[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 88 (Wednesday, May 7, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 26153-26158]
[FR Doc No: 2014-10216]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2013-0653; FRL-9909-31]

Tebuconazole; Pesticide Tolerances

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes tolerances for residues of
tebuconazole in or on orange and orange, oil. Bayer CropScience, LP
requested these tolerances under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic
Act (FFDCA).

DATES: This regulation is effective May 7, 2014 Objections and requests
for hearings must be received on or before July 7, 2014, and must be
filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178
(see also Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION).

ADDRESSES: The docket for this action, identified by docket
identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2013-0653, is available at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of Pesticide Programs Regulatory
Public Docket (OPP Docket) in the Environmental Protection Agency
Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301 Constitution
Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001. The Public Reading Room is open
from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal
holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202)
566-1744, and the telephone number for the OPP Docket is (703) 305-
5805. Please review the visitor instructions and additional information
about the docket available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lois Rossi, Registration Division
(7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency,
1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

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

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

    You may access a frequently updated electronic version of EPA's
tolerance regulations at 40 CFR part 180 through the Government
Printing Office's e-CFR site at http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?&c=ecfr&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title40/40tab_02.tpl.

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

    Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an
objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a
hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a
hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided
in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify
docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2013-0653 in the subject line on the first
page of your submission. All objections and requests for a hearing must
be in writing, and must be received by the Hearing Clerk on or before
July 7, 2014. Addresses for mail and hand delivery of objections and
hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b).
    In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the
Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of
the filing (excluding any Confidential Business Information (CBI)) for
inclusion in the public docket. Information not marked confidential
pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without
prior notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your objection or hearing
request, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2013-0653, by one of
the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Do not submit
electronically any information you consider to be CBI or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
     Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental Protection Agency Docket
Center (EPA/DC), (28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC
20460-0001.
     Hand Delivery: To make special arrangements for hand
delivery or delivery of boxed information, please follow the
instructions at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.htm.
    Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along
with more information about dockets generally, is available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

II. Summary of Petitioned-For Tolerance

    In the Federal Register of October 25, 2013 (78 FR 63938) (FRL-
9901-96), EPA issued a document pursuant to FFDCA section 408(d)(3), 21
U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a pesticide petition (PP
2E8138) by Bayer CropScience LP, P.O. Box 12014, 2 T. W. Alexander
Drive, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709. The petition requested that
EPA establish import tolerances for residues of the fungicide
tebuconazole, in or on orange, whole fruit at 1 part per million (ppm);
orange, juice at 0.15 ppm; and orange, oil at 400 ppm. That document
referenced a summary of the petition prepared by Bayer CropScience LP,
the registrant, which is available in the docket, http://www.regulations.gov. Subsequently, the petitioner submitted a revised
petition that requested different tolerance levels for orange juice and
orange oil. The Agency published a second notice of filing document in
the Federal Register of February 25, 2014 (79 FR 10458) (FRL-9906-77),
noting the revisions for the uses in/on orange, juice from 0.15 ppm to
0.7 ppm; orange, oil from 400 ppm to 20 ppm. There were no comments
received concerning this petition.
    Based upon review of the data supporting the petition, the proposed
tolerance for orange, juice is unnecessary. The proposed tolerance for
orange, oil was lowered. The reasons for these changes are explained in
Unit IV.C.

III. Aggregate Risk Assessment and Determination of Safety

    Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish a
tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a
food) only if EPA determines that the tolerance is ``safe.'' Section
408(b)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines ``safe'' to mean that ``there is a
reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure
to the pesticide chemical residue, including all anticipated dietary
exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable
information.'' This includes exposure through drinking water and in
residential settings, but does not include occupational exposure.
Section

408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA requires EPA to give special consideration to
exposure of infants and children to the pesticide chemical residue in
establishing a tolerance and to ``ensure that there is a reasonable
certainty that no harm will result to infants and children from
aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue. . . .''
    Consistent with FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), and the factors
specified in FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), EPA has reviewed the available
scientific data and other relevant information in support of this
action. EPA has sufficient data to assess the hazards of and to make a
determination on aggregate exposure for tebuconazole including exposure
resulting from the tolerances established by this action. EPA's
assessment of exposures and risks associated with tebuconazole follows.

