[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 6 (Monday, January 10, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 1425-1427]
[FR Doc No: 2011-182]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings 1

December 29, 2010.
    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER98-2329-008.
    Applicants: Central Vermont Public Service Corp.
    Description: Triennial Market Power Analysis of Central Vermont
Public Service Corporation.
    Filed Date: 12/29/2010.
    Accession Number: 20101229-5115.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, February 28, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER01-989-008.
    Applicants: Green Mountain Power Corporation.
    Description: Updated Market Power Analysis of Green Mountain Power
Corporation.
    Filed Date: 12/29/2010.
    Accession Number: 20101229-5126.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, February 28, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-2536-001.
    Applicants: Westar Energy, Inc.
    Description: Westar Energy, Inc. submits tariff filing per
35.17(b): Amendment, City of McPherson, KS, BPU, Addendum No. 5 to be
effective 12/31/9998.
    Filed Date: 12/29/2010.
    Accession Number: 20101229-5001.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, January 19, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-2680-002.
    Applicants: Puget Sound Energy, Inc.
    Description: Puget Sound Energy, Inc. submits tariff filing per 35:
OATT Section 4.2 and Attachment C 12/28/2010 to be effective 4/1/2011.
    Filed Date: 12/28/2010.
    Accession Number: 20101228-5090.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, January 18, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-2994-002; ER11-2196-001; ER11-2462-001; ER11-
2463-001; ER11-2464-001; ER11-2465-001; ER11-2466-001; ER11-2467-001;
ER11-2468-001; ER11-2469-001; ER11-2470-001; ER11-2471-001; ER11-2472-
001; ER11-2473-001; ER11-2474-001; ER11-2475-001.
    Applicants: Klondike Wind Power III LLC, Big Horn Wind Project LLC,
Colorado Green Holdings LLC, Klamath Energy LLC, Klamath Generation
LLC, Klondike Wind Power LLC, Twin Buttes Wind LLC, Pebble Springs Wind
LLC, Hay Canyon Wind LLC, Star Point Wind Project LLC, Juniper Canyon
Wind Power LLC, Big Horn II Wind Project LLC, Klondike Wind Power II
LLC, Leaning Juniper Wind Power II LLC, Iberdrola Renewables, Inc., San
Luis Solar LLC.
    Description: Triennial Market Power Analysis of the IRI MBR
Companies for the Northwest Region.
    Filed Date: 12/29/2010.
    Accession Number: 20101229-5123.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, February 28, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-2481-001; ER10-2688-002; ER10-2689-002; ER11-
2478-001; ER11-2479-001; ER11-2480-001.
    Applicants: Monongahela Power Company; The Potomac Edison Company;
West Penn Power Company; Buchanan Generation, LLC; Allegheny Energy
Supply Company, LLC; Green Valley Hydro, LLC.
    Description: Triennial Market Power Analysis of the Allegheny
Companies.
    Filed Date: 12/29/2010.
    Accession Number: 20101229-5116.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, February 28, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-2539-001; ER11-2540-001; ER11-2542-001.
    Applicants: Plains End II, LLC, Plains End, LLC, Rathdrum Power,
LLC
    Description: Plains End, LLC, et al. Updated Market Power Analysis
for the NW Region.
    Filed Date: 12/28/2010.
    Accession Number: 20101228-5167.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, February 28, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-2544-000.
    Applicants: New York Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: New York Independent System Operator, Inc. submits
tariff filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii: NYISO Tariff Revisions re: Market
Power Mitigation Measures to be effective 2/28/2011.
    Filed Date: 12/28/2010.
    Accession Number: 20101228-5124.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, January 18, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-2545-000.
    Applicants: Frederickson Power L.P.
    Description: Frederickson Power L.P. submits tariff filing per 35:
Frederickson Power L.P. Triennial Market Power Update to be effective
12/29/2010.
    Filed Date: 12/28/2010.
    Accession Number: 20101228-5141.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, February 28, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-2546-000.
    Applicants: Manchief Power Company LLC.
    Description: Manchief Power Company LLC submits tariff filing per
35: Manchief Power Company LLC

Triennial Market Power Update to be effective 12/29/2010.
    Filed Date: 12/28/2010.
    Accession Number: 20101228-5142.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, February 28, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-2547-000.
    Applicants: New York Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: New York Independent System Operator, Inc. submits
tariff filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii: NYISO 205 Filing Tariff Revision
EITC to be effective 3/15/2011.
    Filed Date: 12/28/2010.
    Accession Number: 20101228-5145.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, January 18, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-2548-000.
    Applicants: San Diego Gas & Electric Company.
    Description: San Diego Gas & Electric Company submits tariff filing
per 35.13(a)(2)(iii: SGIP & LGIP Revisions to SDG&E's Open Access
Tariff to be effective 1/20/2011.
    Filed Date: 12/28/2010.
    Accession Number: 20101228-5146.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, January 18, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-2549-000.
    Applicants: Granite State Electric Company.
    Description: Granite State Electric Company submits tariff filing
per 35.37: 2010 Market Power Analysis and Order 697-A Updates to be
effective 12/30/2010.
    Filed Date: 12/29/2010.
    Accession Number: 20101229-5043.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, February 28, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-2550-000.
    Applicants: Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc.
submits tariff filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii: G263 LGIA Filing to be
effective 12/30/2010.
    Filed Date: 12/29/2010.
    Accession Number: 20101229-5044.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, January 19, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-2551-000.
    Applicants: Arizona Public Service Company.
    Description: Arizona Public Service Company submits tariff filing
per 35.13(a)(2)(iii: Amendment to Service Agreement No. 51741 between
APS and Gila River Power, L.P. to be effective 11/30/2010.
    Filed Date: 12/29/2010.
    Accession Number: 20101229-5045.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, January 19, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-2552-000.
    Applicants: Massachusetts Electric Company.
    Description: Massachusetts Electric Company submits tariff filing
per 35.37: 2010 Market Power Analysis and Order 697-A Updates to be
effective 12/30/2010.
    Filed Date: 12/29/2010.
    Accession Number: 20101229-5046.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, February 28, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-2553-000.
    Applicants: Arizona Public Service Company.
    Description: Arizona Public Service Company submits tariff filing
per 35.13(a)(2)(iii: Service Agreement No. 308 to be effective 11/30/
2010.
    Filed Date: 12/29/2010.
    Accession Number: 20101229-5047.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, January 19, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-2554-000.
    Applicants: The Narragansett Electric Company.
    Description: The Narragansett Electric Company submits tariff
filing per 35.37: 2010 Market Power Analysis and Order 697-A Updates to
be effective 12/30/2010.1150
    Filed Date: 12/29/2010.
    Accession Number: 20101229-5048.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, February 28, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-2555-000.
    Applicants: National Grid Glenwood Energy Center LLC.
    Description: National Grid Glenwood Energy Center LLC submits
tariff filing per 35.37: 2010 Market Power Analysis and Order 697-A
Updates to be effective 12/30/2010.
    Filed Date: 12/29/2010.
    Accession Number: 20101229-5062.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, February 28, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-2556-000.
    Applicants: National Grid Port Jefferson.
    Description: National Grid Port Jefferson submits tariff filing per
35.37: 2010 Market Power Analysis and Order 697-A Updates to be
effective 12/30/2010.
    Filed Date: 12/29/2010.
    Accession Number: 20101229-5064.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, February 28, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-2557-000.
    Applicants: New England Power Company.
    Description: New England Power Company submits tariff filing per
35.37: 2010 Market Power Analysis and Order 697-A Updates to be
effective 12/30/2010.
    Filed Date: 12/29/2010.
    Accession Number: 20101229-5065.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, February 28, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-2558-000.
    Applicants: Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation.
    Description: Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation submits tariff filing
per 35.37: 2010 Market Power Analysis and Order 697-A Updates to be
effective 12/30/2010.
    Filed Date: 12/29/2010.
    Accession Number: 20101229-5066.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, February 28, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-2559-000.
    Applicants: Rock River I, LLC.
    Description: Rock River I, LLC submits tariff filing per
35.13(a)(2)(iii: Revised MBR Tariff to be effective 2/27/2011.
    Filed Date: 12/29/2010.
    Accession Number: 20101229-5067.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, January 19, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-2559-001.
    Applicants: Rock River I, LLC.
    Description: Rock River I, LLC, Updated Market Power Analysis for
the Northwest Region.
    Filed Date: 12/29/2010.
    Accession Number: 20101229-5125.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, February 28, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-2560-000.
    Applicants: Entergy Arkansas, Inc.
    Description: Entergy Arkansas, Inc. submits tariff filing per
35.13(a)(2)(iii: EAI PCITSA Amendment to be effective 3/1/2011.

    Filed Date: 12/29/2010.
    Accession Number: 20101229-5068.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, January 19, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-2562-000.
    Applicants: Entergy Gulf States Louisiana, L.L.C.
    Description: Entergy Gulf States Louisiana, L.L.C. submits tariff
filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii: Amended River Bend MSS-4 Agreement to be
effective 12/29/2010.
    Filed Date: 12/29/2010.
    Accession Number: 20101229-5110.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, January 19, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-2563-000.
    Applicants: New York State Electric & Gas Corporation.
    Description: New York State Electric & Gas Corporation submits
tariff filing per 35.37: NYSEG MBR Tariff Revisions Dec. 2010 to be
effective 12/29/2010.
    Filed Date: 12/29/2010.
    Accession Number: 20101229-5120.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, January 19, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-2564-000.

    Applicants: Rochester Gas and Electric Corporation.
    Description: Rochester Gas and Electric Corporation submits tariff
filing per 35.37: RGE MBR Tariff Revisions Dec. 2010 to be effective
12/29/2010.
    Filed Date: 12/29/2010.
    Accession Number: 20101229-5121.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, January 19, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-2565-000.
    Applicants: Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc.
submits tariff filing per 35: 12-29-10 Attachment GG Compliance
Filing--Final to be effective 12/5/2010.
    Filed Date: 12/29/2010.
    Accession Number: 20101229-5122.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, January 19, 2011.

