[Federal Register: January 30, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 19)]
[CORRECTIONS]
[Page 4968]
[DOCID:fr30ja06-131]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 9, 141, and 142

[EPA-HQ-OW-2002-0039; FRL-8013-1]
RIN 2040-AD37

National Primary Drinking Water Regulations: Long Term 2 Enhanced
Surface Water Treatment Rule

Correction

    In rule document 06-4 beginning on page 654 in the issue of
Thursday, January 5, 2006, make the following corrections:
    1. On page 716, in Table IV.G-1, in the third column, in the fifth
entry, ``No later than October 1, 2013\3\'' should read ``No later than
October 1, 2012\3\''.
    2. On the same page, in the same table, in the fourth column, in
the fifth entry, ``No later than October 1, 2012\3\'' should read ``No
later than October 1, 2013\3\''.
    3. On the same page, in Table IV.G-2, in the first column, in the
fourth line, ``Report notice intent'' should read ``Report notice of
intent''.
    4. On page 724, in Table IV.J-1, in footnote 8, in the first and
second lines, ``enzyme glucuronidase'' should read ``enzyme
[beta]glucuronidase''.

[FR Doc. C6-4 Filed 1-27-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 1505-01-D


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 46 (Friday, March 10, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 13245-13251]
[FR Doc No: 2017-04795]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0539; FRL-9959-19]

Oxytetracycline; Pesticide Tolerances for Emergency Exemptions

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes a time-limited tolerance for
residues of oxytetracycline in or on fruit, citrus, group 10-10. This
action is in response to EPA's granting of an emergency exemption under
the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA)
authorizing use of the pesticide in citrus production. This regulation
establishes a maximum permissible level for residues of oxytetracycline
in or on the commodities in this crop group. The time-limited tolerance
expires on December 31, 2019.

DATES: This regulation is effective March 10, 2017. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received on or before May 9, 2017, 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: The docket for this action, identified by docket
identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0539, is available at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of Pesticide Programs Regulatory
Public Docket (OPP Docket) in the Environmental Protection Agency
Docket Center (EPA/DC), West William Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334,
1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001. The Public
Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public
Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number for the OPP
Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Please review the visitor instructions and
additional information about the docket available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael L. Goodis, Registration
Division (7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-
0001; main telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email 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.
The following list of North American Industrial Classification System
(NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them.
Potentially affected entities may include:
    [emsp14]Crop production (NAICS code 111).
    [emsp14]Animal production (NAICS code 112).
    [emsp14]Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
    [emsp14]Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).

B. How can I get electronic access to other related information?

    You may access a frequently updated electronic version of 40 CFR
part 180 through the Government Printing Office's e-CFR site at http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?&c=ecfr&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title40/40tab_02.tpl.

C. How can I file an objection or hearing request?

    Under section 408(g) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act
(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-
2016-0539 in the subject line on the first page of your submission. All
objections and requests for a hearing must be in writing, and must be
received by the Hearing Clerk on or before May 9, 2017. Addresses for
mail and hand delivery of objections and hearing requests are provided
in 40 CFR 178.25(b).
    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 (excluding any Confidential Business Information (CBI)) for
inclusion in the public docket. Information not marked confidential
pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without
prior notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your objection or hearing
request, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0539, by one of
the following methods:

     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Do not submit
electronically any information you considered to be CBI or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
     Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental Protection Agency Docket
Center (EPA/DC), (28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC
20460-0001.
     Hand Delivery: To make special arrangements for hand
delivery or delivery of boxed information, please follow the
instructions at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/where-send-comments-epa-dockets.
    Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along
with more information about dockets generally, is available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

II. Background and Statutory Findings

    EPA, on its own initiative, in accordance with FFDCA sections
408(e) and 408(l)(6) of 21 U.S.C. 346a(e) and 346a(1)(6), is
establishing a time-limited tolerance for combined residues of
oxytetracycline, including its metabolites and degradates, expressed as
only oxytetracycline, (4S,4aR,5S,5aR,6S,12aS)-4-(dimethylamino)-
1,4,4a,5,5a,6,11,12a-octahydro-3,5,6,10,12,12a-hexahydroxy-6-methyl-
1,11-dioxo-2-naphthacenecarboxamide, in or on fruit, citrus, group 10-
10, at 0.4 parts per million (ppm). The time-limited tolerance expires
on December 31, 2019.
    Section 408(l)(6) of FFDCA requires EPA to establish a time-limited
tolerance or exemption from the requirement for a tolerance for
pesticide chemical residues in food that will result from the use of a
pesticide under an emergency exemption granted by EPA under FIFRA
section 18. Such tolerances can be established without providing notice
or period for public comment. EPA does not intend for its actions on
FIFRA section 18-related time-limited tolerances to set binding
precedents for the application of FFDCA section 408 and the safety
standard to other tolerances and exemptions. Section 408(e) of FFDCA
allows EPA to establish a tolerance or an exemption from the
requirement of a tolerance on its own initiative, i.e., without having
received a petition from an outside party.
    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. . .
.''
    Section 18 of FIFRA authorizes EPA to exempt any Federal or State
agency from any provision of FIFRA, if EPA determines that ``emergency
conditions exist which require such exemption.'' EPA has established
regulations governing such emergency exemptions in 40 CFR part 166.

III. Emergency Exemption for Oxytetracycline on Citrus and FFDCA
Tolerances

    The Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (FDACS)
asserted that an emergency situation existed in accordance with the
criteria for approval of an emergency exemption and requested the use
of two oxytetracycline products on citrus to suppress Candidatus
Liberibacter asiaticus (CLas) bacterium that causes Huanglongbing (HLB)
also known as citrus greening. One product contains oxytetracycline
calcium, and the other contains oxytetracycline hydrochloride. HLB was
recently introduced to the US, is vectored by the invasive insect, the
Asian citrus psyllid, and is the most serious disease of citrus
worldwide. This disease has rapidly spread throughout Florida's citrus
production area, causing severe losses with an overall decrease in
production of more than 60% primarily due to HLB. Significant losses
have occurred, many producers have gone out of business, and FDACS
asserts that the long-term economic viability of the citrus industry in
Florida is threatened by this disease. The bacteria reside in the
phloem (the circulatory system of the tree), disrupting circulation of
water and nutrients, which ultimately leads to death of the infected
tree. Currently there is no cure. FDACS has submitted data that
indicates that some treatments, including nutritional supplementation
and use of pesticides like oxytetracycline, may help improve the health
of infected trees. After reviewing the submission, EPA determined that
an emergency situation exists for Florida, and that the criteria for
approval of an emergency exemption are met. EPA has authorized a
specific exemption under FIFRA section 18 for the use of
oxytetracycline on citrus in Florida for management of the CLas
bacterium that causes HLB (citrus greening) disease.
    Oxytetracycline is part of the tetracycline class, and is a broad-
spectrum antibiotic produced from the actinomycete Streptomyces
rimosus. Two salts of oxytetracycline, oxytetracycline hydrochloride
and oxytetracycline calcium, are the forms of oxytetracycline
registered as pesticides for use against bacteria, fungi and
mycoplasma-like organisms (there are no active registrations for
oxytetracycline per se). The toxicity of all three forms of
oxytetracycline is similar and they are considered equivalent for the
purposes of assessing toxicity and establishing tolerances. Hereafter
this document will use `oxytetracycline' to refer to all three of these
materials. As part of its evaluation of the emergency exemption
application, EPA assessed the potential risks presented by dietary
exposure through residues of oxytetracycline in or on citrus fruit. All
commodities in the crop group 10-10, citrus fruit were included in the
dietary exposure estimates used. In assessing potential risks, EPA
considered the safety standard in FFDCA section 408(b)(2), and EPA
decided that the necessary tolerance under FFDCA section 408(l)(6)
would be consistent with the safety standard and with FIFRA section 18.
Consistent with the need to move quickly on the emergency exemption in
order to address an urgent non-routine situation and to ensure that the
resulting food is safe and lawful, EPA is issuing this tolerance
without notice and opportunity for public comment as provided in FFDCA
section 408(l)(6). Although this time-limited tolerance expires on
December 31, 2019, under FFDCA section 408(l)(5), residues of the
pesticide not in excess of the amounts specified in the tolerance
remaining in or on commodities of fruit, citrus, group 10-10 after that
date will not be unlawful, provided the pesticide was applied in a
manner that was lawful under FIFRA, and the residues do not exceed a
level that was authorized by this time-limited tolerance at the time of
that application. EPA will take action to revoke this time-limited
tolerance earlier if any experience with, scientific data on, or other
relevant information on this pesticide indicate that the residues are
not safe.
    Because the time-limited tolerance is being approved under
emergency

