United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX

Air Division

Technical Support Document

for

EPA’s Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

for the

California State Implementation Plan

as submitted by the California Air Resources Board

EPA’s Analysis of

San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District’s

Rule 4453, Refinery Vacuum Producing Devices or Systems

Rule 4454, Refinery Process Unit Turnaround

December 11, 2009

Prepared by Joanne Wells

Approved by Andrew Steckel

San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District (SJVUAPCD)

Submitted Rules

Rule 4453, Refinery Vacuum Producing Devices or Systems (originally
adopted on May 21, 1992).

Rule 4454, Refinery Process Unit Turnaround (originally adopted on May
21, 1992).

Both SJVUAPCD rules above were amended on December 17, 1992, submitted
on August 24, 2007, and the submittals determined complete on September
17, 2007.  There are no submittals of these rules on which EPA has not
acted.

Background

On January 2, 2008 (73 FR 48), EPA published a direct final approval of
revisions to the California State Implementation Plan (SIP).  These
revisions concerned local rules that address reduction of animal matter,
and volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions from cutback, slow cure,
and emulsified asphalt operations, crude oil and petroleum production
and refinery equipment, and petroleum solvent dry cleaning.  The direct
final action was published without prior proposal because EPA
anticipated no adverse comment.  The direct final rule stated that if
adverse comments were received by February 1, 2008, EPA would publish a
timely removal in the Federal Register.  EPA received a timely adverse
comment.  Consequently, we removed the direct final approval of SJVUAPCD
Rules 4104, 4402, 4404, 4453, 4454, 4625, 4641, and 4672.

We are re-proposing approval of two of these SJVUAPCD rules (4453 and
4454) in today’s action. We do not intend to take final action based
on our January 2008 proposal regarding rules 4453 and 4454. As a result,
we are not summarizing or replying to comments submitted in response to
our January 2008 proposal regarding those rules.

Applicable SIP Rules

SIP versions of these two submitted SJVUAPCD rules are old precursor
rules from three of the eight counties that now comprise SJVUAPCD.  The
SIP-approved rules are described below.

Precursor SIP rules for submitted SJVUAPCD Rule 4453:

Kern County Rule 414.2, Refinery Process Vacuum Producing Devices or
Systems (approved on August 21, 1981, 46 FR 42459).

Kings County Rule 414.2, Refinery Vacuum Producing Devices or Systems
(approved on May 7, 1982, 47 FR 19696).

San Joaquin County Rule 413.2, Refinery Vacuum Producing Devices
(approved on May 7, 1982, 47 FR 19696).

Precursor SIP rules for submitted SJVUAPCD Rule 4454:

Kern County Rule 414.3, Refinery Process Unit Turnaround (approved on
August 21, 1981, 46 FR 42459).

Kings County Rule 414.3, Refinery Process Unit Turnaround (approved on
May 7, 1982, 47 FR 19696).

San Joaquin County Rule 413.3, Refinery Process Unit Turnaround
(approved on May 7, 1982, 47 FR 19696).

Purposes of Rules and Rule Amendments

Section 110(a) of the CAA requires states to submit regulations that
control volatile organic compounds, oxides of nitrogen, particulate
matter, and other air pollutants which harm human health and the
environment.  These rules were developed as part of the local agency’s
program to control volatile organic compounds.

The purposes of amendments to Rules 4453 and 4454 are as follows:

4453: The rule requires reducing VOC emissions from refinery vacuum
producing devices by covering hot wells and collecting vapors for
recycle to refinery gas or incineration. The format is improved, the
rule is renumbered, the rule purpose and applicability are added, and a
90% VOC control efficiency requirement is added.

4454: The rule requires reducing VOC emissions from a refinery process
unit turnaround by collecting vapors for recycle to refinery gas,
incineration, or flaring.  The format is improved, the rule is
renumbered, and the rule purpose and applicability are added.

RACT Demonstration

On April 16, 2009, SJVUAPCD adopted its “RACT Demonstration for Ozone
SIP,” which provides the District’s demonstration that RACT is
implemented for all appropriate rules.  See Guidance and Policy Document
8.

In summary, SJVUAPCD found the following for Rules 4453 and 4454:

VOC emissions from these sources are too small to report as part of the
2009 RACT SIP Demonstration.

There is a national Control Technique Guidance (CTG) document for these
sources. Rule 4453 and 4454 were found by the district to be as
stringent as the CTG in the RACT SIP Analysis. See Guidance and Policy
Document 6.

There is no ACT and no other national regulation (NSPS, NESHAP or MACT)
to help define RACT for these two categories.

Similar requirements are imposed by other large California nonattainment
area agencies.

We concur with SJVUAPCD’s finding that Rules 4453 and 4454 implement
RACT for reasons including:

SJVUAPCD determined that these rules are as stringent as the CTG
(Control of Refinery Vacuum Producing Systems, Water Separators, and
Process Unit Turnarounds).

SJVUAPCD determined that these rules are at least as stringent as other
California nonattainment area agency rules.

 SJVUAPCD, SCAQMD, and the other large California nonattainment agencies
generally have among the most stringent stationary source requirements
nationwide, and we are not aware of other reasonably available
technological or operational controls likely to significantly reduce
additional emissions from this emission source.

The VOC emissions from these sources are very small.

Rule Evaluation

Generally, SIP rules must be enforceable (see section 110(a) of the
CAA), must require Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) for
each category of sources covered by a control technique guideline (CTG)
document as well as each major source in nonattainment areas (see
section 182(a)(2)), and must not relax existing requirements (see
sections 110(l) and 193).  The SJVUAPCD regulates a 1-hr ozone
nonattainment area and an 8-hr ozone nonattainment area (see 40 CFR part
81) and must fulfill the requirements of RACT.

The submitted rules are enforceable, do not relax the SIP, and fulfill
the requirements of RACT and should be given full approval.

Guidance and Policy Documents

Guidance and policy documents that we used to help evaluate rules and
RACT requirements consistently include the following:

Portions of the proposed post-1987 ozone and carbon monoxide policy that
concern RACT, 52 FR 45044 (November 24, 1987).

Requirements for Preparation, Adoption, and Submittal of Implementation
Plans, U.S. EPA, 40 CFR part 51.

Addendum to the General Preamble for the Implementation of Title I of
the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, 59 FR 41998 (August 16, 1994).

Issues Relating to VOC Regulation Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and
Deviations, EPA (May 25, 1988).  [The Bluebook]

Guidance Document for Correcting Common VOC & Other Rule Deficiencies,
EPA Region 9 (August 21, 2001). [The Little Bluebook]

Control of Refinery Vacuum Producing Systems, Wastewater Separators, and
Process Unit Turnarounds, EPA-450/2-77-025 (October 1977)

2007 Ozone Plan, San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control
District (April 30, 2007).  HYPERLINK
"http://www.arb.ca.gov/planning/sip/2007sip/sjv8hr/sjvozone.htm"
http://www.arb.ca.gov/planning/sip/2007sip/sjv8hr/sjvozone.htm

RACT Demonstration for Ozone SIP, San Joaquin Valley Unified Air
Pollution Control District (April 16, 2009).

EPA Recommendations

The following revisions are not currently the basis for rule
disapproval, but are recommended for the next time the rule is amended.

For SJVUAPCD Rule 4453 for clarity and enforceability, consider adding
definitions for vacuum producing device or system, hot wells, firebox,
and accumulator.

For SJVUAPCD Rule 4454 for clarity and enforceability, consider adding
definitions for process unit turnaround, firebox and refinery fuel gas.

For SJVUAPCD Rule 4454, consider adding recordkeeping requirements for
tracking process unit turnarounds including the date when the unit is
shutdown and the internal pressure of the unit before it is vented or
opened to the atmosphere. We recommend requiring the records be kept by
the facility for 5 years.

EPA Actions

EPA recommends full approval under section 110(k)(3) of the CAA as
amended in 1990 of the following SJVUAPCD rules for incorporation into
the California Applicable SIP, superseding the precursor SIP rules cited
above:

Rule 4453, Refinery Vacuum Producing Devices or Systems (amended on
December 17, 1992, submitted on August 24, 2007.)

Rule 4454, Refinery Process Unit Turnaround (amended on December 17,
1992, submitted on August 24, 2007.)

Attachments

Submitted SJVUAPCD rules plus applicable SIP SJVUAPCD rules.

