Comment Info: =================

General Comment:I am writing as an individual consumer to request an extension of the comment period for the Food and Drug Administration's ("FDA") Proposed Rule Deeming Tobacco Products to be Subject to the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, as amended by the Family Smoking and Prevention and Tobacco Control Act (the "Proposed Rule") published at 79 Fed. Reg. 23,142 and Federal Register No. 2014-09491. On behalf of myself, I am requesting that the comment period for the Proposed Rule be extended by the FDA for an additional 105 days, from its current 75-day period, to 180 days.

The Proposed Rule raises a number of issues and questions that are important to me as a consumer of products. The Proposed Rule asks a hundred questions, I have spent a lot of time researching these questions, but it takes times to provide all the answers. It took the FDA took  years to come up with the Proposed Rule, so I don't think it is unreasonable to allow the public six months to comment on it. This is our only opportunity, as consumers, to provide our feedback.

I feel very strongly about e-cigarettes as an alternative to combustible cigarettes. I firmly believe that they saved my life, and turned me away from the normal cigarettes. I want to give you my story, and tell you what I have learned about e-cigarettes. Before I even decided to start, I did in depth research, weighing all the pros and cons, and learning  even more on the matter of e-cigarettes after I started the "habit". I realize that the FDA has the authority under 21 CFR 10.40 to extend this time frame and that the FDA has exercised this authority on numerous occasions in the past. I would therefore ask that you do so here, so that all stakeholders have the opportunity to provide their comments on this proposed regulation.

I appreciate your consideration of my request and am happy to discuss this issue with you further.


US Environmental Protection Agency

Methyl Bromide Critical Use Exemption

Office of Pesticide Programs

911 Bay, BEAD

1921 Jefferson Davis Highway

Arlington, VA  22202

July 3, 2005

Re:  Methyl Bromide CUE Request for California Peppers

To Whom It May Concern:

The California Pepper Commission (CPC) is again submitting a CUE
application.  The request is for 1,000 acres, which is only 5% of a
20,000 acre industry in the state of California.  This is about 60%
reduction from previous application requests due to implementation of
alternatives and extending periods between applications.

The affected California pepper industry is not large.  Research is
expensive and the CPC must allocate funds that benefit the majority of
its membership, not just the few that must rely on methyl bromide;
therefore, the burden of learning to use methyl bromide alternatives has
been placed on a few members who rely on their own experimentation.  It
is also difficult to justify expensive, multi-year studies when there is
little confidence that CUE requests will be granted or given the same
consideration as some of the larger consortia, as historical evidence
suggests.

Growers have altered use by no longer applying methyl bromide on an
annual basis, and have even stretched applications to every three years.
 What we have learned is that about 1,000 acres of peppers, primarily on
coastal land, can not farm the land without a buildup of soilborne
pathogen inoculum and without experiencing an increased problem with
nightshade and nutsedge; metam sodium can suppress these problems in for
two or three years, but a methyl bromide application is required to
clean up the pest populations every two or three years in order to
maintain production.  This is illustrated in CDPR’s Pesticide Use
Reports where a 90% decrease in methyl bromide use occurred between 1999
and 2002 but, in 2003, the use reverted to the 2001 levels because
growers saw they were in trouble and had to clean their fields.

Growers have less land to lease because of urbanization and the land
available is becoming more marginal for production.  Because of the
expense to prepare a field for production, especially with irrigation,
growers cannot be nomadic farmers and change fields every year.  We are
fighting simply to maintain.

Please give this application every consideration.  Call me if there are
questions.  We do not believe we are getting as much consideration as
the larger commodity groups because we do not have the money or the
lobbying efforts to be taken seriously.

Sincerely,

Glen A. Fischer

Commissioner/Chairman

California Pepper Commission


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 245 (Monday, December 22, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 76409-76410]
[FR Doc No: 2014-29811]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Proposed Collection; Comment Request

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

Extension:
    Rule 35d-1.
OMB Control No. 3235-0548, SEC File No. 270-491.

    Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995

(44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
``Commission'') is soliciting comments on the collection of information
summarized below. The Commission plans to submit this existing
collection of information to the Office of Management and Budget
(``OMB'') for extension and approval.
    Rule 35d-1 (17 CFR 270.35d-1) under the Investment Company Act of
1940 (15 U.S.C. 80a-1 et seq.) defines as ``materially deceptive and
misleading'' for purposes of Section 35(d), among other things, a name
suggesting that a registered investment company or series thereof (a
``fund'') focuses its investments in a particular type of investment or
investments, in investments in a particular industry or group of
industries, or in investments in a particular country or geographic
region, unless, among other things, the fund adopts a certain
investment policy. Rule 35d-1 further requires either that the
investment policy is fundamental or that the fund has adopted a policy
to provide its shareholders with at least 60 days prior notice of any
change in the investment policy (``notice to shareholders''). The
rule's notice to shareholders provision is intended to ensure that when
shareholders purchase shares in a fund based, at least in part, on its
name, and with the expectation that it will follow the investment
policy suggested by that name, they will have sufficient time to decide
whether to redeem their shares in the event that the fund decides to
pursue a different investment policy.
    The Commission estimates that there are approximately 11,400 open-
end and closed-end funds that have names that are covered by the rule.
The Commission estimates that of these 11,400 funds, approximately 32
will provide prior notice to shareholders pursuant to a policy adopted
in accordance with this rule per year. The Commission estimates that
the annual burden associated with the notice to shareholders
requirement of the rule is 20 hours per response, for annual total of
640 hours per year.
    Estimates of average burden hours are made solely for the purposes
of the Paperwork Reduction Act and are not derived from a comprehensive
or even representative survey or study of the costs of Commission rules
and forms. The collection of information under rule 35d-1 is mandatory.
The information provided under rule 35d-1 will not be kept
confidential. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not
required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays
a currently valid OMB control number.
    Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of
the functions of the agency, including whether the information will
have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of
the burden of the collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the
quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (d)
ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on
respondents, including through the use of automated collection
techniques or other forms of information technology. Consideration will
be given to comments and suggestions submitted in writing within 60
days of this publication.
    Please direct your written comments to Pamela Dyson, Acting
Director/Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission,
C/O Remi Pavlik-Simon, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549; or send
an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Dated: December 16, 2014.
Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-29811 Filed 12-19-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: December 31, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 249)]
[Notices]
[Page 74373-74375]
[DOCID:fr31de07-97]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-57021; File No. SR-ISE-2007-116]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; International Securities Exchange,
LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule
Change To Open the Exchange's Equity Trading Platform at 9 a.m.

