[Federal Register: March 21, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 54)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 13174-13179]
[DOCID:fr21mr07-5]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0325; FRL-8117-9]

6-Benzyladenine; Exemption from the Requirement of a Tolerance

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes an exemption from the requirement
of a tolerance for residues of the biochemical pesticide, 6-
benzyladenine (6-BA), in or on pear when applied/used as a plant
regulator. Valent BioSciences Corporation (Valent) submitted a petition
to EPA under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), as
amended by the Food Quality Protection Act of 1996 (FQPA), requesting
an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance. This regulation
eliminates the need to establish a maximum permissible level for
residues of 6-benzyladenine.

DATES: This regulation is effective March 21, 2007. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received on or before May 21, 2007, and
must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR
part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION).

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under docket
identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0325. All documents in the
docket are listed in the index for the docket. Although listed in the
index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted
material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available
only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are
available in the electronic docket at http://www.regulations.gov, or,

if only available in hard copy, at the OPP Regulatory Public Docket in
Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr.,
Arlington, VA. The Docket Facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The Docket telephone
number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Denise Greenway, Biopesticides and
Pollution Prevention Division (7511P), Environmental Protection Agency,
1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does This Action Apply to Me?

    You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an
agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer.
Potentially affected entities may include, but are not limited to:
     Crop production (NAICS code 111).
     Animal production (NAICS code 112).
     Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
     Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).
    This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides
a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this
action. Other types of entities not listed in this unit could also be
affected. The North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS)
codes have been provided to assist you and others in determining
whether this action might apply to certain entities. If you have any
questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular
entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT.

B. How Can I Access Electronic Copies of this Document?

    In addition to accessing an electronic copy of this Federal
Register document through the electronic docket at http://www.regulations.gov
, you may access this ``Federal Register'' document

electronically through the EPA Internet under the ``Federal Register''
listings at http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr. You may also access a

frequently updated electronic version of 40 CFR part 180 through the
Government Printing Office's pilot e-CFR site at http://www.gpoaccess.gov/ecfr
.

C. Can I File an Objection or Hearing Request?

    Under section 408(g) of the FFDCA, as amended by the FQPA, any
person may file an objection to any aspect of this regulation and may
also request a hearing on those objections. The EPA procedural
regulations which govern the submission of objections and requests for
hearings appear in 40 CFR part 178. You must file your objection or
request a hearing on this regulation in accordance with the
instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by
EPA, you must identify docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0325 in the
subject line on the first page of your submission. All requests must be
in writing, and must be mailed or delivered to the Hearing Clerk on or
before May 21, 2007.
    In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the
Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of
the filing that does not contain any CBI for inclusion in the public
docket that is described in ADDRESSES. Information not marked
confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA
without prior notice. Submit your copies, identified by docket ID
number EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0325, by one of the following methods.
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.

Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
     Mail: Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) Regulatory Public
Docket (7502P), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001.
     Delivery: OPP Regulatory Public Docket (7502P),
Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South
Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. Deliveries are only
accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation (8:30 a.m. to 4
p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays). Special
arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. The
Docket telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

II. Background and Statutory Findings

    In the Federal Register of April 19, 2006 (71 FR 20100) (FRL-8058-
1), EPA issued a notice pursuant to section 408(d)(3) of the FFDCA, 21
U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a pesticide tolerance
petition (PP 6F7035) by Valent BioSciences Corporation (Valent), 870
Technology Way, Libertyville, IL 60048-6316. The petition requested
that 40 CFR part 180 (specifically, Sec.  180.1150) be amended by
establishing an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for
residues of 6-benzyladenine (6-BA) in or on pear when applied at a rate
of < =182 grams of active ingredient per acre per season. The electronic
docket (EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0325) for this notice includes a summary of the
petition prepared by the petitioner, Valent. Previously, on April 2,
2004 (69 FR 17304; FRL-7347-6), EPA issued a final rule granting a
permanent exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of
6-BA in or on pistachio when applied at a rate of < =60 grams of active
ingredient per acre per season, and the existing permanent tolerance
exemption for apple was amended to expand the uses (by adding a post-
bloom-applied stand-alone fruitlet thinner use) and increase the
permissible application rate to < =182 grams of active ingredient per
acre per season. Both apple and the subject new crop, pear, are pome
fruit and, therefore, botanically similar. The two crops are grown in
the same climatic/geographic regions, and are similarly cultivated. For
both crops, 6-BA is applied for the same purpose, on the same schedule,
at the same application rate and with the same 86-day pre-harvest
interval restriction. Based on these similarities, the Agency has
determined for the purpose of establishing the requested tolerance
exemption that previously-submitted and reviewed information and data
supporting the current tolerance exemption for apple will apply equally
to the new crop, pear. In submitting this petition, therefore, Valent
is relying on information previously submitted in connection with
seeking and obtaining the tolerance exemption for the expanded use of
6-BA on apple, which was summarized in the April 2, 2004, final rule,
and also on new data summarized in the cited petition summary (i.e., PP
6F7035). New data submitted to the Agency by Valent on October 20, 2004
and summarized by the company in the current petition are a two-
generation rat reproduction study, which is data not required for U.S.
registration of this biochemical active ingredient, but rather was
conducted to satisfy the registration requirements of other countries
and submitted by the petitioner to augment the Agency's 6-BA data base.
    In response to EPA's April 19, 2006 notice, no comments were
submitted in accordance with the instructions for submitting comments
set forth in the notice. However, one informal comment was received
from a private citizen who opposed issuance of a final rule. The
commenter expressed concern regarding the hazard associated with plant
regulator use in general, stated the unsupported belief that more
testing needs to be done, and was generally opposed to the
establishment of an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance as
proposed in the subject pesticide tolerance petition for 6-BA. The
Agency understands and recognizes that some individuals believe that
pesticides, which include plant regulators, should be banned
completely. Notwithstanding such beliefs, pursuant to its authority
under the FFDCA, EPA has conducted a comprehensive assessment of 6-BA
and has concluded that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm
will result from dietary exposure to this chemical when its use is
limited by the specified maximum application rates.
    Section 408(c)(2)(A)(i) of the FFDCA allows EPA to establish an
exemption

from the requirement for a tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide
chemical residue in or on a food) only if EPA determines that the
exemption is ``safe.'' Section 408(c)(2)(A)(ii) of the FFDCA defines
``safe'' to mean that ``there is a reasonable certainty that no harm
will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue,
including all anticipated dietary exposures and all other exposures for
which there is reliable information.'' This includes exposure through
drinking water and in residential settings, but does not include
occupational exposure. Pursuant to section 408(c)(2)(B) of the FFDCA,
in establishing or maintaining in effect an exemption from the
requirement of a tolerance, EPA must take into account the factors set
forth in section 408(b)(2)(C) of the FFDCA, which require EPA to give
special consideration to exposure of infants and children to the
pesticide chemical residue in establishing a tolerance and to ``ensure
that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to
infants and children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical
residue.... '' Additionally, section 408(b)(2)(D) of the FFDCA requires
that the Agency consider ``available information concerning the
cumulative effects of a particular pesticide's residues '' and ``other
substances that have a common mechanism of toxicity.''
    EPA performs a number of analyses to determine the risks from
aggregate exposure to pesticide residues. First, EPA determines the
toxicity of pesticides. Second, EPA examines exposure to the pesticide
through food, drinking water, and through other exposures that occur as
a result of pesticide use in residential settings.

