[Federal Register: June 25, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 123)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 35900-35902]
[DOCID:fr25jn08-7]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2008-0664; Directorate Identifier 2008-NE-04-AD;
Amendment 39-15579; AD 2008-13-16]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Pratt & Whitney Canada Corp. (P&WC)
Models PW305A and PW305B Turbofan Engines

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Final rule; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for the
products listed above. This AD results from mandatory continuing
airworthiness information (MCAI) issued by an aviation authority of
another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an
aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as:

    There have been two incidents of fan blade dislodgements due to
blade fracture on relatively hi-time PW305 engines (over 5000 Hrs).
The blade dislodgement in both cases was contained. However, engine
installations sustained considerable collateral damage. The root
cause of fan blade fracture was determined to be the under-minimum
material condition at the fracture location.

This AD requires actions that are intended to address the unsafe
condition described in the MCAI, which could result in an engine
shutdown and damage to the airplane.

DATES: This AD becomes effective July 10, 2008.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of P&WC Alert Service Bulletin (ASB) PW300-72-A24588,
Revision 2, dated November 27, 2007, listed in the AD as of July 10,
2008.
    We must receive comments on this AD by July 25, 2008.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://
www.regulations.gov and follow the instructions for sending your
comments electronically.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE., West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC
20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail address above between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Fax:<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 Operations office
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation,
any comments received, and other information. The street address for
the Docket Operations office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is the same as
the Mail address provided in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be
available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ian Dargin, Aerospace Engineer, Engine
Certification Office, FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 12 New
England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803; e-mail:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    Transport Canada (TC), which is the aviation authority for Canada,
has issued Airworthiness Directive CF-2008-08R1, dated March 18, 2008,
(referred to after this as ``the MCAI''), to correct an unsafe
condition for the specified products. The MCAI states:

    There have been two incidents of fan blade dislodgements due to
blade fracture on relatively hi-time PW305 engines (over 5000 Hrs).
The blade dislodgement in both cases was contained. However, engine
installations sustained considerable collateral damage. The root
cause of fan blade fracture was determined to be the under-minimum
material condition at the fracture location.

    P&WC has established that the subject under-minimum material
condition is limited only to fan blades P/N 30B2855-01, manufactured
under heat code: MCBWF. Accordingly, P&WC on 24 August 2007 issued
Alert Service Bulletin (ASB) No. A24588, requiring, on priority
bases, identification and removal of all such discrepant fan blades
from service, in accordance with Special Instructions (SI) No. 37-
2007. ASB No. A24588 was subsequently revised (Rev. 2) on 27
November 2007 to include clarification on the incorporation of
another Service Bulletin (SB) No. 24595, on the same subject.

    Considering the potentially hazardous consequence of possible
uncontained dislodgement of discrepant blade and its impact on
aircraft safety, this AD is issued to mandate the inspection of the
affected engine low-pressure (LP) compressor fan blades in
accordance with ASB A24588 requirements.

You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD
docket.

Relevant Service Information

    P&WC has issued ASB PW300-72-A24588, Revision 2, dated November 27,
2007. The actions described in this service information are intended to
correct the unsafe condition identified in the MCAI.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of This AD

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of Canada,
and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our
bilateral agreement with Canada, they have notified us of the unsafe
condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced
above. We are issuing this AD because we evaluated all the information
provided by Canada and determined the unsafe condition exists and is
likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.

FAA's Determination of the Effective Date

    An unsafe condition exists that requires the immediate adoption of
this AD. The FAA has found that the risk to the flying public justifies
waiving notice and comment prior to adoption of this rule because fan
blades identified by this AD have been found to have an under-minimum
material thickness condition which has caused failure and release of
fan blades. In one event, the fan blade failure (contained) resulted in
high engine vibrations causing the loss of the upper and lower engine
cowls. Fan blade failure could result in an engine shutdown and damage
to the airplane. Therefore, we determined that notice and opportunity
for public comment before issuing this AD are impracticable and that
good cause exists for making this amendment effective in fewer than 30
days.

Comments Invited

    This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight
safety, and we did not precede it by notice and opportunity for public
comment. We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this AD. Send your comments to an address listed under
the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2008-0664; Directorate
Identifier 2008-NE-04-AD'' at the beginning of your comments. We
specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic,
environmental, and energy aspects of this AD. We will consider all
comments received by the closing date and may amend this 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 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 determined that this AD will not have federalism implications
under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct
effect on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify this AD:
    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); and
    3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to
comply with this AD and placed it in the AD docket.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

0
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator,
the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

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

2008-13-16 Pratt & Whitney Canada Corp. (P&WC) (Formerly Pratt &
Whitney Canada, Inc.) : Amendment 39-15579.; Docket No. FAA-2008-
0664; Directorate Identifier 2008-NE-04-AD.

Effective Date

    (a) This airworthiness directive (AD) becomes effective July 10,
2008.

Affected ADs

    (b) None.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to P&WC models PW305A and PW305B turbofan
engines that have a serial number (SN) listed in Table 1 of this AD.
These engines are installed on, but not limited to, Bombardier
Learjet M60 and Hawker Beechcraft 1000 series airplanes.

                    Table 1.--Affected Engines by SN
------------------------------------------------------------------------

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
CA0192
CA0195
CA0197
CA0199
CA0200
CA0202
CA0203
CA0204
CA0206
CA0207
CA0208
CA0209
CA0210
CA0211
CA0212
CA0213
CA0214
CA0215
CA0216
CA0217
CA0218
CA0220
CA0221
CA0223
CA0228
CA0231
CA0232
CA0234
CA0235
CA0240
CA0241
CA0243
CA0244
CA0246
CA0247
CA0257
CA0259
CA0260
CA0280
CA0300
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Reason

    (d) There have been two incidents of fan blade dislodgements due
to blade fracture on relatively hi-time PW305 engines (over 5000
Hrs). The blade dislodgement in both cases was contained. However,
engine installations sustained considerable collateral damage. The
root cause of fan blade fracture was determined to be the under-
minimum material condition at the fracture location.
    This AD requires actions that are intended to address the unsafe
condition described in the MCAI, which could result in an engine
shutdown and damage to the airplane.

Actions and Compliance

    (e) Unless already done, do the following actions on all
affected engines as specified in the applicability section of this
AD, accomplish in accordance with P&WC Alert Service Bulletin (ASB)
PW300-72-A24588, Revision 2, dated November 27, 2007:
    (1) For engines with more than 5,000 hours of operating time,
before next flight, inspect low-pressure (LP) compressor fan blades
and replace any blade that is found to be under-minimum material
condition.
    (2) For engines with 5,000 or less, but more than 4,000 hours of
operating time, within 30 hours of operating time from the effective
date of this AD, but not later than September 30, 2008, inspect LP
compressor fan blades and replace any blade that is found to be
under-minimum material condition.
    (3) For engines with 4,000 or less, but more than 2,500 hours of
operating time, no later than September 30, 2008, inspect LP
compressor fan blades and replace any blade that is found to be
under-minimum material condition, in accordance with one of the
following schedules, whichever occurs first:
    (i) At the next first stage high-pressure compressor rotor
inspection (Ref 05-20-00 scheduled maintenance checks), or
    (ii) At the next scheduled opportunity where the LP compressor
fan is removed (Ref. Hot Section Inspection or Overhaul Shop Visit),
or
    (iii) Within 300 hours of operating time from August 24, 2007.

    (4) For engines with 2,500 or less hours of operating time,
before it accumulates 4,000 hours of operating time, but not later
than September 30, 2008, inspect LP compressor fan blades and
replace any blade that is found to be under-minimum material
condition.

Previous Credit

    (f) Inspection of the fan blades for an under-minimum material
condition done before the effective date of this AD that used P&WC
ASB PW300-72-A24588, dated August 24, 2007; or Revision 1, dated
October 26, 2007; or P&WC SB PW300-72-24595, dated October 26, 2007;
or Revision 1, dated November 28, 2007, comply with the requirements
specified in this AD.

Other FAA AD Provisions

    (g) The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
Engine Certification Office, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs
for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR
39.19.
    (2) Special Flight Permits: We are limiting Special Flight
Permits to one repositioning maintenance flight to facilitate the
subject inspection.

Related Information

    (h) Refer to Transport Canada Airworthiness Directive CF-2008-
08R1, dated March 18, 2008; P&WC ASB PW300-72-A24588, Revision 2,
dated November 27, 2007; and P&WC SB PW300-72-24595, Revision 1,
dated November 28, 2007, for related information.
    (i) Contact Ian Dargin, Aerospace Engineer, Engine Certification
Office, FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 12 New England
Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803; e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>, for more information
about this AD.

