[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 111 (Monday, June 10, 2019)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 26806-26808]
[FR Doc No: 2019-12156]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R08-OAR-2019-0268; FRL-9994-77-Region 8]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Montana; Incorporation by Reference Updates

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve State Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions submitted by the
State of Montana on August 6, 2018. The revisions include an update to
incorporate by reference the 2016 version of the Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) and 2015 version of the United States Code (U.S.C.)
within the Adminstrative Rules of Montana (ARM) that are part of the
Montana SIP. The revisions also include administrative changes that
consolidate the ARM's references to the CFR and U.S.C. and remove two
CFR exemptions from incorporation by reference into the ARM. Additional
revisions remove incorporation by reference of certain EPA standards
for which the state already has delegated authority from the EPA, and
correct an internal reference in the ARM.

DATES: Comments: Written comments must be received on or before July
10, 2019.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R08-
OAR-2019-0268, to the Federal Rulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from
www.regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any comment received to its
public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you
consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written
comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and
should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will
generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of
the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing
system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment
policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general
guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
in www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Air and Radiation
Division, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, 1595 Wynkoop
Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129. The EPA requests that if at all
possible, you contact the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section to view the hard copy of the docket. You
may view the hard copy of the docket Monday through Friday, 8:00 a.m.
to 4:00 p.m., excluding federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Chris Dresser, Air Quality Planning
Branch, EPA, Region 8, Mailcode 8ARD-QP, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver,
Colorado 80202-1129,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
I. Background

    On September 29, 2017, and February 9, 2018, the Montana Board of
Environmental Review conducted public hearings pursuant to 40 CFR
51.102 to consider the adoption of revisions to the ARM. The approved
changes were submitted to the EPA for approval into Montana's SIP on
August 6, 2018. The SIP submittal includes changes that: (1) Amend ARM
17.8.103, 17.8.302, 17.8.602, 17.8.767, 17.8.802, 17.8.902, 17.8.1002,
17.8.1102, and 17.8.1402 to remove repetitive text describing the
location of rule reference material and centralize and consolidate
those reference citations into sections 17.8.102(3) and (4); (2) Modify
air quality rules by correcting an internal reference in ARM 17.8.904;
(3) Amend ARM 17.8.102(2), to remove the exemptions of 40 CFR part 63,
subparts JJJJJ and KKKKK; (4) Remove references to 40 CFR parts 60, 61,
and 63 in sections 17.8.102(2), 17.8.103(1)(f)-(i), 17.8.302(1)(a)-(c),
17.8.767(1)(c)-(d), 17.8.802(1)(c)-(d), 17.8.902(1)(a)-(b), and
17.8.1002(1)(a)-(b), for which Montana is already delegated authority;
and (5) Update ARM 17.8.102(1) to incorporate by reference the 2016
version of the CFR and the 2015 version of the U.S.C.

II. Analysis of the State's Submittal

    The EPA evaluated the proposed SIP revisions (amendments to the
ARM) submitted by the State on August 6, 2018. The subsequent analysis
for each rule change in the SIP is as follows:

    (1) The State of Montana is requesting that the EPA revise the
SIP to remove text in ARM sections 17.8.103, 17.8.302, 17.8.602,
17.8.767, 17.8.802, 17.8.902, 17.8.1002, 17.8.1102, and 17.8.1402
describing the location of references to the CFR and U.S.C. The
location of rule reference material would be consolidated into ARM
sections 17.8.102(3) and (4). Identifying this information once, in
the General Provisions of ARM 17.8.102(3) and (4), would eliminate
repetition of the information in ARM 17.8.103, 17.8.302, 17.8.602,
17.8.767, 17.8.802, 17.8.902, 17.8.1002, 17.8.1102 and 17.8.1402.
The EPA proposes to find that this revision is necessary and
appropriate to efficiently describe the location of referenced
material.
    (2) The State of Montana is requesting to revise the SIP to
incorporate an amendment to ARM 17.8.904(7) which corrects an
internal reference. In 2011, the State amended the rule, which was
submitted to the EPA the following year for inclusion in

the SIP. In January 2016, the EPA identified an incorrect internal
reference in ARM 17.8.904(7). This change proposes to amend the text
from a reference to ARM 17.8.904(5) to the correct reference to ARM
17.8.904(6). The EPA proposes to find this change necessary and
appropriate as it will allow the rule to be properly implemented.
    (3) The State of Montana is requesting to revise the SIP to
incorporate an amendment to ARM 17.8.102(2) which removes the
exemptions for 40 CFR part 63, subparts JJJJJ and KKKKK. Subparts
JJJJJ and KKKKK are National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants (NESHAP) for brick and structural clay products
manufacturing and clay ceramics manufacturing, respectively.
Originally adopted into the ARM in 2003, these NESHAPS were vacated
and remanded by the Federal Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia Circuit on March 13, 2007, leading to their exemption in
the ARM. The EPA addressed the vacatur and remand by issuing new
subparts JJJJJ and KKKKK on October 26, 2015. Therefore, the EPA
proposes to find it necessary and appropriate to remove the
exemptions for JJJJJ and KKKKK; effectively incorporating the most
recent federal rules covering emissions from brick and structural
clay products manufacturing and clay ceramics manufacturing into
Montana's SIP.
    (4) The State of Montana is requesting removal from the SIP
certain rules that incorporate by reference 40 CFR parts 60, 61, and
63. These rules include: ARM 17.8.103(1)(f)-(i)--pertaining to EPA
emission source reference test methods for stationary sources, EPA
performance specification and test procedures for continuous
emission monitoring systems, EPA emission source reference test
methods for sources subject to national emission standards for
hazardous air pollutants, and emission standards for hazardous air
pollutant source categories; 17.8.302(1)(a)-(c)--pertaining to
standards of performance for new stationary sources and
modifications, emission standards for hazardous air pollutants; and
emission standards for hazardous air pollutant source categories;
17.8.767(1)(c)-(d)--specifying standards of performance for new
stationary sources and for hazardous air pollutants; 17.8.802(1)(c)-
(d)--specifying standards of performance for new stationary sources
and for hazardous air pollutants; 17.8.902(1)(a)-(b)--specifying
standards of performance for new stationary sources and for
hazardous air pollutants; and 17.8.1002(1)(a)-(b)--specifying
standards of performance for new stationary sources and for
hazardous air pollutants. Each of these sections references federal
requirements for which the State has already received federal
delegation of authority. The EPA proposes to find that this update
is necessary and appropriate to remove the redundancy. The EPA also
proposes to find that removing the previously mentioned references
to 40 CFR parts 60, 61, and 63 in the ARM does not impact any other
part of the State's SIP (i.e., no other sections of the approved SIP
reference the sections that Montana is requesting for removal).
    (5) The State of Montana is requesting revisions to the SIP
concerning ARM 17.8.102 to update incorporation by reference dates
to reflect federal regulations published in the July 1, 2016,
edition of the CFR as it is published on the website of the U.S.
Government Printing Office, and the 2015 edition of the U.S.C., as
it is published on the website of the U.S. Government Printing
Office. The EPA proposes to find that this change is necessary and
appropriate to cite the 2015 and 2016 versions of the U.S.C. and
CFR, respectively.

III. The EPA's Proposed Action

    In this action, the EPA is proposing to approve the SIP submittal,
containing recent amendments to the ARM, submitted by the State of
Montana on August 6, 2018. This action proposes updates to: (1) Amend
ARM 17.8.103, 17.8.302, 17.8.602, 17.8.767, 17.8.802, 17.8.902,
17.8.1002, 17.8.1102, and 17.8.1402 to remove repetitive text
describing the location of rule reference material and centralize and
consolidate those reference citations into sections 17.8.102(3) and
(4); (2) Modify air quality rules by correcting an internal reference
in ARM 17.8.904; (3) Amend ARM 17.8.102(2), to remove the exemptions of
40 CFR part 63, subparts JJJJJ and KKKKK; (4) Remove references to 40
CFR parts 60, 61, and 63 in sections 17.8.102(2), 17.8.103(1)(f)-(i),
17.8.302(1)(a)-(c), 17.8.767(1)(c)-(d), 17.8.802(1)(c)-(d),
17.8.902(1)(a)-(b), and 17.8.1002(1)(a)-(b), for which Montana is
already delegated authority; and (5) Update ARM 17.8.102(1) to
incorporate by reference the 2016 version of the CFR and the 2015
version of the U.S.C.