III. Toxicological Profile

    Consistent with section 408(b)(2)(D) of the FFDCA, EPA has reviewed
the available scientific data and other relevant information in support
of this action and considered its validity, completeness, and
reliability and the relationship of this information to human risk. EPA
has also considered available information concerning the variability of
the sensitivities of major identifiable subgroups of consumers,
including infants and children.
    The toxicological profile for 6-BA was published by the Agency in
the June 1994 N6-Benzyladenine (synonymous with the subject active
ingredient, 6-benzyladenine) Reregistration Eligibility Decision (RED)
document (http://www.epa.gov/oppsrrd1/REDs/old_reds/n6benzyladenine.pdf
). The summarized values and categories for the

various, previously reviewed studies for the technical active
ingredient are presented here.
    1. Acute toxicity. Toxicity Category III was assigned to the acute
oral toxicity study in the rat (lethal dose (LD)50 = 1.3
grams/kilogram (g/kg)), and in the eye irritation study in the rabbit
(moderate irritant). Toxicity Category IV (the least toxic category)
was assigned to the acute dermal toxicity study in the rabbit
(LD50 >5 g/kg), the acute inhalation toxicity study in the
rat (lethal concentration (LC)50 = 5.2 milligrams/liter (mg/
L)), and to the dermal irritation study in the rabbit (slight
irritant). Additionally, from a dermal sensitization study in the
guinea pig, it was determined that 6-BA is not a dermal sensitizer.
There have been no reported incidents of hypersensitivity directly
linked to 6-BA. Nevertheless, to comply with section 6(a)(2) of the
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), any
incident of hypersensitivity associated with the use of this pesticide
must be reported to the Agency.
    2. Genotoxicity. From three mutagenicity studies (Ames test, mouse
micronucleus assay, and unscheduled DNA synthesis assay in the rat), it
was determined that 6-BA is not mutagenic.
    3. Developmental toxicity. The no observed adverse effect levels
(NOAEL) and the lowest observed adverse effect levels (LOAEL) for
maternal and developmental toxicity in rats, respectively, were found
to be 50 and 175 milligrams/kilogram body weight/day (mg/kg bwt/day),
respectively.
    4. Subchronic toxicity. For rats of both sexes, the NOAEL was
approximately 111 mg/kg bwt/day and the LOAEL was approximately 304 mg/
kg bwt/day.
    In addition to the previously reviewed studies discussed above, a
two-generation rat reproduction study was relied upon by Valent to
support the current petition to establish an exemption from the
requirement of a tolerance for residues of 6-BA in or on pear. The
lowest-LOAEL for parental systemic toxicity of technical 6-BA is 750
ppm (58.6-70.4 mg/kg bwt/day) and is based on reduced body weight and
weight gain in F0 and F1 male rats\1\.The NOAEL
is 400 ppm (31.5-37.5 mg/kg bwt/day)\1\ . This systemic adult endpoint
was used in the dietary risk assessment. Although the systemic endpoint
is similar to that used in previous occupational risk assessments, the
previous toxicological endpoint (40 mg/kg bwt/day) has been modified to
more precisely reflect the composition of test diets, rat body weights,
and food consumption estimates\1\.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ USEPA. N6-Benzyladenine: Review of Information for an
Exemption from the Requirement of a Tolerance. K. R. Carlson to D.
Greenway; December 5, 2006.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Because only systemic and no reproductive effects were observed,
the LOAEL for reproductive toxicity of technical 6-BA in rats could not
be determined. The NOAEL, therefore, is >1,500 ppm (115.7-144.2 mg/kg
bwt/day for males and 133.0-139.2 mg/kg bwt/day for females), the
highest dose tested\1\.
    The LOAEL for offspring toxicity of technical 6-BA in rats is 750
ppm (66.7-68.1 mg/kg bwt/day) and is based on decreased body weight and
weight gain in F1 and F2 male and female pups.
The NOAEL is 400 ppm (35.8-36.0 mg/kg bwt/day)\1\.
    Uncertainty factors for inter- and intra-species variation (10X
each) and subchronic to chronic extrapolation (3X) were used to modify
the toxicity NOAEL.

IV. Aggregate Exposures

    In examining aggregate exposure, section 408 of the FFDCA directs
EPA to consider available information concerning exposures from the
pesticide residue in food and all other non-occupational exposures,
including drinking water from ground water or surface water and
exposure through pesticide use in gardens, lawns, or buildings
(residential and other indoor uses).

A. Dietary Exposure

    1. Food. Apple field trials yielded acceptable magnitude of the
residue data. In apples, residues of 6-BA were consistently near the
limit of quantitation (LOQ). However, the residue levels for processed
commodities did not increase relative to those on the raw commodity,
and were below the LOQ. The apple field data are adequate to support
the tolerance exemption for pear, limited by a maximum application rate
of < =182 grams of active ingredient per acre per season, because of the
shared physical, compositional and cultural characteristics of the two
botanically similar pome fruits, which also are grown in the same
climatic/geographic regions. The proposed use pattern; low application
rate, frequency and timing; and 86-day pre-harvest interval are
identical for apple and pear. Because application precedes harvest by
approximately 2.5 months for apple and pear, the potential for dietary
exposure is reduced. Due to the low anticipated dietary intake of 6-BA
residues relative to the chronic and acute population adjusted doses
(see Unit VI.), and the

fact that actual exposure will probably be considerably less because
the dietary exposure analysis was based on worst-case assumptions (such
as conservatively assuming: That 100% of the crop is treated, that non-
detected or < LOQ residue concentrations are present, and that chronic
exposure from the few seasonal applications made 60-86 days before
harvest could occur), it is highly unlikely that the proposed new use
of 6-BA on pear will result in adverse effects to human health.
    2. Drinking water exposure. The proposed use on pear is not
expected to add potential exposure to residues of 6-BA in drinking
water. Soil leaching studies have suggested that 6-BA is relatively
immobile, adsorbing to sediment, and is degraded in the soil. Migration
to potable water resources, therefore, is highly improbable. However,
any residues that do reach surface waters from field runoff should
quickly adsorb to sediment particles and be partitioned from the water
column. 6-Benzyladenine also has low solubility in water, 76 < plus-
minus>2 mg/L at 20[deg] C, and detections in ground water are not
expected. Together, these data indicate that residues are not expected
in drinking water.

B. Other Non-Occupational Exposure

    The potential for non-dietary, non-occupational exposure to 6-BA
residues for the general population, including infants and children, is
unlikely because the uses, both those currently allowed and the one
currently being established, are limited to applications in certain
tree fruit and nut tree orchards. Additionally, because 6-BA is a
naturally-occurring cytokinin plant regulator (having been detected in
all higher plants tested for its presence), it is a normal part of the
human diet. Moreover, the proposed use rates are well below the
toxicity NOAELs (see Unit III.), and the residues resulting from
applications made in accordance with the proposed use rates indicate
dietary exposures that are < 1.0% of the chronic and acute population
adjusted doses. Therefore, not only is there a great likelihood of
prior exposure for most, if not all, individuals to 6-BA, due to its
natural presence in food crops, the data submitted also demonstrate
that any incremental increased exposure due to the proposed use would
be negligible due to the lack of residue in comparison with the
toxicity NOAELs.

V. Cumulative Effects

    Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of FFDCA requires that, when considering
whether to establish, modify, or revoke a tolerance, the Agency
consider ``available information'' concerning the cumulative effects of
a particular pesticide's residues and ``other substances that have a
common mechanism of toxicity.'' These considerations include the
possible cumulative effects of such residues on infants and children.
    EPA does not have, at this time, available data to suggest whether
6-BA has a common mechanism of toxicity with other substances. Unlike
other pesticides for which EPA has followed a cumulative risk approach
based on a common mechanism of toxicity, EPA has not made a common
mechanism of toxicity finding as to 6-BA and any other substances and
6-BA does not appear to produce a toxic metabolite produced by other
substances. For the purposes of this tolerance action, therefore, EPA
has not assumed that 6-BA has a common mechanism of toxicity with other
substances. For information regarding EPA's efforts to determine which
chemicals have a common mechanism of toxicity and to evaluate the
cumulative effects of such chemicals, see the policy statements
released by EPA's Office of Pesticide Programs concerning common
mechanism determinations and procedures for cumulating effects from
substances found to have a common mechanism on EPA's web site at http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/cumulative/
.

VI. Determination of Safety for U.S. Population, Infants and Children

A. U.S. Population

    When assessing the contributions of apple and pistachio, the
Agency's analysis estimated that the chronic exposures for the overall
U.S. population was 0.000002 mg/kg/day (< 1.0% of the chronic population
adjusted dose (cPAD))\1\. Similarly, the acute dietary estimated
exposure was 0.000069 mg/kg/day (< 1.0% of the acute population adjusted
dose (aPAD)) for the overall U.S. population. Critical exposure
commodity analysis showed that apple juice contributed the most to
dietary exposure for the overall population. Dietary exposure to 6-BA
residues in or on pear did not add significantly to the current dietary
exposure to 6-BA from its use in or on apple or pistachio. Due to the
low anticipated dietary intake of 6-BA residues relative to the chronic
and acute population adjusted doses, and the fact that actual exposure
will probably be considerably less because the dietary exposure
analysis was made based on worst-case assumptions (such as
conservatively assuming: That 100% of the crop is treated, that non-
detected or < LOQ residue concentrations are present, and that chronic
exposure from the few seasonal applications made 60-86 days before
harvest could occur), the Agency is reasonably certain that no dietary
harm will result from aggregate exposure to 6-BA residues, including
all anticipated dietary exposures (including the proposed new use of 6-
BA on pear) and all other exposures for which there is reliable
information.