A. Toxicological Profile

    EPA has evaluated the available toxicity data and considered its
validity, completeness, and reliability as well as the relationship of
the results of the studies to human risk. EPA has also considered
available information concerning the variability of the sensitivities
of major identifiable subgroups of consumers, including infants and
children. The hazard characterization remains unchanged from the
assessment upon which the final rule published in the Federal Register
on November 15, 2013 (78 FR 68741) (FRL-9392-1) is based.
    Specific information on the studies received and the nature of the
adverse effects caused by tebuconazole as well as the no-observed-
adverse-effect-level (NOAEL) and the lowest-observed-adverse-effect-
level (LOAEL) from the toxicity studies are discussed in the preamble
to that final rule and its supporting documents as well as the most
recent human health risk assessment, ``Tebuconazole: Human Health Risk
Assessment for Tolerance on Imported Oranges'', which can be found at
http://www.regulations.gov, under docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2013-
0653-0004.

B. Toxicological Points of Departure/Levels of Concern

    Once a pesticide's toxicological profile is determined, EPA
identifies toxicological points of departure (POD) and levels of
concern to use in evaluating the risk posed by human exposure to the
pesticide. For hazards that have a threshold below which there is no
appreciable risk, the toxicological POD is used as the basis for
derivation of reference values for risk assessment. PODs are developed
based on a careful analysis of the doses in each toxicological study to
determine the dose at which the NOAEL are observed and the LOAEL are
identified. Uncertainty/safety factors are used in conjunction with the
POD to calculate a safe exposure level--generally referred to as a
population-adjusted dose (PAD) or a reference dose (RfD)--and a safe
margin of exposure (MOE). For non-threshold risks, the Agency assumes
that any amount of exposure will lead to some degree of risk. Thus, the
Agency estimates risk in terms of the probability of an occurrence of
the adverse effect expected in a lifetime. For more information on the
general principles EPA uses in risk characterization and a complete
description of the risk assessment process, see http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/factsheets/riskassess.htm.
    A summary of the toxicological endpoints for tebuconazole used for
human risk assessment is shown in the table contained in Unit III.B. of
the preamble to the final rule published in the Federal Register issue
of November 15, 2013.

C. Exposure Assessment

    1. Dietary exposure from food and feed uses. In evaluating dietary
exposure to tebuconazole, EPA considered exposure under the petitioned-
for tolerances as well as all existing tebuconazole tolerances in 40
CFR 180.474. EPA assessed dietary exposures from tebuconazole in food
as follows:
    i. Acute exposure. Quantitative acute dietary exposure and risk
assessments are performed for a food-use pesticide, if a toxicological
study has indicated the possibility of an effect of concern occurring
as a result of a 1-day or single exposure.
    Such effects were identified for tebuconazole. In estimating acute
dietary exposure, EPA used food consumption information from the United
States Department of Agriculture (USDA) 2003-2008 National Health and
Nutrition Examination Survey, What We Eat in America, (NHANES/WWEIA).
As to residue levels in food, a somewhat refined acute probabilistic
dietary exposure assessment was conducted for all existing and proposed
food uses of tebuconazole. EPA used the latest USDA Pesticide Data
Program (PDP) monitoring data, field trial data, percent crop treated
(PCT) data and empirical and DEEM (ver. 7.81) default processing
factors.
    ii. Chronic exposure. In conducting the chronic dietary exposure
assessment EPA used the food consumption data from the USDA's (NHANES/
WWEIA) conducted from 2003-2008 as well. As to the residue levels in
food, EPA made the following assumptions for the chronic exposure
assessment: As to residue levels in food, EPA used field trial data,
USDA PDP data, assumed PCT data levels and used empirical and DEEM
(ver. 7.81) default processing factors as described in Unit III.C.1.iv.
    iii. Cancer. The Agency determined that cancer dietary risk
concerns due to long-term consumption of tebuconazole residues are
adequately addressed by the chronic dietary exposure analysis using the
reference dose; i.e.. the chronic dietary risk assessments is
considered to be protective of any cancer effects, and therefore, a
separate cancer dietary exposure analysis was not performed.
    iv. Anticipated residue and PCT information. Section 408(b)(2)(E)
of FFDCA authorizes EPA to use available data and information on the
anticipated residue levels of pesticide residues in food and the actual
levels of pesticide residues that have been measured in food. If EPA
relies on such information, EPA must require pursuant to FFDCA section
408(f)(1) that data be provided 5 years after the tolerance is
established, modified, or left in effect, demonstrating that the levels
in food are not above the levels anticipated. For the present action,
EPA will issue such data call-ins as are required by FFDCA section
408(b)(2)(E) and authorized under FFDCA section 408(f)(1). Data will be
required to be submitted no later than 5 years from the date of
issuance of these tolerances.
    Section 408(b)(2)(F) of FFDCA states that the Agency may use data
on the actual percent of food treated for assessing chronic dietary
risk only if:
     Condition a: The data used are reliable and provide a
valid basis to show what percentage of the food derived from such crop
is likely to contain the pesticide residue.
     Condition b: The exposure estimate does not underestimate
exposure for any significant subpopulation group.
     Condition c: Data are available on pesticide use and food
consumption in a particular area, the exposure estimate does not
understate exposure for the population in such area.
    In addition, the Agency must provide for periodic evaluation of any
estimates used. To provide for the periodic evaluation of the estimate
of PCT as required by FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(F), EPA may require
registrants to submit data on PCT.
    For the acute assessment, the Agency estimated the maximum PCT
estimates for existing uses as follows: Almonds 2.5%; apples 2.5%;
apricots 20%; barley

