[Federal Register: July 6, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 129)]
[Notices]
[Page 37013-37015]
[DOCID:fr06jy07-67]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0081; FRL-8136-3]

Notice of Filing of a Pesticide Petition for an Exemption from
the Requirements of a Tolerance for Thymol (as Present in Thyme Oil) in
or on Food Commodities

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces the initial filing of a pesticide
petition proposing the exemption of regulations for residues of thymol
(as present in thyme oil) in or on various food commodities.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before August 6, 2007.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by docket identification
(ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0081 and the pesticide petition number (PP)
6F7147, by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.

Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
     Mail: Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) Regulatory Public
Docket (7502P), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001.
     Delivery: OPP Regulatory Public Docket (7502P),
Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South
Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. Deliveries are only
accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation (8:30 a.m. to 4
p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays). Special
arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. The
Docket Facility telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-
2007-0081. EPA's policy is that all comments

received will be included in the docket without change and may be made
available on-line at http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal

information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed
to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information
that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through
regulations.gov or e-mail. The regulations.gov website is an
``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without
going through regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit
an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and
other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk
or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical
difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be
able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of
special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects
or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the docket index
available in regulations.gov. To access the electronic docket, go to
http://www.regulations.gov, select ``Advanced Search,'' then ``Docket

Search.'' Insert the docket ID number where indicated and select the
``Submit'' button. Follow the instructions on the regulations.gov
website to view the docket index or access available documents.
Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly
available, e.g., CBI or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted
material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available
only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are
available either in the electronic docket at http://www.regulations.gov
, or, if only available in hard copy, at the OPP

Regulatory Public Docket in Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South Bldg.),
2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. The hours of operation of this
Docket Facility are from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday,
excluding legal holidays. The Docket Facility telephone number is (703)
305-5805.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Adam Heyward, Product Manager (PM) 34,
Antimicrobials Division (7510P), Office of Pesticide Programs,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail
address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this Action Apply to Me?

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

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

    1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through
regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly mark the part or all of the
information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or
CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as
CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the
specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one
complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as
CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information
claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket.
Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with
procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
    2. Tips for preparing your comments. When submitting comments,
remember to:
    i. Identify the document by docket ID number and other identifying
information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number).
    ii. Follow directions. The Agency may ask you to respond to
specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
    iii. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and
substitute language for your requested changes.
    iv. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information
and/or data that you used.
    v. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you
arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be
reproduced.
    vi. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns and
suggest alternatives.
    vii. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of
profanity or personal threats.
    viii. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period
deadline identified.

II. What Action is the Agency Taking?

    EPA is printing notice of the filing of a pesticide petition
received under section 408 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act
(FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 346a, proposing the establishment or modification of
regulations in 40 CFR part 180 for residues of pesticide chemicals in
or on various food commodities. EPA has determined that the pesticide
petition described in this notice contains data or information
regarding the elements set forth in FFDCA section 408(d)(2); however,
EPA has not fully evaluated the sufficiency of the submitted data at
this time or whether the data supports granting of the pesticide
petition. Additional data may be needed before EPA rules on this
pesticide petition.
    Pursuant to 40 CFR 180.7(f), a summary of the petition included in
this notice, prepared by the petitioner, is included in a docket EPA
has created for this rulemaking. The docket for this petition is
available on-line at http://www.regulations.gov.

New Exemption from Tolerance

    PP 6F7147. Sensible Life Products (Division of LBD, Ltd.), 34-7
Innovation Dr., Ontario, Canada L9H7H9, proposes to establish an
exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of the
antimicrobial, thymol (as present in thyme oil) in or on food
commodities when used as a hard surface disinfectant. Because this
petition is a request for an exemption from the requirement of a
tolerance without

numerical limitations, no analytical method is required.

List of Subjects

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

    Dated: June 27, 2007.
Betty Shackleford,
Acting Director, Antimicrobials Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.

[FR Doc. E7-12995 Filed 7-5-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-S


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 214 (Tuesday, November 5, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 66258-66261]
[FR Doc No: 2013-26323]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2013-0868; Directorate Identifier 2013-NM-194-AD;
Amendment 39-17650; AD 2013-22-18]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Empresa Brasileira de Aeronautica S.A.
(EMBRAER) Airplanes

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 certain
Empresa Brasileira de Aeronautica S.A. (EMBRAER) Model EMB-135ER, -
135KE, -135KL, and -135LR airplanes; and Model EMB-145, -145ER, -145MR,
-145LR, -145XR, -145MP, and -145EP airplanes. This AD requires
repetitive detailed inspections to detect discrepancies on the
attaching parts of the lower eyelet fitting of the cockpit windshield
center-post, and, if no discrepancy is found, a check to make sure the
bolts are tight, and replacement of the attaching parts if necessary.
This AD also provides an option to accomplish the replacement of the
attaching parts, which terminates the repetitive inspections. This AD
was prompted by reports of failure of the bolts that connect the lower
eyelet fitting of the cockpit windshield center-post to the forward
fuselage. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct failed bolts and
attaching parts of the lower eyelet fitting of the cockpit windshield
center-post, which could lead to loss of structural integrity of the
airplane.

DATES: This AD becomes effective November 20, 2013.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of November 20,
2013.
    We must receive comments on this AD by December 20, 2013.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this AD, contact Empresa
Brasileira de Aeronautica S.A. (EMBRAER), Technical Publications
Section (PC 060), Av. Brigadeiro Faria Lima, 2170--Putim--12227-901
S[atilde]o Jose dos Campos--SP--BRASIL; telephone +55 12 3927-5852 or
+55 12 3309-0732; fax +55 12 3927-7546; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Internet http://www.flyembraer.com. You may review copies of the
referenced service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane
Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the
availability of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

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 Mandatory Continuing
Airworthiness Information (MCAI), the regulatory evaluation, any
comments received, and other information. The street address for the
Docket Operations office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the ADDRESSES
section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after
receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Todd Thompson, Aerospace Engineer,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA,
1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>;
fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    The Ag[ecirc]ncia Nacional de Avia[ccedil][atilde]o Civil (ANAC),
which is the aviation authority for Brazil, has issued Brazilian
Emergency Airworthiness Directive 2013-10-01, effective October 3, 2013
(referred to after this as ``the MCAI''), to correct an unsafe
condition for the specified products. The MCAI states:

    This [Brazilian] EAD [emergency AD] was prompted by reports of
failure of the bolts that connect the lower eyelet fitting of the
cockpit windshield center-post to the forward fuselage. We are
issuing this EAD to detect failed bolts and correct the attaching
parts of the lower eyelet fitting of the cockpit windshield center-
post, which could lead to loss of structural integrity of the
airplane.

Required actions include repetitive detailed inspections to detect
discrepancies on the attaching parts of the lower eyelet fitting of the
cockpit windshield center-post, and if no discrepancy is found, a check
to make sure the bolts are tight, and replacement of the attaching
parts if necessary. This AD also provides an option to replace the
attaching parts, which terminates the repetitive inspections. The
replacement includes doing a general visual inspection for damage on
the eyelet fitting if any discrepancy is found in any bolts and repair
if necessary. You may examine the MCAI on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating it in Docket No. FAA-
2013-0868.