conditions, EPA has not made any decisions about whether
oxytetracycline meets FIFRA's registration requirements for use on
fruit, citrus, group 10-10, or whether permanent tolerances for this
use would be appropriate. Under these circumstances, EPA does not
believe that this time-limited tolerance decision serves as a basis for
registrations of oxytetracycline by a State for special local needs
under FIFRA section 24(c). Nor does the tolerance by itself serve as
the authority for persons in any State other than Florida to use this
pesticide on the applicable crops under FIFRA section 18 absent the
issuance of an emergency exemption applicable within that State. For
additional information regarding the emergency exemption for
oxytetracycline, contact the Agency's Registration Division at the
address provided under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

IV. Aggregate Risk Assessment and Determination of Safety

    Consistent with the factors specified in FFDCA section
408(b)(2)(D), 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 expected as a result of this emergency exemption use and the
time-limited tolerance for residues of oxytetracycline in or on fruit,
citrus, group 10-10, at 0.4 ppm. EPA's assessment of exposures and
risks associated with establishing the time-limited tolerance follows.

A. Toxicological Points of Departure/Levels of Concern

    Once a pesticide's toxicological profile is determined, EPA
identifies toxicological points of departure (POD) and levels of
concern (LOC) to use in evaluating the risk posed by human exposure to
the pesticide. For hazards that have a threshold below which there is
no appreciable risk, the toxicological POD is used as the basis for
derivation of reference values for risk assessment. PODs are developed
based on a careful analysis of the doses in each toxicological study to
determine the dose at which no adverse effects are observed (the NOAEL)
and the lowest dose at which adverse effects of concern are identified
(the LOAEL). Uncertainty/safety factors are used in conjunction with
the POD to calculate a safe exposure level--generally referred to as a
population-adjusted dose (PAD) or a reference dose (RfD)--and a safe
margin of exposure (MOE). 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 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 https://www.epa.gov/pesticide-science-and-assessing-pesticide-risks.
    The information available on the effects of oxytetracycline in
humans from pharmaceutical uses, supplemented with the data available
on the toxicity of oxytetracycline in laboratory animals is sufficient
to evaluate the toxicity of oxytetracycline. Based on the information
from these sources, the toxicity and exposure databases for
oxytetracycline are considered complete, and exposure estimates are
conservative. The emergency exemption allows use of two oxytetracycline
compounds: Oxytetracycline hydrochloride and oxytetracycline calcium.
    Previously the endpoint for chronic dietary exposures to
oxytetracycline was based on the NOAEL of 0.05 milligram/kilogram/day
(mg/kg/day) from a special dog study, which demonstrated a change in
intestinal flora at the LOAEL of 0.25 mg/kg/day, with a shift from a
predominantly drug-susceptible population of enteric lactose-fermenting
organisms to a multiple-antibiotic-resistant population. However in
2011, the EPA changed its endpoint selection as recommended by the
National Academy of Sciences (NAS) report, Toxicity Testing in the 21st
century: a vision and a strategy. NAS Press (2007). This report advised
selecting toxicity endpoints for assessing human health risk estimates
based upon biological perturbations of toxicity pathways that can lead
to adverse health outcomes under conditions of human exposure. Based on
this NAS report, in the absence of a demonstrable adverse human health
outcome, EPA no longer considers the changes in intestinal flora to be
an appropriate basis for regulating dietary exposure to antibiotics.
    Instead, using a weight-of-the-evidence approach, EPA adopted an
NOAEL of 100 mg/kg/day based on minor (toxicologically insignificant)
effects seen in two chronic feeding studies in the rat (NOAELs = 50 and
150 mg/kg/day) and two chronic toxicity studies in the dog (NOAELs =
250 mg/kg/day for both, the highest dose tested in these studies), and
taking into account a National Cancer Institute rat chronic
carcinogenicity study, with an LOAEL of 1250 mg/kg/day (lowest dose
tested) based on hyperplasia of the adrenal medulla, and fatty
metamorphosis and increases in accessory structures of the liver. To
this 100 mg/kg/day NOAEL, EPA applied the customary 100x UF for both
interspecies and intraspecies variability resulting in a chronic
reference dose (cRfD) of 1.0 mg/kg/day for adults. EPA has applied an
additional 10x ``Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) safety factor'' to
provide an additional margin of protection for assessing risks to
infants and children, resulting in a chronic population-adjusted dose
(cPAD) of 0.1 mg/kg/day. This is further discussed in unit IV.C. of
this document.
    A summary of the oxytetracycline toxicology data used for human
health risk assessment is given in the Table of this unit.

                 Table--Oxytetracycline Toxicological Endpoints for Human Health Risk Assessment
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 RfD, PAD, and LOC for   Study and toxicological
          Exposure/scenario             POD, UFs, and FQPA SF       risk assessment              effects
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acute dietary (All populations)......  NA.....................  NA.....................  No endpoint was
                                                                                attributable to a
                                                                                single exposure.
Chronic dietary (All populations)....  NOAEL = 100 mg/kg/day..  cRfD = 1 mg/kg/day.....  The NOAEL of 100 mg/kg/
                                       UFA = 10x..............  cPAD = 0.1 mg/kg/day...   day was derived using
                                       UFH = 10x..............  Chronic dietary           a weight of evidence
                                       FQPA SF = 10x..........   exposure LOC >=100% of   (WOE) approach based
                                                                 cPAD.                    on 3 rat and 2 dog
                                                                                chronic studies. No
                                                                                specific LOAEL was
                                                                                established.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Risk assessments for occupational scenarios are not required because no adverse effects were observed from
 dermal or inhalation exposures. Evaluation of residential scenarios was not required because there are no
 registered residential oxytetracycline uses.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cancer (Oral, dermal, inhalation)....  The Agency's Peer Review Committee has classified oxytetracycline as a
                                        ``Group D'' carcinogen (``Not Classifiable as to Human
                                        Carcinogenicity'').
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NA = Not Applicable. RfD = reference dose. PAD = population adjusted dose (a = acute, c = chronic). LOC-level of
  concern; mg/kg/day = milligram of pesticide per kilogram of body weight per day. NOAEL = no observed adverse
  effect level. LOAEL = lowest observed adverse effect level. UF = uncertainty factor. UFA = extrapolation from
  animal to human (interspecies). UFH = potential variation in sensitivity among members of the human population
  (intraspecies). FQPA SF = Food Quality Protection Act Safety Factor. WOE = weight of evidence. NCI = National
  Cancer Institute.

