[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 177 (Thursday, September 14, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 43281]
[FR Doc No: 2017-19490]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

[Summary Notice No. 2017-70]

Petition for Exemption; Summary of Petition Received; Desert
Aerospace, LLC.

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice contains a summary of a petition seeking relief
from specified requirements of Federal Aviation Regulations. The
purpose of this notice is to improve the public's awareness of, and
participation in, the FAA's exemption process. Neither publication of
this notice nor the inclusion or omission of information in the summary
is intended to affect the legal status of the petition or its final
disposition.

DATES: Comments on this petition must identify the petition docket
number and must be received on or before October 4, 2017.

ADDRESSES: Send comments identified by docket number FAA-2017-0747
using any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and follow the online instructions for sending your
comments electronically.
     Mail: Send comments to Docket Operations, M-30; U.S.
Department of Transportation (DOT), 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room
W12-140, West Building Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: Take comments to Docket
Operations in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Fax: Fax comments to Docket Operations at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Privacy: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments
from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT posts
these comments, without edit, including any personal information the
commenter provides, to http://www.regulations.gov, as described in the
system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at
http://www.dot.gov/privacy.
    Docket: Background documents or comments received may be read at
http://www.regulations.gov at any time. Follow the online instructions
for accessing the docket or go to the Docket Operations in Room W12-140
of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Julia Greenway<PHONE_NUMBER>, Office
of Rulemaking, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue
SW., Washington, DC 20591.
    This notice is published pursuant to 14 CFR 11.85.

    Issued in Washington, DC.
Lirio Liu,
Director, Office of Rulemaking.

Petition for Exemption

    Docket No.: FAA-2014-0747.
    Petitioner: Desert Aerospace, LLC.
    Section(s) of 14 CFR Affected: Sec.  61.58.
    Description of Relief Sought: The petitioner seeks an exemption
from 14 CFR 61.58 for persons operating turbojet self-launching
gliders. In place of the pilot-in-command (PIC) proficiency check
requirements of Sec.  61.58, the petitioner would like to substitute
initial training, recurrent training, and proficiency training specific
to self-launching glider operations.

[FR Doc. 2017-19490 Filed 9-13-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 107 (Monday, June 7, 2021)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 30232-30234]
[FR Doc No: 2021-11891]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2021-0366; FRL-10024-78-Region 9]

Air Plan Approval; California; San Diego County Air Pollution
Control District

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve a revision to the San Diego County Air Pollution Control
District (SDCAPCD or District) portion of the California State
Implementation Plan (SIP). This revision concerns emissions of volatile
organic compounds (VOCs) from gasoline transfers into underground
stationary storage tanks at gasoline dispensing facilities. We are
proposing to approve a local rule to regulate these emission sources
under the Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act). We are taking comments on
this proposal and plan to follow with a final action.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before July 7, 2021.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R09-
OAR-2021-0366 at https://www.regulations.gov. For comments submitted at
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, please contact the person identified in
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. For the full EPA public
comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and
general guidance on making effective comments, please visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rebecca Newhouse, EPA Region IX, 75
Hawthorne St., San Francisco, CA 94105. By phone:<PHONE_NUMBER> or by
email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us'' and
``our'' refer to the EPA.

Table of Contents

I. The State's Submittal
    A. What rule did the State submit?
    B. Are there other versions of this rule?
    C. What is the purpose of the submitted rule?
II. The EPA's Evaluation and Action
    A. How is the EPA evaluating the rule?
    B. Does the rule meet the evaluation criteria?
    C. The EPA's Recommendations To Further Improve the Rule
    D. Public Comment and Proposed Action
III. Incorporation by Reference
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. The State's Submittal

A. What rule did the State submit?

    Table 1 lists the rule addressed by this proposal with the dates
that it was adopted by the local air agency and submitted by the
California Air Resources Board (CARB).

                                             Table 1--Submitted Rule
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Local agency             Rule No.          Rule title           Adopted               Submitted
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SDCAPCD......................          61.3.1  Transfer of Gasoline  March 1, 2006..  August 9, 2017.\1\
                                                into Stationary
                                                Underground Storage
                                                Tanks.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On February 9, 2018, the submittal for Rule 61.3.1 was deemed by
operation of law to meet the completeness criteria in 40 CFR part 51
Appendix V, which must be met before formal EPA review.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The District supplemented its submittal by providing
additional proof of public notice, submitted by CARB to the EPA on
December 28, 2020. Letter dated December 28, 2020, from Richard W.
Corey, Executive Officer, CARB, to John W. Busterud, Regional
Administrator, EPA, Region IX, transmitting the proof of public
notice in The Daily Transcript, and Minute Order No.1 from the
SDCAPCD Board hearing on October 14, 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Are there other versions of this rule?

    We approved Rule 61.3: Transfer of Volatile Organic Compounds Into
Stationary Storage Tanks (revised October 16, 1990) into the SIP on
June 30, 1993 (58 FR 34906). Rule 61.3 applies to gasoline transfers
into aboveground and underground stationary storage tanks at gasoline
dispensing facilities (GDFs). SDCAPCD adopted a separate rule, Rule
61.3.1, to update requirements for gasoline transfers to underground
storage tanks at GDFs on March 1, 2006, and CARB submitted the rule to
the EPA on August 9, 2017.

C. What is the purpose of the submitted rule?

    Emissions of VOCs contribute to the production of ground-level
ozone, smog, and particulate matter, which harm human health and the
environment. Section 110(a) of the CAA requires states to submit
regulations that control VOC emissions. SIP-approved Rule 61.3
regulates emissions from gasoline transfers at GDFs. Rule 61.3.1,
adopted in 2006, further limits VOC emissions from gasoline transfers
into underground storage tanks at GDFs, and requires underground
storage tanks at GDFs to have CARB-certified vapor recovery systems
meeting a vapor control efficiency of 98% and CARB-certified and vapor
tight components including poppetted dry breaks and fittings. Rule
61.3.1 includes requirements for weekly and monthly inspections, and
expanded source testing and recordkeeping requirements beyond the
requirements included in Rule 61.3. The District's reasonably available
control technology (RACT) analysis for the 2008 8-hr ozone National
Ambient Air Quality Standard (2008 RACT SIP) states that, ``[w]hile
Rule 61.3 applies to both aboveground and underground storage tanks,
Rule 61.3.1 applies only to underground storage tanks. Consequently,
Rule 61.3.1 supplements, but does not replace Rule 61.3, as RACT for
Stage I vapor recovery . . . .'' \2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ SDCAPCD, ``2008 Eight-Hour Ozone Reasonably Available
Control Technology Demonstration for San Diego County,'' December
2016, 2-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On December 3, 2020 (85 FR 77996), the EPA partially disapproved
SDCAPCD's 2008 RACT SIP for the source category covering the ``Design
Criteria for Stage I Vapor Control Systems--Gasoline Service Stations''
(EPA-450/R-75-102) Control Techniques Guidelines (CTG). We refer
hereafter to this CTG as the ``Stage I Gasoline Transfer CTG.'' The
EPA's August 10, 2020 proposal states that, ``. . . Rule 61.3.1, which
regulates sources in this category, was not properly noticed, and is
thus not approvable. The District intends to re-notice Rule 61.3.1,
which together with [Rule] 61.3 would establish current RACT for this
category.'' \3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 85 FR 48127, 48131.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The SDCAPCD submitted a supplement to the original submittal of
Rule 61.3.1, which was transmitted by CARB to the EPA on December 28,
2020, and included updated public notice documentation that cured the
public notice deficiency from the original submittal of Rule 61.3.1.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Letter dated December 28, 2020, from Richard W. Corey,
Executive Officer, CARB, to John W. Busterud, Regional
Administrator, EPA, Region IX, transmitting the proof of public
notice in The Daily Transcript, and Minute Order No.1 from the
SDCAPCD Board hearing on October 14, 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA's TSD has more information about this rule.

