Meeting materials submitted by David Halperin during a non-government stakeholder listening session with the OMB and various EOP offices held on 06/23/2022 for the Accidental Release Prevention Requirements: Risk Management Program Under the Clean Air Act; Safer Communities by Chemical Accident Prevention. A Proposed Rule.

Attachment 1.	Response-to-RMP-Letter-from-National-Security-and-Environment-Experts
Attachment 2.	Security-letter-to-EPAs-Regan-4-21-22-


INDEX TO DOCKET EPA-R09-OAR-2016-0292

Proposed Rule: Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Arizona; Regional Haze Federal                      Implementation Plan; Reconsideration                                         Index No. Document Date Category / Document Title

EPA Rulemakings and Guidance Documents    1997-07-31  Proposed Rule - Regional Haze Regulations, 62 FR 41138   1999-07-01  Final Rule - Regional Haze Regulations, 64 FR 35714   2004-05-04 Proposed Rule - Regional Haze Regulations and BART Guidelines, 69 FR 25184   2005-07-06 Final Rule - Regional Haze Regulations and BART Guidelines, 70 FR 39104   2005-08-01 Proposed Rule - Revision to Regional Haze Regulations Provisions Governing Alternatives to Source-Specific BART, 70 FR 44154   2006-10-13  Final Rule - Revision to Regional Haze Regulations Provisions Governing Alternatives to Source-Specific BART, 71 FR 60612   2012-07-20 Proposed Rule - Approval, Disapproval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Arizona; Regional Haze State and Federal Implementation Plans (Phase 1), 77 FR 42834    2012-12-05 Final Rule - Approval, Disapproval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Arizona; Regional Haze State and Federal Implementation Plans (Phase 1), 77 FR 72512   2012-12-21 Proposed Rule - Partial Approval and Disapproval of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Arizona; Regional Haze and Visibility Impacts of Transport, Ozone and Fine Particulates (Phase 2), 77 FR 75703   2013-05-20 Proposed Rule - Partial Approval and Partial Disapproval of Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Arizona; Regional Haze Requirements (Phase 2), 78 FR 29292   2013-07-30 Final Rule - Approval and Disapproval of Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Arizona; Regional Haze and Interstate Transport Requirements (Phase 2), 78 FR 46141   2014-02-18 Proposed Rule - Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Arizona; Regional Haze and Interstate Visibility Transport Federal Implementation Plan (Phase 3), 78 FR 29292   2014-09-03 Final Rule - Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Arizona; Regional Haze and Interstate Visibility Transport Federal Implementation Plan (Phase 3), 78 FR 52420

State Plans, Rules and Supporting Documents    2011-01 Arizona Regional Haze SIP with appendices   2013-05 Letter from Eric Massey, ADEQ, to Jared Blumenfeld, EPA, and enclosures (Revision to Arizona Regional Haze SIP)   2015-10-22 Revision to Arizona Regional Haze SIP (Cholla BART SIP Revision)

Additional Documents Considered for Proposed Rulemaking   2000-10 EPA Air Pollution Control Cost Manual (6th edition), Section 4.2, Chapter 2 - Selective Catalytic Reduction   2008-01 BART Analysis for Cholla Unit 3   2008-01 BART Analysis for Cholla Unit 4   2012-08-09 APS Cholla Unit 2-3 SNCR Study   2012-08-10 Cholla Cost Calculations - CH2M_HILL_vs_APS_vs_EPA.xlsx (Excel file)   2012-10-15 Email from Sue Kidd, APS, to Colleen McKaughan, EPA   2015-10-28 Letter from Edward Seal, APS, to Kathleen Johnson, EPA, and Eric Massey, ADEQ   2016-01-13 Letter from Eric Massey, ADEQ, to Doris Lo, EPA   2016-05 EPA Air Pollution Control Cost Manual (7th Edition), Section 4, Chapter 2 - Selective Catalytic Reduction   2016-06 Cholla_SCR_costs (30 yr life).xlsx (Excel spreadsheet)   2016-06 Cholla Units 3 and 4 Incremental Costs and Benefits.xlsx  (Excel spreadsheet)   2016-06 Cholla_SCR_vs_NG rev2.xlsx  (Excel spreadsheet)

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking    2016-06-30 Proposed Rule: Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Arizona; Regional Haze State and Federal Implementation Plans; Reconsideration (pre-publication version)

Public Comments Received on Proposed Rule

[reserved]

Additional Documents Considered for Final Rulemaking

[reserved]

Notice of Final Rulemaking

[reserved]


[Federal Register: October 29, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 208)]
[Notices]
[Page 61201]
[DOCID:fr29oc07-107]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Notice of Intent To Request Revision From the Office of
Management and Budget of a Currently Approved Information Collection
Activity, Request for Comments; FAA Form 1200-5, NAS Data Release
Request

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA invites public comments about our intention to request
the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to approve a current
information collection. This information enables the FAA to evaluate
the validity of the user's request for National Airspace Data (NAS)
data from FAA systems and equipment.

DATES: Please submit comments by December 28, 2007.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carla Mauney on<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by
e-mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)

    Title: FAA Form 1200-5, NAS Data Release Request.
    Type of Request: Revision of an approved collection.
    OMB Control Number: 2120-0668.
    Forms(s): FAA Form 1200-5.
    Affected Public: A total of 9 respondents.
    Frequency: The information is collected on occasion.
    Estimated Average Burden per Response: Approximately 3 hours per
response.
    Estimated Annual Burden Hours: An estimated 27 annually.
    Abstract: This information enables the FAA to evaluate the validity
of the user's request for National Airspace Data (NAS) data from FAA
systems and equipment.

ADDRESSES: Send comments to the FAA at the following address: Ms. Carla
Mauney, Room 712, Federal Aviation Administration, IT Enterprises
Business Services Division, AES-200, 800 Independence Ave., SW.,
Washington, DC 20591.
    Comments are invited on: Whether the proposed collection of
information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of
the Department, including whether the information will have practical
utility; the accuracy of the Department's estimates of the burden of
the proposed information collection; ways to enhance the quality,
utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways to
minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents,
including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of
information technology.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on October 23, 2007.
Carla Mauney,
FAA Information Collection Clearance Officer, IT Enterprises Business
Services Division, AES-200.
[FR Doc. 07-5361 Filed 10-26-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-M


[Federal Register: April 7, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 66)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 17573-17579]
[DOCID:fr07ap10-8]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0057; FRL-8818-4]

Nicosulfuron; Pesticide Tolerances

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes tolerances for residues of
nicosulfuron in or on cattle, fat; cattle, meat; cattle, meat
byproducts; goat, fat; goat, meat; goat, meat byproducts; grass,
forage; grass, hay; horse, fat; horse, meat; horse, meat byproducts;
milk; sheep, fat; sheep, meat; and sheep, meat byproducts. E. I. du
Pont de Nemours and Company requested these tolerances under the
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA). This regulation also
removes the existing tolerance for residues of nicosulfuron on corn,
forage.

