[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 40 (Wednesday, February 28, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 8731]
[FR Doc No: 2018-04022]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

[Docket No. FAA-2018-0116]
RIN 2120-AA64

Notice of Relocation; Change of Physical Address for the Federal
Aviation Administration Northwest Mountain Regional Office

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA announces the relocation of the FAA Northwest Mountain
Regional Office, which issues airworthiness directives (ADs) for
transport category airplanes.

DATES: This address change takes effect February 28, 2018.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David A. Lee, Program Manager,
Airworthiness & Technical Communications Section, Transport Standards
Branch, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone 206-
231-3197; email [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    The FAA Northwest Mountain Regional Office is relocating from 1601
Lind Ave. SW, Renton, WA 98057, to 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA
98198. Service information related to ADs that cannot be placed in the
docket is available for review in the office of the Transport Standards
Branch, which is relocating with the Northwest Mountain Regional Office
effective March 12, 2018.

Conclusion

    Effective March 12, 2018, the address for mailing correspondence or
reviewing service information related to ADs issued on transport
category airplanes is FAA, Transport Standards Branch, 2200 South 216th
St., Des Moines, WA 98198. For information on the availability of this
material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on February 20, 2018.
Michael Kaszycki,
Acting Director, System Oversight Division, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2018-04022 Filed 2-27-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: August 11, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 153)]
[Notices]
[Page 40175-40176]
[DOCID:fr11au09-63]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings  1

August 4, 2009.
    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER98-511-013; ER97-4345-025.
    Applicants: Oklahoma Gas and Electric Company, OGE Energy
Resources, Inc.
    Description: Oklahoma Gas and Electric company et al submit an
updated market power analysis.
    Filed Date: 07/31/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090803-0063.

    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, September 29, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: ER99-1757-016.
    Applicants: Empire District Electric Company.
    Description: The Empire District Electric Company submits updated
market power analysis and Order No 697 compliance filing.
    Filed Date: 07/30/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090803-0066.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, September 28, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: ER09-1505-000.
    Applicants: Stony Creek Wind Farm, LLC.
    Description: Application of Stony Creek Wind Farm, LLC for order
accepting initial market-based rate tariffs (FERC Electric Tariff,
Original Volume 1) and granting certain waivers and blanket approvals.
    Filed Date: 07/31/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090803-0050.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, August 21, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: ER09-1534-000.
    Applicants: Southern California Edison Company.
    Description: Southern California Edison Company submits revision to
its Transmission Owner Tariff FERC Electric Tariff, Second Revised
Volume No 6.
    Filed Date: 07/31/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090803-0072.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, August 21, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: ER09-1535-000.
    Applicants: Berkshire Power Company, LLC.
    Description: Berkshire Power Company, LLC submits Reliability Must-
Run Agreement with ISO New England, Inc.
    Filed Date: 07/31/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090803-0084.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, August 21, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: ER09-1536-000.
    Applicants: Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Midwest ISO submits Notice of Cancellation of the 2008
Adjacent Balancing Authority Coordination Agreement.
    Filed Date: 07/31/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090803-0083.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, August 21, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: ER09-1537-000.
    Applicants: Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Midwest ISO submits Notice of Cancellation of the 2008
Adjacent Balancing Authority Coordination Agreement.
    Filed Date: 07/31/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090803-0082.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, August 21, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: ER09-1540-000.
    Applicants: Pacific Gas and Electric Company.
    Description: Pacific Gas and Electric Company submit agreements for
load interconnection facilities etc.
    Filed Date: 07/31/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090803-0085.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, August 21, 2009.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following open access
transmission tariff filings:

    Docket Numbers: OA08-35-005.
    Applicants: Xcel Energy Services, Inc.
    Description: Compliance Filing of Xcel Energy Services, Inc.
    Filed Date: 07/29/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090729-5115.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, August 19, 2009.

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and
385.214) on or before 5 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment
date. It is not necessary to separately intervene again in a subdocket
related to a compliance filing if you have previously intervened in the
same docket. Protests will be considered by the Commission in
determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to
make protestants parties to the proceeding. Anyone filing a motion to
intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the
Applicant. In reference to filings initiating a new proceeding,
interventions or protests submitted on or before the comment deadline
need not be served on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://
www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First St., NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above proceedings are accessible in the
Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the
above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link
on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification
when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with
any FERC Online service, please e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or
call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-19126 Filed 8-10-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 103 (Friday, May 27, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 30928-30929]
[FR Doc No: 2011-13154]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. IC11-588-000]

Commision Information Collection Activities (FERC-588), Proposed
Collection; Comment Request; Extension

AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, DOE.

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

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

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

DATES: Comments in consideration of the collection of information are
due July 26, 2011.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be filed either electronically (eFiled) or in
paper format, and should refer to Docket No. IC11-588-000. Documents
must be prepared in an acceptable filing format and in compliance with
Commission submission guidelines at: http://www.ferc.gov/help/submission-guide.asp. eFiling instructions are available at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. First time users must follow
eRegister instructions at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/eregistration.asp, to establish a username and password before eFiling.

