                     FIFRA SCIENTIFIC ADVISORY PANEL (SAP)
                                 OPEN MEETING
                           September 11  -  14, 2012
              FIFRA SAP WEB SITE http://www.epa.gov/scipoly/sap/
                     OPP Docket Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>
                      Docket Number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0543
                     U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
                            Potomac Yard One South
                              2777 Crystal Drive
                              Arlington, VA 22202
                    Pollinator Risk Assessment Framework
                  Please note that all times are approximate
                      (See note at the end of the Agenda)
Tuesday, September 11, 2012
9:00 A.M.	Opening of Meeting and Administrative Procedures  -  Fred Jenkins, Ph.D., Designated Federal Official, Office of Science Coordination and Policy, EPA
9:05 A.M. 	Introduction and Identification of Panel Members FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel Chair,  -  Daniel Schlenk, Ph.D.
9:15 A.M.	Welcome and Opening Remarks  -  Steven Bradbury, Ph.D., Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP), EPA
9:20 A.M.	Goals and Objectives  -  Donald Brady, Ph.D., Environmental Fate and Effects Division (EFED), OPP, EPA
9:35 A.M.	Pesticide Management Regulatory Agency (PMRA) Collaboration  -  Mary Mitchell, PMRA, Health Canada
9:45 A.M	California Department of Pesticide Regulation Collaboration  -  Richard Bireley, California Department of Pesticide Regulation, California Environmental Protection Agency
9:55 A.M.	Introduction, Background and Status  -  Thomas Moriarty, M.S., Pesticide Reevaluation Division, OPP, EPA
10:30 A.M	Break

10:45 A.M.		Conceptual Models and the Proposed Risk Assessment Process  -  Keith Sappington, M.S., EFED, OPP EPA

11:30 A.M.	Exposure Pathways of Pesticides to Honey Bees and their Relative Importance  -  Christina Wendell, M.S., EFED, OPP, EPA

11:45 P.M.	Lunch

12:45 P.M.	Tier I Method for Estimating Exposure of Honey Bees to Pesticides  -  Kristina Garber, M.S., EFED, OPP, EPA

2:00 P.M. 	Tier I Exposure Refinements & Tier II Tools for Assessing Exposure of Bees to Pesticides  -  Reuben Baris, M.S., EFED, OPP, EPA

2:30 P.M.	Break

2:45 P.M.	Methods for Evaluating Toxicity of Pesticides on Bees  -  Joseph Decant, M.S., EFED, OPP, EPA

4:00 P.M.	Risk Characterization  -  Thomas Steeger, Ph.D., EFED, OPP, EPA

4:15 P.M.	Tier I Screening Process Performance  -  Reuben Baris, M.S., EFED, OPP, EPA

4:30 P.M.	Colony-level Simulation Models  -  Keith Sappington, M.S., EFED, OPP, EPA

5:00 P.M.	Adjournment

                                    AGENDA
                     FIFRA SCIENTIFIC ADVISORY PANEL (SAP)
                                 OPEN MEETING
                           September 11  -  14, 2012
              FIFRA SAP WEB SITE http://www.epa.gov/scipoly/sap/
                     OPP Docket Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>
                      Docket Number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0543
                            Potomac Yard One South
                              2777 Crystal Drive
                              Arlington, VA 22202
                         Pollinator Risk Assessment
Wednesday, September 12, 2012
9:00 A.M.	Opening of Meeting and Administrative Procedures  -  Fred Jenkins, Ph.D., Designated Federal Official, Office of Science Coordination and Policy, EPA
9:05 A.M.	Introduction and Identification of Panel Members  -  FIFRA Scientific Advisory Pane Chair, Daniel Schlenk, Ph.D.
9:10 A.M.	Follow-up From Previous Day's Meeting  -  Daniel Schlenk, Ph.D., FIFRA SAP Chair
9:20A.M.	Public Comments
10:30 A.M.	Break
10:45 A.M.	Public Comments Continued
11:45 A.M.	Lunch

12:45 P.M. 	Charge Question 1
Section 2.2.1 of the white paper discusses the protection goals and associated assessment endpoints for assessing risks to honey bees (Apis mellifera).  The protection goals are:
   *                              protection of pollination services;
   *                              protection of honey and hive product production; and,
   *                              protection of pollinator biodiversity.

      As described in the white paper, assessment endpoints are based on their ecological relevance, their susceptibility to known or potential stressors and their relevance to protection goals.
         a. Please comment on whether the assessment endpoints (e.g., population size and stability of managed bees, quantity and quality of hive products, and species richness and abundance) identified in Table 1 in Section 2.2.1 of the white paper are consistent with the Agency's protection goals. Please include a discussion of any additional assessment endpoints that may be necessary to meet those protection goals
         b. Please comment on whether the measurement endpoints at the level of the colony (e.g., colony strength and survival, contamination of pollen and nectar and species richness and abundance) identified in Table 1 are consistent with the assessment endpoints identified in the table and any additional assessment endpoints discussed in Part "a" of this question. Please include a discussion of any additional measurement endpoints that may be necessary to represent those assessment endpoints.
         c. Please comment on whether the measurement endpoints at the level of the individual bee (e.g., individual adult and larval [brood] survival, queen fecundity, brood emergence success, worker longevity) identified in Table 1 are consistent with assessment endpoints identified in the table and any additional assessment endpoints discussed in Part "a" of this question. Please include a discussion of any additional measurement endpoints that may be necessary to represent those assessment endpoints.

1:45 P.M. 	Charge Question 2

Section 2.2 of the white paper discusses a series of conceptual models for assessing risks of honey bees resulting from pesticide applications.  These models depict the nature of the stressor (i.e., nonsystemic and systemic pesticides that are applied as foliar treatments, soil and/or seed treatments, or trunk injection), its source (e.g., direct deposition on bees or pollen), the exposure media (e.g., residues on plants, residues in/on pollen/nectar), receptors (e.g., foraging bees, developing brood) and attribute changes (e.g., reduced [bee] population, reductions in the quantity/quality of honey).
         a. Please comment on whether the conceptual models depicted in Figures 4 through 8 are consistent with the protection goals and assessment endpoints identified in Table 1 and discussed in Question 1.

	.

2:45 P.M.	Break

3:00 P.M.	Charge Question 3

The focus of the white paper and proposed risk assessment process on the honey bee reflects two important factors: 1) honey bees are considered one of the most important pollinators globally from both a commercial and ecological perspective; and 2) standardized test methods for evaluating exposure and effects of chemicals in a regulatory context are more developed with the honey bee compared to non-Apis bees. Both the Introduction (Section 1) and the Problem Formulation sections (Section 2) of the white paper indicate that honey bees have historically served as a surrogate for other beneficial insects.  As discussed in Section 5.3 of the white paper, there is uncertainty regarding the extent to which honey bees serve as surrogates for native species, especially where life history strategies and differential sensitivity across species render native species more or less vulnerable to pesticides.
         a. Please comment on the extent to which the assessment of risks to the honey bee may serve to meet the protection goals identified in the white paper (i.e., protection of pollination services; protection of honey and hive product production; and protection of pollinator biodiversity).
         b. Until guidelines are developed for testing non-Apis species of bees, please comment on the extent to which the honey bee may or may not serve as a reasonable surrogate for non-Apis bees, given the differences in life history strategies and potential different sensitivities to pesticide toxicants. Please include a discussion of which types of non-Apis bees may be particularly well represented by either the individual-level or colony level endpoints identified in Table 1 of the white paper; as well as which types of non-Apis bees may not be as well represented, and therefore, may be the focus of potential areas for future research

3:45 P.M. 	Charge Question 4

      As discussed in Section 3 of the white paper, the magnitude of measured pesticide residues on bees and in plant matrices relevant to the diet of the bee vary considerably.  At a screening level (Tier I), estimates of exposure are intended to be sufficiently conservative to account for the observed variability so that there is a low likelihood that actual exposure would be greater than the values used in the screen.  To accomplish this, the proposed methods described in the white paper use upper-bound estimates that approximate an upper 95[th] percentile confidence limit based on the distribution of measured residue values in relevant matrices.
Contact Exposure. The exposure characterization of the white paper (specifically, Section <IP_ADDRESS>) proposes a screening-level (Tier I) approach for quantifying contact exposure to foraging bees for pesticides applied via foliar spray. This proposed method is based on the maximum of residue values on honey bees from a field study conducted by Koch and Weisser (1997).  The white paper also discusses a method based on the T-REX upper-bound concentration for arthropods directly sprayed with pesticides while located directly on a treated field. Although the second method is not proposed for the Tier I exposure assessment for honey bees, it could be used to assess contact exposures to other insect pollinators.

         a. Please comment on the strengths and limitations of the proposed approach for assessing contact exposures to honey bees in Tier I exposure assessments (i.e., 2.7 μg a.i./bee per 1 lb a.i./A), which is based on the honey bee specific maximum concentration reported by Koch and Weisser (1997).
         b. Please comment on the potential utility of the T-REX upper-bound residue value (i.e., 12 μg a.i./bee per 1 lb a.i./A),  for a broader number of arthropod species to represent contact exposures to honey bees and to other insect pollinators that are directly sprayed with pesticides.