B. Infants and Children

    Section 408(b)(2)(C) of the FFDCA provides that EPA shall apply an
additional ten-fold margin of exposure (safety) for infants and
children in the case of threshold effects to account for prenatal and
postnatal toxicity and the completeness of the data base, unless EPA
determines that a different margin of exposure (safety) will be safe
for infants and children. Margins of exposure (safety) are often
referred to as uncertainty (safety) factors. In the case of 6-BA, the
safety factor was reduced from 10X to 3X based on adequate data from a
new 2-generation rat reproduction study, and from a rat developmental
toxicity study, neither of which demonstrated unique fetal
susceptibility (i.e., fetal or neonatal effects occurred only at
maternally toxic doses)\1\. Additionally, genotoxicity and mutagenicity
tests were negative. EPA did not reduce the uncertainty factor any
further, however, because of the lack of a developmental toxicity study
in a second species, and the resulting residual uncertainties for 6-BA-
induced pre-/post-natal toxicity. The analysis estimated that the
chronic exposures for the most highly exposed subgroup, non-nursing
infants, was 0.000012 mg/kg/day (< 1.0% of the cPAD). The acute dietary
estimated exposure was 0.000361 mg/kg/day (< 1.0% of aPAD) for the most
highly exposed subgroup, non-nursing infants. Critical exposure
commodity analysis showed that apple juice contributed the most to
dietary exposure for all infants. Due to the low anticipated dietary
intake of 6-BA residues relative to the chronic and acute PAD, and the
fact that actual exposure will probably be considerably less because
the dietary exposure analysis was made based on worst-case assumptions
(such as conservatively assuming: that 100% of the crop is treated,
that non-detected or < LOQ residue concentrations are present, and that
chronic exposure from the few seasonal applications made 60-86 days
before harvest could occur), it is reasonably certain that no dietary
harm will result to infants and children from aggregate exposure to
residues of 6-BA

resulting from all currently-registered uses, as well as from the
proposed new use of 6-BA on pear.

VII. Other Considerations

A. Endocrine Disruptors

    EPA is required under the FFDCA as amended by FQPA, to develop a
screening program to determine whether certain substances (including
all pesticide active and other ingredients) ``may have an effect in
humans that is similar to an effect produced by a naturally occurring
estrogen, or other such endocrine effects as the Administrator may
designate.'' Following the recommendations of its Endocrine Disruptor
Screening and Testing Advisory Committee (EDSTAC), EPA determined that
there is no scientific basis for including, as part of the program, the
androgen and thyroid hormone systems in addition to the estrogen
hormone system. EPA also adopted EDSTAC's recommendation that the
program include evaluations of potential effects in wildlife. For
pesticide chemicals, EPA will use FIFRA and, to the extent that effects
in wildlife may help determine whether a substance may have an effect
in humans, FFDCA authority to require wildlife evaluations. As the
science develops and resources allow, screening of additional hormone
systems may be added to the Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program
(EDSP). When the appropriate screening and/or testing protocols being
considered under the Agency's EDSP have been developed, 6-BA may be
subjected to additional screening and/or testing to better characterize
any possible effects related to endocrine disruption. Based on
available data, no endocrine system-related effects have been
identified with consumption of 6-BA. To date, there is no evidence to
suggest that 6-BA affects the immune system, functions in a manner
similar to any known hormone, or that it acts as an endocrine
disruptor.

B. Analytical Methods

    The Agency is establishing an exemption from the requirement of a
tolerance for the reasons stated above. For the same reasons, the
Agency has concluded that an analytical method is not required for
enforcement purposes for 6-BA. Nonetheless, analytical methods for
apple (a pome fruit botanically similar to the new crop, pear), both
raw agricultural and processed commodities, and for pistachio have been
developed and submitted by the registrant. The analytical method for
apple is expected to be fully applicable (have the same sensitivity) to
pear because the two pome fruits are physically and compositionally
comparable, and therefore should present similar sequestration and
matrix interference characteristics.

C. Codex Maximum Residue Level

    Currently, there are no Codex, Canadian or Mexican maximum residue
levels for residues of 6-BA in or on pear.

VIII. Conclusions

    Based on the toxicology information submitted and reviewed
previously and summarized in the June 1994 N6-Benzyladenine RED, in
combination with the newly submitted two generation rat reproduction
study and other information available to the Agency, there is a
reasonable certainty that no harm will result to the U.S. population,
including infants and children, from aggregate exposure to residues of
6-BA under reasonably foreseeable circumstances, when 6-BA is used as a
biochemical pesticide in accordance with its label and good
agricultural practices. This includes all anticipated dietary exposures
and all other exposures for which there is reliable information. The
Agency has arrived at this conclusion based on the data submitted
previously and summarized in the RED, as well as that data submitted to
support this tolerance exemption, demonstrating negligible dietary
exposure in comparison with the toxicity NOAELs. As a result, EPA is
establishing an exemption (albeit, limited by a maximum application
rate) from the tolerance requirements pursuant to section 408(c) and
(d) of the FFDCA for residues of 6-BA in or on pear.

 IX. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This final rule establishes an exemption from the requirement of a
tolerance under section 408(d) of the FFDCA in response to a petition
submitted to the Agency. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has
exempted these types of actions from review under Executive Order
12866, entitled Regulatory Planning and Review (58 FR 51735, October 4,
1993). Because this rule has been exempted from review under Executive
Order 12866 due to its lack of significance, this rule is not subject
to Executive Order 13211,  Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use (66 FR 28355,
May 22, 2001). This final rule does not contain any information
collections subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act
(PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., or impose any enforceable duty or
contain any unfunded mandate as described under Title II of the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (Public Law 104-4). Nor
does it require any special considerations under Executive Order 12898,
entitled Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority
Populations and Low-Income Populations (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994);
or OMB review or any Agency action under Executive Order 13045,
entitled Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and
Safety Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). This action does not
involve any technical standards that would require Agency consideration
of voluntary consensus standards pursuant to section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA),
Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note). Since
tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis of a
petition under section 408(d) of the FFDCA, such as the exemption from
the requirement of a tolerance in this final rule, do not require the
issuance of a proposed rule, the requirements of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) do not apply. In addition,
the Agency has determined that this action will not have a substantial
direct effect on 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, as specified
in Executive Order 13132, entitled Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10,
1999). Executive Order 13132 requires EPA to develop an accountable
process to ensure ``meaningful and timely input by State and local
officials in the development of regulatory policies that have
federalism implications.'' ``Policies that have federalism
implications'' is defined in the Executive order to include regulations
that have ``substantial direct effects 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.'' This final rule directly regulates growers, food
processors, food handlers and food retailers, not States. This action
does not alter the relationships or distribution of power and
responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions
of section 408(n)(4) of the FFDCA. For these same reasons, the Agency
has determined that this rule

does not have any ``tribal implications'' as described in Executive
Order 13175, entitled Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments (65 FR 67249, November 6, 2000). Executive Order 13175,
requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful
and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory
policies that have tribal implications.'' ``Policies that have tribal
implications'' is defined in the Executive order to include regulations
that have ``substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on
the relationship between the Federal Government and the Indian tribes,
or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the
Federal Government and Indian tribes.'' This rule will not have
substantial direct effects on tribal governments, on the relationship
between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, as specified in Executive Order 13175.
Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this rule.

X. Congressional Review Act

    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 rule and other
required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of this final rule in the Federal Register. This final
rule is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180

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

    Dated: February 25, 2007.
Janet L. Andersen,
Director, Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention Division, Office of
Pesticide Programs.

0
Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:

PART 180--[AMENDED]

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

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

0
2. Section 180.1150 is revised to read as follows:

Sec.  180.1150  6-Benzyladenine; exemption from the requirement of a
tolerance.

    The biochemical plant regulator 6-benzyladenine (6-BA) is exempt
from the requirement of a tolerance in or on apple and pear when
applied at a rate of < =182 grams of active ingredient per acre per
season, and in or on pistachio when applied at a rate of < =60 grams of
active ingredient per acre per season.

[FR Doc. 07-1386 Filed 3-20-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-S


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 119 (Thursday, June 24, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 33279-33280]
[FR Doc No: 2021-13613]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-ORD-2015-0765; FRL-10025-24-ORD]

Board of Scientific Counselors (BOSC) Executive Committee
Meeting--July 2021

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of public meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Office of Research
and Development (ORD), gives notice of a virtual meeting of the Board
of Scientific Counselors (BOSC) Executive Committee (EC) to conduct a
consultation on equity and barriers to environmental justice.

DATES: The meeting will be held Tuesday, July 6, 2021, from 11 a.m. to
6 p.m. (EDT). Attendees must register by July 5, 2021.
    Meeting times are subject to change. This meeting is open to the
public. Comments must be received by June 30, 2021, to be considered by
the Executive Committee. Requests for the draft agenda or making a
presentation at the meeting will be accepted until June 30, 2021.