II. The EPA's Evaluation and Action

A. How is the EPA evaluating the rule?

    Rules in the SIP must be enforceable (see CAA section 110(a)(2)),
must not interfere with applicable requirements concerning attainment
and reasonable further progress or other CAA requirements (see CAA
section 110(l)), and must not modify certain SIP control requirements
in nonattainment areas without ensuring equivalent or greater emissions
reductions (see CAA section 193).
    Generally, SIP rules must require reasonably available control
technology (RACT) for each category of sources covered by a CTG
document as well as each major source of VOCs in ozone nonattainment
areas classified as moderate or above (see CAA section 182(b)(2)). The
SDCAPCD regulates an ozone nonattainment area classified as a
``Serious'' nonattainment area for the 2008 8-hour ozone National
Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) and a ``Moderate'' nonattainment
area for the 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS (see 40 CFR 81.305). Therefore,
this rule must implement RACT. As this rule regulates only a subset of
the sources covered by the CTG, our action evaluates whether Rules 61.3
and 61.3.1 together implement RACT for the entire Stage I Gasoline
Transfer CTG source category.
    Guidance and policy documents that we used to evaluate
enforceability, revision/relaxation, and rule stringency requirements
for the applicable criteria pollutants include the following:
    1. ``State Implementation Plans; General Preamble for the
Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990,'' 57
FR 13498 (April 16, 1992); 57 FR 18070 (April 28, 1992).
    2. ``Issues Relating to VOC Regulation Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and
Deviations,'' EPA, May 25, 1988 (the Bluebook, revised January 11,
1990).
    3. ``Guidance Document for Correcting Common VOC & Other Rule
Deficiencies,'' EPA Region 9, August 21, 2001 (the Little Bluebook).
    4. ``Design Criteria for Stage I Vapor Control Systems--Gasoline
Service Stations,'' EPA-450/R-75-102, November 1975.

B. Does the rule meet the evaluation criteria?

    This rule is consistent with CAA requirements and relevant guidance
regarding enforceability, RACT, and SIP revisions. Specifically, the
rule requirements sufficiently ensure that affected sources and
regulators can consistently evaluate and determine compliance.
Additionally, our analysis finds that Rule 61.3.1 and Rule 61.3
together represent current RACT for the Stage I Gasoline Transfer CTG,
because the rules are more stringent than the CTG, and are generally
consistent with requirements in other air districts for gasoline
transfers into stationary storage tanks at GDFs. Lastly, Rule 61.3.1
will

not interfere with any applicable requirements of the CAA. The TSD has
more information on our evaluation.

C. The EPA's Recommendations To Further Improve the Rule

    Our TSD for this action recommends several amendments to Rule
61.3.1, for consideration by the District the next time the rule is
revised. Specifically, our TSD recommends amending the definition of
``vapor leak,'' removing language authorizing the use of the most
current version of a specified ASTM test method, and adding a reference
to the specific section of the California Code of Regulations that
lists relevant vapor recovery system defects. Our TSD has more
information regarding these recommendations.

D. Public Comment and Proposed Action

    As authorized in section 110(k)(3) of the Act, the EPA proposes to
fully approve the submitted rule because it fulfills all relevant
requirements. Additionally, because the District corrected the
procedural deficiency preventing Rule 61.3.1's approval into the SIP
and we are now proposing such approval, and because our analysis
confirms that Rules 61.3.1 and 61.3 satisfy RACT requirements for
sources covered by the Stage I Gasoline Transfer CTG, we propose to
find that SDCAPCD has rectified the deficiency identified in our
partial disapproval of the District's 2008 RACT SIP submittal with
respect to the Stage I Gasoline Transfer CTG. If finalized, this action
will stop the sanction and federal implementation plan clocks for this
CTG source category. We will accept comments from the public on this
proposal until July 7, 2021. If we take final action to approve the
submitted rule, our final action will incorporate this rule into the
federally enforceable SIP.

III. Incorporation by Reference

    In this rule, the EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA rule
regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance
with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is proposing to incorporate by
reference the SDCAPCD rule described in Table 1 of this preamble. The
EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials available
through https://www.regulations.gov and at the EPA Region IX Office
(please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section of this preamble for more information).

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act, 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 proposed action merely proposes to approve state law
as meeting federal requirements and does not impose additional
requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this
proposed 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);
     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 application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act; and
     Does not provide the EPA with the discretionary authority
to address disproportionate human health or environmental effects with
practical, appropriate, and legally permissible methods under Executive
Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, 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).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Ozone, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

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

    Dated: June 1, 2021.
Deborah Jordan,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2021-11891 Filed 6-4-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 84 (Tuesday, May 2, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 27521]
[FR Doc No: 2023-09264]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2019-D-0362]

A Risk-Based Approach to Monitoring of Clinical Investigations--
Questions and Answers; Guidance for Industry; Correction

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice of availability; correction.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is correcting a notice
that appeared in the Federal Register of April 12, 2023. The document
announced the availability of a final guidance entitled ``A Risk-Based
Approach to Monitoring of Clinical Investigations--Questions and
Answers; Guidance for Industry.'' The notice of availability for this
final guidance was published with an incorrect OMB control number. This
document corrects that error.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mona Shing, Center for Drug Evaluation
and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave.,
Bldg. 51, Rm. 3355, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the Federal Register of April 12, 2023
(88 FR 22038), in FR Doc. 2023-07687, the following correction is made:
    1. On page 22040, in the first column, in the last sentence of
``II. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995,'' the OMB control number 0910-
0733 is corrected to read: ``. . .and the collections of information in
FDA's guidance for industry entitled ``Oversight of Clinical
Investigations--A Risk-Based Approach to Monitoring'' have been
approved under OMB control number 0910-0014.'' The correction changes
the OMB control number from a number that was discontinued to an active
one.