    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 e-mail notification
when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with
any FERC Online service, please e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or
call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-182 Filed 1-7-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: February 5, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 24)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 6627-6629]
[DOCID:fr05fe08-22]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2008-0120; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-327-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Gulfstream Aerospace LP Model
Gulfstream G150 Airplanes

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) originated 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:

    Possible chafing between [the] electrical feeder cable connected
to contactor 123P/2 and ground point 803GND, installed within the
left DC power box, discovered during routine receiving inspection.
This condition may exist on boxes installed on in-service aircraft.
If this chafing condition is left unattended, an electrical short
may develop, leading to disconnection of the battery and battery bus
from the electrical system of the aircraft, [which could result in]
overheating, arcing, smoke and fire.

The proposed AD would require actions that are intended to address the
unsafe condition described in the MCAI.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by March 6, 2008.

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 W12-40, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.

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: Mike Borfitz, Aerospace Engineer,
International Branch, ANM-116, FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate,
1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone (425)
227-2677; 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-2008-0120;
Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-327-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

    The Civil Aviation Authority of Israel (CAAI), which is the
aviation authority for Israel, has issued Israeli Airworthiness
Directive 24-07-10-11, dated October 31, 2007 (referred to after this
as ``the MCAI''), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified
products. The MCAI states:

    Possible chafing between [the] electrical feeder cable connected
to contactor 123P/2 and ground point 803GND, installed within the
left DC power box, discovered during routine receiving inspection.
This condition may exist on boxes installed on in-service aircraft.
If this chafing condition is left unattended, an electrical short
may develop, leading to disconnection of the battery and battery bus
from the electrical system of the aircraft, [which could result in]
overheating, arcing, smoke and fire.

The corrective action includes inspecting for chafing and arcing damage
of the feeder cable terminal lug and ground point, contacting
Gulfstream for repair if any damage is found, and

repairing, and installing new heat-shrink tubing if the tubing is
missing or damaged, and repositioning the feeder cable. You may obtain
further information by examining the MCAI in the AD docket.

Relevant Service Information

    Gulfstream has issued Alert Service Bulletin 150-24A-046, dated
October 31, 2007. The actions described in this service information are
intended to correct the unsafe condition identified in the MCAI.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of This 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.

Differences Between This AD and the MCAI or Service Information

    We have reviewed the MCAI and related service information and, in
general, agree with their substance. But we might have found it
necessary to use different words from those in the MCAI to ensure the
AD is clear for U.S. operators and is enforceable. In making these
changes, we do not intend to differ substantively from the information
provided in the MCAI and related service information.
    We might also have proposed different actions in this AD from those
in the MCAI in order to follow FAA policies. Any such differences are
highlighted in a NOTE within the proposed AD.

Costs of Compliance

    Based on the service information, we estimate that this proposed AD
would affect about 26 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that
it would take about 3 work-hours per product to comply with the basic
requirements of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $80 per
work-hour. Required parts would cost about $0 per product. Where the
service information lists required parts costs that are covered under
warranty, we have assumed that there will be no charge for these costs.
As we do not control warranty coverage for affected parties, some
parties may incur costs higher than estimated here. Based on these
figures, we estimate the cost of the proposed AD on U.S. operators to
be $6,240, or $240 per product.

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 AD:

Gulfstream Aerospace LP (Formerly Israel Aircraft Industries, Ltd.):
Docket No. FAA-2008-0120; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-327-AD.

Comments Due Date

    (a) We must receive comments by March 6, 2008.

Affected ADs

    (b) None.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to Gulfstream Model Gulfstream G150
airplanes, certificated in any category, serial numbers 201 through
239 inclusive.

Subject

    (d) Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 24:
Electrical power.

Reason

    (e) The mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI)
states:
    ``Possible chafing between [the] electrical feeder cable
connected to contactor 123P/2 and ground point 803GND, installed
within the left DC power box, discovered during routine receiving
inspection. This condition may exist on boxes installed on in-
service aircraft. If this chafing condition is left unattended, an
electrical short may develop, leading to disconnection of the
battery and battery bus from the electrical system of the aircraft,
[which could result in] overheating, arcing, smoke and fire.''
    The corrective action includes inspecting for chafing and arcing
damage of the feeder cable terminal lug and ground point, contacting
Gulfstream for repair if any damage is found, and repairing, and
installing new heat-shrink tubing if the tubing is missing or
damaged, and repositioning the feeder cable.

Actions and Compliance

    (f) Unless already done, do the following actions. Within 50
flight hours or 30 days after the effective date of this AD,
whichever occurs first, inspect the feeder cable, terminal lug 123P/
2, and ground point 803GND for chafing and arcing damage, reposition
the feeder cable to maintain an adequate gap, and do all applicable
corrective actions. Do the actions in accordance with Gulfstream
Alert Service Bulletin 150-24A-046, dated October 31, 2007. Do all
applicable corrective actions before further flight.

FAA AD Differences

    Note: This AD differs from the MCAI and/or service information
as follows: No differences.

Other FAA AD Provisions

    (g) 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. Send information to ATTN: Mike
Borfitz, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, FAA,
Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,
Washington 98057-3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.
Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC
applies, notify your appropriate principal inspector (PI) in the FAA
Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local
FSDO.
    (2) Airworthy Product: For any requirement in this AD to obtain
corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these
actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered
FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority
(or their delegated agent). You are required to assure the product
is airworthy before it is returned to service.
    (3) Reporting Requirements: For any reporting requirement in
this AD, under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has approved the information
collection requirements and has assigned OMB Control Number 2120-
0056.

Related Information

    (h) Refer to MCAI CAAI Airworthiness Directive 24-07-10-11,
dated October 31, 2007, and Gulfstream Alert Service Bulletin 150-
24A-046, dated October 31, 2007, for related information.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on January 24, 2008.
Ali Bahrami,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. E8-1988 Filed 2-4-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON, D. C. 20460 OFFICE OF PREVENTION, PESTICIDES AND TOXIC SUBSTANCES MEMORANDUM DATE: February 7, 2002 SUBJECT: Chronic and Cancer Dietary Exposure Assessments for the Tolerance Reassessment Decision Document (TRED) for Pronamide; PC code [101701]; DP Barcode [D280422].

FROM: Dave Soderberg, Chemist Jose Morales, Chemist Steve Knizner, Branch Chief RRB3, Health Effects Division (HED) (7509C)

THROUGH: Catherine Eiden, Branch Senior Scientist RRB3, Health Effects Division (7509C)

And Christina Swartz, Chemist David Hrdy, Biologist Dietary Exposure Science Advisory Council (DESAC) Health Effects Division (7509C)

And Chemistry Science Advisory Council (Chem SAC) Health Effects Division (7509C)

TO: Gary Bangs, Industrial Hygienist RRB3 Health Effects Division (7509C)

And Cecelia R. Watson, Chemical Review Manager Special Review and Reregistration Division (7508C) 1 cPAD = chronic Population Adjusted Dose = Chronic RfD FQPA Safety Factor 1 EPA Reviewers: Dave Soderberg, Jose Morales, Steve Knizner; Date: 17 Jan, 2002 STUDY TYPE: Chronic and Cancer Dietary Exposure Assessments for the Tolerance Reassessment Decision Document (TRED) for Pronamide SYNONYMS: Propyzamide [3, 5 dichloro N( 1,1 dimethyl 2 propynyl) benzamide]

RESIDUE OF CONCERN: The nature of the residue in plants and animals is adequately understood. The residues of concern are pronamide and its metabolites containing the 3,5 dichlorobenzoyl moiety.

Executive Summary A chronic and cancer dietary exposure assessment was requested to support the Tolerance Reassessment Eligibility Document (TRED) for Pronamide. In response, a refined tier 3 chronic/ cancer dietary exposure assessment was conducted for all supported food uses (i. e, all currently registered and proposed uses). Although tolerance level residues were used for some newly registered crops, the assessment was based primarily upon residue monitoring data for fruits and vegetables and upon calculation of anticipated residues for meat, milk, poultry and eggs, and is the most refined to date for pronamide. We note that these data consisted almost entirely of non detectable residues. Estimates of percent crop treated (% CT) generated by the Biological and Economic Assessment Division (BEAD) were used to further refine this assessment. This assessment showed that the chronic risk estimates are below the Agency's level of concern (< 100% cPAD 1 ) for the general U. S. population and for all population subgroups. The chronic dietary exposure estimates for the two most highly exposed population subgroups, children 1 6 and seniors, are both estimated at 0.000005 mg/ kg/ day (< 1% cPAD). The cancer dietary risk estimate is 1.06 x 10 7 for the U. S. population, and is below the level that HED generally considers to be of concern (1.0 x 10 6 ).

I. Introduction This memorandum provides the results of the dietary exposure assessment for the general U. S. population and various population subgroups to residues of pronamide and its metabolites containing the 3,5 dichlorobenzoyl moiety. Risk estimates were generated for chronic longterm and cancer dietary exposure using the most recent version of the Dietary Exposure Evaluation Model (DEEM™, Version 7.75), and using toxicological doses and endpoints 2 selected by the HED Hazard Identification Assessment Review Committee (HIARC). The committee concluded that toxicological effects were not expected after a single dietary dose and so did not select an acute dietary endpoint for pronamide. This assessment is the first dietary exposure analysis that has been conducted for pronamide under the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA). A previous dietary assessment was a Dietary Risk Evaluation System (DRES) analysis reported by M. Metzger, Feb 19, 1994.

For a general introduction to dietary exposure assessments references are available on the EPA/ pesticides web site. See, for instance: "Available Information on Assessing Exposure from Pesticides, A User's Guide", 6/ 21/ 2000, web link: http:// www. epa. gov/ fedrgstr/ EPA PEST/ 2000/ July/ Day 12/ 6061. pdf ; or see HED SOP 99.6, 8/ 20/ 99.