ADDRESSES: Instructions on how to connect to the videoconference will
be provided upon registration at https://epa-bosc-consultation-on-equity-and-ej.eventbrite.com.
    Submit your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-ORD-2015-0765 by one
of the following methods:
     www.regulations.gov: Follow the online instructions for
submitting comments.
    [ssquf] Note: Comments submitted to the www.regulations.gov website
are anonymous unless identifying information is included in the body of
the comment.
     Email: Send comments by electronic mail (email) to:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-ORD-2015-0765.
    [ssquf] Note: Comments submitted via email are not anonymous. The
sender's email will be included in the body of the comment and placed
in the public docket which is made available on the internet.
    Instructions: All comments received, including any personal
information provided, will be included in the public docket without
change and may be made available online at www.regulations.gov.
Information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or
other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute will not be
included in the public docket, and should not be submitted through
www.regulations.gov or email. For additional information about the
EPA's public docket visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/.
    Public Docket: Publicly available docket materials may be accessed
Online at www.regulations.gov.
    Copyrighted materials in the docket are only available via hard
copy. The telephone number for the ORD Docket Center is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The Designated Federal Officer (DFO),
Tom Tracy, via phone/voicemail at:<PHONE_NUMBER>; or via email at:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Any member of the public interested in receiving a draft agenda,
attending the meeting, or making a presentation at the meeting should
contact Tom Tracy no later than June 30, 2021.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Board of Scientific Counselors (BOSC) is
a federal advisory committee that provides advice and recommendations
to EPA's Office of Research and Development on technical and management
issues of its research programs. The meeting agenda and materials will
be posted to https://www.epa.gov/bosc.
    Proposed agenda items for the meeting include, but are not limited
to, the following: Equity and barriers to environmental justice.
    Information on Services Available: For information on translation
services, access, or services for individuals with disabilities, please
contact Tom Tracy at<PHONE_NUMBER> or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

To request accommodation of a disability, please contact Tom Tracy at
least ten days prior to the meeting to give the EPA adequate time to
process your request.

    Authority: Pub. L. 92-463, 1, Oct. 6, 1972, 86 Stat. 770.

Mary Ross,
Director, Office of Science Advisor, Policy and Engagement.
[FR Doc. 2021-13613 Filed 6-23-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 109 (Friday, June 5, 2020)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 34493-34495]
[FR Doc No: 2020-10421]

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

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

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

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

Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 109 / Friday, June 5, 2020 / Rules
and Regulations

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 29

[Docket No. FAA-2020-0495; Special Conditions No. 29-049-SC]

Special Conditions: Leonardo S.p.A. (Leonardo), Model AW169; Use
of 30-Minute All Engines Operating (AEO) Power Rating

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final special conditions; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: These special conditions are issued for the Leonardo Model
AW169 helicopter. This model helicopter will have the novel or unusual
design feature associated with a 30-minute all engines operating (AEO)
power rating. 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 22, 2020.
The FAA must receive your comments by July 6, 2020.

ADDRESSES: Send comments identified by docket number FAA-2020-0495
using any of the following methods:
     Federal eRegulations Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and follow the online instructions for sending your
comments electronically.
     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.
     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.
     Fax: Fax comments to Docket Operations at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Privacy: The FAA will post all comments it receives, without
change, to http://regulations.gov, including any personal information
the commenter provides. Using the search function of the docket
website, 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: Rao Edupuganti, Regulations and Policy
Section, AIR-681, Rotorcraft Standards Branch, Policy & Innovation
Division, Aircraft Certification Service, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort
Worth, Texas 76177; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; facsimile<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Reason for No Prior Notice and Comment Before Adoption

    The FAA has determined, in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B)
and 553(d)(3), that notice and opportunity for prior public comment
hereon are unnecessary because substantially identical special
conditions have been previously subject to the public comment process
in several prior instances such that the FAA is satisfied that new
comments are unlikely. For the same reason, the FAA finds that 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.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
       Special conditions number           Company and helicopter model
------------------------------------------------------------------------
No. 29-037-SC \1\......................  Airbus Helicopters Deutschland
                                          GmbH Model MBB-BK117 D-2.
No. 29-034-SC \2\......................  AgustaWestland Model AW189.
No. 29-011-SC \3\......................  Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation
                                          Model S-92A.
No. 29-004-SC \4\......................  Sikorsky Model S76C.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 79 FR 78694, December, 31, 2014.
\2\ 79 FR 54889, September 15, 2014.
\3\ 67 FR 65871, October 29, 2002.
\4\ 63 FR 32972, June 17, 1998.

Comments Invited

    While the FAA did not precede these special conditions with a
notice of proposed special conditions, the FAA invites 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.
    The FAA will consider all comments received by the closing date for
comments. The FAA will consider comments filed late if it is possible
to do so without incurring expense or delay. The FAA may change these
special conditions based on the comments received.

Background

    On August 20, 2019, Leonardo applied for FAA validation of its
change to Type Certificate (TC) No. R00007RD for a 30-minute AEO power
rating for the Model AW169 helicopter. The Model AW169 is a Transport
Category, twin engine helicopter designed for civil operations. This
model has a 10 seat capacity and is type certificated as a Category A
rotorcraft under instrument flight rules for both single and dual pilot
configurations. It is powered by two Pratt & Whitney Canada Model
PW210A engines.
    Leonardo proposes that the Model AW169 include the use of a novel
and unusual design feature, which is a 30-minute AEO power rating. The
30-minute AEO power rating is generally intended to be used for
hovering at increased power for search and rescue missions. 14 CFR 1.1
defines ``rated takeoff power'' as limited in use to no more than 5
minutes for takeoff operation. The use of takeoff power for

30 minutes will require special airworthiness standards, known as
special conditions, to address the use of this 30-minute AEO rating and
its effects on the rotorcraft. These special conditions will add
requirements to the existing airworthiness standards in 14 CFR 29.1049
(Hovering cooling test procedures), Sec.  29.1305 (Powerplant
instruments), and Sec.  29.1521 (Powerplant limitations).

Type Certification Basis

    Under 14 CFR 21.101, Leonardo must show that the Model AW169
helicopter, as changed, continues to meet the applicable provisions of
the regulations incorporated by reference in TC No. R00007RD or the
applicable regulations in effect on the date of application for the
change. The regulations incorporated by reference in the TC are
commonly referred to as the ``original type certification basis.'' The
regulations incorporated by reference in TC No. R00007RD are as
follows:

    14 CFR part 21.29.
    14 CFR part 29 Amendment 29-1 through 29-52, dated March 30,
2010.
    14 CFR part 36 appendix H, Amendment 36-1 through 36-28, dated
March 11, 2013.
    14 CFR part 29 Amendment 29-1 through 29-55 only for Hoist
Installation.
    Equivalent Level of Safety Findings issued against:
    (a) 14 CFR 29.807(c) Emergency Exits Access (documented in ELOS
Memo TC4266RD-R-C-01).
    (b) 14 CFR 29.813(c) Passenger access to each emergency exit
(documented in ELOS Memo TC4266RD-R-C-02).
    (c) 14 CFR 29.811(c) Emergency exit marking (documented in ELOS
Memo TC4266RD-R-C-03).
    (d) 14 CFR 29 Subpart B, 29.1305, 29.1549 ``Engine Training
Mode'' (documented in ELOS Memo TC4266RD-R-F-01).
    (e) 14 CFR 29.1545(b)(4) Airspeed indicator green arcs
(documented in ELOS Memo TC4266RD-R-F-02).
    (f) 14 CFR 29.1305 and 29.1549 Power Index (documented in ELOS
Memo TC4266RD-R-F-06).

    In addition to the applicable airworthiness regulations and special
conditions, the Leonardo Model AW169 helicopter 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.

Regulatory Basis for Special Conditions

    The Administrator has determined that the applicable airworthiness
regulations (that is, 14 CFR part 29) do not contain adequate or
appropriate safety standards for the Leonardo Model AW169 helicopter
because of a novel or unusual design feature. Therefore, special
conditions are prescribed under the provisions of 14 CFR 21.16.
    The FAA issues special conditions, as defined in Sec.  11.19, in
accordance with 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 TC for that model be amended later to
include any other model that incorporates the same novel or unusual
design feature, the special conditions would also apply to the other
model under Sec.  21.101.

Novel or Unusual Design Features

    The Leonardo Model AW169 helicopter will incorporate the following
novel or unusual design feature:
     A 30-minute AEO power rating.