    Dated: April 27, 2023.
Lauren K. Roth,
Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2023-09264 Filed 5-1-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 197 (Friday, October 15, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 57422-57423]
[FR Doc No: 2021-22494]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-9104-01-OA]

Announcement of the Board of Directors for the National
Environmental Education Foundation

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of appointment and re-appointment.

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

    The National Environmental Education and Training Foundation (doing
business as The National Environmental Education Foundation or
``NEEF'') was created as a private 501(c)(3) non-profit organization.
It was established by Congress as a common ground upon which leaders
from business and industry, all levels of government, public interest
groups, and others can work cooperatively to raise a greater national
awareness of environmental issues beyond traditional classrooms.
    Per NEEA, the EPA Administrator appoints and reappoints eligible
individuals to serve on NEEF's Board of Directors. The Administrator
announces the following four-year appointments to NEEF's Board of
Directors, effective 90 days after publication of this notice:

 Dr. Robert D. Bullard, Texas Southern University
 Sally Cole, Apple
 Omar Mitchell, National Hockey League
 Arturo Garcia-Costas, New York Community Trust

    Mr. Kevin Coyle, Toyota will be re-appointed for an additional
four-year term.
    Additional considerations: As an independent foundation, NEEF is
different from the Agency's several federal advisory committees and
scientific boards, which have their own appointment processes. Because
NEEA gives complete discretion to the Administrator in appointing
members to NEEF's Board of Directors, EPA is taking additional steps to
ensure all prospective members are qualified to serve on the Board and
represent diverse points of view. In early 2021, EPA's Office of the
Administrator

formed an internal review panel comprised of senior EPA career
officials tasked with verifying the qualifications of all future
members of the NEEF Board of Directors selected by the Administrator.
All new Board appointees underwent review by the panel prior to
publication of this notice. These appointees will join the current
Board members. Information on the Board members is available on NEEF's
public website: https://www.neefusa.org/about-neef/board.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information regarding this Notice
of Appointment, please contact Hiram Lee Tanner III.<PHONE_NUMBER>,
Director for Office of Environmental Education, U.S. EPA 1200
Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20460. General information
concerning NEEF may be found here: https://www.neefusa.org/.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 10(a) of the National Environmental
Education Act of 1990 (NEEA) establishes the National Environmental
Education Foundation and its underlying terms. The statute in its
entirety is available on EPA's website and may be accessed here:
https://www.epa.gov/education/national-environmental-education-act#s10.
    Section 10 of the NEEA provides the following, in pertinent part:
    (a) Establishment and Purposes--
    (1) ESTABLISHMENT--(A) There is hereby established the National
Environmental Education Foundation. The Foundation is established in
order to extend the contribution of environmental education and
training to meeting critical environmental protection needs, both in
this country and internationally; to facilitate the cooperation,
coordination, and contribution of public and private resources to
create an environmentally advanced educational system; and to foster an
open and effective partnership among Federal, State, and local
government, business, industry, academic institutions, community based
environmental groups, and international organizations.
    (B) The Foundation is a charitable and nonprofit corporation whose
income is exempt from tax, and donations to which are tax deductible to
the same extent as those organizations listed pursuant to section
501(c) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986. The Foundation is not an
agency or establishment of the United States.
    (2) PURPOSES--The purposes of the Foundation are--
    (A) subject to the limitation contained in the final sentence of
subsection (d) herein, to encourage, accept, leverage, and administer
private gifts for the benefit of, or in connection with, the
environmental education and training activities and services of the
United States Environmental Protection Agency;
    (B) to conduct such other environmental education activities as
will further the development of an environmentally conscious and
responsible public, a well-trained and environmentally literate
workforce, and an environmentally advanced educational system; and
    (C) to participate with foreign entities and individuals in the
conduct and coordination of activities that will further opportunities
for environmental education and training to address environmental
issues and problems involving the United States and Canada or Mexico.
    (3) PROGRAMS--The Foundation will develop, support, and/or operate
programs and projects to educate and train educational and
environmental professionals, and to assist them in the development of
environmental education and training programs and studies.
    (b) Board of Directors--
    (1) ESTABLISHMENT AND MEMBERSHIP--(A) The Foundation shall have a
governing Board of Directors (hereafter referred to in this section as
`the Board'), which shall consist of 13 directors, each of whom shall
be knowledgeable or experienced in the environment, education and/or
training. The Board shall oversee the activities of the Foundation and
shall assure that the activities of the Foundation are consistent with
the environmental and education goals and policies of the EPA and with
the intents and purposes of this Act. The membership of the Board, to
the extent practicable, shall represent diverse points of view relating
to environmental education and training.
    (2) APPOINTMENT AND TERMS--(A) Members of the Board shall be
appointed by the EPA Administrator.
    (B) Within 90 days of the date of the enactment of this Act, and as
appropriate thereafter, the Administrator shall publish in the Federal
Register an announcement of appointments of Directors of the Board.
Such appointments become final and effective 90 days after publication
of the notice of appointment.
    (C) The directors shall be appointed for terms of 4 years. The
Administrator shall appoint an individual to serve as a director in the
event of a vacancy on the Board within 60 days of said vacancy in the
way the original appointment was made. No individual may serve more
than 2 consecutive terms as a director.

Hiram Tanner,
Director, Office of Environmental Education.
[FR Doc. 2021-22494 Filed 10-14-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: April 20, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 74)]
[Notices]
[Page 17971-17972]
[DOCID:fr20ap09-58]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Docket ID: FEMA-2009-0001]

Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB
Review; Comment Request

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice; 30-day notice and request for comments; revision of a
currently approved information collection; OMB No. 1660-0083; FEMA Form
116-0-1, Promissory Note, FEMA Form 085-0-1, Local Government
Resolution Collateral Security, FEMA Form 090-0-1, Certification of
Eligibility for Community Disaster Loans, and FEMA Form 090-0-2,
Application for Community Disaster Loan.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has submitted
the information collection abstracted below to the Office of Management
and Budget for review and clearance in accordance with the

requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The submission
describes the nature of the information collection, the categories of
respondents, the estimated burden (i.e., the time, effort and resources
used by respondents to respond) and cost, and includes the actual data
collection instruments FEMA will use.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before May 20, 2009.

ADDRESSES: Submit written comments on the proposed information
collection to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office
of Management and Budget. Comments should be addressed to the Desk
Officer for the Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency
Management Agency, and sent via electronic mail to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or faxed to<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Requests for additional information or
copies of the information collection should be made to Director,
Records Management Division, 1800 South Bell Street, Arlington, VA
20598-3005, facsimile number<PHONE_NUMBER>, or e-mail address FEMA-
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Community Disaster Loan (CDL) Program is
authorized by Section 417 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and
Emergency Assistance Act, Public Law 93-288, as amended, and provides
loans to any local government which has suffered a substantial loss of
tax or other revenues as a result of a major disaster or emergency and
which demonstrates a need for Federal financial assistance in order to
perform its governmental functions. FEMA regulations at 44 CFR 206.360-
206.367 contain the procedures and requirements that implement the
statutory authority for this program.
    The title (Formerly titled Application for Community Disaster Loan
(CDL) and the Special Community Disaster Loan (SCDL) Program)
previously reported in the 60-Day Federal Register Notice (73 FR 76370,
Dec. 16, 2008) has been changed because the Special Community Disaster
Loan (SCDL) Program was only authorized to provide loans to communities
affected by Hurricanes Katrina and/or Rita. The application period for
that program closed at the end of fiscal year 2006 (October 1, 2006).
Because FEMA is no longer accepting applications for the SCDL Program,
it has been removed from this collection.