II. Toxicological Information On November 6, 2001, the Health Effects Division (HED) Hazard Identification Assessment Review Committee (HIARC) evaluated the recommendations of the HED toxicologist for pronamide with regard to the acute and chronic Reference Doses (RfDs), and with regard to the toxicological endpoint selection for occupational/ residential exposure assessments. The potential for increased susceptibility of infants and children from exposure to pronamide was also evaluated as required by the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) of 1996.

On December 3, 2001, the FQPA Safety Factor Committee met to evaluate both the hazard and exposure databases for pronamide. The Safety Factor Committee recommended that the 10x FQPA Safety Factor for pronamide be reduced to 3x. A summary of the doses and endpoints relevant to dietary exposure assessment is presented in Table 1.

Table 1. Summary of Toxicological Doses and Endpoints for Pronamide for Use in Dietary Exposure Assessment EXPOSURE SCENARIO DOSE (MG/ KG/ DAY) ENDPOINT STUDY Acute Dietary females (13 50) and general population including infants and children No appropriate endpoint was available to quantitate risk to the general population from a singledose administration of pronamide. The developmental effect, abortion, was not considered to occur after a single dose in this instance because they were observed in rabbits during the post dosing phase of the study (days 22 24). Therefore, no endpoint was chosen to quantitate risk to females 13 50 from a single dose administration of pronamide.

Chronic Dietary (all populations) NOAEL = 8.46 Increased relative (to body) liver weight and non neoplastic histologic changes in the liver, thyroid, and ovaries. Combined Chronic Toxicity/ Carcinogenicity Study  Rat UF = 100 FQPA SF = 3 Chronic RfD = 0.08 mg/ kg/ day Chronic PAD = 0.03mg/ kg/ day 3 Cancer Q1* = 2.59 x 10  2 (mg/ kg/ day) 1 Group B2 chemical  "Probable human carcinogen" based on thyroid follicular cell adenomas (males and females) and benign interstitial cell tumors (males) in rats and hepatocellular carcinomas in male mice. Combined Chronic Toxicity/ Carcinogenicity Study  Rat III. Residue Information Pronamide/ propyzamide [3, 5 dichloro n( 1,1 dimethyl 2 propynyl) benzamide] tolerances are established under 40 CFR §180.317( a), (b), and (c). The tolerance expression, listed in (a) and (c), is in terms of "the combined residues of the herbicide propyzamide and its metabolites (containing the 3,5 dichlorobenzoyl moiety and calculated as 3,5 dichloro N( 1,1 dimethyl 2 propynyl) benzamide)." The tolerance expression, listed in (b), is in terms of the parent only. Pronamide tolerances listed in 40 CFR §180.317( a) range from 0.02 ppm (for certain animal commodities) to 10.0 ppm (for a non grass animal feeds group). The time limited tolerances listed in 40 CFR §180.317( b), with an expiration date of 12/ 31/ 01, are for Section 18 emergency exemptions for pronamide uses on cranberries (0.05 ppm) and grasses (forage 1.0 ppm and hay 0.5 ppm). The tolerances listed in 40 CFR §180.317( c) are for regional registrations of pronamide on dried (winter) peas (0.05 ppm) and rhubarb (0.1 ppm). Adequate enforcement methods are available for the determination of residues in/ on plant and animal commodities. Updates to the tolerances that are used in this document are taken from proposed reassessments of tolerances reported in the residue chemistry chapter of the TRED (J. Morales, in process).

Pronamide is a systemic herbicide. Residues are translocated into the plant through the roots. Pronamide and its metabolites containing the 3,5 dichlorobenzoyl moiety are the residues of concern. Although pronamide is a large part of the total residue of interest, significant amounts of metabolites containing the 3,5 dichlorobenzoyl moiety may also be present. The residues measured in field trials include these metabolites by incorporation of a hydrolysis step; however, results of monitoring by the U. S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Marketing Service's Pesticide Data Program (PDP) analyses are also used in this assessment for some crops, and analyses performed by PDP measured only the parent compound. Therefore, all PDP results are multiplied by a factor of 2 to assure that residues of the 3,5 dichlorobenzoyl containing metabolites are conservatively accounted for in this assessment. [The factor of 2 comes from a report on a confined rotational crop study (L. Cheng, D197436, 5 May, 1994) that showed residues of the 3,5 dichlorobenzoyl containing metabolites to be present in roughly equal amounts to the parent up to 97 days after treatment.] Because all PDP results, but one, are non detects, which are ordinarily valued at ½ of the method limit of detection (LOD), this means that the non detects in the PDP data for this assessment are valued at the LOD to account for the metabolites.

Percent Crop Treated and Processing Information: 4 The percent crop treated (% CT) dataset from OPP's Biological and Economic Assessment Division (BEAD) is provided in Attachment 1. This report was last updated on September 26, 2001.

No processing information was used in this assessment. DEEM™ default processing factors were used wherever they existed for processed food derived from the relevant crops. However, because residue data were available in the PDP database for grape juice, pear juice and apple juice, these PDP data were used directly, i. e, without DEEM default processing factors, for grape juice and grape wine, and for pear juice and apple juice. Factors for the juice concentrates were estimated from the ratio of the DEEM default factors for juice/ juice concentrate.

Residue Estimates:

Crops Apples  In the year 2000, PDP analyzed 184 samples of fresh apples and detected no residues of pronamide with an average LOD of 0.005 ppm. This result is also supported by multi year FDA testing for pronamide in apples with no detectable residues. The anticipated residue estimate (AR) for apples is 0.005 ppm. BEAD reported that 1% of the apple crop is treated with pronamide. For apples and all other crops, except lettuce, the percent crop treated value is applied as adjustment factor 2 in the DEEM TM program.

Apple Juice  In 1998, PDP tested 619 samples of apple juice for pronamide and detected no residues. The average LOD was 0.013 ppm. The absence of residues in apple juice is supported by the absence of residues in apples. Therefore 0.013 ppm was used as the AR for apple juice. Because 1% of the apple crop was reported to be treated with pronamide, this was applied as adjustment factor 2. Since direct monitoring data were available, no processing factor was used for apple juice and the ratio of DEEM default processing factors of 3.9/ 1.3 = 3.0 was used for apple juice concentrate.

Apricot  A previous AR memo (L. Cheng, 12/ 15/ 93, No DP Barcode) recommended an AR of 0.005 ppm (½ LOD) for stone fruits based upon the then available FDA data. Because FDA methods are capable of measuring parent only, and to assure that residues of 3,5 dichlorobenzoyl containing metabolites are also included, an AR of 0.01 ppm, rather than the previously proposed 0.005 ppm, should be used. FDA has since tested the following numbers of stone fruit samples for pronamide between 1993  1999 with the same lower limit of reported results.

Table 2. Number of Stone Fruit samples Tested by FDA in recent Years. No Residues of Pronamide were detected in these samples. 5 year/ crop 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 apricots2828288 2 8 18 cherries 80 43 47 15 46 29 68 nectarines35454 2 6 6 4 peaches 116 189 117 75 105 114 77 plums 3 14 4 2

None of these samples contained any detectable residues of pronamide. As noted below, under the specific crops, in the year 2000 PDP tested cherries, nectarines and peaches for pronamide and all were non detects. A weighted average LOD from these various samples is 0.009 ppm. An AR of 0.01 ppm will therefore be translated to apricots. As noted under the peaches topic, cherries and plums were reported by BEAD to be treated at a rate of less than 1% of the crop. Thus, a value of 1 % crop treated was translated to all stone fruits.

Artichoke  A previous AR memo (L. Cheng, 12/ 15/ 93, No DP Barcode) recommended an AR of 0.005 ppm based upon ½ of the lower limit reported in field trials (which also include testing for metabolites). BEAD reported that 21% of artichokes are treated with pronamide.

Blackberries  A previous AR memo (L. Cheng, 12/ 15/ 93, No DP Barcode) recommended an AR of 0.01 ppm for blackberries, blueberries, boysenberries and raspberries based upon field trials. BEAD reported that 6% of blackberries are treated with pronamide.

Blueberries  A previous AR memo (L. Cheng, 12/ 15/ 93, No DP Barcode) recommended an AR of 0.01 ppm for blackberries, blueberries, boysenberries and raspberries based upon field trials. BEAD reported that <1% of blackberries are treated with pronamide. HED practice is to default to 1% crop treated when BEAD reports less than 1% of the crop is treated.

Boysenberries  A previous AR memo (L. Cheng, 12/ 15/ 93, No DP Barcode) recommended an AR of 0.01 ppm for blackberries, blueberries, boysenberries and raspberries based upon field trials. BEAD reported that 6% of blackberries are treated with pronamide, and this value was translated to boysenberries.

Cherries  In the year 2000, PDP tested 275 samples of cherries for pronamide and detected no residues with an average LOD of 0.0106 ppm. This result is supported by multi year testing by FDA for pronamide in cherries and other stone fruits, as described above. Thus, the AR for cherries is 0.011 ppm. BEAD has reported that less than 1% of cherries are treated with pronamide, which is rounded up to 1% by HED. 6 Cranberries  The tolerance of 0.05 ppm was used for cranberries. No information was available on the percentage of the crop treated so it was assumed that 100% of cranberries are treated with pronamide.

Endive  The tolerance of 1 ppm was used for endive. BEAD reported that 31% of the endive crop is treated with pronamide.

Grapes: In the year 2000, PDP tested 741 grape samples for pronamide and detected no residues with an average LOD of 0.013. This result is supported by multi year testing by FDA for pronamide in grapes with no detections of pronamide. This value is the AR. BEAD has reported that <1% of grapes are treated with pronamide.