December 20 2007.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on December 14, 2007, the International Securities Exchange, LLC
(``Exchange'' or ``ISE'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in
Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been substantially
prepared by the Exchange. The Exchange has designated this proposal as
non-controversial under Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \3\ and
Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder,\4\ which renders the proposed rule change
effective upon filing with the Commission. The Commission is publishing
this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from
interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance
of the Proposed Rule Change

    The Exchange proposes to amend its rules to allow the Exchange to
open the ISE Stock Exchange at 9 a.m. without regard to whether the
primary market in a particular security is open and to make other
associated changes to its rules. The text of the proposed rule change
is available at ISE's principal office, the Commission's Public
Reference Room, and http://www.ise.com.

II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements
concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in
Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such
statements.

A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to establish a Pre-Market Session for the
trading of equity securities. The proposed Pre-Market Session will
start at 9:00 a.m. and conclude when a security is opened for trading
according to the existing procedures contained in ISE Rule 2106. Under
Rule 2106, the Exchange currently opens securities for trading on the
ISE Stock Exchange following the

first trade on the primary market for New York Stock Exchange
(``NYSE'') and American Stock Exchange (``Amex'') listed securities,
and following the first reported national best bid and offer (``NBBO'')
for Nasdaq and NYSE Arca listed securities. Generally, this means that
the ISE Stock Exchange opens Nasdaq and NYSE Arca securities at 9:30
a.m. and opens NYSE and Amex securities after the first trade in a
security, which occurs at or after 9:30 a.m. The proposed Pre-Market
Session would not change the way in which the ISE Stock Exchange
currently opens its regular trading session.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The Exchange will continue to accept orders for the
regulatory trading session beginning at 7 a.m., and will continue to
perform the current midpoint opening transaction for such orders
received prior to the opening. When the primary market is either the
NYSE or the Amex, the opening trade will continue to be executed at
the midpoint of the first reported NBBO subsequent to a reported
trade on the primary market after 9:30 a.m. When the primary market
is Nasdaq or NYSE Arca, the opening trade will continue to be
executed at the midpoint of the first reported NBBO after 9:30 a.m.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to add a Pre-Opening Order to accommodate
trading in the Pre-Market Session. A Pre-Opening Order is an order that
is eligible for execution during Pre-Market Session trading. Unexecuted
Pre-Opening Orders will become Day Orders upon commencement of the
Regular Market Session. Equity EAMs that submit orders to the Pre-
Market Session on behalf of non-members will be required to disclose
the risks of participating in the Pre-Market Session to their
customers, including the risk of: (1) lower liquidity; \6\ (2) higher
volatility; \7\ (3) changing prices; \8\ (4) unlinked markets; \9\ (5)
news announcements; \10\ (6) wider spreads,\11\ and (7) lack of
calculation or dissemination of underlying index value or intra-day
indicative value (``IIV'').\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ There may be lower liquidity in Pre-Market hours trading as
compared to regular market hours. As a result, an order may only be
partially executed, or not at all.
    \7\ There may be greater volatility in Pre-Market hours trading
than in regular market hours. As a result, an order may only be
partially executed, or not at all, or the price received may be an
inferior price in Pre-Market hours trading compared to what would
have been received during regular markets hours.
    \8\ The prices of securities traded during Pre-Market hours may
not reflect the prices either at the end of regular market hours, or
upon the opening of the next morning. As a result, an order may
receive an inferior price in Pre-Market hours trading compared to
what would have been received during regular markets hours.
    \9\ The prices displayed on a particular Pre-Market hours system
may not reflect the prices in other concurrently operating Pre-
Market hours trading systems dealing in the same securities.
Accordingly, an order may receive an inferior price in one Pre-
Market hours trading system compared to the price the order would
have received in another Pre-Market hours trading system.
    \10\ In Pre-Market hours trading, news announcements may occur
during trading, and if combined with lower liquidity and higher
volatility, may cause an exaggerated and unsustainable effect on the
price of a security.
    \11\ Lower liquidity and higher volatility in Pre-Market hours
trading may result in wider than normal spreads for a particular
security.
    \12\ Since the underlying index value and/or IIV of a derivative
security may not be calculated or widely disseminated during the
Pre-Market hours, an investor who is unable to calculate implied
values for such products during Pre-Market hours may be at a
disadvantage to market professionals.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under the proposal, the Pre-Market Session would operate the same
as in the regular trading session, except that there would be no
intermarket price protection for executions in the Pre-Market Session
until 9:30 a.m. Because trading that occurs in the Pre-Market Session
after 9:30 a.m. and until the security is opened in the regular market
session will be subject to the requirements of Regulation NMS, starting
at 9:30 a.m. the Pre-Market Session will protect incoming Pre-Opening
Orders from trading through Protected Quotations \13\ on other markets.
Similarly, Regulation NMS will prohibit other markets from trading
through ISE's quotes starting at 9:30 a.m. To accommodate the needs of
these other markets to comply with Regulation NMS, we will execute
incoming orders marked as intermarket sweep orders and orders marked as
immediate-or-cancel in the Pre-Market Session starting at 9:30 a.m.
even though they may not be marked as Pre-Opening Orders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See ISE Rule 2100(c)(16).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the basis under the Act for this
proposed rule change is found in Section 6(b)(5),\14\ in that the
proposed rule change is designed to promote just and equitable
principles of trade, remove impediments to and perfect the mechanisms
of a free and open market and a national market system, and, in
general, to protect investors and the public interest. The Exchange
believes that the proposal will provide an opportunity for investors to
begin trading equity securities before the primary market opens with
proper disclosure of the risks involved in doing so.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change does not impose
any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed
Rule Change Received From Members, Participants or Others

    The Exchange has not solicited, and does not intend to solicit,
comments on this proposed rule change. The Exchange has not received
any unsolicited written comments from members or other interested
parties.