The Commission will send an automatic acknowledgement to the sender's
e-mail address upon receipt of eFiled comments. Commenters making an
eFiling should not make a paper filing. Commenters that are not able to
file electronically must send an original of their comments to: Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, Secretary of the Commission, 888 First
Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    Users interested in receiving automatic notification of activity in
this docket may do so through eSubscription at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp. In addition, all comments and FERC
issuances may be viewed, printed or downloaded remotely through FERC's
eLibrary at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp, by searching
on Docket No. IC11-588. For user assistance, contact FERC Online
Support by e-mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by phone at: (866)
208-3676 (toll-free), or<PHONE_NUMBER> for TTY.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ellen Brown may be reached by e-mail
at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>, and fax at
(202) 273-0873.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The information collected under the
requirements of FERC-588, ``Emergency Natural Gas Transportation, Sale
and Exchange Transactions'' (OMB No. 1902-0144), is used by the
Commission to implement the statutory provisions of Sections 7(c) of
the Natural Gas Act (NGA) (Pub. L. 75-688) (15 U.S.C. 717-717w) and
provisions of the Natural Gas Policy Act of 1978 (NGPA), 15 U.S.C.
3301-3432. Under the NGA, a natural gas company must obtain Commission
approval to engage in the transportation, sale or exchange of natural
gas in interstate commerce. However, section 7(c) exempts from
certificate requirements ``temporary acts or operations for which the
issuance of a certificate will not be required in the public
interest.'' The NGPA also provides for non-certificated interstate
transactions involving intrastate pipelines and local distribution
companies.
    A temporary operation, or emergency, is defined as any situation in
which an actual or expected shortage of gas supply would require an
interstate pipeline company, intrastate pipeline, or local distribution
company, or Hinshaw pipeline to curtail deliveries of gas or provide
less than the projected level of service to the customer. The natural
gas companies which provide the temporary assistance to the companies
which are having the ``emergency'' must file the necessary information
described in Part 284, Subpart I of the Commission's Regulations with
the Commission so that it may determine if their assisting transaction/
operation qualifies for exemption. The assisting company may or may not
be under the Commission's jurisdiction and if their assisting actions
qualify for the exemption, they will not become subject to the
Commission's jurisdiction for such actions.
    A report within forty-eight hours of the commencement of the
transportation, sale or exchange, a request to extend the sixty-day
term of the emergency transportation, if needed, and a termination
report are required. The data required to be filed for the forty-eight
hour report is specified by 18 CFR 284.270.
    Action: The Commission is requesting a three-year approval of the
collection of data with no changes to the collection requirements.
    Burden Statement: Public reporting burden for this collection is
estimated as follows:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Number of        Number of      Average burden
               Data collection                  respondents     responses per      hours per       Total annual
                                                  annually        respondent        response       burden hours
                                                         (1)              (2)              (3)   (1) x (2) x (3)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FERC-583....................................               8                1               10               80
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The estimated total cost to respondents is $5,476 (80 hours divided
by 2,080 hours per employee per year times $142,372 per year average
salary per employee = $5,476 (rounded)). The estimated annual cost per
respondent is $685 (rounded).
    The reporting burden includes the total time, effort, or financial
resources expended to generate, maintain, retain, disclose, or provide
the information including: (1) Reviewing instructions; (2) developing,
acquiring, installing, and utilizing technology and systems for the
purposes of collecting, validating, verifying, processing, maintaining,
disclosing and providing information; (3) adjusting the existing ways
to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements;
(4) training personnel to respond to a collection of information; (5)
searching data sources; (6) completing and reviewing the collection of
information; and (7) transmitting, or otherwise disclosing the
information.
    The estimate of cost for respondents is based upon salaries for
professional and clerical support, as well as direct and indirect
overhead costs. Direct costs include all costs directly attributable to
providing this information, such as administrative costs and the cost
for information technology. Indirect or overhead costs are costs
incurred by an organization in support of its mission. These costs
apply to activities which benefit the whole organization rather than
any one particular function or activity.
    Comments are invited on: (1) Whether the proposed collection of
information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of
the Commission, including whether the information will have practical
utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the
proposed collection of information, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality,
utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to
minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are
to respond, including the use of appropriate automated, electronic,
mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms
of information technology e.g., permitting electronic submission of
responses.

    Dated: May 20, 2011.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-13154 Filed 5-26-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: January 12, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 8)]
[Notices]
[Page 1497]
[DOCID:fr12ja07-45]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP07-125-000]

Columbia Gulf Transmission Company; Notice of Proposed Changes in
FERC Gas Tariff

January 4, 2007.
    Take notice that on December 29, 2006, Columbia Gulf Transmission
Company (Columbia Gulf) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas
Tariff, Second Revised Volume No. 1, the following tariff sheets, with
a proposed effective date of February 1, 2007:

Ninth Revised Sheet No. 125
First Revised Sheet No. 289
Original Sheet No. 290

    Columbia Gulf states that it is making this filing to prescribe the
treatment of operational purchases and sales of natural gas by Columbia
Gulf.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed in accordance with the provisions of
Section 154.210 of the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210).
Anyone filing an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on
or before the intervention or protest date need not serve motions to
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov.
 Persons unable to file electronically should submit an

original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the

``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For

TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-276 Filed 1-11-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 190 (Tuesday, October 5, 2021)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 54801-54803]
[FR Doc No: 2021-21620]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2021-0548; Project Identifier MCAI-2021-00046-T;
Amendment 39-21731; AD 2021-19-13]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; ATR-GIE Avions de Transport
R[eacute]gional Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all
ATR-GIE Avions de Transport R[eacute]gional Model ATR42-500 and ATR72-
212A airplanes. This AD was prompted by reports indicating that certain
Thales global positioning system (GPS) satellite based augmentation
system (SBAS) receivers provided, under certain conditions, erroneous
outputs on aircraft positions. This AD requires replacing affected GPS
SBAS receivers with new, improved receivers, as specified in a European
Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD, which is incorporated by
reference. The FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition
on these products.

DATES: This AD is effective November 9, 2021.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference

of a certain publication listed in this AD as of November 9, 2021.

ADDRESSES: For material incorporated by reference (IBR) in this AD,
contact EASA, Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3, 50668 Cologne, Germany; telephone
+49 221 8999 000; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>internet
www.easa.europa.eu. You may find this IBR material on the EASA website
at https://ad.easa.europa.eu. 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>. It is also available in the AD
docket at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating
Docket No. FAA-2021-0548.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket at https://www.regulations.gov by
searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2021-0548; or in person at
Docket Operations between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this final rule, the
mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI), any comments
received, and other information. The address for Docket Operations is
U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West
Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE,
Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Shahram Daneshmandi, Aerospace
Engineer, Large Aircraft Section, International Validation Branch, FAA,
2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; phone and fax: 206-231-
3220; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the
European Union, has issued EASA AD 2021-0013, dated January 13, 2021
(EASA AD 2021-0013) (also referred to as the MCAI), to correct an
unsafe condition for all ATR-GIE Avions de Transport R[eacute]gional
Model ATR42-500 and ATR72-212A airplanes.
    The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14
CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to all ATR-GIE Avions de
Transport R[eacute]gional Model ATR42-500 and ATR72-212A airplanes. The
NPRM published in the Federal Register on July 7, 2021 (86 FR 35697).
The NPRM was prompted by reports indicating that Thales GPS SBAS
receivers provided, under certain conditions, erroneous outputs on
aircraft positions. The NPRM proposed to require replacing affected GPS
SBAS receivers with new, improved receivers, as specified in EASA AD
2021-0013.
    The FAA is issuing this AD to address erroneous aircraft position
outputs from the GPS SBAS receivers, which could result in controlled
flight into terrain, and consequent loss of control of the airplane.
See the MCAI for additional background information.

Discussion of Final Airworthiness Directive

Comments

    The FAA received a comment from the Air Line Pilots Association,
International, (ALPA) who supported the NPRM without change.

Conclusion

    The FAA reviewed the relevant data and determined that air safety
requires adopting this AD as proposed. Except for minor editorial
changes, this AD is adopted as proposed in the NPRM. None of the
changes will increase the economic burden on any operator. Accordingly,
the FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these
products.