Grape Juice  In 1998 1999, PDP analyzed 1007 samples of grape juice and found no residues of pronamide. This result is supported by the findings of no detectable residues in grapes. The average LOD of these analyses is 0.013 ppm. Therefore an AR of 0.013 was used for grape juice, grape juice concentrate and wine. BEAD reported that 1% of the grape crop is treated with pronamide. Since direct analyses were used, the DEEM processing factor was removed for grape juice, and was replaced by the ratio of the DEEM factors for grape juice concentrate/ grape juice (3.6/ 1.2 = 3.0) for grape juice concentrate.

Lettuce: In 1999  2000, PDP analyzed 925 samples of fresh lettuce for pronamide (parent only). One sample contained a detectable residue at 0.012 ppm (evaluated here as 0.024 ppm to include metabolites). The average LOD for this data set is 0.0148 ppm. The average LOD, rather than ½ LOD, is used as a conservative estimate of the non detect level for all pronamide residues containing the dichlorobenzene ring because PDP analyzed only for parent pronamide. Lettuce is 36% crop treated in the assessment. The AR, including % crop treated, is 0.0053 ppm. (% CT cannot be applied separately for lettuce, because that would incorrectly change the one detectable residue.

Nectarines  In the year 2000, PDP analyzed 345 nectarines for pronamide and detected no residues with an average LOD of 0.003 ppm. This finding is supported by multi year testing of various stone fruits by FDA with no detectable residues, as described above. As explained for peaches, the estimate of 1% crop treated is translated to nectarines.

Peaches  In the year 2000, PDP tested 536 five pound composite samples of peaches for pronamide and detected no residues with an average LOD of 0.012 ppm. In the same year PDP tested 532 individual peaches for pronamide and detected no residues with an average LOD of 0.012 ppm. This finding is also supported by multi year testing of various stone fruits by FDA with no detectable residues, as described above. BEAD reported less than 1% crop treated for cherries and plums, but did not report usage for other stone fruits. Therefore, 1% crop treated is used for all stone fruits.

Pears  In 1998  1999, PDP analyzed 1007 fresh pears for pronamide (parent only). None of the samples contained detectable residues. This finding is supported by the absence of residues in 7 PDP testing of apples and also by multi year testing by FDA with no detectable residues. The average LOD for this data set is 0.011 ppm. This value is used as the AR. This same value is used for pear juice and other processed pear commodities. PDP also analyzed canned pears in this time period, and also found no detects in these products. The value of 1% crop treated was translated from apples.

Dried Peas  The tolerance of 0.05 ppm was used for dried peas. BEAD reported that considerably less than 1% of peas are treated with pronamide. Dried peas were presumed to be subsumed within this value, and since the reported value was below 0.1% crop treated for all peas, it was reasonable to use 1% crop treated for dried peas.

Plums  As discussed under apricots, an AR of 0.01 ppm and 1% crop treated is also used for plums.

Radicchio  The tolerance of 2 ppm was used for radicchio. No information was available on the percent of radicchio treated with pronamide, therefore, 100% of the crop was assumed to be treated.

Raspberries  A previous AR memo (L. Cheng, 12/ 15/ 93, No DP Barcode) recommended an AR of 0.01 ppm for blackberries, blueberries, boysenberries and raspberries based upon field trials. BEAD reported that 5% of raspberries are treated with pronamide.

Rhubarb  A previous AR memo (L. Cheng, 12/ 15/ 93, No DP Barcode) recommended an AR of 0.039 ppm for rhubarb based upon field trials. BEAD did not report what percent of rhubarb is treated with pronamide. In such cases HED practice is to default to 100% crop treated.

Animal Products Chronic Anticipated Residues  Meat/ Milk/ Poultry/ Eggs Feedstuffs Anticipated residues for meat and milk were calculated using a dairy cattle feeding study and field trial data for residues of pronamide in/ on alfalfa, plus percent of crop treated information (A. Halverson, 9/ 26/ 01). The field trial data used to calculate the AR for alfalfa hay and meal were presented in a previous memo (L. Cheng, 12/ 17/ 93). Briefly, alfalfa seed, hay and meal were the major feed items for cattle and poultry. An anticipated residue (4.8 ppm) in alfalfa hay was calculated based on field data obtained from trials conducted in CA, ID, MN, WA (West of the Mississippi River), MS, NJ, NY, and PA (East of the Mississippi River). Alfalfa seed and meal were assumed to contain similar levels of pronamide residues.

Because chronic ARs were being calculated, the alfalfa anticipated residue level for dietary burden calculations was adjusted by the percent of crop treated data. The estimated maximum percent crop treated from BEAD for alfalfa is 0.2% and the average is 0.1%. These estimates are far below the usual HED default of 1%, so HED considered using these actual estimates to avoid overestimating pronamide residues in the large consumption items: meat, milk, poultry and eggs. To assure this would be correct, HED consulted BEAD about the expected reliability of these 8 estimated values. For safety, BEAD recommended using a more conservative estimate of 0.5% (electronic communication, A. Halverson to D. Soderberg, 6 February 2002), and the ARs were calculated using this value of 0.5%.

Meat and Fat Two groups of cattle were fed alfalfa hay containing 20 or 40 ppm field aged pronamide residues for three weeks. Residues in tissues are listed in Table 3.

Table 3. Pronamide Residues in Meat and Fat.

Sample Dose Level (ppm) Residues (ppm) Number of Samples Average Residue (ppm) after feeding at 20 ppm Kidney 20 40 0.05 0.31 0.66 1.18 2 2 0.18 Liver 20 40 0.23 0.55 0.92 1.48 2 2 0.39 Diaphragm muscle 20 40 <0.01 0.02 0.05 0.06 2 2 0.015 Front leg muscle 20 40 <0.01 0.02 0.03 0.05 2 2 0.015 Hind leg muscle 20 40 <0.01 0.02 0.03 0.06 2 2 0.015 Mesentery fat 20 40 0.02 0.08 0.21 0.48 2 2 0.05 Thoracic fat 20 40 <0.01 0.09 0.18 0.34 2 2 0.05 Kidney fat 20 40 0.02 0.10 0.25 0.47 2 2 0.06 Assuming 40% alfalfa hay (89% dry matter) and 10% alfalfa meal (89% dry matter) in the cattle diet, with an AR in both of 4.8 ppm and 0.5% crop treated, the anticipated dietary burden is 4.8 x 0.50/ 0.89 x 0.005 = 0.013 ppm. Using the results obtained from the 20 ppm feeding level, the following ARs are estimated: muscle, 0.015/ 20 x .013 = 1 x 10 5 ppm; fat, 4 x 10 5 ppm; liver, 2.5 x 10 4 ppm; and kidney, 1.2 x 10 4 ppm.

Milk Rohm and Haas has submitted a feeding study in which 12 lactating Holstein and Guernsey cows were fed alfalfa hay containing pronamide residues at 3 dosage levels for varying 9 periods of time. The dosage levels were 1.8 ppm for 16 30 days; 7.5 ppm for 16 30 days; or 0.7 ppm for 21 days followed by 3.5 ppm for 16 30 days. Milk was collected twice daily and pooled for residue analysis. Results are summarized in Table 4.

Table 4. Pronamide Residues in Milk.

Sample Feeding Level, ppm Residues, ppm Number of Samples Range Average Milk 0.7 <0.005 <0.005 33 1.8 <0.005 0.007 <0.005 37 3.5 <0.005 0.01 0.005 38 7.5 0. 005 0.015 0.011 37 A dairy cattle diet of 50 percent alfalfa hay (89% dry matter) for which an anticipated residue of 4.8 ppm had been calculated, in conjunction with 0.2% crop treated, gives an anticipated dietary burden of 0.013 ppm. Based on the average residue in the feeding trial being non detectable at the 1.8 ppm feeding level and extrapolating from one half the limit of detection (½ LOD = 0.0025 ppm), anticipated residues in milk are 1.8 x 10 5 ppm.

Poultry and eggs Hens in three groups of 15 animals were fed diets containing 0.22, 0.51, or 1.82 ppm pronamide residues for a period of up to seven weeks.

Combined residues of pronamide and its metabolites were <0.01 ppm in all eggs from the 0.22 and 0.51 ppm feeding groups (94 eggs/ group). Eggs (7 samples) in the 1.82 ppm feeding group contained <0.01 ppm residues for the first five days of dosing, after which residues in 68 subsequent samples contained <0.01 0.022 ppm. Most samples contained residues at 0.01 0.016 ppm, and residues remained fairly stable over the duration of the experiment.

Combined residues in gizzard, heart, muscle, skin, fat, and liver were <0.01 ppm in hens dosed at 0.22 ppm. At the 0.51 ppm dose level, 0.01 ppm residues were found in samples of fat and gizzard (6 samples), and liver. In hens dosed at 1.82 ppm, combined residues were 0.01 0.03 ppm in gizzard, <0.01 ppm in heart, <0.01 ppm (0.007, 0.008 ppm) in light meat, <0.01 ppm (0.007 ppm) in dark meat, <0.01 0.03 ppm in fat, and 0.02 0.04 ppm in liver.

The expected dietary intake of pronamide by poultry is based on a diet of 20% alfalfa seed and 5% alfalfa meal, correcting for 0.5% crop treated, resulting in an anticipated dietary burden of 0.006 ppm. Based on the results from the 0.22 ppm feeding group (all non detectable residues) and using one half the limit of detection (½ LOD = 0.005 ppm), the AR for all poultry commodities is 1.4 x 10 4 ppm.

