[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 196 (Wednesday, October 10, 2018)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 50862-50864]
[FR Doc No: 2018-21694]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2018-0826; Product Identifier 2018-NE-27-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Pratt & Whitney Division (PW) Turbofan
Engines

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for
certain Pratt & Whitney Division (PW) PW4074, PW4074D, PW4077, PW4077D,
PW4084D, PW4090, and PW4090-3 turbofan engines. This proposed AD was
prompted by an in-flight failure of a 1st stage low-pressure compressor
(LPC) blade. This proposed AD would require initial and repetitive
thermal acoustic imaging (TAI) inspections for cracks in certain 1st
stage LPC blades and removal of those blades that fail inspection. We
are proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these
products.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by November 26,
2018.

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 http://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 Pratt &
Whitney Division, 400 Main St., East Hartford, CT 06118; phone: 800-
565-0140; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>. You may view this service information at
the FAA, Engine and Propeller Standards Branch, 1200 District Avenue,
Burlington, MA 01803. 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 http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2018-
0826; 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, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other
information. The street address for Docket Operations (phone: 800-647-
5527) is listed above. Comments will be available in the AD docket
shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jo-Ann Theriault, Aerospace Engineer,
ECO Branch, FAA, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803; phone:
781-238-7105; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite 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-2018-0826;
Product Identifier 2018-NE-27-AD'' at the beginning of your comments.
We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic,
environmental, and energy aspects of this NPRM. We will consider all
comments received by the closing

date and may amend this NPRM because of those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this NPRM.

Discussion

    We learned of an uncontained 1st stage LPC blade failure and inlet
separation on a PW4000-112 series turbofan engine that occurred during
a revenue flight. The fracture in the blade initiated from a low cycle
fatigue crack in the airfoil. This blade failure was contained by the
engine case, but there was subsequent uncontained forward release of
the inlet cowl, causing damage to the aircraft and prompting an
emergency descent. This condition, if not addressed, could result in an
uncontained failure of a 1st stage LPC blade, damage to the engine, and
damage to the airplane.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    We reviewed PW Alert Service Bulletin (ASB) PW4G-112-A72-268,
Revision No. 7, dated September 6, 2018. This PW ASB describes
procedures for performing 1st stage LPC blade TAI inspections. 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

    We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all the relevant
information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is
likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design.

Proposed AD Requirements

    This proposed AD would require initial and repetitive TAI
inspections of 1st stage LPC blades and removal of blades that fail
inspection.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 120 engines installed on
airplanes of U.S. registry. We estimate the following costs to comply
with this proposed AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per      Cost on U.S.
                Action                         Labor cost           Parts cost        product        operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inspection............................  22 work-hours x $85 per               $0          $1,870        $224,400
                                         hour = $1,870.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We estimate the following costs to do any necessary replacements
that would be required based on the results of the proposed inspection.
We have no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need
these replacements:

                                               On-Condition Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per
                    Action                                 Labor cost               Parts cost        product
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Replace 1st stage LPC blade...................  0 work-hours x $85 per hour = $0        $125,000        $125,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.
    This AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the
Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by
FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order, issuance of ADs is
normally a function of the Compliance and Airworthiness Division, but
during this transition period, the Executive Director has delegated the
authority to issue ADs applicable to engines, propellers, and
associated appliances to the Manager, Engine and Propeller Standards
Branch, Policy and Innovation Division.

Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not
have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship
between the national government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed
regulation:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866,
    (2) Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
    (3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
    (4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Proposed Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13   [Amended]

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

Pratt & Whitney Division: Docket No. FAA-2018-0826; Product
Identifier 2018-NE-27-AD.

(a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by November 26, 2018.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to all Pratt & Whitney Division (PW) PW4074,
PW4074D, PW4077, PW4077D, PW4084D, PW4090, and PW4090-3 turbofan
engines, with 1st stage low-pressure compressor (LPC) blade, part
numbers 52A241, 55A801, 55A801-001, 55A901, 55A901-001, 56A201,
56A201-001, or 56A221, installed.

(d) Subject

    Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC) Code 7230, Turbine Engine
Compressor Section.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by an uncontained 1st stage LPC blade
failure. We are issuing this AD to prevent failure of the 1st stage
LPC blade. The unsafe condition, if not addressed, could result in
uncontained blade release, damage to the engine, and damage to the
airplane.

(f) Compliance

    Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified,
unless already done.

(g) Required Actions

    (1) After the effective date of this AD, perform an initial
Thermal Acoustic Imaging (TAI) inspection of the 1st stage LPC
blades as follows:
    (i) For 1st stage LPC blades that have accumulated fewer than
6,500 cycles since new (CSN), perform a TAI inspection the next time
the engine is separated at the M-flange, or prior to the 1st stage
LPC blade accumulating 7,000 CSN, whichever occurs first.
    (ii) For 1st stage LPC blades that have accumulated 6,500 or
more CSN, or if the cycles since the blade was new cannot be
determined, or if the cycles since the blade was last TAI inspected
cannot be determined, perform a TAI inspection within 500 flight
cycles or 180 days from the effective date of this AD, whichever
occurs first.
    (2) Thereafter, perform a TAI inspection of 1st stage LPC blades
every time the engine is separated at the M-flange and the blades
have accumulated 1,000 or more flight cycles since the last TAI
inspection, not to exceed 6,500 flight cycles since the last TAI
inspection.
    (3) If any 1st stage LPC blade fails the inspection required by
paragraph (g)(1) or (2) of this AD, remove the blade from service
and replace with a part eligible for installation before further
flight.
    (4) The TAI inspection and disposition required for compliance
with this AD must be accomplished by a method approved by the FAA.
You can find a vendor that has an FAA-approved TAI inspection listed
in the Vendor Services Section of PW Alert Service Bulletin (ASB)
PW4G-112-A72-268, Revision No. 7, dated September 6, 2018.