Collection of Information

    Title: Application for Community Disaster Loan (CDL) Program.
    Type of information collection: Revision of a currently approved
collection.
    OMB Number: 1660-0083.
    Form Titles and Numbers: FEMA Form 116-0-1, Promissory Note, FEMA
Form 085-0-1, Local Government Resolution Collateral Security, FEMA
Form 090-0-1, Certification of Eligibility for Community Disaster
Loans, and FEMA Form 090-0-2, Application for Community Disaster Loan.
These form numbers previously reported in the 60-Day Federal Register
Notice (73 FR 76370, Dec. 16, 2008) have been changed in accordance
with the Federal Enterprise Architecture (FEA) numbering system. FEMA
Form 090-0-2 (Former FEMA Form 90-7), Application for Community
Disaster Loan was inadvertently not included in the 60-Day Federal
Register Notice mentioned above and has since been added to this
collection.
    Abstract: The Loan Package for the Community Disaster Loan Program
provides States, Local and Tribal governments that have suffered
substantial loss of tax or other revenues as a result of a major
disaster or emergency, the opportunity to obtain financial assistance
in order to perform their governmental functions. Local governments can
submit a loan package for the Community Disaster Loan Program. This
loan must be justified on the basis of need and actual expenses.
    Affected Public: ``State, Local, or Tribal Government''.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 50.
    Frequency of Response: Once.
    Estimated Average Hour Burden per Respondent: 19.5 hours.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 975. The estimated total
annual burden hours previously reported in the 60-day Federal Register
Notice (73 FR 76370, Dec. 16, 2008) has been increased.
    Estimated Cost: The estimated total annual respondent
administrative cost based on wage rate categories is $44,892.32. The
estimated total annual respondent administrative cost based on wage
rate categories previously reported in the 60-day Federal Register
Notice (73 FR 76370, Dec. 16, 2008) has been increased. There are no
capital expenditure costs associated with this collection.

Larry Gray,
Director, Records Management Division, Office of Management, Federal
Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland Security.
[FR Doc. E9-8996 Filed 4-17-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


24463 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 88 / Wednesday, May 7, 2003 / Notices proposed uses will utilize at most 15% of the aRfD and 1% of the cRfD even for the most highly exposed population subgroups ( non nursing infants). Therefore, there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and children from the currently proposed uses of thiacloprid.

F. International Tolerances No CODEX Maximum Residue Levels ( MRL's) have been established for residues of thiacloprid on any crops at this time.

[ FR Doc. 03   11200 Filed 5   6   03; 8: 45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560   50   S ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [ OPP   2003   0156; FRL   7305   7]

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces the initial filing of a pesticide petition proposing the establishment of regulations for residues of a certain pesticide chemical in or on various food commodities. DATES: Comments, identified by docket ID number OPP   2003   0156, must be received on or before June 6, 2003. ADDRESSES: Comments may be submitted electronically, by mail, or through hand delivery/ courier. Follow the detailed instructions as provided in Unit I. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dennis McNeilly, Registration Division ( 7505C), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460   0001; telephone number: ( 703) 308   6742]; e mail address: mcneilly. dennis@ epa. gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information A. Does this Action Apply to Me?

You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer. Potentially affected entities may include, but are not limited to:   Crop production ( NAICS 111)   Animal production ( NAICS 112)   Food manufacturing ( NAICS 311)   Pesticide manufacturing ( NAICS 32532) This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this action. Other types of entities not listed in this unit could also be affected. The North American Industrial Classification System ( NAICS) codes have been provided to assist you and others in determining whether this action might apply to certain entities. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

B. How Can I Get Copies of this Document and Other Related Information? 1. EPA Docket. EPA has established an official public docket for this action under docket ID number OPP   2003   0156. The official public docket consists of the documents specifically referenced in this action, any public comments received, and other information related to this action. Although, a part of the official docket, the public docket does not include Confidential Business Information ( CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. The official public docket is the collection of materials that is available for public viewing at the Public Information and Records Integrity Branch ( PIRIB), Rm. 119, Crystal Mall # 2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Hwy., Arlington, VA. This docket facility is open from 8: 30 a. m. to 4 p. m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The docket telephone number is ( 703) 305   5805. 2. Electronic access. You may access this Federal Register document electronically through EPA Internet under the `` Federal Register'' listings at http:// www. epa. gov/ fedrgstr/. An electronic version of the public docket is available through EPA's electronic public docket and comment system, EPA dockets. You may use EPA Dockets at http:// www. epa. gov/ edocket/ to submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the official public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically. Although, not all docket materials may be available electronically, you may still access any of the publicly available docket materials through the docket facility identified in Unit I. B. 1. Once in the system, select `` search,'' then key in the appropriate docket ID number. Certain types of information will not be placed in EPA dockets. Information claimed as CBI and other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute, which is not included in the official public docket, will not be available for public viewing in EPA's electronic public docket. EPA's policy is that copyrighted material will not be placed in EPA's electronic public docket but will be available only in printed paper form in the official public docket. To the extent feasible, publicly available docket materials will be made available in EPA's electronic public docket. When a document is selected from the index list in EPA dockets, the system will identify whether the document is available for viewing in EPA's electronic public docket. Although, not all docket materials may be available electronically, you may still access any of the publicly available docket materials through the docket facility identified in Unit I. B. EPA intends to work towards providing electronic access to all of the publicly available docket materials through EPA's electronic public docket. For public commenters, it is important to note that EPA's policy is that public comments, whether submitted electronically or on paper, will be made available for public viewing in EPA's electronic public docket as EPA receives them and without change, unless the comment contains copyrighted material, CBI, or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. When EPA identifies a comment containing copyrighted material, EPA will provide a reference to that material in the version of the comment that is placed in EPA's electronic public docket. The entire printed comment, including the copyrighted material, will be available in the public docket. Public comments submitted on computer disks that are mailed or delivered to the docket will be transferred to EPA's electronic public docket. Public comments that are mailed or delivered to the docket will be scanned and placed in EPA's electronic public docket. Where practical, physical objects will be photographed, and the photograph will be placed in EPA's electronic public docket along with a brief description written by the docket staff.