III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for
Commission Action

    The Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \15\ and subparagraph (f)(6) of Rule 19b-4
thereunder.\16\ Because the foregoing proposed rule change: (i) Does
not significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (ii) does not impose any significant burden on competition;
and (iii) does not become operative for 30 days from the date on which
it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, if
consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest,
the proposed rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A) of the Act and Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) thereunder.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \16\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \17\ Rule 19b-4(f)(6) also requires the Exchange to give the
Commission written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule
change, along with a brief description and text of the proposed rule
change, at least five business days prior to the date of filing of
the proposed rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the
Commission. The Exchange has satisfied the five-day pre-filing
requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission may summarily abrogate such rule change if it
appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate
in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of
the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml
); or

     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File No. SR-ISE-2007-116 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-1090.

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-ISE-2007-116. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml
). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all

written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and
copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10
a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-ISE-2007-116 and should be
submitted on or before January 22, 2008.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-25356 Filed 12-28-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 26 (Tuesday, February 9, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 6814]
[FR Doc No: 2016-02419]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2015-0784, FRL-9940-18-Region 9]

Revisions to the California State Implementation Plan, Santa
Barbara County Air Pollution Control District; Permit Program

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve revisions to the Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control
District (SBCAPCD or District) portion of the California State
Implementation Plan (SIP). These revisions concern administrative and
procedural requirements to obtain preconstruction permits which
regulate emission sources under the Clean Air Act as amended in 1990
(CAA or the Act).

DATES: Any comments on this proposal must arrive by March 10, 2016.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, identified by docket number [EPA-R09-OAR-
2015-0784, by one of the following methods:
    1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-
line instructions.
    2. Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. Mail or deliver: Gerardo Rios (Air-3), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA
94105-3901. Deliveries are only accepted during the Regional Office's
normal hours of operation.
    Instructions: All comments will be included in the public docket
without change and may be made available online at www.regulations.gov,
including any personal information provided, unless the comment
includes Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Information that you
consider CBI or otherwise protected should be clearly identified as
such and should not be submitted through www.regulations.gov or email.
www.regulations.gov is an ``anonymous access'' system, and EPA will not
know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the
body of your comment. If you send email directly to EPA, your email
address will be automatically captured and included as part of the
public comment. 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: Generally, documents in the docket for this action are
available electronically at www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at EPA
Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California 94105-3901.
While all documents in the docket are listed at www.regulations.gov,
some information may be publicly available only at the hard copy
location (e.g., copyrighted material, large maps), and some may not be
publicly available in either location (e.g., CBI). To inspect the hard
copy materials, please schedule an appointment during normal business
hours with the contact listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ya-Ting (Sheila) Tsai, EPA Region IX,
(415) 972-3328<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us'' and
``our'' refer to the EPA. This proposal addresses the following local
rules: 201, 203, 204, and 206. In the Rules and Regulations section of
this Federal Register, we are approving these local rules in a direct
final action without prior proposal because we believe these SIP
revisions are not controversial. If we receive adverse comments,
however, we will publish a timely withdrawal of the direct final rule
and address the comments in subsequent action based on this proposed
rule. Please note that if we receive adverse comment on a particular
rule, we may adopt as final those rules that are not the subject of an
adverse comment.
    We do not plan to open a second comment period, so anyone
interested in commenting should do so at this time. If we do not
receive adverse comments, no further activity is planned. For further
information, please see the direct final action.

    Dated: December 3, 2015.
Jared Blumenfeld,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2016-02419 Filed 2-8-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 225 (Tuesday, November 23, 2010)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 71371-71373]
[FR Doc No: 2010-29449]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2010-0820; Directorate Identifier 2010-NE-31-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Thielert Aircraft Engines GmbH Models
TAE 125-01, TAE 125-02-99, and TAE 125-02-114 Reciprocating Engines

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

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

    Service experience has shown that a case of FADEC channel B
manifold air pressure (MAP) sensor hose permeability is not always
recognized as fault by the FADEC. The MAP value measured by the
sensor may be lower than the actual pressure value in the engine
manifold, and limits the amount of fuel injected into the combustion
chamber and thus the available power of the engine. A change in
FADEC software version 2.91 will change the logic in failure
detection and in switching to channel B (no automatic switch to
channel B if MAP difference between channel A and B is detected and
lower MAP is at channel B).
    In addition, previous software versions allow--under certain
conditions and on DA 42 aircraft only--the initiation of a FADEC
self test during flight that causes an engine in-flight shutdown.

    We are proposing this AD to prevent engine in-flight shutdown or
power loss, possibly resulting in reduced control of the airplane.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by January 7, 2011.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods:

     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and follow the instructions for sending your
comments electronically.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building Ground
Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail address above between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Contact Thielert Aircraft Engines GmbH, Platanenstrasse 14 D-09350,
Lichtenstein, Germany, telephone: +49-37204-696-0; fax: +49-37204-696-
2912; e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>for the service information
identified in this proposed AD.

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 proposed AD, the regulatory
evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street
address for the Docket Operations office (phone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is the
same as the Mail address provided in the ADDRESSES section. Comments
will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address
listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2010-0820;
Directorate Identifier 2010-NE-31-AD'' at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposed AD based on 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
with FAA personnel concerning this proposed AD. Using the search
function of the Web site, anyone can find and read the comments in any
of our dockets, including, if provided, the name of the individual who
sent the comment (or signed the comment on behalf of an association,
business, labor union, etc.). You may review the DOT's complete Privacy
Act Statement in the Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (65
FR 19477-78).

Discussion

    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical
Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued AD
2010-0137, dated June 30, 2010 (referred to after this as ``the
MCAI''), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The
MCAI states:

    Service experience has shown that a case of FADEC channel B
manifold air pressure (MAP) sensor hose permeability is not always
recognized as fault by the FADEC. The MAP value measured by the
sensor may be lower than the actual pressure value in the engine
manifold, and limits the amount of fuel injected into the combustion
chamber and thus the available power of the engine. A change in
FADEC software version 2.91 will change the logic in failure
detection and in switching to channel B (no automatic switch to
channel B if MAP difference between channel A and B is detected and
lower MAP is at channel B).
    In addition, previous software versions allow--under certain
conditions and on DA 42 aircraft only--the initiation of a FADEC
self test during flight that causes an engine in-flight shutdown.

