RICHARD J. OTTEN Registration and Regulatory Services PMB 239, 7474 Creedmoor Road, Raleigh, NC 27613 PHONE: 919 846 7860 FAX: 919 846 2775 Email: dgminc@ bellsouth. net March 5, 2003 Mr. Mark Howard Reregistration Branch, SRRD ( H7508W)

U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Ariel Rios Building 1200 Pennsylvania Ave, N. W.

Washington DC 20460 RE: Tolerance Reregistration Eligibility Decision ( TRED) for 4 CPA Dear Mark:

The document from Mr. Michael Goodis was received by us on February 18, 2003. Therefore, we are responding well within the 30 day period requested in his letter. In general, we agree that the document correctly identifies data, discussion at the previous SMART meetings, waivers and minor use considerations. Since then, there are several additional comments for your consideration:

1. I'm told that all use of this compound for suppression of mung bean sprouting has been consolidated in one location ( LaChoy) rather than the two or three possible locations mentioned in the TRED, thus reducing potential exposure from use even more.

2. We continue to recommend that EPA take the administrative steps to reduce the published residue tolerance from 2.0 to 0.2 ppm. Whereas the calculated risk is acceptable at the higher level, we feel it is in the best interest of EPA and the compound to have the published residue tolerance more accurately reflect the real life residue potential.

3. We were pleased that the TRED recognized the ongoing discussions between EPA and registrants of the major phenoxy herbicides regarding the preference of using rats as the model for potential toxicological effects on man, rather than dogs.

It may take several years for agreement to be reached. Thus, it is understandable that EPA take the conservative approach in this TRED and base its calculations on effect levels in dogs. In the interest of scientific accuracy, we may run the risk calculations using effect levels in rats to see if there is a major difference in conclusions.

4. Otherwise, there is no additional data being developed by Conagra Grocery Product Company at this time.

We were a little surprised that EPA included in the TRED comments on older ( 1965 era) non GLP studies on reproductive effects. We wonder if these comments add anything to the TRED, other than to show for the record that EPA considered all data available to it.

5. The amount of compound used in the U. S. per year for inhibition of mung bean root development continues at roughly the same level as reported to you previously.

Please contact me if you or your associates have additional questions.

Sincerely,

Dick Richard J. Otten Regulatory Consultant for Conagra Grocery Products Company RJO/ dgm cc: Rennie P. Ruiz, Ph. D., Conagra Grocery Product Company


	ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

	40 CFR Part 52 and 81

	[EPA-R03-OAR-2007-0245; FRL-         ]

	Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Pennsylvania;  Redesignation of the Altoona 8-Hour Ozone Nonattainment
Area to Attainment and Approval of the Area’s Maintenance Plan and
2002 Base Year Inventory

AGENCY:  Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION:  Final rule.

SUMMARY:  EPA is approving a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision
submitted by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.  The Pennsylvania
Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) is requesting that the
Altoona 8-hour ozone nonattainment area (“Altoona Area” or
“Area”) be redesignated as attainment for the 8-hour ozone ambient
air quality standard (NAAQS).  The Area is comprised of Blair County,
Pennsylvania.  EPA is approving the ozone redesignation request for
Altoona Area.  In conjunction with its redesignation request, PADEP
submitted a SIP revision consisting of a maintenance plan for Altoona
Area that provides for continued attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS
for at least 10 years after redesignation.  EPA is approving the 8-hour
maintenance plan.  PADEP also submitted a 2002 base year inventory for
the Altoona Area which EPA is approving.  In addition, EPA is approving
the adequacy determination for the motor vehicle emission budgets
(MVEBs) that are identified in the Altoona Area maintenance plan for
purposes of transportation conformity, and is approving those MVEBs.
EPA is approving the redesignation request, and the maintenance plan and
the 2002 base year emissions inventory as revisions to the Pennsylvania
SIP in accordance with the requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA).

EFFECTIVE DATE:  This final rule is effective on [insert date from date
of publication] pursuant to the authority of 5 USC 553(d)(1).