4:30 P.M.	Charge Question 5
Dietary Exposure (Consumption Rates). As discussed in the effects assessment section of the white paper (Section 4.1), acute oral toxicity data (LD50) are necessary for adult and larval bees in order to characterize the potential risks of a pesticide. Because these toxicity data are expressed on a dose basis (i.e., μg a.i./bee), it is necessary to convert estimated concentrations of pesticides in food (expressed as mg a.i./kg) into doses. Honey bees fulfill their nutritional requirements through consumption of nectar, honey, and bee bread (pollen/honey). In addition to requiring bee bread and nectar or honey, bees also require royal jelly and brood food (jelly) to fulfill their nutritional requirements.  In the proposed approach, it is assumed that exposures through consumption of nectar and pollen are conservative representations of potential exposures through consumption of honey and bee bread, respectively. This approach is likely to be conservative because it assumes that pesticides do not degrade while honey and bee bread are stored in the hive and have undergone some degree of processing (e.g., fermentation). For bees that consume honey, it is assumed that the estimated pesticide exposures can be related back to the original concentration in nectar by accounting for the amount of sugar consumed by bees. It is also assumed that pesticide exposures through consumption of pollen and nectar are protective of pesticide through consumption of royal jelly and brood food given that empirical data indicate that pesticide concentrations in royal jelly are a >100 times lower than concentrations in food consumed by nurse bees. In the proposed approach, pesticide doses received by bees are calculated using nectar and pollen consumption rates for larval and adult worker bees. As discussed in detail in Appendix 1 of the white paper, the proposed values for larvae and adult workers are based on an analysis conducted by EPA, which built upon work published by Rortais et al. (2005), Crailshaim et al. (1992 and 1993) and others. For larvae, the proposed total food consumption rate is 120 mg/day, which is based on the total daily consumption of pollen and nectar (based on honey consumption) by larvae during day 5 of the uncapped larval life stage. For adult worker bees, the proposed food consumption rate is 292 mg/day, based on food consumption rates of nectar foraging bees, which are expected to receive the greatest dietary exposures among different types of worker bees. In addition, as discussed in Appendix 1, it is likely that these food consumption rates are protective of drones and queens.

         a. Although bee larvae typically consume processed foods in the form of royal jelly and brood food throughout much of their development, they also consume honey and pollen during the last two days of the uncapped period. Please comment on the proposed use of nectar and pollen consumption rates of larvae during the last day of the larval developmental stage. Please include a discussion of the conservatism, strengths and limitations of this approach as well as a discussion of how this value may or may not correspond to data generated from larval toxicity endpoints.
         b. Please comment on the strengths and limitations of basing the Tier I screen for adult honey bees on food consumption rates of nectar foraging bees, including a discussion of the conservatism of this approach, and how it relates to other types of worker bees and castes.
         c. Please comment on the assumption that exposures through consumption of nectar and pollen are conservative representations of potential exposures through consumption of honey, bee bread, brood food and royal jelly, all of which represent processed foods.

5:30 P.M.	Charge Question 6

Dietary Exposure. The dietary exposure methods described in Section 3.1 of the white paper differ in the nature of the estimated concentrations in pollen and nectar consumed by bees. For foliar spray applications, the proposed approach involves the use of the tall grass residue value from the T-REX model (v. 1.5) as a surrogate for pesticide concentrations in nectar and pollen. For soil treatments, the white paper proposes the use of the Briggs model, which is designed to estimate pesticide concentrations in plant shoots resulting from plant uptake of pesticides from treated soil. Estimated pesticide concentrations in plant shoots are proposed as a surrogate for concentrations in pollen and nectar. For seed treatments, the white paper proposes the use of the International Commission for Plant-Bee Relationships' (ICP-BR) 1 mg a.i./kg concentration as an upper-bound concentration in nectar and pollen. The paper explores the strengths and limitations of each method relative to the ability to derive reasonably conservative estimates of pesticide exposures to bees, with a focus on how well the estimates relate to empirically based measures of pesticides in pollen and nectar from crops treated with pesticides.

         a. Foliar spray: Please comment on the analysis presented in Section <IP_ADDRESS>, with a focus on the extent to which the T-REX tall grass upper-bound residue may serve as an adequate surrogate to represent upper-bound pesticide concentrations in pollen and nectar of flowers that are directly sprayed with pesticides.
         b. Soil applications: Please comment on the analysis presented in Section 3.1.2, with a focus on the extent to which the Briggs' model may generate estimates of pesticide exposure in plant stems that can represent upper bound pesticide concentrations in pollen and nectar of flowers.
         c. Soil applications: Please discuss the relative strengths and limitations of the 1 mg a.i./kg value and the soil uptake model (the Briggs' model) proposed  in the white paper as Tier 1 screens, including consideration of the extent to which this method may generate conservative Tier I estimates of dietary exposures to bees. Does the Panel conclude that the one approach may be better suited to specific types of assessment scenarios?  If so, please elaborate.  Alternatively, if both approaches are equally suited for a Tier I screen, please provide guidance on how to be capture variability and uncertainty in the exposure estimates using the two approaches.
         d. Seed Treatments: Please comment on the analysis presented in Section 3.1.3, including a discussion of the strengths and limitations of the use of 1 mg a.i./kg value as an upper-bound concentration for pollen and nectar of seed-treated crops.
         e. Please comment on other approaches or data that should be considered for estimating upper-bound estimates of pesticide residues in pollen and nectar as a Tier I screening-level assessment for pesticides applied via foliar spray, soil application or seed treatment.

6:30 P.M.	Adjournment

                                    AGENDA
                     FIFRA SCIENTIFIC ADVISORY PANEL (SAP)
                                 OPEN MEETING
                           September 11  -  14, 2012
              FIFRA SAP WEB SITE http://www.epa.gov/scipoly/sap/
                     OPP Docket Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>
                      Docket Number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0543
                            Potomac Yard One South
                              2777 Crystal Drive
                              Arlington, VA 22202
                         Pollinator Risk Assessment
Thursday, September 13, 2012
9:00 A.M.	Opening of Meeting and Administrative Procedures  -  Fred Jenkins, Ph.D., Designated Federal Official, Office of Science Coordination and Policy, EPA
9:05 A.M.	Introduction and Identification of Panel Members -- FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel (SAP) Chair, Daniel Schlenk, Ph.D.
9:10 A.M.	Follow-up From Previous Day's Meeting  -  Daniel Schlenk, Ph.D., FIFRA SAP Chair
9:20 A.M.	Charge Question 7
   Consideration of other Exposure Pathways. The proposed measures of exposure are based on what are believed to be the primary routes, i.e., direct contact and ingestion of contaminated pollen and nectar.  Additional routes of exposure are considered (e.g., dust, drinking water), but not included in the proposed Tier I exposure assessment method. As discussed in Section <IP_ADDRESS> of the white paper, effective quantitative screening methods for estimating exposures through contaminated dust are not discernible at this time. The most effective management of bees exposure to pesticides through dust appears to be through pesticide application (e.g., stickers) and seed planting practices, especially since dust exposure is expected to be a concern for only a limited number of pesticides and application scenarios. In regards to pesticide exposures through drinking water, Appendix 2 presents an analysis of potential exposures to bees through various sources of water to support the exclusion of drinking water exposure in the Tier I screen. The results of this analysis indicate that if bees consume the majority of their water from puddles or ponds, the exposures relative to dietary and direct spray are insignificant.  The preliminary analysis indicates that if bees drink a substantial amount of water from guttation fluid or dew, conservative exposures may be similar to or even exceed pesticide exposures through the diet or direct spray. Further investigation concluded that pesticide exposures through dew and guttation fluid are not expected to be as significant when compared to diet, primarily because they are not likely to consistently drink a substantial amount of water from these sources.
         a. Please comment on the strengths and limitations of basing the Tier I exposure method on contact and diet. Does the Panel agree that for the majority of pesticide applications, the primary exposure routes for bees will be represented by contact and diet?
         b. Dust:  If the Panel believes that this exposure route should be quantitatively included in the Tier I exposure method, for the relevant application type(s) (i.e., seed treatment), please discuss the data that may be needed to address the exposure route quantitatively.
         c. Drinking Water: Please comment on the analyses, discussions provided in Appendix 2 of the white paper and the conclusion that pesticide exposure to bees through drinking contaminated water is not expected to be a major route of exposure when compared to contact (following foliar spray applications) and diet.  If the Panel believes that this exposure route should be quantitatively included in the Tier I exposure method, for the relevant application type(s) (i.e., foliar spray, soil treatment, seed treatment, or trunk spray), please discuss why and what data may be needed to address the exposure route quantitatively.
         d. Other Routes: Please identify and discuss additional exposure routes (if there are any besides contact with dust and consumption of drinking water) that would contribute significantly to pesticide exposure of bees and explain how and why such exposures could be considered quantitatively in establishing the Tier I exposure value.