Table 5. Data and Residue Estimates Used in Dietary Analyses 10 Crop Food Forms Included Source of Data Processing Factor Percent Crop Treated Anticipated Residue (ppm)

Apples All PDP DEEM Default 1% 0. 005 Apple Juice All PDP 1% 0. 013 Apricots All translated from other stone fruits DEEM Default 1% 0. 01 Artichokes All previous AR memofield trials DEEM Default 21% 0.005 Blackberries All previous AR memofield trials DEEM Default 6% 0. 01 Blueberries All previous AR memofield trials DEEM Default 1% 0. 01 Boysenberries All previous AR memofield trials DEEM Default 6% 0. 01 Cherries All PDP DEEM Default 1% 0. 011 Cranberries All tolerance DEEM Default 100% 0.05 Endive All tolerance DEEM Default 31% 1.0 Grapes Fresh Grapes, Raisins and Leaves PDP DEEM Default 1% 0. 013 Grape Juice Juice, Concentrate and Wine PDP 1% 0. 013 Lettuce All PDP DEEM Default 0 0.0053 (includes % CT)

Nectarines All PDP DEEM Default 1% 0. 003 Peaches All PDP DEEM Default 1% 0. 012 Pears All PDP DEEM Default 1% 0. 011 Peas (Dried) All tolerance DEEM Default 1% 0. 05 Plums All translated from other stone fruits DEEM Default 1% 0. 01 Prunes All translated from other stone fruits DEEM Default 1% 0. 01 Radicchio All tolerance DEEM Default 100% 2.0 Raspberries All previous AR memofield trials DEEM Default 5% 0. 01 Rhubarb All previous AR memofield trials DEEM Default 100% 0.039 Crop Food Forms Included Source of Data Processing Factor Percent Crop Treated Anticipated Residue (ppm)

11 Beef Muscle All calculated ARs DEEM Default N/ A 0.00001 Byproducts All calculated ARs DEEM Default N/ A 0.00012 Liver All calculated ARs DEEM Default N/ A 0.00025 Kidney All calculated ARs DEEM default N/ A 0.00012 Beef Fat All calculated ARs DEEM Default N/ A 0.00004 Other Organ Meat All calculated ARs DEEM Default N/ A 0.00012 Chicken Muscle All calculated ARs DEEM Default N/ A 0.00014 Byproducts All calculated ARs DEEM Default N/ A 0.00014 Liver All calculated ARs DEEM Default N/ A 0.00014 Fat All calculated ARs DEEM Default N/ A 0.00014 Other Organ Meat All calculated ARs DEEM Default N/ A 0.00014 Eggs All calculated ARs DEEM Default N/ A 0.00014 Goat Muscle All calculated ARs DEEM Default N/ A 0.00001 Byproducts All calculated ARs DEEM Default N/ A 0.00012 Liver All calculated ARs DEEM Default N/ A 0.00025 Kidney All calculated ARs DEEM default N/ A 0.00012 Fat All calculated ARs DEEM Default N/ A 0.00004 Other Organ Meat All calculated ARs DEEM Default N/ A 0.00012 Hog Muscle All calculated ARs DEEM Default N/ A 0.00001 Byproducts All calculated ARs DEEM Default N/ A 0.00012 Liver All calculated ARs DEEM Default N/ A 0.00025 Kidney All calculated ARs DEEM default N/ A 0.00012 Fat All calculated ARs DEEM Default N/ A 0.00004 Other Organ Meat All calculated ARs DEEM Default N/ A 0.00012 Horse Meat All calculated ARs DEEM Default N/ A 0.00001 Milk All calculated ARs DEEM Default N/ A 0.000018 Poultry Muscle All calculated ARs DEEM Default N/ A 0.000055 Crop Food Forms Included Source of Data Processing Factor Percent Crop Treated Anticipated Residue (ppm)

12 Byproducts All calculated ARs DEEM Default N/ A 0.000055 Liver All calculated ARs DEEM Default N/ A 0.000055 Fat All calculated ARs DEEM Default N/ A 0.000055 Other Organ Meat All calculated ARs DEEM Default N/ A 0.000055 Sheep Muscle All calculated ARs DEEM Default N/ A 0.00001 Byproducts All calculated ARs DEEM Default N/ A 0.00012 Liver All calculated ARs DEEM Default N/ A 0.00025 Kidney All calculated ARs DEEM default N/ A 0.00012 Fat All calculated ARs DEEM Default N/ A 0.00004 Other Organ Meat All calculated ARs DEEM Default N/ A 0.00012 Turkey Muscle All calculated ARs DEEM Default N/ A 0.000055 Byproducts All calculated ARs DEEM Default N/ A 0.000055 Liver All calculated ARs DEEM Default N/ A 0.000055 Fat All calculated ARs DEEM Default N/ A 0.000055 Other Organ Meat All calculated ARs DEEM Default N/ A 0.000055 Veal Muscle All calculated ARs DEEM Default N/ A 0.00001 Byproducts All calculated ARs DEEM Default N/ A 0.00012 Liver All calculated ARs DEEM Default N/ A 0.00025 Kidney All calculated ARs DEEM default N/ A 0.00012 Fat All calculated ARs DEEM Default N/ A 0.00004 Other Organ Meat All calculated ARs DEEM Default N/ A 0.00012 * Ordinarily, in this assessment, the ARs for the fruit and vegetable crops are based entirely upon LODs and the percent crop treated is entered into the DEEM program separately from the AR, as adjustment factor 2. However, this was not possible for lettuce, because lettuce has one sample with detected residues of pronamide. Therefore, for lettuce the AR includes the 36% crop treated and adjustment factor 2 is set to a value of 1.

IV. DEEM™ Program and Consumption Information 13 The chronic and cancer dietary exposure assessments were conducted using the Dietary Exposure Evaluation Model (DEEM™) software Version 7.75, which incorporates consumption data from USDA's Continuing Surveys of Food Intake by Individuals (CSFII), 1989 1992. The 1989 92 data are based on the reported consumption of more than 10,000 individuals over three consecutive days, and therefore represent more than 30,000 unique "person days" of data. Foods "as consumed" (e. g., apple pie) are linked to raw agricultural commodities, and their food forms (e. g., apples cooked/ canned or wheat flour), by proprietary recipe translation files internal to the DEEM software.

For chronic and cancer exposure and risk assessment, an estimate of the residue level in each food or food form (e. g., orange or orange juice) on the commodity residue list is multiplied by the average daily consumption estimate for that food/ food form. The resulting residue consumption estimate for each food/ food form is summed with the residue consumption estimates for all other food/ food forms on the commodity residue list to arrive at the total estimated exposure. Exposure estimates are expressed in mg/ kg body weight/ day and as a percent of the cPAD. This procedure is performed for each population subgroup.

HED notes that there is a degree of uncertainty in estimating exposures for certain population subgroups that may not be sufficiently represented in the consumption surveys (e. g, nursing and non nursing infants or Hispanic females). Therefore, risks estimated for these population subgroups are not reported explicitly but are included within larger representative populations (e. g., all infants or females, 13 50 years).

V. Results and Discussion A refined, tier 3, chronic and cancer dietary exposure assessment for pronamide was performed. The analysis was based primarily upon residue monitoring data for fruits and vegetables and upon calculated ARs for meat, milk, poultry and eggs. Field trial data and tolerance level residues were used for some minor crops. This assessment is the most refined to date for pronamide. Results for chronic exposure are shown in Table 6 and in Attachment 2. Results for cancer exposure are shown in Table 7 and Attachment 3. All results for all appropriate population subgroups are below HED's levels of concern.

Table 6. Results of Chronic Dietary Exposure Analysis 14 Population Subgroup cPAD (mg/ kg/ day) Exposure (mg/ kg/ day) % cPAD U. S. Population (total) 0. 03 mg/ kg/ day 0. 000004 <1%

All Infants (< 1 year) 0. 03 mg/ kg/ day 0. 000002 <1%

Children 1 6 years 0. 03 mg/ kg/ day 0. 000005 <1%

Children 7 12 years 0. 03 mg/ kg/ day 0. 000004 <1%

Females 13 50 0.03 mg/ kg/ day 0. 000004 <1%

Males 13 19 0.03 mg/ kg/ day 0. 000003 <1%

Males 20+ years 0. 03 mg/ kg/ day 0. 000004 <1%

Seniors 55+ 0.03 mg/ kg/ day 0. 000005 <1%

Table 7. Results of Cancer Dietary Exposure Analysis Population Subgroup Exposure (mg/ kg/ day) Anticipated Cancer Risk U. S. Population (total) 0. 000004 1.06 X 10 7 VI. Uncertainties Because the estimated exposure is well below the chronic and cancer levels of concern, any uncertainties are unlikely to cause the exposure to exceed a level of concern. However, there are some conservative assumptions that may have introduced some uncertainties into this assessment. Tolerance level residues and 100 % CT were assumed for cranberries and radicchio. The LOD was used instead of ½LOD for the non detects in the PDP data. For the animal product ARs the maximum percent crop treated was assumed instead of the average percent crop treated. Default DEEM processing factors were used for most processed foods.

VII. Conclusions A tier 3 chronic and cancer dietary risk assessment was conducted for all supported pronamide food uses. Chronic dietary risk estimates are provided for the general U. S. population and appropriate population subgroups. This assessment concludes that the chronic exposure estimates are below HED's level of concern (< 100% cPAD) for the general U. S. population and all population subgroups. The chronic dietary exposure estimate for both of the two highest population subgroups, children 1 6 years and seniors 55+ years, is 0.000005 mg/ kg/ day (< 1% of the cPAD) . The cancer dietary risk estimate associated with the use of pronamide for the U. S. population is 1.06 x10 7 , and is therefore below the level (1.0 x 10 6 ) that generally is of concern to HED.