Material Incorporated by Reference

    (j) You must use Pratt & Whitney Canada Corp. Alert Service
Bulletin PW300-72-A24588, Revision 2, dated November 27, 2007, to do
the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference of this service information under 5
U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact Pratt
& Whitney Canada Corp., 1000 Marie-Victorin, Longueuil, Quebec,
Canada J4G 1A1, telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (3) You may review copies at the FAA, New England Region, 12 New
England Executive Park, Burlington, MA; or at the National Archives
and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the
availability of this material at NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go
to: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on June 13, 2008.
Peter A. White,
Assistant Manager, Engine and Propeller Directorate, Aircraft
Certification Service.
[FR Doc. E8-13854 Filed 6-24-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


attempt to manipulate the price of any commodity in interstate
commerce; and CEA section 6(c) as amended by section 753 of the
Dodd-Frank Act, which contains prohibitions regarding manipulation
and false reporting with respect to any commodity in interstate
commerce, including prohibiting any person to (i) ``use or employ,
or attempt to use or employ * * * any manipulative or deceptive
device or contrivance'' (section 6(c)(1)); (ii) ``to make any false
or misleading statement of material fact'' to the CFTC or ``omit to
state in any such statement any material fact that is necessary to
make any statement of material fact made not misleading in any
material respect'' (section 6(c)(2)); and (iii) ``manipulate or
attempt to manipulate the price of any swap, or of any commodity in
interstate commerce * * *'' (section 6(c)(3)). See also Rule
180.1(a) under the CEA, 17 CFR 180.1(a) (broadly prohibiting in
connection with a commodity in interstate commerce manipulation,
false or misleading statements or omissions of material fact to the
Commission, fraud or deceptive practices or courses of business, and
false reporting).

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

    In the Brent Interpretation, the Commission found certain Brent
oil contracts to be eligible for the forward contract exclusion,
notwithstanding the fact that such transactions ``may ultimately
result in performance through the payment of cash as an alternative
to actual physical transfer or delivery of the commodity.'' The
Commission found that when delivery obligations under a forward were
terminated pursuant to a separate and individually negotiated
``book-out'' agreement, the parties escaped the physical delivery
obligation traditionally required to claim the forward contract
exclusion. The Commission also emphasized two features (among
others) of the Brent oil contracts at issue: (1) The absence of a
contractual right to offset (or to terminate without delivery) the
transaction ``by the terms of the contracts as initially entered
into'' and (2) the counterparties had to incur ``substantial
economic risks of a commercial nature'' relating to actual delivery
in order to claim the exclusion. Underlying the Brent
Interpretation, other CFTC precedent, and the Commission's approach
to the interpretive guidance on the forward contract exclusion is
the essential feature of forward contracts: actual delivery (and not
potential delivery).\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See Adopting Release.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission has failed to provide adequate legal certainty to
market participants engaging in contracts with embedded volumetric
commodity options, particularly those that can terminate without
physical delivery. Contracts that are composed of a forward delivery
obligation component combined with an embedded commodity option that
can render delivery optional (``zero-delivery'' embedded volumetric
options) are not forwards because the predominant feature of the
contract cannot be actual delivery under these circumstances (more
literally, the predominant feature is potential delivery which is an
essential characteristic of commodity options). Such contracts
include a contractual right to offset through the exercise of the
volumetric option that can extinguish the delivery obligation.
Because such contracts have a commodity option component that
mitigates the risk incurred from an underlying forward delivery
obligation, these contracts may fail to meet the incurring
``economic risks of a commercial nature'' element. Moreover, the
purpose of the delivery optionality in these types of contracts
shares a common purpose with commodity options: To provide market
participants a means to hedge commodity quantity risk of a
commercial nature. The Commission should therefore clarify, in any
future interpretive guidance, that zero-delivery embedded volumetric
options are generally commodity options because the delivery
obligation is not obligatory.
    The confluence of these features, as analyzed under a
conservative reading of the Brent Interpretation, leads me to
conclude that contracts with embedded zero-delivery option
components cannot be said to have actual delivery as their essential
feature. Other relevant Commission precedent is consistent with this
analysis. Most recently, in In re Wright, a forward contract
containing pricing optionality was found to be a forward contract
because the optionality:
    (i) May be used to adjust the forward contract price, but do not
undermine the overall nature of the contract as a forward contract;
(ii) do not target the delivery term, so that the predominant
feature of the contract is actual delivery; and (iii) cannot be
severed and marketed separately from the overall forward contract in
which they are embedded.\15\

    \15\ See In re Wright, CFTC Docket No. 97-02, 2010 WL 4388247
(Oct. 25, 2010) (emphasis added). See also Characteristics
Distinguishing Cash and Forward Contracts and ``Trade'' Options, 50
FR 39656 (Sept. 30, 1985) (finding that hedge-to-arrive contracts
with pricing optionality could be categorized as forwards so long as
it created a binding delivery obligation that could only be annulled
in the event of a crop failure, in which case liquidated damages may
apply).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In re Wright is distinguishable because it involves pricing
optionality, not volumetric optionality-the latter a feature the
Commission has not hitherto opined on in the context of the forward
contract exclusion. As the emphasized section of the block quote
immediately above discusses, the interpretation there turned on the
fact that the optionality in the In re Wright options did ``not
target the delivery term.'' Optionality that can result in zero
delivery ``targets the delivery term,'' in direct contrast to the In
re Wright options. I commend the Commission for not overextending
(to put it charitably) In re Wright to cover zero-delivery
volumetric optionality, as argued by some commenters. Nonetheless,
the Commission did not clarify that a contract that provides for
optionality that can render delivery optional cannot therefore have
as its predominant feature actual delivery because the optionality
``targets the delivery term.''\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ In re Wright, CFTC Docket No. 97-02, 2010 WL 4388247 (Oct.
25, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Instead of, in my opinion, a proper application of the statute
and precedent, the Commission has adopted a seven-element
interpretation that applies to contracts with embedded volumetric
optionality. This interpretative approach would potentially allow
contracts with zero-delivery option components to nonetheless claim
the forward contract exclusion when:
    1. The embedded optionality does not undermine the overall
nature of the agreement, contract, or transaction as a forward
contract;
    2. The predominant feature of the agreement, contract, or
transaction is actual delivery;
    3. The embedded optionality cannot be severed and marketed
separately from the overall agreement, contract, or transaction in
which it is embedded;
    4. The seller of a nonfinancial commodity underlying the
agreement, contract, or transaction with embedded volumetric
optionality intends, at the time it enters into the agreement,
contract, or transaction, to deliver the underlying nonfinancial
commodity if the optionality is exercised;
    5. The buyer of a nonfinancial commodity underlying the
agreement, contract or transaction with embedded volumetric
optionality intends, at the time it enters into the agreement,
contract, or transaction, to take delivery of the underlying
nonfinancial commodity if it exercises the embedded volumetric
optionality;
    6. Both parties are commercial parties; and
    7. The exercise or non-exercise of the embedded volumetric
optionality is based primarily on physical factors, or regulatory
requirements, that are outside the control of the parties and are
influencing demand for, or supply of, the nonfinancial commodity.
    The first two elements, in particular, invoke the Brent
Interpretation and related precedent.\17\ The seventh and most
problematic element seems to imply that supply and demand, i.e.,
economic factors, could be a primary factor in the exercise or non-
exercise of an embedded volumetric option. I fear how broadly this
element could be interpreted by those predisposed to interpret the
CEA in an opportunistic light. When can supply and demand factors
not be correlated with physical factors? Does this mean that if
delivery renders such a contract unprofitable for a party to such a
contract that they can elect not to deliver? If that is the case,
then the contract is a commodity option.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See Adopting Release.
    \18\ See, e.g., 50 FR 39656, 39660.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    I would amend the seventh element by making it clear the
exercise or non-exercise for physical factors that influence demand
and supply can negate the delivery obligation only in exceptional
circumstances. If delivery renders a contract merely unprofitable
and the contract permits a party to elect not to deliver, such a
contract is not a forward and is a commodity option.
    In addition, I would require, consistent with the third,
``severability,'' element, that in order to claim the forward
contract exclusion where the contract at issue contains a zero-
delivery embedded volumetric option, the parties must sever the
forward contract component, which has as its purpose the delivery of
commodities, from the remaining commodity option component, which
has as its purpose the management of the commodity quantity risk
associated with operating a commercial enterprise.\19\ The