Discussion

    The following is a summary of the final special conditions:
    (a) In addition to the requirements of Sec.  29.1049, the aircraft
cooling effects due to the use of the 30-minute AEO power rating versus
the Takeoff (5-minute) rating must be accounted for in the testing.
    (b) In addition to the requirements of Sec.  29.1305, since this
new 30-minute AEO power rating has a time limit associated with its
use, the pilot must have the means to identify:
    (1) When the rated engine power level is achieved,
    (2) When the event begins,
    (3) When the time interval expires, and
    (4) When the cumulative time in one flight is reached.
    (c) In addition to the requirements of Sec.  29.1521, this new 30-
minute AEO power rating must be limited to not more than 30 minutes per
use. This new rating will allow the use of power above maximum
continuous power (MCP) for 30 minutes.
    (d) Furthermore, the Model AW169 rotorcraft flight manual must
include limitations on the use of the 30-minute AEO power rating, which
states that continuous use above MCP takeoff power is limited to 30
minutes.

Applicability

    These special conditions are applicable to the Leonardo Model AW169
helicopter. Should Leonardo apply at a later date for an amendment to
the TC 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 helicopters. It is not a rule of general applicability.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 29

    Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.

    The authority citation for these special conditions is as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701-44702, 44704.

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 the Leonardo Model AW169 helicopter.
Unless stated otherwise, all requirements in Sec. Sec.  29.1049,
29.1305, and 29.1521 remain unchanged.
    Section 29.1049, Hovering cooling test procedures. In addition to
the requirements of this section, for rotorcraft with a 30-minute all
engines operating (AEO) power rating, the hovering cooling provisions
at the 30-minute AEO power rating must be shown--
    (a) At maximum weight or at the greatest weight at which the
rotorcraft can hover (if less), at sea level, with the power required
to hover but not more than the 30-minute power, in the ground effect in
still air, until at least 5 minutes after the occurrence of the highest
temperature recorded, or until the continuous time limit of the 30-
minute AEO power rating if the highest temperature recorded is not
stabilized before.
    (b) At maximum weight and at the altitude resulting in zero rate of
climb for this configuration, until at least 5 minutes after the
occurrence of the highest temperature recorded, or until the continuous
time limit of the 30-minute AEO power rating if the highest temperature
recorded is not stabilized before.
    Section 29.1305 Powerplant instruments, at Amendment 29-40. In
addition to the requirements of this section, for rotorcraft with a 30-
minute AEO power rating, a means must be provided to alert the pilot
when the engine is at the 30-minute power level, when the event begins,
when the time interval expires, and when the cumulative time in one
flight is reached.
    Section 29.1521 Powerplant limitations, at Amendment 29-41. In
addition to the requirements of this section, the use of the 30-minute
AEO power must be limited to not more than 30 minutes per use. The use
of the 30-minute power must also be limited by:
    (1) The maximum rotational speed, which may not be greater than--

    (i) The maximum value determined by the rotor design; or
    (ii) The maximum value demonstrated during the type tests;
    (2) The maximum allowable turbine inlet or turbine outlet gas
temperature (for turbine engines);
    (3) The maximum allowable power or torque for each engine,
considering the power input limitations of the transmission with AEO;
    (4) The maximum allowable power or torque for each engine
considering the power input limitations of the transmission with one
engine inoperative;
    (5) The time limit for the use of the power corresponding to the
limitations established in paragraphs (1) through (4) above; and
    (6) The maximum allowable engine and transmission oil temperatures,
if the time limit established in paragraph (5) above exceeds 2 minutes.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on May 5, 2020.
Jorge Castillo,
Manager, Rotorcraft Standards Branch, AIR-680, Policy & Innovation
Division, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2020-10421 Filed 6-4-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


AGENDA

FIFRA SCIENTIFIC ADVISORY PANEL (SAP)

OPEN MEETING

August 14-15, 2007

FIFRA SAP WEB SITE http://www.epa.gov/scipoly/sap/

OPP Docket Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>

Docket Number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0388

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Conference Center - Lobby Level

One Potomac Yard (South Bldg.)

2777 S. Crystal Drive, Arlington,VA 22202

Review of EPA/ORD/NERL’s SHEDS-Multimedia Model, Aggregate version 3

Tuesday, August 14, 2007

8:30 A.M.	Introduction and Identification of Panel Members – Steven G.
Heeringa, Ph.D. (FIFRA SAP Chair)

8:40 A.M.	Administrative Procedures by Designated Federal Official –
Mr. Steven Knott, Office of Science Coordination and Policy, EPA

8:45 A.M.	Welcome and Opening Remarks – Debbie Edwards, Ph.D.,
Director, Office of Pesticide Programs, EPA

8:50 A.M.	Introduction – Dana Vogel, Office of Pesticide Programs, EPA

9:00 A.M.	Overview of SHEDS-Multimedia Residential and Dietary Models,
and Future Plans   – Valerie Zartarian, Ph.D., Office of Research and
Development, EPA

9:15 A.M.	Public Comments

10:15 A.M.	Break

10:30 A.M.	SHEDS-Multimedia version 3, Residential Model Structure and
Approach – Valerie Zartarian, Ph.D., Office of Research and
Development, and Jianping Xue, Ph.D., Office of Research and
Development, EPA

12:00 P.M.	Lunch

1:15 P.M.	Charge to Panel – Issue 1: Documentation, completeness, and
clarity of the technical aspects and usability of the SHEDS-Multimedia
version 3 (aggregate residential) model

Charge Question 1:  The SHEDS-Multimedia version 3 User’s Manual
provided to the SAP presents installation and operational instructions
for the software.

1(a): Were Panel members able to load the software on to their
computers? What, if any, difficulties were encountered in loading or
running the software?

1(b): The SHEDS-Multimedia version 3 graphical user interface (GUI) was
designed to be user-friendly to exposure modelers and risk assessors.
Please comment on the organization and usability of the GUI, any
difficulties you encountered, which features and output capabilities
were most useful, and whether any additional options would be helpful.
Please also comment or offer suggestions for improving the GUI/model
interface.

1(c): Please comment on the organization, clarity, completeness, and
usefulness of the User Guide document and provide any suggestions for
improvement.

Charge Question 2: The SHEDS-Multimedia version 3 Technical Manual
provided to the SAP provides an overview of the SHEDS-Multimedia version
3; presents detailed descriptions of key model components; and describes
the model construct and algorithms, required inputs, and analysis/output
capabilities.

2(a): Please comment on whether the descriptions of specific model
components are scientifically sound and whether the algorithms described
in the Technical Manual represent the state of the science for
performing exposure assessments. Please also comment or offer
suggestions for improving or modifying these algorithms or other aspects
of the model construct.

2(b): Please comment on the organization, clarity, completeness and
usefulness of the Technical Manual and provide any suggestions for
improvement.

Charge Question 3: The Source Code Directory on the CD provided to the
SAP includes annotated code for the exposure algorithms used in the
SHEDS-Multimedia version 3.

3(a): Please comment on whether the annotated code is sufficiently clear
such that the algorithms can be followed and understood.

3(b): Please also comment on whether these algorithms are technically
correct and consistent with the descriptions provided in the technical
manual.

2:45 P.M.	Break

3:00 P.M.	Planned Methodologies to Extend version 3 to version 4 –
Valerie Zartarian, Ph.D., Office of Research and Development, EPA;
Jianping Xue, Ph.D., Office of Research and Development, EPA; and Graham
Glen, Ph.D., Alion Science and Technology

4:00 P.M.	Charge to Panel – Issue 2 Technical Aspects of Planned
Methodologies to Extend SHEDS-Multimedia version 3 (aggregate) to
version 4 (cumulative)

Charge Question 1: SHEDS-Multimedia version 3 simulates exposures of
individuals to one chemical at a time. As discussed in the Planned
Methodologies document provided to the SAP, SHEDS-Multimedia version 4
will also allow tracking exposures of individuals to multiple chemicals
at the same time. Unlike version 3, which has a single chemical focus,
version 4 will have a “product formulation” orientation since a
single product may contain multiple chemicals. A product-related
co-occurrence priority system like the version 3 co-occurrence approach
will be used to minimize the number of product combinations. In version
3, the running exposures of the chemical are tracked in three carriers
(air, surface residues, and dust/soil), but the masses of the carriers
themselves are not tracked. In version 4, the mass of each chemical and
each carrier (soil, dust, residue, air, food, water) will be tracked.
The basic operation of SHEDS-Multimedia will be unaffected by these
changes, but the list of variables (vectors rather than single numbers
for chemical-specific inputs, exposures, and doses) and model run time
will be longer, and the GUI will need to be modified accordingly.

Please comment on the technical aspects and usefulness of the planned
methodology for extending SHEDS-Multimedia version 3 to address multiple
chemicals in version 4.