10:10 A.M. 	Break

10:25 A.M.	Charge Question 8
      Tier I Effects Assessments.  As discussed in the Problem Formulation (Section 2.2.1), the assessment endpoints for the ecological risk assessment of bees involve maintaining honey bee population size, stability of managed bees, quality and quantity of hive products, species richness and abundance. In order to use the results of toxicity studies quantitatively in risk assessment, it is important to identify specific endpoints which will be measured in toxicity tests as these measurement endpoints must have clear linkages to assessment endpoints.  As indicated in Table 1 of Section 2.2.1, at the individual bee level (which is the focus of the Tier I assessment), measurement endpoints relevant to these assessment endpoints include: individual survival, adult bee longevity, brood size, brood success, and queen fecundity. The acute and chronic toxicity tests with larvae and adults can be used to quantify effects of pesticides on all of these endpoints, with the exception of queen fecundity (which would require an egg laying study involving the queen). The focus of the chronic toxicity tests with larvae and adults is on mortality that may occur during the tests. Potential impacts of a pesticide on brood size and success can be assessed by determining whether there is decrease in the number of brood (i.e., larvae) following a chronic exposure of larvae to that pesticide. Potential impacts of a pesticide on adult survival and longevity can be assessed by determining the mortality and the decrease in the life spans of adult bees following chronic exposures to the pesticide. The notable limitation to the proposed chronic toxicity endpoints is that they do not include measures of queen fecundity.
         a. Please comment on the extent to which currently available bee toxicity tests, which focus primarily on mortality/survival, serve as an effective Tier 1 screen.
         b. Please comment on additional measurement endpoints (e.g., growth) which should be considered in future modifications of Tier 1 test protocols and which are appropriately linked to the proposed assessment endpoints. Given that the queen is the reproductive unit of the colony, please comment on methods to evaluate effects on individual queens, considering practical limitations of testing with queens.

11:25 A.M.	Charge Question 9

Tier 1 Larval Toxicity Testing.  Section 4.1 of the white paper discusses new data requirements for the screening-level effects assessment and recommends obtaining and using larval toxicity data on individual bees.  The paper specifically identifies the assay initially proposed by Aupinel et al. (2007) as one methodology for quantifying acute oral larval toxicity in the Tier I screen.  These assays rely on feeding bees a sugar solution which has been spiked with the test material; however, this in vitro method of feeding larvae differs from the process by which the larvae would typically be fed within the colony environment, i.e. by nurse bees secreting either brood food or royal jelly.

         a. Please comment on the extent to which the Aupinel et al. (2007) in-vitro method serves as an appropriately conservative estimate of Tier 1 acute oral exposure of honey bee larvae to pesticides, given differences in this test design from actual in-hive exposure conditions (e.g., during the first 3 days of the larval development stage larvae consume royal jelly and brood food) and the uncertainty regarding the extent to which larvae rely exclusively on pollen/nectar as opposed to royal jelly/brood food.
         b. Please comment on the extent to which pesticides would be more or less bioavailable using the synthetic matrix relied on for feeding developing bees in this in vitro method.

12:00 P.M.	Lunch

1:00 P.M.	Charge Question 9 (Cont'd)
         c. Please comment on the extent to which the absence of trophallaxis (i.e., the transfer of food/fluids between colony members) may render larvae more or less vulnerable to pesticides.
         d. Please comment on alternative methods for testing individual larvae that may be appropriate for quantitative use in a Tier I screening-level assessment.
         e. Typically acute toxicity tests are concluded between 48  -  96 hrs.  Please comment on the appropriate duration of toxicity tests for assessing acute toxicity to individual larval and adult bees.

1:30 P.M.	Charge Question 10
Tier 1 Chronic Toxicity Testing Bees.  Section 4.1.2 of the white paper discusses the status of chronic toxicity tests with individual adult and larval bees.  At this time, no formal guidelines have been developed for conducting chronic toxicity tests with either adult or larval bees, although studies with individual bees of various ages are routinely reported in open literature.
         a. Please comment on the conclusion that adequate procedures have not been sufficiently developed and validated for assessing chronic toxicity to individual bees in a risk assessment context.
         b. Please comment on the potential use of the 10-d adult worker and 7-day in vitro larval toxicity tests discussed in the white paper for assessing chronic toxicity once these methods are fully vetted.
         c. Although 10-day adult and 7-day larval toxicity tests have been proposed, please comment on whether alternative durations of pesticide exposure may be more appropriate for determining chronic toxicity for adult and larval bees at a Tier I screen.

2:00 P.M. 	Break

2:15 P.M.	Charge Question 10 (Cont'd)
         d. The white paper identifies NOAEC as the chronic toxicity measurement endpoint.  Please comment on the possible use of ECx values as a measure of chronic toxicity for use in RQ calculations.
         e. Please provide comments on what percent effect would be considered a relevant measure of chronic toxicity for individual bees given the potential compensatory effects which honeybee colonies may exhibit relative to the effects of pesticides.
         f. Although the white paper identifies some measurement endpoints for assessing chronic toxicity to individual bees (e.g., survival), please comment on other endpoints to consider in chronic toxicity studies which the Panel believes are important and the associated study design elements.
         g. Section 4.1.3 of the white paper discusses the uncertainties associated with developing risk assessments based on studies of sublethal effects when sufficient linkages have not been developed to understand how the sublethal endpoints may be quantitatively related to typical assessment endpoints (i.e., growth, impaired survival, and reproduction) at the whole colony level. Please comment on the proposal to use data on sublethal endpoints to qualitatively (i.e., no Risk Quotient is derived) characterize effects and risk until sufficient linkages between these endpoints and the defined assessment endpoints have been developed (e.g., Adverse Outcome Pathways).

3:15 P.M.	Charge Question 11
Tier II Semi-field Effects Assessments (Whole Colony).  For Tier II assessments, Section 4.2 of the white paper identifies two types of test methods that may be used to assess colony-level effects, i.e.,  semi-field tunnel tests [OECD 75; EPPO 170]; and semi-field feeding studies.  These studies are intended to help characterize risks identified in the Tier I level assessment that are based on exposures and toxicity data for individual bees and quantified using Risk Quotients.
         a. Although colonies are typically confined to enclosures for Tier II studies and these enclosures can limit the environmental realism of the study conditions, tunnel studies provide an opportunity to collect colony-level effects and potentially exposure information.  Please comment on the relative strengths (e.g., foraging activity by adult worker bees is limited to treated crop; trophyllaxis enabled) and limitations (e.g., limited study duration, smaller colony sizes, reduced forage area) of these methods.
         b. Please comment on any other types of colony-level studies that should be considered as part of Tier II.
         c. Please comment on the most important endpoints that should be measured in the Tier II studies (e.g., adult forage bee mortality, brood development, queen fecundity, overall colony strength) that are linked to assessment endpoints and their associated protection goals.
         d. Section 4.2.2 of the white paper discusses a full-field feeding design.  This methodology is discussed under Tier II assessments since the colony is relatively confined to foraging on either spiked sucrose solutions or spikes pollen.  The intent of this methodology is to ensure that colonies are exposed to known residue levels over longer durations than the semi-field tunnel study designs.  A limitation to the study is that bees may simply store spiked food rather than consume it and that the reliance on a single source of food may introduce confounding effects (e.g., nutritional deficits) into the study.  Please comment on the environmental realism and utility of full-field feeding studies as a line of evidence in characterizing risk to honey bee colonies.
         e. As discussed in Section 4.3.4 of the white paper, it is important to consider the biological significance of a measured effect in addition to its statistical significance.  Please comment on the nature and magnitude of effects that would be sufficient to conclude biologically significant effects on the colony and/or the need to transition to Tier III assessments.