(h) Credit for Previous Actions

    You may take credit for the initial TAI inspection required by
paragraph (g)(1) of this AD if you performed the TAI inspection
before the effective date of this AD using PW ASB PW4G-112-A72-268,
Revision No. 6, dated August 5, 2014.

(i) Installation Prohibition

    Do not install any 1st stage LPC blade that has accumulated
1,000 or more flight cycles into any engine unless it has passed the
inspection required by paragraph (g)(1) of this AD.

(j) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, ECO Branch, FAA, has the authority to approve
AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR
39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your
principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as
appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the
certification office, send it to the attention of the person
identified in paragraph (k) of this AD. You may email your request
to: [email protected].
    (2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate
principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager
of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding
district office.

(k) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact Jo-Ann
Theriault, Aerospace Engineer, ECO Branch, FAA, 1200 District
Avenue, Burlington, MA, 01803; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax: 781-238-
7199; email: [email protected].
    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact Pratt
& Whitney Division, 400 Main St., East Hartford, CT 06118; phone:
800-565-0140; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>. You may view this referenced
service information at the FAA, Engine & Propeller Standards Branch,
1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA, 01803. For information on the
availability of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on September 28, 2018.
Robert J. Ganley,
Manager, Engine and Propeller Standards Branch, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2018-21694 Filed 10-9-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 55 (Thursday, March 23, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 14890-14892]
[FR Doc No: 2017-05781]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP17-58-000]

Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company, LLC; Notice of Intent To
Prepare an Environmental Assessment for the Proposed St. James Supply
Project and Request for Comments on Environmental Issues

    The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or
Commission) will prepare an environmental assessment (EA) that will
discuss the environmental impacts of the St. James Supply Project
involving construction and operation of facilities by Transcontinental
Gas Pipe Line Company, LLC (Transco) in St. James, Pointe Coupee, and
St. Helena Parishes, Louisiana. The Commission will use this EA in its
decision-making process to determine whether the project is in the
public convenience and necessity.
    This notice announces the opening of the scoping process the
Commission will use to gather input from the public and interested
agencies on the project. You can make a difference by providing us with
your specific comments or concerns about the project. Your comments
should focus on the potential environmental effects, reasonable
alternatives, and measures to avoid or lessen environmental impacts.
Your input will help the Commission staff determine what issues they
need to evaluate in the EA. To ensure that your comments are timely and
properly recorded, please send your comments so that the Commission
receives them in Washington, DC on or before April 14, 2017.
    If you sent comments on this project to the Commission before the
opening of this docket on February 6, 2017, you will need to file those
comments in Docket No. CP17-58-000 to ensure they are considered as
part of this proceeding.
    This notice is being sent to the Commission's current environmental
mailing list for this project. State and local government
representatives should notify their constituents of this proposed
project and encourage them to comment on their areas of concern.
    If you are a landowner receiving this notice, a pipeline company
representative may contact you about the acquisition of an easement to
construct, operate, and maintain the proposed facilities. The company
would seek to negotiate a mutually acceptable agreement. However, if
the Commission approves the project, that approval conveys with it the
right of eminent domain. Therefore, if easement negotiations fail to
produce an agreement, the pipeline company could initiate condemnation
proceedings where compensation would be determined in accordance with
state law.
    Transco provided landowners with a fact sheet prepared by the FERC
entitled ``An Interstate Natural Gas Facility On My Land? What Do I
Need To Know?'' This fact sheet addresses a number of typically asked
questions, including the use of eminent domain and how to participate
in the Commission's proceedings. It is also available for viewing on
the FERC Web site (www.ferc.gov).

Public Participation

    For your convenience, there are three methods you can use to submit
your comments to the Commission. The Commission encourages electronic
filing of comments and has expert staff available to assist you at
(202) 502-8258 or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please carefully follow these
instructions so that your comments are properly recorded.
    (1) You can file your comments electronically using the eComment
feature on the Commission's Web site (www.ferc.gov) under the link to
Documents and Filings. This is an easy method for submitting brief,
text-only comments on a project;
    (2) You can file your comments electronically by using the eFiling
feature on the Commission's Web site (www.ferc.gov) under the link to
Documents and Filings. With eFiling, you can provide comments in a
variety of formats by attaching them as a file with your submission.
New eFiling users must first create an account by clicking on
``eRegister.'' If you are filing a comment on a particular project,
please select ``Comment on a Filing'' as the filing type; or
    (3) You can file a paper copy of your comments by mailing them to
the following address. Be sure to reference the project docket number
(CP17-58-000) with your submission: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary,
Federal Energy

Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Room 1A, Washington, DC
20426.

Summary of the Proposed Project

    The St. James Supply Project would deliver 161,500 dekatherms per
day of firm transportation capacity from Transco's existing mainline
Compressor Station 65 in St. Helena Parish, Louisiana to the planned
Yuhuang Chemical Plant in St. James Parish, Louisiana. Transco would
use its existing Southeast Lateral Pipeline (SELA) to deliver gas to
the chemical plant. Proposed construction would provide bi-directional
flow of natural gas on the SELA pipeline and a secondary source of
natural gas to the chemical plant using an existing interconnection on
Transco's mainline with the Texas Eastern Transmission Company Pipeline
in Pointe Coupee Parish, Louisiana.
    The St. James Supply Project would consist of the following
facilities:
     0.7 mile of 20-inch-diameter pipeline;
     one new pig receiver site; \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ A ``pig'' is a tool that the pipeline company inserts into
and pushes through the pipeline for cleaning the pipeline,
conducting internal inspections, or other purposes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     two new meter and regulating (M&R) stations (Old River
Road and Cajun Road M&R Stations);
     a new interconnection to the chemical plant site;
     one new valve and piping to tie the Old River Road M&R
Station into the SELA pipeline; and
     piping and valve modifications at existing Transco
Compressor Stations 63 and 65.
    The general location of the project facilities is shown in appendix
1.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The appendices referenced in this notice will not appear in
the Federal Register. Copies of appendices were sent to all those
receiving this notice in the mail and are available at www.ferc.gov
using the link called ``eLibrary'' or from the Commission's Public
Reference Room, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, or call
(202) 502-8371. For instructions on connecting to eLibrary, refer to
the last page of this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Land Requirements for Construction

    Construction of the proposed facilities would disturb about 77.8
acres of land for the aboveground facilities and the pipeline.
Following construction, Transco would maintain about 12.0 acres for
permanent operation of the project's facilities; the remaining acreage
would be restored and revert to former uses.