Relevant Service Information

    Embraer has issued Service Bulletin 145-53-0082, dated October 18,
2013. 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 another
country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant
to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have
been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service
information referenced above. We are issuing this AD because we
evaluated all pertinent information and determined the unsafe condition
exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same
type design.
    In many FAA transport ADs, when the service information specifies
to contact the manufacturer for further instructions if certain
discrepancies are found, we typically include in the AD a requirement
to accomplish the action using a method approved by either the FAA or
the State of Design Authority (or its delegated agent).
    We have recently been notified that certain laws in other countries
do not allow such delegation of authority, but some countries do
recognize design approval organizations. In addition, we have become
aware that some U.S. operators have used repair instructions that were
previously approved by a State of Design Authority or a Design Approval
Holder (DAH) as a method of compliance with this provision in FAA ADs.
Frequently, in these cases, the previously approved repair instructions
come from the airplane structural repair manual or the DAH repair
approval statements that were not specifically developed to address the
unsafe condition corrected by the AD. Using repair instructions that
were not specifically approved for a particular AD creates the
potential for doing repairs that were not developed to address the
unsafe condition identified by the MCAI AD, the FAA AD, or the
applicable service information, which could result in the unsafe
condition not being fully corrected.
    To prevent the use of repairs that were not specifically developed
to correct the unsafe condition, this AD requires that the repair
approval specifically refer to this FAA AD. This change is intended to
clarify the method of compliance and to provide operators with better
visibility of repairs that are specifically developed and approved to
correct the unsafe condition. In addition, we use the phrase ``its
delegated agent, or by the DAH with State of Design Authority design
organization approval, as applicable'' in this AD to refer to an DAH
authorized to approve required repairs for this AD.

Differences Between This AD and the MCAI or Service Information

    The MCAI includes a requirement to replace the attaching parts of
the lower eyelet fitting of the cockpit windshield center-post within
6,000 flight cycles. However, the planned compliance time for the
replacement would allow enough time to provide notice and opportunity
for prior public comment on the merits of the replacement. Therefore,
we have included that action as an optional action in paragraph (i) of
this AD, which will terminate the inspections required by this AD. We
might propose further rulemaking to require the replacement.

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
failed bolts and attaching parts of the lower eyelet fitting of the
cockpit windshield center-post could lead to loss of structural
integrity of 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-2013-0868; Directorate
Identifier 2013-NM-194-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.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 624 airplanes of U.S. registry.
    We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost on U.S.
             Action                    Labor cost         Parts cost      Cost per product        operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inspections/Checks..............  3 work-hours x $85               $0   $255 per inspection  $159,120 per
                                   per hour = $255                       cycle.               inspection cycle.
                                   per inspection
                                   cycle.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We estimate the following costs to do any necessary replacements
that would be required based on the results of the inspections/checks.
We have no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need
these replacements:

                                               On-Condition Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per
                    Action                                Labor cost               Parts cost        product
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Replacement..................................  34 work-hours x $85 per hour =             $386           $3,276
                                                $2,890.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 that 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);
    3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and
    4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    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

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

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

2013-22-18 Empresa Brasileira de Aeronautica S.A. (EMBRAER):
Amendment 39-17650. Docket No. FAA-2013-0868; Directorate Identifier
2013-NM-194-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This AD becomes effective November 20, 2013.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Empresa Brasileira de Aeronautica S.A.
(EMBRAER) Model EMB-135ER, -135KE, -135KL, and -135LR airplanes, and
Model EMB-145, -145ER, -145MR, -145LR, -145XR, -145MP, and -145EP
airplanes, certificated in any category, as identified in EMBRAER
Service Bulletin 145-53-0082, dated October 18, 2013.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 53, Fuselage.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by reports of failure of the bolts that
connect the lower eyelet fitting of the cockpit windshield center-
post to the forward fuselage. We are issuing this AD to detect and
correct failed bolts and attaching parts of the lower eyelet fitting
of the cockpit windshield center-post, which could lead to loss of
structural integrity of the airplane.

(f) Compliance

    You are responsible for having the actions required by this AD
performed within the compliance times specified, unless the actions
have already been done.

(g) Repetitive Inspections

    (1) For Group 1 airplanes, as identified in EMBRAER Service
Bulletin 145-53-0082, dated October 18, 2013: At the applicable
compliance time specified in paragraph (g)(1)(i), (g)(1)(ii),
(g)(1)(iii), or (g)(1)(iv) of this AD, do a detailed inspection to
detect discrepancies on the attaching parts of the lower eyelet
fitting of the cockpit windshield center-post, and if no discrepancy
is found, before further flight, do a check to make sure the bolts
are tight, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of
EMBRAER Service Bulletin 145-53-0082, dated October 18, 2013. Repeat
the actions required by this paragraph thereafter at intervals not
to exceed 500 flight cycles until the accomplishment of the
replacement required by paragraph (h) of this AD or the optional
terminating action specified in paragraph (i) of this AD.
    (i) For airplanes with 11,000 total flight cycles or more as of
the effective date of this AD: Do the inspection within 50 flight
cycles after the effective date of this AD.
    (ii) For airplanes with 10,000 total flight cycles or more but
fewer than 11,000 total flight cycles as of the effective date of
this AD: Do the inspection before the accumulation of 11,050 total
flight cycles, or within 150 flight cycles after the effective date
of this AD, whichever occurs first.
    (iii) For airplanes with 7,500 total flight cycles or more but
fewer than 10,000 total flight cycles as of the effective date of
this AD: Do the inspection before the accumulation of 10,150 total
flight cycles, or within 500 flight cycles after the effective date
of this AD, whichever occurs first.
    (iv) For airplanes with fewer than 7,500 total flight cycles as
of the effective date of this AD: Do the inspection before the
accumulation of 8,000 total flight cycles, or within 5,000 flight
cycles after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first.
    (2) For Group 2 airplanes, as identified in EMBRAER Service
Bulletin 145-53-0082, dated October 18, 2013 (airplanes on which the
actions specified in EMBRAER Service Bulletin 145-53-0058, dated
December 23, 2004; or Revision 01, dated March 30, 2007; have been
done): At the applicable compliance time specified in paragraph
(g)(2)(i), (g)(2)(ii), (g)(2)(iii), or (g)(2)(iv) of this AD, do a
detailed inspection to detect discrepancies on the attaching parts
of the lower eyelet fitting of the cockpit windshield center-post,
and if no discrepancy is found, before further flight, do a check to
make sure the bolts are tight, in accordance with the Accomplishment
Instructions of EMBRAER Service Bulletin 145-53-0082, dated October
18, 2013. Repeat the actions required by this paragraph thereafter
at intervals not to exceed 500 flight cycles until the
accomplishment of the requirements of paragraph (h) of this AD or
the optional terminating action specified in paragraph (i) of this
AD.
    (i) For airplanes that, as of the effective date of this AD,
have accumulated 11,000 flight cycles or more since the
incorporation of the actions specified in EMBRAER Service Bulletin
145-53-0058: Do the inspection

within 50 flight cycles after the effective date of this AD.
    (ii) For airplanes that, as of the effective date of this AD,
have accumulated 10,000 flight cycles or more but fewer than 11,000
flight cycles since the incorporation of the actions specified in
EMBRAER Service Bulletin 145-53-0058: Do the inspection within
11,050 flight cycles after the incorporation of the actions
specified in EMBRAER Service Bulletin 145-53-0058, or within 150
flight cycles after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs
first.
    (iii) For airplanes that, as of the effective date of this AD,
have accumulated 7,500 flight cycles or more but fewer than 10,000
flight cycles since the incorporation of the actions specified in
EMBRAER Service Bulletin 145-53-0058: Do the inspection within
10,150 flight cycles after the incorporation of the actions
specified in EMBRAER Service Bulletin 145-53-0058, or within 500
flight cycles after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs
first.
    (iv) For airplanes that, as of the effective date of this AD,
accumulated fewer than 7,500 flight cycles since the incorporation
of the actions specified in EMBRAER Service Bulletin 145-53-0058: Do
the inspection within 8,000 flight cycles after the incorporation of
the actions specified in EMBRAER Service Bulletin 145-53-0058, or
within 5,000 flight cycles after the effective date of this AD,
whichever occurs first.