2009 RACT SIP, SJVUAPCD, April 16, 2009.  [Cover plus sections relevant
to SJVUAPCD Rules 4453 and 4454].

 PAGE

 PAGE   4

5


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 28 (Friday, February 10, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 7218-7219]
[FR Doc No: 2012-3126]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-66328; File No. SR-FINRA-2012-007]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Financial Industry Regulatory
Authority, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of
Proposed Rule Change To Update Rule Cross-References Within Certain
FINRA Rules

February 6, 2012.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on January 30, 2012, Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc.
(``FINRA'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``SEC''
or ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and
II below, which Items have been prepared by FINRA. FINRA has designated
the proposed rule change as constituting a ``non-controversial'' rule
change under paragraph (f)(6) of Rule 19b-4 under the Act,\3\ which
renders the proposal effective upon receipt of this filing by the
Commission. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of the
Substance of the Proposed Rule Change

    FINRA is proposing to update cross-references within certain FINRA
rules to reflect changes adopted in the consolidated FINRA rulebook.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on FINRA's Web
site at http://www.finra.org, at the principal office of FINRA and at
the Commission's Public Reference Room.

II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, FINRA included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. FINRA has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A,
B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.

A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    FINRA is in the process of developing a new consolidated rulebook
(``Consolidated FINRA Rulebook'').\4\ That process involves FINRA
submitting to the Commission for approval a series of proposed rule
changes over time to adopt rules in the Consolidated FINRA Rulebook.
The phased adoption and implementation of those rules necessitates
periodic amendments to update rule cross-references and other non-
substantive technical changes in the Consolidated FINRA Rulebook.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The current FINRA rulebook consists of (1) FINRA Rules; (2)
NASD Rules; and (3) rules incorporated from NYSE (``Incorporated
NYSE Rules'') (together, the NASD Rules and Incorporated NYSE Rules
are referred to as the ``Transitional Rulebook''). While the NASD
Rules generally apply to all FINRA members, the Incorporated NYSE
Rules apply only to those members of FINRA that are also members of
the NYSE (``Dual Members''). The FINRA Rules apply to all FINRA
members, unless such rules have a more limited application by their
terms. For more information about the rulebook consolidation
process, see Information Notice, March 12, 2008 (Rulebook
Consolidation Process).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule change would update rule cross-references to
reflect changes adopted in the Consolidated FINRA Rulebook. In this
regard, the proposed rule change would update references in FINRA Rules
6630 (Applicability of FINRA Rules to Securities Previously Designated
as PORTAL Securities), 8120 (Definitions), and 9110 (Application) that
are needed as the result of Commission approval of a recent FINRA
proposed rule change.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 65599 (October 20,
2011), 76 FR 66344 (October 26, 2011) (Order Approving File No. SR-
FINRA-2011-043).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FINRA has filed the proposed rule change for immediate
effectiveness and has requested that the SEC waive the requirement that
the proposed rule change not become operative for 30 days after the
date of the filing, such that FINRA can implement the proposed rule
change on February 21, 2012, the date on which the previously approved
rule change will also be implemented.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Regulatory Notice 12-04 (January 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    FINRA believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the
provisions of Section 15A(b)(6) of the Act,\7\ which requires, among
other things, that FINRA rules must be designed to prevent fraudulent
and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable
principles of trade, and, in general, to protect investors and the
public interest. FINRA believes the proposed rule change will provide
greater clarity to members and the public regarding FINRA's rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-3(b)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    FINRA does not believe that the proposed rule change will result in
any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

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

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received.

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i)
Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii)
become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or
such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become
effective pursuant to Section

19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \8\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \9\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FINRA has requested that the Commission waive the 30-day operative
delay. The Commission believes that waiver of the operative delay is
consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest
because the proposal is designed to provide greater clarity to FINRA
members and the public regarding FINRA's rules. In addition, waiver of
the delay will allow the proposal to be implemented on a date on which
previously approved rule changes will also be implemented. Therefore,
the Commission designates the proposal operative upon filing.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of
the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-FINRA-2012-007 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-FINRA-2012-007. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used.
    To help the Commission process and review your comments more
efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all
comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments,
all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that
are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating
to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person,
other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance
with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site
viewing and printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F
Street NE, Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the
hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be
available for inspection and copying at the principal office of FINRA.
All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission
does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You
should submit only information that you wish to make available
publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-FINRA-2012-007
and should be submitted on or before March 2, 2012.

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

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

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-3126 Filed 2-9-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


TO:		Docket no.EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0877

FROM:	Mike Laney, RTI

DATE:	May 23, 2008

SUBJECT:	Use of Synthetic Gypsum at Holcim Plants with Wet Scrubbers

A conference call was held on May 15, 2008 between representatives from
EPA and Holcim (US) Inc. to discuss their use of gypsum created as a
byproduct of their wet scrubber operations. This memorandum summarizes
the key points from that call. The following individuals participated in
the conference call:

Holcim

Meg Garakani

Joel Bolduc, Portland, CO

Dick Rausch, Quality Manager, Portland, CO

EPA

Keith Barnett

RTI

Mike Laney

Summary

Scrubber pH control – The Portland facility uses 100% CKD to control
scrubber pH. Purchased lime has been used but is much more expensive.

Synthetic gypsum – All of the synthetic gypsum from the scrubber is
used to mix with the ground clinker. The synthetic gypsum represents
about 10% of their total gypsum use.

Purchased gypsum – Gypsum is purchased from Oklahoma and is relatively
expensive. Holcim has recently purchased a gypsum mine and will be
switching to this source in the future. This will reduce their costs for
purchased gypsum.

Purchased gypsum cost at the Portland  facility – The price for gypsum
is around $45/short ton. Three-fourths (3/4) of the gypsum costs are
transportation costs. As a result, prices for gypsum can vary
significantly.

Nationwide, costs for gypsum can be as low as $30/short ton and as high
as $55-$60/short ton

Product quality – The CaSO4 quality of Portland’s synthetic gypsum
is fairly good. The fineness of the synthetic gypsum creates
difficulties in de-watering and handling. Even after de-watering, the
gypsum has high moisture content. There is also enough ammonia in the
gypsum that there is an ammonia odor in the finish silo. The ammonia
occurs naturally in the raw materials.


48367 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 156 / Wednesday, August 13, 2003 / Notices ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [ OPP   2003   0259; FRL   7320   6]

Pyraclostrobin; Notice of Filing a Pesticide Petition to Establish a Tolerance for a Certain Pesticide Chemical in or on Food AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA). ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: This notice announces the initial filing of a pesticide petition proposing the establishment of regulations for residues of a certain pesticide chemical in or on various food commodities. DATES: Comments, identified by docket ID number OPP   2003   0259, must be received on or before September 12, 2003.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be submitted electronically, by mail, or through hand delivery/ courier. Follow the detailed instructions as provided in Unit I. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Shaja R. Brothers, Registration Division ( 7505C), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460   0001; telephone number: ( 703) 308   3194]; e mail address: brothers. shaja@ epa. gov.

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 111)   Animal production ( NAICS 112)   Food manufacturing ( NAICS 311)   Pesticide manufacturing ( NAICS 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 Get Copies of this Document and Other Related Information?

1. Docket. EPA has established an official public docket for this action under docket ID number OPP   2003   0259. The official public docket consists of the documents specifically referenced in this action, any public comments received, and other information related to this action. Although, a part of the official docket, the public docket does not include Confidential Business Information ( CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. The official public docket is the collection of materials that is available for public viewing at the Public Information and Records Integrity Branch ( PIRIB), Rm. 119, Crystal Mall # 2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Hwy., Arlington, VA. This docket facility is open from 8: 30 a. m. to 4 p. m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The docket telephone number is ( 703) 305   5805. 2. Electronic access. You may access this Federal Register document electronically through the EPA Internet under the `` Federal Register'' listings at http:// www. epa. gov/ fedrgstr/. An electronic version of the public docket is available through EPA's electronic public docket and comment system, EPA Dockets. You may use EPA Dockets at http:// www. epa. gov/ edocket/ to submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the official public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically. Although, not all docket materials may be available electronically, you may still access any of the publicly available docket materials through the docket facility identified in Unit I. B. 1. Once in the system, select `` search,'' then key in the appropriate docket ID number. Certain types of information will not be placed in the EPA dockets. Information claimed as CBI and other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute, which is not included in the official public docket, will not be available for public viewing in EPA's electronic public docket. EPA's policy is that copyrighted material will not be placed in EPA's electronic public docket but will be available only in printed, paper form in the official public docket. To the extent feasible, publicly available docket materials will be made available in EPA's electronic public docket. When a document is selected from the index list in EPA dockets, the system will identify whether the document is available for viewing in EPA's electronic public docket. Although, not all docket materials may be available electronically, you may still access any of the publicly available docket materials through the docket facility identified in Unit I. B. EPA intends to work towards providing electronic access to all of the publicly available docket materials through EPA's electronic public docket. For public commenters, it is important to note that EPA's policy is that public comments, whether submitted electronically or on paper, will be made available for public viewing in EPA's electronic public docket as EPA receives them and without change, unless the comment contains copyrighted material, CBI, or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. When EPA identifies a comment containing copyrighted material, EPA will provide a reference to that material in the version of the comment that is placed in EPA's electronic public docket. The entire printed comment, including the copyrighted material, will be available in the public docket. Public comments submitted on computer disks that are mailed or delivered to the docket will be transferred to EPA's electronic public docket. Public comments that are mailed or delivered to the docket will be scanned and placed in EPA's electronic public docket. Where practical, physical objects will be photographed, and the photograph will be placed in EPA's electronic public docket along with a brief description written by the docket staff.