The EA Process

    The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires the
Commission to take into account the environmental impacts that could
result from an action whenever it considers the issuance of a
Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity. NEPA also requires us
\3\ to discover and address concerns the public may have about
proposals. This process is referred to as ``scoping.'' The main goal of
the scoping process is to focus the analysis in the EA on the important
environmental issues. By this notice, the Commission requests public
comments on the scope of the issues to address in the EA. We will
consider all filed comments during the preparation of the EA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ ``We,'' ``us,'' and ``our'' refer to the environmental staff
of the Commission's Office of Energy Projects.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the EA we will discuss impacts that could occur as a result of
the construction and operation of the proposed project under these
general headings:
     Geology and soils;
     water resources and wetlands;
     fisheries, vegetation, and wildlife;
     endangered and threatened species;
     land use;
     cultural resources;
     air quality and noise;
     public safety; and
     cumulative impacts.
    We will also evaluate reasonable alternatives to the proposed
project or portions of the project, and make recommendations on how to
lessen or avoid impacts on the various resource areas.
    The EA will present our independent analysis of the issues. The EA
will be available in the public record through eLibrary. Depending on
the comments received during the scoping process, we may also publish
and distribute the EA to the public for an allotted comment period. We
will consider all comments on the EA before making our recommendations
to the Commission. To ensure we have the opportunity to consider and
address your comments, please carefully follow the instructions in the
Public Participation section, beginning on page 2.
    With this notice, we are asking agencies with jurisdiction by law
and/or special expertise with respect to the environmental issues of
this project to formally cooperate with us in the preparation of the
EA.\4\ Agencies that would like to request cooperating agency status
should follow the instructions for filing comments provided under the
Public Participation section of this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The Council on Environmental Quality regulations addressing
cooperating agency responsibilities are at Title 40, Code of Federal
Regulations, Part 1501.6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Consultations Under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation
Act

    In accordance with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's
implementing regulations for section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act, we are using this notice to initiate consultation
with the applicable State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), and to
solicit their views and those of other government agencies, interested
Indian tribes, and the public on the project's potential effects on
historic properties.\5\ We will define the project-specific Area of
Potential Effects (APE) in consultation with the SHPO as the project
develops. On natural gas facility projects, the APE at a minimum
encompasses all areas subject to ground disturbance (examples include
construction right-of-way, contractor/pipe storage yards, compressor
stations, and access roads). Our EA for this project will document our
findings on the impacts on historic properties and summarize the status
of consultations under section 106.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's regulations
are at Title 36, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 800. Those
regulations define historic properties as any prehistoric or
historic district, site, building, structure, or object included in
or eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic
Places.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Environmental Mailing List

    The environmental mailing list includes federal, state, and local
government representatives and agencies; elected officials;
environmental and public interest groups; Native American Tribes; other
interested parties; and local libraries and newspapers. This list also
includes all affected landowners (as defined in the Commission's
regulations) who are potential right-of-way grantors, whose property
may be used temporarily for project purposes, or who own homes within
certain distances of aboveground facilities, and anyone who submits
comments on the project. We will update the environmental mailing list
as the analysis proceeds to ensure that we send the information related
to this environmental review to all individuals, organizations, and
government entities interested in and/or potentially affected by the
proposed project.
    If we publish and distribute the EA, copies will be sent to the
environmental mailing list for public review and comment. If you would
prefer to receive a paper copy of the document instead of the CD
version or would like to remove your name from the mailing list, please
return the attached Information Request (appendix 2).

Becoming an Intervenor

    In addition to involvement in the EA scoping process, you may want
to become an ``intervenor'' which is an official party to the
Commission's proceeding. Intervenors play a more formal role in the
process and are able to file briefs, appear at hearings, and be heard
by the courts if they choose to appeal the Commission's final ruling.
An intervenor formally participates in the proceeding by filing a
request to intervene. Instructions for becoming an intervenor are in
the ``Document-less Intervention Guide'' under the ``e-filing'' link on
the Commission's Web site. Motions to intervene are more fully
described at http://www.ferc.gov/resources/guides/how-to/intervene.asp.

Additional Information

    Additional information about the project is available from the
Commission's Office of External Affairs, at (866) 208-FERC, or on the
FERC Web site at www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary'' link. Click on the
eLibrary link, click on ``General Search'' and enter the docket number,
excluding the last three digits in the Docket Number field (i.e., CP17-
058). Be sure you have selected an appropriate date range. For
assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll free at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or for TTY,
contact<PHONE_NUMBER>. The eLibrary link also provides access to the
texts of formal documents issued by the Commission, such as orders,
notices, and rulemakings.
    In addition, the Commission offers a free service called
eSubscription which allows you to keep track of all formal issuances
and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time
you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with
notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to
the documents. Go to www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp.
    Finally, public sessions or site visits will be posted on the
Commission's calendar located at www.ferc.gov/EventCalendar/EventsList.aspx along with other related information.

