LC50 134  McNulty et al. 1994 Topsmelt ( 9 day)

Atherinops affinis R, M, T Copper chloride 34 7 days LC50 162  Anderson et al. 1994 Topsmelt ( 9 day)

Atherinops affinis R, M, T Copper chloride 34 7 days LC50 274  Anderson et al. 1994 Topsmelt ( 9 day)

Atherinops affinis R, M, T Copper chloride 34 7 days LC50 169.1  Anderson et al. 1994 Topsmelt ( 9 day)

Atherinops affinis R, M, T Copper chloride 22 7 days LC50 55.7  Anderson et al. 1994 Topsmelt ( 9 day)

Atherinops affinis R, M, T Copper chloride 22 7 days LC50 58.4  Anderson et al. 1994 Topsmelt ( 9 day)

Atherinops affinis R, M, T Copper chloride 10 7 days LC50 5.66  Anderson et al. 1994 Topsmelt ( 9 day)

Atherinops affinis R, M, T Copper chloride 17 7 days LC50 < 10  Anderson et al. 1994 Topsmelt ( 9 day)

Atherinops affinis R, M, T Copper chloride 25 7 days LC50 29.9  Anderson et al. 1994 Topsmelt ( 9 day)

Atherinops affinis R, M, T Copper chloride 34 7 days LC50 53.6  Anderson et al. 1994 C2 10 Appendix C2. Other Data on Effects of Copper on Saltwater Organisms Species Methoda Chemical Salinity ( g/ kg) Duration Effect Total Concentration ( µ g/ L) b Dissolved Concentration ( µ g/ L) Reference Inland silverside ( 7 day),

Menidia beryllina R, U Copper sulfate 32 7 days LC50 286.4  Morrison et al. 1989 Inland silverside ( 7 day),

Menidia beryllina R, U Copper sulfate 32 7 days IC50 ( growth) 483.5  Morrison et al. 1989 Atlantic silverside,

Menidia menidia    96 hr Histopathological lesions < 500  Gardner and LaRoche 1973 Yellowtail snapper ( embryo),

Ocyurus chrysurus S, U Copper sulfate 36 24 hr EC50 ( viable hatch) > 250  Rumbold and Snedaker 1997 Sheepshead porgy ( 28 30 cm),

Archosargus probatocephalus S, U Copper chloride 30 32 72 hr hyperactivity 100  Steele 1985 Sheepshead porgy ( 28 30 cm),

Archosargus probatocephalus S, U Copper chloride 30 32 72 hr 7 day latent hypoactivity 100  Steele 1985 Sheepshead porgy ( 28 30 cm),

Archosargus probatocephalus S, U Copper chloride 30 32 72 hr 43% mortality after 3 weeks 200  Steele 1985 Pinfish, Lagodon rhomboides S, U   14 days LC50 150  Engel et al. 1976 Spotted seatrout ( embryo),

Cynoscion nebuloosus S, U Copper sulfate 35.9 48 hr EC50 ( normal development) 118.6  Rumbold and Snedaker 1997 Spot, Leiostomus xanthurus S, U   14 days LC50 160  Engel et al. 1976 Atlantic croaker,

Micropogonias undulatus S, U   14 days LC50 210  Engel et al. 1976 Winter flounder, Pseudopleuronectes americanus F, M, T Copper sulfate  14 days Histopathological lesions 180  Baker 1969 Striped bass ( 16 days),

Morone saxatilis R, M 1.5  LC50 24 Wright 1988 a S = static; R = renewal; F = flow through; M = measured; U = unmeasured; T = total metal concentration measured; D = dissolved metal concentration; I = ionic b Results are expressed as copper, not as the chemical c Dissolved copper; No other measurement reported C2 11