4:15 P.M.	Charge Question 12
Tier III Effects Assessments.  Section 4.3 of the white paper discusses the proposed risk assessment process in Tier III that relies on assessing effects at the colony level where colonies are not confined (i.e., full field) and exposure is intended to represent environmentally realistic conditions. As discussed in the white paper, interpretation of the biological significance of colony-level effects can be challenging, regardless of their statistical significance.  Conversely, high variability in field studies can limit the statistical power of the study to detect treatment effects.  The paper identifies uncertainties associated with the extent to which bees forage on the treated crop, the size of treatment site, controlling for alternative forage/pesticide use area, and ensuring suitable controls; these factors combine to render these studies highly resource intensive.
         a. Please comment on the strengths and limitations of full field studies described in the white paper.
         b. Please comment on the proposed modifications to the field study design elements presented in Section 4.3.2 of the white paper.
         c. Please comment on factors that should be considered in evaluating the biological significance of effects measured in full-field studies in relation to the proposed assessment endpoints and related protection goals.
         d. Please comment on factors and methods that should be considered when extrapolating observed effects at the colony level in semi-field and field studies to those expected to occur in the environment (e.g., spatial and temporal scale of exposure, hive management practices, presence of multiple chemical and non-chemical stressors, etc).
         e. A number of study design elements are discussed in Section 4.3.5 of the white paper; however, even in the best designed studies, there can be confounding effects which can limit the utility of these studies in risk assessment.  Please comment on factors that should be considered in determining the utility of field studies for pesticide risk assessment, including a discussion of the representativeness of a study for a National Level assessment (i.e., the pesticide may be used anywhere in the United States and its territories).

5:30 P.M.	Adjournment

                                    AGENDA
                     FIFRA SCIENTIFIC ADVISORY PANEL (SAP)
                                 OPEN MEETING
                           September 11  -  14, 2012
              FIFRA SAP WEB SITE http://www.epa.gov/scipoly/sap/
                     OPP Docket Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>
                      Docket Number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0543
                            Potomac Yard One South
                              2777 Crystal Drive
                              Arlington, VA 22202
Friday, September 14, 2012
9:00 A.M.	Opening of Meeting and Administrative Procedures  -  Fred Jenkins, Ph.D., Designated Federal Official, Office of Science Coordination and Policy, EPA
9:05 A.M.	Introduction and Identification of Panel Members  -  FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel Chair, Daniel Schlenk, Ph.D.
9:10 A.M.	Follow-up From Previous Day's Meeting  -  Daniel Schlenk, Ph.D., FIFRA SAP Chair
9:20 A.M.	Charge Question 13
Risk Estimation.  Sections 2 (Proposed Risk Assessment Process) and 5 (Risk Characterization) of the white paper indicate that the proposed risk assessment process is intended to be tiered and iterative.  As part of the Tier I screen, a number of iterations can be conducted on exposure estimates that allow the risk quotient (RQ) values to be further refined and potentially pass the screen without requiring higher tier effects testing at the semi- or full-field level.  However, while the proposed Tier I process for bees is quantitative and results in an RQ value which can in turn be compared to a Level of Concern (LOC), higher tier refinements are used to qualitatively (i.e., no RQ derivation) determine whether whole hives will be adversely affected from the use of a pesticide based on the initial screening-level assessment.
         a. Please comment on the use of data on individual bees to transition to higher tier studies given that the Tier I studies focus on survival as the primary measurement endpoint although additional endpoints may be forthcoming as test designs continue to develop.
         b. Please comment on the derivation of the Level of Concern, i.e., LOC=0.4) and the extent to which is serves as an appropriate screen to transition to higher tiers of testing/refinement.
         c. Please comment of the quantitative aspect of the screening-level (Tier I) assessment and the use of Tier II and Tier III whole hive studies to qualitatively characterize risk.
         d. Please comment on the assumption that the effects on individual bees measured in laboratory studies must be considered in the context of whole colony studies conducted under semi-field and full-field conditions.
         e. Please comment on the proposed use of a weight-of-evidence approach based on information obtained from multiple tiers of risk assessment for characterizing pesticide risks to honey bees.
         f. Please comment on to how best to characterize overall uncertainty or weigh different areas of uncertainty in risk characterization.
         g. Please comment on how to focus/prioritize uncertainties when designing and interpreting Tier II and Tier III studies.

10:30 A.M.	Charge Question 14

    Colony-level Modeling.  As part of the proposed risk assessment process, Section 5.4 of the white paper discusses the concept of using colony-level models as a means of integrating exposure and effects information generated from the multiple risk assessment tiers and in turn linking this information quantitatively to the proposed assessment endpoints.  Conceptually, such models could inform the need for transitioning from lower tiers to higher tiers in the risk assessment process.  They could also be considered in identifying critical design elements of higher tier studies (e.g., semi-filed or full field studies).
         a. Please comment on the concept of using colony-level ecological models to inform the proposed risk assessment process for honey bees, as indicated above.
         b. Please comment on the state of the science regarding available honey bee models discussed in Section 5.4.2 of the white paper in relation to their potential application in a regulatory risk assessment context.  In particular, please comment on the extent that such models have been evaluated using empirical data related to honey bee population dynamics and the availability of such data for their parameterization.
         c. Please comment on the most important elements that should be considered in reviewing available honey bee colony ecological models for potential application in risk assessments.

12:00 P.M.	Adjournment

Please be advised that agenda times are approximate; when the discussion for one topic is completed, discussions for the next topic will begin. For further information, please contact the Designated Federal Official for this meeting, Dr. Fred Jenkins, via telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; or email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>


[Federal Register: March 14, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 51)]
[Notices]
[Page 13881]
[DOCID:fr14mr08-54]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings 1

March 7, 2008.
    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural
Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:
    Docket Numbers: RP05-157-010.
    Applicants: Saltville Gas Storage Company L.L.C.
    Description: Saltville Gas Storage Company LLC submits Original
Sheet 21 to FERC Gas Tariff, Original Volume 1, reflecting an effective
date of April 1, 2008.
    Filed Date: 02/28/2008.
    Accession Number: 20080304-0035
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, March 12, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: RP08-260-000.
    Applicants: Northern Natural Gas Company.
    Description: Northern Natural Gas Company submits 49 Revised Sheet
66 et al to FERC Gas Tariff, Fifth Revised Volume 1 to a non-conforming
and negotiated rate service agreement with PPM Energy, Inc, to become
effective April 6, 2008.
    Filed Date: 03/06/2008.
    Accession Number: 20080307-0001.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, March 18, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: RP08-261-000.
    Applicants: Energy West Development, Inc.
    Description: Energy West Development, Inc submits Second Revised
Sheet 3 et al to FERC Gas Tariff, Original Volume 1, to become
effective April 1, 2008.
    Filed Date: 02/29/2008.
    Accession Number: 20080306-0240.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, March 12, 2008.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and
385.214) on or before 5 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment
date. It is not necessary to separately intervene again in a subdocket
related to a compliance filing if you have previously intervened in the
same docket. Protests will be considered by the Commission in
determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to
make protestants parties to the proceeding. Anyone filing a motion to
intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the
Applicant. In reference to filings initiating a new proceeding,
interventions or protests submitted on or before the comment deadline
need not be served on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://
www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First St., NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above proceedings are accessible in the
Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the
above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link
on the web site that enables subscribers to receive email notification
when a document is added to a subscribed dockets(s). For assistance
with any FERC Online service, please email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-5153 Filed 3-13-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


Desmedipham (104801)

Screening Level Usage Analysis (SLUA)

Date: August 17, 2010

What is a Screening Level Usage Analysis (SLUA)?

Available estimates of pesticide usage data for a particular active
ingredient that is used on agricultural crops in the United States.

Pesticide usage data obtained from various sources.  The data are then
merged, averaged, and rounded so that the presented information is not
proprietary, business confidential, or trade secret.

What does it contain?