    Dated: March 17, 2017.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-05781 Filed 3-22-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: April 23, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 79)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 21834-21839]
[DOCID:fr23ap08-10]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0872; FRL-8360-4]

Cyazofamid; Pesticide Tolerances

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes a tolerance for combined residues
of cyazofamid and its metabloite CCIM in or on carrot, roots.
Interregional Research Project Number 4 (IR-4) requested this tolerance
under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).

DATES: This regulation is effective April 23, 2008. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received on or before June 23, 2008, 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-2007-0872. To access the
electronic docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, select ``Advanced
Search,'' then ``Docket Search.'' Insert the docket ID number where
indicated and select the ``Submit'' button. Follow the instructions on
the regulations.gov website to view the docket index or access
available documents. All documents in the docket are listed in the
docket index available in 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: Susan Stanton, 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 Access Electronic Copies of this Document?

    In addition to accessing an electronic copy of this Federal
Register document through the electronic docket at http://
www.regulations.gov, you may access this Federal Register document
electronically through the EPA Internet under the ``Federal Register''
listings at http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr. You may also access a
frequently updated electronic version of EPA's tolerance regulations at
40 CFR part 180 through the Government Printing Office's pilot e-CFR
site at http://www.gpoaccess.gov/ecfr.

C. Can I File an Objection or Hearing Request?

    Under section 408(g) of FFDCA, 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-2007-0872 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 23, 2008.
    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-2007-0872, by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
     Mail: Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) Regulatory Public
Docket (7502P), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001.
     Delivery: OPP Regulatory Public Docket (7502P),
Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South
Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. Deliveries are only
accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation (8:30 a.m. to 4
p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays). Special
arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. The
Docket Facility telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

II. Petition for Tolerance

    In the Federal Register of September 28, 2007 (72 FR 55204) (FRL-
8147-1), 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
7E7244) by Interregional Research Project Number 4 (IR-4), 500 College
Road East, Suite 201W, Princeton, NJ 08540. The petition requested that
40 CFR 180.601 be amended by establishing a tolerance for combined
residues of the fungicide cyazofamid, 4-chloro-2-cyano-N,N-dimethyl-5-
(4-methylphenyl)-1H-imidazole-1-sulfonamide, and its metabolite CCIM,
4-chloro-5-(4-methylphenyl)-1H-imidazole-2-carbonitrile, expressed as
cyazofamid, in or on carrot, roots at 0.06 parts per million (ppm).
That notice referenced a summary of the petition prepared by ISK
Biosciences Corporation, 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 has
modified the tolerance level for carrot roots. The reason for this
change is 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 combined residues of cyazofamid and its metabolite CCIM
on carrot, roots at 0.09 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.
    Cyazofamid has a low order of acute toxicity via the oral, dermal
and inhalation routes of exposure. Cyazofamid produces minimal but
reversible eye irritation, is a slight dermal irritant and is a weak
dermal sensitizer. In subchronic toxicity studies in rats cyazofamid
exhibited mild or low toxicity with the kidney being the primary target
organ. Kidney effects included an increased number of ``basophilic
kidney tubules'' and mild increases in urinary volume, pH, and protein.
No adverse kidney effects or any other toxicity findings were noted in
chronic toxicity studies in rats. Similarly, cyazofamid's overall
toxicity profile in dogs seems to be limited. In both the 13 week and
one year dog studies, there were no major toxicity findings up to a
dose of 1,000 milligrams/kilogram body weight/day (mg/kg/bwt day). The
only possible effect was increased cysts in parathyroids of both sexes
and the pituitary in females observed in the high dose groups of the
one year study.
    Skin lesions, which may be due to systemic allergy, were observed
in the males of the 18 month mouse carcinogenicity study. At the high
dose, approaching 1,000 mg/kg/day, male mice suffered hair loss due to
scratching, which was confirmed at necropsy by increased incidence of
body sores (head, neck, trunk, limb, and/or tail) and was correlated
histologically with an increased incidence of acanthosis (hyperplasia),
chronic active dermatitis, ulceration, and premature death. The
sulfonamide moiety in the cyanoimidazole ring might have rendered
cyazofamid an allergen, albeit a weak one. This is supported by the
findings that cyazofamid is a moderate irritant in the primary rabbit
skin test and is a positive weak sensitizer in the guinea pig skin
maximization test. There were no skin allergies in the rat feeding
study, which may be due to possible species variation.
    There were no maternal or developmental effects observed in the
prenatal developmental toxicity study in rabbits and no maternal,
reproductive or offspring effects in the 2-generation reproduction
study in rats. There was some evidence of increased susceptibility
following in utero exposure of rats in the prenatal developmental
toxicity study. At the highest dose tested (HDT) (1,000 mg/kg/day),
developmental effects (increased incidence of bent ribs) were observed
in the absence of maternal toxicity.
    There were no indications of treatment-related adverse
neurotoxicity findings including clinical signs, qualitative or
quantitative neurobehavioral effects, brain weight, or gross/
microscopic pathology in the acute neurotoxicity study and no evidence
of neurotoxicity in other available studies for cyazofamid.
    There was no evidence of carcinogenicity in the rat and mouse
carcinogenicity studies and no evidence that cyazofamid is mutagenic in
several in vivo and in vitro studies. Based on the results of these
studies, EPA has classified cyazofamid as ``not likely to be
carcinogenic to humans.''
    Specific information on the studies received and the nature of the
adverse effects caused by cyazofamid 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 Human Health Risk Assessment to Support
the Registration of Cyazofamid for Use on Carrot at pages 10 to 17 in
docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0872.

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 cyazofamid used for
human risk assessment can be found at http://www.regulations.gov in
document Human Health Risk Assessment to Support the Registration of
Cyazofamid for Use on Carrot at pages 18 to 21 in docket ID number EPA-
HQ-OPP-2007-0872.