Related AD

    AD 2020-08-02, Amendment 39-21108 (85 FR 20586, April 14, 2020) (AD
2020-08-02) applies to certain Thales GPS SBAS receivers installed on
airplanes (including Model ATR42-500 and ATR72-212A) and helicopters.
AD 2020-08-02 requires the installation of a software update to the
aircraft navigation database and insertion of a change to the
applicable airplane flight manual (AFM). The FAA issued AD 2020-08-02
to address erroneous aircraft position outputs from the affected Thales
GPS SBAS receivers, which could result in controlled flight into
terrain and loss of the aircraft. AD 2020-08-02 corresponds to EASA AD
2019-0004, dated January 11, 2019. Upon completion of EASA AD 2021-0013
by Model ATR42-500 and ATR72-212A airplanes, all requirements of EASA
AD 2019-0004 are effectively terminated for those airplanes.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    EASA AD 2021-0013 describes procedures for replacing certain GPS
SBAS receivers with new, improved receivers. 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.

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this AD affects 15 airplanes of U.S.
registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:

                                      Estimated Costs for Required Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per       Cost on U.S.
                          Labor cost                              Parts cost        product         operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2 work-hours x $85 per hour = $170...........................            $0 *             $170           $2,550
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 The manufacturer will provide replacement receivers at no cost to the operators. The FAA has received no
  definitive data on which to base the cost estimates for these parts.

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

    This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order
13132. This AD will not have a

substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between
the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866,
    (2) 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 Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

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

2021-19-13 ATR-GIE Avions de Transport R[eacute]gional: Amendment
39-21731; Docket No. FAA-2021-0548; Project Identifier MCAI-2021-
00046-T.

(a) Effective Date

    This airworthiness directive (AD) is effective November 9, 2021.

(b) Affected ADs

    This AD affects AD 2020-08-02, Amendment 39-21108 (85 FR 20586,
April 14, 2020) (AD 2020-08-02).

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to all ATR-GIE Avions de Transport
R[eacute]gional Model ATR42-500 and ATR72-212A airplanes,
certificated in any category.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 34, Navigation.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by reports that Thales global positioning
system (GPS) satellite based augmentation system (SBAS) receivers
provided, under certain conditions, erroneous outputs on aircraft
positions. The FAA is issuing this AD to address the potential for
these erroneous outputs, which could result in controlled flight
into terrain, and consequent loss of control of the airplane.

(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, European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD
2021-0013, dated January 13, 2021 (EASA AD 2021-0013).

(h) Exceptions to EASA AD 2021-0013

    (1) Where EASA AD 2021-0013 refers to its effective date, this
AD requires using the effective date of this AD.
    (2) The requirements specified in paragraphs (2) and (3) of EASA
AD 2021-0013 do not apply to this AD. Instead, the airplane flight
manual (AFM) changes required by AD 2020-08-02 must be removed from
the existing AFM before further flight after compliance with all
other actions required by this AD.
    (3) The ``Remarks'' section of EASA AD 2021-0013 does not apply
to this AD.

(i) Terminating Action for AD 2020-08-02

    Accomplishment of this AD terminates all requirements of AD
2020-08-02 for Model ATR42-500 and ATR72-212A airplanes.

(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 responsible Flight
Standards 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) 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
responsible Flight Standards 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 EASA; or ATR-GIE
Avions de Transport R[eacute]gional's EASA Design Organization
Approval (DOA). If approved by the DOA, the approval must include
the DOA-authorized signature.

(k) Related Information

    For more information about this AD, contact Shahram Daneshmandi,
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>
(l) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference of the service information listed in this
paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD 2021-0013,
dated January 13, 2021.
    (ii) [Reserved]
    (3) For EASA AD 2021-0013, contact EASA, Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3,
50668 Cologne, Germany; telephone +49 221 8999 000; email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>internet www.easa.europa.eu. You may find this
EASA AD on the EASA website at https://ad.easa.europa.eu.
    (4) 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>.
    (5) You may view this material that is incorporated by reference
at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For
information on the availability of this material at NARA, email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or go to: https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued on September 7, 2021.
Lance T. Gant,
Director, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2021-21620 Filed 10-4-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 193 (Thursday, October 4, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 60660-60661]
[FR Doc No: 2012-23879]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2012-0952; Airspace Docket No. 12-AAL-6]

Proposed Establishment Class E Airspace; Kasigluk, AK

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: This action proposes to establish Class E airspace at Kasigluk
Airport, Kasigluk, AK, to accommodate aircraft using a new Area
Navigation (RNAV) Global Positioning System (GPS) standard instrument
approach procedures at the airport. The FAA is proposing this action to
enhance the safety and management of aircraft operations at the
airport.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before November 19, 2012.

ADDRESSES: Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>. You must identify FAA Docket No. FAA-2012-
0322; Airspace Docket No. 12-AAL-6, at the beginning of your comments.
You may also submit comments through the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Richard Roberts, Federal Aviation
Administration, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center, 1601
Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed
rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as
they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the
views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing
reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are
specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic,
environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.
    Communications should identify both docket numbers (FAA Docket No.
FAA-2012-0952 and Airspace Docket No. 12-AAL-6) and be submitted in
triplicate to the Docket Management System (see ADDRESSES section for
address and phone number). You may also submit comments through the
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov.
    Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments
on this action must submit with those comments a self-addressed stamped
postcard on which the following statement is made: ``Comments to FAA
Docket No. FAA-2012-0952 and Airspace Docket No. 12-AAL-6''. The
postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.
    All communications received on or before the specified closing date
for comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed
rule. The proposal contained in this action may be changed in light of
comments received. All comments submitted will be available for
examination in the public docket both before and after the closing date
for comments. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with
FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the
docket.

Availability of NPRMs

    An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking
documents can also be accessed through the FAA's Web page at http://www.faa.gov/airports_airtraffic/air_traffic/publications/airspace_amendments/.
    You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any
comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets
Office (see the ADDRESSES section for the address and phone number)
between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except federal
holidays. An informal docket may also be examined during normal
business hours at the Northwest Mountain Regional Office of the Federal
Aviation Administration, Air Traffic Organization, Western Service
Center, Operations Support Group, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA
98057.

    Persons interested in being placed on a mailing list for future
NPRMs should contact the FAA's Office of Rulemaking,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
for a copy of Advisory Circular No. 11-2A, Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking Distribution System, which describes the application
procedure.

The Proposal

    The FAA is proposing an amendment to Title 14 Code of Federal
Regulations (14 CFR) Part 71 by establishing Class E airspace extending
upward from 700 feet above the surface at Kasigluk Airport, Kasigluk,
AK. Controlled airspace is necessary to accommodate aircraft using the
new RNAV (GPS) standard instrument approach procedures at Kasigluk
Airport, and would enhance the safety and management of instrument
flight rules operations at the airport.
    Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005, of
FAA Order 7400.9W, dated August 8, 2012, and effective September 15,
2012, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR part 71.1. The Class
E airspace designation listed in this document will be published
subsequently in this Order.
    The FAA has determined this proposed regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
Therefore, this proposed regulation: (1) is not a ``significant
regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a
``significant rule'' under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44
FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a
regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since
this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures
and air navigation, it is certified this proposed rule, when
promulgated, would not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the U.S. Code. Subtitle 1, Section 106, describes
the authority for the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation
Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority.
This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the
FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of the
airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient
use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority
as it would modify controlled airspace at Kasigluk Airport, Kasigluk,
AK.
    This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in
accordance with FAA Order 1050.1E, ``Environmental Impacts: Policies
and Procedures'' prior to any FAA final regulatory action.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

The Proposed Amendment

    Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, the Federal
Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

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

    1. The authority citation for 14 CFR part 71 continues to read as
follows:

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

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

    2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR Part 71.1 of the
Federal Aviation Administration Order 7400.9 W, Airspace Designations
and Reporting Points, dated August 8, 2012, and effective September 15,
201 is amended as follows:

Paragraph 6005 Class E airspace areas extending upward from 700
feet or more above the surface of the earth.