    The complete human health risk assessment for this action may be
found at http://www.regulations.gov in the following three documents
``Oxytetracycline. Section 18 Emergency Exemption for Citrus Grown in
Florida,'' and ``Oxytetracycline. Update to Section 18 Emergency
Exemption for Citrus Grown in Florida to Consider 10X FQPA,'' in the
docket for ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0539.

B. Exposure Assessment

    1. Dietary exposure from food and feed uses. In evaluating dietary
exposure to oxytetracycline, EPA considered exposure under the time-
limited tolerances established by this action as well as all existing
oxytetracycline tolerances in 40 CFR 180.337. EPA assessed dietary
exposures from oxytetracycline in food as follows:
    i. Acute exposure. No acute dietary effects were identified in the
toxicological studies or literature for oxytetracycline; therefore, a
quantitative acute dietary exposure assessment is unnecessary and was
not conducted.
    ii. Chronic exposure. In conducting the chronic dietary exposure
assessment EPA used 2003-2008 food consumption data from the US
Department of Agriculture's (USDA's) National Health and Nutrition
Examination Survey (NHANES). For residue levels in food, EPA assumed
one hundred percent crop treated (PCT) and tolerance-level residues for
all registered uses plus the subject tolerance of 0.4 ppm in or on all
commodities of fruit, citrus, group 10-10. In addition, default
processing factors were used for all processed commodities except
citrus juice, oil, and peel, since concentration of oxytetracycline was
not observed in these commodities. EPA's exposure assessment also
included tolerance level residues for livestock commodities owing to
use of oxytetracycline as an animal drug. No anticipated residue or PCT
refinements were used.
    iii. Cancer. Based on the information referenced in Unit IV.A., EPA
has concluded that oxytetracycline does not pose a cancer risk to
humans. No evidence of carcinogenicity was found in a literature search
of toxicity in animals. There was no evidence of carcinogenicity for
male or female mice fed oxytetracycline at 1,875 mg/kg/day for two
years. In the rat carcinogenicity study, there was equivocal evidence
for carcinogenicity based upon increased incidences of
pheochromocytomas of the adrenal gland at the highest doses tested for
males of 2,500 and increased incidences of adenomas of the pituitary
gland in females at 1,875 mg/kg/day; both doses are extremely high as
compared to expected human exposure and above the limit dose. The
mutagenicity assays were all negative except for the mouse lymphoma
forward mutation assay which was positive only with metabolic
activation. Based upon this information and the weight of the evidence
as a whole, the EPA has classified oxytetracycline as a ``Group D''
carcinogen (``Not Classifiable as to Human Carcinogenicity''). A review
of the same data by the National Toxicology Program's (NTP) Peer Review
Committee was in agreement with this classification. Therefore, a
dietary exposure assessment for the purpose of assessing cancer risk is
unnecessary and was not conducted.
    iv. Anticipated residue and PCT information. EPA did not use
anticipated residue or PCT information in the dietary assessment for
oxytetracycline. 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 to derive estimated water concentrations
for dietary exposure analysis of oxytetracycline exposures through
drinking water. These simulation models take into account data on the
physical, chemical, and fate/transport characteristics of
oxytetracycline. Further information regarding EPA drinking water
models used in pesticide exposure assessment can be found at https://www.epa.gov/pesticide-science-and-assessing-pesticide-risks/models-pesticide-risk-assessment#aquatic.
    Based on the Surface Water Calculator, using Pesticide Root Zone
Model 5+ and the Variable Volume Water Body Model, the estimated
drinking water concentration (EDWC) of oxytetracycline for non-cancer
risk assessment due to chronic exposure was 149 parts per billions
(ppb) for surface water, based on the highest registered rate for
application to peach and nectarine. The PRZM-Ground Water model
estimated that no residues of oxytetracycline would result in
groundwater in any of the six standard scenarios (use modelled for 100
years), presumably due to the chemical's strong soil sorption. The
highest EDWC for surface water of 149 ppb was therefore used to assess
chronic dietary exposure contribution from drinking water and was
directly entered into the dietary exposure model.
    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).
    Oxytetracycline is not registered or proposed for any specific use
patterns that would result in residential exposure (non-dietary), and
therefore this risk assessment was not performed. Further information
regarding EPA standard assumptions and generic inputs for residential
exposures may be found at: https://www.epa.gov/pesticide-science-and-assessing-pesticide-risks/standard-operating-procedures-residential-pesticide.
    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 oxytetracycline to
share a common mechanism of toxicity with any other substances, and
oxytetracycline does not appear to produce a toxic metabolite produced
by other substances. For the purposes of this tolerance action,
therefore, EPA has assumed that oxytetracycline 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 Web site at https://www.epa.gov/pesticide-science-and-assessing-pesticide-risks/cumulative-assessment-risk-pesticides.

C. 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, required under the Food Quality Protection
Act, 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 SF when reliable data available to EPA
support the choice of a different factor.
    2. Prenatal and postnatal sensitivity. Considering the toxicity
database for oxytetracycline, the mouse prenatal development study did
not identify adverse effects up to the highest dose tested (HDT), 2100
mg/kg/day. In addition, the effects seen in the rat prenatal
development study occurred only at levels above the limit dose.
However, clinical use of tetracyclines administered to pregnant women,
infants and children have resulted in discoloration of the teeth,
enamel hypoplasia, and bone developmental effects in fetuses and
children. A decrease in fibula growth in premature infants has been
observed after an oral dose of 25 mg/kg every six hours, equivalent to
a total dose of 100 mg/kg/day (though these effects reversed quickly
after discontinuation of dosing). For these reasons, the FDA recommends
not administering oral doses of tetracycline to children under 8 years
of age. In addition, tetracyclines cross the placenta and should not be
taken during the last half of pregnancy. The effect in premature
infants dosed with tetracycline was observed at 100 mg/kg/day, the same
level as that used as the POD for chronic risk assessment (derived from
laboratory animal toxicity data). Thus, EPA concluded that some
uncertainty remains regarding the potential sensitivity to infants,
children under 8 years of age, and pregnant women based upon the
literature database for therapeutic uses of oxytetracycline, and
decided to retain the 10x FQPA SF to assure adequate protection for
these populations.
    3. Conclusion. The existing database, together with the extensive
literature and study reports available on oxytetracycline, including
studies submitted to and reviewed by the EPA, the National Toxicology
Program, and World Health Organization, the FDA and open literature
studies, are adequate for characterizing toxicity and quantification of
risk from the proposed and existing uses of oxytetracycline. EPA has
determined that reliable data indicate that retaining the 10x FQPA SF
will adequately protect the safety of infants and children. That
decision is based on the following findings:
    i. The toxicity database for oxytetracycline is complete and there
are no data gaps.
    ii. There is no indication that oxytetracycline is a neurotoxic
chemical and there is no need for a developmental neurotoxicity study
or additional UFs to account for neurotoxicity.
    iii. Although the guideline toxicity studies did not suggest an
increased lifestage sensitivity/susceptibility (no effects at the
highest doses tested or effects only above the limit dose), data from
the pharmaceutical literature suggests that infants and children may be
more susceptible to oxytetracycline side-effects than adults, and FDA
does not recommend administering oral doses of tetracycline to children
under 8 years of age or pregnant women. Therefore, a 10x FQPA SF has
been retained.
    iv. There are no residual uncertainties with regard to the exposure
databases. The dietary assessment overestimates actual exposures to
oxytetracycline because it assumed 100% crop treated, and incorporated
tolerance-level residues and default processing factors (PFs). EPA also
made conservative (protective, high-end) assumptions in the
environmental water modeling used to estimate potential levels of
oxytetracycline in drinking water. All of the assumptions used for the
exposure and risk estimates are likely to overestimate exposures that
may actually occur. Therefore, these assessments will not underestimate
the exposure and risks posed by oxytetracycline.