DATES: This regulation is effective April 7, 2010. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received on or before June 7, 2010, and
must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR
part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION).

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under docket
identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0057. All documents in the
docket are listed in the docket index available at http://
www.regulations.gov. Although listed in the index, some information is
not publicly available, e.g., Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain
other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the
Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form.
Publicly available docket materials are available in the electronic
docket at http://www.regulations.gov, or, if only available in hard
copy, at the OPP Regulatory Public Docket in Rm. S-

4400, One Potomac Yard (South Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington,
VA. The Docket Facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday
through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The Docket Facility telephone
number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mindy Ondish, Registration Division
(7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency,
1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this Action Apply to Me?

    You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an
agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer.
Potentially affected entities may include, but are not limited to those
engaged in the following activities:
     Crop production (NAICS code 111).
     Animal production (NAICS code 112).
     Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
     Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).
    This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather to
provide 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 Electronic Access to Other Related Information?

    You may access a frequently updated electronic version of EPA's
tolerance regulations at 40 CFR part 180 through the Government
Printing Office's e-CFR site at http://www.gpoaccess.gov/ecfr. You may
also access the OPPTS harmonized test guidelines referenced in this
document electronically at http://www.epa.gov/oppts and select ``Test
Methods and Guideline.''

C. Can I File an Objection or Hearing Request?

    Under section 408(g) of FFDCA, 21 U.S.C. 346a, any person may file
an objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a
hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a
hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided
in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify
docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0057 in the subject line on the first
page of your submission. All requests must be in writing, and must be
mailed or delivered to the Hearing Clerk as required by 40 CFR part 178
on or before June 7, 2010.
    In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the
Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of
the filing that does not contain any CBI for inclusion in the public
docket that is described in ADDRESSES. Information not marked
confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA
without prior notice. Submit this copy, identified by docket ID number
EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0057, by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
     Mail: Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) Regulatory Public
Docket (7502P), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001.
     Delivery: OPP Regulatory Public Docket (7502P),
Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South
Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. Deliveries are only
accepted during the Docket Facility's normal hours of operation (8:30
a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays).
Special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed
information. The Docket Facility telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

II. Petition for Tolerance

    In the Federal Register of April 8, 2009 (74 FR 15971) (FRL-8407-
4), EPA issued a notice pursuant to section 408(d)(3) of FFDCA, 21
U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a pesticide petition (PP
8F7501) by E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company, P.O. Box 80038,
Wilmington, DE 19880-0038. The petition requested that 40 CFR 180.454
be amended by establishing tolerances for residues of the herbicide
nicosulfuron, 3-Pyridinecarboxamide, 2-[[[[(4,6-dimethoxy-2-
pyrimidinyl)amino] carbonyl]amino]sulfonyl]-N,N- dimethyl-, in or on
grass, forage at 9.0 parts per million (ppm); grass, hay at 25.0 ppm;
fat (of cattle, goat, hog, horse, and sheep) at 0.05 ppm; meat (of
cattle, goat, hog, horse, and sheep) at 0.05 ppm; meat byproducts (of
cattle, goat, hog, horse, and sheep) at 0.05 ppm; milk at 0.05 ppm; and
milk, fat at 0.02 ppm. That notice referenced a summary of the petition
prepared by E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company, the registrant, which
is available to the public in the docket, http://www.regulations.gov.
There were no comments received in response to the notice of filing.
    Based upon review of the data supporting the petition, EPA is not
establishing the proposed tolerances for hog, fat; hog, meat; hog, meat
byproducts; and milk, fat. The proposed tolerance levels for cattle,
fat; cattle, meat; goat, fat; goat, meat; horse, fat; horse, meat;
milk; sheep, fat; and sheep, meat are being established at 0.01 ppm,
not 0.05 ppm. The reasons for these changes are explained in Unit IV.C.

III. Aggregate Risk Assessment and Determination of Safety

    Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish a
tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a
food) only if EPA determines that the tolerance is ``safe.'' Section
408(b)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines ``safe'' to mean that ``there is a
reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure
to the pesticide chemical residue, including all anticipated dietary
exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable
information.'' This includes exposure through drinking water and in
residential settings, but does not include occupational exposure.
Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA requires EPA to give special
consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide
chemical residue in establishing a tolerance and to ``ensure that there
is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and
children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue.''
    Consistent with section 408(b)(2)(D) of FFDCA, and the factors
specified in section 408(b)(2)(D) of FFDCA, EPA has reviewed the
available scientific data and other relevant information in support of
this action. EPA has sufficient data to assess the hazards of and to
make a determination on aggregate exposure for the petitioned-for
tolerances for residues of nicosulfuron and its metabolites and
degradates in or on cattle, fat at 0.01 ppm; cattle, meat at 0.01 ppm;
cattle, meat byproducts at 0.05 ppm; goat, fat at 0.01 ppm; goat, meat
at 0.01 ppm; goat, meat byproducts at 0.05 ppm; grass, forage at 9.0
ppm; grass, hay at 25.0 ppm; horse, fat at 0.01 ppm; horse, meat at
0.01 ppm; horse, meat byproducts at 0.05 ppm; milk at 0.01 ppm; sheep,
fat at 0.01 ppm; sheep, meat at 0.01 ppm; and sheep, meat

byproducts at 0.05 ppm. EPA's assessment of exposures and risks
associated with establishing tolerances follows.