C. How and to Whom Do I Submit Comments? You may submit comments electronically, by mail, or through hand delivery/ courier. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, identify the appropriate docket ID number in the subject line on the first page of your comment. Please ensure that your comments are submitted within the specified comment period. Comments received after the close of the comment period will be marked `` late.'' EPA is not required to consider these late comments. If you wish to submit CBI or information that is otherwise protected by statute, please follow the instructions in Unit I. D. Do not use EPA dockets or e mail to submit CBI or information protected by statute. 1. Electronically. If you submit an electronic comment as prescribed in this unit, EPA recommends that you include your name, mailing address, and an email address or other contact information in the body of your comment. Also, include this contact information on the outside of any disk VerDate jul< 14> 2003 15: 42 Aug 12, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\ FR\ FM\ 13AUN1. SGM 13AUN1 48368 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 156 / Wednesday, August 13, 2003 / Notices or CD ROM you submit, and in any cover letter accompanying the disk or CD ROM. This ensures that you can be identified as the submitter of the comment and allows EPA to contact you in case EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties or needs further information on the substance of your comment. EPA's policy is that EPA will not edit your comment, and any identifying or contact information provided in the body of a comment will be included as part of the comment that is placed in the official public docket, and made available in EPA's electronic public docket. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. i. EPA Dockets. Your use of EPA's electronic public docket to submit comments to EPA electronically is EPA's preferred method for receiving comments. Go directly to EPA Dockets at http:// www. epa. gov/ edocket, and follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once in the system, select `` search,'' and then key in docket ID number OPP   2003   0259. The system is an `` anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your identity, e mail address, or other contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. ii. E mail. Comments may be sent by e mail to opp docket@ epa. gov, Attention: Docket ID number OPP   2003   0259. In contrast to EPA's electronic public docket, EPA's e mail system is not an `` anonymous access'' system. If you send an e mail comment directly to the docket without going through EPA's electronic public docket, EPA's e mail system automatically captures your e mail address. E mail addresses that are automatically captured by EPA's e mail system are included as part of the comment that is placed in the official public docket, and made available in EPA's electronic public docket. iii. Disk or CD ROM. You may submit comments on a disk or CD ROM that you mail to the mailing address identified in Unit I. C. 2. These electronic submissions will be accepted in WordPerfect or ASCII file format. Avoid the use of special characters and any form of encryption. 2. By mail. Send your comments to: Public Information and Records Integrity Branch ( PIRIB) ( 7502C), Office of Pesticide Programs ( OPP), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460   0001, Attention: Docket ID number OPP   2003   0259. 3. By hand delivery or courier. Deliver your comments to: Public Information and Records Integrity Branch ( PIRIB), Office of Pesticide Programs ( OPP), Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. 119, Crystal Mall # 2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Hwy., Arlington, VA, Attention: Docket ID number OPP   2003   0259. Such deliveries are only accepted during the docket's normal hours of operation as identified in Unit I. B. 1.

D. How Should I Submit CBI To the Agency?

Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI electronically through EPA's electronic public docket or by e mail. You may claim information that you submit to EPA as CBI by marking any part or all of that information as CBI ( if you submit CBI on disk or CD ROM, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD ROM the specific information that is CBI). Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes any information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket and EPA's electronic public docket. If you submit the copy that does not contain CBI on disk or CD ROM, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM clearly that it does not contain CBI. Information not marked as CBI will be included in the public docket and EPA's electronic public docket without prior notice. If you have any questions about CBI or the procedures for claiming CBI, please consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

E. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA?

You may find the following suggestions helpful for preparing your comments: 1. Explain your views as clearly as possible. 2. Describe any assumptions that you used. 3. Provide copies of any technical information and/ or data you used that support your views. 4. If you estimate potential burden or costs, explain how you arrived at the estimate that you provide. 5. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns. 6. Make sure to submit your comments by the deadline in this notice. 7. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, be sure to identify the docket ID number assigned to this action in the subject line on the first page of your response. You may also provide the name, date, and Federal Register citation.

II. What Action is the Agency Taking? EPA has received a pesticide petition as follows; proposing the establishment and/ or amendment of regulations for residues of a certain pesticide chemical in or on various food commodities under section 408 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act ( FFDCA), 21 U. S. C. 346a. EPA has determined that this petition contains data or information regarding the elements set forth in FFDCA section 408( d)( 2); however, EPA has not fully evaluated the sufficiency of the submitted data at this time or whether the data support granting of the petition. Additional data may be needed before EPA rules on the petition.

List of Subjects Environmental protection, Agricultural commodities, Feed additives, Food additives, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

Dated: August 5, 2003. Debra Edwards, Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.

Summary of Petitions The petitioner's summary of the pesticide petitions are printed below as required by FFDCA section 408( d)( 3). The summary of the petitions were prepared by Interregional Research Project Number 4 ( IR 4) and represents the view of the petitioner. The petition summary announces the availability of a description of the analytical methods available to EPA for the detection and measurement of the pesticide chemical residues or an explanation of why no such method is needed.

Interregional Research Project Number 4 ( IR 4)]

PP 2E6473, PP 3E6548, and PP 3E6553 EPA has received pesticide petitions [ PP 2E6473, PP 3E6548, and PP 3E6553] from ( IR 4), 681 U. S. Highway # 1 South, North Brunswick, NJ 08902   3390 proposing, pursuant to section 408( d) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act ( FFDCA), 21 U. S. C. 346a( d), to amend 40 CFR part 180.582 by establishing tolerances for combined residues of the fungicide [ pyraclostrobin, carbamic acid, [ 2[[[ 1 ( 4 chlorophenyl) 1H pyrazol 3 yl] oxy] methyl] phenyl] methoxy, methyl ester and its desmethoxy metabolite methyl 2[[[ 1( 4 chlorophenyl)

1HVerDate jul< 14> 2003 15: 42 Aug 12, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\ FR\ FM\ 13AUN1. SGM 13AUN1 48369 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 156 / Wednesday, August 13, 2003 / Notices pyrazol 3 yl] oxy] methyl] phenyl carbamate] in or on the following raw agricultural commodities: [ lettuce, leaf and lettuce, head at 22 parts per million ( ppm)], [ vegetable, leaves of root and tuber, group 2 at 16 ppm], and [ brassica, head and stem, subgroup 5A at 5 ppm]. EPA has determined that the petitions contain data or information regarding the elements set forth in section 408( d)( 2) of the FFDCA; however, EPA has not fully evaluated the sufficiency of the submitted data at this time or whether the data support granting of the petitions. Additional data may be needed before EPA rules on the petitions. This summary has been prepared by Bayer Corporation, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709.

A. Residue Chemistry 1. Plant metabolism. Nature of the residue studies ( OPPTS 860.1300) were conducted in grape, potato and wheat as representative crops in order to characterize the fate of pyraclostrobin in all crop matrices. Pyraclostrobin demonstrated a similar pathway and fate in all three crops. In all three crops the pyraclostrobin residues of concern ( ROC) of were characterized as parent ( pyraclostrobin) and BAS 500 3), methyl N[[[ 1( 4 chlorophenyl) pyrazol 3yl] oxy] o tolyl] carbamate. 2. Analytical method. In plants the method of analysis is aqueous organic solvent extraction, column clean up and quantitation by LC/ MS/ MS. In animals the method of analysis involves base hydrolysis, organic extraction, column clean up and quantitation by LC/ MS/ MS or derivatization ( methylation) followed by quantitation by gas chromatography/ mass spectrometry ( GC/ MS). 3. Magnitude of residues. Field trials were carried out in order to determine the magnitude of the residue in the following crops: Brassica, head and stem; lettuce, head and leaf; and turnip greens to satisfy the requirements for a crop group tolerance for pyraclostrobin in leaves of root and tuber vegetables. Field trials were carried out using the maximum label rate, the maximum number of applications, and the minimum preharvest interval for each crop or crop group.