Pesticide usage data for a single active ingredient only.

Agricultural use sites (crops) that the pesticide is reported to be used
on.

Available pesticide usage information from U.S. states that produce 80%
or more of a crop, in most cases, or less than 80%, in rare cases,
depending on the scope of the survey and available resources.

Annual percent of crop treated (average & maximum) for each agricultural
crop.

Average annual pounds of the pesticide applied for each agricultural
crop (i.e., for the states surveyed, not for the entire United States).

What assumptions can I make about the reported data?

Average pounds of active ingredient applied - Values are calculated by
merging pesticide usage data sources together; averaging across all
observations, then rounding.  Note:  If the estimated value is less than
500, then that value is labeled <500.  Estimated values between 500 &
<1,000,000 are rounded to 1 significant digit.  Estimated values of
1,000,000 or greater are rounded to 2 significant digits.)

Average percent of crop treated - Values are calculated by merging data
sources together; averaging by year, averaging across all years, &
rounding to the nearest multiple of 5.  Note:  If the estimated value is
less than 2.5, then the value is labeled <2.5.  If the estimated value
is less than 1, then the value is labeled <1.

Maximum percent of crop treated - Value is the single maximum value
reported across all data sources, across all years, & rounded up to the
nearest multiple of 5.  Note:  If the estimated value is less than 2.5,
then the value is labeled <2.5.

What are the data sources used?

USDA-NASS (United States Department of Agriculture’s National
Agricultural Statistics Service) – pesticide usage data from 2001 to
2008.

Private pesticide market research – pesticide usage data from 2001 to
2008.

NPUD 2002 (National Pesticide Use Database) pesticide usage data from
the CropLife America Foundation are used only if data are not available
from the other sources.

What are the limitations to the data?

Additional registered uses may exist but are not included because the
available surveys do not report usage (e.g., small acreage crops).

Lack of reported usage data for the pesticide on a crop does not imply
zero usage.

Usage data on a particular site may be noted in data sources, but not
quantified.  In these instances, the site would not be reported in the
SLUA.

Non-agricultural use sites (e.g., turf, post-harvest, mosquito control,
etc.) are not reported in the SLUA.  A separate request must be made to
receive these estimates.

Some sites show some use, even though they are not on the label.  This
usage could be due to various factors, including, but not limited to
Section 18 requests, existing stocks of the chemical, data collection
errors, and experimental use permits (EUPs).

August 17, 2010

Screening Level Estimates of Agricultural Uses of Desmedipham (104801)

Sorted Alphabetically

	Percent Crop Ttd.

				Crop	Lbs. A.I.	Avg.	Max.

1	Sugar Beets	200,000	90	95

All numbers rounded.

<500	Less than 500 pounds of active ingredient

<2.5	Less than 2.5 percent of crop treated

<1	Less than 1 percent of crop treated

N/C	Not Calculated

*	CA data only (95% or more of U.S. acres in California)

**	California data only. No information available about use of this
chemical on this crop in other states

+	Crops not known to be listed on active end use product registrations
or as Section 18 emergency

exemptions when this report was run

SLUA data sources include:

USDA-NASS (United States Department of Agriculture's National
Agricultural Statistics Service)

Private Pesticide Market Research

NPUD 2002 (National Pesticide Use Database) of the CropLife America
Foundation

California DPR (Department of Pesticide Regulation)

These results reflect amalgamated data developed by the Agency and are
releasable to the public.


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 181 (Wednesday, September 20, 2017)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 43926]
[FR Doc No: 2017-19934]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R07-OAR-2017-0477; FRL-9967-94-Region 7]

Approval of Nebraska Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Infrastructure SIP Requirements for the 2010 Nitrogen Dioxide and
Sulfur Dioxide and the 2012 Fine Particulate Matter National Ambient
Air Quality Standards

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve elements of a State Implementation Plan (SIP) submission from
the State of Nebraska addressing the applicable requirements of Clean
Air Act (CAA) section 110 for the 2010 Nitrogen Dioxide
(NO2) and Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) National Ambient
Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), and the 2012 Fine Particulate Matter
(PM2.5) NAAQS, which requires that each state adopt and
submit a SIP to support implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of
each new or revised NAAQS promulgated by EPA. These SIPs are commonly
referred to as ``infrastructure'' SIPs. The infrastructure requirements
are designed to ensure that the structural components of each state's
air quality management program are adequate to meet the state's
responsibilities under the CAA. EPA is proposing approval of the
infrastructure submissions as meeting the applicable requirements of
CAA section 110, for all three submittals. EPA is proposing to approve
elements of the 2010 NO2 and SO2 infrastructure
SIP submissions from the State of Nebraska received on February 7,
2013, and August 22, 2013, respectively. EPA is also proposing to
approve the 2012 PM2.5 infrastructure submittal received on
February 22, 2016. In the ``Rules and Regulations'' section of this
Federal Register, we are approving the state's SIP revisions as a
direct final rule without a prior proposed rule. If we receive no
adverse comment, we will not take further action on this proposed rule.

DATES: Comments must be received by October 20, 2017.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R07-
OAR-2017-0477, to https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot
be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any
comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any
information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a
written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment
and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA
will generally not consider comments or comment contents located
outside of the primary submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or other
file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA
public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions,
and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit https://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Gregory Crable, Environmental
Protection Agency, Air Planning and Development Branch, 11201 Renner
Boulevard, Lenexa, Kansas 66219 at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by email at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This document proposes to take action on the
2010 NO2 and SO2 NAAQS and the 2012
PM2.5 NAAQS Infrastructure SIP submittals. We have published
a direct final rule approving the State's SIP revision (s) in the
``Rules and Regulations'' section of this Federal Register, because we
view this as a noncontroversial action and anticipate no relevant
adverse comment. We have explained our reasons for this action in the
preamble to the direct final rule. If we receive no adverse comment, we
will not take further action on this proposed rule. If we receive
adverse comment, we will withdraw the direct final rule and it will not
take effect. We would address all public comments in any subsequent
final rule based on this proposed rule. We do not intend to institute a
second comment period on this action. Any parties interested in
commenting must do so at this time. For further information, please see
the information provided in the ADDRESSES section of this document.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen
dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: September 8, 2017.
Cathy Stepp,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 7.
[FR Doc. 2017-19934 Filed 9-19-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: August 21, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 163)]
[Notices]
[Page 49536-49537]
[DOCID:fr21au08-109]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

Petition for Waiver of Compliance

    In accordance with Part 211 of Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR), notice is hereby given that the Federal Railroad Administration
(FRA) received a request for a waiver of compliance with certain
requirements of its safety standards. The individual petition is
described below, including the party seeking relief, the regulatory
provisions involved, the nature of the relief being requested, and the
petitioner's arguments in favor of relief.

Town of Ipswich, Massachusetts

[Waiver Petition Docket Number FRA-2008-0093]