C. Exposure Assessment

    1. Dietary exposure from food and feed uses. In evaluating dietary
exposure to cyazofamid, EPA considered exposure under the petitioned-
for tolerances as well as all existing cyazofamid tolerances in 40 CFR
180.601. EPA assessed dietary exposures from cyazofamid 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. EPA identified such an
effect (increased incidence of bent ribs in the rat prenatal
developmental toxicity study) for the population subgroup, females, 13
to 50 years old; however, no such effect was identified for the general
population, including infants and children.
    In estimating acute dietary exposure, EPA used food consumption
information from the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA)
1994-1996 Nationwide Continuing Surveys of Food Intake by Individuals
(CSFII). As to residue levels in food, EPA assumed tolerance-level
residues and 100 PCT for all existing and new uses of cyazofamid.
Default processing factors were set to 1x based on the results of
processing studies indicating that residues of cyazofamid do not
concentrate in processed commodities.
    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 in the acute dietary exposure

assessment, EPA assumed tolerance-level residues and 100 PCT for all
existing and new uses of cyazofamid and processing factors of 1x for
all processed commodities.
    iii. Cancer. Based on the results of carcinogenicity studies in
rats and mice, EPA classified cyazofamid as ``not likely to be
carcinogenic to humans.'' Therefore, a cancer exposure assessment was
not conducted.
    iv. Anticipated residue and PCT information. EPA did not use
anticipated residue or PCT information in the dietary assessment for
cyazofamid. Tolerance-level residues and 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 cyazofamid in drinking water. These simulation models
take into account data on the physical, chemical, and fate/transport
characteristics of cyazofamid. 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.
    Available environmental fate studies suggest cyazofamid is not very
mobile and quickly degrades into a number of degradation products under
different environmental conditions. Among the three major degradates
for cyazofamid (CCIM, CCIM-AM, and CTCA), the two terminal ones are
CCIM and CTCA. The highest estimated drinking water concentrations
resulted from modeling which assumed application of 100% molar
conversion of the parent into the terminal degradate CTCA. EPA used
these estimates of CTCA in its dietary exposure assessments, a
conservative approach that likely overestimates the exposure
contribution from drinking water. Based on the Pesticide Root Zone
Model/Exposure Analysis Modeling System (PRZM/EXAMS) and Screening
Concentration in Ground Water (SCI-GROW) models, the estimated drinking
water concentrations (EDWCs) of CTCA for acute exposures are estimated
to be 136 parts per billion (ppb) for surface water and 2.18 ppb for
ground water; the EDWCs of CTCA for chronic exposures for non-cancer
assessments are estimated to be 133 ppb for surface water and 2.18 ppb
for ground water.
    Modeled estimates of drinking water concentrations were directly
entered into the dietary exposure model. For acute dietary risk
assessment, the water concentration value of 136 ppb was used to assess
the contribution to drinking water. For chronic dietary risk
assessment, the water concentration of value 133 ppb was used to assess
the contribution to drinking water.
    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).
    Cyazofamid is currently registered for the following uses that
could result in residential exposures: Disease control on
professionally managed turf areas, such as golf courses and college/
professional sports fields. EPA assessed residential exposure using the
following assumptions: Application by homeowners to residential turf is
prohibited. Therefore, non-occupational (i.e., residential) handler
exposure is not expected and was not assessed. Short and intermediate
term post-application dermal exposure is possible for recreational
golfers or players of various sports who use college/professional
athletic fields after cyazofamid has been applied. EPA assessed post-
application exposure of adult golfers as well as young golfers
(children 6-12 and children 3-5 years old). Post-application exposures
on college/professional sports fields were assessed only for adults,
since children are not expected to play on these types of athletic
fields. The post-application exposure assessment was conducted using
conservative assumptions, and the resulting exposure estimates are
considered to represent high-end exposures.
    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 cyazofamid to share a common mechanism of
toxicity with any other substances, and cyazofamid does not appear to
produce a toxic metabolite produced by other substances. For the
purposes of this tolerance action, therefore, EPA has assumed that
cyazofamid 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 pre-natal
and post-natal 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
safety factor (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. Pre-natal and post-natal sensitivity. The pre- and post-natal
toxicology database for cyazofamid includes rat and rabbit
developmental toxicity studies and a 2-generation reproduction toxicity
study in rats. In the prenatal developmental toxicity study in rabbits,
there were no maternal or developmental effects at any dose up to the
limit dose of 1,000 mg/kg/day. Similarly, in the 2-generation
reproduction study, the HDT (>1,000 mg/kg/day) did not cause maternal
systemic, reproductive or offspring toxicity. There was some evidence
of increased susceptibility following in utero exposure of rats in the
prenatal developmental toxicity study. At the HDT (1,000 mg/kg/day),
developmental effects (increased incidence of bent ribs) were observed
in the absence of maternal toxicity.
    EPA concluded that the concern is low for the quantitative
susceptibility seen in the rat developmental toxicity study and that
there are no residual uncertainties because:
    i. The developmental effect is well identified with clear NOAEL/
LOAEL;
    ii. The developmental effect (increased bent ribs) is a reversible
variation rather than a malformation;
    iii. The developmental effect is seen only at the limit dose of
1,000 mg/kg/day;
    iv. This endpoint is used to establish the acute RfD for Females
13-49; and
    v. The overall toxicity profile indicates that cyazofamid is not a
very toxic compound.
    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 cyazofamid is complete.

    ii. There is no indication that cyazofamid 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 cyazofamid results in increased
susceptibility in in utero rabbits in the prenatal developmental study
or in young rats in the 2-generation reproduction study. Although there
is quantitative evidence of increased susceptibility in the pre-natal
developmental study in rats, the degree of concern for pre-natal
toxicity is low and the Agency did not identify any residual
uncertainties after establishing toxicity endpoints and traditional UFs
to be used in the risk assessment of cyazofamid.
    iv. There are no residual uncertainties identified in the exposure
databases. 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 cyazofamid in drinking water. EPA used similarly
conservative assumptions to assess post-application exposure of
children (young golfers). These assessments will not underestimate the
exposure and risks posed by cyazofamid.