(h) Corrective Actions

    If, during any inspection required by paragraph (g) of this AD,
any discrepancy is found or if, during any check required by
paragraph (g) of this AD, any bolt is found that is not tight,
before further flight, do the replacement of the attaching parts of
the lower eyelet fitting of the cockpit windshield center-post,
including doing a general visual inspection for damage on the eyelet
fitting; in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of
EMBRAER Service Bulletin 145-53-0082, dated October 18, 2013. If any
damage to the eyelet fitting is found, before further flight, repair
using a method approved by the Manager, International Branch, ANM-
116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or Ag[ecirc]ncia Nacional
de Avia[ccedil][atilde]o Civil (ANAC) (or its delegated agent, or by
the Design Approval Holder (DAH) with ANAC design organization
approval). For a repair method to be approved, the repair approval
must specifically refer to this AD.

(i) Optional Terminating Action

    For Group 1 airplanes, and Group 2 airplanes (airplanes on which
the actions specified in EMBRAER Service Bulletin 145-53-0058, dated
December 23, 2004; or Revision 01, dated March 30, 2007; have been
done), as identified in EMBRAER Service Bulletin 145-53-0082, dated
October 18, 2013: Doing the replacement of the attaching parts of
the lower eyelet fitting of the cockpit windshield center-post,
including doing a general visual inspection for damage on the eyelet
fitting if any discrepancy is found in any bolts, terminates the
inspections required by paragraph (g) of this AD. The replacement
specified in this paragraph must be done in accordance with the
Accomplishment Instructions of EMBRAER Service Bulletin 145-53-0082,
dated October 18, 2013, except as required by paragraph (j) of this
AD.

(j) Service Information Exception

    Where EMBRAER Service Bulletin 145-53-0082, dated October 18,
2013, specifies to contact Embraer if there are signs of damage on
the eyelet fitting, before further flight, repair using a method
approved by the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport
Airplane Directorate, FAA; or ANAC (or its delegated agent, or by
the DAH with ANAC design organization approval). For a repair method
to be approved, the repair approval must specifically refer to this
AD.

(k) Credit for Previous Actions

    This paragraph provides credit for actions specified in
paragraphs (g), (h), and (i) of this AD, if those actions were
performed before the effective date of this AD using EMBRAER Alert
Service Bulletin 145-53-A082, dated September 22, 2013; or EMBRAER
Alert Service Bulletin 145-53-A082, Revision 01, dated September 26,
2013; which are not incorporated by reference in this AD.

(l) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA,
has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using
the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR
39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight
Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information
directly to the International Branch, send it to ATTN: Todd
Thompson, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116,
Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton,
WA 98057-3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>. Information
may be emailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Before using any
approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or
lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight
standards district office/certificate holding district office. The
AMOC approval letter must specifically reference this AD.
    (2) Airworthy Product: For any requirement in this AD to obtain
corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these
actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered
FAA-approved if they were approved by the State of Design Authority
(or its delegated agent, or the Design Approval Holder with a State
of Design Authority's design organization approval, as applicable).
For a repair method to be approved, the repair approval must
specifically refer to this AD. You are required to ensure the
product is airworthy before it is returned to service.

(m) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information
(MCAI) Brazilian Emergency Airworthiness Directive 2013-10-01,
effective October 3, 2013, for related information. You may examine
the MCAI on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching
for and locating it in Docket No. FAA-2013-0868.
    (2) Service information identified in this AD that is not
incorporated by reference may be obtained at the addresses specified
in paragraphs (n)(3) and (n)(4) of this AD.

(n) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed
in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) EMBRAER Service Bulletin 145-53-0082, dated October 18,
2013.
    (ii) Reserved.
    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Empresa Brasileira de Aeronautica S.A. (EMBRAER), Technical
Publications Section (PC 060), Av. Brigadeiro Faria Lima, 2170--
Putim--12227-901 S[atilde]o Jose dos Campos--SP--BRASIL; telephone
+55 12 3927-5852 or +55 12 3309-0732; fax +55 12 3927-7546; email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet http://www.flyembraer.com.
    (4) You may review copies of the service information at the FAA,
Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA.
For information on the availability of this material at the FAA,
call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (5) You may view this service information that is incorporated
by reference 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 Renton, Washington, on October 25, 2013.
Stephen P. Boyd,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2013-26323 Filed 11-4-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 178 (Thursday, September 13, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 46391-46392]
[FR Doc No: 2018-19960]

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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Bureau of Industry and Security

15 CFR Part 744

[Docket No. 180718671-8671-01]
RIN 0694-AH57

Addition of Certain Entities to the Entity List, Revision of
Entries on the Entity List and Removal of Certain Entities From the
Entity List; Correction

AGENCY: Bureau of Industry and Security, Commerce.

ACTION: Final rule; correction.

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

SUMMARY: On September 4, 2018, BIS published a final rule amending the
Export Administration Regulations (EAR) by adding fifteen entities
under

seventeen entries to the Entity List. An error of omission left out one
Pakistani entity from an amendatory instruction. This correction
clarifies that instruction.

DATES: This correction is effective September 13, 2018.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Chair, End-User Review Committee,
Office of the Assistant Secretary, Export Administration, Bureau of
Industry and Security, Department of Commerce, Phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>,
Email: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On September 4, 2018, at 83 FR 44821, BIS
published a rule amending the Entity List in 15 CFR part 744,
supplement 4. An amendatory instruction noted the addition of two
entities for Pakistan, but provided the name of one only. Both entities
appeared in the amendment's regulatory text and were codified on the
rule's effective date. This document clarifies the rule by correcting
the amendatory instruction to carry the names of both entities as
originally intended.
    Therefore, in FR Rule Doc. No. 2018-18766, published September 4,
2018, at 83 FR 44821, the following correction is made:

0
1. On page 44824, in the third column, amendatory instruction 2.d is
corrected to read as follows:
0
2. * * *
0
d. Under Pakistan, by adding in alphabetical order two Pakistani
entities ``Technology Link PVT. Ltd.'' and ``UEC (Pvt.) Ltd.'';

    Dated: September 7, 2018.
Karen Nies-Vogel,
Director, Office of Exporter Services.
[FR Doc. 2018-19960 Filed 9-12-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 3510-33-P


The application rates that were selected for use in the risk assessment were defined based on labels and information provided by the Bayer Crop Sciences at the June 12, 2003 SMART Meeting for thidiazuron. The other key input for completing handler risk assessments used for defining how much chemical can be used in a day is how much can be treated in a day which is generally expressed as the number of acres treated per day. The values that were used for this parameter represent the latest Agency thinking on this issue. In fact, the Science Advisory Council For Exposure recently updated the policy for these inputs ( July 2000 Exposure SAC Policy 9: Standard Values for Daily Acres Treated in Agriculture). These most recent values have been used for the calculations. Additionally, Bayer Crop Sciences provided estimates of the acres treated per day for commercial applicators and growers who make their own applications. These estimates were also incorporated into the assessment. The PHED exposure data, upon which the risks are based, were from studies where much lower acreage were treated compared to those reported by Bayer Crop Sciences. As such, it is likely there is uncertainty associated with the coupling of these values with high daily acreage treated estimates. Analysis of this phenomena in PHED indicates it results in a likely overestimation of risks. Page 49 of 59 In addition to the key sources of information considered above, there are many underlying factors that may impact the overall results of a risk assessment. For example, the protection factors used for adding additional levels of respiratory protection may impact the overall risk picture. The factors used in this assessment by the Agency for respiratory protection are the ones that have been used for several years and are commonly used for occupational health purposes.