commodity option component of these transactions could be eligible
for a trade option exemption \20\ that exempts (and importantly,
does not exclude) them from many CEA requirements.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ These forward contract and commodity option hybrid
contracts can, as I understand it, generally be severed into two
separate forward and commodity option contracts. Some commenters
suggested that many ``peaking'' contracts involve volumetric
optionality that cannot be severed, but I have yet to be convinced
that the same party that is the ``seller'' under these contracts
cannot simply become the appropriate counterparty when such
contracts are severed into a forward contract component and a
commodity option component that can offset or book-out the buyer's
obligation to take delivery.
    \20\ Commodity Options, 77 FR 25320, Apr. 27, 2012, codified at
17 CFR 32.3.
    \21\ As of July 10, 2012, the Commission has received 12
comments on the interim final rule setting forth the trade option
exemption.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Moreover, while the Adopting Release's guidance is the first of
its kind and therefore an incremental step toward more legal
certainty, it doesn't directly address embedded zero-delivery
volumetric optionality specifically or any of the conceivable
specific variations of such contracts. I believe this to be a flaw;
a flaw that did not exist in a previous version of this document.
    The Commission should affirm in any relevant future interpretive
guidance the formal features in the Brent Interpretation's forward
contract exclusion, e.g., that the delivery obligation cannot be
offset based on terms contained in the contract, that any delivery
obligation be appropriately booked-out (in a separate transaction),
or that the contract involve incurring ``substantial economic risks
of a commercial nature.'' \22\ In the absence of the Commission's
courage to provide for more legal certainty on these kinds of
transactions, I stress the application of the third, severability,
element in the Commission's seven-element interpretation and note
that as long as a market participant can decompose a pre-Dodd-Frank
Act transaction into components, such action would not be in
violation of the CEA if the resulting agreements, contracts, or
transactions (1) neatly fall into forward, commodity option, or
other swap contract buckets and (2) are dealt with as such.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ The Commission's inclusion of the underlying purpose of a
transaction as a factor in determining its classification as a
forward, commodity option, or other form of swap. The Commission
will, under the interpretive guidance, consider the ``purpose of the
claimed forward'' and whether its purpose is to sell physical
commodities, hedge risk, or speculate. See Adopting Release.
    \23\ See Adopting Release, fn 337 (``When a forward contract
includes an embedded option that is severable from the forward
contract, the forward can remain subject to the forward contract
exclusion, if the parties document the severance of the embedded
option component and the resulting transactions, i.e. a forward and
an option. Such an option would be subject to the CFTC's regulations
applicable to commodity options.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    I look forward to receiving and reviewing comments on the
Commission's interpretation, in particular those submitted in
response to Question Seven.\24\ I also welcome comments on this
statement too, of course, particularly as it relates to zero-
delivery embedded volumetric options. I am particularly interested
in understanding under what circumstances such embedded option
contracts and other contracts can be structured to evade Dodd-Frank
Act requirements in a way that creates plausible deniability for one
or both counterparties that they did not ``willfully'' intend to
structure a transaction in a manner intended to evade. Should the
Commission, instead of my proposed approach, follow a rebuttable
presumption approach with respect to zero-delivery embedded option
contracts whereby the presumption can be rebutted by a certification
of facts that indicate a true commercial purpose for the
transaction?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ Id. (``Do the agreements, contracts, and transactions
listed in question no. 6 above have embedded optionality in the
first instance? Based on descriptions by commenters, it appears that
they may have a binding obligation for delivery, but have no set
amount specified for delivery. Instead, delivery (including the
possibility of nominal or zero delivery) is determined by the terms
and conditions contained within the agreement, contract, or
transaction (including, for example, the satisfaction of a condition
precedent to delivery, such as a commodity price or temperature
reaching a level specified in the agreement, contract, or
transaction). That is, the variation in delivery is not driven by
the exercise of embedded optionality by the parties. Do the
agreements, contracts, and transactions listed in question no. 6
exhibit these kinds of characteristics? If so, should the CFTC
consider them in some manner other than its forward interpretation?
Why or why not?'').

[FR Doc. 2012-18003 Filed 8-10-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01- 6351-01-P


EPA REGISTRATION DIVISION COMPANY NOTICE OF FILING FOR PESTICIDE PETITIONS PUBLISHED IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER

EPA Registration Division contact: PV Shah<PHONE_NUMBER>
Evonik Goldschmidt Corporation
IN-10559
	EPA has received a pesticide petition (IN-10559) from Evonik Goldschmidt Corporation, PO Box 1299, Hopewell, VA  23860 proposing, pursuant to section 408(d) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d), to amend 40 CFR part 180.960 to establish an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for 2,5-Furandione, polymer with ethenylbenzene, hydrolyzed, 3-(dimethylamino)propyl imide, imide with polyethylene-polypropylene glycol 2-aminopropyl Me ether, 2,2' -(1, 2-diazenediyl)bis[2-methylbutanenitrile]-initiated, minimum number average molecular weight (in AMU) 5,816 and CAS Reg. No. 1062609-13-5 under 40 CFR 180.960 when used as an inert ingredient (functioning as a dispersant) in pesticide formulations.   EPA has determined that the petition contains data or information regarding the elements set forth in section 408 (d)(2) of  FDDCA; however, EPA has not fully evaluated the sufficiency of the submitted data at this time or whether the data supports granting of the petition. Additional data may be needed before EPA rules on the petition.
A. Residue Chemistry
	1. Plant metabolism.
	2. Analytical method. NA-Remove
	3. Magnitude of residues. NA-Remove
B. Toxicological Profile
	1. Acute toxicity.  NA-Remove
	2. Genotoxicty. NA-Remove
	3. Reproductive and developmental toxicity. NA-Remove
	4. Subchronic toxicity. NA-Remove
	5. Chronic toxicity. NA-Remove
	6. Animal metabolism. NA-Remove
	7. Metabolite toxicology. NA-Remove
	8. Endocrine disruption. NA-Remove
	The definition of a polymer is given in 40 CFR 723.250(b) and the exclusion criteria for identifying these low-risk polymers are described in 40 CFR 723.250(d). 2,5-Furandione, polymer with ethenylbenzene, hydrolyzed, 3-(dimethylamino)propyl imide, imide with polyethylene-polypropylene glycol 2-aminopropyl Me ether, 2,2' -(1, 2-diazenediyl)bis[2-methylbutanenitrile]-initiated conforms to the definition of a polymer given in 40 CFR 723.250(b) and meets the following criteria that are used to identify low-risk polymers.

  1. The polymer functional group equivalent weight (FGEW) is greater than 5000 daltons despite containing a cationic quaternary ammonium group.   Further, the polymer is net charge neutral as it is a zwitter ion containing both anionic and cationic groups.

  2. The polymer does contain as an integral part of its composition the atomic elements carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen.

  3. The polymer does not contain as an integral part of its composition, except as impurities, any element other than those listed in 40 CFR 723.250(d)(2)(ii).

  4. The polymer is neither designed nor can it be reasonably anticipated to substantially degrade, decompose, or depolymerize.

  5. The polymer is manufactured or imported from monomers and/or reactants that are already included on the TSCA Chemical Substance Inventory or manufactured under an applicable TSCA section 5 exemption.

  6. The polymer is not a water absorbing polymer with a number average molecular weight (MW) greater than or equal to 10,000 daltons.

Additionally, the polymer also meets as required the following exemption criteria specified in 40 CFR 723.250(e)(1).

  7. The polymer's number average MW of 5,816 daltons and contains approximately 1.1% oligomeric material below MW 500 and 1.7% material below MW 1000, therefore satisfying the number average molecular weight and oligomeric content requirement specified under 723.250(e)(1).

Thus, 2,5-furandione, polymer with ethenylbenzene, hydrolyzed, 3-(dimethylamino)propyl imide, imide with polyethylene-polypropylene glycol 2-aminopropyl Me ether, 2,2' -(1, 2-diazenediyl)bis[2-methylbutanenitrile]-initiated meets the criteria for a polymer to be considered low risk under 40 CFR 723.250.

Based on its conformance to the criteria in this unit, no mammalian toxicity is anticipated from dietary, inhalation, or dermal exposure to 2,5-furandione, polymer with ethenylbenzene, hydrolyzed, 3-(dimethylamino)propyl imide, imide with polyethylene-polypropylene glycol 2-aminopropyl Me ether, 2,2' -(1, 2-diazenediyl)bis[2-methylbutanenitrile]-initiated.