D. Aggregate Risks and Determination of Safety

    EPA determines whether acute and chronic dietary pesticide
exposures are safe by comparing aggregate exposure estimates to the
acute PAD (aPAD) and chronic PAD (cPAD). For linear cancer risks, EPA
calculates the lifetime probability of acquiring cancer 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 appropriate PODs to ensure that an
adequate MOE exists.
    1. Acute risk. An acute aggregate risk assessment takes into
account acute exposure estimates from dietary consumption of food and
drinking water. No adverse effect resulting from a single oral exposure
was identified (no acute dietary endpoint was determined). Therefore,
oxytetracycline is not expected to pose an acute risk and no acute risk
assessment was necessary.
    2. Chronic risk. Using the exposure assumptions described in this
unit for chronic exposure, EPA has concluded that chronic exposure to
oxytetracycline from food and water will utilize 40% of the cPAD for
children 1-2 years old, the population group receiving the greatest
exposure. There are no residential uses for oxytetracycline. Although
exposure may occur through therapeutic use of oxytetracycline as a
drug, such pharmaceutical use is not included in this aggregate
exposure assessment for agricultural uses of oxytetracycline as a
pesticide. However, potential exposure through clinical drug use of
oxytetracycline was considered and compared to the exposure estimates
from the agricultural use, which is further discussed in Unit IV.D.6.
below.
    3. Short-term risk. Short-term aggregate exposure takes into
account short-term residential (non-dietary, non-occupational) exposure
plus chronic exposure to food and water (considered to be a background
exposure level). Oxytetracycline is not registered for any use patterns
that would result in short-term residential exposure. Further, because
no short-term adverse effect was identified, oxytetracycline is not
expected to pose a short-term risk and the chronic risk assessment will
be protective for any short-term exposures.
    4. Intermediate-term risk. Intermediate-term aggregate exposure
takes into account intermediate-term

residential (non-dietary, non-occupational) exposure plus chronic
exposure to food and water (considered to be a background exposure
level). Oxytetracycline is not registered for any use patterns that
would result in intermediate-term residential exposure. Further,
because no intermediate-term adverse effect was identified,
oxytetracycline is not expected to pose an intermediate-term risk and
the chronic risk assessment will be protective for any intermediate-
term exposures.
    5. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. population. Based on the lack of
evidence of carcinogenicity in two adequate rodent carcinogenicity
studies, oxytetracycline is not expected to pose a cancer risk to
humans and no cancer risk assessment was necessary.
    6. Pharmaceutical Aggregate Risk. Section 408 of the FFDCA requires
EPA to consider potential sources of exposure to a pesticide and
related substances in addition to the dietary sources expected to
result from a pesticide use subject to the tolerance. In order to
determine whether to issue or maintain a pesticide tolerance, EPA must
``determine that there is a reasonable certainty of no harm'' resulting
from the pesticide use subject to the tolerance. Under FFDCA section
505, the Food and Drug Administration reviews human drugs for safety
and effectiveness and may approve a drug notwithstanding the
possibility that some users may experience adverse side effects. EPA
does not believe that, for purposes of the section 408 dietary risk
assessment, it is compelled to assume that combined exposures to
pesticide and pharmaceutical residues that lead to a physiological
effect in the user necessarily constitutes ``harm'' under the meaning
of section 408 of FFDCA.
    Rather, EPA believes the appropriate way to consider the
pharmaceutical use of oxytetracycline in its risk assessment is to
examine the impact that the additional nonoccupational pesticide
exposures would have to a pharmaceutical user exposed to the same, or a
related chemical substance. Where the additional pesticide exposure has
no more than a minimal impact on the pharmaceutical user, EPA can make
a reasonable certainty of no harm finding for the pesticide tolerances
of that compound under section 408 of the FFDCA. If the potential
impact on the pharmaceutical user as a result of co-exposure from
pesticide use is more than minimal, then EPA would not be able to
conclude that dietary residues were safe and would need to discuss with
FDA appropriate measures to reduce exposure from one or both sources.
    EPA's pesticide exposure assessment has taken into consideration
the appropriate population, exposure route, and exposure duration for
comparison with exposure to the pharmaceutical use of oxytetracycline.
The typical pharmaceutical oxytetracycline dose for children is 25 mg/
kg/day. This dose is approximately 1,262 times greater than the dietary
exposure estimate of 0.019809 mg/kg/day, the food and water exposure
estimate for children 6-12 years old. This group represents the
potential highest exposed population group, in terms of considering
therapeutic use of oxytetracycline (children under 8 yrs old are not
given therapeutic oxytetracycline). Therefore, because the pesticide
exposure has no more than a minimal impact on the total dose to a
pharmaceutical user, EPA believes that there is a reasonable certainty
that no harm will result from the potential dietary pesticide exposure
of a user being treated therapeutically with oxytetracycline.
    7. 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 oxytetracycline.

V. Other Considerations

A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    The analytical method used to derive the citrus residue data for
determining the appropriate tolerance levels was based on Method
STM2028.06, which was found to be scientifically acceptable for
enforcement of tolerances of oxytetracycline on apple, pear and peach.
This method employs liquid chromatography with tandem mass spectrometry
(LC/MS/MS) using turbo ion spray in the positive ion mode, monitoring
two ion transitions for confirmation of oxytetracycline, and was
adequately validated for the quantitation and confirmation of ion
transitions using samples of apple and nectarine. A successful
independent laboratory validation was performed as well using samples
of apple, pear, peach, and nectarine. Since the method used for citrus
was similar to this and provided adequate recoveries for citrus fruits,
it is considered adequate to support the emergency exemption use and
enforce the tolerance expression of oxytetracycline in or on
commodities of fruit, citrus, group 10-10. The method may be requested
from: Chief, Analytical Chemistry Branch, Environmental Science Center,
701 Mapes Rd., Ft. Meade, MD 20755-5350; telephone number: (410) 305-
2905; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
B. International Residue Limits

    In making its tolerance decisions, EPA seeks to harmonize U.S.
tolerances with international standards whenever possible, consistent
with U.S. food safety standards and agricultural practices. EPA
considers the international maximum residue limits (MRLs) established
by the Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex), as required by FFDCA
section 408(b)(4). The Codex is a joint United Nations Food and
Agriculture Organization/World Health Organization food standards
program, and it is recognized as an international food safety
standards-setting organization in trade agreements to which the United
States is a party. EPA may establish a tolerance that is different from
a Codex MRL; however, FFDCA section 408(b)(4) requires that EPA explain
the reasons for departing from the Codex level. The Codex has not
established a MRL for oxytetracycline.