* * * * *

AAL AK E5 Kasigluk, AK [New]

Kasigluk Airport, AK
    (Lat. 60[deg]52[min]24[sec] N., long. 162[deg]31[min]27.50[sec]
W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 7.0-mile radius of Kasigluk Airport.

    Issued in Seattle, Washington, on September 20, 2012.
John Warner,
Manager, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2012-23879 Filed 10-3-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


OFFICE OF

PREVENTION, PESTICIDES

AND TOXIC SUBSTANCES

MEMORANDUM

DATE:	13 November 2007

SUBJECT:	Endosulfan. The Health Effects Division’s Addendum and Update
to the 2002 Risk Assessment.

DP Number:	D345935	MRID:  None

PC Code:	079401

	40 CFR:	180.182	Chemical Class:	Organochlorine insecticide

FROM:	Donald Wilbur, Chemist

		Elissa Reaves, PhD, Toxicologist

		Judy Facey, PhD, Toxicologist

		Alan Nielsen, Biologist

		Shanna Recore, Industrial Hygienist

		Reregistration Branch II

Health Effects Division (7509P)

THRU:	Jack Arthur, Acting Branch Chief

		Reregistration Branch II

			and

		Jack Housenger, Associate Director

Health Effects Division (7509P)

TO:		Tracy Perry, Chemical Review Manager

	        	Special Review Branch

	                        Special Review and Reregistration Division
(7508P)

This document updates the 2002 Health Effects Division (HED) Risk
Assessment (D. Locke, D250471, 05/30/2002) that was used to prepare the
2002 Reregistration Eligibility Decision (RED) document for endosulfan.
This addendum focuses on the changes in HED’s risk assessment based on
the review of a recently submitted developmental neurotoxicity (DNT)
study.

I.  Executive Summary

The Agency completed the Reregistration Eligibility Decision (RED)
document for endosulfan in November 2002 based upon the HED risk
assessment completed in May 2002 (D. Locke, D250471, 05/30/2002).  Since
the completion of the RED in 2002, the Agency has received and reviewed
a developmental neurotoxicity study (DNT) (Gilmore et al, 2006; MRID
46968301) (D. Anderson and J. Facey, D327215, 03/15/2007).  Based on the
toxicological effects observed in the DNT, endpoints for risk assessment
were re-evaluated for endosulfan (E. Reaves, D338576, 04/02/2007).
After reviewing the DNT and all other available data, HED has concluded
that:

The 10X FQPA safety factor could be reduced from 10X to 1X while still
being protective of children’s health.

In order to effectively protect the most sensitive population (female
workers) from endosulfan, the DNT was deemed to be the most appropriate
study for short and intermediate term dermal exposure (LOAEL = 3.7
mg/kg/day).

All other endpoints established for endosulfan remain unchanged from the
2002 HED assessment.

An abbreviated summary of the changes that these conclusions have on the
HED risk assessment will be discussed in the following sections.  For
the full details of each exposure assessment, please refer to the
individual exposure assessment chapters listed in the reference section.

Based on the reduced FQPA safety factor of 10X to 1X and use of the same
input files as in the 2002 dietary assessment, the combined dietary
exposure to endosulfan residues (food and drinking water) does not
exceed the Agency’s level of concern (>100% of the PAD) for chronic or
acute exposures.

Potential areas of environmental justice concerns, to the extent
possible, were considered in this document, in accordance with U.S.
Executive Order 12898, "Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice
in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations,"   HYPERLINK
"http://www.eh.doe.gov/oepa/guidance/justice/eo12898.pdf"
http://www.eh.doe.gov/oepa/guidance/justice/eo12898.pdf ).  Since
endosulfan has routinely been detected in arctic regions and the
Indigenous Peoples of the arctic region of the U.S. (Alaska) rely
heavily on subsistence diets (i.e. - fish) as their food source, it is
appropriate for the Agency to consider dietary risk and exposure to this
specific population subgroup from the worldwide use of endosulfan.
Since no specific data are available for residues of endosulfan in/on
commodities consumed in subsistence diets, the Agency has concerns for
dietary exposure of indigenous populations to endosulfan based upon its
persistence and potential for bioaccumulation.

With the revised dermal endpoint and level of concern, many of the
occupational handler scenarios exceed HED’s level of concern even with
maximum personal protective equipment or engineering controls.  In
addition, for many of the occupational postapplication scenarios, the
restricted-entry interval (REI) would be several days longer than the
REIs established in the 2002 RED.

II.  2007 Hazard Assessment

Table 1 below highlights the studies and endpoints used in the
Agency’s 2002 endosulfan risk assessment and the current 2007
addendum.  The Agency has re-evaluated the toxicological endpoints for
endosulfan (E. Reaves, D338576, 04/02/2007) based upon recently
submitted data. This memo outlines the rationale and characterization
for endpoint selection for the endosulfan risk assessment following the
review of a developmental neurotoxicity study (D. Anderson and J. Facey,
D327215, 03/15/2007).

		DNT- (Gilmore et al., 2006; MRID 46968301)

The Agency recently received and reviewed a developmental neurotoxicity
study with endosulfan in wistar rats in December 2006 (D. Anderson and
J. Facey, D327215, 03/15/2007).  The study findings were presented to
the Developmental Neurotoxicity Committee (DNT) on January 10, 2007.
Based on the review of the study by the DNT Committee, the Committee
concluded that there was no NOAEL (No Observed Adverse Effect Level) for
pups.  The LOAEL (Lowest Observed Adverse Effect Level) of 3.74
mg/kg/day was the lowest dose tested (LDT), based on decreased pup
weight [PND 11] and weight gain [PND 4-11], with delayed preputial
separation in males receiving the maximum dose tested (MDT).  For dams,
the NOAEL is 3.74 mg/kg/day.  The LOAEL for dams is 10.8 mg/kg/day,
based on decreased body weight, food consumption and food efficiency.
This study is acceptable/guideline.