C. Aggregate Exposure
   For the purposes of assessing potential exposure under this exemption, EPA considered that 2,5-furandione, polymer with ethenylbenzene, hydrolyzed, 3-(dimethylamino)propyl imide, imide with polyethylene-polypropylene glycol 2-aminopropyl Me ether, 2,2' -(1, 2-diazenediyl)bis[2-methylbutanenitrile]-initiated could be present in all raw and processed agricultural commodities and drinking water, and that non-occupational non-dietary exposure was possible. The number average MW of 2,5-furandione, polymer with ethenylbenzene, hydrolyzed, 3-(dimethylamino)propyl imide, imide with polyethylene-polypropylene glycol 2-aminopropyl Me ether, 2,2' -(1, 2-diazenediyl)bis[2-methylbutanenitrile]-initiated is 5,816 daltons. Generally, a polymer of this size would be poorly absorbed through the intact gastrointestinal tract or through intact human skin. Since 2,5-furandione, polymer with ethenylbenzene, hydrolyzed, 3-(dimethylamino)propyl imide, imide with polyethylene-polypropylene glycol 2-aminopropyl Me ether, 2,2' -(1, 2-diazenediyl)bis[2-methylbutanenitrile]-initiated conforms to the criteria that identify a low-risk polymer, there are no concerns for risks associated with any potential exposure scenarios that are reasonably foreseeable.
	1. Dietary exposure. NA-Remove
	i. Food. NA-Remove
	ii. Drinking water. NA-Remove
	2. Non-dietary exposure. NA-Remove

D. Cumulative Effects
	Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of FFDCA requires that, when considering
whether to establish, modify, or revoke a tolerance, the Agency consider ``available information'' concerning the cumulative effects of a particular pesticide's residues and ``other substances that have a common mechanism of toxicity.'' EPA has not found 22,5-furandione, polymer with ethenylbenzene, hydrolyzed, 3-(dimethylamino)propyl imide, imide with polyethylene-polypropylene glycol 2-aminopropyl Me ether, 2,2' -(1, 2-diazenediyl)bis[2-methylbutanenitrile]-initiated to share a common mechanism of toxicity with any other substances, and  2,5-furandione, polymer with ethenylbenzene, hydrolyzed, 3-(dimethylamino)propyl imide, imide with polyethylene-polypropylene glycol 2-aminopropyl Me ether, 2,2' -(1, 2-diazenediyl)bis[2-methylbutanenitrile]-initiateddoes not appear to produce a toxic metabolite produced by other substances. For the purposes of this tolerance action, therefore, EPA has assumed that 2,5-furandione, polymer with ethenylbenzene, hydrolyzed, 3-(dimethylamino)propyl imide, imide with polyethylene-polypropylene glycol 2-aminopropyl Me ether, 2,2' -(1, 2-diazenediyl)bis[2-methylbutanenitrile]-initiated does not have a common mechanism of toxicity with other substances.

E. Safety Determination
	1. U.S. population. 2,5-furandione, polymer with ethenylbenzene, hydrolyzed, 3-(dimethylamino)propyl imide, imide with polyethylene-polypropylene glycol 2-aminopropyl Me ether, 2,2' -(1, 2-diazenediyl)bis[2-methylbutanenitrile]-initiated, qualifying as a low concern polymer is not expected to pose toxicity risk.
	2. Infants and children. Due to the low toxicity of 2,5-furandione, polymer with ethenylbenzene, hydrolyzed, 3-(dimethylamino)propyl imide, imide with polyethylene-polypropylene glycol 2-aminopropyl Me ether, 2,2' -(1, 2-diazenediyl)bis[2-methylbutanenitrile]-initiated, a safety factor analysis is not necessary.
F. International Tolerances
	The Codex has not established a MRL for 2,5-furandione, polymer with ethenylbenzene, hydrolyzed, 3-(dimethylamino)propyl imide, imide with polyethylene-polypropylene glycol 2-aminopropyl Me ether, 2,2' -(1, 2-diazenediyl)bis[2-methylbutanenitrile]-initiated.


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 151 (Tuesday, August 8, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 37163-37165]
[FR Doc No: 2017-16651]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA 2017-0070]

Request for Approval of a New Information Collection

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: Before a Federal agency can collect certain information from
the public, it must receive approval from the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB). In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995,
this notice announces that the Information Collection Request (ICR)
abstracted below is being forwarded to the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) for review and comments. A Federal Register Notice with a
60-day comment period soliciting comments on the following information
collection was published on November 23, 2016.

DATES: Written comments should be submitted on or before September 7,
2017.

ADDRESSES: Send comments to the Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street NW.,
Washington, DC 20503, Attention: NHTSA Desk Officer.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  For access to background documents,
contact Eric Traube, Office of Vehicle Safety Research, National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590;
Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995,
before a Federal agency can collect certain information from the
public, it must receive approval from the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB). In compliance with these requirements, this notice
announces that the following information collection request has been
forwarded to OMB. In the November 23, 2016 Federal Register,\1\ NHTSA
published a 60-day notice requesting public comment on the proposed
collection of information. We received no comments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 80 FR 24314 (April 30, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    OMB Control Number: Not assigned.
    Title: Driver Alcohol Detection System for Safety--Field
Operational Test.
    Form Numbers: None.
    Type of Review: New Information Collection.
    Abstract: NHTSA and the Automotive Coalition for Traffic Safety
(ACTS) began research efforts in February 2008 to try to find potential
in-vehicle approaches to address the problem of alcohol-impaired
driving. Members of ACTS comprise motor vehicle manufacturers
representing approximately 99 percent of light vehicle sales in the
U.S. This cooperative research partnership, known as the Driver Alcohol
Detection System for Safety (DADSS) Program, is exploring the
feasibility, potential benefits of, and public policy challenges
associated with a more widespread use of non-invasive, in-vehicle
technology to prevent alcohol-impaired driving. NHTSA and ACTS outlined
a research program to assess the state of detection technologies that
are capable of measuring blood alcohol concentration (BAC) or Breath
Alcohol Concentration (BrAC) and to support the creation and testing of
prototypes and subsequent hardware that could be installed in vehicles.
As part of the research program, NHTSA and ACTS will build research
vehicles that include both a breath- and touch-based sensor in order to
evaluate the potential implementation and integration of both breath-
and touch-based sensor technologies.
    This collection, which shall commence on September 1, 2017,
pertains to a field operational test (FOT) of both the breath- and
touch-based research vehicles developed under this program. A key to
the establishment of effective, unobtrusive in-vehicle alcohol
detection systems is an understanding of real-world use of the
technology. This FOT will allow NHTSA and ACTS to evaluate the
functionality of these research vehicles under varying operating
conditions by having study participants drive DADSS research vehicles
through some preset routes. The research vehicles are the first
vehicles of this kind, and will be used to gather data regarding sensor
validity and reliability. This study will provide a greater
understanding of drivers using the technology under varying
environmental conditions. Data collected from the DADSS FOT will be
used to further refine the DADSS Performance Specifications and
evaluate system performance; specifically cases when the system may
detect alcohol when none is present.
    Description of the Need for the Information and Proposed Use of the
Information: The collection of information consists of: (1) An
eligibility interview (2) multi-day FOT of DADSS sensors, and (3) post-
test day questionnaire.
    The information to be collected will be used for the following
purposes:
     Eligibility interview will be used to obtain self-reported
eligibility information, including health, driving/criminal record, and
drinking behavior, that participants must meet to qualify for
participation in this study (e.g., must hold valid driver's license).
Participants will also be asked to provide the height and weight.
     The DADSS FOT will be used to establish effective non-
invasive, in-vehicle alcohol detection systems through an understanding
of the real-world use of the technology. Breath-and touch-based sensor
data along with video data (for in-vehicle validation of sensor data)
collected from the DADSS FOT will be used to further refine the DADSS
Performance Specifications and evaluate subsystem/sensor performance.
This study will provide a greater understanding of drivers using the
technology under varying environmental conditions.
     Post-test day questionnaire(s) will be used to get
information about any technical difficulties or issues drivers may have
had with the DADSS-FOT vehicles at the end of each test day.
     Participants must:

[cir] Be at least 21 years of age
[cir] Hold a valid U.S. or Canadian driver's license
[cir] Have no more than one (1) driving infraction and/or conviction on
their driving record for the previous three years
[cir] Be free of any criminal conviction in their past including
criminal driving offenses
[cir] Be willing to work at least five (5) days per week for 12
consecutive weeks during a three-month data collection cycle
[cir] Meet health criteria:
    i. Cannot have a substance abuse condition including alcoholism
    ii. Cannot have a history of neck or back conditions which still
limit their ability to participate in certain activities.
    iii. Cannot have a history of brain damage from stroke, tumor, head
injury, recent concussion, or disease or infection of the brain
    iv. Cannot have a current heart condition which limits their
ability to participate in certain activities
    v. Cannot have current uncontrolled respiratory disorders or
disorders requiring oxygen
    i. Cannot have had epileptic seizures or lapses of consciousness
within the last 12 months
    ii. Cannot have chronic migraines or tension headaches (no more
than one per month during the past 12 months).
    iii. Cannot have current problems with motion sickness, inner ear
problems, dizziness, vertigo, or balance problems
    iv. Cannot have uncontrolled diabetes (have they been recently
diagnosed or have they been hospitalized for this condition, or any
changes in their insulin prescription during the

past 3 months)
    v. Must not have had any major surgery within the past 6 months
(including eye procedures).
    vi. Cannot currently be taking any medications or supplements that
may interfere with driving ability (i.e., cause drowsiness or impair
motor abilities).
    vii. Must not be pregnant or planning to become pregnant.
[cir] Have normal (or corrected-to-normal) hearing and vision.
[cir] Self-report that they are able to read, write, speak and
understand English.
[cir] Be excluded if anyone in their household works in or is retired
from any of the following businesses, occupations, or industries, which
may constitute a conflict of interest with the DADSS-FOT:
    i. The police force or another law enforcement agency, working as a
police officer, corrections officer, or probation officer
    ii. A newspaper, magazine, radio or television station, or related
Web site or online news site
    iii. An advertising, marketing, or public relations agency
    iv. A market or public opinion research company
    v. The automobile or automotive industry
    vi. Liquor sales or hospitality, such as bartending
    vii. Law, such as a lawyer or attorney, or working at a law firm,
or in the legal profession
    viii. The federal, state, or county Departments of Transportation
[cir] Be excluded if anyone in their immediate family has been a victim
of drunk driving, or if they personally know someone that has been a
victim.

    Estimated Number of Respondents: 600.
    Estimated Time per Response: Completion of the eligibility
interview is expected to take 15 minutes. Following the eligibility/
demographic interview, 480 of the 600 initial participants are expected
to attend a one- (1) hour orientation session and participate in the
FOT. On a given test day, the DADSS FOT will require four (4) hours per
day, including a post-test day interview.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden: Fifteen (15) minutes for each
ineligible participants and 241 hours per participant (115,830 hours
total).
    Estimated Frequency: One (1) time for the eligibility interview and
60 times (days) for the DADSS-FOT and post-test day interviews.

                                                             Table 1--Estimated Burden Hours
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Total
          Instrument              Number of        Frequency of          Number of           Estimated         estimated     Total cost of burden hours
                                 individuals        responses            questions       individual burden   burden hours    over 24-month study period
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eligibility/Demographic                   600  1..................  32................  15 min............             150                   * $1,087.50
 Interview.
Orientation..................             480  1..................  N/A...............  1 hr..............             480                   ** 9,360.00
FOT including post-test                   480  650 tests per        8 (test-day         4 hr/day for 60            115,200               ** 2,246,400.00
 questions.                                     participant.         questions).         days.
                              --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    TOTAL....................  ..............  ...................  ..................  ..................         115,830                  2,258,685.00
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Interviewees will not be compensated for the eligibility/demographic interview, but we calculate the estimated burden hour cost to the public using
  the prevailing Federal minimum wage rate of $7.25/hour.
** Participants in the FOT will be compensated $19.50 per hour for their time in the orientation and the FOT study and this rate was used to calculate
  their burden hours.

    Authority:  The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44. U.S.C.
chapter 35, as amended; 5 CFR part 1320; and 49 CFR 1.95.

    Issued in Washington, DC.
Nathaniel Beuse,
Associate Administrator for Vehicle Safety Research.
[FR Doc. 2017-16651 Filed 8-7-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 195 (Wednesday, October 8, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 60745-60748]
[FR Doc No: 2014-24080]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket Number USCG-2014-0214]
RIN 1625-AA11

Regulated Navigation Area; South Bristol Gut Bridge Replacement,
South Bristol, ME

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a regulated navigation area
(RNA) on the navigable waters of The Gut in South Bristol, ME in
support of bridge construction. This regulated navigation area allows
the Coast Guard to enforce speed and wake restrictions and prohibit all
vessel traffic through the regulated navigation area during bridge
replacement operations, both planned and unforeseen, which could pose
an imminent hazard to persons and vessels operating in the area. This
rule is necessary to provide for the safety of life on the navigable
waters during bridge structural repair operations.

DATES: This rule is effective without actual notice from October 8,
2014 until April 30, 2017. For the purposes of enforcement, actual
notice will be used from the date the rule was signed, September 19,
2014, until October 8, 2014.

ADDRESSES: Documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in
the docket, are part of docket [USCG-2014-0214]. To view documents
mentioned in this preamble, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type the
docket number in the ``SEARCH'' box, and click ``SEARCH.'' Click on
``OPEN DOCKET FOLDER'' on the line associated with this rulemaking. You
may also visit the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the
ground floor of the Department of Transportation West Building, 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call Chief Craig D. Lapiejko, Waterways Management at Coast Guard First
District, at<PHONE_NUMBER> or email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or
Lieutenant Junior Grade David B. Bourbeau, Waterways Management
Division Chief at Coast Guard Sector Northern New England, at (207)
347-5015 or email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have questions
on viewing or submitting material to the docket, call Cheryl Collins,
Program Manager, Docket Operations, at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Acronyms

DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register

A. Regulatory History and Information

    On January 24, 2014, Sector Northern New England received notice of
a proposed replacement of The Gut Bridge in South Bristol, ME between
Rutherford Island and Bristol Neck. A Bridge Permit was awarded to
Maine Department of Transportation (MEDOT) on April 15, 2014 to begin
in accordance with Plans dated September 24, 2013.
    MEDOT held seven public meetings between June 2009 and August 2013
and mariners have expressed no significant concerns.
    On November 8, 2013, Public Notice 1-132 was disseminated by the
First Coast Guard District. This notice included the official plans
being submitted for approval of a bridge permit and solicited comments
from the public. Twenty-five comments were received. All comments were
in support of burying the existing overhead electrical cables rather
than allowing them to remain in place above the water. There were no
comments received in opposition of the proposed construction project or
potential closures to the channel.
    On July 25, 2014, the Coast Guard published a notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPRM) regarding the creation of this regulated navigation
area. No comments were received during the public comment period of the
NPRM.
    Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause
exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after
publication in the Federal Register. Delaying the effectiveness of this
rule would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest as
immediate action is needed to protect the boating public from the
hazards associated with a dangerous construction site. The Coast Guard
finds it impractical and unnecessary to move the start of construction
to

accommodate the 30-day delayed effective date. The public has known
about this pending construction through public meetings and publication
of an NPRM for more than a year, so delaying an additional thirty days
is unnecessary. The regulated area is small in scope and will only be
enforced as needed for boating safety in the affected waters. The most
significant impact on the boating public will not take place until
2015.

B. Basis and Purpose

    Under the Ports and Waterways Safety Act, the Coast Guard has the
authority to establish regulated navigation areas in defined water
areas that are determined to have hazardous conditions and in which
vessel traffic can be regulated in the interest of safety. See 33
U.S.C. 1231, 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701, 3306, 3703; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33
CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Public Law 107-295, 116 Stat.
2064; and Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
    Starting in September 2014, MEDOT is replacing the existing movable
bobtail swing bridge over The Gut, which carries State Route 129 from
Bristol Neck to Rutherford Island, with a movable trunnion-style lift
bridge on the same alignment. The project is necessary to replace a
structurally and operationally deficient bridge that has exceeded its
useful life. The new bridge will measure approximately 68 feet in
length and will be 41 feet wide out-to-out. All parts of the existing
bridge will be removed in their entirety. Before demolition of the
existing bridge commences, a temporary fixed detour bridge will be
constructed on the east side of the existing bridge to provide for
vehicular and pedestrian traffic throughout the project. This temporary
bridge will not be movable and will have a fixed vertical clearance of
3 feet 11 inches. The existing bridge has a vertical clearance of 4
feet 2 inches when closed.
    The First District Commander has determined that this bridge
construction project will pose a risk to vessels transiting the waters
in the vicinity of the Route 129 bridge at Bristol Neck and Rutherford
Island. The purpose of this rule is to ensure the safe transit of
vessels in the area, and to protect all persons, vessels, construction
crews, and the marine environment during bridge construction operations
on The Gut in South Bristol, ME, between Rutherford Island and Bristol
Neck.