A. Toxicological Profile

    EPA has evaluated the available toxicity data and considered its
validity, completeness, and reliability as well as the relationship of
the results of the studies to human risk. EPA has also considered
available information concerning the variability of the sensitivities
of major identifiable subgroups of consumers, including infants and
children. Specific information on the studies received and the nature
of the adverse effects caused by nicosulfuron as well as the no-
observed-adverse-effect-level (NOAEL) and the lowest-observed-adverse-
effect-level (LOAEL) from the toxicity studies can be found at http://
www.regulations.gov in document ``Nicosulfuron Human Health Risk
Assessment for the Proposed Use on Grasses,'' p. 30 in docket ID number
EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0057.
    Nicosulfuron has low acute toxicity by oral, dermal, and inhalation
routes of exposure. It is a moderate eye irritant and is not a dermal
sensitizer. No adverse effects were observed following subchronic or
chronic dietary administrations of doses exceeding the limit dose in
rats and mice. Chronic dietary administration to dogs produced mild
effects (decreased body weight gains in males, increased relative liver
and kidney weights) at the limit dose. No findings were reported in
dogs following subchronic dosing at comparable dietary levels.
    There was no evidence of potential immunotoxicity or neurotoxicity
in the submitted studies.
    Nicosulfuron was classified by EPA as a ``not likely'' human
carcinogen based on the lack of evidence of carcinogenicity in studies
conducted in rats and mice and in the in vitro and in vivo genotoxicity
studies.

B. Toxicological Endpoints

    For hazards that have a threshold below which there is no
appreciable risk, a toxicological point of departure (POD) is
identified as the basis for derivation of reference values for risk
assessment. The POD may be defined as the highest dose at which no
adverse effects are observed (the NOAEL) in the toxicology study
identified as appropriate for use in risk assessment. However, if a
NOAEL cannot be determined, the lowest dose at which adverse effects of
concern are identified (the LOAEL) or a benchmark dose (BMD) approach
is sometimes used for risk assessment. Uncertainty/safety factors (UFs)
are used in conjunction with the POD to take into account uncertainties
inherent in the extrapolation from laboratory animal data to humans and
in the variations in sensitivity among members of the human population
as well as other unknowns. Safety is assessed for acute and chronic
dietary risks by comparing aggregate food and water exposure to the
pesticide to the acute population adjusted dose (aPAD) and chronic
population adjusted dose (cPAD). The aPAD and cPAD are calculated by
dividing the POD by all applicable UFs. Aggregate short-, intermediate-
, and chronic-term risks are evaluated by comparing food, water, and
residential exposure to the POD to ensure that the margin of exposure
(MOE) called for by the product of all applicable UFs is not exceeded.
This latter value is referred to as the level of concern (LOC).
    For non-threshold risks, the Agency assumes that any amount of
exposure will lead to some degree of risk. Thus, the Agency estimates
risk in terms of the probability of an occurrence of the adverse effect
greater than that expected in a lifetime. For more information on the
general principles EPA uses in risk characterization and a complete
description of the risk assessment process, see http://www.epa.gov/
pesticides/factsheets/riskassess.htm.
    A summary of the toxicological endpoints for nicosulfuron used for
human risk assessment can be found at http://www.regulations.gov in
document ``Nicosulfuron Human Health Risk Assessment for the Proposed
Use on Grasses,'' p. 15 in docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0057.

C. Exposure Assessment

    1. Dietary exposure from food and feed uses. In evaluating dietary
exposure to nicosulfuron, EPA considered exposure under the petitioned-
for tolerances as well as all existing nicosulfuron tolerances in 40
CFR 180.454. EPA assessed dietary exposures from nicosulfuron in food
as follows:
    i. Acute exposure. Quantitative acute dietary exposure and risk
assessments are performed for a food-use pesticide, if a toxicological
study has indicated the possibility of an effect of concern occurring
as a result of a 1-day or single exposure.
    No such effects were identified in the toxicological studies for
nicosulfuron; therefore, a quantitative acute dietary exposure
assessment is unnecessary.
    ii. Chronic exposure. In conducting the chronic dietary exposure
assessment EPA used the food consumption data from the USDA 1994-1996
and 1998 CSFII. As to residue levels in food, EPA assumed tolerance-
level residues and 100 percent crop treated (PCT) for all existing
(corn) and new uses (meat and milk commodities) of nicosulfuron.
    iii. Cancer. Based on the lack of evidence of carcinogenicity
observed in the 2-year rat and 18-month mouse carcinogenicity studies
and a lack of evidence of mutagenicity in the in vitro and in vivo
genotoxicity studies, EPA does not expect nicosulfuron to pose a cancer
risk to humans. Therefore, an exposure assessment for evaluating cancer
risk is not needed for this chemical.
    iv. Anticipated residue and PCT information. EPA did not use
anticipated residue and/or PCT information in the dietary assessment
for nicosulfuron. Tolerance level residues and/or 100 PCT were assumed
for all food commodities.
    2. Dietary exposure from drinking water. The Agency used screening
level water exposure models in the dietary exposure analysis and risk
assessment for nicosulfuron in drinking water. These simulation models
take into account data on the physical, chemical, and fate/transport
characteristics of nicosulfuron. Further information regarding EPA
drinking water models used in pesticide exposure assessment can be
found at http://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/models/water/index.htm.
    Based on the First Index Reservoir Screening Tool (FIRST) and
Screening Concentration in Ground Water (SCI-GROW) models, the
estimated drinking water concentrations (EDWCs) of nicosulfuron for
chronic exposures for non-cancer assessments are estimated to be 0.685
ppb for surface water and 0.056 ppb for ground water. EDWCs of
nicosulfuron for acute exposures and chronic exposures for cancer
assessments are not relevant to this dietary exposure assessment as
explained in unit III.C.1.
    Modeled estimates of drinking water concentrations were directly
entered into the dietary exposure model. For chronic dietary risk
assessment, the water concentration of value 0.685 ppb was used to
assess the contribution to drinking water. The surface water value was
used in the chronic, non-cancer dietary risk assessment since it was
higher than the ground water value and, therefore, more protective.
    3. From non-dietary exposure. The term ``residential exposure'' is
used in this document to refer to non-occupational, non-dietary
exposure (e.g., for lawn and garden pest control, indoor pest control,
termiticides, and flea and tick control on pets).

    Nicosulfuron is not registered for any specific use patterns that
would result in residential exposure.
    4. Cumulative effects from substances with a common mechanism of
toxicity. Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of FFDCA requires that, when
considering whether to establish, modify, or revoke a tolerance, the
Agency consider ``available information'' concerning the cumulative
effects of a particular pesticide's residues and ``other substances
that have a common mechanism of toxicity.''
    EPA has not found nicosulfuron to share a common mechanism of
toxicity with any other substances, and nicosulfuron does not appear to
produce a toxic metabolite produced by other substances. For the
purposes of this tolerance action, therefore, EPA has assumed that
nicosulfuron does not have a common mechanism of toxicity with other
substances. For information regarding EPA's efforts to determine which
chemicals have a common mechanism of toxicity and to evaluate the
cumulative effects of such chemicals, see EPA's website at http://
www.epa.gov/pesticides/cumulative.