ADDRESSES:  EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket
ID Number EPA-R03-OAR-2007-0245.  All documents in the docket are listed
in the www.regulations.gov website.   Although listed in the electronic
docket, some information is not publicly available, i.e., confidential
business information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute.  Certain other material, such as copyrighted
material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available
only in hard copy form.  Publicly available docket materials are
available either electronically through www.regulations.gov or in hard
copy for public inspection during normal business hours at the Air
Protection Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III,
1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103.  Copies of the State
submittal are available at the Pennsylvania Department of Environment
Protection, Bureau of Air Quality Control, P.O. Box 8468, 400 Market
Street, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17105.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  Amy Caprio,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by
e-mail at   HYPERLINK<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I.  Background

On June 7, 2007 (72 FR 31495), EPA published a notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPR) for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.  The NPR proposed
approval of Pennsylvania’s redesignation request, a SIP revision that
establishes a maintenance plan for the Altoona Area that provides for
continued attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS for at least 10 years
after redesignation, and a 2002 base year emissions inventory.  The
formal SIP revisions were submitted by PADEP on February 8, 2007.  Other
specific requirements of Pennsylvania’s redesignation request SIP
revision for the maintenance plan and the rationales for EPA’s
proposed actions are explained in the NPR and will not be restated here.
 No public comments were received on the NPR.

However, on   SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1  December 22, 2006, the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit vacated EPA’s Phase 1
Implementation Rule for the 8-hour Ozone Standard. (69 FR 23951, April
30, 2004).  South Coast Air Quality Management Dist.  v. EPA, 472 F.3d
882 (D.C.Cir. 2006).  On June 8, 2007, in South Coast Air Quality
Management Dist. v. EPA, Docket No. 04-1201, in response to several
petitions for rehearing, the D. C. Circuit clarified that the Phase 1
Rule was vacated only with regard to those parts of the rule that had
been successfully challenged.  Therefore, the Phase 1 Rule provisions
related to classifications for areas currently classified under subpart
2 of  Title I,  part D of the Act as 8-hour  nonattainment areas, the
8-hour attainment dates and the timing for emissions reductions needed
for attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS remain effective.    The June 8
decision left intact the Court’s rejection of EPA’s reasons for
implementing the 8-hour standard in certain nonattainment areas under
subpart 1 in lieu of subpart 2.  By limiting the vacatur, the Court let
stand EPA’s revocation of the 1-hour standard and those
anti-backsliding provisions of the Phase 1 Rule that had not been
successfully challenged.  The June 8 decision reaffirmed the December
22, 2006 decision that EPA had improperly failed to retain measures
required for 1-hour nonattainment areas under the anti-backsliding
provisions of the regulations: (1) nonattainment area New Source Review
(NSR) requirements based on an area’s 1-hour nonattainment
classification; (2) Section 185 penalty fees for 1-hour severe or
extreme nonattainment areas; and (3) measures to be implemented pursuant
to section 172(c)(9) or 182(c)(9) of the Act, on the contingency of an
area not making reasonable further progress toward attainment of the
1-hour NAAQS, or for failure to attain that NAAQS.

In addition the June 8 decision clarified that the Court’s reference
to conformity requirements for anti-backsliding purposes was limited to
requiring the continued use of 1-hour MVEBs until 8-hour budgets were
available for 8-hour conformity determinations, which is already
required under EPA’s conformity regulations.  The Court thus clarified
that 1-hour conformity determinations are not required for
anti-backsliding purposes.

For the reasons set forth in the proposal, EPA does not believe that the
Court’s rulings alter any requirements relevant to this redesignation
action so as to preclude redesignation, and do not prevent EPA from
finalizing this redesignation.  EPA believes that the Court’s December
22, 2006 and June 8, 2007 decisions impose no impediment to moving
forward with redesignation of this area to attainment, because even in
light of the Court’s decisions, redesignation is appropriate under the
relevant redesignation provisions of the Act and longstanding policies
regarding redesignation requests.

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 In its proposal, EPA proposed to find that the
area had satisfied the requirements under the 1-hour standard whether
the 1-hour standard was deemed to be reinstated or whether the Court’s
decision on the petition for rehearing were modified to require
something less than compliance with all applicable 1-hour requirements.
Because EPA proposed to find that the area satisfied the requirements
under either scenario, EPA is proceeding to finalize the redesignation
and to conclude that the area met the requirements under the 1-hour
standard applicable for purposes of redesignation under the 8-hour
standard.  These include the provisions of EPA’s anti-backsliding
rules, as well as the additional anti-backsliding provisions identified
by the Court in its rulings.  In its June 8, 2007 decision the Court
limited its vacatur so as to uphold those provisions of the
anti-backsliding requirements that were not successfully challenged.
Therefore, EPA finds that the area has met the anti-backsliding
requirements, see 40 CFR 51.900 et seq; 70 FR 30592, 30604 (May 26,
2005) which apply by virtue of the area’s classification for the
1-hour ozone NAAQS, as well as the four additional anti-backsliding
provisions identified by the Court, or that such requirements are not
applicable for purposes of redesignation.  In addition, with respect to
the requirement for transportation conformity under the 1-hour standard,
the Court in its June 8 decision clarified that for those areas with
1-hour MVEBs, anti-backsliding requires only that those 1-hour budgets
must be used for 8-hour conformity determinations until replaced by
8-hour budgets.  To meet this requirement, conformity determinations in
such areas must continue to comply with the applicable requirements of
EPA’s conformity regulations at 40 CFR Part 93.  The court clarified
that 1-hour conformity determinations are not required for
anti-backsliding purposes.