C. How and to Whom Do I Submit Comments? You may submit comments electronically, by mail, or through hand delivery/ courier. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, identify the appropriate docket ID number in the subject line on the first page of your comment. Please ensure that your comments are submitted within the specified comment VerDate Jan< 31> 2003 19: 20 May 06, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\ FR\ FM\ 07MYN1. SGM 07MYN1 24464 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 88 / Wednesday, May 7, 2003 / Notices period. Comments received after the close of the comment period will be marked `` late.'' EPA is not required to consider these late comments. If you wish to submit CBI or information that is otherwise protected by statute, please follow the instructions in Unit I. D. Do not use EPA Dockets or e mail to submit CBI or information protected by statute. 1. Electronically. If you submit an electronic comment as prescribed in this unit, EPA recommends that you include your name, mailing address, and an email address or other contact information in the body of your comment. Also, include this contact information on the outside of any disk or CD ROM you submit, and in any cover letter accompanying the disk or CD ROM. This ensures that you can be identified as the submitter of the comment and allows EPA to contact you in case EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties or needs further information on the substance of your comment. EPA's policy is that EPA will not edit your comment, and any identifying or contact information provided in the body of a comment will be included as part of the comment that is placed in the official public docket, and made available in EPA's electronic public docket. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. i. EPA Dockets. Your use of EPA's electronic public docket to submit comments to EPA electronically is EPA's preferred method for receiving comments. Go directly to EPA Dockets at http:// www. epa. gov/ edocket, and follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once in the system, select `` search,'' and then key in docket ID number OPP   2003   0156. The system is an `` anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your identity, e mail address, or other contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. ii. E mail. Comments may be sent by e mail to opp docket@ epa. gov, Attention: Docket ID number OPP   2003   0156. In contrast to EPA's electronic public docket, EPA's e mail system is not an `` anonymous access'' system. If you send an e mail comment directly to the docket without going through EPA's electronic public docket, EPA's e mail system automatically captures your e mail address. E mail addresses that are automatically captured by EPA's e mail system are included as part of the comment that is placed in the official public docket, and made available in EPA's electronic public docket. iii. Disk or CD ROM. You may submit comments on a disk or CD ROM that you mail to the mailing address identified in Unit I. C. 2. These electronic submissions will be accepted in WordPerfect or ASCII file format. Avoid the use of special characters and any form of encryption. 2. By mail. Send your comments to: Public Information and Records Integrity Branch ( PIRIB) ( 7502C), Office of Pesticide Programs ( OPP), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460   0001, Attention: Docket ID number OPP   2003   0156. 3. By hand delivery or courier. Deliver your comments to: Public Information and Records Integrity Branch ( PIRIB), Office of Pesticide Programs ( OPP), Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. 119, Crystal Mall # 2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Hwy., Arlington, VA, Attention: Docket ID number OPP   2003   0156. Such deliveries are only accepted during the docket's normal hours of operation as identified in Unit I. B. 1.

D. How Should I Submit CBI To the Agency?

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

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

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

II. What Action is the Agency Taking?

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

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

Dated: April 23, 2003. Debra Edwards, Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.

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

VerDate Jan< 31> 2003 19: 20 May 06, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\ FR\ FM\ 07MYN1. SGM 07MYN1 24465 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 88 / Wednesday, May 7, 2003 / Notices ISK Biosciences Corporation PP 1F6305 EPA has received a pesticide petition [ 1F6305] from ISK Biosciences Corporation, 7470 Auburn Road, Suite A, Concord OH 44077, proposing, pursuant to section 408( d) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act ( FFDCA), 21 U. S. C. 346a( d), to amend 40 CFR part 180 by establishing a tolerance for residues of the fungicide cyazofamid, 4 chloro 2 cyano N, N dimethyl 5( 4 methylphenyl) 1H imidazole 1 sulfonamide ( CA), in or on the raw agricultural commodity ( RAC) potatoes at 0.01 parts per million ( ppm) and cucurbits at 0.1 ppm and the fungicide cyazofamid and the metabolite CCIM, 4 chloro 5( 4 methylphenyl) 1Himidazole 2 carbonitrile ( CA) in or on the RAC tomatoes at 0.2 ppm and wine grapes at 1.0 ppm. EPA has determined that the petition contains data or information regarding the elements set forth in section 408( d)( 2) of the FFDCA; however, EPA has not fully evaluated the sufficiency of the submitted data at this time or whether the data support granting of the petition. Additional data may be needed before EPA rules on the petition.