B. Toxicological Profile 1. Acute toxicity. Based on available acute toxicity data pyraclostrobin and its formulated products do not pose acute toxicity risks. The acute toxicity studies place technical pyraclostrobin in toxicity category IV for acute oral; category III for acute dermal and category II for acute inhalation. Pyraclostrobin is category III for both eye and skin irritation, and it is not a dermal sensitizer. Two formulated end use products are proposed, an emulsifiable concentrate ( EC) and an extruded granule ( EG). The EC has an acute oral toxicity category of II, acute dermal of III, acute inhalation of IV, eye and skin irritation categories of III, and is not a dermal sensitizer. The WG has acute oral and dermal toxicity categories of III, acute inhalation of IV, eye irritation of III, skin irritation of IV and is not a dermal sensitizer. 2. Genotoxicity. Ames test ( 1 study; point mutation): Negative; in vitro. CHO/ HGPRT Locus Mammalian Cell Mutation Assay ( 1 study; point mutation): Negative; in vitro V79 Cells CHO Cytogenetic Assay ( 1 study; chromosome damage): Negative; in vivo. Mouse micronucleus ( 1 study; chromosome damage): Negative; in vitro rat hepatocyte ( 1 study; DNA damage and repair): Negative; pyraclostrobin has been tested in a total of 5 genetic toxicology assays consisting of in vitro and in vivo studies. It can be stated that pyraclostrobin did not show any mutagenic, clastogenic or other genotoxic activity when tested under the conditions of the studies mentioned above. Therefore, pyraclostrobin does not pose a genotoxic hazard to humans. 3. Reproductive and developmental toxicity. The reproductive and developmental toxicity of pyraclostrobin was investigated in a 2 generation rat reproduction study as well as in rat and rabbit teratology studies. There were no adverse effects on reproduction in the two generation study so the no observed adverse effect level ( NOAEL) is the highest dose tested ( HDT) of 300 ppm ( 32.6 milligrams/ kilogram body weight/ day ( mg/ kg bwt/ day). Parental and pup toxicity in the form of reduced body weight gain were observed at the HDT only. Therefore, the parental systemic and developmental toxicity NOAEL's are the same at 75 ppm ( 8.2 mg/ kg bwt). No teratogenic effects were noted in either the rat or rabbit developmental studies. In the rat study, maternal toxicity observed at the mid and high dose consisted of decreased food consumption and body weight gain. Developmental changes noted at the high dose were increased incidences of dilated renal pelvis and cervical ribs with no cartilage. The maternal NOAEL was 10 mg/ kg bwt and the developmental NOAEL was 25 mg/ kg bwt. In the rabbit teratology study, maternal toxicity observed at the mid and high doses consisted of decreased food consumption and body weight gain ( severe at the high dose). An increased post implantation loss was also observed at the mid and high doses due to an increase in early resorptions. In rabbits, these types of effects are often observed with significant stress on the mothers ( as seen by the body weight gain decrease in this study) and not indicative of frank developmental toxicity. The NOAEL for both maternal and developmental toxicity was 5 mg/ kg bwt. 4. Subchronic toxicity. The subchronic toxicity of pyraclostrobin was investigated in 90   day feeding studies with rats, mice, and dogs, and in a 28   day dermal administration study in rats. A 90   day neurotoxicity study in rats was also performed. Generally, mild toxicity was observed. At high dose levels in feeding studies, general findings in all three species were decreased food consumption and body weight gain and a thickening of the duodenum. Anemia occurred at high dose levels in both rats and mice with accompanying extramedullary hematopoiesis of the spleen in rats. In rats only, a finding of liver cell hypertrophy was indicative of a physiological response to the handling of the chemical. Overall, only mild toxicity was observed in oral subchronic testing. In the 28   day repeat dose dermal study, no systemic effects were noted up to the HDT of 250 mg/ kg bwt/ day. In a 90   day rat neurotoxicity study, a direct neurotoxic effect was not observed. 5. Chronic toxicity. Pyraclostrobin was administered to groups of 5 male and 5 female purebred Beagle dogs in the diet at concentrations of 0, 100, 200 and 400 ppm over a period of 12 months. Signs of toxicity were observed at the high dose. Diarrhea was observed throughout the study period for both sexes. High dose males and females initially lost weight and body weight gain was decreased for the entire study period for females. Hematological changes observed were an increase in white blood cells in males, and an increase in platelets in both sexes at the high dose. Clinical chemistry demonstrated a decrease in serum total protein, albumin, globulins and cholesterol in high dose animals of both sexes possibly due to the diarrhea and reduced nutritional status of the animals. The NOAEL was 200 ppm ( ca. 5.5 mg/ kg bwt/ day males; 5.4 mg/ kg bwt/ day females). In a carcinogenicity study, pyraclostrobin was administered to groups of 50 male and 50 female Wistar rats at dietary concentrations of 0; 25; 75, and 200 ppm for 24 months. In a companion chronic toxicity study, 20 rats/ sex were used at the same dose VerDate jul< 14> 2003 15: 42 Aug 12, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\ FR\ FM\ 13AUN1. SGM 13AUN1 48370 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 156 / Wednesday, August 13, 2003 / Notices levels as in the carcinogenicity study. A body weight gain depression of 10   11% in males and 14   22% in females with an accompanying decrease in food efficiency was observed at the high dose. The only other effect observed was a decrease in serum alkaline phosphatase in both sexes at the high dose and decreased alanine aminotransferase in high dose males. There was no evidence that pyraclostrobin produced a carcinogenic effect in rats. The NOAEL for the chronic rat and the cancer rat study is 75 ppm ( ca. 3.4 mg/ kg bwt/ day males; 4.6 mg/ kg bwt/ day females). Pyraclostrobin was administered to groups of 50 male and 50 female B6C3F1 mice at dietary concentrations of 0, 10, 30, 120 and 180 ppm ( females only) for 18 months. Body weights were reduced at the HDT in both males and females. At the high dose, body weight gain decreases of 27% in females and 29% in males with an accompanying decrease in food efficiency were observed. No other signs of toxicity were noted at any dose level. The NOAEL was found to be 120 ppm ( ca. 20.5 mg/ kg bwt/ day) for females and 30 ppm ( ca. 4.1 mg/ kg bwt/ day) for males. There was no evidence that pyraclostrobin produced a carcinogenic effect in mice. 6. Animal metabolism. In a rat metabolism study with pyraclostrobin, 10   13% of the administered dose was excreted in the urine and 74   91% in the feces within 48 hours. Excretion via bile was significant accounting for 35 38% of the administered dose. By 120 hours after dosing, very little radioactivity remained in tissues. Pyraclostrobin was rapidly and almost completely metabolized. Very little unchanged parent was detected. The phase one biotransformation is characterized by Ndemethoxylation various hydroxylations, cleavage of the ether bond and further oxidation of the two resulting molecule parts. Conjugation of the formed hydroxyl groups by glucuronic acid or sulfate also occurred. In summary, pyraclostrobin is extensively metabolized and rapidly eliminated primarily via the bile, with no evidence of accumulation in tissues. 7. Metabolite toxicology. A comparison of the rat metabolism results with the plant metabolism/ residue results indicates that toxicology studies performed with the parent pyraclostrobin are sufficient to cover dietary exposure. Plant residues are primarily the parent compound with a fraction ( up to 10 20% at most) being the demethoxylated parent. This metabolite is referred to as BF 500   3 in the plant studies and as 500M07 in the rat study. This metabolite in the rat is the first step in the major biotransformation process leading to the majority of the metabolites determined in the major excretion pathway. 8. Endocrine disruption. No specific test has been conducted with pyraclostrobin to determine whether the chemical may have an effect in humans that is similar to an effect produced by a naturally occurring estrogen or other endocrine effects. However, there were no significant findings in other relevant toxicity studies ( i. e., subchronic and chronic toxicity, teratology and multigeneration reproductive studies) which would suggest that pyraclostrobin produces endocrine related effects. C. Aggregate Exposure 1. Dietary exposure   i. Food Assessments were conducted to evaluate the potential risk due to chronic and acute dietary exposure of the U. S. population to residues of pyraclostrobin ( BAS 500 F). This fungicide and its desmethoxy metabolite ( BAS 500 3) were expressed as the parent compound ( BAS 500 F). Tolerance values have previously been established for various cereals, vegetables, fruits, and animal products and are listed in the U. S. EPA final rule published in the Federal Register September 27, 2002 ( Vol 67, No. 188, p 60886 60902). This analysis included brassica ( head & stem), lettuce ( head & leaf), and leaves of root and tuber vegetables as the target crops. The dietary assessment analysis followed an initial tier approach with only one refinement. Default processing factors, 100% crop treated, and anticipated residue values from the raw agricultural commodity ( RAC) field studies along with some residue tolerances were assumed in the assessment. The CARES 1.1 model with the CSFII/ FCID consumption data were used to calculated acute and chronic exposure estimates. Acute dietary exposure. The estimated acute dietary exposure estimates for the crops listed were well under 100% of the aPAD at the 95th percentile ( Table 2). The overall general population and the most sensitive subpopulation ( females 13   49 years) utilized < 0.15% and 7.8% of the aRfD, respectively. The % aPAD ranged from 0.1 to 22.9% for all subpopulations.