II.  Final Action

EPA is approving the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania’s redesignation
request, maintenance plan, and the 2002 base year emissions inventory
because the requirements for approval have been satisfied.  EPA has
evaluated Pennsylvania’s redesignation request that was submitted on
February 8, 2007 and determined that it meets the redesignation criteria
set forth in section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA.  EPA believes that the
redesignation request and monitoring data demonstrate that the Altoona
Area has attained the 8-hour ozone standard.  The final approval of this
redesignation request will change the designation of the Altoona Area
from nonattainment to attainment for the 8-hour ozone standard.  EPA is
approving the maintenance plan for the Altoona Area submitted on
February 8, 2007 as a revision to the Pennsylvania SIP.  EPA is also
approving the MVEBs submitted by PADEP in conjunction with its
redesignation request.  In addition, EPA is approving the 2002 base year
emissions inventory submitted by PADEP on February 8, 2007 as a revision
to the Pennsylvania SIP.  In this final rulemaking, EPA is notifying the
public that we have found that the MVEBs for volatile organic compounds
(VOC) and nitrogen oxides (NOx) in the Altoona Area for the 8-hour ozone
maintenance plan are adequate and approved for conformity purposes.  As
a result of our finding, the Altoona Area must use the MVEBs from the
submitted 8-hour ozone maintenance plan for future conformity
determinations.  The adequate and approved MVEBs are provided in the
following table:

Adequate and Approved Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets in Tons per Summer
Day (tpsd)

Budget Year	VOC	NOx

2009	4.2	6.5

2018	2.8	3.3

The Altoona Area is subject to the CAA’s requirement for the basic
nonattainment areas until and unless it is redesignated to attainment.

III.  Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A.   General Requirements

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action
is not a "significant regulatory action" and therefore is not subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget.  For this reason, this
action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, "Actions Concerning
Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or
Use" (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001).  This action merely approves state law
as meeting Federal requirements and imposes no additional requirements
beyond those imposed by state law.  Redesignation of an area to
attainment under section 107(d)(3)(e) of the Clean Air Act does not
impose any new requirements on small entities.  Redesignation is an
action that affects the status of a geographical area and does not
impose any new regulatory requirements on sources.  Accordingly, the
Administrator certifies that this rule will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the
Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.).  Because this rule
approves pre-existing requirements under state law and does not impose
any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by state law, it
does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely
affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform
Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-4).   This rule also does not have tribal
implications because it will not have a substantial direct effect on one
or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
Because this action  affects the status of a geographical area, does not
impose any new requirements on sources, or allows the state to avoid
adopting or implementing other requirements, this action also does not
have Federalism implications because it does not have substantial direct
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999).  This action
merely approves a state rule implementing a Federal requirement, and
does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and
responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act.  This rule also is
not subject to Executive Order 13045 (Protection of Children from
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks( (62 FR 19885, April 23,
1997), because it approves a state rule implementing a Federal standard.

In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA(s role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act.  In this
context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the State to
use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to
disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS.  It would thus be
inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP
submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise
satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act.  Redesignation is an
action that affects the status of a geographical area and does not
impose any new requirements on sources.  Thus, the requirements of
section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of
1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply.  This rule does not impose an
information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).

B.   Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General

The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the
rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to
each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United
States.  EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other
required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register.  This rule is not a
(major rule( as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

C.  Petitions for Judicial Review

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial
review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of
Appeals for the appropriate circuit by [insert date 60 days from date of
publication of this document in the Federal Register].  Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this rule 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.

This action, approving the redesignation of the Altoona Area to
attainment for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS, the associated maintenance plan,
the 2002 base year emission inventory, and the MVEBs identified in the
maintenance plan, may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce
its requirements.  (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Nitrogen dioxide,
Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic
compounds.

40 CFR Part 81

Air pollution Control, National Parks, Wilderness Areas.