    The Town of Ipswich, Massachusetts (Town) seeks a permanent waiver
of compliance from certain provisions of FRA's regulations on the Use
of Locomotive Horns at Highway-Rail Grade Crossings, 49 CFR Part 222.
The Town intends to establish a Pre-Rule Quiet Zone to formalize
existing restrictions on routine sounding of the locomotive horn that
were previously continued under the provisions of 49 CFR 222.41(c)(1).
The Town is seeking a waiver to extend the filing date for a Detailed
Plan, as provided in 49 CFR 222.41(c)(2)(i)(B), which indicates that
the Detailed Plan must be filed with FRA by June 24, 2008. The waiver
petition requests that the Detailed Plan filed by the Town on July 28,
2008 be accepted as a valid Detailed Plan even though it was filed
after June 24, 2008.
    Initially, the Town of Ipswich submitted a Detailed Plan dated June
23, 2008, which was not received by FRA until June 30, 2008. The
original Detailed Plan stated that the Town intended to reassess the
risk index for the Topsfield Road grade crossing after March 2009, 5
years after an accident that occurred at the Topsfield Road location,
to determine if additional safety improvements at this grade crossing
would be required. FRA rejected this Detailed Plan because it was not
received by the agency until June 30, 2008, and it did not include a
detailed explanation of, and timetable for, the safety improvements
that would be implemented as required by 49 CFR 222.41(c)(2)(i)(B). The
Town, after discussion with representatives of FRA and the
Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA), resubmitted the
Detailed Plan on July 28, 2008, outlining the intended supplemental
safety measures for the Topsfield Road grade crossing.
    The Town seeks the waiver in order to continue the restrictions on
routine sounding of locomotive horns at the grade crossings identified
in its Detailed Plan until June 24, 2010.
    The Town of Ipswich, the public authority, is filing this waiver
request without the support of the MBTA, which is the railroad
providing service over the five grade crossings identified in the
Detailed Plan. However, the petition contains an explanation of the
steps that the Town has taken to reach an agreement with the MBTA, in
accordance with 49 CFR 222.15(b). As stated in the petition, the Town
has made a written request to the MBTA to support its waiver request
and the Detailed Plan. The Town also conducted a meeting of its Board
of Selectmen on August 1, 2008, where an MBTA official in attendance
stated that it is the policy of the MBTA to neither support nor oppose
requests by municipalities to maintain quiet zones or obtain waivers
from FRA regulations.
    The Town has also asserted in its waiver petition that the joint
submission requirement contained in 49 CFR 222.15(a) would not be
likely to contribute significantly to public safety in this instance,
based on its plans to install a four-quadrant gate system with enhanced
electronic monitoring at the Topsfield Road crossing, where an accident
occurred in March 2004.
    Interested parties are invited to participate in these proceedings
by submitting written views, data, or comments. FRA does not anticipate
scheduling a public hearing in connection with these proceedings since
the facts do not appear to warrant a hearing. If any interested party
desires an opportunity for oral comment, they should notify FRA, in
writing, before the end of the comment period and specify the basis for
their request.
    All communications concerning these proceedings should identify the
appropriate docket number (e.g., Waiver Petition Docket Number FRA-
2008-0093) and may be submitted by any of the following methods:
     Web site: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Docket Operations Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., W12-140, Washington, DC
20590.
     Hand Delivery: 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Room W12-140,
Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal Holidays.
    Communications received within 20 days of the date of this notice
will be considered by FRA before final action is taken. Comments
received after that date will be considered as far as practicable. All
written communications concerning these proceedings are available for
examination during regular business hours (9 a.m.-5 p.m.) at the above
facility. All documents in the public docket are also available for
inspection and copying on the Internet at the docket facility's Web
site at: http://www.regulations.gov.
    Anyone is able to search the electronic form of any written
communications and comments

received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf
of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's
complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on
April 11, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 70; Pages 19477-78).

    Issued in Washington, DC on August 18, 2008.
Grady C. Cothen, Jr.,
Deputy Associate Administrator for Safety Standards and Program
Development.
[FR Doc. E8-19434 Filed 8-20-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-06-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 149 (Wednesday, August 3, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 51097-51100]
[FR Doc No: 2016-18174]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2016-3983; Directorate Identifier 2015-NM-009-AD;
Amendment 39-18582; AD 2016-14-01]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule; correction.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is correcting an airworthiness directive (AD) that
published in the Federal Register. That AD applies to certain Airbus
Model A330-200 Freighter series airplanes; Model A330-200 and A330-300
series airplanes; Model A340-200 and A340-300 series airplanes; Model
A340-500 series airplanes; and Model A340-600 series airplanes. Table 1
to paragraph (j) of the regulatory text contains typographical errors
regarding certain part numbers (P/Ns). This document corrects those
errors. In all other respects, the original document remains the same.

DATES: This final rule is effective August 16, 2016.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of August 16,
2016 (81 FR 44983, July 12, 2016).

ADDRESSES: For Airbus service information identified in this final
rule, contact Airbus SAS, Airworthiness Office--EAL, 1 Rond Point
Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36
96; fax +33 5 61 93 45 80; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Internet http://www.airbus.com.
    For Hamilton Sundstrand service information identified in this
final rule, contact Hamilton Sundstrand, Technical Publications, Mail
Stop 302-9, 4747 Harrison Avenue, P.O. Box 7002, Rockford, IL 61125-
7002; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet http://www.hamiltonsundstrand.com.
    You may view this 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 425-
227-1221. It is also available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-
3983.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov; or in person at the Docket Management Facility
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation,
any comments received, and other information. The address for the
Docket Office (phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>) is Docket Management Facility, U.S.
Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building
Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC
20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Vladimir Ulyanov, 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: Airworthiness Directive 2016-14-01,
Amendment 39-18582 (81 FR 44983, July 12, 2016) (``AD 2016-14-01''),
currently requires identification of the manufacturer, part number, and
serial number of the ram air turbine (RAT), and re-identification and
modification of the RAT if necessary, for certain Airbus Model A330-200
Freighter series airplanes; Model A330-200 and A330-300 series
airplanes; Model A340-200 and A340-300 series airplanes; Model A340-500
series airplanes; and Model A340-600 series airplanes.

Need for the Correction

    As published, table 1 to paragraph (j) of the regulatory text
contains typographical errors in two part numbers. Table 1 to paragraph
(j) of the AD incorrectly refers to RAT P/Ns 1720934C and 1720934D.
Those part numbers should have been 1702934C and 1702934D.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    Airbus has issued the following service information, which
describes procedures for identifying the supplier, part number, and
serial number of the

installed RAT actuator; modifying the RAT; and re-identifying the RAT
actuator and RAT.
     Service Bulletin A330-29-3126, dated June 12, 2014.
     Service Bulletin A340-29-4097, dated June 12, 2014.
     Service Bulletin A340-29-5025, dated June 16, 2014.
    Hamilton Sundstrand has issued Service Bulletins ERPS06M-29-21,
Revision 1, dated April 14, 2015; and ERPS33T-29-7, dated June 6, 2014.
This service information describes procedures for identifying the
affected RAT actuator and RAT part numbers and serial numbers,
modifying affected actuators, and re-identifying affected RAT actuators
and RATs.
    This service information is reasonably available because the
interested parties have access to it through their normal course of
business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

Correction of Publication

    This document corrects an error and correctly adds the AD as an
amendment to 14 CFR 39.13. Although no other part of the preamble or
regulatory information has been corrected, we are publishing the entire
rule in the Federal Register.
    The effective date of this AD remains August 16, 2016.
    Since this action only corrects typographical errors, it has no
adverse economic impact and imposes no additional burden on any person.
Therefore, we have determined that notice and public procedures are
unnecessary.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Correction

    Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the Federal Aviation Administration amends part 39 of
the Federal Aviation Regulations (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  [Corrected]

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

2016-14-01 Airbus: Amendment 39-18582; Docket No. FAA-2016-3983;
Directorate Identifier 2015-NM-009-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This AD becomes effective on August 16, 2016.

(b) Affected ADs

    This AD affects the ADs specified in paragraphs (b)(1), (b)(2),
and (b)(3) of this AD.
    (1) AD 2012-21-19, Amendment 39-17235 (77 FR 65812, October 31,
2012) (``AD 2012-21-19'').
    (2) AD 2012-21-20, Amendment 39-17236 (77 FR 65799, October 31,
2012) (``AD 2012-21-20'').
    (3) AD 2016-04-01, Amendment 39-18395 (81 FR 8134, February 18,
2016) (``AD 2016-04-01'').

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to the airplanes identified in paragraphs (c)(1)
through (c)(7) of this AD, certificated in any category.
    (1) Airbus Model A330-223F and -243F airplanes, all manufacturer
serial numbers; except those on which Airbus Modification 204067 has
been embodied in production.
    (2) Airbus Model A330-201, -202, -203, -223, and -243 airplanes,
all manufacturer serial numbers; except those on which Airbus
Modification 204067 has been embodied in production.
    (3) Airbus Model A330-301, -302, -303, -321, -322, -323, -341, -
342, and -343 airplanes, all manufacturer serial numbers; except
those on which Airbus Modification 204067 has been embodied in
production.
    (4) Airbus Model A340-211, -212, and -213, airplanes, all
manufacturer serial numbers.
    (5) Airbus Model A340-311, -312, and -313 airplanes, all
manufacturer serial numbers.
    (6) Airbus Model A340-541 airplanes, all manufacturer serial
numbers.
    (7) Airbus Model A340-642 airplanes, all manufacturer serial
numbers.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 29, Hydraulic
Power.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by a report indicating that, during an
operational test of a ram air turbine (RAT), the RAT did not deploy
in automatic mode. We are issuing this AD to prevent non-deployment
of the RAT, which, if preceded by a total engine flame-out, or
during a total loss of normal electrical power generation, could
result in reduced control of the airplane.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Identification and Replacement for Certain Airbus Model A330, and
A340-200 and -300 Airplanes