Population Exposure Estimate % aRfD % aPAD Subgroups ( mg/ kg bwt/ day)

Birth to 1 year > 0.00045 >. 02 >. 02 1   2 years 0.003053 0.10 0.10 3   5 years 0.003297 0.11 0.11 1   6 years 0.003215 0.11 0.11 6   12 years 0.002884 0.10 0.10 13   19 years 0.002515 0.08 0.08 Females 13   49 years 0.003888 7.78 22.87 Males 20   49 years 0.003405 0.11 0.11 Chronic: Results of the chronic dietary exposure assessments are listed below. The estimated chronic dietary exposure from the crops listed above was less than 5.5% and 16.5% of the cRfD and cPAD for all subpopulations, respectively.

VerDate jul< 14> 2003 15: 42 Aug 12, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\ FR\ FM\ 13AUN1. SGM 13AUN1 48371 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 156 / Wednesday, August 13, 2003 / Notices Population Exposure Estimate % cRfD % cPAD Subgroups milligrams/ kilogram body weight/ day ( mg/ kg bwt/ day)

Birth to 1 year 0.0002888 0.85 2.63 1   2 years 0.0013 3.82 11.82 3   5 years 0.001731 5.09 15.74 1   6 years 0.00161 4.74 14.64 6   12 years 0.001336 3.93 12.15 13   19 years 0.001788 5.26 16.25 Females 13   49 years 0.001788 5.26 16.25 Males 20   49 years 0.001577 4.64 14.34 Adults 50+ years 0.001647 4.84 14.97 Results of the chronic and acute dietary exposure analysis demonstrate a reasonable certainty that no harm to the general U. S. population or any subpopulation would results from the use of pyraclostrobin on brassica ( head & stem), lettuce ( head & leaf), and leaves of root and tuber vegetables. To ensure that these additional uses on the proposed crops fits within the total risk cup, a dietary exposure assessment ( as described above considering 100% CT and residue values) was conducted with the most sensitive subpopulation ( females 13   49 years) using all previously registered and current proposed crops for pyraclostrobin. The dietary risk assessment conducted by the EPA and published in the Federal Register ( Vol 67, No. 188, p 60886 60902) showed that the acute dietary exposure for all subpopulation groups ( except females 13   50 years of age) was < 1% of the aPAD. For females 13 50 years of age, the acute dietary exposure accounted for 41% of the aPAD. The EPA dietary assessment was considered partially refined and somewhat conservative since the percent crop treated data, some concentration factors, and tolerance levels were used. The total acute dietary exposure for females 13   49 years of age from currently registered and proposed new uses accounts for 63.87% ( 22.87 + 41 = 63.87) of the aPAD. The dietary risk assessment conducted by the EPA and published in the Federal Register showed that the highest chronic dietary exposure ( 74% of the cPAD) occurred in children 1   6 years of age. The total chronic dietary exposure for children 1   6 years of age from currently registered and proposed new uses accounts for 88.64% ( 14.64 + 74 = 88.64) of the cPAD. 2. Drinking Water There are no established maximum contaminant levels or health advisory levels for residues of pyraclostrobin ( BAS 500 F) or its metabolite in drinking water. A tier 1 drinking water modeling assessment for pyraclostrobin using the FIRST model ( for surface water) and SCI GROW ( for ground water) produced estimated maximum concentrations of 20.4 ppb ( acute surface water), 0.74 parts per billion ( ppb) ( chronic surface water) and 0.009 ppb ( acute and chronic groundwater). These estimated concentrations are less than worst case calculated acceptable drinking water levels of concern ( DWLOC) of pyraclostrobin residues in drinking water based on acute and chronic aggregate exposure for both registered and pending crops ( see table below).

Child Adult female Adult male ( 1   6 years) ( 13   49 years) ( 20   49 years)

water consumption ( L) 1 2 2 weight kilogram ( kg) 10 60 70 cPAD ( mg/ kg bwt/ day) 0.011 0.011 0.011 food exposure ( mg/ kg bwt/ day) chronic 0.00981 0.00398 0.004377 Max. water exposure ( mg/ kg bwt/ day) chronic 0.00119 0.00702 0.006623 DWLOC ( µ g/ L) chronic 11.9 210.6 231.8 aPAD ( mg/ kg bwt/ day) 3 0.017 3 VerDate jul< 14> 2003 15: 42 Aug 12, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\ FR\ FM\ 13AUN1. SGM 13AUN1 48372 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 156 / Wednesday, August 13, 2003 / Notices Child Adult female Adult male Food exposure ( mg/ kg bwt/ day)  acute 0.02521 0.01068 0.011705 max. waterexposure ( mg/ kg bwt/ day) acute 2.97479 0.00632 2.988295 DWLOC ( µ g/ L)  acute 29747.9 189.6 104590 3. Aggregate Exposure ( Diet + Water)

The aggregate exposure of pyraclostrobin residues is summarized in the table below. Although, BASF has submitted an application for registration of pyraclostrobin in residential turf areas ( March 2000), this particular use has been reserved pending the outcome of EPA reviews of additional toxicology studies submitted by BASF, and therefore, residential exposure was not included in the aggregate exposure assessment.

Exposure Infants Children Males ( 20   49 years) Women ( 0 1 years) ( 1   6 years) ( 13   50 years)

FOOD ( mg/ kg bwt/ day)

Acute Exposure ( registered uses) 0.014 0.022 0.0083 0.0068 Acute Exposure ( new uses) 0.00045 0.003215 0.003405 0.003888 Total acute exposure 0.01445 0.025215 0.011705 0.010688 Chronic Exposure ( registered uses) 0.0034 0.0082 0.0028 0.0022 Chronic Exposure ( new uses) 0.0002888 0.00161 0.001577 0.001788 Total Chronic Exposure 0.0036888 0.00981 0.004377 0.003988 % aPAD 0.48 0.84 0.39 62.87 % cPAD 33.53 89.18 39.79 36.25 WATER Acute Exposure ( mg/ kg b. w./ day) 0.00204 0.00136 0.000583 0.000648 Chronic Exposure ( mg/ kg b. w./ day) 0.0000009 0.0000006 0.0000003 0.0000003 % aPAD 0.07 0.05 0.02 3.81 % aPAD 0.003 0.002 0.001 0.001 AGGREGATE Acute Exposure ( mg/ kg bwt/ day) 0.01649 0.026575 0.012288 0.011336 Chronic Exposure ( mg/ kg bwt/ day) 0.0036897 0.0098106 0.0043773 0.0039883 % aPAD 0.55 0.89 0.41 66.68 % aPAD 33.54 89.19 39.79 36.26 These results indicate the aggregate exposure of pyraclostrobin ( registered use and the proposed crops in this document), from potential residues in food and water, will not exceed the U. S. EPA's level of concern ( 100% of PAD). Overall, we can conclude with reasonable certainty that no harm will occur from either acute or chronic aggregate exposure of pyraclostrobin residues. D. Cumulative Effects.

Section 408( b)( 2)( D)( v) 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.' Pyraclostrobin is a foliar fungicide which belongs to the new class of strobilurin chemistry. It is a synthetic analog of strobilurin A, a naturally occurring antifungal metabolite of the mushroom Strobillurus tenacellus ( Anke et. al., 1977). The active ingredient acts in the fungal cell through inhibition of electron transport in the mitochondrial respiratory chain at the position of the cytochrome bc1 complex. The protective effect is due to the resultant death of the fungal cells by disorganization of the fungal membrane VerDate jul< 14> 2003 15: 42 Aug 12, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\ FR\ FM\ 13AUN1. SGM 13AUN1 48373 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 156 / Wednesday, August 13, 2003 / Notices system. Pyraclostrobin also acts curatively to prevent the increase and spread of fungal infections by inhibiting mycelial growth and sporulation on the leaf surface. BAS 500F inhibits spore germination, germ tube growth and penetration into the host tissues. The EPA is currently developing methodology to perform cumulative risk assessments. At this time, there is no available data to determine whether BAS 500F has a common mechanism of toxicity with other substances or how to include this pesticide in a cumulative risk assessment. Unlike other pesticides for which EPA has followed a cumulative risk approach based on a common mechanism of toxicity, pyraclostrobin does not appear to produce a toxic metabolite produced by other substances.