IV. 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 amendments described in section II. The EPA has made, and
will continue to make, these materials generally available through
www.regulations.gov and at the EPA Region 8 Office (please contact the
person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of
this preamble for more information).

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable
federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
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);
     Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2,
2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under
Executive Order 12866;
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act; and
     Does not provide the EPA with the discretionary authority
to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or
environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible
methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

    In addition, the SIP is not proposed 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 proposed 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, Carbon monoxide,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen
dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.

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

    Dated: June 4, 2019.
Debra Thomas,
Acting Regional Administrator, EPA Region 8.
[FR Doc. 2019-12156 Filed 6-7-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 209 (Tuesday, October 31, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 50477]
[FR Doc No: 2017-23657]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Proposed Collection; Comment Request

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

Extension:
    Rule 15c2-1, SEC File No. 270-418, OMB Control No. 3235-0485

    Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995 (``PRA'') (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') is soliciting comments on the existing
collection of information provided for in Rule 15c2-1, (17 CFR
240.15c2-1), under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78a
et seq.). The Commission plans to submit this existing collection of
information to the Office of Management and Budget (``OMB'') for
extension and approval.
    Rule 15c2-1 prohibits the commingling under the same lien of
securities of margin customers (a) with other customers without their
written consent, and (b) with the broker-dealer. The rule also
prohibits the re-hypothecation of customers' margin securities for a
sum in excess of the customer's aggregate indebtedness. Pursuant to
Rule 15c2-1, respondents must collect information necessary to prevent
the re-hypothecation of customer securities in contravention of the
rule, issue and retain copies of notices of hypothecation of customer
securities in accordance with the rule, and collect written consents
from customers in accordance with the rule. The information is
necessary to ensure compliance with the rule, and to advise customers
of the rule's protections.
    There are approximately 79 respondents (i.e., broker-dealers that
conducted business with the public, filed Part II or Part IICSE of the
FOCUS Report, did not claim an exemption from the Rule 15c3-3 reserve
formula computation, and reported that they had a bank loan during at
least one quarter of the current year) that require an aggregate total
of 1,778 hours to comply with the rule. Each of these approximately 79
registered broker-dealers makes an estimated 45 annual responses. Each
response takes approximately 0.5 hours to complete. Thus, the total
compliance burden per year is 1,778 burden hours.
    Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of
the functions of the Commission, including whether the information
shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's
estimates of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c)
ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information
collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of
information on respondents, including through the use of automated
collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions submitted in
writing within 60 days of this publication.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information under the PRA unless it
displays a currently valid OMB control number.
    Please direct your written comments to: Pamela Dyson, Director/
Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Remi
Pavlik-Simon, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549, or send an email
to: [email protected].

    Dated: October 26, 2017.
Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-23657 Filed 10-30-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


MAC   SH Fact Sheet
Fall Protection Safety for Commercial Fishing
Working on commercial fishing vessels present unique fall hazards to employees.

Both OSHA and the U.S. Coast Guard have regulations which apply to different activities in the fishing industry.  These activities would include the maintenance, cleaning, repair, alteration or overhaul of a vessel either at sea, dockside or in a shipyard.  Generally, anything that relates to the harvesting of fish or the normal operation of the vessel is governed by the U.S. Coast Guard.  OSHA regulates activities within 3 nautical miles of the coast line, except for the Gulf of Florida, Texas and Puerto Rico where the territorial waters extend for 3 marine leagues (approximately 9 nautical miles). Each year, dozens of fishermen are injured and killed due to falls on vessels.

Remember the 5 Foot Rule:  Fall Protection is required under any circumstances where a fall of more than five feet may be incurred. (1915.77(c)) If at all possible, protection should be provided with handrails, chains or ropes at heights of 42 inches and 21 inches.  A standard 4-inch toe board should also be provided.

Common Fall Hazards on Vessels Which Require Protection

   * Painting outside vessel rails
   * Welding on the outside of a vessel's hull
   * Work on gantries or masts
   * Elevated work over 5 feet from the deck
   * Work on fishing gear (stacks of pots)

Fall Protection and Prevention Methods

Fall Restraint System
A fall restraint system is recommended when guardrails or personal lift devices cannot be used. A fall restraint system prohibits the worker from falling off an edge. When your lanyard is connected to a properly located anchorage point, you cannot reach an area where you could fall.

Fall Arrest System
When a perimeter fall protection system is not available, and a fall restraint cannot be installed, a fall arrest system shall be used. A fall arrest system is not designed to prevent a fall but to arrest the fall with minimal injury to the worker. The components of a fall arrest system are as follows:
        *    Connecting Means
        *    Shock-Absorbing Lanyard, self-retracting lanyards and lifelines
        *    Full Body Harness
        *    Anchor Point  -    Capable of supporting at least 5000 lbs. per worker

            Hauling Station Fall Restraint on Bering Sea Longliner

Proper Care and Use of Fall Protection Equipment
            *    All fall protection equipment must be inspected for damage or wear before and after EACH use.  If any damage is found or a fall occurs, the equipment needs to be replaced
            *    Equipment needs to be rigged so that employees cannot fall more than six feet or impact the surface below them.
            *    When tying off the structure must be able to hold a 5000 lb. load.

Some fall hazards found on vessels can be protected in the following ways:
Open Hatches are hazardous when not protected.  Openings should have a combing and be guarded at 36-42 inches and 21 inches, except where the use of such guards is made impracticable by the work actually in progress. (29 CFR 1915.73(c)) & (46 CFR 28.410)

Unguarded Edges of Decks, platforms, flats, and similar flat surfaces that are more than 5 feet above a solid surface.  These edges shall be guarded by adequate guardrails meeting the requirements of 1915.71(j)(1) and (2), unless the nature of the work in progress or the physical conditions prohibit the use or installation of such guardrails. (29 CFR 1915.73(d))

Boarding a Vessel from the Dock
A gangway of not less than 20 inches walking surface of adequate strength, maintained in safe repair and safely secured shall be used. If not practicable, a substantial straight ladder, extending at least 36 inches above the upper landing surface and adequately secured shall be provided. When conditions are such that neither a gangway nor a straight ladder can be used, a Jacob's ladder may be used. 29 CFR 1915.74.

Ladders:
         *    Never stand on the top two rungs/steps of a portable ladder
         *    Face the ladder when climbing and always grasp with at least one hand
         *    Secure and stabilize all ladders before climbing them.
         *    Maintain ladders free of oil, grease and other slipping hazards
Additional Fall Protection Recommendations:
         *    Use proper equipment not body belts or ropes around the waste
         *    Identify and eliminate fall hazards such as deck openings/edges and stairwells
         *    Establish a proper gangway or ladder to board the vessel
         *    Practice good housekeeping.  Keep cords, fishing lines, out of walkways or work areas
         *    Do not lift someone with a crane unless it is specifically approved for lifting personnel


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 50 (Wednesday, March 17, 2021)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 14526-14528]
[FR Doc No: 2021-05263]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 27

[Docket No. FAA-2020-1011; Notice No. 27-051-SC]

Special Conditions: AgustaWestland Philadelphia Corporation,
Leonardo S.p.A. Model A119 and AW119 MKII Helicopters; Pressure
Refueling and Fueling Provisions

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final special conditions.

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

SUMMARY: These special conditions are issued for the Leonardo S.p.A.
(Leonardo) Model A119 and AW119 MKII helicopters. These helicopters as
modified by AgustaWestland Philadelphia Corporation (AWPC) will have a
novel or unusual design feature when compared to the state of
technology envisioned in the airworthiness standards for helicopters.
This design feature is the optional closed circuit refueling receiver
(CCRR). The applicable airworthiness regulations do not contain
adequate or appropriate safety standards for this design feature. These
special conditions contain the additional safety standards that the
Administrator considers necessary to establish a level of safety
equivalent to that established by the existing airworthiness standards.