                          /s/

________________
___________________________

Dated:   July 16, 2007            				Donald S. Welsh,
              							            Regional Administrator,

                                  					Region III.

40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52 - [AMENDED]

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

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

Subpart NN(Pennsylvania

2.  In ( 52.2020, the table in paragraph (e)(1) is amended by adding an
entry for the 8-hour Ozone Maintenance Plan and the 2002 Base Year
Emissions Inventory for Blair County, Pennsylvania at the end of the
table to read as follows:

( 52.2020  	Identification of plan.

* 	* 	* 	* 	*

(e) ***

   (1)***

Name of non-regulatory SIP revision	Applicable geographic area	State
submittal date	EPA approval date	Additional explanation

*            *             *            *            *            *
     *

8-Hour Ozone Maintenance Plan and 2002 Base Year Emissions Inventory
Blair County	02/08/07	[Insert Federal Register] publication date]
[Insert page number where the document begins]

PART 81- [AMENDED]

The authority citation for Part 81 continues to read as follows:

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

In §81.339, the table entitled “Pennsylvania- Ozone (8-Hour
Standard)” is amended by revising the entry for the Altoona, PA:
Blair County to read as follows:

§81.339                    Pennsylvania

*          *          *          *          *

Pennsylvania – Ozone (8-Hour Standard)

Designated Area	Designationa	Category/Classification

	Date1	Type	Date1	Type

*           *           *           *           *           *
*

Altoona, PA:  Blair County	[Insert date of publication]	Attainment

*           *           *           *           *           *
*

aIncludes Indian County located in each county or area, except otherwise
noted.

1This date is June 15, 2004, unless otherwise noted.

*           *           *           *           *

 PAGE

 PAGE   2

 PAGE  3


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 239 (Thursday, December 14, 2023)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 86571-86574]
[FR Doc No: 2023-27494]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2023-2241; Project Identifier AD-2023-01214-A;
Amendment 39-22629; AD 2023-25-02]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Piper Aircraft, Inc. Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for
certain Piper Aircraft, Inc. (Piper) Model PA-46-350P, PA-46-500TP, and
PA-46-600TP airplanes. This AD was prompted by a report that a bearing
fell out of a control column mount during routine handling prior to
installation in an affected airplane and the discovery that a quality
escape condition could exist on other airplanes. This AD requires
inspecting the left and right control column mounts to determine if a
retaining ring is installed. If a retaining ring is not installed, this
AD requires inspecting the bearing in the mount block for the presence
of retaining compound, and depending on the inspection results,
installing a retaining ring and applying retaining compound to the
bearing, as applicable. The FAA is issuing this AD to address the
unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: This AD is effective December 19, 2023.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of December 19,
2023.
    The FAA must receive comments on this AD by January 29, 2024.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR
11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:

     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to regulations.gov. Follow
the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail address above between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    AD Docket: You may examine the AD docket at regulations.gov under
Docket No. FAA-2023-2241; 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 street address for Docket Operations is listed above.
    Material Incorporated by Reference:
     For service information identified in this final rule,
contact Piper Aircraft, Inc., 2926 Piper Drive, Vero Beach, FL 32960;
phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; website: www.piper.com.
     You may view this service information at the FAA,
Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 901 Locust,
Kansas City, MO 64106. For information on the availability of this
material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. It is also available at
regulations.gov under Docket No. FAA-2023-2241.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tuan Tran, Aviation Safety Engineer,
FAA, 1701 Columbia Avenue, College Park, GA 30337; phone: (404) 474-
5522; email: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    The FAA invites you to send any written data, views, or arguments
about this final rule. Send your comments to an address listed under
ADDRESSES. Include ``FAA-2023-2241 Project Identifier AD-2023-01214-A''
at the beginning of your comments. The most helpful comments reference
a specific portion of the final rule, explain the reason for any
recommended change, and include supporting data. The FAA will consider
all comments received by the closing date and may amend this final rule
because of those comments.
    Except for Confidential Business Information (CBI) as described in
the following paragraph, and other information as described in 14 CFR
11.35, the FAA will post all comments received, without change, to
regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. The
agency will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal
contact received about this final rule.

Confidential Business Information

    CBI is commercial or financial information that is both customarily
and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of
Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public
disclosure. If your comments responsive to this AD contain commercial
or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that
you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to
this AD, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted
comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission containing
CBI as ``PROPIN.'' The FAA will treat such marked submissions as
confidential under the FOIA, and they will not be placed in the public
docket of this AD. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to Tuan
Tran, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 1701 Columbia Avenue, College
Park, GA 30337. Any commentary that the FAA receives which is not
specifically designated as CBI will be placed in the public docket for
this rulemaking.