    For Airbus Model A330-200 Freighter series airplanes, Model
A330-200 and -300 series airplanes, and Model A340-200 and -300
series airplanes: Within 30 months after the effective date of this
AD, identify the supplier, part number, and serial number of the
installed RAT actuator, in accordance with the Accomplishment
Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A330-29-3126, dated June 12,
2014; or Airbus Service Bulletin A340-29-4097, dated June 12, 2014;
as applicable.
    (1) If the supplier identified is Arkwin Industries, and the
identified RAT actuator part number and serial number are listed in
Hamilton Sundstrand Service Bulletin ERPS06M-29-21, Revision 1,
dated April 14, 2015, and the serial number is included in table 2
of Hamilton Sundstrand Service Bulletin ERPS06M-29-21, Revision 1,
dated April 14, 2015, with a description of ``correctly shimmed'':
Within 30 months after the effective date of this AD, re-identify
the actuator and the RAT, in accordance with the Accomplishment
Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A330-29-3126, dated June 12,
2014; or Airbus Service Bulletin A340-29-4097, dated June 12, 2014;
as applicable.
    (2) If the supplier identified is Arkwin Industries, and the
identified actuator RAT part number and serial number are listed in
Hamilton Sundstrand Service Bulletin ERPS06M-29-21, Revision 1,
dated April 14, 2015, and the serial number is included in table 2
of Hamilton Sundstrand Service Bulletin ERPS06M-29-21, Revision 1,
dated April 14, 2015, with a description of ``incorrectly shimmed'':
Within 30 months after the effective date of this AD, remove the
actuator from the RAT, install a modified actuator, and re-identify
the RAT, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of
Airbus Service Bulletin A330-29-3126, dated June 12, 2014; or Airbus
Service Bulletin A340-29-4097, dated June 12, 2014; as applicable.
    (3) If the supplier identified is Arkwin Industries, and the
identification plate for the RAT actuator is missing, or the part
number and serial number are not listed in Hamilton Sundstrand
Service Bulletin ERPS06M-29-21, Revision 1, dated April 14, 2015:
Within 30 months after the effective date of this AD, remove the
actuator from the RAT, install a modified actuator, and re-identify
the RAT, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of
Airbus Service Bulletin A330-29-3126, dated June 12, 2014; or Airbus
Service Bulletin A340-29-4097, dated June 12, 2014; as applicable.

(h) Identification and Replacement for Certain Airbus Model A340-500
and -600 Airplanes

    For Airbus Model A340-500 and -600 airplanes: Within 30 months
after the effective date of this AD, identify the part number and
serial number of the installed RAT actuator, in accordance with the
Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A340-29-5025,
dated June 16, 2014.
    (1) If the identified RAT actuator part number and serial number
are listed in Hamilton Sundstrand Service Bulletin ERPS33T-29-7,
dated June 6, 2014, and the serial number is included in table 2 of
Hamilton Sundstrand Service Bulletin ERPS33T-29-7, dated June 6,
2014, with a description of ``correctly shimmed'': Within 30 months
after the effective date of this AD, re-identify the actuator and
the RAT, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of
Airbus Service Bulletin A340-29-5025, dated June 16, 2014.

    (2) If the identified RAT actuator part number and serial number
are listed in Hamilton Sundstrand Service Bulletin ERPS33T-29-7,
dated June 6, 2014, and the serial number is included in table 2 of
Hamilton Sundstrand Service Bulletin ERPS33T-29-7, dated June 6,
2014, with a description of ``incorrectly shimmed'': Within 30
months after the effective date of this AD, remove the actuator from
the RAT, install a modified actuator, and re-identify the RAT, in
accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service
Bulletin A340-29-5025, dated June 16, 2014.
    (3) If the identification plate for the RAT actuator is missing,
or the part number and serial number are not listed in Hamilton
Sundstrand Service Bulletin ERPS33T-29-7, dated June 6, 2014: Within
30 months after the effective date of this AD, remove the actuator
from the RAT, install a modified actuator, and re-identify the RAT,
in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service
Bulletin A340-29-5025, dated June 16, 2014.

(i) Terminating Action for Certain Requirements of Other ADs

    (1) For Airbus Model A330-200 Freighter, A330-200, and A330-300
series airplanes; and Model A340-200 and -300 series airplanes:
Accomplishment of the actions required by paragraph (g)(1), (g)(2),
or (g)(3) of this AD constitutes compliance with the requirements of
paragraph (g)(1) of AD 2012-21-19, paragraph (g) of AD 2012-21-20,
and paragraphs (g), (h), and (i) of AD 2016-04-01, for that airplane
only.
    (2) For Airbus Model A340-500 and -600 series airplanes:
Accomplishment of the actions required by paragraphs (h)(1), (h)(2),
and (h)(3) of this AD constitutes compliance with the requirements
of paragraphs (h)(1) and (h)(2) of AD 2012-21-20, and paragraph (j)
of 2016-04-01, for that airplane only.

(j) Parts Installation Limitations

    As of the effective date of this AD, no person may install any
RAT actuator or any RAT having a part number identified in table 1
to paragraph (j) of this AD on any airplane, unless it meets the
conditions specified in paragraph (j)(1) or (j)(2) of this AD, as
applicable.

                           Table 1 to Paragraph (j) of This AD--Affected Part Numbers
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
     Affected Airbus airplane models                RAT part No.                    RAT actuator part No.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Model A330-200 and -300 series airplanes  1702934C, 1702934D, 766351A,      5912958, 5915768
                                           768084A, 770379A, 770952C,
                                           770952D, 770952E.
Model A330-200 Freighter series           1702934C, 1702934D, 766351A,      5912958, 5915768
 airplanes.                                768084A, 770379A, 770952C,
                                           770952D, 770952E.
Model A340-200 and -300 series airplanes  1702934C, 1702934D, 766351A,      5912958, 5915768
                                           768084A, 770379A, 770952C,
                                           770952D, 770952E.
Model A340-500 and -600 series airplanes  772722H, 772722J, 772722L.......  5912536, 5915769
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (1) For Airbus Model A330-200 Freighter series airplanes; Model
A330-200, and A330-300 series airplanes; and Model A340-200 and -300
series airplanes: The RAT actuator or RAT has a serial number listed
as affected and modified in Hamilton Sundstrand Service Bulletin
ERPS06M-29-21, Revision 1, dated April 14, 2015, and the RAT has
been re-identified in accordance with the Accomplishment
Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A330-29-3126, dated June 12,
2014; or Airbus Service Bulletin A340-29-4097, dated June 12, 2014.
    (2) For Airbus Model A340-500 and -600 series airplanes: The RAT
actuator or the RAT has a serial number listed as affected and
modified in Hamilton Sundstrand Service Bulletin ERPS33T-29-7, dated
June 6, 2014, and the RAT has been re-identified in accordance with
the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A340-29-
5025, dated June 16, 2014.

(k) Credit for Previous Actions

    (1) This paragraph provides credit for the RAT and RAT actuator
identification specified in paragraphs (g)(1), (g)(2), and (g)(3) of
this AD if that identification was performed before the effective
date of this AD using Hamilton Sundstrand Service Bulletin ERPS06M-
29-21, dated May 27, 2014, which is not incorporated by reference in
this AD.
    (2) This paragraph provides credit for the RAT or RAT actuator
identification and modification specified in paragraph (j)(1) of
this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date
of this AD using Hamilton Sundstrand Service Bulletin ERPS06M-29-21,
dated May 27, 2014, which is 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: Vladimir
Ulyanov, 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) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD
to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer, the action must be
accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, International
Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or the
European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA); or Airbus's EASA Design
Organization Approval (DOA). If approved by the DOA, the approval
must include the DOA-authorized signature.
    (3) Required for Compliance (RC): If any Airbus service
information contains procedures or tests that are identified as RC,
those procedures and tests must be done to comply with this AD; any
procedures or tests that are not identified as RC are recommended.
Those procedures and tests that are not identified as RC may be
deviated from using accepted methods in accordance with the
operator's maintenance or inspection program without obtaining
approval of an AMOC, provided the procedures and tests identified as
RC can be done and the airplane can be put back in an airworthy
condition. Any substitutions or changes to procedures or tests
identified as RC require approval of an AMOC.

(m) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information
(MCAI) EASA Airworthiness Directive 2015-0008, dated January 15,
2015, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD
docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching
for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-3983.
    (2) Service information identified in this AD that is not
incorporated by reference is available at the addresses specified in
paragraphs (n)(4) and (n)(5) 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.
    (3) The following service information was approved for IBR on
August 16, 2016 (81 FR 44983, July 12, 2016).