D. Safety Factor for Infants and Children

    1. In general. Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA provides that EPA
shall apply an additional tenfold (10X) margin of safety for infants
and children in the case of threshold effects to account for prenatal
and postnatal toxicity and the completeness of the database on toxicity
and exposure unless EPA determines based on reliable data that a
different margin of safety will be safe for infants and children. This
additional margin of safety is commonly referred to as the FQPA SF. In
applying this provision, EPA either retains the default value of 10X,
or uses a different additional safety factor when reliable data
available to EPA support the choice of a different factor.
    2. Prenatal and postnatal sensitivity. In the developmental
toxicity in rats, no developmental toxicity was seen at the highest
dose tested (6,000 mg/kg/day). In the developmental study in rabbits,
developmental toxicity (decreased fetal body weight, post-implantation
loss) occurred at the same dose (500 mg/kg/day) as the dose (500 mg/kg/
day) resulting in maternal toxicity (abortions, clinical signs,
decreased body weight gain, post-implantation loss). In the 2-
generation reproductive toxicity study in rats, F2a offspring effects
(decreased litter size at birth, decreased pup weights at postpartum
day 14 through 21) also occurred at the same dose (1265 mg/kg/day) as
the dose (1265 mg/kg/day) resulting in parental toxicity (decreased
body weight gain in F1 females during the last week of gestation).
Consequently, there is no quantitative or qualitative evidence of
increased susceptibility following pre- and/or postnatal exposure to
nicosulfuron.
    3. Conclusion. EPA has determined that reliable data show the
safety of infants and children would be adequately protected if the
FQPA SF were reduced to 1X. That decision is based on the following
findings:
    i. The toxicity database for nicosulfuron is adequate to assess
potential pre- and/or postnatal toxicity. In accordance with 40 CFR
part 158 Toxicology Data Requirements, an immunotoxicity study
(870.7800), and acute and subchronic neurotoxicity studies (870.6200)
are required for nicosulfuron. Despite the absence of specific
immunotoxicity and neurotoxicity studies, EPA has evaluated the
available toxicity data and has determined that there is no evidence
that nicosulfuron either causes neurotoxic effects or targets the
immune system, and, therefore, EPA does not expect that these studies
will result in a lower NOAEL than the NOAEL currently used in assessing
nicosulfuron risk.
    ii. There is no indication that nicosulfuron is a neurotoxic
chemical and there is no need for a developmental neurotoxicity study
or additional UFs to account for neurotoxicity.
    iii. There is no evidence that nicosulfuron results in increased
susceptibility in in utero rats or rabbits in the prenatal
developmental studies or in young rats in the 2-generation reproduction
study.
    iv. There are no significant residual uncertainties identified in
the exposure databases for nicosulfuron. Additional storage stability
studies are required for residues of nicosulfuron in grass forage and
hay, and in livestock tissues. However, as explained in this Unit, EPA
does not expect these studies to have a measurable impact on exposure
estimates for nicosulfuron.
    a. Data must be submitted on the stability of nicosulfuron and its
metabolite in grass forage and hay stored frozen for intervals of up to
9.6 and 12.4 months, respectively. Interim data are available showing
that residues of nicosulfuron in grass hay and forage are stable when
stored frozen up to 3 months. Additionally, storage stability data are
available for corn, a related crop, which indicate that nicosulfuron
residues are stable when stored frozen up to 12 months. Based on these
data, EPA expects nicosulfuron to be stable in grass forage and hay
stored frozen for the required 9.6 and 12.4 month intervals but is
requiring submission of the final study reports as confirmation.
    b. Data must also be submitted on the stability of nicosulfuron and
its metabolite in livestock tissues stored frozen up to 9.4 months.
Despite the absence of data, EPA has assumed that nicosulfuron is
stable in frozen livestock tissues, based on data for similar
sulfonylurea (SU) pesticides, such as prosulfuron, where studies have
shown residues to be stable for up to 25 months. In addition, EPA notes
that dietary exposure to nicosulfuron is low (< 1% of the cPAD for all
population subgroups), and that the contribution of residues in
livestock to overall dietary exposure to nicosulfuron is minor,
accounting for only 2.5% of total exposure for children 1-2 years old,
the population subgroup with the highest estimated dietary exposure to
nicosulfuron. Therefore, any adjustments in livestock residue estimates
that might be necessary following submission of the required storage
stability data would have little impact on overall dietary exposure
estimates.
    The dietary food exposure assessments were performed based on 100
PCT and tolerance-level residues. EPA made conservative (protective)
assumptions in the ground and surface water modeling used to assess
exposure to nicosulfuron in drinking water. There are no residential
uses for nicosulfuron; therefore, residential exposure is not expected.
These assessments will not underestimate the exposure and risks posed
by nicosulfuron.

E. Aggregate Risks and Determination of Safety

    EPA determines whether acute and chronic pesticide exposures are
safe by comparing aggregate exposure estimates to the aPAD and cPAD.
The aPAD and cPAD represent the highest safe exposures, taking into
account all appropriate SFs. EPA calculates the aPAD and cPAD by
dividing the POD by all applicable UFs. For linear cancer risks, EPA
calculates the probability of additional cancer cases given the
estimated aggregate exposure. Short-, intermediate-, and chronic-term
risks are evaluated by comparing the estimated aggregate food, water,
and residential exposure to the POD to ensure that the MOE called for
by the product of all applicable UFs is not exceeded.
    1. Acute risk. An acute aggregate risk assessment takes into
account exposure estimates from acute dietary

consumption of food and drinking water. No adverse effect resulting
from a single-oral exposure was identified and no acute dietary
endpoint was selected. Therefore, nicosulfuron is not expected to pose
an acute risk.
    2. Chronic risk. Using the exposure assumptions described in this
unit for chronic exposure, EPA has concluded that chronic exposure to
nicosulfuron from food and water will utilize <1% of the cPAD for the
general population and all population subgroups, including children 1-2
years old, the population group receiving the greatest exposure. There
are no residential uses for nicosulfuron.
    3. Short-term risk. Short-term aggregate exposure takes into
account short-term residential exposure plus chronic exposure to food
and water (considered to be a background exposure level).
    Nicosulfuron is not registered for any use patterns that would
result in residential exposure. Therefore, the short-term aggregate
risk is the sum of the risk from exposure to nicosulfuron through food
and water and will not be greater than the chronic aggregate risk.
    4. Intermediate-term risk. Intermediate-term aggregate exposure
takes into account intermediate-term residential exposure plus chronic
exposure to food and water (considered to be a background exposure
level).
    Nicosulfuron is not registered for any use patterns that would
result in intermediate-term residential exposure. Therefore, the
intermediate-term aggregate risk is the sum of the risk from exposure
to nicosulfuron through food and water, which has already been
addressed, and will not be greater than the chronic aggregate risk.
    5. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. population. Based on a lack of
evidence for carcinogenicity in mice and rats following long-term
dietary administration and lack of evidence for mutagenicity in a
battery of genotoxicity studies, nicosulfuron is not expected to pose a
cancer risk.
    6. Determination of safety. Based on these risk assessments, EPA
concludes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result
to the general population or to infants and children from aggregate
exposure to nicosulfuron residues.