		FQPA Safety Factor

The FQPA factor for endosulfan has changed over the past few years
mainly due to database uncertainties.  In November 1998, the FQPA
Committee recommended a 3X factor due to the lack of a developmental
neurotoxicity study.  The 5/30/2002 risk assessment, however, retained
the 10x FQPA factor due to database uncertainties.  These database
uncertainties included: 1) lack of subchronic and developmental
neurotoxicity studies; 2) concerns for effects on sperm parameters
reported in the literature; 3) the lack of evaluation of sperm
parameters in guideline studies; 4) testicular lesions observed in the
chronic rat study; and 5) increased pituitary and uterine weight in the
two-generation reproduction study.  Since the 5/30/2002 evaluation, a
subchronic neurotoxicity study and a developmental neurotoxicity study
have been submitted and reviewed by the Agency.  Therefore, the FQPA
factor was again re-evaluated and is discussed in the endosulfan
endpoint memo (E. Reaves, D338576, 04/02/2007).  This endpoint memo
describes the residual uncertainties from the 5/30/2002 risk assessment
and outlines how recent neurotoxicity data and published literature
demonstrate that the uncertainties associated with the previous FQPA
evaluation have been addressed.  Therefore, it was recommended that the
FQPA factor be reduced (i.e., 1X) since there were no residual
uncertainties for pre and/or post-natal toxicity.

		Dermal Exposure (Short-& Intermediate Term)

Previously, two available 21-day dermal toxicity rat studies were the
basis of quantifying dermal risk.  The dermal NOAEL was 12 mg/kg/day
with a LOAEL of 48 mg/kg/day based on mortality.  However, the results
of the recently submitted DNT shows concern for offspring toxicity
(decreased pre-weaning body weight) which is not evaluated in the 21-day
dermal study (conducted in adult animals only).  Additionally, the DNT
was examined to address the concern for changes in the uterine and
pituitary weights that were seen in adults at the highest dose only (6.2
mg/kg/day) in the two-generation reproduction study.  The use of an
offspring endpoint from the DNT study (LOAEL = 3.7 mg/kg/day) is the
most appropriate endpoint in order to be protective of the most
sensitive population (female workers).  This decision is supported by
the pup weight decrements being observed only during lactation (i.e.,
the pup body weights were not affected at birth AND the pups recovered
after post-weaning (PND 22)) and therefore are likely due to nursing.
Furthermore, the 2-generation reproduction study (MRID 00148264) noted a
similar effect (decrease litter weight) during the lactation to weaning
period in both matings in the F0 generation, which was significant at
the high dose (6.18 mg/kg) level in the first mating and at the mid
(1.23 mg/kg) and high dose (6.18 mg/kg) levels in the second mating.
Since a NOAEL was not established in the DNT, a LOAEL to NOAEL factor is
necessary for the dermal assessment.  Based on the degree of pup weight
loss in the DNT and pup weight loss in the 2-generation reproduction
study, a 3X is most appropriate.  The dermal absorption factor of 45%
remains consistent with the 2002 assessment.

		Inhalation Exposure (Short-& Intermediate Term)

No changes have been made to the inhalation endpoint and assessment
since the 2002 risk assessment.

		Published Literature

A 2007 literature study concerning autism spectrum disorder and
pesticide applications in southern California (Roberts et al., 2007)
also was reviewed by HED (C. Christensen, D342660, 10/18/07).  Although
this study attempts to correlate pesticide application with the
development of autism spectrum disorder, the study failed to provide
data that is useful in the quantification of risk to endosulfan.

Table 1.  Comparison of Toxicological Data for Endosulfan

Exposure Scenario	EPA 2002	EPA 2007

Acute Dietary

(general population including infants and children)

	PoD, UF	NOAEL = 1.5 mg/kg/day

UF = 100

FQPA = 10x	NOAEL = 1.5 mg/kg/day

UF = 100

FQPA = 1x

	Level of Concern for Risk Assessment with UFs	aRfD = 0.015 mg/kg/day

aPAD = 0.0015 mg/kg/day	aRfD = 0.015 mg/kg/day

aPAD = 0.015 mg/kg/day

	Critical Study and

Endpoints	Acute Neurotoxicity-rats

LOAEL= 3 mg/kg/day; based on increased incidence of convulsions seen in
female rats within 8 hours after dosing.	Acute Neurotoxicity-rats

LOAEL= 3 mg/kg/day; based on increased incidence of convulsions seen in
female rats within 8 hours after dosing.

	Reference	MRID 44403101	MRID 44403101

Chronic Dietary

(all populations)

	PoD, UF	NOAEL = 0.6 mg/kg/day

UF = 100

FQPA = 10x	NOAEL = 0.6 mg/kg/day

UF = 100

FQPA = 1x

	Level of Concern for Risk Assessment with UFs	cRfD = 0.006 mg/kg/day

cPAD = 0.0006 mg/kg/day	cRfD = 0.006 mg/kg/day

cPAD = 0.006 mg/kg/day

	Critical Study and

Endpoints	Chronic/Cancer rats-

LOAEL = 2.9 mg/kg/day, based on reduced body weight gain, increased
incidences of marked progressive glomerulonephrosis & blood vessel
aneurysms in male rats.	Chronic/Cancer rats-

LOAEL = 2.9 mg/kg/day, based on reduced body weight gain, increased
incidences of marked progressive glomerulonephrosis & blood vessel
aneurysms in male rats.

	Reference	MRID 41099502	MRID 41099502

Dermal

Short (1-30 days)

and

Intermediate-term

(1-6 mos)

	PoD, UF	NOAEL = 12 mg/kg/day

45% absorption	NOAEL not established.

45% dermal absorption

	Level of Concern (LOC) and Margins of Exposure (MOE)	Occupational LOC

MOE = 100	Occupational LOC

MOE = 300

	Critical Study and

Endpoints	21-Day Dermal-Rat

LOAEL= 27 mg/kg/day, based on mortality in females	DNT- rat:

LOAEL = 3.74 mg/kg/day, based on decreased pup weight.

UF = 100

NOAEL to LOAEL UF = 3x

	Reference	MRID 00146841/00147744

MRID 00146841	MRID 46968301

Dermal

Long-term (> 6 months)	PoD, UF	NOAEL = 12 mg/kg/day

45% absorption	Long-term dermal exposure is not expected for endosulfan.

	Level of Concern (LOC) and absorption rate	Occupational LOC

MOE = 100

Critical Study and

Endpoints	21-Day Dermal-Rat

LOAEL= 27 mg/kg/day, based on mortality in females

Reference	MRID 00146841/00147744

MRID 00146841

	Inhalation

Short (1-30 days) and Intermediate

term

(1 – 6 months)	PoD, UF	NOAEL = 0.2

(0.001 mg/L)	NOAEL = 0.2

(0.001 mg/L)

	Level of Concern (LOC) and absorption rate	MOE = 100

100% absorption	MOE = 100

100% absorption

	Critical Study and

End潰湩獴㈇ⴱ慄⁹湩慨慬楴湯阠慲獴

LOAEL= 0.002 mg/L, based on ↓ body weight gains, ↓ leukocyte counts
(M), and ↑ creatinine values (F); 0.4 mg/kg/day	21-Day inhalation
–rats

LOAEL= 0.002 mg/L, based on ↓ body weight gains, ↓ leukocyte counts
(M), and ↑ creatinine values (F); 0.4 mg/kg/day

	Reference	MRID 00147183

MRID 41667501	MRID 00147183

MRID 41667501

Inhalation

Long-term (> 6 months)	PoD, UF	None Established	Long-term inhalation
exposure is not expected for endosulfan.