E. Safety Determination. U. S. population. Adding the proposed uses to those crops already on the pyraclostrobin label, aggregate exposure to adults in the U. S. population utilized at most 67% of the aPAD and 40% of the cPAD. Therefore, no harm to the overall U. S. population would result from the use of pyraclostrobin on the proposed and existing label crops. Infants and children. All subpopulations based on age were considered. The highest potential exposure was predicted for children age 1 6. Using the FQPA safety factor of 3X when appropriate, the addition of the proposed crops to those on the label would use less than 1% of the aPAD and use 89% of the cPAD for children age 1   6. BASF concludes that there is reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants or children from aggregate exposure to pyraclostrobin residues on the proposed and existing label crops.

F. International Tolerances. Maximum Residue Levels ( MRLs) have been established for pyraclostrobin in Canada. No MRLs have been established by the Codex Alimentarius Commission. [ FR Doc. 03   20641 Filed 8   12   03; 8: 45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560   50   S ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [ OPP   2003   0260]; FRL   7320   9]

S Metolachlor; Notice of Filing a Pesticide Petition to Establish a Tolerance for a Certain Pesticide Chemical in or on Food AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA). ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: This notice announces the initial filing of a pesticide petition proposing the establishment of regulations for residues of a certain pesticide chemical in or on various food commodities. DATES: Comments, identified by docket ID number OPP   2003   0260, must be received on or before September 12, 2003.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be submitted electronically, by mail, or through hand delivery/ courier. Follow the detailed instructions as provided in Unit I. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Hoyt Jamerson, Registration Division ( 7505C), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460   0001; telephone number: ( 703) 308   9368]; e mail address: jamerson. hoyt@ epa. gov.

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 111)   Animal production ( NAICS 112)   Food manufacturing ( NAICS 311)   Pesticide manufacturing ( NAICS 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 Get Copies of this Document and Other Related Information?

1. Docket. EPA has established an official public docket for this action under docket ID number OPP   2003   0260. The official public docket consists of the documents specifically referenced in this action, any public comments received, and other information related to this action. Although a part of the official docket, the public docket does not include Confidential Business Information ( CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. The official public docket is the collection of materials that is available for public viewing at the Public Information and Records Integrity Branch ( PIRIB), Rm. 119, Crystal Mall # 2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Hwy., Arlington, VA. This docket facility is open from 8: 30 a. m. to 4 p. m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The docket telephone number is ( 703) 305   5805. 2. Electronic access. You may access this Federal Register document electronically through the EPA Internet under the`` Federal Register'' listings at http:// www. epa. gov/ fedrgstr/. An electronic version of the public docket is available through EPA's electronic public docket and comment system, EPA dockets. You may use EPA Dockets at http:// www. epa. gov/ edocket/ to submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the official public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically. Although, not all docket materials may be available electronically, you may still access any of the publicly available docket materials through the docket facility identified in Unit I. B. 1. Once in the system, select `` search,'' then key in the appropriate docket ID number. Certain types of information will not be placed in the EPA Dockets. Information claimed as CBI and other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute, which is not included in the official public docket, will not be available for public viewing in EPA's electronic public docket. EPA's policy is that copyrighted material will not be placed in EPA's electronic public docket but will be available only in printed, paper form in the official public docket. To the extent feasible, publicly available docket materials will be made available in EPA's electronic public docket. When a document is selected from the index list in EPA dockets, the system will identify whether the document is available for viewing in EPA's electronic public docket. Although, not all docket materials may be available electronically, you may still access any of the publicly available docket materials through the docket facility identified in Unit I. B. EPA intends to work towards providing electronic access to all of the publicly available docket materials through EPA's electronic public docket. For public commenters, it is important to note that EPA's policy is VerDate jul< 14> 2003 15: 42 Aug 12, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\ FR\ FM\ 13AUN1. SGM 13AUN1


[Federal Register: March 30, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 59)]
[Notices]
[Page 14142-14143]
[DOCID:fr30mr09-69]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

[Docket No. USCG-2009-0192]

Prince William Sound Regional Citizens' Advisory Council
(PWSRCAC) Charter Renewal

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of recertification.

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

SUMMARY: The purpose of this notice is to inform the public that the
Coast Guard has recertified the Prince William Sound Regional Citizens'
Advisory Council (PWSRCAC) as an alternative voluntary advisory group
for Prince William Sound, Alaska. This certification allows the PWSRCAC
to monitor the activities of terminal facilities and crude oil tankers
under the Prince William Sound Program established by statute.

DATES: This recertification is effective for the period from February
28, 2009, through February 28, 2010.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: LCDR Gary Koehler, Seventeenth Coast
Guard District, by telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by mail at 709 W.
Ninth Street, Juneau, Alaska 99801.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background and Purpose

    As part of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA 90), Congress passed
the Oil Terminal and Oil Tanker Environmental Oversight and Monitoring
Act of 1990 (the Act), 33 U.S.C. 2732, to foster a long-term
partnership among industry, government, and local communities in
overseeing compliance with environmental concerns in the operation of
crude oil terminals and oil tankers.
    On October 18, 1991, the President delegated his authority under 33
U.S.C 2732(o) to the Secretary of Transportation in Executive Order
12777, section 8(g) (see 56 FR 54757; Oct. 22, 1991), for purposes of
certifying advisory councils, or groups, subject to the Act. On March
3, 1992, the Secretary redelegated that authority to the Commandant of
the Coast Guard (see 57 FR 8582; Mar. 11, 1992). The

Commandant redelegated that authority to the Chief, Office of Marine
Safety, Security and Environmental Protection (G-M), on March 19, 1992
(letter 5402).
    On July 7, 1993, the Coast Guard published a policy statement (58
FR 36504), to clarify the factors that shall be considered in making
the determination as to whether advisory councils, or groups, should be
certified in accordance with the Act.
    The Assistant Commandant for Marine Safety and Environmental
Protection (G-M), redelegated recertification authority for advisory
councils, or groups, to the Commander, Seventeenth Coast Guard
District, on February 26, 1999 (letter 16450).
    On September 16, 2002, the Coast Guard published a policy statement
(67 FR 58440), that changed the recertification procedures such that
applicants are required to provide the Coast Guard with comprehensive
information every three years (triennially). For each of the two years
between the triennial application procedure, applicants submit a letter
requesting recertification that includes a description of any
substantive changes to the information provided at the previous
triennial recertification. Further, public comment is not solicited
prior to recertification during streamlined years, only during the
triennial comprehensive review.
    The Alyeska Pipeline Service Company pays the PWSRCAC $2.9 million
annually in the form of a long-term contract. In return for this
funding, the PWSRCAC must annually show that it ``fosters the goals and
purposes'' of OPA 90 and is ``broadly representative of the communities
and interests in the vicinity of the terminal facilities and Prince
William Sound.'' The PWSRCAC is an independent, nonprofit organization
founded in 1989. Though it receives Federal oversight like many
independent, non-profit organizations, it is not a Federal agency. The
PWSRCAC is a local organization that predates the passage of OPA 90.
The existence of the PWSRCAC was specifically recognized in OPA 90
where it is defined as an ``alternate voluntary advisory group.''
    Alyeska funds the PWSRCAC, and the Coast Guard makes sure the
PWSRCRC operates in a fashion that is broadly consistent with OPA 90.
    Recertification: By letter dated March 10, 2009, the Commander,
Seventeenth Coast Guard, certified that the PWSRCAC qualifies as an
alternative voluntary advisory group under 33 U.S.C. 2732(o). This
recertification terminates on February 28, 2010.

    Dated: March 17, 2009.
A.E. Brooks,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard Commander, Seventeenth Coast Guard
District.
 [FR Doc. E9-6974 Filed 3-27-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-15-P


[Federal Register: February 23, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 36)]
[Notices]
[Page 9385-9386]
[DOCID:fr23fe06-96]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

Upon Written Request, Copies Available from: Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of Filings and Information Services, Washington, DC
20549.

Extension:
    Rule 12f-1; SEC File No. 270-139; OMB Control No. 3235-0128.

    Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') has submitted to the Office of Management
and Budget requests for extension of the previously approved collection
of information discussed below.
     Applications for permission to reinstate unlisted trading
privileges.
    Rule 12f-1 under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the
``Rule''), originally adopted in 1934 pursuant to Section 12(f) and
23(a) of the Act and as modified in 1995, sets forth the information
which an exchange must include in an application to reinstate its
ability to extend unlisted trading privileges to any security for which
such unlisted trading privileges have been suspended by the Commission,
pursuant to Section 12(f)(2)(A) of the Act. An application must provide
the name of the issuer, the title of the security, the name of each
national securities exchange, if any, on which the security is listed
or admitted to unlisted trading privileges, whether the transaction
information concerning such security is reported pursuant to an
effective transaction reporting plan contemplated by Rule 601 under the
Act, the date of the Commission's suspension of unlisted trading
privileges in the security on the exchange, and any other pertinent
information. Rule 12f-1 further requires a national securities exchange
seeking to reinstate its ability to extend unlisted trading privileges
to a security to indicate that it has provided a copy of such
application to the issuer of the security, as well as to any other
national securities exchange on which the security is listed or
admitted to unlisted trading privileges.
    The information required by Rule 12f-1 enables the Commission to
make the necessary findings under the Act prior to granting
applications to reinstate unlisted trading privileges. This information
is also made available to members of the public who may wish to comment
upon the applications. Without the Rule, the Commission would be unable
to fulfill these statutory responsibilities.
    There are currently eight national securities exchange subject to
Rule 12f-1. The burden of complying with Rule 12f-1 arises when a
potential respondent seeks to reinstate its ability to extend unlisted
trading privileges to any security for which unlisted trading
privileges have been suspended by the Commission, pursuant to Section
12(f)(2)(A) of the Act. The staff estimates that each application would
require approximately one hour to complete. Thus each potential
respondent would incur on average one burden hour in complying with the
Rule.
    The Commission staff estimates that there could be as many as eight
responses annually and that each respondent's related cost of
compliance with Rule 12f-1 would be $53.55, or, the cost of one hour of
professional work needed to complete the application. The total annual
related reporting cost for all potential respondents, therefore, is
$428.40 (8 responses x $53.55/response).
    Compliance with Rule 12f-1 is mandatory. Rule 12f-1 does not have a
record retention requirement per se. However, responses made pursuant
to Rule 12f-1 are subject to the recordkeeping requirements of Rules
17a-3 and 17a-4 of the Act. Information received in response to Rule
12f-1 shall not be kept confidential; the information collected is
public information.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, a person is not required to
respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently
valid control number.
    Written comments regarding the above information should be directed
to the following persons: (i) Desk Officer for the Securities and
Exchange

Commission, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of
Management and Budget, Room 10102, New Executive Office Building,
Washington, DC 20503 or by sending an e-mail to:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>and (ii) R. Corey Booth, Director/Chief

Information Officer, Office of Information Technology, Securities and
Exchange Commission, Station Place, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC
20549. Comments must be submitted to Office of Management and Budget
within 30 days of this notice.

    Dated: February 15, 2006.
J. Lynn Taylor,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 06-1667 Filed 2-22-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-M


[Federal Register: July 13, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 134)]
[Notices]
[Page 39692-39694]
[DOCID:fr13jy06-93]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-54109; File No. SR-Amex-2006-27]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; American Stock Exchange LLC;
Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change and Amendments No. 1 and 2
Thereto Relating to Interim Members

July 6, 2006.
    Pursuant to section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on March 23, 2006, the American Stock Exchange LLC (``Amex'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III below, which Items have been prepared by Amex. On June 15,
2006, Amex filed Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule change.\3\ On
June 27, 2006, Amex filed Amendment No. 2 to the proposed rule
change.\4\ The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments
on the proposed rule change, as amended, from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ Amendment No. 1 replaced the original filing in its
entirety.
    \4\ Amendment No. 2 clarifies that an interim member may be
designated or redesignated by a member or member organization as an
interim member after it has exhausted the fifteen day allocation
even if this occurs prior to the end of the one-year period.
Amendment No. 2 also makes technical corrections to the purpose
section and the rule text in Exhibit 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

 I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance
of the Proposed Rule Change

    Amex proposes to amend Amex Rule 353 to limit members and member
organizations from allocating their seats to interim members on the
Floor of the Exchange for a maximum of fifteen aggregate days that may
be used consecutively or non-consecutively for a one-year period
beginning on the date of approval as an interim member (``approval
date''). In addition, the Exchange is proposing revisions to the Amex
Constitution and the Amex Fee Schedule to correspond with the changes
to Amex Rule 353.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on Amex's Web
site at http://www.amex.com, at Amex's principal office, and at the

Commission's Public Reference Room.

 II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, Amex included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. Amex has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B,
and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.

A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

 1. Purpose
    An interim member is an individual, pre-qualified by the Exchange,
who is designated by a member or member organization to temporarily use
the membership for a specified period of time when the member is absent
from the Trading Floor.\5\ Currently, Amex Rule 353 permits unfettered
temporary allocation of a membership to an interim member so long as
the duration is no less than one day and no more than one year. The
proposed amendment to Amex Rule 353 significantly reduces the maximum
number of days an interim member can receive such designation. The new
maximum would be reduced to fifteen days that may be used by each
interim member consecutively or non-consecutively for a one-year period
beginning on the approval date.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Article IV, Section 3(e) of the Amex Constitution explicitly
states that the designation of an interim member is ``subject to and
in accordance with such rules as may be adopted from time to time by
the Board of Governors.'' Amex Rule 353 more specifically sets forth
the requirements, rights and limitations of interim members.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    If an interim member has exhausted the fifteen day period, even if
this occurs prior to end of the one-year period, the member or member
organization may regain interim membership status by designating
another interim member, or redesignating the same interim member to the
seat by filing documents required by the Membership Services Department
and paying the maintenance fee in accordance with Article VII, Section
1(g) of the Amex Constitution. The Exchange believes that allowing
unlimited allocation to interim members lessens the value of
memberships by increasing the number of unleased seats. By permitting
the designation of interim members, the Exchange is essentially
permitting individuals who do not own or lease seats to operate as
members. This circumvention of seat leasing and ownership may
artificially lessen the value of a membership by decreasing its demand.
However, the Exchange also believes that the Interim Member program has
served a useful function on the Floor. Specifically, it provides
members with protection should illnesses or emergencies arise and also
provides coverage when vacation is taken. The Exchange believes that
the proposed amendment to Amex Rule 353 effectively balances concerns
over having adequate emergency coverage on

the Floor versus concerns over the devaluation of memberships.
    Article IV, Section 3(e) and Article VII, Section 1(g) of the Amex
Constitution specify the fees associated with the Interim Member
program. The proposed amendments would eliminate the $250 allocation
fee and all references thereto.
    Article IV, Section 1(f) and Article VII, Section 1(c) of the Amex
Constitution reference the initiation fee associated with the transfer
of a membership pursuant to a special transfer agreement.\6\ The
proposed amendment would permit this fee to be waived by rule, which
will permit Amex to offer financial incentives to those interim members
who wish to subsequently lease a seat.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ A special transfer agreement is an agreement between the
owner of a regular or options principal membership and an individual
who is authorized to use the membership for a specified period of
time or until the occurrence of a specified event.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Member Fee Schedule sets forth the fees that Amex charges its
members. The changes thereto will correspond with the amendments
proposed to the Interim Member program.
    The Exchange believes that if the proposed rule change was
implemented at the start of 2005, approximately half of the 21 interim
members would have exhausted their fifteen aggregate days by the
beginning of November. Upon approval of these amendments by the
Commission, the fifteen days will begin to deplete for all interim
members currently on seats for the duration of the year for which they
are qualified for interim membership, as well as each time an interim
member is approved to the program.
    The Exchange acknowledges that some members will incur additional
expense as a result of the proposed restrictions to the Interim Member
program. The proposed amendments to the Amex Constitution and Rules and
the Member Fee Schedule are meant to provide economic relief to these
members. Currently, the $250 allocation fee is a flat fee that the
Exchange charges each time an interim member is designated to a seat.
The elimination of the $250 allocation fee will permit members to
effectively use the fifteen days for emergencies, illness, and
vacations. Specifically, the elimination of the allocation fee will
facilitate members who designate interim members on a non-consecutive
basis. The $1,500 initiation fee is charged whenever a member enters
into a special transfer agreement. The waiving of this initiation fee
for those who wish to lease a seat immediately following their allotted
time as an interim member will provide relief to members who encounter
serious emergencies, as well as offer a financial incentive for interim
members to enter into special transfer agreements. No change is
proposed for the $1,500 maintenance fee that members pay when an
interim member is pre-qualified by the Exchange.
    Finally, the Exchange proposes to clarify in Amex Rule 353 and
Article IV, Section 3(e) of the Amex Constitution that an interim
member will become effective upon submission of the appropriate form to
and approval by the Membership Services Department.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b) of the Act,\7\ in general, and furthers the
objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\8\ in particular, in that it
is designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to
foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in regulating,
clearing, settling, processing information with respect to, and
facilitating transactions in securities, to remove impediments to and
perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market
system and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest.
In addition, the Exchange further believes that the proposed rule
change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,\9\ in general, and
furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(4) of the Act,\10\ in
particular, in that it is designed to provide for the equitable
allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among its
members, issuers and other persons using its facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

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

    No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the
proposed rule change.