IV. Other Considerations

A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    Adequate enforcement methodology (high performance liquid
chromatography with tandem mass spectrometric (HPLC/MS/MS) detection
method) is available to enforce the tolerance expression. The method
may be requested from: Chief, Analytical Chemistry Branch,
Environmental Science Center, 701 Mapes Rd., Ft. Meade, MD 20755-5350;
telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
B. International Residue Limits

    There are currently no established Codex or Mexican maximum residue
limits (MRLs) for residues of nicosulfuron. Canadian MRLs are
established on blueberries and corn, and are expressed in terms of
nicosulfuron. There are no Canadian MRLs established on the grass and
livestock commodities associated with this petition.

C. Revisions to Petitioned-For Tolerances

    EPA is not establishing the proposed tolerances for hog, fat; hog,
meat; and hog, meat byproducts because there are no swine feed items
associated with the proposed use on grasses, and the dietary burden to
swine resulting from registered use on corn is low enough that there is
no reasonable expectation of finite residues in hog commodities. The
proposed tolerance for milk fat is not being established because
residues did not concentrate in cream and thus the tolerance for milk
will be sufficient to cover residues in milk fat from legal uses of
nicosulfuron. The proposed tolerances for cattle, fat; cattle, meat;
goat, fat; goat, meat; horse, fat; horse, meat; milk; sheep, fat; and
sheep, meat were lowered from 0.05 ppm to the level of quantitation
(LOQ) at 0.01 ppm, since the maximum adjusted residue for meat and fat
was at 0.008 ppm.
    EPA has also revised the tolerance expression for all existing and
new nicosulfuron tolerances. The revised tolerance expression makes
clear that the tolerances cover ``residues of nicosulfuron, including
its metabolites and degradates'' and that compliance with the tolerance
levels will be determined by measuring only nicosulfuron, 3-
Pyridinecarboxamide, 2-[[[[(4,6-dimethoxy-2-pyrimidinyl)amino]
carbonyl]amino]sulfonyl]-N,N-dimethyl-. EPA has determined that it is
reasonable to make this change in the tolerance expression final
without prior proposal and opportunity for comment, because public
comment is not necessary, in that the change has no substantive effect
on the tolerance, but rather is merely intended to clarify the existing
tolerance expression.
    Finally, EPA is removing the redundant and obsolete tolerance for
residues of nicosulfuron on ``corn, forage'' at 0.1 ppm. ``Corn,
forage'' is an obsolete commodity term that has been replaced by the
terms ``corn, field, forage'' and ``corn, sweet, forage.'' Since there
are existing tolerances for residues of nicosulfuron on ``corn, field,
forage'' and ``corn, sweet, forage'' at 0.1 ppm, the tolerance on
``corn, forage'' at the same level is unnecessary. EPA is making this
change final without prior proposal and opportunity for comment because
it merely corrects a redundancy in the nicosulfuron tolerances and has
no substantive effect on them.

V. Conclusion

    Therefore, tolerances are established for residues of nicosulfuron,
including its metabolites and degradates, in or on cattle, fat at 0.01
ppm; cattle, meat at 0.01 ppm; cattle, meat byproducts at 0.05 ppm;
goat, fat at 0.01 ppm; goat, meat at 0.01 ppm; goat, meat byproducts at
0.05 ppm; grass, forage at 9.0 ppm; grass, hay at 25.0 ppm; horse, fat
at 0.01 ppm; horse, meat at 0.01 ppm; horse, meat byproducts at 0.05
ppm; milk at 0.01 ppm; sheep, fat at 0.01 ppm; sheep, meat at 0.01 ppm;
and sheep, meat byproducts at 0.05 ppm.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This final rule establishes tolerances under section 408(d) of
FFDCA in response to a petition submitted to the Agency. The Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these types of actions from
review under Executive Order 12866, entitled Regulatory Planning and
Review (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Because this final rule has been
exempted from review under Executive Order 12866, this final rule is
not subject to Executive Order 13211, entitled Actions Concerning
Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or
Use (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) or Executive Order 13045, entitled
Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
(62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). This final rule does not contain any
information collections subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork
Reduction Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., nor does it require any
special considerations under Executive Order 12898, entitled Federal
Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and
Low-Income Populations (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    Since tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis
of a petition under section 408(d) of FFDCA, such as the tolerance in
this final rule, do not require the issuance of a proposed rule, the
requirements of the Regulatory

Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) do not apply.
    This final rule directly regulates growers, food processors, food
handlers, and food retailers, not States or tribes, nor does this
action alter the relationships or distribution of power and
responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions
of section 408(n)(4) of FFDCA. As such, the Agency has determined that
this action will not have a substantial direct effect on States or
tribal governments, on the relationship between the national government
and the States or tribal governments, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government or between
the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Thus, the Agency has
determined that Executive Order 13132, entitled Federalism (64 FR
43255, August 10, 1999) and Executive Order 13175, entitled
Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments (65 FR
67249, November 9, 2000) do not apply to this final rule. In addition,
this final rule does not impose any enforceable duty or contain any
unfunded mandate as described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (Public Law 104-4).
    This action does not involve any technical standards that would
require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant
to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272
note).

VII. Congressional Review Act

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report to each House of the Congress and to
the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report
containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate,
the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the
United States prior to publication of this final rule in the Federal
Register. This final rule is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5
U.S.C. 804(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180

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

    Dated: March 26, 2010.
Lois Rossi,
Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.

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

PART 180--[AMENDED]

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

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

0
2. Section 180.454 is revised to read as follows:

Sec.  180.454  Nicosulfuron; tolerances for residues.