    (i) Airbus Service Bulletin A330-29-3126, dated June 12, 2014.
    (ii) Airbus Service Bulletin A340-29-4097, dated June 12, 2014.
    (iii) Airbus Service Bulletin A340-29-5025, dated June 16, 2014.
    (iv) Hamilton Sundstrand Service Bulletin ERPS06M-29-21,
Revision 1, dated April 14, 2015.
    (v) Hamilton Sundstrand Service Bulletin ERPS33T-29-7, dated
June 6, 2014.
    (4) For Airbus service information identified in this AD,
contact Airbus SAS, Airworthiness Office--EAL, 1 Rond Point Maurice
Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96;
fax +33 5 61 93 45 80; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Internet http://www.airbus.com.
    (5) For Hamilton Sundstrand service information identified in
this AD, contact Hamilton Sundstrand, Technical Publications, Mail
Stop 302-9, 4747 Harrison Avenue, P.O. Box 7002, Rockford, IL 61125-
7002; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet http://www.hamiltonsundstrand.com.
    (6) You may view this 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
425-227-1221.
    (7) 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 July 25, 2016.
Victor Wicklund,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.

[FR Doc. 2016-18174 Filed 8-2-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 150 (Monday, August 7, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 36688]
[FR Doc No: 2017-16506]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket No. USCG-2017-0679]

Safety Zone; North Atlantic Ocean, Ocean City, NJ

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of enforcement of regulation.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard will enforce the North Atlantic Ocean, Ocean
City, NJ, safety zone from 9:00 p.m. through 11:59 p.m. on October 10,
2017. This action is necessary to ensure safety of life on the
navigable waters of the United States immediately prior to, during, and
immediately after a fireworks display event. During the enforcement
period, and in accordance with the safety zone, no vessel or person may
enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the regulated area
unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Delaware Bay or a
designated representative.

DATES: The regulations in 33 CFR 165.506 will be enforced from 9:00
p.m. to 11:59 p.m. on October 10, 2017, for the safety zone listed as
(a.)11 in the Table to Sec.  165.506.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions about this
notice of enforcement, you may call or email MST2 Amanda Boone, Sector
Delaware Bay Waterways Management Division, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone
215-271-4889, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Coast Guard will enforce the safety zone
at 33 CFR 165.506, Table to Sec.  165.506, (a.)11 for the regulated
area located on the North Atlantic Ocean near Ocean City, NJ, from 9:00
p.m. to 11:59 p.m. on October 10, 2017. This action is necessary to
ensure safety of life on U.S. navigable waterways during a fireworks
display.
    Coast Guard regulations for recurring fireworks displays within
Captain of the Port Delaware Bay Zone appear in Sec.  165.506, Safety
Zones; Fireworks Displays in the Fifth Coast Guard District, which
specifies the location for this regulated area as all waters of the
North Atlantic Ocean within a 500 yard radius of the fireworks barge in
approximate location latitude 39[deg]16'22'' N., longitude
074[deg]33'54'' W., in the vicinity of the shoreline at Ocean City, NJ.
    As specified in Sec.  [thinsp]165.506, during the enforcement
period, no vessel or person may enter, transit through, anchor in, or
remain within the regulated area unless authorized by the Captain of
the Port Delaware Bay or a designated representative. If permission is
granted, all persons and vessels shall comply with the instructions of
the COTP, designated representative or Patrol Commander.
    This notice of enforcement is issued under authority of 33 CFR
165.506 and 33 U.S.C. 1233. The Coast Guard will provide the maritime
community with advanced notice of enforcement of regulation by
Broadcast Notice to Mariners (BNM), Local Notice to Mariners and on-
scene notice by a designated representative.
    In the event the Captain of the Port, Delaware Bay determines that
it's not necessary to enforce the regulated area for the entire
duration of the enforcement period, a BNM will be issued to authorize
general permission to enter the regulated area.

    Dated: August 1, 2017.
Scott E. Anderson,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Delaware Bay.
[FR Doc. 2017-16506 Filed 8-4-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register: October 19, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 202)]
[Notices]
[Page 59299-59300]
[DOCID:fr19oc07-70]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

[Docket No. USCG-2007-0006]

Commercial Fishing Industry Vessel Safety Advisory Committee

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The Commercial Fishing Industry Vessel Safety Advisory
Committee (CFIVSAC) will meet in Seattle, WA, to discuss various issues
relating to commercial vessel safety in the fishing industry. The
meetings are open to the public.

DATES: CFIVSAC will meet on November 13 and 14, 2007, from 8 a.m. to 5
p.m. The meetings may close early if all business is finished. Requests
to make oral presentations should reach the Coast Guard on or before
October 12, 2007. Written material for distribution at the meeting
should reach the Coast Guard on or before November 7, 2007. Requests to
have a copy of your material distributed to each member of the
committee should reach the Coast Guard on or before October 30, 2007.
Send written material with 25 copies and requests to make oral
presentations to Lieutenant Commander Kenneth Vazquez, Commandant (CG-
543-3), U.S. Coast Guard Headquarters, 2100 Second Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20593-0001. This notice is available on the Internet at
http://www.regulations.gov.

ADDRESSES: CFIVSAC will meet in the Court Room on the 5th Floor (Room
514), at the Jackson Federal Building, 915 Second Avenue, Seattle,
Washington 98174.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lieutenant Commander Kenneth Vazquez,
Assistant to the Executive Director, by telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>, fax
202-372-1918, e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Information about the CFIVSAC up to date
meeting information and a listing of the past meeting minutes is
available through the following World Wide Web address (i.e., Uniform
Resource Locator or URL): http://www.FishSafe.info (``Advisory Committee'') or http://homeport.uscg.mil/mycg/portal/ep/

channelView.do?channelId=-
18425&channelPage=%2Fep%2Fchannel%2Fdefault.jsp&pageTypeId=13489&BV.
    CFIVSAC will meet to discuss various issues relating to commercial
vessel safety in the fishing industry. The meetings are open to the
public. Notice of the meetings is given under the Federal Advisory
Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (Pub. L. 92-463).

Agenda of Meeting

    The agenda includes the following:
    (1) Approval of last meeting's minutes.
    (2) Update on past recommendations.
    (3) Status report on the NPRM.
    (4) WPI project.
    (5) Meeting of communication subcommittee.
    (6) Meeting of risk management subcommittee.
    (7) Status of Legislative proposals: The House and Senate fishing
vessel safety related proposals discussed in their versions of the
Coast Guard authorization bills; Pending final bills outcomes.
    (8) Discussions and working group sessions by the committees on
long term strategies and future plans.

Procedural

    The meetings are open to the public. Please note the meetings may
close early if all business is finished. At the Chair's discretion,
members of the public may make presentations during the meeting. If you
would like to make an oral presentation at the meeting, please notify
the Executive Director no later than October 12, 2007. Written material
for distribution at the meeting should reach the Coast Guard no later
than November 7, 2007. If you would like a copy of your material
distributed to each member of the committee in advance of the meeting,
please submit 25 copies to the Executive Director no later than October
30, 2007.

Information on Services for Individuals With Disabilities

    For information on facilities or services for individuals with
disabilities or to request special assistance at the meeting, contact
the Executive Director as soon as possible but no later than November
5, 2007.

    Dated: October 15, 2007.
J.G. Lantz,
Director of Commercial Regulations and Standards, Assistant Commandant
for Marine Safety, Security, and Stewardship.
 [FR Doc. E7-20660 Filed 10-18-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-15-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 20 (Tuesday, January 31, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 6295-6296]
[FR Doc No: 2023-01893]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4676-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2022-0001]

Illinois; Amendment No. 1 to Notice of a Major Disaster
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of Illinois (FEMA-4676-DR), dated October 14, 2022, and
related determinations.

DATES: This change occurred on December 21, 2022.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dean Webster, Office of Response and
Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW,
Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) hereby gives notice that pursuant to the authority vested in the
Administrator, under Executive Order 12148, as amended, Darryl L.
Dragoo, of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer
for this disaster.
    This action terminates the appointment of Waddy Gonzalez as Federal
Coordinating Officer for this disaster.

    The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers
(CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030,
Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis
Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster
Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance
Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and
Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049,
Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing
Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially
Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other
Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially
Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

Deanne Criswell,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2023-01893 Filed 1-30-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P