2.5%; beans green 2.5%; cantaloupes 10%; cherries 45%; corn 2.5%;
cotton 2.5%; dry beans/peas 5%; garlic 95%; grapes 35%; onions 5%;
peaches 25%; peanuts 55%; pears 5%; plums/prunes 5%; soybeans 2.5%;
sweet corn 5%; and wheat 25%.
    For the chronic assessment, the Agency estimated the average PCT
estimates for existing uses as follows: Almonds 1%; apples 1%; apricots
10%; asparagus 5%; barley 2.5%; beans green 1%; cantaloupes 5%;
cherries 30%; corn 1%; cotton 1%; dry beans/peas 2.5%; garlic 60%;
grapes 20%; nectarines 10%; onions 5%; peaches 15%; peanuts 40%; pears
5%; pecans 5%; pistachios 2.5%; plums/prunes 2.5%; pumpkins 2.5%;
soybeans 1%; squash 2.5%; sweet corn 2.5%; watermelons 10%; and wheat
20%.
    In most cases, EPA uses available data from United States
Department of Agriculture/National Agricultural Statistics Service
(USDA/NASS), proprietary market surveys, and the National Pesticide Use
Database for the chemical/crop combination for the most recent 6-7
years. EPA uses an average PCT for chronic dietary risk analysis. The
average PCT figure for each existing use is derived by combining
available public and private market survey data for that use, averaging
across all observations, and rounding to the nearest 5%, except for
those situations in which the average PCT is less than one. In those
cases, 1% is used as the average PCT and 2.5% is used as the maximum
PCT. EPA uses a maximum PCT for acute dietary risk analysis. The
maximum PCT figure is the highest observed maximum value reported
within the recent 6 years of available public and private market survey
data for the existing use and rounded up to the nearest multiple of 5%.
    Subsequently, the Agency use estimated percent import estimates
from the most recent (2013) screening level usage and analysis
available for orange juice and oranges at 27.7% and 7.7%, respectively.
Since usage data are not available for other countries, the Agency
assumes that all of the imported orange commodities are treated.
    The Agency believes that the three conditions discussed in Unit
III.C.1.iv. have been met. With respect to Condition a, PCT estimates
are derived from Federal and private market survey data, which are
reliable and have a valid basis. The Agency is reasonably certain that
the percentage of the food treated is not likely to be an
underestimation. As to Conditions b and c, regional consumption
information and consumption information for significant subpopulations
is taken into account through EPA's computer-based model for evaluating
the exposure of significant subpopulations including several regional
groups. Use of this consumption information in EPA's risk assessment
process ensures that EPA's exposure estimate does not understate
exposure for any significant subpopulation group and allows the Agency
to be reasonably certain that no regional population is exposed to
residue levels higher than those estimated by the Agency. Other than
the data available through national food consumption surveys, EPA does
not have available reliable information on the regional consumption of
food to which tebuconazole may be applied in a particular area.
    2. Dietary exposure from drinking water. The Agency used screening
level water exposure models in the dietary exposure analysis and risk
assessment for tebuconazole in drinking water. These simulation models
take into account data on the physical, chemical, and fate/transport
characteristics of tebuconazole. Further information regarding EPA
drinking water models used in pesticide exposure assessment can be
found at http://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/models/water/index.htm.
    Based on the Pesticide Root Zone Model/Exposure Analysis Modeling
System (PRZM/EXAMS) and Screening Concentration in Ground Water (SCI-
GROW) models the estimated drinking water concentrations (EDWCs) of
tebuconazole for acute exposures are estimated to be 87.7 parts per
billion (ppb) for surface water and 1.56 ppb for ground water and for
chronic exposures are estimated to be 68.8 ppb for surface water and
1.56 ppb for ground water.
    Modeled estimates of drinking water concentrations were directly
entered into the dietary exposure model. For the acute dietary risk
assessment, a distribution of 30-year daily surface water
concentrations was estimated for the EDWCs of tebuconazole. For chronic
dietary risk assessment, the water concentration of value 68.8 ppb was
used to assess the contribution to drinking water.
    3. From non-dietary exposure. The term ``residential exposure'' is
used in this document to refer to non-occupational, non-dietary
exposure (e.g., for lawn and garden pest control, indoor pest control,
termiticides, and flea and tick control on pets).
    Tebuconazole is currently registered for the following uses that
could result in residential exposures: Turf, flower gardens, trees,
ornamentals, and pressure-treated wood. EPA assessed residential
exposure using the following assumptions: For residential handlers,
exposure is expected to be short-term. Intermediate-term exposures are
not likely because of the intermittent nature of applications by
homeowners. Dermal and inhalation exposures were combined since the
same endpoint and POD is used for both routes of exposure. Residential
post-application dermal exposure was assessed for adults and children
golfing, and working in gardens. Incidental oral post-application
exposure was assessed for children 1 to 2 years old performing physical
activities on pressure-treated wood after application of tebuconazole.
Both life stages may receive exposure to tebuconazole residues. Post-
application exposure is expected to be short-term in duration. Further
information regarding EPA standard assumptions and generic inputs for
residential exposures may be found at http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/trac/science/trac6a05.pdf.
    4. Cumulative effects from substances with a common mechanism of
toxicity. Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of FFDCA requires that, when
considering whether to establish, modify, or revoke a tolerance, the
Agency consider ``available information'' concerning the cumulative
effects of a particular pesticide's residues and ``other substances
that have a common mechanism of toxicity.''
    Tebuconazole is a member of the triazole-containing class of
pesticides, the conazoles. Although conazoles act similarly in plants
by inhibiting ergosterol biosynthesis, there is not necessarily a
relationship between their pesticidal activity and their mechanism of
toxicity in mammals. Structural similarities do not constitute a common
mechanism of toxicity. Evidence is needed to establish that the
chemicals operate by the same, or essentially the same, sequence of
major biochemical events. In conazoles, however, a variable pattern of
toxicological responses is found; some are hepatotoxic and
hepatocarcinogenic in mice. Some induce thyroid tumors in rats. Some
induce developmental, reproductive, and neurological effects in
rodents. Furthermore, the conazoles produce a diverse range of
biochemical events, including altered cholesterol levels, stress
responses, and altered DNA methylation. It is not clearly understood
whether these biochemical events are directly connected to their
toxicological outcomes. Thus, there is currently no conclusive data to
indicate that conazoles share common mechanisms of toxicity and EPA is
not following a cumulative risk approach based on a common mechanism of
toxicity for the conazoles. For information regarding EPA's procedures