    We are proposing to require installation of full-authority digital
electronic control (FADEC) software version 2.91 to prevent automatic
switching to channel B if the channel B MAP sensor hose is leaking. The
current software cannot detect the difference between a manifold leak
and a real manifold pressure change. This software installation will
prevent the undesired limiting of fuel to the engine. Installing FADEC
software version 2.91 will also prevent the FADEC from self-testing
during flight, which would cause an engine in-flight shutdown.
    You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD
docket.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD

    These products have been approved by the aviation authority of
Germany and are approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant
to our bilateral agreement with Germany, EASA has notified us of the
unsafe condition described in the MCAI. We are proposing this AD
because we evaluated all information provided by EASA and determined
the unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other
products of the same type design. This proposed AD would require
installing full authority digital electronic control software version
2.91.

Costs of Compliance

    Based on the service information, we estimate that this proposed AD
would affect about 112 engines installed on airplanes of U.S. registry.
We also estimate that it would take about 0.5 work-hour per engine to
comply with this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-
hour. There are no required parts cost. Based on these figures, we
estimate the cost of the proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $4,760.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

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

under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to
comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety.

The Proposed Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

    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]

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

Thielert Aircraft Engines GmbH: Docket No. FAA-2010-0820;
Directorate Identifier 2010-NE-31-AD.

Comments Due Date

    (a) We must receive comments by January 7, 2011.

Affected ADs

    (b) None.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to Thielert Aircraft Engines GmbH models TAE
125-01, TAE 125-02-99, and TAE 125-02-114 reciprocating engines
installed in, but not limited to, Cessna 172 and (Reims-built) F172
series (European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) STC No.
EASA.A.S.01527); Piper PA-28 series (EASA STC No. EASA.A.S. 01632);
APEX (Robin) DR 400 series (EASA STC No. A.S.01380); and Diamond
Aircraft Industries Models DA 40, DA 42, and DA 42M NG airplanes.

Reason

    (d) This AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness
information (MCAI) issued by an aviation authority of another
country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation
product. We are issuing this AD to prevent engine in-flight shutdown
or power loss, possibly resulting in reduced control of the
airplane.

Actions and Compliance

    (e) Unless already done, do the following actions.
    (1) Within 110 flight hours after the effective date of the AD
or during next maintenance, whichever occurs first, install full-
authority digital electronic control (FADEC) software version 2.91.
    (2) Guidance on FADEC software installation can be found in the
following:
    (i) For TAE 125-01 engines, Operation & Maintenance Manual OM-
01-02, Issue 3, Revision 13.
    (ii) For TAE 125-02-99 and TAE 125-02-114 engines, Operation &
Maintenance Manual OM-02-02, Issue 1, Revision 10.

Prohibition of FADEC Software Earlier Versions

    (f) Once FADEC software version 2.91 is installed, do not
install any earlier version of FADEC software.

FAA AD Differences

    (g) EASA AD 2010-0137 permits installation of earlier FADEC
software versions, once version 2.91 is installed. This AD does not.
    (h) EASA AD 2010-0137 requires compliance within 110 flight
hours after the effective date of the AD or during next maintenance,
whichever occurs first, but no later than 6 months after the
effective date of the AD. This AD requires compliance within 110
flight hours after the effective date of the AD or during next
maintenance, whichever occurs first.

Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCS)

    (i) The Manager, Engine Certification Office, FAA, has the
authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the
procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.

Related Information

    (j) Refer to AD 2010-0137, dated June 30, 2010, for related
information. Contact Thielert Aircraft Engines GmbH, Platanenstrasse
14 D-09350, Lichtenstein, Germany, telephone: +49-37204-696-0; fax:
+49-37204-696-2912; e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>for a copy
of the service information referenced in this AD.
    (k) Contact Alan Strom, Aerospace Engineer, Engine Certification
Office, FAA, Engine and Propeller Directorate, 12 New England
Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803; e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>, for more information
about this AD.

    Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on November 16, 2010.
Peter A. White,
Assistant Manager, Engine and Propeller Directorate, Aircraft
Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2010-29449 Filed 11-22-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 18 (Monday, January 28, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 5856]
[FR Doc No: 2013-01710]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Agency Information Collection Activities: Requests for Comments;
Clearance of Renewed Approval of Information Collection: Certification
Procedures for Products and Parts

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FAA
invites public comments about our intention to request the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) approval to renew an information
collection. The Federal Register Notice with a 60-day comment period
soliciting comments on the following collection of information was
published on October 2, 2012, vol. 77, no. 191, page 60166. 14 CFR part
21 prescribes certification standards for aircraft, aircraft engines,
propellers appliances and parts. The information collected is used to
determine compliance and applicant eligibility. The respondents are
aircraft parts designers, manufacturers, and aircraft owners.

DATES: Written comments should be submitted by February 27, 2013.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kathy DePaepe at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by
email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    OMB Control Number: 2120-0018
    Title: Certification Procedures for Products and Parts
    Form Numbers: FAA Forms 8110-12, 8130-1, 8130-6, 8130-9, 8130-12.
    Type of Review: Renewal of an information collection.
    Background: 14 CFR part 21 prescribes certification standards for
aircraft, aircraft engines, propellers appliances and parts. The
information collected is used to determine compliance and applicant
eligibility. FAA Airworthiness inspectors, designated inspectors,
engineers, and designated engineers review the required data submittals
to determine that aviation products and articles and their
manufacturing facilities comply with the applicable requirements, and
that the products and articles have no unsafe features.
    Respondents: Approximately 13,339 aircraft parts designers,
manufacturers, and aircraft owners.
    Frequency: Information is collected on occasion.
    Estimated Average Burden per Response: 30 minutes.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden: 19,487 hours.