In summary, the Agency believes that the risk values presented in this occupational assessment represent the highest quality results that could be produced given the exposure, use, and toxicology data that are available. Certainly risk managers and other interested parties should consider the quality of individual inputs when interpreting the results and make decisions accordingly. It is difficult to ascertain where on a distribution the values which have been calculated fall because the distributional data for exposure, application rates, acres treated and many other parameters are unrefined. The Agency does believe, however, that the risks represent conservative estimates of exposure because maximum application rates are coupled with large acreage estimates to define risk estimates that likely fall in the upper percentiles of the actual exposure distributions. Additionally, risk estimates are thought to be conservative even when measures of central tendency are combined because values that would be considered to be in the lower percentile aspect of any input parameter have not been used in the calculations.

10.0 Data Needs and Label Requirements 10.1 Toxicology There are no toxicological data gaps.

10.2 Residue Chemistry Guideline 860.1340 Residue Analytical Method Livestock Guideline 860.1380 Storage Stability Data Plant and Livestock Guideline 860.1480 Meat, Milk, Poultry, and Eggs Additional data for the ruminant feeding study are required.

10.3 Occupational and Residential Exposure There are no occupational and residential exposure data gaps.

References:

Felecia A. Fort. September 29, 1995. HED Metabolism Committee Decision following the 9/ 18/ 95 meeting.

DP Barcode D295368. Shyam B. Mathur. March 1, 2004. Product Chemistry Review of Thidiazuron Technical.

Felecia A. Fort. September 8, 1995. Thidiazuron Metabolism. Page 50 of 59 MRID No. 44415501. DP Barcode D241202. Toiya Jimerson. October 26, 2004. Thidiazuron: Registrant's Response to Residue Chemistry Data Requirements.

MRID No. 46298401. DP Barcode D294543. Toiya Jimerson. November 8, 2004. Magnitude of Residue in Rotational Crops Following Cotton Treated with DROPP ® SC.

MRID No. 42529001. DP Barcode D294560. Byong Han Chin. Rat Metabolism.

MRID No. 44558701. DP Barcode D246804. Sherrie L. Mason. January 21, 1999. Independent Laboratory Validation of Analytical Method AW/ 02/ 96 for the Analysis of Thidiazuron and Photothidiazuron in/ on Cottonseed Commodities.

MRID 43781901. DP Barcode D220968. Stephen Funk. February 15, 1996. Thidiazuron: Response to the Phase 4 Review Magnitude of the Residue in Ruminants.

DP Barcode D244574. Alex Clem. September 24, 2004. Drinking Water Assessment DP Barcode D316043. Toiya Jimerson. May 2, 2005. Thidiazuron: Chronic Dietary Exposure Assessment for the Reregistration Eligibility Decision Revised.

DP Barcode D311489. Jerry Blondell. December 21, 2004. Review of Thidiazuron Incident Reports. Page 51 of 59 Appendices 1.0 TOLERANCE REASSESSMENT RECOMMENDATIONS The residue data set for reassessing the tolerances for thidiazuron is incomplete. Until additional data for Guideline 860.1480 Meat, Milk, Poultry and Eggs study has been submitted, tolerances for ruminant livestock commodities cannot be reassessed. A summary of thidiazuron tolerances are presented in Table 1.

Table 1. Summary of Thidiazuron Tolerance Reassessments Commodity Current Tolerance ( ppm) Tolerance Reassessment1 ( ppm)

Cattle: fat 0.2 TBD Cattle: meat and meat byproducts 0.2 TBD Cotton, undelinted seed 0.4 0.3 Cotton, gin byproduct Not established 24 Cotton, hulls 0.8 Revoked Egg 0.1 Revoked Goat: fat 0.2 TBD Goat: meat and meat byproduct 0.2 TBD Hog: fat 0.2 TBD Hog: meat and meat byproduct 0.2 TBD Horse: fat 0.2 TBD Horse: meat and meat byproduct 0.2 TBD Milk 0.05 TBD Poultry: fat, meat, and meat byproduct 0.2 Revoked Sheep: fat 0.2 TBD Sheep: meat and meat byproduct 0.2 TBD 1 TBD = To Be Determined Page 52 of 59 2.0 TOXICOLOGY DATA REQUIREMENTS The requirements ( 40 CFR 158.340) for food use for thidiazuron are in Table 1. Use of the new guideline numbers does not imply that the new ( 1998) guideline protocols were used.

Test Technical Required Satisfied 870.1100 Acute Oral Toxicity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 870.1200 Acute Dermal Toxicity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 870.1300 Acute Inhalation Toxicity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 870.2400 Primary Eye Irritation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 870.2500 Primary Dermal Irritation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 870.2600 Dermal Sensitization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes 870.3100 Oral Subchronic ( rodent) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 870.3150 Oral Subchronic ( nonrodent) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 870.3200 21 Day Dermal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 870.3250 90 Day Dermal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 870.3465 90 Day Inhalation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . yes yes yes no no yes yes ( a) yes

870.3700a Developmental Toxicity ( rodent) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 870.3700b Developmental Toxicity ( nonrodent) . . . . . . . . . . . . 870.3800 Reproduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . yes yes yes yes yes yes 870.4100a Chronic Toxicity ( rodent) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 870.4100b Chronic Toxicity ( nonrodent) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 870.4200a Oncogenicity ( rat) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 870.4200b Oncogenicity ( mouse) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 870.4300 Chronic/ Oncogenicity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes 870.5100 Mutagenicity   Gene Mutation  bacterial . . . . . . . . 870.5300 Mutagenicity   Gene Mutation  mammalian . . . . . . 870.5xxx Mutagenicity   Structural Chromosomal Aberrations 870.5xxx Mutagenicity   Other Genotoxic Effects . . . . . . . . . . yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes 870.6100a Acute Delayed Neurotox. ( hen) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 870.6100b 90 Day Neurotoxicity ( hen) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 870.6200a Acute Neurotox. Screening Battery ( rat) . . . . . . . . . 870.6200b 90 Day Neuro. Screening Battery ( rat) . . . . . . . . . . . 870.6300 Develop. Neuro . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . no no no no no

870.7485 General Metabolism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 870.7600 Dermal Penetration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . yes yes yes yes Special Studies for Ocular Effects Acute Oral ( rat) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Subchronic Oral ( rat) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Six month Oral ( dog) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . no no no

( a) No subchronic oral study is required at this time because the toxicological data requirements for 90 day feeding study in non rodents ( dog) are satisfied by the 1 year feeding study in dogs. Page 53 of 59 3.0 NON CRITICAL TOXICOLOGY STUDIES 3.1 Non Critical Studies Using Active Ingredient Metabolism  Rat In a metabolism study ( MRID 42529001), groups of male and female Sprague Dawley CD rats were dosed with 14C thidiazuron [( 14C aniline) thidiazuron or ( 14C thiadizaole) thidiazuron ( purity: > 97% a. i.; batch No: 1695 3 and 1695 4)] at a single oral gavage dose ( 10 or 1000 mg/ kg) or 14 day repeated oral doses of thidiazuron at 10 mg/ kg followed by a single oral dose of 14C thidiazuron at 10 mg/ kg. An intravenous dose group was not included in this study.

The results of the pilot study showed that less than 0.2% of administered radioactivity was eliminated as 14CO 2 from administration of either ( 14C aniline) thidiazuron or ( 14C thiadizaole) thidiazuron. In addition, the study showed no significant differences in the percentages eliminated through urine or feces from administration of the two radiolabeled forms.