C. Discussion of Final Rule

    In order to mitigate the inherent risks involved in construction,
it is necessary to control vessel movement through the area.
Accordingly, the Coast Guard is establishing a regulated navigation
area on the navigable waters of The Gut in the vicinity of South
Bristol, ME. Generally, this RNA imposes two requirements on the
public. Each is discussed further below.
    First, this RNA imposes a speed restriction on vessels within the
RNA. Heavy-lift operations are sensitive to water movement, and wake
from passing vessels could pose significant risk of injury or death to
construction workers. In order to minimize such unexpected or
uncontrolled movement of water, the RNA will limit vessel speed and
wake in the vicinity of the bridge construction zone. This will be
achieved by implementing a five (5) knot speed limit and ``NO WAKE''
zone in the vicinity of the construction within the regulated area.
While in the RNA, all vessels must proceed with caution and operate in
such a manner as to produce no wake unless a higher minimum speed is
necessary to maintain steering.
    The second requirement imposed by this rule pertains to waterway
closures. When necessary for safety, this RNA will prohibit vessel
access to the regulated area. This will ensure that vessels are only
permitted to transit the area when it is safe to do so. The Coast Guard
may close the regulated area described in this rule to all vessel
traffic during any circumstance that poses an imminent threat to
waterway users operating in the area. Complete waterway closures will
be made with as much advanced notice as possible. At present, the Coast
Guard is aware of one 213-day closure that will begin on or after
September 10, 2015 and will end on or prior to May 22, 2016. Vessels
will not be permitted to transit through ``The Gut'' for the duration
of this 213-day closure. In addition, shorter duration channel closures
may be enforced between October 15, 2014 and April 30, 2015 and between
October 15, 2015 and April 30, 2016 between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. and between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 4:00 a.m. These
shorter closures will occur only as required to safely perform
operations in the channel. Marine traffic will be detoured around
Rutherford Island during all closure periods. Transit time around
Rutherford Island is approximately 20-60 minutes for mariners.
    Generally, except in the case of the aforementioned 213-day period
which will require closure of the channel 24-hours per day, the Coast
Guard intends to enforce the speed restrictions and the waterway
closures only during limited hours of the day to minimize impacts on
vessel traffic. The public will be advised of the enforcement dates and
times of this RNA via Local Notice to Mariners, Broadcast Notice to
Mariners, and other means described in 33 CFR 165.7. Such notices will
be provided in advance of closure times.

D. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and
executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses
based on a number of these statutes or executive orders.

1. Regulatory Planning and Review

    This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f)
of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, as
supplemented by Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and
Regulatory Review, and does not require an assessment of potential
costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of Executive Order 12866 or
under section 1 of Executive Order 13563. The Office of Management and
Budget has not reviewed it under those Orders. We expect the economic
impact of this rule to be minimal because mariners are able to make a
short transit (approximately 20-60 minutes) around Rutherford Island to
reach any destination on the other side of The Gut.

2. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities.
    This rule would not affect small entities, because all areas of the
waterway are accessible and an alternate route is provided to mariners
during the full closure of the bridge.

3. Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your
small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have
questions concerning its provisions or options for

compliance, please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT, above.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or
action of the Coast Guard.

4. Collection of Information

    This rule will not call for a new collection of information under
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520.).

5. Federalism

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has 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. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and determined
that this rule does not have implications for federalism.

6. Protest Activities

    The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters.
Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section to coordinate protest activities so that
your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or
security of people, places or vessels.

7. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538)
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary
regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may
result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for
inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule would not result
in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule
elsewhere in this preamble.

8. Taking of Private Property

    This rule would not cause a taking of private property or otherwise
have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental
Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property
Rights.

9. Civil Justice Reform

    This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b) (2)
of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation,
eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.

10. Protection of Children

    We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection
of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule
is not an economically significant rule and would not create an
environmental risk to health or risk to safety that might
disproportionately affect children.

11. Indian Tribal Governments

    This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order
13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments,
because it would not have a substantial direct effect on one or more
Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and
Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities
between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

12. Energy Effects

    This rule is not a ``significant energy action'' under Executive
Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use.

13. Technical Standards

    This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not
consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

14. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which
guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made a
preliminary determination that this action is one of a category of
actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant
effect on the human environment. This rule involves the establishment
of an RNA. This rule is categorically excluded from further review
under paragraph 34(g) of Figure 2-1 of the Commandant Instruction. A
preliminary environmental analysis checklist supporting this
determination and a Categorical Exclusion Determination are available
in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

    Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends
33 CFR part 165 as follows:

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

0
1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows:

     Authority:  33 U.S.C. 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701, 3306, 3703;
50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Pub.
L. 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security
Delegation No. 0170.1.

0
2. Add Sec.  165.T01-0214 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T01-0214  Regulated Navigation Area; South Bristol Gut Bridge
Replacement, South Bristol, ME.

    (a) Location. The following area is a Regulated Navigation Area
(RNA): All navigable waters of The Gut in South Bristol, ME, from
surface to bottom, within a 300 yard radius of position 43[deg]51'43''
N, 069[deg]33'30'' W.
    (b) Regulations. (1) The general regulations contained in 33 CFR
165.11 and 165.13 apply within the RNA.
    (2) In accordance with the general regulations, entry into or
movement within this RNA, during periods of enforcement, is prohibited
unless authorized by the First District Commander or the Captain of the
Port Sector Northern New England (COTP).
    (3) Persons and vessels may request permission to enter the RNA
during periods of enforcement by contacting the COTP or the COTP's on-
scene representative on VHF-16 or via phone at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (4) During periods of enforcement, a speed limit of five knots will
be in effect within the RNA and all vessels must proceed through the
area with caution and operate in such a manner as to produce no wake
unless a higher minimum speed is necessary to maintain steering.
    (5) Vessels permitted to enter the RNA during periods of
enforcement must comply with all directions given to them by the First
District Commander, COTP, or the COTP's on-scene representative. The
``on-scene representative'' of the COTP is any

Coast Guard commissioned, warrant or petty officer who has been
designated by the COTP to act on the COTP's behalf. The on-scene
representative may be on a Coast Guard vessel; Maine State Police,
Maine Marine Patrol or other designated craft; or may be on shore and
communicating with vessels via VHF-FM radio or loudhailer. Members of
the Coast Guard Auxiliary may be present to inform vessel operators of
this regulation.
    (6) All other relevant regulations, including but not limited to
the Rules of the Road (33 CFR chapter I, subchapter E) remain in effect
within the regulated area and must be strictly followed at all times.
    (c) Effective and enforcement period. This regulation is effective
and enforceable 24 hours a day from 12:01 a.m. on September 19, 2014,
until 11:59 p.m. on April 30, 2017.
    (1) Prior to commencing or suspending enforcement of this
regulation, the COTP will give notice by appropriate means to inform
the affected segments of the public, to include dates and times. Such
means of notification will include, but are not limited to, Broadcast
Notice to Mariners, Local Notice to Mariners, and other means described
in 33 CFR 165.7.
    (2) Violations of this RNA may be reported to the COTP at (207)
767-0303 or on VHF-Channel 16.

    Dated: September 19, 2014.
V.B. Gifford,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Acting Commander, First Coast Guard
District.
[FR Doc. 2014-24080 Filed 10-7-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 47 (Tuesday, March 10, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 13886-13887]
[FR Doc No: 2020-04867]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings

    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural
Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

    Docket Numbers: RP20-623-000.
    Applicants: Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Volume No. 2--Elements
SP327109 & NJR SP354349 to be effective 4/1/2020.
    Filed Date: 3/2/20.
    Accession Number: 20200302-5001.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/16/20.

    Docket Numbers: RP20-624-000.
    Applicants: Golden Pass Pipeline LLC.
    Description: Compliance filing Golden Pass PIpeline LLC Annual
Retainage Report to be effective 4/1/2020.
    Filed Date: 3/2/20.
    Accession Number: 20200302-5004.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/16/20.

    Docket Numbers: RP20-625-000.
    Applicants: Equitrans, L.P.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Negotiated Capacity Release
Agreements--3/1/2020 to be effective 3/1/2020.
    Filed Date: 3/2/20.
    Accession Number: 20200302-5053.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/16/20.