DATES: Effective April 16, 2021.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rao Edupuganti, Dynamic Systems
Section, AIR-627, Policy and Innovation Division, Aircraft
Certification Service, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, Texas 76177;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On January 30, 2020, AWPC applied for a supplemental type
certificate to install an optional CCRR in the Leonardo Model A119 and
AW119 MKII helicopters. The general configuration and the principles of
construction of these helicopters will not be changed by the
modifications. These helicopters are 14 CFR part 27 normal category
helicopters powered by turboshaft engines, with a 7-passenger maximum
capacity and minimum crew of one pilot and a maximum weight of 5,997 lb
(2,720 kg) and 6,283 lb (2,850 kg), respectively. The total useable
fuel capacity of the Leonardo Model A119 and AW119 MKII helicopters is
157.0 U.S. gallons distributed within the fuel tanks. Both helicopter
models are powered by one Pratt & Whitney Canada Inc. PT6B-37A
turboshaft engine.
    Part 27 does not contain requirements for pressure refueling for
normal category helicopters. Title 14 CFR 29.979, amendment 29-12,
provides these requirements for transport category helicopters.
Accordingly, these special conditions are based on Sec.  29.979 to
provide requirements for the inclusion of the optional CCRR on the
Leonardo Model A119 and AW119 MKII helicopters.

Type Certification Basis

    Under the provisions of 14 CFR 21.101, AWPC must show that the
Leonardo Model A119 and AW119 MKII helicopters, as changed, continue to
meet the applicable provisions of the regulations listed in Type
Certificate No. H7EU or the applicable regulations in effect on the
date of application for the change. The regulations adopted by
reference in the type certificate are commonly referred to as the
``original type certification basis.'' The certification basis also
includes certain special conditions, exemptions, or later amended
sections of the applicable part that are not relevant to these special
conditions.
    The Administrator has determined that the applicable airworthiness
regulations do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for
the Leonardo Model A119 and AW119 MKII helicopters because of a novel
or unusual design feature. Therefore, special conditions are prescribed
under the provisions of Sec.  21.16.
    Special conditions are initially applicable to the model for which
they are issued. Should the applicant apply for a supplemental type
certificate to modify any other model included on the same type
certificate to incorporate the same novel or unusual design feature,
these special conditions would also apply to the other model under
Sec.  21.101.
    The FAA issues special conditions, as defined in 14 CFR 11.19, in
accordance with Sec.  11.38, and they become part of the type
certification basis under Sec.  21.101.

Novel or Unusual Design Feature

    The Leonardo Model A119 and AW119 MKII helicopters will incorporate
the following novel or unusual design feature: An optional CCRR system
that allows for pressure refueling.

Discussion

    AWPC proposed to install an optional CCRR system that includes
provisions for pressure refueling during ground operations with the
engine running and the rotors turning. The design proposed by AWPC
allows for both closed-circuit pressure and normal gravity refueling
and fueling. In this design, the ground crew will be able to perform
closed-circuit pressure refueling by pulling the receiver into place
using the provided lanyard tool after the fuel filler cap is opened.
When gravity fueling is desired, a latch is depressed using the same
lanyard tool. Depressing the latch causes the receiver to swing open to
accommodate any nozzle up to three inches in diameter. The CCRR system
is currently certified on the Leonardo Model AW139 transport category
helicopter. Relative to the Model AW139 installation, the Model A119
and AW119 MKII installations will be clocked 25 degrees counter-
clockwise, and the receptacle flange will be offset approximately two
inches outboard of the fuselage profile due to packaging constraints.
The mechanical components and functional aspects of the Model A119 and
AW119 MKII CCRR installations are unchanged from the previously
certified AW139 installation.
    The part 27 airworthiness regulations in the type certification
basis do not contain appropriate safety standards for this design
feature. However, part 29 regulations contain appropriate airworthiness
standards; therefore, these special conditions are necessary. They are
derived from 14 CFR 29.979, ``Pressure refueling and fueling provisions
below fuel level.''
    Section 29.979, amendment 29-12, effective February 1, 1977,
includes standards for pressure refueling and fueling provisions below
fuel level on transport category helicopters. This regulation is
intended to prevent hazards to ground crew, flight crew, and occupants
by reducing the probability of exposure to hazardous quantities of fuel
due to spillage. This regulation also ensures the pressure refueling/
defueling system is designed to prevent overfilling the fuel tank and
to withstand an ultimate load overpressure event without failure.
    Section 29.979(a) requires that each fueling connection below the
fuel level in each tank have means to prevent the escape of hazardous
quantities of fuel from that tank in case of malfunction of the fuel
entry valve. The only refueling connection on the Leonardo Model A119
and AW119 MKII helicopters is located above the fuel level of the
single main upper, two main lower, and optional two auxiliary fuel
tanks. As the proposed modification by AWPC does not move the existing
refueling connection below the fuel line of any fuel tank, these
special conditions do not include a requirement derived from 14 CFR
29.979(a).
    Section 29.979(b) requires that systems intended for pressure
refueling and fueling have a means in addition to the normal means for
limiting the tank content to prevent damage to the tank in case of
failure of the normal means.
    Section 29.979(c) requires that the helicopter pressure fueling
system (not fuel tanks and fuel tank vents) withstand an ultimate load
that is 2.0 times the load arising from the maximum pressure, including
surge, likely to occur during fueling. The maximum surge pressure must
be established with any combination of

tank valves being either intentionally or inadvertently closed.
    Section 29.979(d) requires that the helicopter defueling system
(not including fuel tanks and fuel tank vents) withstand an ultimate
load that is 2.0 times the load arising from the maximum permissible
defueling pressure (positive or negative) at the helicopter's fueling
connection. As the design proposed by AWPC does not include a defueling
capability, these special conditions do not include a requirement
derived from 14 CFR 29.979(d).
    These special conditions contain the additional safety standards
that the Administrator considers necessary to establish a level of
safety equivalent to that established by the existing airworthiness
standards.

Discussion of Comments

    The FAA issued Notice of Proposed Special Conditions No. 27-051-SC
for the Leonardo Model A119 and AW119 MKII helicopters, which was
published in the Federal Register on November 2, 2020 (85 FR 69265). No
comments were received, and the special conditions are adopted as
proposed.

Applicability

    As discussed above, these special conditions are applicable to
Leonardo Model A119 and AW119 MKII helicopters. Should AWPC apply at a
later date for a supplemental type certificate to modify any other
model included on Type Certificate No. H7EU to incorporate the same
novel or unusual design feature, these special conditions would apply
to that model as well.

Conclusion

    This action affects only one novel or unusual design feature on the
Leonardo Model A119 and AW119 MKII helicopters. It is not a rule of
general applicability and affects only the applicant who applied to the
FAA for approval of this feature on these helicopters.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 27

    Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.

Authority Citation

    The authority citation for these special conditions is as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40113, 44701, 44702, 44704.

The Special Conditions

0
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the following special conditions are issued as part of
the type certification basis for Leonardo S.p.A. Model A119 and AW119
MKII helicopters, as modified by AgustaWestland Philadelphia
Corporation.
    The pressure refueling system must be designed and installed as
follows:
    (a) For systems intended for pressure refueling, a means in
addition to the normal means for limiting the tank content must be
installed to prevent damage to the fuel tank in case of failure of the
normal means.
    (b) The helicopter pressure fueling system (not fuel tanks and fuel
tank vents) must withstand an ultimate load that is 2.0 times the load
arising from maximum pressure, including surge, that is likely to occur
during fueling. The maximum surge pressure must be established with any
combination of tank valves being either intentionally or inadvertently
closed.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on December 11, 2020.
Jorge Castillo,
Manager, Rotorcraft Standards Branch, AIR-680, Policy & Innovation
Division, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2021-05263 Filed 3-16-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


5 1 CHAPTER FIVE BENEFITS In enacting the Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know Act ( EPCRA) of 1986 and the Pollution Prevention Act ( PPA) of 1990, Congress recognized the significant benefits of providing information on the presence, releases, and waste management of toxic chemicals. The Toxic Release Inventory ( TRI) has proven to be one of the most powerful forces in empowering the federal government, state and local governments, industry, environmental groups and the general public to fully participate in an informed dialogue about the environmental impacts of toxic chemicals in the United States. TRI's publicly available database provides quantitative information on toxic chemical releases and other waste management activities. With the collection of this information starting in 1987 came the ability for the public, government, and the regulated community to understand the magnitude of chemical releases in the United States, and to assess the need to reduce the releases and transfers of toxic chemicals. TRI enables all interested parties to establish credible baselines, to set realistic goals for environmental progress, and to measure progress in meeting these goals over time. As such, the TRI system has become a neutral yardstick by which progress can be measured by all stakeholders.