Absorption of thidiazuron was rapid but incomplete at both doses, and appeared decreased at the high dose relative to the low dose. Elimination of thidiazuron was relatively rapid at the single low oral dose level. The major route of elimination was shown to be via urine. The single low, single high, and multiple low oral dose studies indicate that the total radioactivity recovered within 5 days after dosing in the urine and feces were 91 104% of administered dose. At the low dose, the radioactivity recovered in the urine and feces was 60 66% and 29 31% of the dose over a 5 day period, respectively. At the repeated low oral dose, the radioactivity recovered in the urine and feces was 73 75% and 26 28% of the dose over a 5 day period, respectively. At the high dose, the radioactivity recovered in the urine and feces was 41 47% and 56 60% of the dose over a 5 day period, respectively. Administration of a single high dose resulted in a decreased percentage of thidiazuron derived radioactivity eliminated in urine ( approximately 20%), with concomitant rise in fecal elimination. This alteration is likely due to reduced absorption of test material at the high dose.

Terminal tissue distribution data showed that highest concentrations of thidiazuron derived radioactivity at sacrifice were found in the liver, kidneys, thyroid, whole blood and adrenals at both low and high doses. Repeated oral dosing did not significantly affect distribution of thidiazuron derived radioactivity.

Identification of urinary and fecal metabolites by TLC and HPLC indicated the presence of one oxidative metabolite in urine ( 4 hydroxy thidiazuron, metabolite J) and the presence of sulfate and glucuronide conjugates of 4 hydroxy thidiazuron ( metabolites A/ B, D, and F). However, insufficient evidence was presented to justify the presence of more than one sulfate and one glucuronide conjugate of 4 hydroxy thidiazuron in urine. This deficiency does not render the study inadequate, as the other possible oxidative metabolite( s) as candidates for conjugation represent a minor percentage of metabolized thidiazuron.

In urine, the significant metabolites found at low dose were metabolite F ( males, 36 38% of dose; females, 14 21%), metabolite J ( males, 11%; females, 18 19%), metabolite A/ B ( males, 4%; females, 3 6%), and metabolite D ( males, 5 8%; females, 7 9%). Significant urinary metabolites in rats from the repeated low dose group were metabolites F ( 24 41%), metabolite J ( 12 25%), metabolite A/ B ( 3 4%), and metabolite D ( 7 9%). Percentages of each of metabolites F and J rose slightly in both sexes of rats from repeated low dose administration, indicating a possible mild induction of metabolism. At high dose, the percentage of Page 54 of 59 metabolite F in males and females ( 2% of dose) was smaller than that of metabolite J ( 7 11%).

In feces, the major metabolites identified were 4 hydroxy thidiazuron ( 14 16%) at the low and repeated low dose, and unmetabolized thidiazuron ( 37 44%) at the high dose.

This study is classified as Acceptable/ Guideline and satisfied the guideline data requirement for a metabolism study ( 85 1) in rats.

90 Day Oral Toxicity Study in Mice EXECUTIVE SUMMARY  In a subchronic oral toxicity study ( MRID 46121505), Thidiazuron ( 99.5% a. i., Batch/ Lot #: 107623 03) was administered to 10 C57BL/ 6JICO mice/ sex/ dose in the diet at doses of 0, 500, 1000, 2000, or 4000 ppm ( equivalent to 0/ 0, 85.2/ 99.8, 170.9/ 202.6, or 351.4/ 383.9 mg/ kg/ day [ M/ F]) for up to 90 days.

Urinalysis, hematology, neurological evaluations, and ophthalmoscopic examinations were not performed. There were no treatment related macroscopic findings.

All mice in the 4000 ppm group died or were sacrificed moribund on Days 6 9. In this group, animals exhibited the following clinical signs of toxicity prior to their death or sacrifice: ( i) reduced motor activity, prostration, piloerection, dyspnea, cold to touch, thin appearance, and hunched posture in both sexes; ( ii) staggering step in males; and ( iii) no feces in females. Body weights were decreased by 28 29% ( p<= 0.001) in the two males and three females still alive on Day 8. Food consumption was decreased by 53 62% ( p<= 0.001) in both sexes for Days 1 8.

At 2000 ppm, hunched posture was observed in two males and one female on Day 15, and reduced motor activity was noted in one female on Days 28 29. Body weights were decreased by 4 7% ( p<= 0.05) throughout treatment in the males, except Days 57 and 90, and throughout treatment by 6 17% in the females. Overall ( Days 1 90) body weight gains at this dose were decreased in the males ( decr. 19%; not significant) and females ( decr. 40%; p<= 0.001). Weekly food consumption was decreased throughout treatment in the females ( decr. 7 23%), resulting in decreased average food consumption for the overall ( Days 1 90) study ( decr. 12%; p<= 0.01). Additionally in the 2000 ppm males, alkaline phosphatase was increased by 14% ( p<= 0.05), and albumin was decreased by 9% ( p<= 0.05). At 2000 ppm in both sexes, terminal body weights were decreased by 5 9% ( p<= 0.05), and relative ( to body) liver weights were increased by 10 16% ( p<= 0.01). Slight centrilobular hepatocellular hypertrophy was observed in the 2000 ppm females ( 2/ 10 treated vs 0/ 10 controls).

At >= 1000 ppm in the males, cholesterol was dose dependently decreased by 16 34% ( p<= 0.05) and absolute, relative ( to body), and relative ( to brain) kidney weights were decreased by 9 15% ( p<= 0.01). The organ weight changes in the kidney were considered equivocal because there were no macroscopic or microscopic findings in the kidney. Additionally, slight centrilobular hepatocellular hypertrophy was observed in the >= 1000 ppm males ( 1 9/ 10 treated vs 0/ 10 controls). Increased incidences of slight diffuse acinar hypertrophy were observed in the submaxillary salivary glands of the >= 1000 ppm females ( 4 8/ 10 treated vs 1/ 10 controls).

At 500 ppm, no treatment related effects were found. Page 55 of 59 The LOAEL is 1000 ppm ( equivalent to 170.9/ 202.6 mg/ kg/ day in M/ F) based on decreased cholesterol in the males and on increased incidences of centrilobular hepatocellular hypertrophy in the males and diffuse acinar hypertrophy in the salivary glands in the females. The NOAEL is 500 ppm ( equivalent to 85.2/ 99.8 mg/ kg/ day in M/ F).

This study is classified acceptable/ guideline and satisfies the guideline requirement ( OPPTS 870.3100; OECD 408) for a 90 day oral toxicity study in the mouse.

Subchronic Oral Toxicity Study in Rats EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: In a subchronic oral toxicity study ( MRID 46121506), thidiazuron ( 99.5% a. i., Batch # 107623 03) was administered to 10 Wistar ( RJ: WI[ IOPS HAN]) rats/ sex/ dose in the diet at dose levels of 0, 200, 600, 1800, 5400, or 16,200 ppm ( equivalent to 0/ 0, 11.2/ 14.0, 34.5/ 42.1, 102/ 123, 294/ 325, and [ highest dose not calculated] mg/ kg/ day) for 90 days.

No treatment related effects were observed at 200 or 600 ppm, or on ophthalmology or hematology at any dose.

At >= 1800 ppm in the males, decreased body weights, overall ( Days 1 90) body weight gains, and food consumption were observed. Increased serum alkaline phosphatase was noted. Decreases were noted in absolute epididymides weight and absolute and relative ( to body) prostate gland weight, and small prostate gland and small seminal vesicles were observed. The following alterations in microscopic pathology were noted: ( i) slight to mild diminished secretion of the prostate gland; ( ii) slight to mild diffuse hypertrophy of the zona glomerulosa of the adrenal gland; ( iii) slight to mild vacuolation/ mineralization glomerulopathy of the kidney; ( iv) slight to mild bilateral hyperplasia of the pelvic epithelium of the kidney; ( v) slight to mild mineralized concretions of the renal pelvis; ( vi) slight focal mononuclear cell inflammation of the kidney; ( vii) slight to mild centrilobular hepatocellular hypertrophy; ( viii) slight to mild hyperplasia of germinal centers in the spleen; ( ix) slight to marked diminished secretion of the seminal vesicle; ( x) slight to moderate diffuse atrophy of the mammary gland; and ( xi) slight to mild germinal centers in the medulla of the thymus.