    Docket Numbers: RP20-626-000.
    Applicants: UGI Mt. Bethel Pipeline Company, LLC.
    Description: Annual Retainage Adjustment Filing of UGI Mt. Bethel
Pipeline Company, LLC under RP20-626.
    Filed Date: 2/28/20.
    Accession Number: 20200228-5381.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/11/20.

    Docket Numbers: RP20-628-000.
    Applicants: Gulf South Pipeline Company, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Cap Rel Neg Agmts (Atlanta
8438 releases eff 3-1-2020) to be effective 3/1/2020.
    Filed Date: 3/2/20.
    Accession Number: 20200302-5174.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/16/20.

    Docket Numbers: RP20-629-000.
    Applicants: Gulf South Pipeline Company, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Cap Rel Neg Rate Agmt
(Constellation 52312 to Exelon 52345) to be effective 3/1/2020.
    Filed Date: 3/2/20.
    Accession Number: 20200302-5179.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/16/20.

    Docket Numbers: RP20-630-000.
    Applicants: Gulf South Pipeline Company, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Non-conforming Agmt (TECO
52302) to be effective 4/1/2020.
    Filed Date: 3/2/20.
    Accession Number: 20200302-5181.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/16/20.

    Docket Numbers: RP20-632-000.
    Applicants: Gulf South Pipeline Company, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Cap Rel Neg Rate Agmt (Calyx
51780 to BP 52120) to be effective 3/1/2020.
    Filed Date: 3/2/20.
    Accession Number: 20200302-5281.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/16/20.

    Docket Numbers: RP20-633-000.
    Applicants: UGI Sunbury, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Annual Retainage Adjustment
2020 to be effective 4/1/2020.
    Filed Date: 3/2/20.
    Accession Number: 20200302-5284.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/16/20.

    Docket Numbers: RP20-634-000.
    Applicants: UGI Sunbury, LLC.
    Description: Compliance filing Cost and Revenue Study per CP15-525-
000.
    Filed Date: 3/2/20.
    Accession Number: 20200302-5289.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/16/20.

    Docket Numbers: RP20-635-000.
    Applicants: KO Transmission Company.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: 2020 Transportation Retainage
Adjustment to be effective 4/1/2020.
    Filed Date: 3/2/20.
    Accession Number: 20200302-5294.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/16/20.

    Docket Numbers: RP20-636-000.
    Applicants: ANR Pipeline Company.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: ANR Fuel Filing 2020 (Part 1)
to be effective 4/1/2020.
    Filed Date: 3/2/20.
    Accession Number: 20200302-5316.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/16/20.

    Docket Numbers: RP20-637-000.
    Applicants: Empire Pipeline, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Fuel Tracker (Empire Tracking
Supply Storage Rates) to be effective 2/1/2020.
    Filed Date: 3/2/20.
    Accession Number: 20200302-5330.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/16/20.

    Docket Numbers: RP20-638-000.
    Applicants: Enable Mississippi River Transmission, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Negotiated Rate Filing--WRB
RP18-923 & RP20-131 Settlement to be effective 3/1/2020.
    Filed Date: 3/2/20.
    Accession Number: 20200302-5341.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/16/20.

    Docket Numbers: RP20-639-000.
    Applicants: Southern Star Central Gas Pipeline, Inc.

    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Vol. 2--Negotiated Rate
Agreements--Scout Energy Group & Conexus Energy to be effective 3/1/
2020.
    Filed Date: 3/2/20.
    Accession Number: 20200302-5342.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/16/20.

    Docket Numbers: RP20-641-000.
    Applicants: Black Hills Shoshone Pipeline, LLC
    Description: Annual Adjustment of Lost and Unaccounted for Gas
Percentage of Black Hills Shoshone Pipeline, LLC under RP20-641.
    Filed Date: 3/2/20.
    Accession Number: 20200302-5359.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/16/20.

    Docket Numbers: RP20-642-000.
    Applicants: Vector Pipeline L.P.
    Description: Annual Report of Operational Purchases and Sales of
Vector Pipeline L.P. under RP20-642.
    Filed Date: 3/2/20.
    Accession Number: 20200302-5363.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/16/20.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the
proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: March 3, 2020.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-04867 Filed 3-9-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 231 (Monday, December 6, 2021)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 68915-68918]
[FR Doc No: 2021-26397]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2020-0603; FRL-9234-01-OCSPP]

Cyflumetofen; Pesticide Tolerances

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes a tolerance for residues of
cyflumetofen in or on hop, dried cones. The Interregional Project
Number 4 (IR-4) requested this tolerance under the Federal Food, Drug,
and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).

DATES: This regulation is effective December 6, 2021. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received on or before February 4, 2022
and must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40
CFR part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION).

ADDRESSES: The docket for this action, identified by docket
identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2020-0603, is available at
https://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of Pesticide Programs
Regulatory Public Docket (OPP Docket) in the Environmental Protection
Agency Docket Center (EPA/DC), West William Jefferson Clinton Bldg.,
Rm. 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001. The
Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public
Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number for the OPP
Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Due to the public health emergency, the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC)
and Reading Room is closed to visitors with limited exceptions. The
staff continues to provide customer service via email, phone, and
webform. For the latest status information on EPA/DC services,

docket access, visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Marietta Echeverria, Acting Director,
Registration Division (7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington,
DC 20460-0001; main telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address:
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an
agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer.
The following list of North American Industrial Classification System
(NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them.
Potentially affected entities may include:
     Crop production (NAICS code 111).
     Animal production (NAICS code 112).
     Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
     Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).

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

    You may access a frequently updated electronic version of EPA's
tolerance regulations at 40 CFR part 180 through the Office of the
Federal Register's e-CFR site at https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-40.

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

    Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an
objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a
hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a
hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided
in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify
docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2020-0603 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
February 4, 2022. Addresses for mail and hand delivery of objections
and hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b).
    In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the
Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of
the filing (excluding any Confidential Business Information (CBI)) for
inclusion in the public docket. Information not marked confidential
pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without
prior notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your objection or hearing
request, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2020-0603, by one of
the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Do not submit
electronically any information you consider to be CBI or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
     Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental Protection Agency Docket
Center (EPA/DC), (28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC
20460-0001.
     Hand Delivery: To make special arrangements for hand
delivery or delivery of boxed information, please follow the
instructions at https://www.epa.gov/dockets/where-send-comments-epa-dockets.
    Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along
with more information about dockets generally, is available at https://www.epa.gov/dockets.

II. Summary of Petitioned-For Tolerance

    In the Federal Register of February 25, 2021 (86 FR 11488) (FRL-
10020-47), EPA issued a document pursuant to FFDCA section 408(d)(3),
21 U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a pesticide petition (PP
0E8862) by IR-4, North Carolina State University, 1730 Varsity Drive,
Venture IV, Suite 210, Raleigh, NC 27606. The petition requested that
40 CFR 180.677 be amended by establishing a tolerance for the residue
of the of the miticide cyflumetofen, 2-methoxyethyl [alpha]-cyano-
[alpha]-[4-(1,1-dimethylethyl)phenyl]-[beta]-oxo-2-
(trifluoromethyl)benzenepropanoate in or on hop, dried cones at 30
parts per million (ppm). That document referenced a summary of the
petition prepared by IR-4, the petitioner, which is available in the
docket, https://www.regulations.gov. There were no comments received in
response to the notice of filing.