Background

    On November 15, 2023, the FAA received a report that a bearing fell
out of a control column mount during routine handling, prior to
installation on a Piper Model PA-46-600TP airplane. To conform to the
type design, this bearing is installed in the mount block using a
retaining compound into a recess in the control column mount with
secondary retention provided by a retaining ring. Piper's investigation
into this incident revealed that the retaining ring was not installed.
If the bearing is not secure due to the absence of the retaining ring
the quadrant assembly and shaft could migrate aft and separate from the
firewall attachment, creating a free end on the affected control
column. With a free end on the control column, combined with other
factors, the aileron cables could become slack, resulting in loss of
aileron control, and it could also bind the free operation of the
elevator control system. Slack aileron cables and binding of the
elevator controls would affect both the pilot and copilot controls. On
November 17, 2023, further investigation by Piper into this situation
found a quality escape issue on certain Piper Model PA-46-350P, PA-46-
500TP, and PA-46-600TP airplanes where the possibility exists that the
retaining ring was not installed during production or retaining
compound was not applied to the bearing. A missing retaining ring in a
control column mount, if not addressed, could lead to a major failure
in the aileron quadrant assembly and result in loss of pitch and roll
control of the airplane during flight with consequent loss of control
of the airplane. The FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe
condition on these products.

FAA's Determination

    The FAA is issuing this AD because the agency has determined the
unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop in
other products of the same type design.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    The FAA reviewed Piper Service Bulletin No. 1409A, dated November
21, 2023 (Piper SB 1409A). This service information specifies
procedures for inspecting the left and right control column mounts to
determine if a retaining ring is installed, inspecting the bearing in
the mount block for the presence of retaining compound, installing a
retaining ring, and applying retaining compound to the bearing. This
service information is reasonably available because the interested
parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by
the means identified in ADDRESSES.

AD Requirements

    This AD requires accomplishing the actions identified as ``RC''
(required for compliance) in Part III. of the Instructions in Piper SB
1409A.

Justification for Immediate Adoption and Determination of the Effective
Date

    Section 553(b)(3)(B) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5
U.S.C. 551 et seq.) authorizes agencies to dispense with notice and
comment procedures for rules when the agency, for ``good cause,'' finds
that those procedures are ``impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to
the public interest.'' Under this section, an agency, upon finding good
cause, may issue a final rule without providing notice and seeking
comment prior to issuance. Further, section 553(d) of the APA
authorizes agencies to make rules effective in less than thirty days,
upon a finding of good cause.
    An unsafe condition exists that requires the immediate adoption of
this AD without providing an opportunity for public comments prior to
adoption. The FAA has found that the risk to the flying public
justifies forgoing notice and comment prior to adoption of this rule
because a missing retaining ring in a control column mount, if not
addressed, could lead to a major failure

in the aileron quadrant assembly without warning and result in loss of
pitch and roll control of the airplane during flight with consequent
loss of control of the airplane. Because this could happen without
warning, the left and right control column mounts must be inspected
before further flight to determine if the retaining ring is missing.
Accordingly, notice and opportunity for prior public comment are
impracticable and contrary to the public interest pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
553(b)(3)(B).
    In addition, the FAA finds that good cause exists pursuant to 5
U.S.C. 553(d) for making this amendment effective in less than 30 days,
for the same reasons the FAA found good cause to forgo notice and
comment.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) do not
apply when an agency finds good cause pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553 to adopt
a rule without prior notice and comment. Because FAA has determined
that it has good cause to adopt this rule without prior notice and
comment, RFA analysis is not required.

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this AD affects 57 airplanes of U.S.
registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    Cost per
             Action                    Labor cost      Parts cost   product         Cost on U.S. operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inspection of Model PA-46-350P    3 work-hours x $85           $0       $255  $3,825 (15 airplanes).
 airplanes.                        per hour = $255.
Inspection of Model PA-46-500TP   16 work-hours x $85           0      1,360  $57,120 (42 airplanes).
 and Model PA-46-600TP airplanes.  per hour = $1,360.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FAA estimates the following costs to do any necessary actions
that would be required based on the results of the inspection. The
agency has no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need
these actions:

                                               On-Condition Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per
                    Action                                 Labor cost               Parts cost        product
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Installation of retaining ring................  0.50 work-hour x $85 per hour =              $10          $52.50
                                                 $42.50.
Application of retaining compound.............  0.50 work-hour x $85 per hour =               10           52.50
                                                 $42.50.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FAA has included all known costs in its cost estimate.
According to the manufacturer, however, some of the costs of this AD
may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on
affected operators.