EPA believes that the changes included in this rulemaking will enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of the TRI program while continuing to provide communities with the same high level of significant chemical release and other waste management information. Certain data, however, will be lost under the final rule and thus negative benefits will accrue to society. Alternately, on the cost side, industry will realize a cost savings due to reduced reporting burden. The likely impact of modifying the 10 data elements are discussed below:

Removal of Longitude/ Latitude Reporting Requirement ( Part I, section 4.6)

EPA believes that the locational data available in FRS will provide sufficient latitude/ longitude data for TRI reporting facilities. Locational information will be readily available for any and all TRI reports and applications, such as TRI Explorer and Form R or A retrievals from Envirofacts. TRI data and facility identification data including locational information will be seamlessly joined for access by all data users.

Eliminating the latitude/ longitude reporting requirement and relying on other geo spatial means to supply TRI reporting facilities' locational data not only reduces Form R and Form A reporting burden for TRI reporters, it is in line with the Agency's goal to " collect once and use many." EPA believes that this approach allows the Agency to provide better documented data that will be more consistently collected, quality assured, and managed than the current practice. 5 2 Removal of Reporting Requirements for EPA Program Identity Numbers ( Part I, Sections 4.8, 4.9 and 4.10)

FRS integrates all program identification and permit information numbers into a single record, including those for the RCRA, NPDES and Underground Injection programs. EPA believes that FRS contains accurate and authoritative facility identification records that are subject to rigorous verification and data management quality assurance procedures. FRS records are continuously reviewed and enhanced by a Regional Data Steward network and active State partners. Thus, EPA believes it is possible to eliminate the reporting requirements on Form R and Form A for Agency program identification numbers without sacrificing data quality.

Modifications to the Reporting Requirement for On Site Waste Treatment Methods and Efficiency ( Part II, Section 7)

The Agency has not been able to verify that information regarding facilities' on site waste treatment, energy recovery and recycling of EPCRA section 313 chemicals is routinely used. This information is therefore thought to be of little utility to TRI stakeholders. The Agency believes that simplifying this section will result in reduced reporting burden for those facilities required to complete this portion of the form. Specific modifications are as follows:

Section 7A On Site Waste Treatment Methods and Efficiency: Column b The existing 64 waste management codes available for this data element will be replaced with18 hazardous waste treatment codes ( H040 129) currently used in EPA's biennial Hazardous Waste Report and the 7 air emissions treatment codes from the original list of waste treatment codes for Section 7A column b. EPA believes that decreasing the number codes available will reduce reporting burden for two reasons. First, facilities will have fewer codes to consider when reporting in this section. Second, under this option, the same codes will be adopted for both the RCRA hazardous waste and TRI reporting programs providing consistency between two EPA reporting systems regarding waste treatment methods data.

Section 7A On Site Waste Treatment Methods and Efficiency: Columns c and e By removing columns c and e, information on the concentration range of the listed chemical as it enters the treatment step and an indication as to whether the waste treatment efficiency reported is based on actual operating data would be lost.

Section 7A On Site Waste Treatment Methods and Efficiency: Column d The modification of this data element would shift the reported data from an actual percentage of the EPCRA section 313 chemical removed from the waste stream to a waste treatment efficiency range. As the ranges are defined narrowly, little information is lost ( i. e., the range closely approximates the actual percentage.) 5 3 Section 7C On Site Recycling Processes The existing 16 recycling codes available for this data element will be replaced with three reclamation and recovery management codes used in EPA's biennial Hazardous Waste Report. Similar to the modification 7A. 1b, decreasing the number codes available should reduce reporting burden for two reasons. First, facilities will have fewer codes to consider when reporting in this section. Second, under this option, the same codes will be adopted for both the RCRA hazardous waste and TRI reporting programs.

Removal of Reporting Data Field for Optional Submission of Additional Information ( Part II, Section 8.11)

Although an indication of whether or not additional information on source reduction, recycling, or pollution control activities at the facility is attached to Form R will be eliminated, the actual information will not be lost. EPA will provide a way for facilities to submit this information electronically. In addition, EPA plans to make this information available on EPA's public access Web site.


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 44 (Wednesday, March 6, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 14469-14473]
[FR Doc No: 2013-05178]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2013-0097; Directorate Identifier 2011-NM-243-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to supersede an existing airworthiness directive
(AD) that applies to certain The Boeing Company Model 747-100, 747-
100B, 747-100B SUD, 747-200B, 747-200C, 747-200F, 747-300, 747-400,
747-400D, 747-400F, and 747SR series airplanes. The existing AD
currently requires repetitive inspections to find cracking of the web,
strap, inner chords, inner chord angle of the forward edge frame of the
number 5 main entry door cutouts, the frame segment between stringers
16 and 31, and repair if necessary; and repetitive inspections for
cracking of repairs. Since we issued that AD, we have received multiple
reports of cracking outside of the previous fuselage inspection areas
and a report of a crack that initiated at the aft edge of the inner
chord rather than initiating at a fastener location, which was the
previous cracking location. This proposed AD would expand the previous
fuselage areas that are inspected for cracking. We are proposing this
AD to detect and correct such cracks, which could cause damage to the
adjacent body structure and could result in depressurization of the
airplane in flight.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by April 22, 2013.

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
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management,
P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, WA 98124-2207; telephone 206-544-
5000, extension 1; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You may review copies of the service information
at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW.,
Renton, WA. 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; 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: Nathan Weigand, Aerospace Engineer,
Airframe Branch, ANM-120S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office
(ACO), 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; phone: 425-917-
6428; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address
listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2013-0097;
Directorate Identifier 2011-NM-243-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

    On September 15, 2010, we issued AD 2010-20-08, Amendment 39-16442
(75 FR 61337, October 5, 2010), for certain Model 747-100, 747-100B,
747-100B SUD, 747-200B, 747-200C, 747-200F, 747-300, 747-400, 747-400D,
747-400F, and 747SR series airplanes. That AD requires repetitive
inspections to find cracking of the web, strap, inner chords, inner
chord angle of the forward edge frame of the number 5 main entry door
cutouts, the frame segment between stringers 16 and 31, and repair if
necessary; and repetitive inspections for cracking of repairs. That AD
resulted from additional reports of cracks that have been found in the
strap and inner chord of the forward edge frame of the number 5 main
entry door cutouts, between stringers 16 and 23. We issued that AD to
detect and correct such cracks, which could cause damage to the
adjacent body structure and could result in depressurization of the
airplane in flight.

Actions Since Existing AD (75 FR 61337, October 5, 2010) Was Issued

    Since we issued AD 2010-20-08, Amendment 39-16442 (75 FR 61337,
October 5, 2010), we have received multiple reports of cracking outside
of the previous fuselage inspection areas and a report of a crack that
initiated at the aft edge of the inner chord rather than initiating at
a fastener location, which was the previous cracking location.

Relevant Service Information

    We reviewed Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2450, Revision 7,
dated November 2, 2011. For information on the procedures and
compliance times, see this service information at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for Docket No. FAA-2013-0097.

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 retain all requirements of AD 2010-20-08,
Amendment 39-16442 (75 FR 61337, October 5, 2010). This proposed AD
would also expand the previous fuselage areas that are inspected for
cracking.
    The phrase ``related investigative actions'' might be used in this
proposed AD. ``Related investigative actions'' are follow-on actions
that: (1) Are related to the primary actions, and (2) are actions that
further investigate the nature of any condition found. Related
investigative actions in an AD could include, for example, inspections.
    In addition, the phrase ``corrective actions'' might be used in
this proposed AD. ``Corrective actions'' are actions that correct or
address any condition found. Corrective actions in an AD could include,
for example, repairs.

Difference Between the Proposed AD and Relevant Service Information

    Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2450, Revision 7, dated
November 2, 2011, specifies to contact the manufacturer for
instructions on how to repair certain conditions, but this proposed AD
would require repairing those conditions in one of the following ways:
     Using a method that we approve; or
     Using data that meet the certification basis of the
airplane, and that have been approved by an Authorized Representative
for the Boeing Commercial Airplanes Delegation Option Authorization
Organization whom we have authorized to make those findings.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 151 airplanes of U.S.
registry.
    We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost on U.S.
             Action                     Labor cost          Parts cost     Cost per product        operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inspections [retained actions    Up to 44 work-hours x                $0  Up to $3,740 per    Up to $564,740 per
 from AD 2010[dash]20-08,         $85 per hour = $3,740                    inspection cycle.   inspection cycle.
 Amendment 39-16442 (75 FR        per inspection cycle.
 61337, October 5, 2010)].
Inspections [new proposed        Up to 121 work-hours x                0  Up to $10,285 per   Up to $1,553,035
 action].                         $85 per hour = $10,285                   inspection cycle.   per inspection
                                  per inspection cycle.                                        cycle.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide
cost estimates for the on-condition actions specified in this proposed
AD.