    (a) General. Tolerances are established for residues of the
herbicide nicosulfuron, including its metabolites and degradates, in or
on the commodities in the following table [below]. Compliance with the
tolerance levels specified in the following table [below] is to be
determined by measuring only nicosulfuron, 3-Pyridinecarboxamide, 2-
[[[[(4,6-dimethoxy-2-pyrimidinyl)amino] carbonyl]amino]sulfonyl]-N,N-
dimethyl-.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Commodity                        Parts per million
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cattle, fat                                                         0.01
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cattle, meat                                                        0.01
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cattle, meat byproducts                                             0.05
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Corn, field, forage                                                  0.1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Corn, field, grain                                                   0.1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Corn, field, stover                                                  0.1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Corn, pop, grain                                                     0.1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Corn, pop, stover                                                    0.1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Corn, sweet, forage                                                  0.1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Corn, sweet, kernel plus cob with husks                              0.1
 removed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Corn, sweet, stover                                                  0.1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Goat, fat                                                           0.01
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Goat, meat                                                          0.01
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Goat, meat byproducts                                               0.05
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Grass, forage                                                        9.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Grass, hay                                                          25.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Horse, fat                                                          0.01
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Horse, meat                                                         0.01
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Horse, meat byproducts                                              0.05
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Milk                                                                0.01
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sheep, fat                                                          0.01
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sheep, meat                                                         0.01
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sheep, meat byproducts                                              0.05
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (b) Section 18 emergency exemptions. Time-limited tolerances
specified in the following table [below] are established for residues
of the herbicide nicosulfuron, 3-Pyridinecarboxamide, 2-[[[[(4,6-
dimethoxy-2-pyrimidinyl)amino] carbonyl]amino]sulfonyl]-N,N-dimethyl-,
in or on the specified agricultural commodities, resulting from use of
the pesticide pursuant to FFIFRA section 18 emergency exemptions. The
tolerances expire and are revoked on the date specified in the table.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Expiration/
                   Commodity                     Parts per    Revokation
                                                  million        Date
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bermuda grass, forage                                    10     12/31/11
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bermuda grass, hay                                       25     12/31/11
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (c) Tolerances with regional registrations. [Reserved]
    (d) Indirect or inadvertent residues. [Reserved]

[FR Doc. 2010-7745 Filed 4-6-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-S


[Federal Register: September 2, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 170)]
[Notices]
[Page 53965]
[DOCID:fr02se10-53]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER10-2298-000]

Enserco Energy Inc.; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-
Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204
Authorization

August 27, 2010.
    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of
Enserco Energy Inc.'s application for market-based rate authority, with
an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a
request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future
issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and
385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a
copy of that document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability, is September 16, 2010.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://
www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in
the above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link
on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification
when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with
any FERC Online service, please e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or
call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-21966 Filed 9-1-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 101 (Wednesday, May 27, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 30304-30305]
[FR Doc No: 2015-12683]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Proposed Collection; Comment Request

Upon Written Request, Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of FOIA Services, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC
20549-2736

Extension:
    Form N-3, OMB Control No. 3235-0316, SEC File No. 270-281.

    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 (the ``Commission'') is soliciting comments on the
collection of information

summarized below. The Commission plans to submit this existing
collection of information to the Office of Management and Budget for
extension and approval.
    The title for the collection of information is ``Form N-3 (17 CFR
239.17a and 274.11b) under the Securities Act of 1933 (15 U.S.C. 77)
and under the Investment Company Act of 1940 (15 U.S.C. 80a),
Registration Statement of Separate Accounts Organized as Management
Investment Companies.'' Form N-3 is the form used by separate accounts
offering variable annuity contracts which are organized as management
investment companies to register under the Investment Company Act of
1940 (``Investment Company Act'') and/or to register their securities
under the Securities Act of 1933 (``Securities Act''). Form N-3 is also
the form used to file a registration statement under the Securities Act
(and any amendments thereto) for variable annuity contracts funded by
separate accounts which would be required to be registered under the
Investment Company Act as management investment companies except for
the exclusion provided by Section 3(c)(11) of the Investment Company
Act (15 U.S.C. 80a-3(c)(11)). Section 5 of the Securities Act (15
U.S.C. 77e) requires the filing of a registration statement prior to
the offer of securities to the public and that the statement be
effective before any securities are sold, and Section 8 of the
Investment Company Act (15 U.S.C. 80a-8) requires a separate account to
register as an investment company.
    Form N-3 also permits separate accounts offering variable annuity
contracts which are organized as investment companies to provide
investors with a prospectus and a statement of additional information
covering essential information about the separate account when it makes
an initial or additional offering of its securities. Section 5(b) of
the Securities Act requires that investors be provided with a
prospectus containing the information required in a registration
statement prior to the sale or at the time of confirmation or delivery
of the securities. The form also may be used by the Commission in its
regulatory review, inspection, and policy-making roles.
    Commission staff estimates that there are zero initial registration
statements and 10 post-effective amendments to initial registration
statements filed on Form N-3 annually and that the average number of
portfolios referenced in each post-effective amendment is 2. The
Commission further estimates that the hour burden for preparing and
filing a post-effective amendment on Form N-3 is 155.2 hours per
portfolio. The total annual hour burden for preparing and filing post-
effective amendments is 3,104 hours (10 post-effective amendments x 2
portfolios x 155.2 hours per portfolio). The estimated annual hour
burden for preparing and filing initial registration statements is 0
hours. The total annual hour burden for Form N-3, therefore, is
estimated to be 3,104 hours (3,104 hours + 0 hours).
    The information collection requirements imposed by Form N-3 are
mandatory. Responses to the collection of information will not be kept
confidential. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not
required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid control number.
    Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of
the functions of the agency, including whether the information will
have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of
the burden of the collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the
quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (d)
ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on
respondents, including through the use of automated collection
techniques or other forms of information technology. Consideration will
be given to comments and suggestions submitted in writing within 60
days of this publication.
    Please direct your written comments to Pamela Dyson, Director/Chief
Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, C/O Remi
Pavlik-Simon, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549; or send an email
to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Dated: May 20, 2015.
Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-12683 Filed 5-26-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 192 (Friday, October 2, 2020)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 62266-62269]
[FR Doc No: 2020-21794]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2020-0857; Project Identifier MCAI-2020-00707-A]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Pilatus Aircraft Limited Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to supersede Airworthiness Directive (AD)
2014-25-04, which applies to all Pilatus Aircraft Limited (Pilatus)
Models PC-6, PC-6-H1, PC-6-H2, PC-6/350, PC-6/350-H1, PC-6/350-H2, PC-
6/A, PC-6/A-H1, PC-6/A-H2, PC-6/B-H2, PC-6/B1-H2, PC-6/B2-H2, PC-6/B2-
H4, PC-6/C-H2, and PC-6/C1-H2 airplanes. AD 2014-25-04 requires
incorporating revised airworthiness limitations into the aircraft
maintenance manual (AMM). Since the FAA issued AD 2014-25-04, the FAA
has determined that new or more restrictive airworthiness limitations
are necessary for the stabilizer trim actuator, fuselage wing fittings,
and wing-to-fuselage fittings. This proposed AD would require revising
the airworthiness limitation section of the existing maintenance manual
or instructions for continued airworthiness to incorporate new
airworthiness limitations, and performing an eddy current inspection of
the fuselage wing fittings and wing to fuselage fittings. The FAA is
proposing