VI. Conclusion

    Therefore, a time-limited tolerance is established for residues of
oxytetracycline and its metabolites and degradates, expressed as only
oxytetracycline, (4S,4aR,5S,5aR,6S,12aS)-4-(dimethylamino)-
1,4,4a,5,5a,6,11,12a-octahydro-3,5,6,10,12,12a-hexahydroxy-6-methyl-
1,11-dioxo-2-naphthacenecarboxamide, in or on fruit, citrus, group 10-
10 at 0.4 ppm. This tolerance expires on December 31, 2019.

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This action establishes a tolerance under FFDCA sections 408(e) and
408(l)(6). 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 action has been exempted from review under Executive Order
12866, this action 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
action 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 in accordance
with FFDCA sections 408(e) and 408(l)(6), 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 action 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 FFDCA section 408(n)(4). 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 action. In addition, this
action does not impose any enforceable duty or contain any unfunded
mandate as described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
(UMRA) (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.).
    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 (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note).

VIII. Congressional Review Act

    Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.),
EPA submitted 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
the rule in the Federal Register. This action is not a ``major rule''
as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180

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

    Dated: February 23, 2017,
Michael Goodis,
Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.

    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. In Sec.  180.337 revise paragraph (b) to read as follows:

Sec.  180.337  Oxytetracycline; tolerances for residues.

* * * * *
    (b) Section 18 emergency exemptions. Time-limited tolerances
specified in the following table are established for residues of the
fungicide/bactericide oxytetracycline, including its metabolites and
degradates, in or on the commodities in the table in this paragraph.
Compliance with the tolerance levels specified in this paragraph is to
be determined by measuring only oxytetracycline,
(4S,4aR,5S,5aR,6S,12aS)-4-(dimethylamino)-1,4,4a,5,5a,6,11,12a-
octahydro-3,5,6,10,12,12a-hexahydroxy-6-methyl-1,11-dioxo-2-
naphthacenecarboxamide, in or on the specified agricultural
commodities, resulting from use of the pesticide pursuant to FIFRA
section 18 emergency exemptions. The tolerances expire on the dates
specified in the table.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Parts per       Expiration/
               Commodity                    million      revocation date
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fruit, citrus, group 10-10............            0.40       12/31/2019
------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2017-04795 Filed 3-9-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 170 (Tuesday, September 3, 2019)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 45918-45920]
[FR Doc No: 2019-18849]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R10-OAR-2019-0403; FRL-9998-96-Region 10]

Air Plan Approval: ID; Update to CRB Fee Billing Procedures

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking direct
final action to approve state implementation plan (SIP) revisions
submitted by the State of Idaho's Department of Environmental Quality
on June 5, 2019. The revisions implement changes to the timing of when
fees for open burning of crop residue are paid. The changes provide
Idaho Department of Environmental Quality a more streamlined
administrative process and were based on recommendation from Idaho's
Crop Residue Advisory Committee.

DATES: This rule is effective on November 4, 2019, without further
notice, unless the EPA receives adverse comment by October 3, 2019. If
the EPA receives adverse comment, we will publish a timely withdrawal
in the Federal Register informing the public that the rule will not
take effect.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R10-
OAR-2019-0403 at https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot
be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any
comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any
information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a
written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment
and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA
will generally not consider comments or comment contents located
outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other
file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA
public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions,
and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit https://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Randall Ruddick at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region
10, 1200 6th Avenue, Suite 155-15-H13, Seattle, WA 98101-3188.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, it is intended to refer to the EPA.

Table of Contents

I. Background
II. Analysis of Rule Updates
III. Final Action
IV. Incorporation by Reference
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background

    In 2013, the EPA approved revisions related to Idaho's open burning
and crop residue burning requirements that established a streamlined
permitting process for spot burns, baled agricultural residue burns,
and propane flaming. The revisions also made minor changes to the
existing crop residue burning rules to update cross references and
clarify certain administrative information. More information regarding
the revisions that the EPA approved in 2013 can be found in the EPA's
proposed and final actions on the state's 2011 SIP submittal. See 78 FR
2359 (January 11, 2013) and 78 FR 16790 (March 19, 2013).

II. Analysis of Rule Updates

    On June 5, 2019, Idaho submitted a SIP revision request to the EPA.
The SIP submittal contains two revisions to the federally-approved crop
residue burning (CRB) rules. The two revisions were conducted through
Idaho's negotiated rulemaking process involving persons having an
interest in the development of the revisions and based on
recommendations from the Idaho Crop Residue Advisory Committee.
Specifically, the June 5, 2019, SIP submittal contains revisions to
IDAPA <IP_ADDRESS>0.01, .02, and Idaho Code 39-114.
    Fee due dates in IDAPA <IP_ADDRESS>0.01 were changed from ``at least
seven (7) days prior to the proposed burn date'' to ``within thirty
(30) days following the receipt of the annual burn fee invoice.'' This
revision does not change the burn fee amounts, rather it only changes
when the fee is due. Idaho revised IDAPA <IP_ADDRESS>0.02 to clarify
that IDEQ will not accept or process registration for a permit by rule
to burn for any person having burn fees delinquent, in full or in part.
Idaho Code 39-114 (codification of Idaho Senate Bill 1024, Section 4)
was revised by removing the requirement that fees be paid for acres
``to be burned'' and the requirement that payment be made ``prior to
burning'' to align with revisions to IDAPA <IP_ADDRESS>0.01.
    These revisions do not change fee structure amounts and do not
change the timing of the fee payment for spot and bale burn permits
required under IDAPA <IP_ADDRESS>4.02.a. All other CRB requirements
remain unchanged.

III. Final Action

    EPA is approving, and incorporating by reference in Idaho's SIP,
revisions to Idaho's CRB fee regulations as requested by Idaho on June
5, 2019 to the following provisions:
     IDAPA <IP_ADDRESS>0 (Burn Fee, state effective April 11,
2019); and
     Idaho Code 39-114 (Open Burning of Crop Residue, state
effective February 26, 2019).
    We have determined that the submitted SIP revisions are consistent
with section 110 of the Clean Air Act (CAA).

IV. Incorporation by Reference

    In this rule, the EPA is approving regulatory text that includes
incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR
51.5, we are incorporating by reference the provisions described above
in

Section III. Final Action. The EPA has made, and will continue to make,
these documents generally available through www.regulations.gov and at
the EPA Region 10 Office (please contact the person identified in the
``For Further Information Contact'' section of this preamble for more
information). Therefore, these materials have been approved by the EPA
for inclusion in the State Implementation Plan, have been incorporated
by reference by the EPA into that plan, are fully Federally enforceable
under sections 110 and 113 of the CAA as of the effective date of the
final rulemaking of the EPA's approval, and will be incorporated by
reference in the next update to the SIP compilation.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. Accordingly,
this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements
and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by
state law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21,
2011);
     Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2,
2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under
Executive Order 12866;
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because this action does not involve technical standards; and
     Does not provide the EPA with the discretionary authority
to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or
environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible
methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or
in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated
that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the
rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial
direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified
by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. The EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by November 4, 2019. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor
does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may
be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or
action. Parties with objections to this direct final rule are
encouraged to file a comment in response to the parallel notice of
proposed rulemaking for this action published in the proposed rules
section of today's Federal Register, rather than file an immediate
petition for judicial review of this direct final rule, so that the EPA
can withdraw this direct final rule and address the comment in the
proposed rulemaking. This action may not be challenged later in
proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations.

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

    Dated: August 15, 2019.
Michelle L. Pirzadeh,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 10.