	Level of Concern (LOC) and absorption rate

	Critical Study and

Endpoints

	Reference

Cancer	Classification	Group E- Evidence of non-carcinogenicity for
humans	Group E- Evidence of non-carcinogenicity for humans

	Statistical Analysis	Q1* not calculated	Q1* not calculated

III.  2007 Dietary Assessment

Acute and chronic dietary risk assessments were conducted using the
Dietary Exposure Evaluation Model (DEEM™)  Program which used food
consumption data from the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Continuing
Surveys of Food Intakes by Individuals (CSFII) from 1989-1992) in 2002
(S. Kinard, D281201, 02/28/2002) in support of the Reregistration
Eligibility Decision (RED).  At that time, drinking water exposure was
not directly incorporated into the dietary evaluation; rather, estimated
environmental concentrations (EECs) were compared with drinking water
levels of concerns (DWLOCs).  The acute and chronic population adjusted
doses (PAD) at that time were calculated using an FQPA Safety Factor of
10x due to toxicological database uncertainties, including the absence
of a developmental neurotoxicity study (DNT).  In 2006, a DNT study
(Gilmore et al, 2006) was submitted and reviewed by the Agency (D.
Anderson and J. Facey, D327215, 03/15/2007).  Based on a 01/10/2007 DNT
Committee meeting and subsequent follow-up (E. Reaves, D338576,
04/02/2007) HED concluded that based upon these submitted data, the FQPA
Safety Factor could be reduced from 10x to 1x while still being
protective of children’s health.

To update the RED, new acute and chronic dietary exposure assessments
(food only, drinking water only, and food plus drinking water) were
conducted (D. Wilbur, D336646, 03/14/2007) using the Dietary Exposure
Evaluation Model software with the Food Commodity Intake Database
(DEEM-FCID™, Version 2.03), which incorporates consumption data from
USDA’s Continuing Surveys of Food Intakes by Individuals (CSFII),
1994-1996 and 1998.  The same input files (PDP monitoring data, FDA
data,  % crop treated data, and drinking water exposure data) from the
2002 dietary assessment were used in this new analysis, while
incorporating the FQPA Safety Factor change from 10x to 1x.  The
combined dietary exposure (food and drinking water) does not exceed the
Agency’s level of concern (>100% of the PAD) for chronic or acute
exposures.

	Environmental Justice

Potential areas of environmental justice concerns, to the extent
possible, were considered in this document, in accordance with U.S.
Executive Order 12898, "Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice
in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations,"   HYPERLINK
"http://www.eh.doe.gov/oepa/guidance/justice/eo12898.pdf"
http://www.eh.doe.gov/oepa/guidance/justice/eo12898.pdf ).

As a part of every pesticide risk assessment, OPP considers a large
variety of consumer subgroups according to well-established procedures.
In line with OPP policy, HED estimates risks to population subgroups
from pesticide exposures that are based on patterns of that subgroup’s
food and water consumption, and activities in and around the home that
involve pesticide use in a residential setting.  Extensive data on food
consumption patterns are compiled by the USDA under the Continuing
Survey of Food Intake by Individuals (CSFII) and are used in pesticide
risk assessments for all registered food uses of a pesticide.  These
data are analyzed and categorized by subgroups based on age, season of
the year, ethnic group, and region of the country.  Additionally, OPP is
able to assess dietary exposure to smaller, specialized subgroups and
exposure assessments are performed when conditions or circumstances
warrant, and when data are available.  Further considerations are
currently in development as OPP has committed resources and expertise to
the development of specialized software and models that consider
exposure based on traditional dietary patterns among specific subgroups.

Endosulfan is a volatile and persistent organochlorine pesticide that
can migrate over long distances through various environmental media such
as air, water, and sediment. Recent studies suggest that endosulfan
continues to recycle in the global system while slowly migrating and
redepositing via wet deposition in the northern Hemisphere. The
occurrence of endosulfan in remote regions such as the arctic is well
documented.  Therefore, since the Indigenous Peoples of the arctic
region of the U.S. (Alaska) rely heavily on subsistence diets (i.e.
fish) as their food source, it is appropriate for the Agency to consider
dietary risk and exposure to this specific population subgroup from the
worldwide use of endosulfan. Based upon its octanol-water coefficient
(log Kow = 3.5 to 4.5), endosulfan shows appreciable lipophilicity and,
therefore, a potential to bioaccumulate in fatty tissues.  Since
subsistence diets often consist of fish and other traditional
subsistence food harvests (e.g., polar bear, walrus, caribou, moose),
exposure to tissues into which endosulfan has bioaccumulated is
possible.

As specific residue data in/on commodities consumed in subsistence diets
are not available for endosulfan, risk estimates for these population
subgroups have not been evaluated by HED.  However, based upon the
chemical and toxicity profile of endosulfan, the Agency has concerns for
dietary exposure of indigenous populations to endosulfan.

IV.  2007 Occupational Assessment

Endosulfan currently is formulated into liquid concentrate and wettable
powder end-use products.  It is registered for occupational-use on
terrestrial food and feed crops, indoor food crops, and terrestrial
non-food crops.  There currently are no end-use products registered for
use at residential sites.  Application equipment for occupational use
includes fixed-wing aircraft, chemigation (potatoes only), groundboom
sprayer, airblast sprayer, handgun sprayer, low-pressure handwand
sprayer, high-pressure handwand sprayer, and dip treatment.

The updated occupational assessment for endosulfan indicates short- and
intermediate-term risk for mixers, loaders, and applicators for the
majority of crop scenarios, even with maximum personal protective
equipment or engineering controls.  In addition, postapplication risks
are such that the majority of reentry intervals (REIs) would need to be
extended by several days.  [See Tables 9-18 for mixer/loader/applicator
risks and Tables 24-27 for postapplication risks in the revised
occupational assessment, S. Recore, D339509, 05/03/2007.]

Please note that while the revised occupational assessment presents risk
estimates for grapes, pecans, spinach, succulent beans, and succulent
peas, these crops are no longer allowed on endosulfan labels with the
implementation of the 2002 RED mitigation. HED clarifies that where two
rates are presented for a crop (i.e., “label” rate and
“proposed” rate), the “proposed” rate reflects the rates
required in the 2002 RED.