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 have 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 that the proposed
regulation:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866,
    (2) Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
    (3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
    (4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Proposed Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by removing airworthiness directive (AD)
2010-20-08, Amendment 39-16442 (75 FR 61337, October 5, 2010), and
adding the following new AD:

The Boeing Company: Docket No. FAA-2013-0097; Directorate Identifier
2011-NM-243-AD.

(a) Comments Due Date

    The FAA must receive comments on this AD action by April 22,
2013.

(b) Affected ADs

    This AD supersedes AD 2010-20-08, Amendment 39-16442 (75 FR
61337, October 5, 2010).

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to The Boeing Company Model 747-100, 747-100B,
747-100B SUD, 747-200B, 747-200C, 747-200F, 747-300, 747-400, 747-
400D, 747-400F, and 747SR series airplanes, certificated in any
category, having line numbers 1 through 1419 inclusive; except for
Model 747-400 series airplanes that have been modified into the
Model 747-400 large cargo freighter configuration.

(d) Subject

    Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC)/Air Transport Association
(ATA) of America Code 53, Fuselage.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by multiple reports of cracking outside of
the previous inspection areas and a report of a crack that initiated
at the aft edge of the inner chord rather than initiating at a
fastener location. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct such
cracks, which could cause damage to the adjacent body structure and
could result in a rapid depressurization of the airplane.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Retained Repetitive Inspections for Frame Segment Between Stringers
23 and 31 (No Terminating Action)

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (g) of AD
2010-20-08, Amendment 39-16442 (75 FR 61337, October 5, 2010). For
airplanes having line numbers 1 through 1304 inclusive: Inspect the
airplane for cracks between stringers 23 and 31 per Boeing Alert
Service Bulletin 747-53A2450, Revision 2, including Appendix A,
dated January 4, 2001; or Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2450,
Revision 5, dated January 29, 2009; at the later of the applicable
times specified in paragraph (h) or (i) of this AD, per table 1 to
paragraphs (g) and (h) of this AD, as follows. Where there are
differences between the AD and Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-
53A2450, Revision 2, including Appendix A, dated January 4, 2001; or
Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2450, Revision 5, dated January
29, 2009: the AD prevails.

                      Table 1 to Paragraphs (g) and (h) of This AD--Inspection Requirements
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Type of inspection                                        Area to inspect
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Detailed Visual............................  Strap inner chords forward and aft of the web, and exposed web
                                                  adjacent to the inner chords on station 2231 frame from
                                                  stringers 23 through 31 per Figure 5 or Figure 6 of the
                                                  service bulletins specified in paragraph (g) or (h) of this
                                                  AD, as applicable.
(2) Surface High Frequency Eddy Current (HFEC).  Station 2231 inner chord angles at lower main sill interface
                                                  per Figure 5 or Figure 6 of the service bulletins specified in
                                                  paragraph (g) or (h) of this AD, as applicable.
(3) Open Hole HFEC.............................  Station 2231 frame fastener locations per Figures 4 and 7, and
                                                  either Figure 5 or 6 of the service bulletins specified in
                                                  paragraph (g) or (h) of this AD, as applicable.
(4) Surface HFEC...............................  Around fastener locations on station 2231 inner chords from
                                                  stringers 23 through 31 per Figure 5 or Figure 6 of the
                                                  service bulletins specified in paragraph (g) or (h) of this
                                                  AD, as applicable.
(5) Low Frequency Eddy Current (LFEC)..........  Station 2231 frame strap in areas covered by the reveal per
                                                  Figure 5 or Figure 6 of the service bulletins specified in
                                                  paragraph (g) or (h) of this AD, as applicable.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Note 1 to paragraph (g) of this AD: There is no terminating
action currently available for the inspections required by paragraph
(g) of this AD.

(h) Retained Compliance Times

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (h) of AD
2010-20-08, Amendment 39-16442 (75 FR 61337, October 5, 2010). Do
the inspections specified in paragraph (g) of this AD at the
applicable times specified in paragraph (h)(1) or (h)(2) of this AD.
Repeat the inspections at intervals not to exceed 3,000 flight
cycles until the inspections required by paragraph (m) or (o) of
this AD are done. Where there are differences between the AD and
Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2450, Revision 2, including
Appendix A, dated January 4, 2001; or Boeing Alert Service Bulletin
747-53A2450, Revision 5, dated January 29, 2009: the AD prevails.
    (1) Do the inspections per table 1 to paragraphs (g) and (h) of
this AD at the applicable time specified in the logic diagram in
Figure 1 of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2450, Revision 2,
including Appendix A, dated January 4, 2001. Where the compliance
time in the logic diagram specifies a compliance time beginning
``from receipt of this service bulletin,'' this AD requires that the
compliance time begin ``after September 12, 2001 (the effective date
of AD 2001-16-02, Amendment 39-12370 (66 FR 41440, August 8,
2001)).''
    (2) After November 9, 2010 (the effective date of AD 2010-20-08,
Amendment 39-16442 (75 FR 61337, October 5, 2010)), do the
inspections per table 1 to paragraphs (g) and

(h) of this AD at the applicable compliance time specified in
paragraph 1.E., ``Compliance'' of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-
53A2450, Revision 5, dated January 29, 2009. Where the compliance
time in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2450, Revision 2,
including Appendix A, dated January 4, 2001, specifies a compliance
time beginning ``after the date on Revision 2 of this service
bulletin,'' this AD requires that the compliance time begin ``after
September 12, 2001 (the effective date of AD 2001-16-02, Amendment
39-12370 (66 FR 41440, August 8, 2001)).''

(i) Retained Repetitive Inspections for Frame Segment Between Stringers
23 and 31

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (i) of AD
2010-20-08, Amendment 39-16442 (75 FR 61337, October 5, 2010).
Within 3,000 flight cycles after accomplishment of the inspections
specified in Figure 1 of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2450,
dated May 4, 2000; or Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2450,
Revision 1, dated July 6, 2000; repeat the inspections specified in
paragraph (g) of this AD at intervals not to exceed 3,000 flight
cycles until the inspections required by paragraph (m) or (o) of
this AD are done. Where there are differences between the AD and
Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2450, Revision 2, dated January
4, 2001; or Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2450, Revision 5,
dated January 29, 2009: the AD prevails.

(j) Retained Additional Repetitive Inspections (for Frame Segment
Between Stringers 16 and 23)

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (j) of AD
2010-20-08, Amendment 39-16442 (75 FR 61337, October 5, 2010).
    (1) For all airplanes: Before the accumulation of 16,000 total
flight cycles, or within 1,500 flight cycles after November 9, 2010
(the effective date of AD 2010-20-08, Amendment 39-16442 (75 FR
61337, October 5, 2010)), whichever occurs later, do a detailed
inspection, an open hole HFEC inspection, a surface HFEC inspection,
and a subsurface LFEC inspection for cracking of the forward edge
frame of the number 5 main entry door cutouts, at station 2231,
between stringers 16 and 23; in accordance with the Accomplishment
Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2450, Revision
5, dated January 29, 2009. Repeat the inspections thereafter at
intervals not to exceed 3,000 flight cycles.
    (2) The part number of the nut for fastener code ``K'' in Figure
7 of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2450, Revision 5, dated
January 29, 2009, should be ``BACN10JC3CD,'' instead of
``BACB30JC3CD.'' In addition, the part number of the optional nut
for this fastener code should be ``BACN10YR3CD,'' instead of
``BACN10YR4CD'' in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2450,
Revision 5, dated January 29, 2009.

(k) Retained Repetitive Inspections for Line Numbers 1305 and On (for
Frame Segment Between Stringers 23 and 31)

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (k) of AD
2010-20-08, Amendment 39-16442 (75 FR 61337, October 5, 2010). For
airplanes having line numbers 1305 and on: Before the accumulation
of 16,000 total flight cycles, or within 1,500 flight cycles after
November 9, 2010 (the effective date of AD 2010-20-08, Amendment 39-
16442 (75 FR 61337, October 5, 2010)), whichever occurs later, do a
detailed inspection, an open hole HFEC inspection, a surface HFEC
inspection, and a subsurface LFEC inspection for cracking of the
forward edge frame of the number 5 main entry door cutouts, at
station 2231, between stringers 23 and 31; in accordance with the
Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-
53A2450, Revision 5, dated January 29, 2009. Repeat the inspections
thereafter at intervals not to exceed 3,000 flight cycles.