    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 40 CFR part 52 is
amended as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

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

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

Subpart N--Idaho

0
2. Amend Sec.  52.670, in the table in paragraph (c), by:
0
a. Revising entry for ``620''; and
0
b. Under the heading ``State Statutes'':
0
i. Removing the entry for ``Section 3 of Senate Bill 1009, codified at
Idaho Code Section 39-114''; and
0
ii. Adding an entry for ``Section 4 of Senate Bill 1024, codified at
Idaho Code Section 39-114''.
    The revision and addition read as follows:

Sec.  52.670  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *

                                   EPA-Approved Idaho Regulations and Statutes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             State
          State citation              Title/subject     effective date   EPA approval date       Explanations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Idaho Administrative Procedures Act (IDAPA) 58.01.01--Rules for the Control of Air Pollution in Idaho
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
620..............................  Burn Fee...........       4/11/2019  9/3/2019, [Insert
                                                                         Federal Register
                                                                         citation].

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 State Statutes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 4 of Senate Bill 1024,     Open Burning of           2/26/2019  9/3/2019,..........
 codified at Idaho Code Section     Crop Residue.                       [Insert Federal
 39-114.                                                                 Register citation].
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 2019-18849 Filed 8-30-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 37 (Tuesday, February 25, 2020)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 10619-10620]
[FR Doc No: 2020-02757]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Office of the Secretary of Transportation

49 CFR Part 93

RIN 2105-AE86

Repeal of Aircraft Allocation Regulations

AGENCY: Office of the Secretary of Transportation (OST), U.S.
Department of Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This final rule rescinds DOT regulations regarding aircraft
allocation from the Code of Federal Regulations. The regulations
prescribe procedures for the allocation of aircraft to the Civil
Reserve Air Fleet (CRAF) program. The Department of Transportation (the
Department or DOT) has concluded that the regulations are unnecessary
and obsolete because they are inconsistent with the contractual nature
of the current CRAF program and the Department's current procedures for
allocation of civil transportation resources under the Defense
Production Act.

DATES: This rule is effective on February 25, 2020.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Donna O'Berry, Office of Intelligence,
Security, and Emergency Response, Department of Transportation, 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE, Room W56-302, Washington, DC 20590; telephone:
exception occurred on : 2020-02757.htm
exception occurred on : 2020-02757.htm
(202) 366-6136; email: donna.o'[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Electronic Access and Filing

    This document may be viewed online through the Federal eRulemaking
portal at http://www.regulations.gov. Retrieval help and guidelines are
available on the website. It is available 24 hours each day, 365 days a
year. An electronic copy of this document may also be downloaded from
the Office of the Federal Register website at: https://www.archives.gov/federal-register and the Government Publishing Office
website at: https://www.gpo.gov.

Background

    Under the Defense Production Act, which governs the CRAF program,
aircraft may be added to the CRAF either by allocation by DOT or made
available to Department of Defense (DOD) under a contract.\1\ 10 U.S.C.
9511(6). The Department's Aircraft Allocation regulations to implement
this provision were published in part 93 of title 49 of the Code of
Federal Regulations on December 23, 1967,\2\ and amended on May 29,
1968.\3\ Part 93 includes two requirements. Section 93.1 provides that
the Department will issue planning orders allocating aircraft to DOD
for the CRAF Program and that the current listing of allocations may be
obtained upon request. Section 93.3 provides that the owners and
operators of aircraft identified in the allocations must notify the
Department when aircraft is damaged, destroyed, or transferred.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Section 9511 of Title 10, U.S.C. defines the ``Civil Reserve
Air Fleet'' as ``those aircraft allocated, or identified for
allocation, to the Department of Defense under section 101 of the
Defense Production Act of 1950 (50 U.S.C. 4511), or made available
(or agreed to be made available) for use by the Department of
Defense under a contract made under this title, as part of the
program developed by the Department of Defense through which the
Department of Defense augments its airlift capability by use of
civil aircraft.''
    \2\ See 32 FR 20778 (December 23, 1967).
    \3\ See 33 FR 7821 (May 29, 1968).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The requirements in part 93 are inconsistent with the current
regulatory framework and practices surrounding the CRAF Program. Under
current DOD practice, all aircraft in the CRAF are made available for
use by DOD through contracts between DOD and air carriers, and
allocations by DOT are not needed. Further, allocations under the
Defense Production Act for all civil transportation resources are now
governed by the Department's Transportation Priorities and Allocation
System (TPAS) regulation at 49 CFR part 33. If DOD needs to augment the
CRAF fleet, DOT may allocate aircraft to CRAF under section 101 of the
Defense Production Act of 1950 (50 U.S.C. 4511) under the Department's
TPAS regulations. Part 93 is not necessary to facilitate these
allocation actions. The procedures in part 93 are inconsistent with the
TPAS regulations. Part 93 also imposes reporting requirements on the
owners of aircraft identified in an allocation. However, the Department
does not have a need for the information prescribed in Sec.  93.3.
    In light of the above, the Department has determined that part 93
is outdated and inconsistent with current practice and procedures.
Accordingly, this rulemaking rescinds part 93 of title 49 of the CFR in
its entirety.

Good Cause To Dispense With Notice and Comment and Delayed Effective
Date

    Under the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553(b)), an agency
may waive notice and comment procedures if it finds, for good cause,
that notice and comment would be impracticable, unnecessary, or
contrary to the public interest. The Department finds that notice and
comment for this rule is unnecessary because the regulations are
inconsistent with the current administration of the CRAF program and
the regulations prescribing DOT's allocation process under the Defense
Production Act. Further, neither the Department, nor CRAF carriers are
currently complying with these outdated regulations. Therefore, the
removal of these regulations will have no impact on the aviation
industry or the public. Accordingly, the Department finds good cause
under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B) to waive notice and opportunity for
comment. For the same reasons, the Department finds good cause to
dispense with the requirement for a delayed effective date.

Rulemaking Analyses and Notices

Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review), Executive Order
13563 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review)

    The Department has determined that this rulemaking is not a
significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of E.O. 12866,
Regulatory Planning and Review, as supplemented by E.O. 13563 (76 FR
3821, January 21, 2011). The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) did
not, therefore, review this document. This rule is not expected to have
any costs because it will be conforming the regulations to current
practice. There may be de minimis cost savings as a result of increased
clarity in the regulations.

DOT Rulemaking Procedures

    This rulemaking is being promulgated consistent with the
Department's rulemaking procedures, outlined at 49 CFR part 5.

Executive Order 13711 (Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory
Cost)

    This final rule is considered an E.O. 13771 deregulatory action.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    Since the Department finds good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B)
to waive notice and opportunity for comment for this rule, the
provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (Pub. L. 96-354, 5 U.S.C.
601-612) do not apply. However, the Department evaluated the effects of
this action on small entities and determined the action would not have
a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. This final rule removes an outdated reporting requirement for
air carriers participating in the CRAF program, and does not create new
requirements for air carriers.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    The Department has determined that this rule does not impose
unfunded mandates, as defined by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of
1995 (Pub. L. 104-4, March 22, 1995, 109 Stat. 48). This rule does not
include a Federal mandate that may result in expenditures of $155.1
million or more in any single year (when adjusted for inflation) in
2012 dollars for either State, local, and Tribal governments in the
aggregate, or by the private sector.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.),
Federal agencies must obtain approval from the OMB for each collection
of information they conduct, sponsor, or require through regulations.
DOT determined that no new information collection requirements are
associated with this rule.