At >= 1800 ppm in the females, the following alterations in microscopic pathology were noted: ( i) slight to mild diffuse hypertrophy of the zona glomerulosa of the adrenal gland; ( ii) slight to mild vacuolation/ mineralization glomerulopathy of the kidney; ( iii) slight centrilobular hepatocellular hypertrophy; ( iv) slight to moderate adipose infiltration of the bone and marrow of the sternum; ( v) slight to mild hypertrophy of the interstitial gland of the ovary; and ( vi) slight to moderate hyperplasia of germinal centers in the spleen.

At >= 1800 ppm, increased urea was observed in both sexes.

At 5400 ppm in the males, the following increases in relative organ weights were observed: ( i) adrenal gland; ( ii) kidney; ( iii) liver; and ( iv) spleen. Relative testes weight was decreased. Additionally, the following alterations in microscopic pathology were observed: ( i) slight focal mononuclear cell inflammation of the epididymis; ( ii) slight focal mineralization of the inner medulla of the kidney; ( iii) slight to mild adipose infiltration of the bone and marrow of the sternum; ( iv) slight focal foamy alveolar macrophages; ( v) slight focal hemorrhage of the lung; ( vi) slight to mild germinal centers of the mesenteric Page 56 of 59 and inguinal lymph nodes; and ( vii) slight unilateral atrophy of the seminiferous epithelium of the testes.

At 5400 ppm in the females, decreased body weights, overall ( Days 1 90) body weight gains, and food consumption were observed. Increased serum alkaline phosphatase and phosphorus were noted. Decreases were noted in absolute and relative adrenal gland and uterus weights. Increases in relative kidney and liver weights were observed, and decreased absolute mesenteric lymph node weight was noted. Small uterus was observed. The following alterations in microscopic pathology were observed: ( i) slight to mild atrophy of the zona reticularis of the adrenal gland; ( ii) slight brown pigment in the zona reticularis of the adrenal gland; ( iii) no cyclical activity of the uterus; ( iv) slight to marked diffuse atrophy of the uterus; ( v) slight to marked diffuse atrophy of the vagina; ( vi) reduced numbers of recent corpora lutea in the ovary; ( vii) slight to mild diffuse atrophy of the mammary gland; ( viii) slight germinal centers of the mesenteric and inguinal lymph nodes; and ( ix) slight to mild atrophy of the trabecular bone.

At 5400 ppm in both sexes, rats exhibited piloerection, appeared thin, and excreted few feces. Increased cholesterol and potassium were observed, and urine volume was increased. At 16,200 ppm, males were observed to have hunched posture, and all animals demonstrated deficits in righting, grasping, corneal, pupillary, head shaking, and auditory startle reflexes. All animals in this dose group were either found dead or were sacrificed moribund by Day 10.

The LOAEL is 1800 ppm ( equivalent to 102/ 123 mg/ kg/ day [ M/ F]), based on decreased body weights, overall ( Days 1 90) body weight gains, and food consumption, increased serum alkaline phosphatase, decreased absolute epididymides and absolute and relative ( to body) prostate gland weight, small prostate and small seminal vesicles, and microscopic findings in the prostate gland, seminal vesicle, mammary gland, and thymus of the males, microscopic findings in the bone and marrow of the sternum and ovary of the females, and increased urea and microscopic findings in the adrenal gland, kidney, liver, and spleen of both sexes. The NOAEL is 600 ppm ( equivalent to 34.5/ 42.1 mg/ kg/ day [ M/ F]).

This study is classified as acceptable/ guideline and satisfies the guideline requirements ( OPPTS 870.3100a; OECD 408) for a subchronic oral toxicity study in the rat.

Bacterial Reverse Gene Mutation Assay EXECUTIVE SUMMARY  In two independent reverse gene mutation assays in bacteria ( MRID 46121508), Salmonella typhimurium strains TA98, TA100, TA1535, and TA1537 and Escherichia coli strain WP2 uvrA/ pKM101 ( CM891) were exposed to Thidiazuron ( 98.7% purity, Batch/ Lot #: CH 107623 02) in dimethylsulfoxide ( DMSO) at concentrations of 0, 5, 15, 50, 150, 500, 1500, or 5000 µ g/ plate ( ± S9, Trial 1), and 0, 1.5, 5, 15, 50, 150, 500, or 1500 µ g/ plate ( ± S9, Trial 2). The standard plate incorporation method was performed in Trial 1 and a pre incubation step was added in Trial 2. Standard strain specific mutagens served as positive controls.

Thidiazuron was tested at up to the limit dose ( 5000  g/ plate) in Trial 1, and up to cytotoxic concentrations ( 1500 µ g/ plate) in Trial 2. Cytotoxicity ( indicated by an incomplete background lawn) was observed in all strains at >= 1500 µ g/ plate in Trial 1 ( plate incorporation test), and in all strains at >= 500 µ g/ plate in Trial 2 ( pre incubation test). No treatment related increases in the number of revertants/ plate were observed in any bacterial strain at any dose level of Thidiazuron in the presence or absence of S9 Page 57 of 59 activation, compared to solvent controls. The positive controls induced the appropriate responses. There was no evidence of induced mutant colonies over background under the conditions of these tests.

The study is classified as acceptable/ guideline and satisfies the guideline requirement ( OPPTS 870.5100; OECD 471) for in vitro mutagenicity ( bacterial reverse gene mutation) data.

In Vitro Chromosomal Aberration Assay in Human Peripheral Blood Lymphocytes EXECUTIVE SUMMARY  In independently performed mammalian cell cytogenetic ( chromosome aberration) assays ( MRID 46121510), lymphocyte cultures prepared from human peripheral blood were exposed to Thidiazuron ( 98.7% a. i., Batch/ Lot #: CH107623 02) in dimethyl sulfoxide for 4 hours at concentrations of 0, 9.4, 18.75, 37.5, 75, 150, 200, or 250 µ g/ mL both in the presence and absence of S9 activation, and for 20 hours at concentrations of 0, 4.7, 9.4, 18.75, 37.5, 75, 150, or 200 µ g/ mL in the absence of S9 activation. Cells were harvested at 20 hours after initiation of treatment.

Thidiazuron was tested up to cytotoxic concentrations ( mitotic suppression; 53 60% at 150 µ g/ mL [ ± S9] at 4 hours of exposure and 51% at 37.5 µ g/ mL [ S9] at 20 hours of exposure). No significant increases in aberration frequency were observed at up to 150 µ g/ mL ( ± S9) after 4 hours of exposure or at up to 37.5 µ g/ mL ( S9) after 20 hours of exposure. The positive controls induced the appropriate response. There was no evidence of chromosome aberration induced over background in the presence or absence of S9 activation at either time point.

This study is classified as acceptable/ guideline and satisfies the guideline requirement ( OPPTS 870.5375, OECD 473) for in vitro cytogenetic mutagenicity ( chromosome aberration) data.

28 Day Dermal Toxicity in Rats EXECUTIVE SUMMARY  In a 28 day dermal toxicity study ( MRID 46261501), Thidiazuron (> 99.9% a. i., Batch #: 107623 03) was moistened with tap water and applied by semi occlusive dressing to the shaved intact skin of 10 HsdCpb: WU rats/ sex/ dose at dose levels of 0, 100, 300, or 1000 mg/ kg bw/ day ( limit dose), 6 hours/ day for 5 days/ week ( males and females received 20 and 21 applications, respectively) during a 29 day period.