Charge Question 2: SHEDS-Multimedia version 3 combines media
concentration or residue data with simulated individuals’ contact
rates (e.g., m3/hr for inhalation, cm2/hr for dermal, or appropriate
contact factors for ingestion via hand to mouth activity) to estimate
exposure. The media (air, dust/soil, surfaces) concentrations or residue
levels can be derived with a simple decay/dispersion model, from
user-specified series of concentrations from either measurement studies
or an external model, or from user-specified post-application
distributions (as described in the Technical Manual). ORD intends to
include a fugacity-based model as an added (fourth) option to
SHEDS-Multimedia v 4. Fugacity can be considered the “escaping
tendency” of a chemical from a given phase or compartment, and the
fugacity-based model uses the thermodynamic, equilibrium, and
physical-chemical properties of substances to model chemical
transfers/movements of chemicals across these compartments. The proposed
SHEDS v 4 fugacity model is more sophisticated and detailed than the
other options currently available in SHED v3 and will require more
extensive inputs on the part of the user. It divides a dwelling into
treated and untreated areas, each having four compartments or phases
(vinyl or untextured surface, carpet or textured surface, air, and
wall), and the output concentration time series for the different
compartments will be used as contacted concentrations for simulated
individuals in SHEDS v 4.

Please comment on the technical aspects and usefulness of the planned
methodology for incorporating a fugacity-based source-to-concentration
module into SHEDS-Multimedia version 4. Does the Panel recommend
additional efforts with the fugacity module (e.g., modeling more
realistic multi-room dwellings) given available information?

5:00 P.M. 	Adjournment

AGENDA

FIFRA SCIENTIFIC ADVISORY PANEL (SAP)

OPEN MEETING

August 14-15, 2007

FIFRA SAP WEB SITE http://www.epa.gov/scipoly/sap/

OPP Docket Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>

Docket Number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0388

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Conference Center - Lobby Level

One Potomac Yard (South Bldg.)

2777 S. Crystal Drive, Arlington,VA 22202

Review of EPA/ORD/NERL’s SHEDS-Multimedia Model, Aggregate version 3

Wednesday, August 15, 2007

8:30 A.M.	Introduction and Identification of Panel Members -

		Steven G. Heeringa, Ph.D. (FIFRA SAP Chair)

8:40 A.M.	Administrative Procedures by Designated Federal Official -

		Mr. Steven Knott, Office of Science Coordination and Policy, EPA

8:45 A.M.	Follow-up from Previous Day’s Discussion

8:50 A.M.	Charge to Panel - Issue 2 Continued

Charge Question 3: SHEDS-Multimedia version 3 requires the construction
of human activity diaries that cover the entire simulation period of a
model run (e.g., several months, a year, or longer). The human activity
diaries are drawn from EPA’s Consolidated Human Activity Database
(CHAD) and typically include just one day (24 hours) of activities from
each person. SHEDS-Multimedia version 3 uses eight one-day diaries (one
weekend and one weekday from each of four seasons) to assemble a
longer-term activity profile for each simulated individual. A distinct
and recognized disadvantage of this method is that any activity that
happens at all will happen many times, since each diary is re-used many
times and there is an absence of activities that happen only once or
just a few times over the year.

ance for this selected property into within- (σw2) and between-
variances (σw2); and to specify the relevant 1-day lag autocorrelation.
The Panel has been provided with background material and a journal
preprint entitled “A New Method of Longitudinal Diary Assembly for
Human Exposure Modeling”.

Please comment on the technical aspects, potential utility, and added
value of the planned methodology for longitudinal diary assembly in
SHEDS-Multimedia version 4. Does the Panel believe that this new method
will create an assemblage of diaries that better simulates reality and
provides more accurate estimates of exposures related to
within-individual time-activity patterns? Please suggest procedures
and/or longitudinal data which could be used to select factors (the
“D” factor intra-class correlation coefficient, and the 1-day lag
autocorrelation) or refine/ evaluate this method in SHEDS.

10:00 A.M.	Break

10:15 A.M.	Charge to Panel – Issue 2 continued

Charge Question 4: SHEDS-Multimedia is sophisticated physically-based
probabilistic model with numerous inputs. One of the unique advantages
of SHEDS-Multimedia are sensitivity analysis methods that can be used to
determine model inputs most influential on model output values.
SHEDS-Multimedia version 3 utilizes “one-at-a-time” and
“multivariate” sensitivity analysis methods, as described in the
Technical Manual provided to the SAP. The Sobol multivariate method,
described in the journal article provided in SAP background materials,
provides significantly more information than current alternatives, but
requires some reorganization of SHEDS code and redefining some inputs.
The advantages of including the Sobol method as another option for SHEDS
sensitivity analyses are: (1) it is capable of determining both direct
and interaction influences for each input; (2) handles categorical,
other non-numeric inputs; accounts for non-linear response; (3) can
examine aspects (e.g., diary assembly) not easily handled by other
methods; and (4) has not been used with a probabilistic model before
SHEDS. Implementation of Sobol’s method in SHEDS requires two main
alterations to model: all random determinations must be re-expressed as
independent input variables; and random number seeds in SHEDS must be
careful tracked. It requires that SHEDS be run a total of (2N+2) times.

Please comment on the technical aspects and usefulness of the planned
methodology for utilizing Sobol’s method for sensitivity analysis in
SHEDS-Multimedia version 4, and whether Sobol’s method would be a
useful supplement to the existing sensitivity analysis methods used for
the SHEDS-Multimedia version 3 model.

Charge Question 5:  Section 5 of the Background document entitled
“Planned Methodologies for Extending SHEDS-Multimedia Version 3
(aggregate) to SHEDS Multimedia Version 4 (cumulative or aggregate)”
describes some of the upcoming modifications and enhancements that are
planned for SHEDS-Multimedia Version 4. The residential module of
SHEDS-Multimedia Version 3 does not currently address cumulative
exposures to multiple chemicals, does not utilize the MOE approach for
aggregating exposures across routes, does not permit the user to repeat
runs using the same random number seed, does not accept empirical input
distributions, and does not allow outputs to be linked with PBPK models
(e.g. ERDEM). These -- along with development and integration of the
SHEDS dietary module -- are considered to be high priorities for
SHEDS-Multimedia Version 4.

Question 5(a): Please comment on (and prioritize, as appropriate) the
technical aspects and usefulness of planned changes to the SAS code and
GUI for SHEDS-Multimedia version 4 that are listed items in Section 5 of
the above-referenced background document.

Question 5(b): Please comment on any additional modules, features, or
capabilities that the Panel feels should also be high priorities for the
next version of SHEDS including issues associated with the code, user
interface/user friendliness, input, and output/output display. Are there
modules, features, or capabilities of other human exposure models that
should be considered for inclusion in SHEDS-Multimedia version 4 (e.g.,
simulation of individuals; longitudinal diary assembly)?

12:15 P.M.	Lunch

1:15 P.M.	SHEDS-Multimedia, Dietary Model Structure and Approach –
Steve Nako, Ph.D., Office of Pesticide Programs, and Jianping Xue,
Ph.D., Office of Research and Development, EPA

2:00 P.M.	Charge to Panel - Issue 3: An Update on the Development of the
SHEDS-Dietary Model

		Charge Question 1: Eating Occasion Analyses.

As described in the SHEDS dietary background document, the timing
information available in CSFII can be used to model food and indirect
water intake throughout the day. With the ability to incorporate the
timing of eating occasions in dietary exposure assessments, it is
possible to assign either the same residue or a different residue to
foods consumed on multiple eating occasions. In certain instances, the
former seems logical (e.g, consumption of leftovers) while in other
instances the latter appears appropriate (e.g, hash browns at home for
breakfast and fried potatoes away from home for dinner).

Please comment on developing simple decision rules - as described in the
document - for assigning residues to commodities eaten on multple eating
occasions.

		Charge Question 2: Longitudinal Dietary Consumption

To estimate exposures associated with longer time periods than 1 day,
SHEDS-Dietary draws from diary pools based on gender, age group, season
and day-type (weekday, weekend). The 8-diary approach of SHEDS described
in the background document limits each individual’s diet to 2 per
season, one of which corresponds to a weekday and the other corresponds
to a weekend day.

Please comment on the 8-record approach in SHEDS-dietary and the
selection of age group, gender, season and day-type from which to create
the “diary pools”. What other approaches does the Panel recommend?
Can the Panel suggest any “bounding approaches” that may - based on
knowledge of actual eating patterns - provide upper and lower limits for
longitudinal exposure estimates (e.g., yearlong consumption of the same
diary throughout the year vs. random daily selection of CSFII diaries).