Regulation Identifier Number (RIN)

    A regulation identifier number (RIN) is assigned to each regulatory
action listed in the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulations.
    The Regulatory Information Service Center publishes the Unified
Agenda in April and October of each year. The RIN number contained in
the heading of this document can be used to cross-reference this action
with the Unified Agenda.

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 93

    Aircraft, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

Authority and Issuance

PART 93--[REMOVED AND RESERVED]

0
Therefore, under the authority of 50 U.S.C. 4511, DOT removes and
reserves 49 CFR part 93.

    Issued in Washington, DC, under the authority provided by 49 CFR
1.23 on February 6, 2020.
Steven G. Bradbury,
General Counsel.
[FR Doc. 2020-02757 Filed 2-24-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-9X-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 131 (Friday, July 8, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 40237]
[FR Doc No: 2011-17111]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[Docket No. USCG-2011-0594]

Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Illinois Waterway, Near Morris,
IL

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of temporary deviation from regulations.

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

SUMMARY: The Commander, Eighth Coast Guard District, has issued a
temporary deviation from the regulation governing the operation of the
Elgin, Joliet, and Eastern Railroad Drawbridge across the Illinois
Waterway, mile 270.6, near Morris, Illinois. The deviation is necessary
to allow removal of the existing lift span and installation of the
replacement lift span. This deviation allows the bridge to be
maintained in the closed-to-navigation position for eighty-four hours.

DATES: This deviation is effective starting 7 a.m. on July 9, 2011
through 7 p.m. on July 12, 2011.

ADDRESSES: Documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in
the docket are part of docket USCG-2011-0594 and are available online
by going to http://www.regulations.gov, inserting USCG-2011-0594 in the
``Keyword'' box and then clicking ``Search''. They are also available
for inspection or copying at the Docket Management Facility (M-30),
U.S. Department of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or e-mail Eric A. Washburn, Bridge Administrator, Western Rivers,
Coast Guard; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
If you have questions on viewing the docket, call Renee V. Wright,
Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Canadian National Railroad requested a
temporary deviation for Elgin, Joliet, and Eastern Railroad Drawbridge,
across the Illinois Waterway, mile 270.6, near Morris, Illinois to
remain in the closed-to-navigation position for eighty-four hours while
the existing lift span is removed and the replacement lift span is
installed. The Elgin, Joliet, and Eastern Railroad Drawbridge currently
operates in accordance with 33 CFR 117.5, which states the general
requirement that drawbridges shall open promptly and fully for the
passage of vessels when a request to open is given in accordance with
the subpart.
    There are no alternate routes for vessels transiting this section
of the Illinois Waterway.
    The Elgin, Joliet, and Eastern Railroad Drawbridge, in the closed-
to-navigation position, provides a vertical clearance of 26.3 feet
above flat pool. Due to construction activities, vessels will be unable
to pass the bridge site during this 84-hour period. Navigation on the
waterway consists primarily of commercial tows and recreational
watercraft. This temporary deviation has been coordinated with waterway
users. No objections were received.
    In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridge must return to
its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the designated
time period. This deviation from the operating regulations is
authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.

    Dated: June 22, 2011.
Eric A. Washburn,
Bridge Administrator, Western Rivers.
[FR Doc. 2011-17111 Filed 7-7-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 113 (Tuesday, June 15, 2021)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 31609-31611]
[FR Doc No: 2021-12482]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2021-0314; Project Identifier MCAI-2020-00599-R;
Amendment 39-21592; AD 2021-12-05]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Helicopters

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for
certain Airbus Helicopters Model EC155B1 helicopters. This AD was
prompted by a report of difficulties when jettisoning the co-pilot door
during non-scheduled maintenance. This AD requires a functional check
of the pilot and co-pilot door jettisoning system and corrective
actions if necessary, as specified in a European Aviation Safety Agency
(EASA) AD, which is incorporated by reference. The FAA is issuing this
AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: This AD is effective July 20, 2021.

    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of July 20,
2021.

ADDRESSES: For material incorporated by reference (IBR) in this AD,
contact the EASA, Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3, 50668 Cologne, Germany;
telephone +49 221 8999 000; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>internet
www.easa.europa.eu. You may find this material on the EASA website at
https://ad.easa.europa.eu. You may view this material at the FAA,
Office of the Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy.,
Room 6N-321, Fort Worth, TX 76177. For information on the availability
of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. It is also available in
the AD docket on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by
searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2021-0314.

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-2021-
0314; or in person at Docket Operations between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains
this final rule, any comments received, and other information. The
address for Docket Operations is U.S. Department of Transportation,
Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kathleen Arrigotti, Program Manager,
Large Aircraft Section, International Validation Branch, Compliance &
Airworthiness Division, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA
98198; telephone and fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The EASA (now European Union Aviation Safety Agency), which is the
Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued
EASA AD 2015-0157, dated July 30, 2015 (EASA AD 2015-0157) (also
referred to as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or
the MCAI), to correct an unsafe condition for Airbus Helicopters Model
EC 155 B1 helicopters, all serial numbers delivered after manufacturing
before June 30, 2015, and equipped with a pilot or co-pilot door
jettisoning system in accordance with Airbus Helicopters Modification
POST MOD 0752C05, except helicopters on which Aircraft Maintenance
Manual (AMM) Task 52-11-00-712 was accomplished on both pilot and co-
pilot doors since the last crew door installation.
    The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14
CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain Airbus
Helicopters Model EC155B1 helicopters. The NPRM published in the
Federal Register on April 22, 2021 (86 FR 21240). The NPRM was prompted
by a report of difficulties when jettisoning the co-pilot door during
non-scheduled maintenance. The NPRM proposed to require a functional
check of the pilot and co-pilot door jettisoning system and corrective
actions if necessary, as specified in an EASA AD.
    The FAA is issuing this AD to address jamming of the affected door
jettisoning mechanism, which could reduce the ability of the flightcrew
to evacuate in the event of an emergency situation. See the MCAI for
additional background information.

Discussion of Final Airworthiness Directive

Comments

    The FAA gave the public the opportunity to participate in
developing this final rule. The FAA received no comments on the NPRM or
on the determination of the cost to the public.

Conclusion

    The FAA reviewed the relevant data and determined that air safety
and the public interest require adopting this final rule as proposed,
except for minor editorial changes. The FAA has determined that these
minor changes:
     Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the
NPRM for addressing the unsafe condition; and
     Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was
already proposed in the NPRM.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    EASA AD 2015-0157 specifies procedures for doing a functional check
of the pilot and co-pilot door jettisoning system and corrective
actions. The corrective actions include greasing the tenons and
restoring the jettison system. This material is reasonably available
because the interested parties have access to it through their normal
course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this AD affects 14 helicopters of U.S.
registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:

                                      Estimated Costs for Required Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per       Cost on U.S.
                          Labor cost                              Parts cost        product         operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
8 work-hours x $85 per hour = $680...........................              $0             $680           $9,520
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FAA estimates the following costs to do any necessary on-
condition action that would be required based on the results of any
required actions. The FAA has no way of determining the number of
helicopters that might need this on-condition action:

                                     Estimated Costs of On-Condition Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per
                                  Labor cost                                       Parts cost        product
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 work-hour x $85 per hour = $85..............................................              $0              $85
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

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

2021-12-05 Airbus Helicopters: Amendment 39-21592; Docket No. FAA-
2021-0314; Project Identifier MCAI-2020-00599-R.