A. Residue Chemistry 1. Plant metabolism. The plant metabolism studies in potatoes and tomatoes, together with the magnitude of the residue studies in potatoes, tomatoes and cucurbits, suggest that the tolerance for potatoes, tomatoes, and cucurbits should be based only on parent cyazofamid. However, magnitude of the residue studies on processed tomatoes indicate that both cyazofamid and CCIM are identifiable residues in tomato puree and paste. The nature and magnitude of the residue studies for potatoes showed that there were no detectable residues of cyazofamid or any of its metabolites in the RACs or processed commodities. Similar studies on fresh tomatoes indicated that the major identifiable and quantifiable residue is cyazofamid. Magnitude of the residue studies conducted on cucurbits ( cucumber, summer squash and melon) also confirmed that the major residue is cyazofamid. Nature of the residue studies showed that no single identifiable residue represents more than about 7% of the total radioactive residue. The nature and magnitude of the residue studies on grapes showed that cyazofamid was the major identifiable residue with low levels of CCIM. The residue in wine made from cyazofamid treated grapes is CCIM. The tolerance expression for potatoes and cucurbits will include parent cyazofamid only. The tolerance expression for wine grapes and tomatoes will include parent, cyazofamid, and the metabolite CCIM. 2. Analytical method. An analytical enforcement method is available for determining cyazofamid plant residues in or on potatoes, cucurbits, tomatoes and wine grapes. Samples are chopped in a food chopper and a 20 g sub sample is removed for extraction with 100 milliliter ( mL) of acetonitrile ( twice). The combined extracts are partitioned with hexane and then are reduced to 10 mL with a rotary evaporator. The sample is then partitioned between 100 mL of 2% aqueous sodium sulfate solution and 50 mL of methylene chloride ( twice). The residue is dissolved and passed through a 2 gram ( g) Florisil column followed by quantification by ultraviolet high performance liquid chromatography ( UV HPLC). 3. Magnitude of residues. Residue data from 31 field trails ( 0   and 7   day pre harvest intervals ( PHIs)) on cucurbits [ 11 sites for cucumbers, 11 sites for muskmelons and 9 sites for summer squash] conducted from 1999   2001 showed that mean cyazofamid residues were 0.02 ppm for 0   day PHI and < 0.01 ppm for 7   day PHI on the RAC commodities. The highest mean cyazofamid residue was 0.07 ppm at 0   day PHI on muskmelon. The highest 7   day PHI cyazofamid residue was 0.04 ppm on cucumbers. At both PHI's CCIM residues were < 0.01 ppm except for 3 samples ( 2 sites, both 0   day PHI) which were at the 0.01 ppm LOQ. The sample with the highest total residue had 0.08 ppm ( 0.07 ppm cyazofamid + 0.01 ppm CCIM). The studies had a target of 6 applications of 0.071 lb. of active ingredient per acre ( 0.42 lb acre ( a. i./ acre) total) of the Cyazofamid 400SC formulation each at 7   day intervals. Data from 18 field trials in potatoes conducted in 1999   2000 showed that no residues of cyazofamid or CCIM were observed in any of the RAC commodity at any location ( 7   day PHI). There were up to 10 applications of 0.071 lb. of active ingredient per acre ( 0.70 lb a. i./ acre total) of the Cyazofamid 400SC formulation at 7   day intervals. The PHI for most trials was 7   days; however, residue dissipation studies with PHIs of 0, 1, 3 and 7   days were run at 2 locations. Maximum residues of 0.01 ppm of cyazofamid were seen at 0 and 1   day PHIs at one location and no residues were found at the other location. The results of a processing study in which the final application was at a 3X application rate showed that for samples taken with a 3   day PHI no detectable residues of cyazofamid or CCIM were found in potato flakes, chips or wet peels. Therefore, no concentration of residues occurred during processing. For tomatoes, residues of cyazofamid were determined in the treated samples from 35 RAC trials ( 0 and 7   day PHI) conducted from 1999   2001. The mean per site residues ranged from nondetected (< 0.01 ppm) to 0.15 ppm cyazofamid. CCIM residues of 0.01 0.02 ppm were found in samples from four of the sites. The sample with the maximum residue had 0.16 ppm cyazofamid and no detectable CCIM. The studies had a target of six applications of 0.071 lb of active ingredient per acre ( 0.42 lb a. i./ acre total) of the Cyazofamid 400SC formulation each at 7   day intervals. The results of a tomato processing study in which the final application was at a 3X application rate showed that for samples taken with a 3   day PHI, cyazofamid was < 0.01 ppm in both tomato paste and puree. Tomato paste had 0.02 ppm CCIM and tomato puree had 0.01 ppm CCIM. Therefore, there is no concentration of residues during tomato processing. Data from 15 field trials in grapes conducted from 1999   2001 in the United States, Argentina, Mexico and Europe showed that mean cyazofamid residues ranged from < 0.01 to 0.34 ppm and mean CCIM residues ranged from < 0.01 to 0.02 ppm in the RAC commodity ( 21   day PHI) following eight applications of 0.081 to 0.089 lb. of active ingredient per acre ( 0.65 to 0.71 lb a. i./ acre total) of the Cyazofamid 25SC formulation each at 10   to 16   day intervals. Grapes from six of the sites were processed into must and wine. Most samples had cyazofamid residues ranging from 0.01 to 0.09 ppm. The CCIM residues in must ranged from < 0.01 to 0.01 ppm. Cyazofamid residues in wine were all < 0.01 ppm. CCIM residues in wine ranged from < 0.01 ppm to 0.02 ppm.

B. Toxicological Profile 1. Acute toxicity. Results from a battery of acute toxicity studies place technical cyazofamid in Toxicity Category IV for oral LD50, inhalation LC50 and dermal and eye irritation , and Category III for dermal LD 50. Technical cyazofamid is not a dermal sensitizer. In an acute neurotoxicity study, no treatment related effects were observed at any dose. The no observed effect level ( NOEL) was 2,000 milligrams/ kilogram ( mg/ kg) bodyweight ( bwt). 2. Genotoxicity. A battery of five tests has been conducted to assess the genotoxic potential of technical VerDate Jan< 31> 2003 19: 20 May 06, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\ FR\ FM\ 07MYN1. SGM 07MYN1 24466 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 88 / Wednesday, May 7, 2003 / Notices cyazofamid. Assays conducted included in vitro reverse gene mutation tests in bacteria and an in vitro forward gene mutation test in a mammalian cell system, a chromosomal damage test in mammalian cells, a DNA repair test in bacteria, and an in vivo micronucleus test in mice. Cyazofamid did not elicit a genotoxic response in any of the studies conducted. 3. Reproductive and developmental toxicity. In a two generation reproductive toxicity study, the only effects observed were body weight effects which were observed at 20,000 ppm in dams during gestation and lactation and in weanling pups. No reproductive effects were observed. The NOEL for reproductive effects was 20,000 ppm ( 1,338 mg/ kg bwt/ day). The NOEL for parental toxicity was 2,000 ppm ( 134 mg/ kg bwt/ day). In a rat developmental study, cyazofamid was dosed by gavage from Days 0 to 19 of gestation. There were no treatmentrelated effects observed in the study. The NOEL for maternal and developmental effects was 1,000 mg/ kg bwt/ day. In a rabbit developmental study, pregnant rabbits were dosed with cyazofamid by gavage on Days 4 to 28 of gestation. There were no treatmentrelated effects observed in the study. The NOEL for maternal and developmental effects was 1,000 mg/ kg bwt/ day. The developmental studies ( prenatal developmental studies in rat and rabbit and the two generation reproduction study in rat) provided no indication of increased sensitivity of rats or rabbits from in utero or postnatal exposure to cyazofamid. Cyazofamid is not a developmental or reproductive toxicant. 4. Subchronic toxicity. The oral toxicity of cyazofamid was investigated in rats and dogs in 13   week studies. The exposure was by dietary administration for the rats and by capsule for the dogs. There were no treatment related effects observed in dogs up to 1,000 mg/ kg bwt/ day which was the highest dose tested. In rats, treated at 5,000 ppm there was a treatment related increase in kidney and liver weights and increased observation of basophilic tubules. The latter was observed only in males. The NOEL was 500 ppm which was equivalent to a dosage of 29.9 mg/ kg bwt/ day to males and 33.3 mg/ kg bwt/ day to females. 5. Chronic toxicity. A combined chronic and oncogenicity study was conducted in rats. Cyazofamid was administered continuously for a period of 104 weeks to male and female Fischer rats. Cyazofamid was not carcinogenic in this study. The NOEL for chronic effects was 500 ppm ( 17 mg/ kg bwt/ day) based on kidney and liver weight differences and increases in urine volume and chloride levels at 5,000 ppm. In a long term feeding study, mice were dosed with cyazofamid in the diet for 78 weeks. No treatment related effects were observed and it was concluded, that cyazofamid was not carcinogenic. The NOEL was 7,000 ppm ( 985 and 1,203 mg/ kg bwt/ day for males and females, respectively). In a chronic dog study, four groups of six dogs/ sex/ group received the test material via capsule for 52 weeks. No treatment related effects were observed. The NOEL was 1,000 mg/ kg bwt/ day. 6. Animal metabolism. Studies on the metabolism of cyazofamid in animals using radioactive test material have been conducted with cyazofamid, labeled with 14C in two positions, the benzene [ 14C Bz] or imidazole [ 14C Im] position. Absorption is rapid, but the percentage of cyazofamid absorbed after an oral dosage decreases as the dosage is increased. All absorbed radiocarbon is rapidly eliminated with urinary and biliary elimination of radiocarbon nearly complete within 24 hours. The metabolic pathway of cyazofamid includes the rapid hydrolysis of the dimethylsulfonamide group and the oxidation of the benzyl methyl group. 7. Metabolite toxicology. Comparison of the metabolism of cyazofamid by plants and in animals indicates that a number of the identified metabolites are common to both plants and animals but metabolism in plants is more extensive than in animals. The data indicate that the final products of the metabolism of cyazofamid in animals and plants represent differences in the extent of metabolism. Several of the metabolites resulting from cyazofamid are similar in plants and animals and, therefore, have already been evaluated toxicologically. 8. Endocrine disruption. An evaluation of the potential effects on the endocrine systems of mammals has not been determined; however, no evidence of such effects was reported in subchronic, chronic or reproductive toxicology. There was no observed pathological finding of the endocrine organs in these studies, and there were no reproductive effects at the maximum dose tested of 20,000 ppm. There is no evidence at this time that cyazofamid causes endocrine effects.