for cumulating effects from substances found to have a common mechanism
of toxicity, see EPA's Web site at http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/cumulative.
    Tebuconazole is a triazole-derived pesticide. This class of
compounds can form the common metabolite 1,2,4-triazole and two
triazole conjugates (triazolylalanine and triazolylacetic acid). To
support existing tolerances and to establish new tolerances
fortriazole-derivative pesticides, including tebuconazole, EPA
conducted a human health risk assessment for exposure to 1,2,4-
triazole, triazolylalanine, and triazolylacetic acid resulting from the
use of all current and pending uses of any triazole-derived fungicide.
The risk assessment is a highly conservative, screening-level
evaluation in terms of hazards associated with common metabolites
(e.g., use of a maximum combination of uncertainty factors) and
potential dietary and non-dietary exposures (i.e., high end estimates
of both dietary and non-dietary exposures). In addition, the Agency has
reduced the 10X Food Quality Protection Act safety factor (FQPA SF) to
3X. The FQPA SF has been retained as an uncertainty fact for use of a
LOAEL to extrapolate a NOAEL uncertainty factor (UFL). The
Agency's complete risk assessment is found in the propiconazole
reregistration docket at http://www.regulations.gov, docket ID number
EPA-HQ-OPP-2005-0497.
    An updated dietary exposure and risk analysis for the common
triazole metabolites 1,2,4-triazole (T), triazolylalanine (TA),
triazolylacetic acid (TAA), and triazolylpyruvic acid (TP) was
conducted and completed in October 2013, in association with a
registration request for several other triazole fungicides. That
analysis concluded that risk estimates were below the Agency's level of
concern for all population groups. The addition of tolerances
associated with this action to the exposure analyses do not
significantly increase the exposure to triazole and its conjugates.
This assessment may be found on http://www.regulations.gov by searching
for the following titles and docket numbers: ``Common Triazole
Metabolites: Updated Aggregate Human Health Risk Assessment to Address
The New Section 3 Registrations For Use of Prothioconazole on Rapeseed
Crop Subgroup 20A; Use of Difenoconazole on Rapeseed Crop Subgroup 20A;
and Use of Tebuconazole on Imported Oranges'', located in docket ID
number EPA-HQ-OPP-2013-0653-0005.