III. Aggregate Risk Assessment and Determination of Safety

    Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish a
tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a
food) only if EPA determines that the tolerance is ``safe.'' Section
408(b)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines ``safe'' to mean that ``there is a
reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure
to the pesticide chemical residue, including all anticipated dietary
exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable
information.'' This includes exposure through drinking water and in
residential settings but does not include occupational exposure.
Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA requires EPA to give special
consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide
chemical residue in establishing a tolerance and to ``ensure that there
is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and
children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue . .
. .''
    Consistent with FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), and the factors
specified in FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), EPA has reviewed the available
scientific data and other relevant information in support of this
action. EPA has sufficient data to assess the hazards of and to make a
determination on aggregate exposure for cyflumetofen including exposure
resulting from the tolerance established by this action. EPA's
assessment of exposures and risks associated with cyflumetofen follows.
    In an effort to streamline its publications in the Federal
Register, EPA is not reprinting sections that repeat what has been
previously published for tolerance rulemaking of the same pesticide
chemical. Where scientific information concerning a particular chemical
remains unchanged, the content of those sections would not vary between
tolerance rulemaking and republishing the same sections is unnecessary.
EPA considers referral back to those sections as sufficient to provide
an explanation of the information EPA considered in making its safety
determination for the new rulemaking.
    EPA has previously published a number of tolerance rulemakings for
cyflumetofen, in which EPA concluded, based on the available
information, that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm would
result from aggregate exposure to cyflumetofen and established
tolerances for residues of that chemical. EPA is incorporating
previously published sections from those rulemakings as described
further in this rulemaking, as they remain unchanged.
    Toxicological profile. For a discussion of the Toxicological
Profile of cyflumetofen, see Unit III.A. of the May 8, 2019 rulemaking
(84 FR 20037) (FRL-9990-60).
    Toxicological points of departure/Levels of concern. For a summary
of the Toxicological Points of Departure/Levels of Concern for
cyflumetofen used

for human risk assessment, see Unit III.B. of the May 8, 2019
rulemaking.
    Exposure assessment. Much of the exposure assessment remains the
same although updates have occurred to accommodate exposures from the
petitioned-for tolerance. These updates are discussed in this section;
for a description of the rest of the EPA approach to and assumptions
for the exposure assessment, please reference Unit III.C. of the May 8,
2019 rulemaking.
    EPA's dietary exposure assessments have been updated to include the
additional exposure from the new use of cyflumetofen on hops. The
assessment used the same assumptions as the May 8, 2019 final rule
concerning tolerance-level residues, default processing factors for all
processed commodities, and 100 percent crop treated.
    Drinking water exposure. EPA has revised the cyflumetofen drinking
water assessment since the May 8, 2019 final rule. Based on the
Pesticide in Water Calculator's (PWC) version 1.52, the estimated
drinking water concentration (EDWC) of cyflumetofen in surface water is
estimated to be 0.18 ppb for non-cancer chronic exposures. The EDWC of
0.18 ppb was used in the chronic dietary assessment.
    Non-occupational exposure. There are no new proposed residential
(non-occupational) uses for cyflumetofen at this time; however, there
are registered uses of cyflumetofen on commercial vegetable gardens and
ornamental plants. EPA's residential exposure assessment has changed
since the May 8, 2019 final rule based on a revised practice. Because
all current cyflumetofen labels require handlers to wear personal
protective equipment, EPA assumes that cyflumetofen is applied by
professional applicators, not residential (homeowner) applicators.
Therefore, the current assessment does not consider exposure to
residential handlers or exposure from direct homeowner applications to
ornamentals or home gardens. EPA assumes that potential dermal exposure
from consumers handling ornamentals or vegetable transplants is
negligible. Additionally, there is no toxicity endpoint for dermal
exposure, so a quantitative residential post-application dermal risk
assessment is not required. Therefore, the aggregate exposure
assessment no longer includes residential handler or residential post-
application exposures.
    Cumulative exposures. Unlike other pesticides for which EPA has
followed a cumulative risk approach based on a common mechanism of
toxicity, EPA has not made a common mechanism of toxicity finding as to
cyflumetofen and any other substances and cyflumetofen does not appear
to produce a toxic metabolite produced by other substances. For the
purposes of this action, therefore, EPA has not assumed that
cyflumetofen has a common mechanism of toxicity with other substances.
    Safety factor for infants and children. EPA continues to conclude
that there are reliable data to support the reduction of the Food
Quality Protection Act (FQPA) safety factor. See Unit III.D. of the May
8, 2019 final rule for a discussion of the Agency's rationale for that
determination.
    Aggregate risk and determination of safety. EPA determines whether
acute and chronic dietary pesticide exposures are safe by comparing
aggregate exposure estimates to the acute population adjusted dose
(aPAD) and the chronic population adjusted dose (cPAD). Short-,
intermediate-, and chronic term risks are evaluated by comparing the
estimated aggregate food, water, and residential exposure to the
appropriate points of departure to ensure that an adequate margin of
exposure (MOE) exists. For linear cancer risks, EPA calculates the
lifetime probability of acquiring cancer given the estimated aggregate
exposure.
    An acute dietary risk was not conducted as toxicological effects
attributable to a single dose were not identified. Chronic dietary
risks are below the Agency's level of concern of 100% of the cPAD; they
are less than 3% for children 1-2 years old, the population subgroup
with the highest exposure estimate.
    Because EPA has determined that there are no residential exposures,
the chronic dietary risk is the same as the overall aggregate risk for
cyflumetofen and is not of concern. As stated in Unit III.A. of the May
8, 2019 final rule, EPA concluded that the nonlinear approach for
assessing potential cancer risk is appropriate. The chronic risk
resulting from aggregate exposure to cyflumetofen is below the Agency's
level of concern; therefore, the Agency concludes that there is not a
cancer risk of concern from exposure to cyflumetofen.
    Therefore, based on the risk assessments and information described
above, EPA concludes that there is reasonable certainty that no harm
will result in the general population, or to infants and children, from
aggregate exposure to cyflumetofen residues. More detailed information
can be found at https://www.regulations.gov in the document titled
``Cyflumetofen. Human Health Risk Assessment for the Section 3
Registration Action for a New Use on Hops.'' in docket ID number EPA-
HQ-OPP-2020-0603.

IV. Other Considerations

A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    For a discussion of the available analytical enforcement method,
see Unit IV.A. of the July 1, 2020 rulemaking (85 FR 39491) (FRL-10009-
25).

B. International Residue Limits

    In making its tolerance decisions, EPA seeks to harmonize U.S.
tolerances with international standards whenever possible, consistent
with U.S. food safety standards and agricultural practices. EPA
considers the international maximum residue limits (MRLs) established
by the Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex), as required by FFDCA
section 408(b)(4). The Codex has not established MRLs for residues of
cyflumetofen in/on hops.

V. Conclusion

    Therefore, a tolerance is established for residues of cyflumetofen,
2-methoxyethyl [alpha]-cyano-[alpha]-[4-(1,1-dimethylethyl)phenyl]-
[beta]-oxo-2-(trifluoromethyl)benzenepropanoate in or on hop, dried
cones at 30 ppm.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This action establishes a tolerance under FFDCA section 408(d) in
response to a petition submitted to the Agency. The Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these types of actions from
review under Executive Order 12866, entitled ``Regulatory Planning and
Review'' (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Because this action has been
exempted from review under Executive Order 12866, this action is not
subject to Executive Order 13211, entitled ``Actions Concerning
Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or
Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) or Executive Order 13045, entitled
``Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). This action does not contain any
information collections subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork
Reduction Act (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), nor does it require any
special considerations under Executive Order 12898, entitled ``Federal
Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and
Low-Income Populations'' (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    Since tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis
of a petition under FFDCA section 408(d), such as the tolerance in this
final rule, do not

require the issuance of a proposed rule, the requirements of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), do not apply.
    This action directly regulates growers, food processors, food
handlers, and food retailers, not States or Tribes, nor does this
action alter the relationships or distribution of power and
responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions
of FFDCA section 408(n)(4). As such, the Agency has determined that
this action will not have a substantial direct effect on States or
Tribal Governments, on the relationship between the National Government
and the States or Tribal Governments, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government or between
the Federal Government and Indian Tribes. Thus, the Agency has
determined that Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR
43255, August 10, 1999) and Executive Order 13175, entitled
``Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR
67249, November 9, 2000) do not apply to this action. In addition, this
action does not impose any enforceable duty or contain any unfunded
mandate as described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
(UMRA) (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.).
    This action does not involve any technical standards that would
require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant
to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note).

VII. Congressional Review Act

    Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.),
EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required
information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and
the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of
the rule in the Federal Register. This action is not a ``major rule''
as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180

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

    Dated: November 24, 2021.
Catherine Aubee,
Acting Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.

    Therefore, for the reasons stated in the preamble, EPA is amending
40 CFR chapter I as follows:

PART 180--TOLERANCES AND EXEMPTIONS FOR PESTICIDE CHEMICAL RESIDUES
IN FOOD

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

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

0
2. In Sec.  180.677, amend the table in paragraph (a) by adding a table
heading and adding in alphabetical order an entry for ``Hop, dried
cones'' to read as follows:

Sec.  180.677  Cyflumetofen; tolerances for residues.

    (a) * * *

                        Table 1 to Paragraph (a)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Parts per
                       Commodity                             million
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                * * * * *
Hop, dried cones.......................................              30

                                * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2021-26397 Filed 12-3-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P