C. Aggregate Exposure 1. Dietary exposure. A reference dose ( RfD) of 0.17 mg/ kg bwt/ day is proposed for humans, based on the NOEL from the 2 year rat study ( 17 mg/ kg bwt/ day) and dividing by an uncertainty factor of 100. The acute NOEL of 100 mg/ kg bwt is from the acute neurotoxicity study adjusted for oral absorption of 5%. No treatment related effects were observed at any dose level. i. Food. Tier 1 chronic and acute dietary exposure analyses were conducted for cyazofamid in/ on cucurbits, potatoes, tomatoes and wine grapes to determine the exposure contribution of these commodities to the diet and to ascertain the chronic and acute risk potential. The estimates were based on proposed tolerance level residues for all crops, potato and tomato processing studies, market share assumptions of 100% crop treated, and consumption data from the 1994 through 1996 United States Department of Agriculture ( USDA) continuing survey of food intake. Even using all of the worst case exposure scenarios listed above, the Tier 1 chronic dietary exposure estimates resulted in an estimated exposure for the U. S. population of 0.000594 mg/ kg bwt/ day. This exposure corresponds to 0.3% of the RfD of 0.17 mg/ kg bwt/ day. The highest exposure estimate was calculated for the children 1   6 years population subgroup. This exposure was determined to be 0.000939 mg/ kg bwt/ day ( 0.6% of the RfD). The Tier 1 acute assessment for the U. S. population resulted in a margin of exposure ( MOE) of 35,789 at the 95th percentile. This corresponded to an estimated exposure of 0.002793 mg/ kg bwt/ day. The highest acute exposure estimate ( 95th percentile) was observed in children 1   3 years subpopulation: 0.004580 mg/ kg bwt/ day. This correlates to an MOE of 21,833. It can be concluded that acute or long term dietary exposure to cyazofamid through residues on treated cucurbits, potatoes, tomatoes and imported wine grapes should not be of cause for concern. ii. Drinking water. Since cyazofamid is intended for application outdoors to field grown potato, tomato and cucurbits crops, the potential exists for parent and or metabolites to reach ground or surface water that may be used for drinking water. The calculated drinking water levels of comparison ( DWLOCs) for chronic exposure for adult males, adult females and toddlers were estimated to be 5,929 parts per billion ( ppb), 5,083 ppb, and 1,691 ppb, respectively. The calculated DWLOCs for acute exposure for all adults, adult females and toddlers were estimated to be 34,902 ppb, 29,923 ppb, and 9,954 ppb, respectively. The chronic and acute DWLOC values are well above the modeled chronic and acute drinking water estimated concentrations ( DWECs) of 0.023 ppb ( generic expected estimated concentration ( GENEEC) 56   day) and 1.38 ppb ( GENEEC VerDate Jan< 31> 2003 19: 20 May 06, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\ FR\ FM\ 07MYN1. SGM 07MYN1 24467 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 88 / Wednesday, May 7, 2003 / Notices instantaneous value), respectively. Therefore, there is comfortable certainty that no harm will result from combined dietary food and water, exposure due to the use of cyazofamid on cucurbits, potatoes and tomatoes. 2. Non dietary exposure. No petition for registration of cyazofamid is being made for either indoor or outdoor residential use. Non occupational exposure of cyazofamid to the general population is, therefore, not expected and is not considered in aggregate exposure estimates.

D. Cumulative Effects Cyazofamid is a cyanoimidazole fungicide. Since there are no other members of this class of fungicides, it is considered unlikely that cyazofamid would have a common mechanism of toxicity with any other pesticide in use at this time.

E. Safety Determination 1. U. S. population. Dietary and occupational exposure will be the major routes of exposure to the U. S. population. Ample margins of safety have been demonstrated for both situations. For the U. S. population, the chronic dietary exposure to cyazofamid is 0.000594 mg/ kg bwt/ day, which utilizes 0.3% of the RfD for the overall U. S. population, assuming 100% of the crops are treated. The acute dietary exposure to the U. S. population is 0.002793 mg/ kg bwt/ day ( 95th percentile) resulting in a MOE of 35,789. Using only pesticide handlers exposure data base ( PHED) data levels A and B ( those with a high level of confidence), MOE for occupational exposure is 5,195 for mixer/ loaders, and 5,884 for aerial applicators. Based on the completeness and reliability of the toxicity data and the conservative exposure assessments, there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from the aggregate exposure of residues of cyazofamid including all anticipated dietary exposure and all other non occupational exposures. 2. Infants and children. Chronic dietary exposure of the most highly exposed subgroup in the population, children 1   6, is 0.000939 mg/ kg bwt/ day or 0.6% of the RfD. The acute dietary exposure of the most exposed subgroup, children 1   3, is 0.00458 mg/ kg bwt/ day. This correlates to an MOE of 21,833. There are no residential uses of cyazofamid. Based on the completeness and reliability of the toxicity data, the lack of toxicological endpoints of special concern, the lack of any indication of greater sensitivity of children, and the conservative exposure assessment; there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and children from the aggregate exposure to residues of cyazofamid from all anticipated sources of dietary and non occupational exposure. Accordingly, there is no need to apply an additional safety factor for infants and children.

F. International Tolerances There are presently no Codex maximum residue limits established for residues of cyazofamid on any crop. [ FR Doc. 03   11198 Filed 5   6   03; 8: 45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560   50   S ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [ OPP   2003   0111; FRL   7305   1]

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces the initial filing of a pesticide petition proposing the establishment of regulations for residues of a certain pesticide chemical in or on various food commodities. DATES: Comments, identified by docket ID number OPP   2003   0111 must be received on or before June 6, 2003. ADDRESSES: Comments may be submitted electronically, by mail, or through hand delivery/ courier. Follow the detailed instructions as provided in Unit I. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sidney Jackson, Registration Division ( 7505C), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460   0001; telephone number: ( 703) 305   7610; e mail address: jackson. sidney@ epa. gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information A. Does this Action Apply to Me?