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. Using the exposure assumptions discussed in this unit
for acute exposure, the acute dietary exposure from food and water to
cyazofamid will occupy <1% of the aPAD for females 13-50 years old, the
population group of concern for acute effects. Cyazofamid is not
expected to pose an acute risk to the general population, including
infants and children.
    2. Chronic risk. Using the exposure assumptions described in this
unit for chronic exposure, EPA has concluded that chronic exposure to
cyazofamid from food and water will utilize 1.1% of the cPAD for
infants less than 1 year old, the population group receiving the
greatest exposure. Based on the explanation in Unit III.C.3., regarding
residential use patterns, chronic residential exposure to residues of
cyazofamid is not expected.
    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). Cyazofamid is
currently registered for uses that could result in short-term
residential exposure and the Agency has determined that it is
appropriate to aggregate chronic exposure through food and water with
short-term residential exposures to cyazofamid.
    Using the exposure assumptions described in this unit for short-
term exposures, EPA has concluded the combined short-term food, water,
and residential exposures aggregated result in aggregate MOEs of 330
for adults, 7,100 for children 3-5 years old and 9,100 for children 6-
12 years old. The aggregate MOE for adults includes post-application
exposures on athletic fields treated with cyazofamid, the worst-case
post-application exposure scenario. The aggregate MOEs for children
include post-application exposure of young golfers on treated golf
courses.
    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). Cyazofamid is currently registered for uses that could result
in intermediate-term residential exposure and the Agency has determined
that it is appropriate to aggregate chronic exposure to cyazofamid
through food and water with intermediate-term exposures for cyazofamid.
Since the endpoints and points of departure (NOAELs) are identical for
short and intermediate-term exposures, the aggregate MOEs for
intermediate-term exposure are the same as those for short-term
exposure (330 for adults, 7,100 for children 3-5 years old and 9,100
for children 6-12 years old).
    5. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. population. EPA has classified
cyazofamid into the category ``Not likely to be carcinogenic to
humans''. Cyazofamid 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 cyazofamid residues.

IV. Other Considerations

A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    Adequate analytical methodology is available to enforce the
tolerance on carrot roots. Cyazofamid and the metabolite CCIM are
completely recovered (>80% recovery) using FDA's Multi-Residue Protocol
D (without cleanup). In addition, the petitioner has submitted the
results of an Independent Laboratory Validation (ILV) for an HPLC/UV
method (high performance liquid chromatography method using an ultra
violet detector) which can be used as a single analyte confirmatory
method. The methods 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 no maximum residue limits (MRLs) established by Codex,
Canada or Mexico for cyazofamid.

C. Revisions to Petitioned-For Tolerances

    Based upon review of the data supporting the petition, EPA
determined that the proposed tolerance on ``carrot, roots'' should be
increased from 0.06 ppm to 0.09 ppm. EPA revised the tolerance level
based on analysis of the residue field trial data using the Agency's
Tolerance Spreadsheet in accordance with the Agency's Guidance for
Setting Pesticide Tolerances Based on Field Trial Data.

V. Conclusion

    Therefore, a tolerance is established for combined residues of
cyazofamid, 4-chloro-2-cyano-N,N-dimethyl-5-(4-methylphenyl)-1H-
imidazole-1-sulfonamide, and its metabolite CCIM, 4-chloro-5-(4-
methylphenyl)-1H-imidazole-2-carbonitrile, expressed as cyazofamid, in
or on carrot, roots at 0.09 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, 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: April 10, 2008.
Donald R. Stubbs,
Acting 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 180.601 is amended by alphabetically adding the following
commodity to the table in paragraph (a) to read as follows:

Sec.  180.601  Cyazofamid; tolerances for residues.

    (a) * * *

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      Commodity                        Parts per million
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carrot, roots........................................               0.09
                                * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *

[FR Doc. E8-8371 Filed 4-22-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-S


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 236 (Monday, December 10, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 63497]
[FR Doc No: 2018-26644]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER19-427-000]

LUZ Solar Partners IX, Ltd.; Supplemental Notice That Initial
Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204
Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of
LUZ Solar Partners IX, Ltd.'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 December 24, 2018.
    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
5 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 electronic review in the
Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an
eSubscription link on the website that enables subscribers to receive
email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s).
For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY,
call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: December 3, 2018.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-26644 Filed 12-7-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: November 30, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 229)]
[Notices]
[Page 74145-74146]
[DOCID:fr30no10-155]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2010-0161; Notice 1]

Receipt of Petition for Decision That Nonconforming 2010 Harley
Davidson FL Series Motorcycles Are Eligible for Importation

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of receipt of petition for decision that nonconforming
2010 Harley Davidson FL Series Motorcycles are eligible for
importation.

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

SUMMARY: This document announces receipt by the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) of a petition for a decision that
2010 Harley Davidson FL Series Motorcycles that were not originally
manufactured to comply with all applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety
Standards (FMVSS) are eligible for importation into the United States
because (1) they are substantially similar to vehicles that were
originally manufactured for sale in the United States and that were
certified by their manufacturer as complying with the safety standards,
and (2) they are capable of being readily altered to conform to the
standards.

DATES: The closing date for comments on the petition is December 30,
2010.