(a) Effective Date

    This airworthiness directive (AD) is effective July 20, 2021.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Airbus Helicopters Model EC155B1 helicopters,
certificated in any category, all serial numbers manufactured before
June 30, 2015, and equipped with a pilot or co-pilot door
jettisoning system in accordance with Airbus Helicopters
modification POST MOD 0752C05, except helicopters on which Aircraft
Maintenance Manual (AMM) task 52-11-00-712 was accomplished on both
pilot and co-pilot doors since the last crew door installation.

(d) Subject

    Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC) Code 5210, Passenger/Crew
Doors.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by a report of difficulties when
jettisoning the co-pilot door during non-scheduled maintenance. The
FAA is issuing this AD to address jamming of the affected door
jettisoning mechanism, which could reduce the ability of the
flightcrew to evacuate in the event of an emergency situation.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Requirements

    Except as specified in paragraph (h) of this AD: Comply with all
required actions and compliance times specified in, and in
accordance with European Aviation Safety Agency (now European Union
Aviation Safety Agency) (EASA) AD 2015-0157, dated July 30, 2015
(EASA AD 2015-0157).

(h) Exceptions to EASA AD 2015-0157

    (1) Where EASA AD 2015-0157 refers to its effective date, this
AD requires using the effective date of this AD.
    (2) The ``Remarks'' section of EASA AD 2015-0157 does not apply
to this AD.
    (3) Where EASA AD 2015-0157 refers to flight hours (FH), this AD
requires using hours time-in-service.
    (4) Where paragraph (2) of EASA AD 2015-0157 provides an option
to contact Airbus Helicopters for approved instructions and
accomplish those instructions, for this AD, the option is to repair
the jettison system in accordance with FAA-approved procedures.
    (5) Where the service information referenced in EASA AD 2015-
0157 specifies to ``speak to Airbus Helicopters,'' this AD requires
repairing the jettison system in accordance with FAA-approved
procedures.
    (6) Where the service information referenced in EASA AD 2015-
0157 specifies to discard certain parts, this AD requires removing
the parts from service instead.

(i) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) 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. 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 International Validation Branch, send
it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (j) of
this AD. Information may be emailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (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.

(j) Related Information

    For more information about this AD, contact Kathleen Arrigotti,
Program Manager, Large Aircraft Section, International Validation
Branch, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, FAA, 2200 South 216th
St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone and fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
(k) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed
in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD 2015-0157, dated
July 30, 2015.
    (ii) [Reserved]
    (3) For EASA AD 2015-0157, contact the EASA, Konrad-Adenauer-
Ufer 3, 50668 Cologne, Germany; telephone +49 221 8999 000; email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet www.easa.europa.eu. You may find this
EASA AD on the EASA website at https://ad.easa.europa.eu.
    (4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Office of
the Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Room
6N-321, Fort Worth, TX 76177. For information on the availability of
this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. This material may be
found in the AD docket on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-
2021-0314.
    (5) You may view this material that is incorporated by reference
at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For
information on the availability of this material at NARA, email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or go to https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued on May 27, 2021.
Lance T. Gant,
Director, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2021-12482 Filed 6-14-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 228 (Wednesday, November 29, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 56594-56595]
[FR Doc No: 2017-25756]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP18-17-000]

Southern Star Central Gas Pipeline, Inc.; Notice of Request Under
Blanket Authorization

    Take notice that on November 14, 2017, Southern Star Central Gas
Pipeline, Inc. (Southern Star), 4700 State Highway 56, Owensboro,
Kentucky 42301, filed a prior notice application pursuant to sections
157.205, and 157.216(b) of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's
(Commission) regulations under the Natural Gas Act (NGA), and
Columbia's blanket certificate issued in Docket No. CP82-479-000.
Southern Star requests authorization to construct, own and operate the
Blue Mountain Chisholm Trail Project located in Grady and Carter
Counties, Oklahoma. The proposed project consists of approximately 4.67
miles of 12[hyphen]inch diameter pipeline, associated
above[hyphen]ground facilities, a booster compression site utilizing
rental compressor units and a lateral to the delivery point, at a cost
of $20,881,158, all as more fully set forth in the application which is
open to the public for inspection.
    Blue Mountain Midstream LLC (Blue Mountain) has proposed
construction of a new cryogenic gas processing plant in Grady
County,\1\ Oklahoma, with an approximate inlet capacity of 250,000
dekatherms per day (Dth/d). Southern Star's proposed project will
receive up to 150,000 Dth/d of gas processed by this production
facility for transport on its system. Of this volume, Southern Star has
contractual commitments for firm transportation with Blue Mountain for
a minimum delivery of 45,000 Dth/d to a proposed delivery point on
Natural Gas Pipeline Company of America (NGPL) in Carter County,
Oklahoma. The remaining capacity will enhance gas supply for existing
customers on Southern Star's system. Southern Star and Blue Mountain
have entered into a precedent agreement, interconnect agreement and
will enter into an FTS Agreement, and Southern Star and NGPL have
entered into an interconnect agreement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See application filed November 9, 2017, in Docket No. CP18-
14-000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The filing may also be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.gov
using the eLibrary link. Enter the docket number excluding the last
three digits in the docket number field to access the document. For
assistance, contact FERC at [email protected] or call toll-
free,<PHONE_NUMBER> or TTY,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Any questions regarding this application should be directed to
Cindy C. Thompson, Manager, Regulatory, Southern Star Central Gas
Pipeline, Inc., 4700 Highway 56, Owensboro, Kentucky 42301 or call
(270) 852-4655, or email to [email protected].
    Any person or the Commission's staff may, within 60 days after
issuance of the instant notice by the Commission, file pursuant to Rule
214 of the Commission's Procedural Rules (18 CFR 385.214) a motion to
intervene or notice of intervention and pursuant to Section 157.205 of
the regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.205), a protest to the
request. If no protest is filed within the time allowed therefore, the
proposed activity shall be deemed to be authorized effective the day
after the time allowed for filing a protest. If a protest is filed and
not withdrawn within 30 days after the allowed time for filing a
protest, the instant request shall be treated as an application for
authorization pursuant to section 7 of the NGA.
    Pursuant to section 157.9 of the Commission's rules, 18 CFR 157.9,
within 90 days of this Notice the Commission staff will either:
complete its environmental assessment (EA) and place it into the
Commission's public

record (eLibrary) for this proceeding, or issue a Notice of Schedule
for Environmental Review. If a Notice of Schedule for Environmental
Review is issued, it will indicate, among other milestones, the
anticipated date for the Commission staff's issuance of the final
environmental impact statement (FEIS) or EA for this proposal. The
filing of the EA in the Commission's public record for this proceeding
or the issuance of a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review will
serve to notify federal and state agencies of the timing for the
completion of all necessary reviews, and the subsequent need to
complete all federal authorizations within 90 days of the date of
issuance of the Commission staff's FEIS or EA.
    Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of
this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments
to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commenters will be
placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive
copies of the environmental documents, and will be notified of meetings
associated with the Commission's environmental review process.
Environmental commenters will not be required to serve copies of filed
documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commenter will
not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by
the Commission (except for the mailing of environmental documents
issued by the Commission) and will not have the right to seek court
review of the Commission's final order.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments,
protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the eFiling link at
http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should
submit an original and 5 copies of the protest or intervention to the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington,
DC 20426.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on January 22, 2018.

    Dated: November 22, 2017.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-25756 Filed 11-28-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P