VIII. List of Attachments 15 Attachment 1: Quantitative Usage Analysis Attachment 2: Results of Chronic Dietary Exposure Analysis Attachment 3: Results of Cancer Dietary Exposure Analysis Attachment 4: Residue Input File cc: RRB3RF; D. Soderberg; S. Knizner; C. Eiden; C. Swartz; D. Hrdy; M. Sahafeyen. 16 Attachment 1. Quantitative Usage Analysis for Pronamide/ Propyzamide Case Number: 82 PC Code: 101701 Date: September 26, 2001 Analyst: Alan Halvorson Based on available pesticide usage information for 1991 through 2000, total annual domestic usage of herbicide pronamide (propyzamide) is approximately 225 thousand pounds active ingredient (a. i.). In terms of pounds a. i., total usage is allocated mainly to head lettuce (29%), other lettuce (19%), seed crops (13%), fallowland (11%), hay other than alfalfa (8%), horticulture (3%) and alfalfa (3%). Sites with 5% or more of acreage treated include lettuce other than head lettuce (49%), head lettuce (36%), California endive/ escarole (31%),

artichokes (21%), blackberries (6%) and raspberries (5%). Rates per application and rates per year are each generally less than 2 pounds a. i.

per acre for agricultural sites. States with significant usage in terms of pounds a. i. include Arizona, California, Oregon and Washington.

Pronamide/ Propyzamide Case #: 0082 AI #: 101701 EPA QUANTITATIVE USAGE ANALYSIS Analyst: Alan Halvorson 9 26 01

Acres Acres Treated (000) % Crop Treated Lb AI Appl'd (000) Avg Applic Rates/ Acre States of Most Usage (000)     (% of total lb ai Site Grown Est Est Est lb ai/ # appl/ lb ai/ used by these states)

Avg Max Avg Max Avg Max year year appl

Alfalfa 23,724 14.2 42.5 0.1% 0.2% 6.3 18.9 0.45 1.0 0.45 OR KS CA WA 100%

Apples 513.9 2.9 8.8 1% 2% 4.1 12.3 1.41 1.0 1.41 OR WA NY 100%

Apricots  0* 0* 0* 0* 0* 0*

Artichokes 9.7 2.0 2.9 21% 30% 3.1 4.5 1.55 1.0 1.55 CA 100%

Berries 175.9 2.1 4.2 1% 2% 2.2 4.3 1.03 1.0 1.03 OR WA NY 100%

 Blackberries 5.3 0.3 0.5 6% 9% 0.3 0.4 0.79 1.0 0.79 OR 100%

 Blueberries 59.1 0.1 0.2 0.1% 0.4% 0.1 0.2 0.97 1.0 0.97 OR NY 100%

 Raspberries 13.9 0.7 1.1 5% 8% 0.9 1.5 1.38 1.0 1.38 OR WA 100%

Cherries 117.6 0.2 0.6 0.2% 0.5% 0.2 0.6 1.00 1.0 1.00 MI OR 100%

Clover, CA  0.9 1.8   0.9 1.8 1.01 1.0 1.01

Cole Crops 305.7 1.0 3.1 0.3% 1.0% 0.9 2.6 0.84 1.0 0.84 CA 100%

Cucumbers, Process 71.5 0.3 1.0 0.4% 1.3% 0.3 0.9 0.94 1.2 0.78 NC 100%

Endive/ Escarole, CA 3.3 1.0 1.3 31% 40% 0.9 1.1 0.87 1.0 0.87

Fallowland 19,334 96.1 192.2 0.5% 1.0% 24.0 48.0 0.25 1.0 0.25 WA ID 100%

Grapes 942.7 0.2 0.7 0.02% 0.07% 0.4 1.2 1.87 1.0 1.87 PA NC 100%

Hay, Other(*) 34,597 17.9 53.6 0.1% 0.2% 17.0 50.9 0.95 1.0 0.95 OR 100%

Leafy Veget, Oth(**) 73.4 0.05 0.14 0.1% 0.2% 0.05 0.14 1.00 1.0 1.00 CA 100%

 Celery 27.5 0.04 0.12 0.1% 0.4% 0.04 0.11 0.92 1.0 0.92 CA 100%

Lettuce, Head 206.8 75.4 94.3 36% 46% 65.5 91.4 0.87 1.1 0.76 CA AZ 99%

Lettuce, Other 84.8 41.6 55.1 49% 65% 41.5 60.0 1.00 1.2 0.81 CA 76%

Nectarines  0* 0* 0* 0* 0* 0*

Peaches 171.0 0.3 0.9 0.2% 0.5% 0.3 0.9 1.00 1.0 1.00 WA 100% 17 Pears 70.9 2.3 5.4 3% 8% 4.1 10.0 1.76 1.0 1.76 OR 100%

Acres Acres Treated (000) % Crop Treated Lb AI Appl'd (000) Avg Applic Rates/ Acre States of Most Usage (000)     (% of total lb ai Site Grown Est Est Est lb ai/ # appl/ lb ai/ used by these states)

Avg Max Avg Max Avg Max year year appl

Peas, Green 270.6 0.4 1.2 0.1% 0.4% 0.4 1.3 1.09 1.0 1.09 MN 100%

Peppers 68.1 0.2 0.6 0.3% 0.8%    1.0

Plums/ Prunes  0* 0* 0* 0* 0* 0*

Rhubarb

Roots/ Tubers(#) 235.8 3.3 6.5 1% 3% 2.9 5.8 0.89 1.0 0.89 CA 100%

Seed Crops 1,382.7 42.2 63.3 3% 5% 28.1 42.2 0.67 1.0 0.67 OR 98%

Sugar Beets 1,454.4 4.5 13.5 0.3% 0.9% 3.6 10.8 0.80 1.0 0.80 OR 100%

Woodland 60,478 5.0 25.2 0.01% 0.04% 0.6 2.8 0.11 1.0 0.11 NC 100%

Golf Courses      5.1 10.3    CA FL OK SC GA AL 93%

Horticultural      5.9 11.9    FL North Central 100%

Landscape Maint, CA      1.5 3.1

Lawn Care Operators      0.4 0.8

Ornamental Turf, CA      1.0 2.1

Rights of Way, CA      0.1 0.2

Turf Farms      1.9 3.8

Total 223.4 314.1

(*) Other than alfalfa (**) Other than lettuce (#) Beets, carrots, horseradish, parsnips, radish, rutabagas, sweet potatoes, turnips and yams.

NOTES ON TABLE DATA

 A dash() indicates that information is not readily available or is not applicable.

 A "0*" indicates that available EPA sources show no observed usage for this site, which implies that there is little or no usage.

 Allocation of usage among states includes only states covered in corresponding data sources.

 Calculations of the above numbers may not appear to agree with each other because they are displayed as rounded.

 Reported usage estimates above may include usage due to Section 18s, misuse, errors, etc.

 Usage data cover 1992  2000 for agriculture and 1991  1999 for non agriculture.

CROP/ SITE GROUPS AND DEFINITIONS

 Sites that reference California give usage only for California, not for the total U. S.

 Sub categories under a crop group are not exhaustive.

DATA SOURCES

 CA EPA, Summary of Pesticide Use Report Data, 1997, 1998 & 1999.

 Garber & Hudson, Pest Management in the United States Greenhouse and Nursery Industry, 1993 data.

 NCFAP, National Use Pesticide Database, circa 1992 & circa 1997. 18  US EPA, proprietary data, 1991  1994 & 1996  2000.

 USDA/ NASS, Agricultural Chemical Usage

 Fruits Summary, 1993 & 1997.

 Vegetables Summary, 1996, 1998 & 2000 19 Attachment 2. Results of Chronic Dietary Exposure Analysis U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Ver. 7.73 DEEM Chronic analysis for PRONAMIDE (1989 92 data)

Residue file name: D:\ pronamidefeb6b. RS7 Adjustment factor #2 used.

Analysis Date 02 07 2002/ 08: 47: 49 Residue file dated: 02 06 2002/ 17: 53: 38/ 8 Reference dose (RfD, Chronic) = .03 mg/ kg bw/ day COMMENT 1: contains PDP data from 2000 =============================================================================== Total exposure by population subgroup

Total Exposure

Population mg/ kg Percent of Subgroup body wt/ day Rfd

U. S. Population (total) 0.000004 0.0%

U. S. Population (spring season) 0.000005 0.0%

U. S. Population (summer season) 0.000003 0.0%

U. S. Population (autumn season) 0.000004 0.0%

U. S. Population (winter season) 0.000005 0.0%

Northeast region 0.000005 0.0%

Midwest region 0.000003 0.0%

Southern region 0.000003 0.0%

Western region 0.000006 0.0%

Hispanics 0.000005 0.0%

Non hispanic whites 0.000004 0.0%

Non hispanic blacks 0.000002 0.0%

Non hisp/ non white/ non black 0.000005 0.0%

All infants (< 1 year) 0.000002 0.0% 20 Nursing infants 0.000001 0.0%

Non nursing infants 0.000003 0.0%

Children 1 6 yrs 0.000005 0.0%

Children 7 12 yrs 0.000004 0.0%

Females 13 19 (not preg or nursing) 0.000002 0.0%

Females 20+ (not preg or nursing) 0.000004 0.0%

Females 13 50 yrs 0.000004 0.0%

Females 13+ (preg/ not nursing) 0.000003 0.0%

Females 13+ (nursing) 0.000004 0.0%

Males 13 19 yrs 0.000003 0.0%

Males 20+ yrs 0.000004 0.0%

Seniors 55+ 0.000005 0.0%

Pacific Region 0.000007 0.0%

 21 Attachment 3. Results of Cancer Dietary Exposure Analysis U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Ver. 7.73 DEEM Chronic analysis for PRONAMIDE (1989 92 data)

Residue file name: D:\ pronamidefeb6b. RS7 Adjustment factor #2 used.