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, and
    (2) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska.

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:

2023-25-02 Piper Aircraft, Inc.: Amendment 39-22629; Docket No. FAA-
2023-2241; Project Identifier AD-2023-01214-A.

(a) Effective Date

    This airworthiness directive (AD) is effective December 19,
2023.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Piper Aircraft, Inc. airplanes identified in
paragraphs (c)(1) through (3) of this AD, certificated in any
category.
    (1) Model PA-46-350P airplanes, serial numbers 4636811 through
4636814 inclusive and 4636816 through 4636829 inclusive.
    (2) Model PA-46-500TP airplanes, serial numbers 4697692 through
4697700 inclusive.
    (3) Model PA-46-600TP airplanes, serial numbers 4698224 through
4698240 inclusive and 4698242 through 4698274 inclusive.

(d) Subject

    Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC) Code 2701, Control Column
Section.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by a report that a bearing fell out of a
control column mount during routine handling prior to installation

in an affected airplane and the discovery that a quality escape
condition could exist on other airplanes. The FAA is issuing this AD
to address a missing retaining ring in a control column mount. A
missing retaining ring in a control column mount, if not addressed,
could lead to a major failure in the aileron quadrant assembly and
result in loss of pitch and roll control during flight with
consequent loss of control of the airplane.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Required Actions

    Before further flight after the effective date of this AD, do
all applicable actions identified as ``RC'' (required for
compliance) in, and in accordance with Part III. of the Instructions
in Piper Service Bulletin No. 1409A, dated November 21, 2023 (Piper
SB 1409A).

(h) Special Flight Permit

    For airplanes with greater than 25 flight hours time since new,
a one-time flight is allowed to reach the nearest facility that is
capable of doing the inspection and repair described in Part III. of
the Instructions in Piper SB 1409A, provided the flight is with
minimum required crew and after verification of the integrity of the
left and right control columns (the control columns do not feel or
visually appear to be loose, do not have a substantial increase in
control force requirements, or do not have a reduction in control
authority).

(i) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, East Certification 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 East Certification Branch, send it to
the attention of the person identified in paragraph (j) of this AD
and email to: [email protected].
    (2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate
principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager
of the local Flight Standards District Office/certificate holding
district office.
    (3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be
used for any repair, modification, or alteration required by this AD
if it is approved by the Piper Organization Designation
Authorization (ODA) that has been authorized by the Manager, East
Certification Branch to make those findings. To be approved, the
repair method, modification deviation, or alteration deviation must
meet the certification basis of the airplane, and the approval must
specifically refer to this AD.
    (4) Except as required by paragraph (g) of this AD: For service
information that contains steps that are labeled as Required for
Compliance (RC), the following provisions apply.
    (i) The steps labeled as RC, including substeps under an RC step
and any figures identified in an RC step, must be done to comply
with the AD. An AMOC is required for any deviations to RC steps,
including substeps and identified figures.
    (ii) The steps not labeled as RC may be deviated from using
accepted methods in accordance with the operator's maintenance or
inspection program without obtaining approval of an AMOC, provided
the RC steps, including substeps and identified figures, can still
be done as specified, and the airplane can be put back in an
airworthy condition.

(j) Additional Information

    For more information about this AD, contact Tuan Tran, Aviation
Safety Engineer, FAA, 1701 Columbia Avenue, College Park, GA 30337;
phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email: [email protected].

(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 the AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) Piper Service Bulletin No. 1409A, dated November 21, 2023.
    (ii) [Reserved]
    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact Piper
Aircraft, Inc., 2926 Piper Drive, Vero Beach, FL 32960; phone: (772)
291-2141; website: www.piper.com.
    (4) You may view this service information at the FAA,
Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 901
Locust, Kansas City, MO 64106. For information on the availability
of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (5) You may view this material at the National Archives and
Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability
of this material at NARA, visit www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations or email [email protected].

    Issued on December 8, 2023.
Victor Wicklund,
Deputy Director, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, Aircraft
Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2023-27494 Filed 12-11-23; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 65 (Wednesday, April 4, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 20396-20398]
[FR Doc No: 2012-8093]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-9656-1]

Request for Nominations of Candidates to the EPA's Clean Air
Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC) and EPA's Science Advisory Board
(SAB)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) invites
nominations of scientific experts from a diverse range of disciplinary
areas to be considered for appointment to the Clean Air Scientific
Advisory Committee (CASAC), the Science Advisory Board (SAB) and four
SAB Committees described in this notice. Appointments are anticipated
to be filled by the start of Fiscal Year 2013.