		Charge Question 3: Bayer Drinking Water Consumption Survey Data

The CSFII data does not contain information on the time and amounts of
direct drinking water consumption. Bayer CropScience sponsored a study,
Drinking Water Consumption Survey (DWCS) that was designed to obtain a
distribution of water intake for a 24-hour time period from a
representative sample of the US population. Participants recorded their
water consumption (time of day and amount consumed) over a one-week (7
consecutive day) period. The authors, Barraj et.al. (2004) suggested
that it may be possible to “allocate the total daily water consumption
amount reported in the CSFII into various drinking occasions” using
information from the DWCS. In addition to offering a fixed option for
allocating direct drinking water throughout the day, the Agency is
planning to include in SHEDS-Multimedia v. 4 the option to allocate
direct drinking water consumption throughout the day through empirical
use of the Bayer DWCS data.

Please comment on the advantages and disadvantages of providing an
option to use the Bayer DWCS data in SHEDS-Multimedia v. 4. Please
include in your comments any statistical concerns or issues associated
with the design and conduct of the DWCS study.

3:15 P.M.	Break

3:30 P.M.	Charge to Panel - Issue 3 Continued

		Charge Question 4: Bootstrap Approach to Uncertainty Analysis

Sensitivity and contribution analyses are a routine part of OPP risk
assessments. These analyses help inform the risk manager how exposures
may change when certain model inputs are modified. These modifications
to the model inputs are typically performed “one at a time” to
permit isolation of the effect. In a typical risk assessment, all the
dietary consumption data (i.e., reported CSFII diaries) are used along
with the best available pesticide residue data. OPP risk assessors
specify a sufficiently large number of Monte-Carlo iterations such that
exposure estimates are stable with respect to the random seed.

The Agency has not conducted formal quantitative uncertainty analyses.
The Agency presented a simple bootstrapping procedure for conducting
uncertainty analyses, utilizing only a subset of the consumption and
residue data inputs. That procedure was designed to provide some insight
into the question ‘How much better would our exposure estimates be if
we had more data’ by conducting the uncertainty analysis in the other
direction.

Please comment on the scientific soundness and utility of the proposed
bootstrap uncertainty approach.

Can the Panel recommend alternative approaches - and how they might be
interpreted and used - for conducting uncertainty analyses of dietary
exposure estimates?

		Charge Question 5: NHANES Dietary Consumption Survey

The SHEDS-Dietary paper noted that the NHANES 1999-2006 dietary
consumption data does not contain information on season nor region.

hL

hL

"

.

/

1

;

<

=

^

_

c

g

hL

_

þ

Á

萏֠萑褐葞֠葠褐摧椗d฀g

h

i

¸

¹

»

¼

Â

Ì

Î

Õ

ß

÷

ü

ý

þ

%

'

(

/

0

1

 1

À

Á

Ò

Ô

Õ

态ú摧๑᠀nse whether and how quantitative uncertainty methods
could be used in addressing this issue.

5:00 P.M.	Adjournment

Please be advised that agenda times are approximate; when the discussion
for one topic is completed, discussions for the next topic will begin.
For further information, please contact the Designated Federal Official
for this meeting, Mr. Steven Knott, via telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:
<PHONE_NUMBER>; or email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
DRAFT 07-30-07


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 235 (Wednesday, December 7, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 88143-88145]
[FR Doc No: 2016-28670]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2016-6436; Directorate Identifier 2015-SW-037-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Helicopters Deutschland GmbH
Helicopters

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for
Airbus Helicopters Deutschland GmbH (Airbus Helicopters) Model MBB-
BK117 C-2 helicopters. This proposed AD would require inspecting the
pilot collective wiring harness. This proposed AD is prompted by a
report that a heat-shrinkable sleeve prevented the twist grip on the
collective from being fully engaged during a flight test. The proposed
actions are intended to prevent failure of the hoist or emergency
landing gear flotation systems due to chafing of wiring caused by an
incorrectly installed heat-shrinkable sleeve.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by February 6,
2017.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Docket: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for sending your
comments electronically.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Send comments 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 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver to the ``Mail'' address between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-
6436; or in person at the Docket

Operations Office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the
European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD, the economic evaluation, any
comments received, and other information. The street address for the
Docket Operations Office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the ADDRESSES
section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after
receipt.
    For service information identified in this proposed rule, contact
Airbus Helicopters, 2701 N. Forum Drive, Grand Prairie, TX 75052;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER> or<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; or at
http://www.airbushelicopters.com/techpub. You may review the referenced
service information at the FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel,
Southwest Region, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Room 6N-321, Fort Worth, TX
76177.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: George Schwab, Aviation Safety
Engineer, Safety Management Group, Rotorcraft Directorate, FAA, 10101
Hillwood Pkwy., Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting
written comments, data, or views. We also invite comments relating to
the economic, environmental, energy, or federalism impacts that might
result from adopting the proposals in this document. The most helpful
comments reference a specific portion of the proposal, explain the
reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. To
ensure the docket does not contain duplicate comments, commenters
should send only one copy of written comments, or if comments are filed
electronically, commenters should submit only one time.
    We will file in the docket all comments that we receive, as well as
a report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel
concerning this proposed rulemaking. Before acting on this proposal, we
will consider all comments we receive on or before the closing date for
comments. We will consider comments filed after the comment period has
closed if it is possible to do so without incurring expense or delay.
We may change this proposal in light of the comments we receive.

Discussion

    EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the
European Union, has issued EASA AD No. 2015-0144, dated July 21, 2015,
to correct an unsafe condition for Airbus Helicopters Model MBB-BK117
C-2 helicopters, up to serial number 9708. EASA advises that, during a
flight test, the pilot could not fully engage a twist grip on a Model
MBB-BK117 C-2 helicopter. According to EASA, further investigation
found a transparent sleeve on the collective lever wiring harness
damaged because of incorrect installation of the heat-shrinkable
sleeve. This condition, if not detected and corrected, could result in
chafing of the harness, leading to the malfunction of the affected
systems, EASA advises. EASA consequently requires a one-time inspection
of the heat-shrinkable and transparent sleeves installed on the
collective lever wiring harness.

FAA's Determination

    These helicopters have been approved by the aviation authority of
Germany and are approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant
to our bilateral agreement with Germany, EASA, its technical
representative, has notified us of the unsafe condition described in
its AD. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all known
relevant information and determined that an unsafe condition is likely
to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    We reviewed Airbus Helicopters Alert Service Bulletin ASB MBB-BK117
C-2-88A-010, Revision 1, dated April 16, 2015 (ASB), which specifies a
visual inspection of the heat-shrinkable sleeve for correct position.
If the sleeve's position is incorrect, the ASB specifies shortening the
sleeve. If there is any damage, the ASB calls for replacing the damaged
parts.
    This service information is reasonably available because the
interested parties have access to it through their normal course of
business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

Proposed AD Requirements

    This proposed AD would require, within 100 hours time-in-service,
visually inspecting the pilot collective wiring harness for correct
position of the heat-shrinkable sleeve and the transparent sleeve. If
the heat-shrinkable and the transparent sleeves are in their correct
positions, this proposed AD would require re-installing the collective
lever. If the heat-shrinkable sleeve is closer to or below the torque
tube tangs, this proposed AD would require shortening the heat-
shrinkable sleeve. If the transparent sleeve is damaged, this proposed
AD would require replacing the heat-shrinkable sleeve, transparent
sleeve, and identification sleeve. Lastly, this proposed AD would
require replacing any damaged wires in the wiring harness.

Differences Between This Proposed AD and the TCCA AD

    The compliance time in the EASA AD is based on whether the
helicopter has an externally mounted hoist or emergency flotation
system. This proposed AD would require compliance within 100 hours
time-in-service for all applicable helicopters.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD would affect 113 helicopters of
U.S. Registry and that labor costs average $85 a work hour.
     Inspecting the pilot collective wiring harness for the
correct position of the heat-shrinkable sleeve would require 1.5 work
hours. No parts would be required for a total cost of $128 per
helicopter and $14,464 for the U.S. fleet.
     Replacing or repairing the sleeves would require 5.5 work
hours and parts would cost $10, for a total cost of $478 per
helicopter.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not
have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship
between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and

responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed, I certify this proposed regulation:
    1. Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order
12866;
    2. Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
    3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska to the extent that
it justifies making a regulatory distinction; and
    4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    We prepared an economic evaluation of the estimated costs to comply
with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Proposed Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13   [Amended]

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

Airbus Helicopters Deutschland GmbH Helicopters: Docket No. FAA-
2016-6436; Directorate Identifier 2015-SW-037-AD.

(a) Applicability

    This AD applies to Airbus Helicopters Deutschland GmbH Model
MBB-BK 117 C-2 helicopters, serial numbers 9004 through 9708,
certificated in any category.