(l) Retained Corrective Action for Paragraphs (g), (j), and (k) of This
AD

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (l) of AD
2010-20-08, Amendment 39-16442 (75 FR 61337, October 5, 2010). If
any crack is found during any inspection required by paragraph (g),
(j), or (k) of this AD, before further flight, repair the crack in
accordance with a method approved by the Manager, Seattle Aircraft
Certification Office (ACO), FAA, in accordance with data meeting the
type certification basis of the airplane approved by the Boeing
Commercial Airplanes Organization Designation Authorization (ODA)
that has been authorized by the Manager, Seattle ACO, to make those
findings; or in accordance with Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-
53A2450, Revision 5, dated January 29, 2009; as applicable. For a
repair method to be approved by the Manager, Seattle ACO, as
required by this paragraph, the approval letter must specifically
reference this AD. As of November 9, 2010 (the effective date of AD
2010-20-08), repair the crack using a method approved in accordance
with the procedures specified in paragraph (s) of this AD.

(m) Retained Post-Repair Inspections

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (m) of AD
2010-20-08, Amendment 39-16442 (75 FR 61337, October 5, 2010).
Except as required by paragraph (n) of this AD, for airplanes on
which the forward edge frame of the number 5 main entry door
cutouts, at station 2231, between stringers 16 and 31, is repaired
as specified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2450: Within
3,000 flight cycles after doing the repair or within 1,500 flight
cycles after November 9, 2010 (the effective date of AD 2010-20-08),
whichever occurs later, do the detailed, LFEC, and HFEC inspections
of the repaired area for cracks, in accordance with the
Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-
53A2450, Revision 5, dated January 29, 2009. If no cracking is
found, repeat the inspections thereafter at intervals not to exceed
3,000 flight cycles. If any crack is found: Before further flight,
repair using a method approved in accordance with the procedures
specified in paragraph (s) of this AD. Doing the inspections
specified in paragraph (m) of this AD terminates the repetitive
inspections required by paragraphs (g), (h), (i), (j), and (k) of
this AD for the repaired area.

(n) Retained Post-Repair Inspection Restriction

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (n) of AD
2010-20-08, Amendment 39-16442 (75 FR 61337, October 5, 2010). For
any frame that is repaired in accordance with a method other than
the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin
747-53A2450, Revision 5, dated January 29, 2009: Do the inspection
in accordance with a method approved in accordance with the
procedures specified in paragraph (s) of this AD.

(o) New Repetitive Inspections With Expanded Inspection Area

    Before the accumulation of 16,000 total flight cycles, or within
3,000 flight cycles after the effective date of this AD, whichever
occurs later, do the inspections required by paragraphs (o)(1)
through (o)(5) of this AD, except as specified in paragraph (p) of
this AD. Do all actions required by this paragraph in accordance
with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service
Bulletin 747-53A2450, Revision 7, dated November 2, 2011. Repeat the
inspections thereafter at the applicable times specified in
Paragraph 1.E., ``Compliance,'' of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin
747-53A2450, Revision 7, dated November 2, 2011. Accomplishment of
the initial inspections required by this paragraph terminates the
requirements of paragraphs (g) through (k) of this AD.
    (1) Do a detailed inspection for cracking on the frame strap,
inner chords forward and aft of the web, and exposed web adjacent to
the inner chords from stringer 15 to 31.
    (2) Do an HFEC inspection of the station 2231 frame fastener
locations for cracking from stringer 16 to 31, including locations
common to the upper main sill strap and stringer clip at stringer
16.
    (3) Do an HFEC inspection for cracking of the frame inner chords
around the fastener heads from stringer 15 to 31.
    (4) Do an HFEC inspection for cracking of the aft edge of the
aft inner chord, of the forward edge of the forward inner chord, and
of the forward and aft edges of the frame strap from stringer 15 to
31.
    (5) Do an LFEC inspection for cracking of the station 2231 frame
strap from stringer 16 to 31 in areas covered by the reveal.

(p) New Post-Repair Inspection for Repaired Areas

    For airplanes on which the post-repair inspections are being
done as specified in paragraph (m) of this AD: For the repaired area
only, continue the inspections as specified in paragraph (m) of this
AD in lieu of the inspections specified in paragraph (o) of this AD.

(q) New Corrective Action

    If any cracking is found during any inspection required by
paragraph (o), (p), or (r) of this AD: Before further flight, repair
the cracking using a method approved in accordance with the
procedures specified in paragraph (s) of this AD.

 (r) New Post-Repair Repetitive Inspections and Corrective Action

    For any airplane repaired as specified in paragraph (q) of this
AD: Within 3,000 flight

cycles after doing the repair, do detailed, LFEC, and HFEC
inspections of the repaired area for cracking, in accordance with
the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin
747-53A2450, Revision 7, dated November 2, 2011. If no cracking is
found, repeat the inspections thereafter at intervals not to exceed
3,000 flight cycles. If any cracking is found: Before further
flight, do the actions specified in paragraph (q) of this AD.

(s) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO),
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 ACO, send it to the
attention of the person identified in the Related Information
section of this AD. Information may be emailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate
principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager
of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding
district office.
    (3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be
used for any repair required by this AD if it is approved by the
Boeing Commercial Airplanes Organization Designation Authorization
(ODA) that has been authorized by the Manager, Seattle ACO, to make
those findings. For a repair method to be approved, the repair must
meet the certification basis of the airplane, and the approval must
specifically refer to this AD.
    (4) AMOCs approved previously in accordance with AD 2010-20-08,
Amendment 39-16442 (75 FR 61337, October 5, 2010), are approved as
AMOCs for the corresponding provisions of paragraphs (g) through (m)
of this AD.
    (5) AMOCs approved previously in accordance with AD 2010-20-08,
Amendment 39-16442 (75 FR 61337, October 5, 2010), that have post-
repair inspections, are approved as AMOCs for the corresponding
provisions of paragraph (o) of this AD for the repaired area only.

(t) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, Nathan Weigand,
Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM-120S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft
Certification Office (ACO), 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-
3356; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management,
P. O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, WA 98124-2207; telephone 206-544-
5000, extension 1; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You may review copies of the referenced
service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601
Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of
this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on February 25, 2013.
Ali Bahrami,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2013-05178 Filed 3-5-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 56 (Wednesday, March 23, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 16297-16301]
[FR Doc No: 2011-6545]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0101; FRL-8868-7]

Aspergillus flavus AF36; Exemption From the Requirement of a
Tolerance

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes an exemption from the requirement
of a tolerance for residues of the microbial pesticide, Aspergillus
flavus AF36, in or on corn food and feed commodities, when applied/used
as an antifungal agent. The Arizona Cotton Research and Protection
Council submitted a petition to EPA under the Federal Food, Drug, and
Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), requesting an amendment to the existing exemption
from the requirement of a tolerance for Aspergillus flavus AF36. This
regulation eliminates the need to establish a maximum permissible level
for residues of Aspergillus flavus AF36 under the FFDCA.

DATES: This regulation is effective March 23, 2011. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received on or before May 23, 2011, and
must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR
part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION).

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under docket
identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0101. All documents in the
docket are listed in the docket index available at http://www.regulations.gov. Although listed in the index, some information is
not publicly available, e.g., Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain
other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the
Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form.
Publicly available docket materials are available in the electronic
docket at http://www.regulations.gov, or, if only available in hard
copy, at the Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) Regulatory Public
Docket in Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal
Dr., Arlington, VA. The Docket Facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4
p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The Docket
Facility telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Shanaz Bacchus, Biopesticides and
Pollution Prevention Division (7511P), Office of Pesticide Programs,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail
address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an
agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer.
Potentially

affected entities may include, but are not limited to:
     Crop production (NAICS code 111).
     Animal production (NAICS code 112).
     Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
     Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).
    This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather 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 electronic access to other related information?

    You may access a frequently updated electronic version of 40 CFR
part 180 through the Government Printing Office's e-CFR site at http://www.gpoaccess.gov/ecfr.