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are invited to submit written comments on
the proposed information collection to the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget. Comments should be
addressed to the attention of the Desk Officer, Department of
Transportation/FAA, and sent via electronic mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or faxed to<PHONE_NUMBER>, or mailed to the
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and
Budget, Docket Library, Room 10102, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC
20503.
    Public Comments Invited: You are asked to comment on any aspect of
this information collection, including (a) Whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary for FAA's performance; (b) the
accuracy of the estimated burden; (c) ways for FAA to enhance the
quality, utility and clarity of the information collection; and (d)
ways that the burden could be minimized without reducing the quality of
the collected information. The agency will summarize and/or include
your comments in the request for OMB's clearance of this information
collection.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on January 22, 2013.
Albert R. Spence,
FAA Assistant Information Collection Clearance Officer, IT Enterprises
Business Services Division, AES-200.
[FR Doc. 2013-01710 Filed 1-25-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


Disulfoton 032501

Screening Level Usage Analysis (SLUA)

Date: August 8, 2008

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 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
2006.

Private pesticide market research – pesticide usage data from 2001 to
2006.

NPUD 2002 (National Pesticide Use Database) pesticide usage data from
NPUD 02 of the CropLife Foundation are used only if data are not
available from the other sources.

California Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) Pesticide Use
Reporting (PUR) data for 2000 to 2005 when 95% or more of a crop is
grown California.

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 8, 2008

Screening Level Estimates of Agricultural Uses of Disulfoton 032501

Sorted Alphabetically

Crop					Lbs. A.I.			Percent Crop Ttd.		  	 									Avg.		Max.

	1 	Asparagus +	30,000	45               55

	2 	Barley +	7,000	<1            <2.5

	3 	Beans, Green	7,000	<1                 5

	4 	Broccoli	6,000	5               10

	5 	Brussels Sprouts *	<500	 N/C	 N/C

	6 	Cabbage	5,000	5               10

	7 	Cauliflower	1,000	5                 5

	8 	Corn +	10,000	<1            <2.5

	9 	Cotton	50,000	<1            <2.5

	10	Dry Beans/Peas	10,000	<1            <2.5

	11	Lettuce	7,000	<1                 5

	12	Peanuts +	5,000	<1            <2.5

	13	Pecans +	8,000	<1                 5

	14	Peppers +	8,000	5               10

	15	Potatoes	10,000	<1            <2.5

	16	Sod ( NPUD '02 ) +	1,000	N/C    	10

	17	Sorghum +	10,000	<1           <2.5

	18	Squash +	<500	<1           <2.5

	19	Tobacco +	2,000	<1           <2.5

	20	Tomatoes	1,000	<1           <2.5

	21	Walnuts +	<500	<1           <2.5

	22	Watermelons +	3,000	<1           <2.5

	23	Wheat +	30,000	<1           <2.5

All numbers rounded.

'<500' indicates less than 500 pounds of active ingredient.

'<2.5' indicates less than 2.5 percent of crop is treated.

'<1' indicates less than 1 percent of crop is treated.

* CA data only, but 95% or more of U.S. acres are in California

SLUA data sources include:

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

            2001-2006

	Private Pesticide Market Research, 2001-2006

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

            DPR data.

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

N/C = Not Calculated

+ = These crops were not known to be listed on active end use product
registrations when this report was run.


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 170 (Wednesday, September 3, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 52263-52267]
[FR Doc No: 2014-20917]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2014-0618; Directorate Identifier 2012-NM-171-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to supersede Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2008-06-
18, for all Airbus Model A300 B4-600, B4-600R, and F4-600R series
airplanes, and Model A300 C4-605R Variant F airplanes (collectively
called Model A300-600 series airplanes) and Model A300 series
airplanes. AD 2008-06-18 currently requires repetitive inspections for
any cracking of the wing lower skin panel and associated internal
support structure, and if necessary, corrective actions such as
modifying the lower panel inboard of rib 9 aft of the rear spar and
repairing cracks. Since we issued AD 2008-06-18, we have received a
report that information from an analysis and fleet survey show a need
for reduced compliance times and intervals. This proposed AD would
continue to require the existing requirements, and would reduce some
compliance times. We are proposing this AD to detect and correct
cracking, which could lead to reduced structural integrity of the
airplane.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by October 20,
2014.

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 proposed AD, contact
Airbus SAS Airworthiness Office--EAW, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte,
31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61
93 44 51; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet http://www.airbus.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.

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 proposed AD, 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: Dan Rodina, 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:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address
listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2014-0618;
Directorate Identifier 2012-NM-171-AD'' at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposed AD based on those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this proposed AD.

Discussion

    On March 7, 2008, we issued AD 2008-06-18, Amendment 39-15430 (73
FR 14670, March 19, 2008). AD 2008-06-18 requires actions intended to
address an unsafe condition on all Airbus Model A300 B4-600, B4-600R,
and F4-600R series airplanes, and Model A300 C4-605R Variant F
airplanes (collectively called Model A300-600 series airplanes) and
Model A300 series airplanes.

    Since we issued AD 2008-06-18, Amendment 39-15430 (73 FR 14670,
March 19, 2008), we have received a report that information from an
analysis and fleet survey show a need for reduced compliance times and
intervals.
    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical
Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued EASA
Airworthiness Directive 2012-0203, dated October 1, 2012 (referred to
after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or
``the MCAI''), to correct an unsafe condition for all Airbus Model A300
B4-600, B4-600R, and F4-600R series airplanes, and Model A300 C4-605R
Variant F airplanes (collectively called Model A300-600 series
airplanes) and Model A300 series airplanes. The MCAI states:

    During routine maintenance, cracks were found in the wing bottom
skin and in the associated internal support structure on an A300
aeroplane aft of the rear spar and inboard of rib 9. Initially,
cracks were found in the skin only, starting from a fastener close
to the forward outboard corner of access panel 575FB/675FB.
Subsequently, cases were reported of cracks being found in the skin
support strap and the stiffener.
    This condition, if not detected and corrected, could affect the
structural integrity of the aeroplane.
    To address this unsafe condition, EASA issued AD 2006-0282
[http://ad.easa.europa.eu/ad/2006-0282] [which corresponds with FAA
AD 2008-06-18, Amendment 39-15430 (73 FR 14670, March 19, 2008)] to
require repetitive inspections of the wing lower skin panel and
associated internal support structure aft of the rear spar and
inboard of rib 9.
    Since that [EASA] AD was issued, the results of a fleet survey
and updated Fatigue and Damage Tolerance analysis, which were
performed in order to substantiate the second A300 and A300-600
Extended Service Goal (ESG2) exercise, revealed that the inspection
threshold and interval had to be reduced to allow timely detection
of cracks and the accomplishment of an applicable corrective action.
    Prompted by these findings, Airbus issued Revision 05 of Airbus
Service Bulletin (SB) A300-57-0177 and Revision 07 of Airbus SB
A300-57-6029.
    For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD retains the
requirements of EASA AD 2006-0282, which is superseded, but requires
the accomplishment of those actions within reduced thresholds and
intervals.