V.  References

1.   DP Barcode:	D272431

      Subject:		Endosulfan: HED Risk Assessment for the Endosulfan
Reregistration Eligibility Decision (RED) Document.

      From:		D. Locke

      To:			R. Dumas

      Dated:		01/31/2001

2.   DP Barcode:	D250471

      Subject:		Endosulfan: Reevaluation of the HED Risk Assessment for
the 				Endosulfan Reregistration Eligibility Decision (RED) Document.

      From:		D. Locke

      To:			R. McNally

      Dated:		05/30/2002

3.   DP Barcode:	D327215

      Subject:		A Developmental Neurotoxicity Study with Technical Grade
				Endosulfan in Wistar Rats. Project Number: 201563

      From:		D. Anderson and J. Facey

      Dated:		03/15/2007

      MRID(s):		46968301

4.   DP Barcode:	D338576

      Subject:		Endosulfan.  Hazard Characterization and Endpoint
Selection 				Reflecting Receipt of a Developmental Neurotoxicity Study
and 				Subchronic Neurotoxicity Study.

      From:		E. Reaves

      To:			T. Perry

      Dated:		04/02/2007

5.   DP Barcode:	D281201

      Subject:		Endosulfan. Anticipated Residues, and Revised Acute and
Chronic 			Dietary Exposure Analysis.

      From:		S. Kinard

      To:			D. Locke

      Dated:		02/28/2002

6.   DP Barcode:	D336646

      Subject:		Acute and Chronic (Food and Drinking Water) Dietary
Exposure 				Assessment to update the 2002 Reregistration Eligibility
Decision

      From:		D. Wilbur

      To:			T. Perry

      Dated:		03/14/2007

7.   DP Barcode:	D339509

¬

%

/

4

5

6

7

8

L

6

7

8

萑֠葠֠摧䆕!฀L

M

W

n

o

u

„

…

†

¤

Ç

!

摧粁!܀!

0

D

E

T

U

[

\

z

‰

œ

¤

Í

ð

ó

ô

hí

$

$

$

  h

h)

h)

h)

h)

h

  h

h

hÚ

hÚ

hÚ

Endosulfan: Occupational and Residential Exposure Assessment 				for the
Reregistration Eligibility Decision Document.

      From:		S. Recore

      To:			T. Perry

      Dated:		05/03/2007

8.   DP Barcode:	D342660

      Subject:		A Review of “Maternal Residence near Agricultural
Pesticide 				Applications and Autism Spectrum Disorders among Children
in 				the California Central Valley” Roberts et al., 2007 [EHP, 115;
10:  				1482-1489]  (Endosulfan (PC code 079401) and Dicofol (PC code
		010501)

      From:		C. Christensen

      To:			T. Perry

      Dated:		10/18/2007

 PAGE

Page   PAGE  12  of   NUMPAGES  12

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

WASHINGTON, D.C.  20460


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 167 (Monday, August 29, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 59135-59136]
[FR Doc No: 2016-19915]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

21 CFR Part 558

[Docket No. FDA-2016-N-0002]

New Animal Drugs for Use in Animal Feed; Withdrawal of Approval
of a New Animal Drug Application

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notification of withdrawal.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is withdrawing approval
of eight new animal drug applications (NADAs) at the sponsor's request
because these products are no longer manufactured or marketed.

DATES: Withdrawal of approval is effective September 8, 2016.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sujaya Dessai, Center for Veterinary
Medicine (HFV-212), Food and Drug Administration, 7519 Standish Pl.,
Rockville, MD 20855,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Elanco Animal Health, A Division of Eli
Lilly & Co., Lilly Corporate Center, Indianapolis, IN 46285 has
requested that FDA withdraw approval of the NADAs listed in the
following table because the products are no longer manufactured or
marketed:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              21 CFR
        File No.                   Product name               section
------------------------------------------------------------------------
012-548 \1\............  TYLOSIN (tylosin phosphate)/            558.274
                          HYGROMIX (hygromycin B).
013-162 \1\............  TYLAN TM (tylosin phosphate)            558.625
                          Type A medicated article.

013-388 \1\............  TYLAN (tylosin phosphate)/              558.274
                          HYGROMIX (hygromycin B) Premix.
015-166 \1\............  TYLAN TM (tylosin phosphate)            558.625
                          Type A medicated article.
127-507 \1\............  TYLAN 5 SULFA-G (tylosin                558.630
                          phosphate and sulfamethazine),
                          TYLAN 10 SULFA-G (tylosin
                          phosphate and sulfamethazine),
                          TYLAN 20 SULFA-G (tylosin
                          phosphate and sulfamethazine),
                          TYLAN 40 SULFA-G (tylosin
                          phosphate and sulfamethazine).
141-164 \1\............  TYLAN (tylosin phosphate)/COBAN         558.355
                          (monensin).
141-170 \1\............  TYLAN (tylosin phosphate)/              558.363
                          MONTEBAN (narasin).
141-198 \1\............  TYLAN TM (tylosin phosphate)/           558.550
                          BIO-COX (salinomycin).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ These NADAs were identified as being affected by guidance for
  industry #213, ``New Animal Drugs and New Animal Drug Combination
  Products Administered in or on Medicated Feed or Drinking Water of
  Food-Producing Animals: Recommendations for Drug Sponsors for
  Voluntarily Aligning Product Use Conditions with GFI #209,'' December
  2013.

    Therefore, under authority delegated to the Commissioner of Food
and Drugs and redelegated to the Center for Veterinary Medicine, and in
accordance with Sec.  514.116 Notice of withdrawal of approval of
application (21 CFR 514.116), notice is given that approval of NADAs
012-548, 013-162, 013-388, 015-166, 127-507, 141-164, 141-170, and 141-
198, and all supplements and amendments thereto, is hereby withdrawn,
effective September 8, 2016.
    Elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register, FDA is amending
the animal drug regulations to reflect the voluntary withdrawal of
approval of these applications.

    Dated: August 8, 2016.
Tracey H. Forfa,
Deputy Director, Center for Veterinary Medicine.
[FR Doc. 2016-19915 Filed 8-26-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register: July 31, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 146)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 41657-41658]
[DOCID:fr31jy07-21]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2007-AZ-0295; FRL-8443-6]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; States of
Arizona and Nevada; Interstate Transport of Pollution

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve state implementation plans
submitted by the States of Arizona and Nevada that address interstate
transport with respect to the 8-hour ozone and fine particulate matter
national ambient air quality standards. In so doing, EPA has determined
that the plans submitted by Arizona and Nevada and approved herein
satisfy requirements under Clean Air Act section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for
each State to submit a plan containing adequate provisions to prohibit
interstate transport with respect to the standards for 8-hour ozone and
fine particulate matter. EPA is proposing this action pursuant to those
provisions of the Clean Air Act that obligate the Agency to take action
on submittals of state implementation plans. The effect of this
proposal would be to approve the Arizona and Nevada state
implementation plans addressing interstate transport with respect to
the 8-hour ozone and fine particulate standards and to eliminate
obligations on the Agency to promulgate Federal Implementation Plans
for these States addressing this same requirement.