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

    Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a(g), any person may file
an objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a
hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a
hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided
in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify
docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0101 in the subject line on the first
page of your submission. All objections and requests for a hearing must
be in writing, and must be received by the Hearing Clerk on or before
May 23, 2011. Addresses for mail and hand delivery of objections and
hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b).
    In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the
Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of
the filing that does not contain any CBI for inclusion in the public
docket. Information not marked confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2
may be disclosed publicly by EPA without prior notice. Submit a copy of
your non-CBI objection or hearing request, identified by docket ID
number EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0101, by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
     Mail: OPP Regulatory Public Docket (7502P), Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-
0001.
     Delivery: OPP Regulatory Public Docket (7502P),
Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South
Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. Deliveries are only
accepted during the Docket Facility's normal hours of operation (8:30
a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays).
Special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed
information. The Docket Facility telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

II. Background and Statutory Findings

    In the Federal Register of March 3, 2010 (75 FR 9596) (FRL-8811-2),
EPA issued a notice pursuant to section 408(d)(3) of FFDCA, 21 U.S.C.
346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a pesticide tolerance petition (PP
9E7662) by the Arizona Cotton Research and Protection Council, 3721
East Wier Ave., Phoenix, AZ 85040-2933. The petition requested that 40
CFR 180.1206 be amended by establishing an exemption from the
requirement of a tolerance for residues of Aspergillus flavus AF36 in
or on corn food and feed commodities. This notice referenced a summary
of the petition prepared on behalf of the petitioner, Arizona Cotton
Research and Protection Council, which is available in the docket,
http://www.regulations.gov. Comments were received on the notice of
filing. EPA's response to these comments is discussed in Unit VII.C.
    Section 408(c)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish an
exemption from the requirement for a tolerance (the legal limit for a
pesticide chemical residue in or on a food) only if EPA determines that
the exemption is ``safe.'' Section 408(c)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines
``safe'' to mean that ``there is a reasonable certainty that no harm
will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue,
including all anticipated dietary exposures and all other exposures for
which there is reliable information.'' This includes exposure through
drinking water and in residential settings but does not include
occupational exposure. Pursuant to section 408(c)(2)(B) of FFDCA, in
establishing or maintaining in effect an exemption from the requirement
of a tolerance, EPA must take into account the factors set forth in
section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA, which require EPA to give special
consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide
chemical residue in establishing a tolerance and to ``ensure that there
is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and
children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue. * *
*'' Additionally, section 408(b)(2)(D) of FFDCA requires that EPA
consider ``available information concerning the cumulative effects of
[a particular pesticide's] residues and other substances that have a
common mechanism of toxicity.''
    EPA performs a number of analyses to determine the risks from
aggregate exposure to pesticide residues. First, EPA determines the
toxicity of pesticides. Second, EPA examines exposure to the pesticide
through food, drinking water, and through other exposures that occur as
a result of pesticide use in residential settings.

III. Toxicological Profile

    Consistent with section 408(b)(2)(D) of FFDCA, EPA has reviewed the
available scientific data and other relevant information in support of
this action and considered its validity, completeness, and reliability,
and the relationship of this information to human risk. EPA has also
considered available information concerning the variability of the
sensitivities of major identifiable subgroups of consumers, including
infants and children.
    The nature and toxicological profile of Aspergillus flavus AF36 was
previously described in the Federal Register of July 14, 2003 (68 FR
41541) (FRL-7311-6). Those health effects data were the basis for
establishing the tolerance exemption for Aspergillus flavus AF36, a
non-aflatoxin-producing strain of Aspergillus flavus, in or on cotton
and its food/feed commodities in 40 CFR 180.1206 and also for temporary
tolerance exemptions for experimental use of Aspergillus flavus AF36 on
pistachio (72 FR 28871, May 23, 2007) (FRL-8129-4) and on corn (72 FR
72965, Dec. 26, 2007) (FRL-8342-1). EPA has reviewed the available data
in support of this action.
    Aspergillus flavus AF36 is neither toxic nor infective via the oral
and pulmonary routes. It was placed in Toxicity Category IV for acute
oral effects. The Toxicity Category III designation for acute
inhalation effects is based on the granular nature of the pesticide and
the submitted pulmonary studies. This microbial pesticide has been used
for more than a decade in experimental laboratory and field trials and
in agricultural practice on cotton in Arizona, California, and Texas
without any reports of adverse dermal irritation or hypersensitivity
effects. Data and information from the public literature

indicate that there will not be any incremental harm from the use of
Aspergillus flavus AF36 for reduction of aflatoxin. No further
toxicological data are required to support this exemption from the
requirement of a tolerance for Aspergillus flavus AF36 in or on the
food and feed commodities of corn.

IV. Aggregate Exposure

    In examining aggregate exposure, section 408 of FFDCA directs EPA
to consider available information concerning exposures from the
pesticide residue in food and all other non-occupational exposures,
including drinking water from ground water or surface water and
exposure through pesticide use in gardens, lawns, or buildings
(residential and other indoor uses).

A. Dietary Exposure

    1. Food. Current uses of Aspergillus flavus AF36 include use on
cotton, pistachios, and corn. EPA does not expect these uses to result
in any exposure that is greater than background levels of Aspergillus
flavus. As a microbial pesticide for use on corn, Aspergillus flavus
AF36 is labeled for application from the V7 growth stage (i.e.,
approximately 21-25 days after plant emergence) until silking (i.e.,
approximately 55-66 days after plant emergence). Once applied to corn
and after exposure to moisture, Aspergillus flavus AF36 germinates,
using the carrier upon which it is placed as a nutrient source, and
effectively displaces aflatoxin-producing strains of Aspergillus flavus
without increasing levels of cyclopiazonic acid (Ref. 1). Further,
multiple-year studies, which monitored air and soil populations of
Aspergillus flavus, including strain AF36, in cotton fields,
demonstrated replacement of toxigenic (aflatoxin-producing) fungi with
atoxic fungi without an increase in the overall quantity of Aspergillus
flavus beyond normal background levels (Refs. 2 and 3). Although
residues from the use of pesticides containing Aspergillus flavus AF36
will likely be present on corn at the time of harvest (although likely
not at higher levels than background), much like other microbial pest
control agents, commodity-processing procedures (e.g., peeling,
shucking, washing, and cooking) should further reduce levels of
Aspergillus flavus AF36 below typical background levels (Ref. 4).
Finally, even with the potential for negligible exposure to Aspergillus
flavus AF36 on edible corn commodities, a previously reviewed and
described acute oral toxicity and pathogenicity study (see Unit III. of
the Federal Register of July 14, 2003 (68 FR 41541) (FRL-7311-6))
showed no toxicity or infectivity in animals exposed to high levels of
this active ingredient.
    2. Drinking water exposure. Exposure to Aspergillus flavus AF36 via
drinking water from all uses of Aspergillus flavus AF36 is not likely
to be greater than current/existing exposures to Aspergillus flavus
strains, which are already present in the environment. Potential risks
via exposure to drinking water or runoff may be mitigated by, among
other things, percolation through soil. Thus, EPA expects exposure via
drinking water from the proposed use of this non-aflatoxin-producing
strain of Aspergillus flavus to be low, or at least not greater than
existing background levels. In any event, any drinking water exposure
is not likely to pose any incremental risk to adult humans, infants and
children because of the lack of toxicity or infectivity of this
substance. In fact, displacement of the toxigenic strains of
Aspergillus flavus by AF36 may decrease exposure and risk to the
toxigenic strains of Aspergillus flavus in the environment.

B. Other Non-Occupational Exposure

    Dermal and inhalation non-occupational exposure are expected to be
minimal to non-existent for the proposed use of Aspergillus flavus AF36
in or on corn. Aspergillus flavus AF36 is to be applied to agricultural
sites not in the proximity of residential areas, schools, nursing
homes, or daycares. Additionally, the Aspergillus flavus AF36 product
to be applied to corn is in a granular form, thereby minimizing spray
drift even for application methods (e.g., aerial) that may be more
likely to result in pesticide movement offsite.

V. Cumulative Effects From Substances With a Common Mechanism of
Toxicity

    Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of FFDCA requires that, when considering
whether to establish, modify, or revoke a tolerance, EPA consider
``available information concerning the cumulative effects of [a
particular pesticide's] residues and other substances that have a
common mechanism of toxicity.''
    EPA has not found Aspergillus flavus AF36 to share a common
mechanism of toxicity with any other substances, and Aspergillus flavus
AF36 does not appear to produce a toxic metabolite produced by other
substances. For the purposes of this tolerance action, therefore, EPA
has assumed that Aspergillus flavus AF36 does not have a common
mechanism of toxicity with other substances. Following from this,
therefore, EPA concludes that there are no cumulative effects
associated with Aspergillus flavus AF36 that need to be considered. For
information regarding EPA's efforts to determine which chemicals have a
common mechanism of toxicity and to evaluate the cumulative effects of
such chemicals, see EPA's Web site at http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/cumulative.