No compound related effects were observed in mortality, clinical signs, dermal effects, body weight, body weight gain, food or water consumption, hematology, clinical chemistry, ophthalmology, absolute or relative organ weights, gross or histologic pathology.

The LOAEL was not observed. The NOAEL was 1000 mg/ kg/ day ( HDT) ( limit dose).

This study is classified as acceptable/ guideline and satisfies the Guideline requirement ( OPPTS 870.3200; OECD 410) for a 28 day dermal toxicity study in rats. A LOAEL was not observed; however, the compound was tested at the limit dose. Page 58 of 59 Rat In Vivo Dermal Absorption EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

In a dermal penetration study ( MRID 46261502) Thidiazuron ( 99.9 % a. i., batch # OR 1844 ( SEL/ 1098), [ phenyl U 14C] thidiazuron) was administered to 5 male Sprague Dawley CD rats/ dose to a 12 cm2 area of the back in a formulation and water dilution thereof at dose levels of 5.0, 0.04 and 0.004 mg/ cm2. Exposure durations and percent of dose absorbed are presented in the table below.

Dose Level Mean Percentage of Dose Absorbed 1 hour 4 hours 8 hours 24 hours 24 hours* 72 hours* 120 hours* 5.0 mg/ cm2 0.04 mg/ cm2 0.004 mg/ cm2 0.114 0.214 0.455 0.147 0.406 0.534 0.141 0.388 0.721 0.204 0.754 1.179 0.137 0.634 0.635 0.178 0.660 0.910 0.220 1.252 1.170 * washed at 8 hours The mean total recoveries were in the range 88% and 99.54% dose for all groups. The amount in the stratum corneum was 0.73%, 10.68% and 8.14% at 24 hours for the high, middle and low dose groups respectively after a 24 hours exposure and 0.41%, 3.24% and 5.37% at 120 hours following 8 hours exposure for the high, middle and low dose groups respectively. However, the results showed that the majority of the radioactive material in the stratum corneum was lost by desquamation and upward renewal of the stratum corneum with time.

This study in the rat is acceptable and satisfies the guideline requirement for a dermal penetration study ( 870.7600) in rats.

3.2 Non Critical Mode of Action or Metabolite Studies Not found. Page 59 of 59 4.0 THIDIAZURON OCCUPATIONAL HANDLER RISK ASSESSMENT


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 177 (Wednesday, September 12, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 56200-56201]
[FR Doc No: 2012-22405]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OECA-2011-0275; FRL-9522-3]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to OMB for
Review and Approval; Comment Request; NESHAP for Hydrochloric Acid
Production (Renewal)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
et seq.), this document announces that an Information Collection
Request (ICR) has been forwarded to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) for review and approval. This is a request to renew an existing
approved collection. The ICR which is abstracted below describes the
nature of the collection and the estimated burden and cost.

DATES: Additional comments may be submitted on or before October 12,
2012.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing docket ID number EPA-HQ-
OECA-2011-0275, to: (1) EPA online using www.regulations.gov (our
preferred method), or by email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by mail to:
EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), Environmental Protection Agency,
Enforcement and Compliance Docket and Information Center, mail code
28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460; and (2) OMB
at: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management
and Budget (OMB), Attention: Desk Officer for EPA, 725 17th Street NW.,
Washington, DC 20503.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Learia Williams, Monitoring,
Assistance, and Media Programs Division, Office of Compliance, Mail
Code 2227A, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue
NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA has submitted the following ICR to OMB
for review and approval according to the procedures prescribed in 5 CFR
1320.12. On May 9, 2011 (76 FR 26900), EPA sought comments on this ICR
pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.8(d). EPA received no comments. Any additional
comments on this ICR should be submitted to both EPA and OMB within 30
days of this notice.
    EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under docket ID
number EPA-HQ-OECA-2011-0275, which is available for public viewing
online at http://www.regulations.gov, or in person viewing at the
Enforcement and Compliance Docket in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC),
EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC. The
EPA Docket Center 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 Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number
for the Enforcement and Compliance Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Use EPA's electronic docket and comment system at http://www.regulations.gov, to submit or view public comments, access the
index listing of the contents of the docket, and to access those
documents in the docket that are available electronically. Once in the
system, select ``docket search,'' then key in the docket ID number
identified above. Please note that EPA's policy is that public
comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made
available for public viewing at http://www.regulations.gov, as EPA
receives them and without change, unless the comment contains
copyrighted material, Confidential Business Information (CBI), or other
information whose public disclosure is restricted by statute. For
further information about the electronic docket, go to
www.regulations.gov.
    Title: NESHAP for Hydrochloric Acid Production (Renewal).
    ICR Numbers: EPA ICR Number 2032.07, OMB Control Number 2060-0529.
    ICR Status: This ICR is scheduled to expire on September 30, 2012.
Under OMB regulations, the Agency may continue to conduct or sponsor
the collection of information while this submission is pending at OMB.

    Abstract: The affected entities are subject to the General
Provisions of the NESHAP at 40 CFR part 63, subpart A, and any changes,
or additions to the Provisions specified at 40 CFR part 63, subpart
NNNNN.
    Owners or operators of the affected facilities must submit initial
notification, performance tests, and periodic reports and results.
Owners or operators are also required to maintain records of the
occurrence and duration of any startup, shutdown, or malfunction in the
operation of an affected facility, or any period during which the
monitoring system is inoperative. Reports, at a minimum, are required
semiannually.
    Burden Statement: The annual public reporting and recordkeeping
burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 565
hours per response. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial
resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or
disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This
includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire,
install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of
collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and
maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information;
adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable
instructions and requirements which have subsequently changed; train
personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search
data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and
transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
    Respondents/Affected Entities: Owners or operators of hydrochloric
acid production facilities.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 81.
    Frequency of Response: Initially, occasionally, and semiannually.
    Estimated Total Annual Hour Burden: 105,033.
    Estimated Total Annual Cost: $10,789,637, which includes
$10,086,076 in labor costs, $1,424 in capital/startup costs, and
$702,137 in operation and maintenance (O&M) costs.
    Changes in the Estimates: There is an increase in burden hours to
the respondent as compared to the most recently approved ICR. The
increase is due to industry growth in the past three years, resulting
in additional number of respondents that are subject to this standard,
and corrections to mathematical errors found in the previous ICR. The
growth in respondent universe also results in an increase in the total
O&M costs.
    In addition, there is an increase in burden costs to both the
respondent and the Agency due to an adjustment in labor rates. This ICR
uses the most recent labor rates from the Bureau of Labor Statistics in
calculating the labor costs.
    There is a decrease in capital/startup costs in this ICR as
compared to the most recently approved ICR. The previous ICR includes
startup costs for all existing and new respondents. This ICR was
updated to correctly reflect capital/startup costs associated with new
sources only.

John Moses,
Director, Collection Strategies Division.
[FR Doc. 2012-22405 Filed 9-11-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 149 (Friday, August 2, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 47048-47049]
[FR Doc No: 2013-18537]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Notice of Availability of Final Environmental Impact Statement
(Final EIS)

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration.

ACTION: Notice of availability of Final EIS.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of
1969 (NEPA, 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and Council on Environmental
Quality regulations (40 CFR Part 1500-1508), the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA) is issuing this notice to advise the public that a
Final EIS for proposed improvements to Runway Safety Areas at the
Kodiak Airport has been prepared and is available for public review.
Included in the Final EIS are a Subsistence Evaluation consistent with
Section 810 of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act and
a final evaluation pursuant to Section 4(f) of the Department of
Transportation Act of 1966 (recodified as 49 U.S.C. 303(c)).