DATES: Nominations should be submitted in time to arrive no later than
May 4, 2012.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nominators unable to submit
nominations electronically as described below may submit a paper copy
by the Designated Federal Officers for the committees, as identified
below. General inquiries regarding the work of the CASAC and SAB or SAB
committees may also be directed to them.
    Background: Established by statute, the CASAC (42 U.S.C. 7409) and
SAB

(42 U.S.C. 4365) are EPA's chartered Federal Advisory Committees that
provide independent scientific and technical peer review, consultation,
advice and recommendations directly to the EPA Administrator on the
scientific bases for EPA's actions and programs. Members of the CASAC
and the SAB constitute a distinguished body of non-EPA scientists,
engineers, economists, and behavioral and social scientists that are
nationally and internationally recognized experts in their respective
fields. Members are appointed by the EPA Administrator for a period of
three years. This notice specifically requests nominations for the
CASAC, the SAB, and SAB Committees from academia, industry, state and
tribal governments, research institutes, and non-governmental
organizations.
    Expertise Sought for CASAC: Established in 1977 under the Clean Air
Act (CAA) Amendments, the chartered CASAC reviews and offers scientific
advice to the EPA Administrator on technical aspects of national
ambient air quality standards for criteria pollutants (ozone,
particulate matter, carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides; sulfur dioxide,
and lead). As required under the CAA section 109(d), CASAC will be
composed of seven members, with at least one member of the National
Academy of Sciences, one physician, and one person representing State
air pollution control agencies. The SAB Staff Office is seeking
nominations of experts to serve on the CASAC with demonstrated
experience in the following science related to the environment: Health
sciences; medicine; public health; atmospheric sciences; modeling; and/
or risk assessment. The SAB Staff Office is especially interested in
scientists with expertise described above who has knowledge and
experience in air quality relating to criteria pollutants. For further
information about the CASAC membership appointment process and
schedule, please contact Dr. Holly Stallworth, DFO, by telephone at
202-564-2073 or by email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Expertise Sought for the SAB: The SAB was established in 1978 by
the Environmental Research, Development and Demonstration Act to
provide independent advice to the Administrator on general scientific
and technical matters underlying the Agency' policies and actions. All
the work of the SAB is under the direction of the Board. The chartered
SAB provides strategic advice to the EPA Administrator on a variety of
EPA science and research programs, oversees and reviews all SAB
committee and panel draft reports. The SAB Staff Office is seeking
nominations of experts to serve on the chartered SAB in the following
disciplines as they relate to the human health and the environment:
Ecological sciences and ecological assessment; economics; engineering;
medicine; health sciences; pediatrics; public health; human health risk
assessment, social, behavioral and decision sciences; and modeling and
statistics. The SAB Staff Office is especially interested in scientists
with expertise described above who have knowledge and experience in air
quality; climate change; energy and the environment; water quality;
water quantity; water re-use; ecosystem services; community
environmental health; sustainability; chemical safety; green chemistry;
and homeland security. For further information about the SAB membership
appointment process and schedule, please contact Dr. Angela Nugent,
DFO, by telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER> or by email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
The SAB Staff Office is also seeking nominations for experts for four
SAB Committees: The Drinking Water Committee, the Ecological Processes
and Effects Committee; the Environmental Economics Advisory Committee;
and the Radiation Advisory Committee.
    The SAB Drinking Water Committee provides advice on the scientific
and technical aspects of EPA's national drinking water program. The SAB
Staff Office is seeking nominations of experts with experience on
drinking water issues. Members should have one or more of the following
disciplines: Epidemiology; engineering; microbiology; and public
health. For further information about the DWC membership appointment
process and schedule, please contact Mr. Thomas Carpenter, DFO, by
telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER> or by email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    The SAB Ecological Processes and Effects Committee provides advice
on technical issues related to the science and research to protect and
restore the health of ecosystems. The SAB Staff Office is seeking
nominations of experts with demonstrated expertise in the following
disciplines: Aquatic ecology; ecological risk assessment,
ecotoxicology; landscape ecology, statistics; and terrestrial ecology.
For further information about the EPEC membership appointment process
and schedule, please contact Dr. Thomas Armitage, DFO, by telephone at
202-564-2155 or by email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    The SAB Environmental Economics Advisory Committee provides advice
on methods and analyses related to economics, costs, and benefits of
EPA environmental programs.
    The SAB Environmental Economics Advisory Committee provides advice
on methods and analyses related to economics, costs, and benefits of
EPA environmental programs. The SAB Staff office is seeking nominations
of experts in environmental economics to serve on the EEAC. For further
information about the EEAC membership appointment process and schedule,
please contact Dr. Holly Stallworth, DFO, by telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>
or by email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    The Radiation Advisory Committee provides advice on radiation
protection, radiation science, and radiation risk assessment. The SAB
Staff Office is seeking nominations of experts to serve on RAC with
demonstrated expertise in the following disciplines: dosimetry;
radiation biology; radiation epidemiology; radiation fate and transport
monitoring and measurement; radiological health and physical sciences;
risk assessment; and statistics. For further information about the RAC
membership appointment process and schedule, please contact Dr. K. Jack
Kooyoomjian, DFO, by telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER> or by email at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Selection Criteria for the CASAC, SAB and four SAB Committees
includes:

--Demonstrated scientific credentials and disciplinary expertise in
their own fields;
--Willingness to commit time to the committee and demonstrated ability
to work constructively and effectively on committees;
--Absence of financial conflicts of interest;
--Absence of an appearance of a lack of impartiality;
--Background and experiences that would help members contribute to the
diversity of perspectives on the committee, e.g., geographic, economic,
social, cultural, educational backgrounds, professional affiliations;
and other considerations; and
--For the committee as a whole, consideration of the collective breadth
and depth of scientific expertise; and a balance of scientific
perspectives.

    How to Submit Nominations: Any interested person or organization
may nominate qualified persons to be considered for appointment to this
advisory committee. Individuals may self-nominate. Nominations should
be submitted in electronic format (preferred) following the
instructions for ``Nominating Experts to the Chemical

Assessment Advisory Committee'' provided on the SAB Web site. The form
can be accessed through the ``Nomination of Experts'' link on the blue
navigational bar on the SAB Web site at http://www.epa.gov/sab. To be
considered, all nominations should include the information requested.
EPA values and welcomes diversity. In an effort to obtain nominations
of diverse candidates, EPA encourages nominations of women and men of
all racial and ethnic groups.
    Nominators are asked to identify the specific committee for which
nominees are to be considered. The following information should be
provided on the nomination form: Contact information about the person
making the nomination; contact information about the nominee; the
disciplinary and specific areas of expertise of the nominee; the
nominee's curriculum vita; and a biographical sketch of the nominee
indicating current position, educational background; research
activities; sources of research funding; and recent service on other
national advisory committees or national professional organizations. To
help the Agency in evaluating the effectiveness of its outreach
efforts, please tell us how you learned of this nomination opportunity.
Persons having questions about the nomination process or the public
comment process described below, or who are unable to submit
nominations through the SAB Web site, should contact the Designated
Federal Officer for the committee, as identified above. The DFO will
acknowledge receipt of nominations and in that acknowledgement will
invite the nominee to provide any additional information that the
nominee feels would be useful in considering the nomination, such as
availability to participate as a member of the committee; how the
nominee's background, skills and experience would contribute to the
diversity of the committee; and any concerns the nominee has regarding
membership. The names and biosketches of qualified nominees identified
by respondents to this Federal Register notice, and additional experts
identified by the SAB Staff, will be posted in a List of Candidates on
the SAB Web site at http://www.epa.gov/sab. Public comments on this
List of Candidates will be accepted for 21 days. The public will be
requested to provide relevant information or other documentation on
nominees that the SAB Staff Office should consider in evaluating
candidates.
    Candidates invited to serve will be asked to submit the
``Confidential Financial Disclosure Form for Special Government
Employees Serving on Federal Advisory Committees at the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency'' (EPA Form 3110-48). This confidential
form allows EPA to determine whether there is a statutory conflict
between that person's public responsibilities as a Special Government
Employee and private interests and activities, or the appearance of a
lack of impartiality, as defined by Federal regulation. The form may be
viewed and downloaded through the ``Ethics Requirements for Advisors''
link on the blue navigational bar on the SAB Web site at http://www.epa.gov/sab.

    Dated: March 29, 2012.
Thomas H. Brennan,
Deputy Director, EPA Science Advisory Board Staff Office.
[FR Doc. 2012-8093 Filed 4-3-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P