VI. Determination of Safety for U.S. Population, Infants and Children

    There is reasonable certainty that no harm will result from
aggregate exposures to residues of Aspergillus flavus AF36, in its use
as an antifungal agent, to the U. S. population, including infants and
children. This includes all anticipated dietary exposures and all other
exposures for which there is reliable information. As discussed
previously, there appears to be no potential for harm from this fungus
in its use as an antifungal agent via dietary exposure since the
organism is non-toxic and non-pathogenic to animals and humans. EPA has
arrived at this conclusion based on the very low levels of mammalian
toxicity for acute oral and pulmonary effects with no toxicity or
infectivity at the doses tested (See Unit III. above).
    FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(C) provides that EPA shall apply an
additional ten-fold margin of exposure (safety) for infants and
children in the case of threshold effects to account for prenatal and
postnatal toxicity and the completeness of the data base unless EPA
determines that a different margin of exposure (safety) will be safe
for infants and children. Margins of exposure (safety) are often
referred to as uncertainty (safety) factors. In this instance, based on
all the available information, EPA concludes that the fungus,
Aspergillus flavus AF36, is non-toxic to mammals, including infants and
children. Because there are no threshold effects of concern to infants,
children and adults when Aspergillus flavus AF36 is used as labeled,
the provision requiring an additional margin of safety does not apply.
As a result, EPA has not used a margin of exposure (safety) approach to
assess the safety of Aspergillus flavus AF36.

VII. Other Considerations

A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    An analytical method is not required for enforcement purposes since
EPA is establishing an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance
without any numerical limitation.

B. International Residue Limits

    In making its tolerance decisions, EPA seeks to harmonize U.S.
tolerances with

international standards whenever possible, consistent with U.S. food
safety standards and agricultural practices. In this context, EPA
considers the international maximum residue limits (MRLs) established
by the Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex), as required by FFDCA
section 408(b)(4). The Codex Alimentarius is a joint U.N. Food and
Agriculture Organization/World Health Organization food standards
program, and it is recognized as an international food safety
standards-setting organization in trade agreements to which the United
States is a party. EPA may establish a tolerance that is different from
a Codex MRL; however, FFDCA section 408(b)(4) requires that EPA explain
the reasons for departing from the Codex level.
    The Codex has not established a MRL for Aspergillus flavus AF36.

C. Response to Comments

    In total, four comments were received in response to the Federal
Register notice published by EPA to announce receipt of the Arizona
Cotton Research and Protection Council's petition. Three comments
expressed support for the petition, while the other comment was filed
in opposition.
    The one substantive, negative comment indicated overall support for
Aspergillus flavus NRRL 21882, another microbial pesticide intended for
aflatoxin reduction. Primarily, this commenter articulated concern
about the possible expression of cyclopiazonic acid (CPA) by the
Aspergillus flavus 36 atoxigenic strain. That is, the commenter
asserted that, while reduction of aflatoxin is an admirable goal, the
substitution of one mycotoxin, aflatoxin, for another, CPA (albeit a
less toxic one), was not acceptable. The commenter claimed that CPA
could only be observed in field trials and was not directly observed by
analysis of the active ingredient.
    Field trial data presented by the petitioner to EPA demonstrated
that there was no increase in CPA levels above background in treated
corn. In addition, the use of Aspergillus flavus AF36 reduced aflatoxin
levels in the treated fields compared to untreated plots. Given this
new information (See Ref. 1), as well as previously reviewed data on
Aspergillus flavus AF36, EPA has concluded there is a reasonable
certainty that no harm will result to the U.S. population, including
infants and children, from aggregate exposure to residues of
Aspergillus flavus AF36 in or on the food and feed commodities of corn,
when applied/used as an antifungal agent. Thus, under the standard in
FFDCA section 408(c)(2), a tolerance exemption is appropriate.

VIII. Conclusions

    EPA concludes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm
will result to the U.S. population, including infants and children,
from aggregate exposure to residues of Aspergillus flavus AF36.
Therefore, an exemption is established for residues of Aspergillus
flavus AF36 in or on corn, field, forage; corn, field, grain; corn,
field, stover; corn, field, aspirated grain fractions; corn, sweet,
kernel plus cob with husk removed; corn, sweet, forage; corn, sweet,
stover; corn, pop, grain; and corn, pop, stover, when applied/used as
an antifungal agent.

IX. References

1. U.S. EPA. 2011. Aspergillus flavus AF36 Use on Corn. Memorandum
from J.V. Gagliardi, PhD and J.L. Kough, PhD to S. Bacchus dated
February 24, 2011 (available as ``Supporting & Related Materials''
within docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0101 at http://www.regulations.gov.).
2. U.S. EPA. 2003. Environmental Hazard Assessment for the Microbial
Pesticide, Aspergillus flavus AF36 for Conditional Registration in
Arizona and EUP Extension in Texas. Memorandum from G.S. Tomimatsu,
PhD and Z. Vaituzis, PhD to S. Bacchus dated May 16, 2003.
3. U.S. EPA. 2003. BPPD Review of Soil and Air Monitoring Studies
and Product Performance Testing (Efficacy) Submitted by USDA
Southern Regional Research Center/IR-4 as a Condition of
Registration and EUP Extension (Texas) for Aspergillus flavus AF36.
Memorandum from G.S. Tomimatsu, PhD and J. Kough, PhD to S. Bacchus
dated May 15, 2003.
4. U.S. EPA. 1996. Microbial Pesticide Test Guidelines--Background
for Residue Analysis of Microbial Pest Control Agents (OPPTS
885.2000). Available from: http://www.epa.gov/ocspp/pubs/frs/publications/Test_Guidelines/series885.htm.

X. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This final rule establishes an exemption from the requirement of a
tolerance under section 408(d) of FFDCA in response to a petition
submitted to EPA. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has
exempted these types of actions from review under Executive Order
12866, entitled Regulatory Planning and Review (58 FR 51735, October 4,
1993). Because this final rule has been exempted from review under
Executive Order 12866, this final rule is not subject to Executive
Order 13211, entitled Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly
Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001),
or Executive Order 13045, entitled Protection of Children from
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23,
1997). This final rule does not contain any information collections
subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq., nor does it require any special considerations
under Executive Order 12898, entitled Federal Actions to Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    Since tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis
of a petition under section 408(d) of FFDCA, such as the tolerance
exemption in this final rule, do not require the issuance of a proposed
rule, the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5
U.S.C. 601 et seq.) do not apply.
    This final rule directly regulates growers, food processors, food
handlers, and food retailers, not States or tribes. As a result, this
action does not alter the relationships or distribution of power and
responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions
of section 408(n)(4) of FFDCA. As such, EPA has determined that this
action will not have a substantial direct effect on States or tribal
governments, on the relationship between the national government and
the States or tribal governments, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government or between the
Federal Government and Indian tribes. Thus, EPA has determined that
Executive Order 13132, entitled Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10,
1999), and Executive Order 13175, entitled Consultation and
Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments (65 FR 67249, November 9,
2000), do not apply to this final rule. In addition, this final rule
does not impose any enforceable duty or contain any unfunded mandate as
described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(UMRA) (Pub. L. 104-4).
    This action does not involve any technical standards that would
require EPA consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant to
section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272
note).

XI. Congressional Review Act

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report to each House of

the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA
will submit a report containing this rule and other required
information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and
the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of
this final rule in the Federal Register. This final rule is not a
``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180

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

    Dated: March 11, 2011.
Keith A. Matthews,
Director, Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention Division, Office of
Pesticide Programs.

    Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:

PART 180--[AMENDED]

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

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

0
2. Section 180.1206, paragraph (c) is revised to read as follows:

Sec.  180.1206  Aspergillus flavus AF36; exemption from the requirement
of a tolerance.

* * * * *
    (c) An exemption from the requirement of a tolerance is established
for residues of Aspergillus flavus AF36 in or on corn, field, forage;
corn, field, grain; corn, field, stover; corn, field, aspirated grain
fractions; corn, sweet, kernel plus cob with husk removed; corn, sweet,
forage; corn, sweet, stover; corn, pop, grain; and corn, pop, stover,
when applied/used as an antifungal agent.

[FR Doc. 2011-6545 Filed 3-22-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P