You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer. The North American Industrial Classification System ( NAICS) codes have been provided to assist you and others in determining whether this action might apply to certain entities. Potentially affected entities may include, but are not limited to:   Crop production ( NAICS 111)   Animal production ( NAICS 112)   Food manufacturing ( NAICS 311)   Pesticide manufacturing ( NAICS 32532) This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this action. Other types of entities not listed in this unit could also be affected. The North American Industrial Classification System ( NAICS) codes have been provided to assist you and others in determining whether this action might apply to certain entities. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

B. How Can I Get Copies of this Document and Other Related Information? 1. EPA Docket. EPA has established an official public docket for this action under docket ID number OPP   2003   0111. The official public docket consists of the documents specifically referenced in this action, any public comments received, and other information related to this action. Although, a part of the official docket, the public docket does not include Confidential Business Information ( CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. The official public docket is the collection of materials that is available for public viewing at the Public Information and Records Integrity Branch ( PIRIB), Rm. 119, Crystal Mall # 2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Hwy., Arlington, VA. This docket facility is open from 8: 30 a. m. to 4 p. m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The docket telephone number is ( 703) 305   5805. 2. Electronic access. You may access this Federal Register document electronically through the EPA Internet under the `` Federal Register'' listings at http:// www. epa. gov/ fedrgstr/. An electronic version of the public docket is available through EPA's electronic public docket and comment system, EPA dockets. You may use EPA Dockets at http:// www. epa. gov/ edocket/ to submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the official public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically. Although, not all docket materials may be available electronically, you may still access any of the publicly available docket materials through the docket facility identified in Unit I. B. 1. Once in VerDate Jan< 31> 2003 19: 20 May 06, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\ FR\ FM\ 07MYN1. SGM 07MYN1


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 190 (Thursday, October 1, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 59081-59083]
[FR Doc No: 2015-24731]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2015-3585; Directorate Identifier 2015-NE-22-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Engine Alliance Turbofan Engines

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for
certain Engine Alliance (EA) GP7270 turbofan engines. This proposed AD
was prompted by the manufacturer informing us that the inspection and
repair criteria in the maintenance manual for aft bolt holes of the
high-pressure compressor (HPC) cone shaft on the affected engines is
incorrect. This proposed AD would require inspection of the HPC cone
shaft and repair of affected parts, if needed. We are proposing this AD
to prevent failure of the HPC cone shaft, which could lead to
uncontained engine failure and damage to the airplane.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by November 30,
2015.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR
11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail address above between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact
Engine Alliance, 400 Main St., East Hartford, CT 06108, M/S 169-10,
phone: 800-

565-0140; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Web site:
sp.engineallianceportal.com. You may view this service information at
the FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park,
Burlington, MA. For information on the availability of this material at
the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-
3585; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and
5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket
contains this proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments
received, and other information. The street address for the Docket
Office (phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will
be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Martin Adler, Aerospace Engineer,
Engine & Propeller Directorate, FAA, 12 New England Executive Park,
Burlington, MA 01803; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed
under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2015-3585;
Directorate Identifier 2015-NE-22-AD'' at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposed AD because of those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this proposed AD.

Discussion

    We learned from the manufacturer that the inspection criteria and
the repair procedures for the aft bolt holes of the HPC cone shaft,
also referred to as the ``HPC forward stub shaft,'' were listed
incorrectly in the maintenance manual for the Engine Alliance GP7270
turbofan engines. HPC cone shafts inspected or repaired using the
incorrect criteria in the maintenance manual could result in premature
cracking of these parts. This condition, if not corrected, could result
in failure of the HPC cone shaft, which could lead to uncontained
engine failure and damage to the airplane.

Relevant Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    Engine Alliance has issued EA Service Bulletin (SB) No. EAGP7-72-
329, dated July 21, 2015; and EA SB No. EAGP7-72-330, dated July 21,
2015. The SBs describe procedures for shotpeening and inspection of the
HPC cone shaft. This service information is reasonably available
because the interested parties have access to it through their normal
course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section
of this NPRM.

FAA's Determination

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

Proposed AD Requirements

    This proposed AD would require inspection of the HPC cone shaft and
repair of affected parts, if needed.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects zero engines installed on
airplanes of U.S. registry. The average labor rate is $85 per hour.
Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this proposed AD on
U.S. operators to be $0.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Proposed Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

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

Engine Alliance: Docket No. FAA-2015-3585; Directorate Identifier
2015-NE-22-AD.

(a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by November 30, 2015.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Engine Alliance (EA) GP7270 turbofan engines
with a high-pressure compressor (HPC) cone shaft, part number (P/N)
382-100-907-0, installed.

(d) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by the manufacturer informing us that the
inspection and repair criteria in the

maintenance manual for aft bolt holes of the HPC cone shaft on the
affected engines is incorrect. We are issuing this AD to prevent
failure of the HPC cone shaft, which could lead to uncontained
engine failure and damage to the airplane.

(e) Compliance

    Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified,
unless already done.
    (1) For HPC cone shafts with serial numbers listed in EA Service
Bulletin (SB) No. EAGP7-72-330, dated July 21, 2015, inspect the
inner diameter of the HPC cone shaft aft bolt holes for nicks,
dents, and scratches before accumulating 9,000 cycles since new
(CSN). Do not reinstall the HPC cone shaft if the aft bolt hole has
a nick, dent, or scratch that is greater than 0.002 inches in depth.
    (2) For HPC cone shafts with serial numbers listed in EA SB No.
EAGP7-72-329, dated July 21, 2015, shot peen the HPC cone shaft aft
bolt holes before accumulating 9,000 CSN. Use paragraph 1 of the
Accomplishment Instructions in EA SB No. EAGP7-72-329 to do the
shotpeening.

(f) Installation Prohibition

    After the effective date of this AD, do not install an HPC cone
shaft onto an engine with the following:
    (1) A nick, dent, or scratch in an HPC cone shaft aft bolt hole
that is greater than 0.002 inches in depth; or
    (2) any repair of an HPC cone shaft aft bolt hole that did not
include shot peening.

(g) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    The Manager, Engine Certification Office, may approve AMOCs for
this AD. Use the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19 to make your
request. You may email your request to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
(h) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact Martin Adler,
Aerospace Engineer, Engine & Propeller Directorate, FAA, 12 New
England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) EA SB No. EAGP7-72-329, dated July 21, 2015; and EA SB No.
EAGP7-72-330, dated July 21, 2015, can be obtained from EA using the
contact information in paragraph (h)(3) of this proposed AD.
    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Engine Alliance, 400 Main St., East Hartford, CT 06108, M/S 169-10;
phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Web site:
sp.engineallianceportal.com.
    (4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Engine &
Propeller Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington,
MA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA,
call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on September 24, 2015.
Colleen M. D'Alessandro,
Directorate Manager, Engine & Propeller Directorate, Aircraft
Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2015-24731 Filed 9-30-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P