You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2014-
0618.

Relevant Service Information

    Airbus has issued Service Bulletin A300-57-6029, Revision 08, dated
April 25, 2013. The compliance times for the initial inspections range
approximately from 160 flight cycles or 270 flight hours, whichever
occurs first, to 49,300 flight cycles or 98,700 flight hours, whichever
occurs first, depending on the model and configuration. The repetitive
intervals range from 30 flight cycles or 40 flight hours, whichever
occurs first, to 3,800 flight cycles or 7,700 flight hours, whichever
occurs first, depending on the model and configuration. 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 Proposed 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 proposing this AD because we
evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition
exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same
type design.

Changes to AD 2008-06-18, Amendment 39-15430 (73 FR 14670, March 19,
2008)

    This proposed AD would retain all requirements of AD 2008-06-18,
Amendment 39-15430 (73 FR 14670, March 19, 2008). Since AD 2008-06-18
was issued, the AD format has been revised, and certain paragraphs have
been rearranged. As a result, the corresponding paragraph identifiers
have changed in this proposed AD, as listed in the following table:

                      Revised Paragraph Identifiers
------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Requirement in AD 2008-06-18,
  Amendment 39-15430 (73 FR 14670,    Corresponding requirement in this
           March 19, 2008                        proposed AD
------------------------------------------------------------------------
             paragraph (f)                        paragraph (g)
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Paragraph (f)(3) of AD 2008-06-18, Amendment 39-15430 (73 FR 14670,
March 19, 2008), contains a typographical error. That error resulted in
a reference to paragraph ``(e)(f)(ii)'' of AD 2008-06-18. The correct
reference is to paragraph (f)(3)(ii) of AD 2008-06-18. Since the AD
format has been revised and certain paragraphs have been rearranged,
the reference is now to paragraph (g)(3)(ii) of the proposed AD.

``Contacting the Manufacturer'' Paragraph in This Proposed AD

    Since late 2006, we have included a standard paragraph titled
``Airworthy Product'' in all MCAI ADs in which the FAA develops an AD
based on a foreign authority's AD.
    The MCAI or referenced service information in an FAA AD often
directs the owner/operator to contact the manufacturer for corrective
actions, such as a repair. Briefly, the Airworthy Product paragraph
allowed owners/operators to use corrective actions provided by the
manufacturer if those actions were FAA-approved. In addition, the
paragraph stated that any actions approved by the State of Design
Authority (or its delegated agent) are considered to be FAA-approved.
    In an NPRM having Directorate Identifier 2012-NM-101-AD (78 FR
78285, December 26, 2013), we proposed to prevent the use of repairs
that were not specifically developed to correct the unsafe condition,
by requiring that the repair approval provided by the State of Design
Authority or its delegated agent specifically refer to the FAA AD. This
change was 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
proposed to change the phrase ``its delegated agent'' to include a
design approval holder (DAH) with State of Design Authority design
organization approval (DOA), as applicable, to refer to a DAH
authorized to approve required repairs for the proposed AD.
    One commenter to the NPRM having Directorate Identifier 2012-NM-
101-AD (78 FR 78285, December 26, 2013) stated the following: ``The
proposed wording, being specific to repairs, eliminates the
interpretation that Airbus messages are acceptable for approving minor
deviations (corrective actions) needed during accomplishment of an AD
mandated Airbus service bulletin.''
    This comment has made the FAA aware that some operators have
misunderstood or misinterpreted the Airworthy Product paragraph to
allow the owner/operator to use messages provided by the manufacturer
as approval of deviations during the accomplishment of an AD-mandated
action. The Airworthy Product paragraph does not approve messages or
other information provided by the manufacturer for deviations to the
requirements of the AD-mandated actions. The Airworthy Product
paragraph only addresses the

requirement to contact the manufacturer for corrective actions for the
identified unsafe condition and does not cover deviations from other AD
requirements. However, deviations to AD-required actions are addressed
in 14 CFR 39.17, and anyone may request the approval for an alternative
method of compliance to the AD-required actions using the procedures
found in 14 CFR 39.19.
    To address this misunderstanding and misinterpretation of the
Airworthy Product paragraph, we have changed the paragraph and retitled
it ``Contacting the Manufacturer.'' This paragraph now clarifies that
for any requirement in this proposed AD to obtain corrective actions
from a manufacturer, the actions must be accomplished using a method
approved by the FAA, the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), or
Airbus's EASA DOA.
    The Contacting the Manufacturer paragraph also clarifies that, if
approved by the DOA, the approval must include the DOA-authorized
signature. The DOA signature indicates that the data and information
contained in the document are EASA-approved, which is also FAA-
approved. Messages and other information provided by the manufacturer
that do not contain the DOA-authorized signature approval are not EASA-
approved, unless EASA directly approves the manufacturer's message or
other information.
    This clarification does not remove flexibility previously afforded
by the Airworthy Product paragraph. Consistent with long-standing FAA
policy, such flexibility was never intended for required actions. This
is also consistent with the recommendation of the Airworthiness
Directive Implementation Aviation Rulemaking Committee to increase
flexibility in complying with ADs by identifying those actions in
manufacturers' service instructions that are ``Required for
Compliance'' with ADs. We continue to work with manufacturers to
implement this recommendation. But once we determine that an action is
required, any deviation from the requirement must be approved as an
alternative method of compliance.
    We also have decided not to include a generic reference to either
the ``delegated agent'' or ``design approval holder (DAH) with State of
Design Authority design organization approval,'' but instead we have
provided the specific delegation approval granted by the State of
Design Authority for the DAH throughout this proposed AD.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 162 airplanes of U.S.
registry.
    The actions that are required by AD 2008-06-18, Amendment 39-15430
(73 FR 14670, March 19, 2008), and retained in this proposed AD take
about 2 work-hours per product, at an average labor rate of $85 per
work-hour. Based on these figures, the estimated cost of the actions
that are required by AD 2008-06-18 is $170 per product.
    We also estimate that it would take about 2 work-hours per product
to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. The average
labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate
the cost of this proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $27,540, or $170
per product.
    In addition, we estimate that any necessary follow-on actions would
take about 12 work-hours and require parts costing $10,000, for a cost
of $11,020 per product. We have no way of determining the number of
aircraft that might need these actions.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    A federal agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not
required to respond to, nor shall a person be subject to penalty for
failure to comply with a collection of information subject to the
requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act unless that collection of
information displays a current valid OMB control number. The control
number for the collection of information required by this AD is 2120-
0056. The paperwork cost associated with this AD has been detailed in
the Costs of Compliance section of this document and includes time for
reviewing instructions, as well as completing and reviewing the
collection of information. Therefore, all reporting associated with
this AD is mandatory. Comments concerning the accuracy of this burden
and suggestions for reducing the burden should be directed to the FAA
at 800 Independence Ave. SW., Washington, DC 20591. ATTN: Information
Collection Clearance Officer, AES-200.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Proposed Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by removing Airworthiness Directive (AD)
2008-06-18, Amendment 39-15430 (73 FR 14670, March 19, 2008), and
adding the following new AD:

Airbus: Docket No. FAA-2014-0618; Directorate Identifier 2012-NM-
171-AD.

(a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by October 20, 2014.

(b) Affected ADs

    This AD replaces AD 2008-06-18, Amendment 39-15430 (73 FR 14670,
March 19, 2008).

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to the airplanes identified in paragraphs (c)(1)
through (c)(5) of this AD, certificated in any category, all
certified models, all serial numbers.
    (1) Airbus Model A300 B2-1A, B2-1C, B2K-3C, B2-203, B4-2C, B4-
103, and B4-203 airplanes.
    (2) Airbus Model A300 B4-601, B4-603, B4-620, and B4-622
airplanes.
    (3) Airbus Model A300 B4-605R and B4-622R airplanes.
    (4) Airbus Model A300 F4-605R and F4-622R airplanes.
    (5) Airbus Model A300 C4-605R Variant F airplanes.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 57, Wings.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by a report that information from an
analysis and fleet survey show a need for reduced compliance times
and intervals. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct
cracking, which could lead to reduced 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) Retained Actions and Compliance Times With Revised Service
Information

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (f) of AD
2008-06-18, Amendment 39-15430 (73 FR 14670, March 19, 2008), with
revised service information. Unless already done, do the following
actions.
    (1) Except as provided by paragraphs (g)(1)(i), (g)(1)(ii),
(g)(1)(iii), (g)(1)(iv), and (h) of this AD: At the threshold
specified in paragraph 1.E.(2) of Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-
0177, Revision 05, dated March 23, 2007 (for Model A300 series
airplanes); Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6029, Revision 06, dated
March 23, 2007 (for Model A300-600 series airplanes); or Airbus
Service Bulletin A300-57-6029, Revision 08, dated April 25, 2013
(for Model A300-600 series airplanes); as applicable; perform the
inspection of the wing lower skin panel and associated internal
support structure aft of the rear spar and inboard of rib 9 and
apply applicable corrective measures in accordance with Airbus
Service Bulletin A300-57-0177, Revision 05, dated March 23, 2007
(for Model A300 series airplanes); or Airbus Service Bulletin A300-
57-6029, Revision 06, dated March 23, 2007 (for Model A300-600
series airplanes); or Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6029, Revision
08, dated April 25, 2013 (for Model A300-600 series airplanes); as
applicable. All applicable corrective measures must be done at the
applicable times specified in paragraph 1.E.(2) and the
Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-0177,
Revision 05, dated March 23, 2007 (for Model A300 series airplanes);
Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6029, Revision 06, dated March 23,
2007 (for Model A300-600 series airplanes); or Airbus Service
Bulletin A300-57-6029, Revision 08, dated April 25, 2013 (for Model
A300-600 series airplanes); as applicable. Accomplishing the
requirements of paragraph (h) of this AD terminates the requirements
of this paragraph for Model A300-600 airplanes.
    (i) Where the tables in paragraph 1.E.(2), ``Accomplishment
Timescale,'' of Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-0177, Revision 05,
dated March 23, 2007; A300-57-6029, Revision 06, dated March 23,
2007; specify a grace period for doing the actions, this AD requires
that the actions be done within the specified grace period relative
to April 23, 2008 (the effective date of AD 2008-06-18, Amendment
39-15430 (73 FR 14670, March 19, 2008)).
    (ii) Where the tables in paragraph 1.E.(2)(e), ``Config 04,'' of
Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-0177, Revision 05, dated March 23,
2007, specify an inspection interval but not an initial threshold,
this AD requires that the actions be done within the specified
interval after inspecting in accordance with Table 1A or 1B, as
applicable, for Configuration 01 airplanes described in the service
bulletin and thereafter at the inspection interval specified in the
tables in paragraph 1.E.(2)(e), ``Config 04,'' of Airbus Service
Bulletin A300-57-0177, Revision 05, dated March 23, 2007.
    (iii) Where the tables in paragraph 1.E.(2)(f), ``Config 05,''
of Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6029, Revision 06, dated March
23, 2007, specify an inspection interval but not an initial
threshold, this AD requires that the actions be done within the
specified interval after inspecting in accordance with Table 1A, or
1B, as applicable, for configuration 01 of Airbus Service Bulletin
A300-57-6029, Revision 06, dated March 23, 2007, and thereafter at
the inspection interval specified in the tables in paragraph
1.E.(2)(f), ``Config 05,'' of Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6029,
Revision 06, dated March 23, 2007.
    (iv) All crack lengths specified in Airbus Service Bulletin
A300-57-0177, Revision 05, dated March 23, 2007; and A300-57-6029,
Revision 06, dated March 23, 2007, are considered ``not to exceed''
lengths.
    (2) Repeat the inspection at the intervals in, and according to
the instructions defined in, Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-0177,
Revision 05, dated March 23, 2007 (for Model A300 series airplanes);
Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6029, Revision 06, dated March 23,
2007 (for Model A300-600 series airplanes); or Airbus Service
Bulletin A300-57-6029, Revision 08, dated April 25, 2013 (for Model
A300-600 series airplanes); as applicable; except where Airbus
Service Bulletin A300-57-0177, Revision 05, dated March 23, 2007,
specifies repetitive inspections for cracking if Airbus Service
Bulletin A300-57-022 has not been embodied, this AD requires doing
repetitive inspections for cracking if Airbus Service Bulletin A300-
57-0222 (modification 11178H5410) has not been embodied.
    (3) Report to Airbus the first inspection results, whatever they
may be, at the applicable time specified in paragraph (g)(3)(i) or
(g)(3)(ii) of this AD.
    (i) If the inspection was done after April 23, 2008 (the
effective date of AD 2008-06-18, Amendment 39-15430 (73 FR 14670,
March 19, 2008)), submit the report within 30 days after the
inspection.
    (ii) If the inspection was accomplished prior to April 23, 2008
(the effective date of AD 2008-06-18, Amendment 39-15430 (73 FR
14670, March 19, 2008)), submit the report within 30 days after
April 23, 2008.