ADDRESSES: Comments should refer to the docket and notice numbers above
and be submitted by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility: U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building Ground
Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001
     Hand Delivery or Courier: West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Instructions: Comments must be written in the English language, and
be no greater than 15 pages in length, although there is no limit to
the length of necessary attachments to the comments. If comments are
submitted in hard copy form, please ensure that two copies are
provided. If you wish to receive confirmation that your comments were
received, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard with the
comments. Note that all comments received will be posted without change
to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided. Please see the Privacy Act heading below.
    Privacy Act: Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all
comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf
of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's
complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on
April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78).
    How to Read Comments submitted to the Docket: You may read the
comments received by Docket Management at the address and times given
above. You may also view the documents from the Internet at http://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for accessing the
dockets. The docket ID number and title of this notice are shown at the
heading of this document notice. Please note that even after the
comment closing date, we will continue to file relevant information in
the Docket as it becomes available. Further, some people may submit
late comments. Accordingly, we recommend that you periodically search
the Docket for new material.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Coleman Sachs, Office of Vehicle
Safety Compliance, NHTSA<PHONE_NUMBER>).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    Under 49 U.S.C. 30141(a)(1)(A), a motor vehicle that was not
originally manufactured to conform to all applicable FMVSS shall be
refused admission into the United States unless NHTSA has decided that
the motor vehicle is substantially similar to a motor vehicle
originally manufactured for sale in the United States, certified under
49 U.S.C. 30115, and of the same model year as the model of the motor
vehicle to be compared, and is capable of being readily altered to
conform to all applicable FMVSS.
    Petitions for eligibility decisions may be submitted by either
manufacturers or importers who have registered with NHTSA pursuant to
49 CFR part 592. As specified in 49 CFR 593.7, NHTSA publishes notice
in the Federal Register of each petition that it receives, and affords
interested persons an opportunity to comment on the petition. At the
close of the comment period, NHTSA decides, on the basis of the
petition and any comments that it has received, whether the vehicle is
eligible for importation. The agency then publishes this decision in
the Federal Register.
    Masa Auto Wholesalers of Chandler, Arizona (Masa) (Registered
Importer 94-018) has petitioned NHTSA to decide whether non-U.S.
certified 2010 Harley Davidson FL series motorcycles are eligible for
importation into the United States. The vehicles that Masa believes are
substantially similar are 2010 Harley Davidson FL series motorcycles
that were manufactured for sale in the United States and certified by
their manufacturer as conforming to all applicable FMVSS.
    The petitioner claims that it carefully compared non-U.S. certified
2010 Harley Davidson FL series motorcycles to their U.S. certified
counterparts, and found the vehicles to be substantially similar with
respect to compliance with most FMVSS.
    Masa submitted information with its petition intended to
demonstrate that non-U.S. certified 2010 Harley Davidson FL series
motorcycles, as originally manufactured, conform to many FMVSS in the
same manner as their U.S. certified counterparts, or are capable of
being readily altered to conform to those standards. Specifically, the
petitioner claims that non-U.S. certified 2010 Harley Davidson FL
series motorcycles are identical to their U.S. certified counterparts
with respect to compliance with Standard Nos. 106 Brake Hoses, 111
Rearview Mirrors, 116 Brake Fluid, 119 New Pneumatic Tires for Vehicles
other than Passenger Cars, and 122 Motorcycle Brake Systems.
    The petitioner further contends that the vehicles are capable of
being readily altered to meet the following standards, in the manner
indicated below:
    Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated
Equipment: Installation of the following U.S.-certified components on
vehicles not already so equipped: (a) Headlamp; (b) front and rear
side-mounted reflex reflectors; (c) rear-mounted reflex reflector; (d)
rear turn signal lamps; (e) stoplamp; (f) taillamp; and (g) license
plate lamp.
    Standard No. 120 Tire Selection and Rims for Vehicles other than
Passenger

Cars: Installation of a tire information placard.
    Standard No. 123 Motorcycle Controls and Displays: Installation of
a U.S.-model speedometer/odometer unit to meet the requirements of this
standard.
    Standard No. 205 Glazing Materials: Inspection of all vehicles, and
removal of noncompliant glazing or replacement of the glazing with
U.S.-certified components on vehicles that are not already so equipped.
    All comments received before the close of business on the closing
date indicated above will be considered, and will be available for
examination in the docket at the above addresses both before and after
that date. To the extent possible, comments filed after the closing
date will also be considered. Notice of final action on the petition
will be published in the Federal Register pursuant to the authority
indicated below.

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 30141(a)(1)(A) and (b)(1); 49 CFR 593.8;
delegations of authority at 49 CFR 1.50 and 501.8.

    Issued on: November 23, 2010.
Claude H. Harris,
Acting Associate Administrator for Enforcement.
[FR Doc. 2010-30012 Filed 11-29-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


			  UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

		        DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

			  OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

			          WASHINGTON, D.C.

Issued by the Department of Transportation on April 21, 2006

NOTICE OF ACTION TAKEN -- DOCKET OST-01-9932

________________________________________________________________________
___________________ This serves as notice to the public of the action
described below, taken by the Department official indicated (no
additional confirming order will be issued in this matter).

Application of   US AIRWAYS, INC.,    filed   4/14/2005,  to:

XX Renew and amend for two years exemption under 49 U.S.C. 40109 to
provide the following service:

Scheduled foreign air transportation of persons, property, and mail
between a point or points in the United States and Antigua, and beyond
Antigua.  The carrier also requests authority to integrate this
authority with its existing certificate and exemption authority.

Applicant rep: Patrick R. Rizzi<PHONE_NUMBER> DOT Analyst: Gerald
Caolo<PHONE_NUMBER>

D I S P O S I T I O N

XX  Granted, in part (subject to conditions, see below)

XX  Dismissed, in part (request for route integration authority)

The authority granted was effective when taken: April 21, 2006 through
April 21, 2008,

Action taken by: 	 Paul L. Gretch

			Office of International Aviation

XX   The authority granted is consistent with the U.S.-U.K. Air Services
Agreement, to which Antigua and Barbuda acceded upon their independence,
and with the overall state of aviation relations between the United
States and Antigua.