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

    Within 35 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register or within such longer period (i) as the Commission may
designate up to 90 days of such date if it finds such longer period to
be appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or (ii) as to
which the Exchange consents, the Commission will:
    (A) By order approve such proposed rule change, or
    (B) Institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule
change should be disapproved.

 IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the amended
proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be
submitted by any of the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml.
); or     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include

File No. SR-Amex-2006-27 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-Amex-2006-27. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml
). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all

written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and
copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room. Copies of such
filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the
principal office of Amex. All comments received will be posted without
change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying information
from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to
make available publicly. All

submissions should refer to File Number SR-Amex-2006-27 and should be
submitted on or before August 3, 2006.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Jill M. Peterson,
Assistant Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E6-11031 Filed 7-12-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register: April 2, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 63)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 16664-16666]
[DOCID:fr02ap10-10]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2009-0302; Directorate Identifier 2009-NE-09-AD;
Amendment 39-16245; AD 2009-08-08R1]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Turbomeca ARRIEL 1B, 1D, 1D1, 2B, and
2B1 Turboshaft Engines

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are revising an existing airworthiness directive (AD) for
the products listed above. This AD results from mandatory continuing
airworthiness information (MCAI) issued by an aviation authority of
another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an
aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as:

    During production of Arriel 1 and Arriel 2 Power Turbine (PT)
wheels, geometric non-conformances on blade fir tree roots have been
detected by Turbom[eacute]ca. Potentially non-conforming PT blades
have been traced as having been installed on Module M04 (PT) listed
in Mandatory Service Bulletin (MSB) A292 72 0827 for Arriel 1
engines and A292 72 2833 for Arriel 2 engines.
    The geometric non-conformities of the blades may potentially
lead to a reduction in the fatigue resistance of PT blades to a
lower level than their authorized in service use limit. This
reduction of fatigue resistance can potentially result in blade
release, which could cause an uncommanded in-flight shutdown.

    We are issuing this AD to prevent release of PT blades, which could
result in an uncommanded in-flight shutdown and emergency autorotation
landing.

DATES: This AD becomes effective May 7, 2010. The Director of the
Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain
publications listed in this AD as of May 7, 2010.

ADDRESSES: The Docket Operations office is located at Docket Management
Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue,
SE., West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-
0001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kevin Dickert, Aerospace Engineer,
Engine Certification Office, FAA, Engine and Propeller Directorate, 12
New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803; e-mail:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 to include an AD that would apply to the specified products.
That NPRM was published in the Federal Register on December 23, 2009
(74 FR 68194). That NPRM proposed to correct an unsafe condition for
the specified products. The MCAI states:

    Since issuance of initial version of AD 2009-0112 additional
information is available:

--The list of Modules M04 concerned by the restriction of the cycle
use limit of these PT blades has been updated again: The serial
numbers of Modules M04 which have been retrofitted are crossed out.
However, no new affected Modules M04 have been identified. See
figure 1 of the referenced Turbom[eacute]ca MSB.
--Additional testing and analysis had been carried out by
Turbom[eacute]ca which allows increasing the cyclic use limit of
these PT blades to 5 000 flight cycles.

    Therefore this AD revises AD 2009-0112 and requires establishing
the cyclic use limit of these PT blades to 5 000 flight cycles.
    For PT blades having reached a number of flight cycles superior
or equal to 5 000, removal of Module M04, or PT wheel assembly, or
PT blades is required prior to next flight.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD. We received no comments on the NPRM or on the determination of
the cost to the public.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the available data and determined that air safety and
the public interest require adopting the AD as proposed.

Differences Between This AD and the MCAI or Service Information

    We have reviewed the MCAI and related service information and, in
general, agree with their substance. But we required different actions
in this AD from those in the MCAI in order to follow FAA policies. Any
such differences are described in a separate paragraph of the AD. These
requirements take precedence over the actions copied from the MCAI.

Costs of Compliance

    Based on the service information, we estimate that this AD will
affect about 10 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it
will take about 8 work-hours per product to comply with this AD. The
average labor rate is $80 per work-hour. Required parts will cost about
$43,000 per product. Based on

these figures, we estimate the cost of the AD on U.S. operators to be
$436,400.

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 AD will not have federalism implications
under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct
effect on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify this AD:
    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); and
    3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to
comply with this AD and placed it in the AD docket.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://
www.regulations.gov; 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 AD, the regulatory evaluation,
any comments received, and other information. The street address for
the Docket Operations office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is provided in
the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket
shortly after receipt.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

0
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator,
the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by removing amendment 39-15881, and
adding the following new AD:

2009-08-08R1 Turbomeca S.A.: Amendment 39-16245. Docket No. FAA-
2009-0302; Directorate Identifier 2009-NE-09-AD.

Effective Date

    (a) This airworthiness directive (AD) becomes effective May 7,
2010.

Affected ADs

    (b) This AD revises AD 2009-08-08, Amendment 39-15881.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to:
    (1) Turbomeca Arriel 1B, 1D, and 1D1 turboshaft engines with the
power turbine (PT) modules M04 installed, as listed by serial number
(S/N) in Figure 1 of Turbomeca Alert Mandatory Service Bulletin
(MSB) No. A292 72 0827, Version C, dated July 15, 2009; and
    (2) Turbomeca Arriel 2B and 2B1 turboshaft engines with the
power turbine modules M04 installed, as listed by S/N in Figure 1 of
Turbomeca Alert MSB No. A292 72 2833, Version C, dated July 15,
2009.
    (3) These engines are installed on, but not limited to,
Eurocopter AS 350 B, AS 350 BA, AS 350 B1, AS 350 B2, AS 350 B3, and
EC 130 B4 helicopters.

Reason

    (d) European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD No. 2009-0112R1,
dated July 30, 2009, states:

    Since issuance of initial version of AD 2009-0112 additional
information is available:

--The list of Modules M04 concerned by the restriction of the cycle
use limit of these PT blades has been updated again: The serial
numbers of Modules M04 which have been retrofitted are crossed out.
However no new affected Modules M04 have been identified. See figure
1 of the referenced Turbom[eacute]ca MSB.
--Additional testing and analysis had been carried out by
Turbom[eacute]ca which allows increasing the cyclic use limit of
these PT blades to 5,000 flight cycles.

We are issuing this AD to prevent release of PT blades, which could
result in an uncommanded in-flight shutdown and emergency
autorotation landing.

Actions and Compliance

    (e) Unless already done, do the following actions.
    (1) For engines with an affected Module M04 (PT module), which
has accumulated 5,000 total PT cycles or more on the effective date
of this AD, remove the PT blades from service before further flight.
    (2) For engines with an affected Module M04, which has
accumulated fewer than 5,000 total PT cycles on the effective date
of this AD, remove the PT blades from service before accumulating
5,000 total PT cycles.
    (3) After the effective date of this AD, do not install any PT
blades removed as specified in paragraph (e)(1) or (e)(2) of this
AD, into any engine.

FAA AD Differences

    (f) Although the compliance section of EASA AD No. 2009-0112R1,
dated July 30, 2009, states to replace the Module M04, or PT wheel
assembly, or PT blades, this AD states to remove the PT blades from
service.
    (g) Although EASA AD No. 2009-0112R1, dated July 30, 2009,
applies to the Arriel 2B1A engine, this AD does not apply to that
model because it has no U.S. type certificate.

Other FAA AD Provisions

    (h) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
Engine Certification Office, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs
for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR
39.19.

Related Information

    (i) Refer to MCAI EASA Airworthiness Directive 2009-0112R1,
dated July 30, 2009, for related information.
    (j) Contact Kevin Dickert, Aerospace Engineer, Engine
Certification Office, FAA, Engine and Propeller Directorate, 12 New
England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803; e-mail:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, fax<PHONE_NUMBER>,
for more information about this AD.

Material Incorporated by Reference

    (k) You must use the service information specified in Table 1 of
this AD to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD
specifies otherwise.
    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference of this service information under 5
U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Turbomeca, 40220 Tarnos, France; telephone 33 05 59 74 40 00, fax 33
05 59 74 45 15.
    (3) You may review copies at the FAA, New England Region, 12 New
England Executive Park, Burlington, MA; or at the National Archives
and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the
availability of this material at NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go
to: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

                                   Table 1--Material Incorporated by Reference
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Service Bulletin No.                  Page                  Revision                     Date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mandatory Service Bulletin A292 72   All...................  Version C.............  July 15, 2009.
 0827.
Mandatory Service Bulletin A292 72   All...................  Version C.............  July 15, 2009.
 2833.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on March 16, 2010.
Francis A. Favara,
Manager, Engine and Propeller Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2010-6628 Filed 4-1-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P