this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: The FAA must receive comments on this proposed AD by November
16, 2020.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR
11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail address above between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this NPRM, contact Pilatus
Aircraft Ltd., Customer Support General Aviation, CH-6371 Stans,
exception occurred on : 2020-21794.htm
exception occurred on : 2020-21794.htm
Switzerland; telephone: +41 848 24 7 365; email: aircraft.com">[email protected]aircraft.com; internet: https://www.pilatus-aircraft.com/en. You may
view this service information at the FAA, Airworthiness Products
Section, Operational Safety Branch, 901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri
64106. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA,
call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2020-
0857; or in person at Docket Operations between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains
this NPRM, any comments received, and other information. The street
address for Docket Operations is listed above. Comments will be
available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Doug Rudolph, Aerospace Engineer, FAA,
General Aviation & Rotorcraft Section, International Validation Branch,
901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; telephone: (816)
329-4059; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    The FAA invites you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed
under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2020-0857;
Project Identifier MCAI-2020-00707-A'' at the beginning of your
comments. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the
proposal, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include
supporting data. The FAA will consider all comments received by the
closing date and may amend this proposal because of those comments.
    Except for Confidential Business Information (CBI) as described in
the following paragraph, and other information as described in 14 CFR
11.35, the FAA will post all comments received, without change, to
https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you
provide. The agency will also post a report summarizing each
substantive verbal contact received about this proposal.

Confidential Business Information

    CBI is commercial or financial information that is both customarily
and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of
Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public
disclosure. If your comments responsive to this NPRM contain commercial
or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that
you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to
this NPRM, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted
comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission containing
CBI as ``PROPIN.'' The FAA will treat such marked submissions as
confidential under the FOIA, and they will not be placed in the public
docket of this NPRM. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to Doug
Rudolph, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, General Aviation & Rotorcraft
Section, International Validation Branch, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas
City, Missouri 64106; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Any commentary that the FAA receives which
is not specifically designated as CBI will be placed in the public
docket for this rulemaking.

Discussion

    The FAA issued AD 2014-25-04, Amendment 39-18045 (79 FR 73803,
December 12, 2014) (``AD 2014-25-04''), for all Pilatus Models PC-6,
PC-6-H1, PC-6-H2, PC-6/350, PC-6/350-H1, PC-6/350-H2, PC-6/A, PC-6/A-
H1, PC-6/A-H2, PC-6/B-H2, PC-6/B1-H2, PC-6/B2-H2, PC-6/B2-H4, PC-6/C-
H2, and PC-6/C1-H2 airplanes. AD 2014-25-04 requires incorporating
revised airworthiness limitations into the AMM for your FAA-approved
maintenance program. AD 2014-25-04 resulted 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 FAA issued AD 2014-25-04 to address new life
limits for the fire extinguisher, which are required to ensure the
continued operational safety of the affected airplanes.

Actions Since AD 2014-25-04 Was Issued

    Since the FAA issued AD 2014-25-04, the European Union Aviation
Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member
States of the European Union, superseded its MCAI and issued EASA AD
No. 2018-0285, dated December 20, 2018, which was superseded with EASA
AD No. 2020-0120, dated May 27, 2020 (referred to after this as the
Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or ``the MCAI''). The
MCAI corrects an unsafe condition for all Pilatus Models PC-6, PC-6-H1,
PC-6-H2, PC-6/350, PC-6/350-H1, PC-6/350-H2, PC-6/A, PC-6/A-H1, PC-6/A-
H2, PC-6/B-H2, PC-6/B1-H2, PC-6/B2-H2, PC-6/B2-H4, PC-6/C-H2, and PC-6/
C1-H2 airplanes. The MCAI states that Pilatus has revised the
airworthiness limitations section for the subject airplanes to
introduce new data modules for two existing mandatory inspection tasks,
the inspection of fuselage wing fittings and the inspection of wing to
fuselage fittings. According to EASA, the new data modules require non-
destructive visual and eddy current inspections in place of the
previous requirement for a fluorescent dye-penetrant method.
    You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the internet at
https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No.
FAA-2020-0857.
    The FAA has determined that new and more restrictive airworthiness
limitations, new life limits, and new inspection procedures are
necessary, including for the stabilizer trim actuator and attachments,
fuselage wing fittings, and wing-to-fuselage fittings. The FAA is
proposing this AD to address reduced airplane controllability due to
possible loss of structural integrity of certain parts.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    Pilatus has issued PC-6 Airworthiness Limitations Document Number
02334, Revision 9, dated March 6, 2020; and Section 04-00-00,
Airworthiness Limitations of Chapter 04, Airworthiness Limitations, of
the Pilatus PC-6 Aircraft Maintenance

Manual Document Number 01975, Revision 29, dated February 28, 2020.
This service information contains airworthiness limitations for the
stabilizer trim actuator, fuselage wing fittings, and wing-to-fuselage
fittings. These documents are distinct since they apply to different
airplane models.
    Pilatus also issued Section 53-00-01, Chapter 53, Fuselage, and
Section 57-00-03, Chapter 57, Wings, of the Pilatus PC-6 Aircraft
Maintenance Manual Document Number 01975, Revision 29, dated February
28, 2020; and Appendix K and Appendix L of PC-6 Airworthiness
Limitations Document Number 02334, Revision 9, dated March 6, 2020.
This service information contains procedures for repetitive eddy
current inspections of the fuselage wing fittings and wing-to-fuselage
fittings.
    This service information is reasonably available because the
interested parties have access to it through their normal course of
business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

FAA's Determination

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

Proposed Requirements of This NPRM

    This proposed AD would retain none of the requirements of AD 2014-
25-04. This proposed AD would require revising the airworthiness
limitation section of the existing maintenance manual or instructions
for continued airworthiness to incorporate new airworthiness
limitations. The revised limitations include an eddy current inspection
of the fuselage wing fittings and wing-to-fuselage fittings. This
proposed AD would also require performing the eddy current inspection
of the fuselage wing fittings and wing-to-fuselage fittings first
within 1,100 hours time-in-service or 12 months, and thereafter at the
intervals specified in the revised limitations.
    This proposed AD would require revisions to the airworthiness
limitations section of an operator's maintenance documents to include
new inspections. Compliance with the airworthiness limitations section
is required by 14 CFR 91.403(c).