(h) New Requirement of This AD: New Compliance Times for Model A300-600
Airplanes

    For Model A300-600 airplanes, do the actions specified in
paragraphs (h)(1) through (h)(3) of this AD at the applicable times
specified in those paragraphs.
    (1) Except as provided by paragraphs (h)(1)(i) and (h)(1)(ii) of
this AD: Within the compliance times specified in Airbus Service
Bulletin A300-57-6029, Revision 08, dated April 25, 2013, perform
the inspection of the wing lower skin panels and associated internal
support structures aft of the rear spar and inboard of rib 9, in
accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service
Bulletin A300-57-6029, Revision 08, dated April 25, 2013.
Thereafter, repeat these inspections at intervals specified in
Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6029, Revision 08, dated April 25,
2013. Accomplishment of the actions required by this paragraph
terminates the requirements of paragraph (g) of this AD for Model
A300-600 airplanes.
    (i) Where the tables in paragraph 1.E.(2), ``Accomplishment
Timescale,'' of Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6029, Revision 08,
dated April 25, 2013, specify a grace period for doing the actions
for airplanes that have exceeded the thresholds, this AD requires,
for all airplanes, that the actions be done within the specified
grace period after the effective date of this AD or before the
specified thresholds, whichever occurs later.
    (ii) Where Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6029, Revision 08,
dated April 25, 2013, specifies to ``contact Airbus'' before further
flight, this AD requires repairing using a method approved by the
Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane
Directorate, FAA; or European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA); or
Airbus's EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA); and accomplishing
those actions before further flight. If approved by the DOA, the
approval must include the DOA-authorized signature.
    (2) If, during any inspection as required by paragraph (h)(1) of
this AD, discrepancies are detected, before next flight, accomplish
the applicable corrective actions, in accordance with the
Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6029,
Revision 08, dated April 25, 2013.
    (3) Corrective actions, as required by paragraph (h)(2) of this
AD, do not constitute terminating action for the repetitive
inspection requirements of paragraph (h)(1) of this AD.

(i) Credit for Previous Actions

    (1) This paragraph provides credit for actions required by
paragraph (g) of this AD,

if those actions were performed before April 23, 2008 (the effective
date of AD 2008-06-18, Amendment 39-15430 (73 FR 14670, March 19,
2008)), using the applicable service information identified in
paragraphs (i)(1)(i) through (i)(1)(iv) of this AD, which are not
incorporated by reference by this AD.
    (i) Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-0177, Revision 03, dated May
29, 2006.
    (ii) Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-0177, Revision 04, dated
January 5, 2007.
    (iii) Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6029, Revision 04, dated
May 29, 2006.
    (iv) Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6029, Revision 05, dated
October 23, 2006.
    (2) This paragraph provides credit for actions required by
paragraph (g) or (h) of this AD, if those actions were performed
before the effective date of this AD, using Airbus Service Bulletin
A300-57-6029, Revision 07, dated June 6, 2011, which is not
incorporated by reference by this AD.

(j) 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: Dan Rodina,
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. AMOCs
approved previously for AD 2008-06-18, Amendment 39-15430 (73 FR
14670, March 19, 2008) are considered acceptable for 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) Reporting Requirements: A federal agency may not conduct or
sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, nor shall a
person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with a
collection of information subject to the requirements of the
Paperwork Reduction Act unless that collection of information
displays a current valid OMB Control Number. The OMB Control Number
for this information collection is 2120-0056. Public reporting for
this collection of information is estimated to be approximately 5
minutes per response, including the time for reviewing instructions,
completing and reviewing the collection of information. All
responses to this collection of information are mandatory. Comments
concerning the accuracy of this burden and suggestions for reducing
the burden should be directed to the FAA at: 800 Independence Ave.
SW., Washington, DC 20591, Attn: Information Collection Clearance
Officer, AES-200.

(k) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information
(MCAI) European Aviation Safety Agency Airworthiness Directive 2012-
0203, dated October 1, 2012, 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-
2014-0618.
    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Airbus SAS Airworthiness Office--EAW, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte,
31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5
61 93 44 51; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet http://www.airbus.com. 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<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on August 23, 2014.
Michael Kaszycki,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2014-20917 Filed 9-2-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 208 (Monday, October 28, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 64211-64212]
[FR Doc No: 2013-25568]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2013-0485; FRL-9902-08]

FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel; Notice of Cancellation

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Agency is issuing this notice to cancel the 1-day meeting
of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act Scientific
Advisory Panel (FIFRA SAP) to consider and review RNAi Technology as a
Pesticide:

Problem Formulation for Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment
scheduled for October 29, 2013. The meeting was announced in the
Federal Register of August 15, 2013. The meeting will be rescheduled.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sharlene Matten, DFO, Office of
Science Coordination and Policy (7201M), Environmental Protection
Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001;
telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The meeting was announced in the Federal
Register of August 15, 2013 (78 FR 49750) (FRL-9393-3). The meeting
will be rescheduled in the near future. EPA will announce the
rescheduled meeting in the Federal Register.

List of Subjects

    Environmental protection, Pesticides and pests.

    Dated: October 23, 2013.
David Dix,
Director, Office of Science Coordination and Policy.
[FR Doc. 2013-25568 Filed 10-24-13; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P