Analysis Date 02 07 2002/ 08: 48: 48 Residue file dated: 02 06 2002/ 17: 53: 38/ 8 Q* = 0.0259 COMMENT 1: contains PDP data from 2000 =============================================================================== Total exposure by population subgroup

Total Exposure

Population mg/ kg Lifetime risk Subgroup body wt/ day (Q*= .0259)

U. S. Population (total) 0.000004 1.06E 07 22 Attachment 4: Residue Input File U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Ver. 7.73 DEEM Chronic analysis for PRONAMIDE 1989 92 data Residue file: D:\ pronamidefeb6b. RS7 Adjust. #2 used Analysis Date 02 07 2002 Residue file dated: 02 06 2002/ 17: 53: 38/ 8 Reference dose (RfD) = 0.03 mg/ kg bw/ day Comment: contains PDP data from 2000

Food Crop RESIDUE Adj. Factors Comment Code Grp Food Name (ppm) #1 #2

1 13A Blackberries 0.010000 1.000 0.060 AR mem Full comment: AR memo  field trials 2 13A Boysenberries 0.010000 1.000 0.060 AR mem Full comment: AR memo  field trials 5 13A Raspberries 0.010000 1.000 0.050 AR mem Full comment: AR memo  field trials 7 13B Blueberries 0.010000 1.000 0.010 AR mem Full comment: AR memo  field trials 8 O Cranberries 0.050000 1.000 1.000 tolera Full comment: tolerance 9 O Cranberries juice 0.050000 1.100 1.000 tolera Full comment: tolerance 13 O Grapes 0.013000 1.000 0.010 PDP 14 O Grapes raisins 0.013000 4.300 0.010 PDP 15 O Grapes juice 0.013000 1.000 0.010 PDP 52 11 Apples 0.005000 1.000 0.010 PDP 53 11 Apples dried 0.005000 8.000 0.010 PDP 54 11 Apples juice/ cider 0.013000 1.000 0.010 PDP 56 11 Pears 0.011000 1.000 0.010 PDP 57 11 Pears dried 0.011000 6.250 0.010 PDP 59 12 Apricots 0.010000 1.000 0.010 other 23 Full comment: other stone fruits 60 12 Apricots dried 0.010000 6.000 0.010 other Full comment: other stone fruits 61 12 Cherries 0.011000 1.000 0.010 PDP 62 12 Cherries dried 0.011000 4.000 0.010 PDP 63 12 Cherries juice 0.011000 1.500 0.010 PDP 64 12 Nectarines 0.003000 1.000 0.010 PDP 65 12 Peaches 0.012000 1.000 0.010 PDP 66 12 Peaches dried 0.012000 7.000 0.010 PDP 67 12 Plums (damsons) 0.010000 1.000 0.010 other Full comment: other stone fruits 68 12 Plums prunes (dried) 0.010000 5.000 0.010 other Full comment: other stone fruits 69 12 Plums/ prune juice 0.010000 1.400 0.010 other Full comment: other stone fruits 176 4A Lettuce leafy varieties 0.005300 1.000 1.000 PDP 178 4A Endive curley and escarole 1.000000 1.000 0.310 tolera Full comment: tolerance 181 O Artichokes globe 0.005000 1.000 0.210 AR mem Full comment: AR memo  field trials  1/ 2 LOD 182 4A Lettuce unspecified 0.005300 1.000 1.000 PDP 185 4B Rhubarb 0.039000 1.000 1.000 AR mem Full comment: AR memo  field trial average 192 4A Lettuce head varieties 0.005300 1.000 1.000 PDP 195 O Grapes leaves 0.013000 1.000 0.010 PDP 203 1CD Artichokes jerusalem 0.005000 1.000 0.210 AR mem Full comment: AR memo  field trials  1/ 2 LOD 240 6C Peas (garden) dry 0.050000 1.000 0.010 tolera Full comment: tolerance 315 O Grapes wine and sherry 0.013000 1.000 0.010 PDP 318 D Milk nonfat solids 0.000018 1.000 1.000 AR 319 D Milk fat solids 0.000018 1.000 1.000 AR 320 D Milk sugar (lactose) 0.000018 1.000 1.000 AR 24 321 M Beef meat byproducts 0.000120 1.000 1.000 AR 322 M Beef other organ meats 0.000120 1.000 1.000 AR 323 M Beef dried 0.000010 1.920 1.000 AR 324 M Beef fat w/ o bones 0.000040 1.000 1.000 AR 325 M Beef kidney 0.000120 1.000 1.000 AR 326 M Beef liver 0.000250 1.000 1.000 AR 327 M Beef lean (fat/ free) w/ o bones 0.000010 1.000 1.000 AR 328 M Goat meat byproducts 0.000120 1.000 1.000 AR 329 M Goat other organ meats 0.000120 1.000 1.000 AR 330 M Goat fat w/ o bone 0.000040 1.000 1.000 AR 331 M Goat kidney 0.000120 1.000 1.000 AR 332 M Goat liver 0.000250 1.000 1.000 AR 333 M Goat lean (fat/ free) w/ o bone 0.000010 1.000 1.000 AR 334 M Horsemeat 0.000010 1.000 1.000 AR 336 M Sheep meat byproducts 0.000120 1.000 1.000 AR 337 M Sheep other organ meats 0.000120 1.000 1.000 AR 338 M Sheep fat w/ o bone 0.000040 1.000 1.000 AR 339 M Sheep kidney 0.000120 1.000 1.000 AR 340 M Sheep liver 0.000250 1.000 1.000 AR 341 M Sheep lean (fat free) w/ o bone 0.000010 1.000 1.000 AR 342 M Pork meat byproducts 0.000120 1.000 1.000 AR 343 M Pork other organ meats 0.000120 1.000 1.000 AR 344 M Pork fat w/ o bone 0.000040 1.000 1.000 AR 345 M Pork kidney 0.000120 1.000 1.000 AR 346 M Pork liver 0.000250 1.000 1.000 AR 347 M Pork lean (fat free) w/ o bone 0.000010 1.000 1.000 AR 355 P Turkey byproducts 0.000140 1.000 1.000 AR 356 P Turkey giblets (liver) 0.000140 1.000 1.000 AR 357 P Turkey fat w/ o bones 0.000140 1.000 1.000 AR 358 P Turkey lean/ fat free w/ o bones 0.000140 1.000 1.000 AR 360 P Poultry other lean (fat free) w/ 0.000140 1.000 1.000 AR 361 P Poultry other giblets( liver) 0.000140 1.000 1.000 AR 362 P Poultry other fat w/ o bones 0.000140 1.000 1.000 AR 25 363 P Eggs whole 0.000140 1.000 1.000 AR 364 P Eggs white only 0.000140 1.000 1.000 AR 365 P Eggs yolk only 0.000140 1.000 1.000 AR 366 P Chicken byproducts 0.000140 1.000 1.000 AR 367 P Chicken giblets( liver) 0.000140 1.000 1.000 AR 368 P Chicken fat w/ o bones 0.000140 1.000 1.000 AR 369 P Chicken lean/ fat free w/ o bones 0.000140 1.000 1.000 AR 377 11 Apples juice concentrate 0.013000 3.000 0.010 PDP 380 13A Blackberries juice 0.010000 1.000 0.060 AR mem Full comment: AR memo  field trials 385 P Chicken giblets (excl. liver) 0.000140 1.000 1.000 AR 389 O Cranberries juice concentrate 0.050000 3.300 1.000 tolera Full comment: tolerance 392 O Grapes juice concentrate 0.013000 3.000 0.010 PDP 398 D Milk based water 0.000018 1.000 1.000 AR 402 12 Peaches juice 0.012000 1.000 0.010 PDP 404 11 Pears juice 0.011000 1.000 0.010 PDP 410 12 Apricot juice 0.010000 1.000 0.010 other Full comment: other stone fruits 424 M Veal fat w/ o bones 0.000040 1.000 1.000 AR 425 M Veal lean (fat free) w/ o bones 0.000010 1.000 1.000 AR 426 M Veal kidney 0.000120 1.000 1.000 AR 427 M Veal liver 0.000250 1.000 1.000 AR 428 M Veal other organ meats 0.000120 1.000 1.000 AR 429 M Veal dried 0.000010 1.920 1.000 AR 430 M Veal meat byproducts 0.000120 1.000 1.000 AR 449 P Turkey other organ meats 0.000140 1.000 1.000 AR 492 O Radicchio 2.000000 1.000 1.000 tolera Full comment: tolerance


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 153 (Friday, August 8, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 46437]
[FR Doc No: 2014-18823]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OW-2014-0359; FRL-9914-82-OW]

Proposed Information Collection Request; Comment Request;
Underground Injection Control (UIC) Program

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency is planning to submit an
information collection request (ICR), ``Underground Injection Control
Program'' (EPA ICR No. 0370.25, OMB Control No. 2040-0042) to the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in
accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
Before doing so, EPA is soliciting public comments on specific aspects
of the proposed information collection as described below. This is a
proposed extension of the ICR, which is currently approved through
November 30, 2014. 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.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before October 7, 2014.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-
2014-0359 online using www.regulations.gov (our preferred method), or
by mail to: EPA Docket Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Mail
Code 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460.
    EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the
public docket without change including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information
claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert E. Smith, Office of Ground
Water and Drinking Water/Drinking Water Protection Division, 4606M,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW.,
Washington, DC 20460; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number: 202-
564-3756; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Supporting documents which explain in detail
the information that the EPA will be collecting are available in the
public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at
www.regulations.gov or in person at the EPA Docket Center, WJC West,
Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The telephone
number for the Docket Center is<PHONE_NUMBER>. For additional
information about EPA's public docket, visit http://www.epa.gov/dockets.
    Pursuant to section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, EPA is soliciting
comments and information to enable it to: (i) Evaluate 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; (ii) evaluate the accuracy of
the Agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of
information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions
used; (iii) enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information
to be collected; and (iv) minimize the burden of the collection of
information on those who are to respond, including through the use of
appropriate automated electronic, mechanical, or other technological
collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g.,
permitting electronic submission of responses. EPA will consider the
comments received and amend the ICR as appropriate. The final ICR
package will then be submitted to OMB for review and approval. At that
time, EPA will issue another Federal Register notice to announce the
submission of the ICR to OMB and the opportunity to submit additional
comments to OMB.
    Abstract: The Underground Injection Control (UIC) program under The
Safe Drinking Water Act established a Federal and State regulatory
system to protect underground sources of drinking water (USDWs) from
contamination by injected fluids. Injected fluids include trillions of
gallons of various types of fluids each year such as hazardous waste;
oil field brines or produced water; mineral processing fluids; various
types of industrial fluids; automotive, sanitary and other wastes; and
carbon dioxide injected for geological sequestration. Owners or
operators of underground injection wells must obtain permits, conduct
environmental monitoring, maintain records and report results to the
EPA or the State UIC primacy (primary enforcement) agency. States must
report to EPA on permittee compliance and related information. The
mandatory information is reported using standardized forms and annual
reports; applicable regulations are codified in the Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) at 40 CFR Parts 144 through 148. The data are used by
UIC authorities to ensure the protection of underground sources of
drinking water.
    Form Numbers: The forms are 7520-1, 7520-2A, 7520-2B, 7520-3, 7520-
4, 7520-6, 7520-7, 7520-8, 7520-9, 7520-10, 7520-11, 7520-12, 7520-14,
7520-16, and 7520-17.
    Respondents/affected entities: Owners or operators of underground
injection wells and State UIC primacy agencies.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR Parts 144
through 148).
    Estimated number of respondents: 53,772 (total).
    Frequency of response: Annual, semi-annual and quarterly.
    Total estimated burden: 1,304,027 hours (per year). Burden is
defined at 5 CFR 1320.03(b).
    Total estimated cost: $194,842,061 (per year), includes
$140,457,959 annualized capital or operation and maintenance costs.
    Changes in Estimates: Possible increases in the total estimated
respondent burden will be evaluated along with any public comments
received on this notice.