ADDRESSES: Copies of the Final EIS may be viewed online or during
regular business hours at the following locations:
    1. Online at www.kodiakairporteis.com.
    2. Federal Aviation Administration, Airports Division, 222 W. 7th
Avenue 14, Anchorage, AK 99513-7587.<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    3. Holmes Johnson Memorial Library, 319 Lower Mill Bay Road,
Kodiak, AK 99615.<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    4. Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities, 4111
Aviation Avenue, Anchorage, AK 99502.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Leslie Grey, Environmental Specialist,
Federal Aviation Administration, Alaskan Region, Airports Division,
address 222 W. 7th Avenue Box 14, Anchorage, AK 99513. Ms.
Grey may be contacted during business hours at<PHONE_NUMBER>
(telephone) and<PHONE_NUMBER> (fax), or by email at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Final EIS discusses proposed
improvements to the Runway Safety Areas for Runway 07/25 and Runway 18/
36, which have the potential to result in significant adverse
environmental impacts. The FAA has identified the following preferred
alternatives to meet the need for improved Runway Safety Areas:
     Improvements to the Runway Safety Area for Runway 07/25:
Alternative 2,

involving placement of fill off Runway end 25 and installation of an
Engineered Material Arresting System (EMAS) bed on the newly
constructed landmass.
     Improvements to the Runway Safety Area for Runway 18/36:
Alternative 7, involving a landmass extension to the south beyond
Runway end 36, shifting the runway to the south, and placing an EMAS
bed to the north beyond Runway end 18.

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq., 40 CFR Part 1500-1508

    Issued in Anchorage, Alaska, on July 23, 2013.
Byron K. Huffman,
Manager, Airports Division, Alaskan Region.
[FR Doc. 2013-18537 Filed 8-1-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 107 (Friday, June 3, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 32245-32246]
[FR Doc No: 2011-13751]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. IC-29684]

Notice of Applications for Deregistration Under Section 8(f) of
the Investment Company Act of 1940

May 27, 2011.
    The following is a notice of applications for deregistration under
section 8(f) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 for the month of May
2011. A copy of each application may be obtained via the Commission's
Web site by searching for the file number, or an applicant using the
Company name box, at http://www.sec.gov/search/search.htm or by calling
(202) 551-8090. An order granting each application will be issued
unless the SEC orders a hearing. Interested persons may request a
hearing on any application by writing to the SEC's Secretary at the
address below and serving the relevant applicant with a copy of the
request, personally or by mail. Hearing requests should be received by
the SEC by 5:30 p.m. on June 21, 2011, and should be accompanied by
proof of service on the applicant, in the form of an affidavit or, for
lawyers, a certificate of service. Hearing requests should state the
nature of the writer's interest, the reason for the request, and the
issues contested. Persons who wish to be notified of a hearing may
request notification by writing to the Secretary, U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
    For Further Information Contact: Diane L. Titus at<PHONE_NUMBER>,
SEC, Division of Investment Management, Office of Investment Company
Regulation, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-8010.

Dreyfus Institutional Money Market Fund, Inc. [File No. 811-3025]

    Summary: Applicant seeks an order declaring that it has ceased to
be an investment company. On August 31, 2009, applicant made a final
liquidating distribution to its shareholders, based on net asset value.
Expenses of $2,700 incurred in connection with the liquidation were
paid by The Dreyfus Corporation, applicant's investment adviser.
    Filing Dates: The application was filed on April 6, 2011, and
amended on May 9, 2011.
    Applicant's Address: c/o The Dreyfus Corporation, 200 Park Ave.,
New York, NY 10166.

Morgan Stanley High Yield Securities Inc. [File No. 811-2932]

    Summary: Applicant seeks an order declaring that it has ceased to
be an investment company. On June 1, 2010, applicant transferred its
assets to Invesco High Yield Securities Fund, a series of AIM
Investment Securities Funds, based on net asset value. Expenses of
approximately $297,718 incurred in connection with the reorganization
were paid by Morgan Stanley Investment Advisors Inc., applicant's
investment adviser, and Invesco Advisers, Inc.
    Filing Dates: The application was filed on March 4, 2011, and
amended on May 5, 2011.
    Applicant's Address: c/o Morgan Stanley Investment Advisors Inc.,
522 Fifth Ave., New York, NY 10036.

Advantage Advisers Augusta Fund, L.L.C. [File No. 811-7641]

    Summary: Applicant, a closed-end investment company, seeks an order
declaring that it has ceased to be an investment company. On March 2,
2011, applicant made a final liquidating distribution to its
shareholders, based on net asset value. Expenses of $113,933 incurred
in connection with the liquidation were paid by applicant.
    Filing Date: The application was filed on May 17, 2011.
    Applicant's Address: c/o Oppenheimer & Co., Inc., 200 Park Ave.,
24th Floor, New York, NY 10116.

Blue Chip Value Fund, Inc. [File No. 811-5003]

    Summary: Applicant, a closed-end investment company, seeks an order
declaring that it has ceased to be an investment company. On March 28,
2011, applicant transferred its assets to Westcore Blue Chip Fund, a
series of Westcore Trust, based on net asset value. Expenses of
$555,705 incurred in connection with the reorganization were paid by
applicant and the acquiring fund.
    Filing Date: The application was filed on April 25, 2011.
    Applicant's Address: 1225 17th St., 26th Floor, Denver, CO 80202.

Lord Abbett Managed Portfolio Solutions Trust [File No. 811-22117]

    Summary: Applicant seeks an order declaring that it has ceased to
be an investment company. Applicant has never made a public offering of
its securities and does not propose to make a public offering or engage
in business of any kind.
    Filing Date: The application was filed on April 29, 2011.
    Applicant's Address: 90 Hudson St., Jersey City, NJ 07302.

BlackRock Senior Floating Rate Fund, Inc. [File No. 811-5870];
BlackRock Senior Floating Rate Fund II, Inc. [File No. 811-9229]

    Summary: Each applicant, a closed-end investment company, seeks an
order declaring that it has ceased to be an investment company. On
March 21, 2011, each applicant transferred its assets to BlackRock
Floating Rate Income Portfolio, a series of BlackRock Funds II, based
on net asset value. Expenses of approximately $270,300 and $232,841,
respectively, incurred in connection with the reorganizations were paid
by each applicant.
    Filing Date: The applications were filed on April 26, 2011.
    Applicants' Address: 100 Bellevue Parkway, Wilmington, DE 19809.

Russell ETF Trust [File No. 811-22401]

    Summary: Applicant seeks an order declaring that it has ceased to
be an investment company. Applicant has never made a public offering of
its securities and does not propose to make a public offering or engage
in business of any kind.
    Filing Dates: The application was filed on April 5, 2011, and
amended on May 25, 2011.
    Applicant's Address: 1301 Second Ave., 18th Floor, Seattle, WA
98101.

Premier VIT [File No. 811-8512]

    Summary: Applicant seeks an order declaring that it has ceased to
be an investment company. On or about April 27, 2010, applicant made a
liquidating distribution to its shareholders, based on net asset value.
Expenses of $81,000 incurred in connection with the liquidation were
paid by applicant and Allianz Global Investors Fund Management LLC,
applicant's investment adviser.
    Filing Date: The application was filed on August 12, 2010, and
amended on May 10, 2011.
    Applicant's Address: 1345 Avenue of the Americas, New York, New
York 10105.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management,
pursuant to delegated authority.
Cathy H. Ahn,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-13751 Filed 6-2-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P