DATES: Any comments on this proposal must arrive by August 30, 2007.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R09-
OAR-2007-AZ-0295 by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking portal: http://www.regulations.gov.

Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
     E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER> (please alert the individual listed in
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT if you are faxing comments).
     Mail: Wienke Tax, Office of Air Planning, Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA), Region IX, Mailcode AIR-2, 75 Hawthorne
Street, San Francisco, California 94105-3901.
     Hand Delivery: Wienke Tax, Office of Air Planning,
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region IX, Mailcode AIR-2, 75
Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California 94105-3901. Such deliveries
are only accepted Monday through Friday, 8 a.m. to 4:55 p.m., excluding
federal holidays. Special arrangements should be made for deliveries of
boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R09-OAR-
2007-AZ-0295. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be
included in the public docket without change and may be made available
online at http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal

information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed
to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information
that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site

is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA, without
going through http://www.regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be

automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of
any defects or viruses. For additional information about EPA's public
docket visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm
.

    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov
 index. Although listed in the index, some

information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy
form. Publicly available docket materials are available either
electronically in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the

Office of Air Planning, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region
IX, Mailcode AIR-2, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California
94105-3901. EPA requests that if at all possible, you contact the
individual listed in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section to view the hard copy of the docket. You
may view the hard copy of the docket Monday through Friday, 8 a.m. to 4
p.m., excluding federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For Arizona issues, contact Wienke
Tax, Office of Air Planning, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Region IX,<PHONE_NUMBER>, e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For Nevada
issues, contact Karina O'Connor, Office of Air Planning, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, wherever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean the EPA.
    EPA is proposing to approve state implementation plans submitted by
the States of Arizona and Nevada that address interstate transport with
respect to the 8-hour ozone and fine particulate matter national
ambient air quality standards. In so doing, EPA has determined that the
plans submitted by Arizona and Nevada and approved herein satisfy
requirements under Clean Air Act section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for each State
to submit a plan containing adequate provisions to prohibit interstate
transport with respect to the standards for 8-hour ozone and fine
particulate matter. The effect of this proposal would be to approve the
Arizona and Nevada state implementation plans addressing interstate
transport with respect to the 8-hour ozone and fine particulate
standards and to eliminate obligations on the Agency to promulgate
Federal Implementation Plans for these States addressing this same
requirement.
    In the Rules and Regulations section of this Federal Register, we
are taking direct final action to take these actions because we believe
that they are not controversial. If we receive adverse comments,
however, we will publish a timely withdrawal of the direct final rule
and address the comments in subsequent action based on this proposed
rule. We do not plan to open a second comment period, so anyone
interested in commenting should do so at this time. If we do not
receive comments, no further activity is planned. For further
information on this proposal and the rationale underlying our proposed
action, please see the direct final rule.

    Dated: June 11, 2007.
Laura Yoshii,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. E7-14475 Filed 7-30-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 58 (Tuesday, March 26, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 18244-18245]
[FR Doc No: 2013-06754]

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

 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2012-0827; FRL-9785-6]

Revisions to the California State Implementation Plan, South
Coast Air Quality Management District

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is finalizing approval of revisions to the South Coast Air
Quality Management District (SCAQMD) portion of the California State
Implementation Plan (SIP). This action was proposed in the Federal
Register on November 7, 2012 and concerns volatile organic compound
(VOC) emissions from architectural coatings. We are approving a local
rule that regulates these emission sources under the Clean Air Act (CAA
or the Act).

DATES: This rule is effective on April 25, 2013.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established docket number EPA-R09-OAR-2012-0827 for
this action. Generally, documents in the docket for this action are
available electronically at http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy
at EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California 94105-
3901. While all documents in the docket are listed at http://www.regulations.gov, some information may be publicly available only at
the hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted material, large maps, multi-
volume reports), and some may not be available in either location
(e.g., confidential business information (CBI)). To inspect the hard
copy materials, please schedule an appointment during normal business
hours with the contact listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nicole Law, EPA Region IX, (415) 947-
4126<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us'' and
``our'' refer to EPA.

Table of Contents

I. Proposed Action
II. Public Comments and EPA Responses
III. EPA Action
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Proposed Action

    On November 7, 2012 (77 FR 66780), EPA proposed to approve the
following rule into the California SIP.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            Rule                 Rule title             Amended     Submitted
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SCAQMD....................................         1113  Architectural Coatings.......     06/03/11     09/27/11
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We proposed to approve this rule because we determined that it
complied with the relevant CAA requirements. Our proposed action
contains more information on the rule and our evaluation.

II. Public Comments and EPA Responses

    EPA's proposed action provided a 30-day public comment period.
During this period, we received a comment through the anonymous access
system.
    The comment and our response are summarized below.
    Comment: Rule changes of this type are only designed to hurt the
local businesses that use architectural coatings with higher costs that
only serve to bolster the EPA pocketbook. Please leave well enough
alone. You have not provided a study to back up your regulations to
start with and this further limits our businesses. Please clarify what
the current rule is and what exactly you are proposing.
    Response: This rule is designed to help reduce significant public
health impacts from ground-level ozone and smog. It has no financial
impact on EPA. The local process for adopting the rule included
development of a cost effectiveness analysis (included in the district
staff report) which provides support for the revised architectural
coating requirements.
    This action finalizes EPA approval of SCAQMD Rule 1113 as submitted
to EPA on September 27, 2011. The current version in the SIP was
approved on August 17, 2011 (76 FR 50891). A summary of the revisions
from the last SIP approved rule can be found in our TSD. The comment
does not provide any specific information to support its general
concerns, while both SCAQMD's staff report and EPA's TSD provide
specific rationale supporting the revised rule.

III. EPA Action

    No comments were submitted that change our assessment of the rule
as described in our proposed action. Therefore, as authorized in
section 110(k)(3) of the Act, EPA is fully approving this rule into the
California SIP.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and
applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve State
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this action merely approves State law as meeting Federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by State law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act; and
     does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address disproportionate human health or environmental effects with
practical, appropriate, and legally permissible methods under Executive
Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in
the State, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by May 28, 2013]. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of
judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for
judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness
of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in
proceedings to enforce its requirements (see section 307(b)(2)).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Ozone, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: February 14, 2013.
Jared Blumenfeld,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.

    Part 52, Chapter I, Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is
amended as follows:

PART 52 APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart F--California

0
2. Section 52.220, is amended by adding paragraph (c)(404) (i)(A)(3) to
read as follows:

Sec.  52.220  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (404) * * *
    (i) * * *
    (A) * * *
    (3) Rule 1113, ``Architectural Coatings,'' amended on June 3, 2011.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2013-06754 Filed 3-25-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P