Except to the extent exempted or waived, this authority is subject to
the terms, conditions, and limitations indicated:

 	   XX  Holder’s certificates of public convenience and necessity

	   XX  Standard Exemption Conditions (attached)

________________________________________________________________________
___________________

Conditions:  The authority granted to serve beyond points is limited to
countries with which the United States has signed open-skies agreements
and/or countries for which the carrier holds authority to serve under
certificates or exemptions issued by the Department.

Remarks:  The authority for which US Airways requested renewal expired
June 20, 2005, but was kept in force pursuant to the provisions of the
Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 558(c), as implemented by 14 CFR
Part 377, pending action on its timely-filed renewal application.

________________________________________________________________________
_______

On the basis of data officially noticeable under Rule 24(g) of the
Department’s regulations, we found the applicant qualified to provide
the services authorized.

Under authority assigned by the Department in its regulations, 14 CFR
Part 385, we found that (1) our action was consistent with Department
policy; (2) grant of the application was consistent with the public
interest; and (3) grant of the authority would not constitute a major
regulatory action under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975.
To the extent not granted, we denied all requests in the referenced
Docket.  We may amend, modify, or revoke the authority granted in this
Notice at any time without hearing at our discretion.

Persons entitled to petition the Department for review of the action set
forth in this Notice under the Department’s regulations, 14 CFR
§385.30, may file their petitions within seven (7) days after the date
of issuance of this Notice.  This action was effective when taken, and
the filing of a petition for review will not alter such effectiveness.

An electronic version of this document is available on the World Wide
Web at:

http://dms.dot.gov//reports/reports_aviation.asp

U.S. Carrier Exemption Conditions

In the conduct of the operations authorized, the U.S. carrier
applicant(s) shall:

(1)  Hold at all times effective operating authority from the government
of each country served;

(2)  Comply with applicable requirements concerning oversales contained
in 14 CFR 250 (for scheduled operations, if authorized);

(3)  Comply with the requirements for reporting data contained in 14 CFR
241;

(4)  Comply with requirements for minimum insurance coverage, and for
certifying that coverage to the Department, contained in 14 CFR 205;

(5)  Except as specifically exempted or otherwise provided for in a
Department Order, comply with the requirements of 14 CFR 203, concerning
waiver of Warsaw Convention liability limits and defenses;

(6)  Comply with all applicable requirements of the Federal Aviation
Administration and with all applicable U.S. Government requirements
concerning security, including, but not limited to, 49 CFR Part 1544.
To assure compliance with all applicable U.S. Government requirements
concerning security, the holder shall, before commencing any new service
(including charter flights) to or from a foreign airport, contact its
International Principal Security Inspector (IPSI) to advise the IPSI of
its plans and to find out whether the Transportation Security
Administration has determined that security is adequate to allow such
airport(s) to be served; and

(7)  Comply with such other reasonable terms, conditions, and
limitations required by the public interest as may be prescribed by the
Department of Transportation, with all applicable orders and regulations
of other U.S. agencies and courts, and with all applicable laws of the
United States.

The authority granted shall be effective only during the period when the
holder is in compliance with the conditions imposed above.

05/2004

 US Airways seeks to amend its existing U.S.-Antigua authority by adding
authority beyond Antigua, and also, route integration authority.

 The carrier’s request for route integration authority has been
superseded by Order 2006-1-1, where the Department awarded the carrier a
blanket route integration certificate.

 PAGE

 PAGE   2


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 238 (Thursday, December 11, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 73619]
[FR Doc No: 2014-29115]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4202-DR; [Docket ID FEMA-2014-0003]

Nevada; Major Disaster and Related Determinations

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This is a notice of the Presidential declaration of a major
disaster for the State of Nevada (FEMA-4202-DR), dated November 5,
2014, and related determinations.

DATES: Effective Date: November 5, 2014.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dean Webster, Office of Response and
Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW.,
Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that, in a letter
dated November 5, 2014, the President issued a major disaster
declaration under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster
Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq. (the
``Stafford Act''), as follows:
    I have determined that the damage in certain areas of the State
of Nevada resulting from severe storms and flooding during the
period of September 7-9, 2014, is of sufficient severity and
magnitude to warrant a major disaster declaration under the Robert
T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C.
5121 et seq. (the ``Stafford Act''). Therefore, I declare that such
a major disaster exists in the State of Nevada.
    In order to provide Federal assistance, you are hereby
authorized to allocate from funds available for these purposes such
amounts as you find necessary for Federal disaster assistance and
administrative expenses.
    You are authorized to provide Public Assistance in the
designated areas and Hazard Mitigation throughout the State.
Consistent with the requirement that Federal assistance be
supplemental, any Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for
Hazard Mitigation will be limited to 75 percent of the total
eligible costs. Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for
Public Assistance also will be limited to 75 percent of the total
eligible costs, with the exception of projects that meet the
eligibility criteria for a higher Federal cost-sharing percentage
under the Public Assistance Alternative Procedures Pilot Program for
Debris Removal implemented pursuant to section 428 of the Stafford
Act.
    Further, you are authorized to make changes to this declaration
for the approved assistance to the extent allowable under the
Stafford Act.

    The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice
that pursuant to the authority vested in the Administrator, under
Executive Order 12148, as amended, Mark H. Landry, of FEMA is appointed
to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this major disaster.
    The following area of the State of Nevada has been designated as
adversely affected by this major disaster:

    Moapa Band of Paiutes Reservation for Public Assistance.
    All areas within the State of Nevada are eligible for assistance
under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.

The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA)
are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community
Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling;
97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment
Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048,
Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households In
Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially
Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing Operations for
Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially Declared Disaster
Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other Needs; 97.036,
Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared
Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

W. Craig Fugate,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2014-29115 Filed 12-10-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P