(b) Unsafe Condition

    This AD defines the unsafe condition as an incorrectly installed
heat-shrinkable sleeve on the collective lever wiring harness. This
condition could result in chafing of the wiring and subsequent
failure of the hoist cable cutter or emergency landing gear
flotation systems.

(c) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by February 6, 2017.

(d) Compliance

    You are responsible for performing each action required by this
AD within the specified compliance time unless it has already been
accomplished prior to that time.

(e) Required Actions

    Within 100 hours time-in-service, remove the pilot collective
lever and visually inspect the pilot collective lever wiring harness
for proper installation of the heat-shrinkable sleeve and
transparent sleeve and for damage in accordance with paragraph
3.B.2.1 and as depicted in Figure 2 of Airbus Helicopters Alert
Service Bulletin MBB-BK117 C-2-88A-010, Revision 1, dated April 16,
2015 (ASB).
    (1) If the heat-shrinkable sleeve and transparent sleeve are
installed as depicted in Figure 2 of the ASB and there is no damage,
install the collective lever in accordance with paragraphs 3.B.2.3.a
through 3.B.2.3.f of the ASB.
    (2) If the heat-shrinkable sleeve or transparent sleeve is
installed as depicted in Figure 3, Detail B of the ASB, alter the
heat-shrinkable sleeve as depicted in Figure 3, Detail C.
    (3) If the transparent sleeve is damaged as depicted in Figure
4, Detail D of the ASB, replace the heat-shrinkable sleeve,
transparent sleeve, and identification sleeve. Replace any wire that
has a nick, scratch, cut, or is frayed.

(f) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Safety Management Group, FAA, may approve AMOCs
for this AD. Send your proposal to: George Schwab, Aviation Safety
Engineer, Safety Management Group, Rotorcraft Directorate, FAA,
10101 Hillwood Pkwy, Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) For operations conducted under a 14 CFR part 119 operating
certificate or under 14 CFR part 91, subpart K, we suggest that you
notify your principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector,
the manager of the local flight standards district office or
certificate holding district office before operating any aircraft
complying with this AD through an AMOC.

(g) Additional Information

    The subject of this AD is addressed in European Aviation Safety
Agency (EASA) AD No. 2015-0144, dated July 21, 2015. You may view
the EASA AD on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov in the AD
Docket.

(h) Subject

    Joint Aircraft Service Component (JASC) Code: Wheel/Ski/Float/
Emergency Equipment, 3246/2560.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on November 21, 2016.
Lance T. Gant,
Manager, Rotorcraft Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2016-28670 Filed 12-6-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 11 (Tuesday, January 19, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 5181-5182]
[FR Doc No: 2021-01034]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 2456-086]

CRP NH Ayers Island, LLC; Notice of Application for Amendment of
License, Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and Protests

    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been
filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection:
    a. Type of Proceeding: Application for non-capacity amendment of
license.
    b. Project No.: 2456-086.
    c. Date Filed: December 17, 2020.
    d. Licensee: CRP NH Ayers Island, LLC.
    e. Name of Project: Ayers Island Hydroelectric Project.
    f. Location: The project is located on the Pemigewasset River in
Belknap and Grafton counties, New Hampshire.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 791a-825r.
    h. Licensee Contact: Curt Mooney, Central Rivers Power MA, LLC, 670
N Commercial Street, Suite 204, Manchester, NH 03101,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    i. FERC Contact: Rebecca Martin,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    j. Deadline for filing comments, interventions, and protests
Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, and protests:
February 12, 2021.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file
comments, motions to intervene, and protests using the Commission's
eFiling system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp.
Commenters can submit brief comments up to 6,000 characters, without
prior registration, using the eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You must include your name and contact
information at the end of your comments. For assistance, please contact
FERC Online Support at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(866) 208-3676 (toll
free), or<PHONE_NUMBER> (TTY). In lieu of electronic filing, you may
submit a paper copy. Submissions sent via the U.S. Postal Service must
be addressed to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, 888 First Street NE, Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426.
Submissions sent via any other carrier must be addressed to: Kimberly
D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 12225 Wilkins
Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852. The first page of any filing should
include docket number P-2456-086. Comments emailed to Commission staff
are not considered part of the Commission record.
    The Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure require all
intervenors filing documents with the Commission to serve a copy of
that document on each person whose name appears on the official service
list for the project. Further, if an intervenor files comments or
documents with the Commission relating to the merits of an issue that
may affect the responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they
must also serve a copy of the document on that resource agency.
    k. Description of Request: The applicant proposes to formally
change the Project operating regime from ``modified'' peaking to run-
of-river mode and to eliminate the top one-foot flashboard section from
the spillway, which typically is installed for a limited seasonal
period during the summer. Historically the project was operated in a
daily peaking mode with maximum daily drawdowns of approximately two
feet. The Licensee has not utilized peaking operations for many years
and is therefore proposing to eliminate peaking operations and formally
amend the license to require run-of-river operations, except when
whitewater flow releases are provided, and during temporary
modification of operations for maintenance or emergency operations.
    l. Locations of the Application: This filing may be viewed on the
Commission's website at http://www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary''
link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the
docket number field to access the document. You may also register
online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be
notified via

email of new filings and issuances related to this or other pending
projects. For assistance, call 1-866-208-3676 or email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>for TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. Agencies may
obtain copies of the application directly from the applicant.
    m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing
list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
    n. Comments, Protests, or Motions to Intervene: Anyone may submit
comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the
requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211,
.214, respectively. In determining the appropriate action to take, the
Commission will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only
those who file a motion to intervene in accordance with the
Commission's Rules may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments,
protests, or motions to intervene must be received on or before the
specified comment date for the particular application.
    o. Filing and Service of Documents: Any filing must (1) bear in all
capital letters the title COMMENTS, PROTEST, or MOTION TO INTERVENE as
applicable; (2) set forth in the heading the name of the applicant and
the project number of the application to which the filing responds; (3)
furnish the name, address, and telephone number of the person
commenting, protesting or intervening; and (4) otherwise comply with
the requirements of 18 CFR 385.2001 through 385.2005. All comments,
motions to intervene, or protests must set forth their evidentiary
basis. Any filing made by an intervenor must be accompanied by proof of
service on all persons listed in the service list prepared by the
Commission in this proceeding, in accordance with 18 CFR 385.2010.

    Dated: January 12, 2021.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-01034 Filed 1-15-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 102 (Thursday, May 26, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Page 33525]
[FR Doc No: 2016-12430]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings #2

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
corporate filings:

    Docket Numbers: EC10-51-002.
    Applicants: T. Rowe Price Group, Inc.
    Description: T. Rowe Price Group, Inc., et al. submits Request for
Reauthorization and Extension of Blanket Authorizations to Acquire and
Dispose of Securities under Section 203 of the Federal Power Act.
    Filed Date: 3/3/16.
    Accession Number: 20160303-0021.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/2/16.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER10-2984-026.
    Applicants: Merrill Lynch Commodities, Inc.
    Description: Notice of Non-Material Change in Status of Merrill
Lynch Commodities, Inc.
    Filed Date: 5/19/16.
    Accession Number: 20160519-5166.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/9/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-974-001.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Compliance filing: 2016-05-19_SA 2898 Ameren Illinois-
Ford County Wind Farm GIA (J375) Compliance to be effective 2/20/2016.
    Filed Date: 5/19/16.
    Accession Number: 20160519-5157.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/9/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-1742-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Section 205(d) Rate Filing: Revisions to CTOA
Attachment A to add ITCI as a Transmission Owner to be effective 6/1/
2016.
    Filed Date: 5/19/16.
    Accession Number: 20160519-5163.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/9/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-1743-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Tariff Cancellation: Notice of Cancellation of Service
Agreement No. 2774, Queue V1-033 and W1-033 to be effective 5/11/2016.
    Filed Date: 5/19/16.
    Accession Number: 20160519-5164.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/9/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-1744-000.
    Applicants: Idaho Power Company.
    Description: Section 205(d) Rate Filing: Resubmitted BPA
Conditional Firm Service Agreements 324 and 342 to be effective 7/1/
2016.
    Filed Date: 5/19/16.
    Accession Number: 20160519-5186.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/9/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-1745-000.
    Applicants: New England Power Company.
    Description: Section 205(d) Rate Filing: Filing--Transmission
System Upgrade Reimbursement Agreement with Deerfield Wind to be
effective 4/28/2016.
    Filed Date: 5/19/16.
    Accession Number: 20160519-5187.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/9/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-1746-000.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Section 205(d) Rate Filing: 2016-05-19_CTA Continuous
Improvement Filing to be effective 7/18/2016.
    Filed Date: 5/19/16.
    Accession Number: 20160519-5188.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/9/16.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the
proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: May 19, 2016.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-12430 Filed 5-25-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P