    Dated: July 30, 2014.
Peter Grevatt,
Director, Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water.
[FR Doc. 2014-18823 Filed 8-7-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 186 (Monday, September 26, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 66010-66011]
[FR Doc No: 2016-23021]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings #2

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER16-1832-002.
    Applicants: Entergy Louisiana, LLC.

    Description: Tariff Amendment: ELL Nine Mile 6 Supplemental
Reactive to be effective 8/1/2016.
    Filed Date: 9/19/16.
    Accession Number: 20160919-5123.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/11/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-2222-001.
    Applicants: Alcoa Power Generating Inc.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: Long Sault Division Response to
Deficiency Letter to be effective 10/1/2016.
    Filed Date: 9/16/16.
    Accession Number: 20160916-5168.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/28/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-2223-001.
    Applicants: Alcoa Power Generating Inc.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: Tapoco Division Response to
Deficiency Letter to be effective 10/1/2016.
    Filed Date: 9/16/16.
    Accession Number: 20160916-5171.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/28/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-2580-001.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: 2016-09-19_Amendment to Bi-
Directional EARS to be effective 11/12/2016.
    Filed Date: 9/19/16.
    Accession Number: 20160919-5112.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/11/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-2605-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: First Revised ISA No. 3559,
Queue No. X1-109/AA1-082 to be effective 8/18/2016.
    Filed Date: 9/19/16.
    Accession Number: 20160919-5043.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/11/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-2606-000.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.,
Michigan Electric Transmission Company, LLC, Northern Indiana Public
Service Company.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: 2016-09-19_SA 2947 NIPSCO-
METC T-TIA to be effective 11/19/2016.
    Filed Date: 9/19/16.
    Accession Number: 20160919-5044.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/11/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-2607-000.
    Applicants: Watson Cogeneration Company.
    Description: Compliance filing: Amended Triennial Review Filing to
be effective N/A.
    Filed Date: 9/19/16.
    Accession Number: 20160919-5055.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/11/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-2608-000.
    Applicants: Southern California Edison Company.
    Description: Tariff Cancellation: Notices of Cancellation to DSA
with Mirasol Development to be effective 6/8/2016.
    Filed Date: 9/19/16.
    Accession Number: 20160919-5081.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/11/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-2609-000.
    Applicants: Idaho Power Company.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Tariff Database
Reorganization Filing to be effective 11/21/2016.
    Filed Date: 9/19/16.
    Accession Number: 20160919-5098.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/11/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-2610-000.
    Applicants: Wabash Valley Power Association, Inc.
    Description: Initial rate filing: WVPA Reactive Tariff Volume No. 4
to be effective 10/1/2016.
    Filed Date: 9/19/16.
    Accession Number: 20160919-5104.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/11/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-2611-000.
    Applicants: Wabash Valley Power Association, Inc.
    Description: Initial rate filing: WVPA Reactive Tariff Volume No. 3
to be effective 10/1/2016.
    Filed Date: 9/19/16.
    Accession Number: 20160919-5117.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/11/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-2612-000.
    Applicants: Summer Solar LLC.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Shared Facilities Agreement
to be effective 9/20/2016.
    Filed Date: 9/19/16.
    Accession Number: 20160919-5127.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/11/16.

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

    Dated: September 19, 2016.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-23021 Filed 9-23-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: August 9, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 153)]
[Notices]
[Page 45589-45590]
[DOCID:fr09au06-131]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-54266; File No. SR-Amex-2006-58]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; American Stock Exchange LLC; Order
Granting Approval of a Proposed Rule Change Relating to an Amendment to
Amex Rule 27

August 2, 2006.
    On June 9, 2006, the American Stock Exchange LLC (``Amex'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a
proposed rule change to amend Amex Rule 27 to revise the number and
composition of the Allocation Committee (``Allocations

Committee'' or ``Committee''). The proposed rule change was published
for comment in the Federal Register on June 30, 2006.\3\ The Commission
received no comments on the proposal. This order approves the proposed
rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 54039 (June 23,
2006), 71 FR 37627.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Currently, the Committee consists of six members. Specifically, the
Chief Executive Officer (or his or her designee), a representative of
an upstairs member firm and either: (i) Four brokers for equities and
other securities admitted to trading on the Exchange except for
Exchange Traded Funds and options; (ii) two brokers and two Registered
Traders for Exchange Traded Funds; or (iii) two brokers and two
Registered Options Traders for options.
    The Exchange proposes to change the number and composition of the
Allocation Committee from six to eight members. The Exchange proposes
to amend Amex Rule 27 to revise the number and composition of the
Allocations Committee so that the Committee consists of the Chief
Executive Officer of the Exchange (or his or her designee), a
representative of an upstairs member firm and either: (i) Six brokers
for equities and other securities admitted to trading on the Exchange
except for Exchange Traded Funds and options; (ii) three brokers and
three Registered Traders for Exchange Traded Funds; or (iii) three
brokers and three Registered Options Traders for options. The minimum
quorum requirement would remain at four persons.\4\ According to the
Exchange, because a small number of members now comprise the
Allocations Committee, the minimum quorum requirement of four persons
to conduct business has become overly burdensome.\5\ The Exchange
represents that the Allocations Committee often fails to meet the
minimum quorum requirement to transact business.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The Commission notes that the Allocations Committee is
chaired by the Chief Executive Officer (or his or her designee) who
does not vote except to make or break a tie. See Amex Rule 27(a).
    \5\ In October 2005, the Commission approved an Exchange
proposal to combine three separate Allocation Committees into a
single Committee and reduce the composition of the Committee to six
members. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 52646 (October 20,
2005), 70 FR 61854 (October 26, 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the requirements of Section 6 of the Act,\6\ and the rules and
regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange.\7\
In particular, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is
consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\8\ which requires, among
other things, that the Exchange's rules be designed to prevent
fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and
equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation and coordination
with persons engaged in facilitating transactions in securities, and to
remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open
market and a national market system. The Commission believes that
increasing the number of members of the Committee, from six to eight
members, will provide greater flexibility and efficiency to the
Allocations Committee to better achieve the minimum four person quorum
requirement to transact business.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \7\ In approving this proposed rule change, the Commission has
considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition,
and capital formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\9\ that the proposed rule change (SR-Amex-2006-58) is approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

J. Lynn Taylor,
Assistant Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E6-12893 Filed 8-8-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 81 (Wednesday, April 27, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 24929-24930]
[FR Doc No: 2016-09779]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

[Summary Notice No. PE-2016-46]

Petition for Exemption; Summary of Petition Received; Aviation
Systems Engineering Company

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice contains a summary of a petition seeking relief
from specified requirements of Title 14 of the Code of Federal
Regulations. The purpose of this notice is to improve the public's
awareness of, and participation in, the FAA's exemption process.
Neither publication of this notice nor the inclusion or omission of
information in the summary is intended to affect the legal status of
the petition or its final disposition.

DATES: Comments on this petition must identify the petition docket
number and must be received on or before May 17, 2016.

ADDRESSES: Send comments identified by docket number FAA-2015-0481
using any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and follow the online instructions for sending your
comments electronically.
     Mail: Send comments to Docket Operations, M-30; U.S.
Department of Transportation (DOT), 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room
W12-140, West Building Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: Take comments to Docket
Operations in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Fax: Fax comments to Docket Operations at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Privacy: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments
from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT posts
these comments, without edit, including any personal information the
commenter provides, to http://www.regulations.gov, as described in the
system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at
http://www.dot.gov/privacy.
    Docket: Background documents or comments received may be read at
http://www.regulations.gov at any time. Follow the online instructions
for accessing the docket or go to the Docket Operations in Room W12-140
of the

West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington,
DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dan Ngo,<PHONE_NUMBER> 800 Independence
Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591. This notice is published pursuant to
14 CFR 11.85.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on April 21, 2016.
James M. Crotty,
Acting Director, Office of Rulemaking.

Petition for Exemption

    Docket No.: FAA-2015-0481.
    Petitioner: Aviation Systems Engineering Company.
    Section(s) of 14 CFR Affected: Sec. Sec.  91.119(c) and
91.151(a)(1).
    Description of Relief Sought: The petitioner is seeking relief to
amend Exemption No. 11509 to operate within 500 feet from
nonparticipating persons, as well as relief from the minimum fuel
requirement.

[FR Doc. 2016-09779 Filed 4-26-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P