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this proposed AD would affect 30 airplanes
of U.S. registry. The FAA also estimates that it would take about 1
work-hour per product to comply with the basic requirements of this AD.
The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour.
    Based on these figures, the FAA estimates the cost of this AD on
U.S. operators would be $2,550, or $85 per product.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Proposed Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by:
0
a. Removing Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2014-25-04, Amendment 39-18045
(79 FR 73803, December 12, 2014); and
0
b. Adding the following new AD:

Pilatus Aircraft Limited: Docket No. FAA-2020-0857; Project
Identifier MCAI-2020-00707-A.

(a) Comments Due Date

    The FAA must receive comments by November 16, 2020.

(b) Affected ADs

    This AD replaces AD 2014-25-04, Amendment 39-18045 (79 FR 73803,
December 12, 2014) (``AD 2014-25-04'').

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Pilatus Aircraft Limited Models PC-6, PC-6-
H1, PC-6-H2, PC-6/350, PC-6/350-H1, PC-6/350-H2, PC-6/A, PC-6/A-H1,
PC-6/A-H2, PC-6/B-H2, PC-6/B1-H2, PC-6/B2-H2, PC-6/B2-H4, PC-6/C-H2,
and PC-6/C1-H2 airplanes, all serial numbers, certificated in any
category.

    Note 1 to paragraph (c): These airplanes may also be identified
as Fairchild Republic Company airplanes, Fairchild Industries
airplanes, Fairchild Heli Porter airplanes, or Fairchild-Hiller
Corporation airplanes.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 05, Time Limits/
Maintenance Checks.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by a determination that new and more
restrictive airworthiness limitations, new life limits, and new
inspection procedures are necessary. The FAA is issuing this AD to
address reduced airplane controllability due to possible loss of
structural integrity of certain parts.

(f) Airworthiness Limitations Revision

    Unless already done, before further flight, comply with the
actions specified in paragraphs (f)(1) through (3) of this AD.
    (1) For Models PC-6/B2-H2 and PC-6/B2-H4 airplanes, revise the
airworthiness limitations section (ALS) of the existing maintenance
manual or instructions for continued airworthiness (ICA) for your
airplane as follows:
    (i) Replace Section 04-00-00 with Section 04-00-00,
Airworthiness Limitations, of Chapter 04, Airworthiness Limitations,
of the

Pilatus PC-6 Aircraft Maintenance Manual Document Number 01975,
Revision 29, dated February 28, 2020.
    (ii) Add Section 53-00-01, Chapter 53, Fuselage, of the Pilatus
PC-6 Aircraft Maintenance Manual Document Number 01975, Revision 29,
dated February 28, 2020.
    (iii) Add Section 57-00-03, Chapter 57, Wings, of the Pilatus
PC-6 Aircraft Maintenance Manual Document Number 01975, Revision 29,
dated February 28, 2020.
    (2) For all airplanes specified in paragraph (c) of this AD
except Models PC-6/B2-H2 and PC-6/B2-H4 airplanes, revise the ALS of
the existing maintenance manual or ICA for your airplane as follows:
    (i) Replace the ALS with the Airworthiness Limitations Section
of Pilatus PC-6 Airworthiness Limitations Document Number 02334,
Revision 9, dated March 6, 2020.
    (ii) Add Appendix K of Pilatus PC-6 Airworthiness Limitations
Document Number 02334, Revision 9, dated March 6, 2020.
    (iii) Add Appendix L of Pilatus PC-6 Airworthiness Limitations
Document Number 02334, Revision 9, dated March 6, 2020.
    (3) For all airplanes specified in paragraph (c) of this AD,
after revising the ALS as required by paragraphs (f)(1) and (2) of
this AD, remove from service each part that has reached or exceeded
its new life limit.

(g) One-Time Eddy Current Inspection

    Unless already done, within 1,100 hours time-in-service after
the effective date of this AD or within 12 months after the
effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first, perform an eddy
current inspection of each fuselage wing fitting and each wing to
fuselage fitting using the procedures specified in paragraphs
(f)(1)(ii) and (iii) of this AD, or paragraphs (f)(2)(ii) and (iii)
of this AD, as applicable to your airplane. Thereafter, repeat the
eddy current inspection of each fuselage wing fitting and each wing
to fuselage fitting at the intervals specified in the ALS identified
in paragraph (f)(1)(i) or (f)(2)(i), as applicable to your airplane.

(h) No Alternative Actions or Intervals

    After the ALS has been revised as required by paragraph (f) of
this AD, no alternative inspection intervals or procedures may be
approved, except as provided in paragraph (i) of this AD.

(i) Other FAA AD Provisions

    Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
International Validation Branch, FAA, has the authority to approve
AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR
39.19. Send information to Doug Rudolph, Aerospace Engineer, FAA,
General Aviation & Rotorcraft Section, International Validation
Branch, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106;
telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane
to which the AMOC applies, notify your appropriate principal
inspector (PI) in the FAA Flight Standards District Office (FSDO),
or lacking a PI, your local FSDO.

(j) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information
(MCAI) European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD No. 2018-
0285, dated December 20, 2018, and EASA AD No. 2020-0120, dated May
27, 2020, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD
docket on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by searching
for and locating Docket No. FAA-2020-0857.
    (2) For more information about this AD, contact Doug Rudolph,
Aerospace Engineer, FAA, General Aviation & Rotorcraft Section,
International Validation Branch, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City,
Missouri 64106; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Pilatus Aircraft Ltd., Customer Support General Aviation, CH-6371
Stans, Switzerland; telephone: +41 848 24 7 365; email:
exception occurred on : 2020-21794.htm
exception occurred on : 2020-21794.htm
aircraft.com">[email protected]aircraft.com; internet: https://www.pilatus-aircraft.com/en. You may view this service information at the FAA,
Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 901
Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. For information on the
availability of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Issued on September 25, 2020.
Lance T. Gant,
Director, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2020-21794 Filed 10-1-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P