D. Safety Factor for Infants and Children

    1. In general. Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA provides that EPA
shall apply an additional tenfold (10X) margin of safety for infants
and children in the case of threshold effects to account for prenatal
and postnatal toxicity and the completeness of the database on toxicity
and exposure unless EPA determines based on reliable data that a
different margin of safety will be safe for infants and children. This
additional margin of safety is commonly referred to as the FQPA Safety
Factor (SF). In applying this provision, EPA either retains the default
value of 10X, or uses a different additional safety factor when
reliable data available to EPA support the choice of a different
factor.
    2. Prenatal and postnatal sensitivity. The toxicity database for
tebuconazole includes prenatal developmental toxicity studies in three
species (mouse, rat, and rabbit), a reproductive toxicity study in
rats, acute and subchronic neurotoxicity studies in rats, and a
developmental neurotoxicity study in rats. The data from prenatal
developmental toxicity studies in mice and a developmental
neurotoxicity study in rats indicated an increased quantitative and
qualitative susceptibility following in utero exposure to tebuconazole.
The NOAELs/LOAELs for developmental toxicity in these studies were
found at dose levels less than those that induce maternal toxicity or
in the presence of slight maternal toxicity. There was no indication of
increased quantitative susceptibility in the rat and rabbit
developmental toxicity studies, the NOAELs for developmental toxicity
were comparable to or higher than the NOAELs for maternal toxicity. In
all three species, however, there was indication of increased
qualitative susceptibility. For most studies, minimal maternal toxicity
was seen at the LOAEL (consisting of increases in hematological
findings in mice, increased liver weights in rabbits and rats, and
decreased body weight gain/food consumption in rats) and did not
increase substantially in severity at higher doses. However, there was
more concern for the developmental effects at each LOAEL, which
included increases in runts, increased fetal loss, and malformations in
mice; increased skeletal variations in rats; and increased fetal loss
and frank malformations in rabbits. Additionally, more severe
developmental effects (including frank malformations) were seen at
higher doses in mice, rats and rabbits. In the developmental
neurotoxicity study, maternal toxicity was seen only at the high dose
(decreased body weights, body weight gains, and food consumption,
prolonged gestation with mortality, and increased number of dead
fetuses), while offspring toxicity (including decreases in body weight,
brain weight, brain measurements, and functional activities) was seen
at all doses.
    Available data indicated greater sensitivity of the developing
organism to exposure to tebuconazole, as demonstrated by increases in
qualitative sensitivity in prenatal developmental toxicity studies in
rats, mice, and rabbits, and by increases in both qualitative and
quantitative sensitivity in the developmental neurotoxicity study in
rats with tebuconazole. However, the degree of concern is low because
the toxic endpoints in the prenatal developmental toxicity studies were
well characterized with clear NOAELs established and the most sensitive
endpoint, which is found in the developmental neurotoxicity study, has
been used for overall risk assessments. Therefore, there are no
residual uncertainties for prenatal and/or postnatal susceptibility.
    3. Conclusion. EPA has determined that reliable data show the
safety of infants and children would be adequately protected if the
FQPA SF were reduced to 3X. That decision is based on the following
findings:
    i. The toxicity database for tebuconazole is complete.
    ii. Tebuconazole demonstrated neurotoxicity in the acute
neurotoxicity study in rats; the LOAEL of 100 milligrams/kilogram/day
(mg/kg/day) was based on increased motor activity in male and female
rats and decreased footsplay in female rats.
    Malformations indicative of nervous system development disruption
were seen in developmental toxicity studies in mice, rats, and rabbits.
Neurotoxicity was also seen in offspring in the developmental
neurotoxicity study in rats. The LOAEL of 8.8 mg/kg/day was based on
decreases in body weights, decreases in absolute brain weights, changes
in brain morphometric parameters, and decreases in motor activity. A
NOAEL could not be established. However, the LOAEL (8.8 mg/kg/day) was
employed as the point of departure in assessing the risk for all
exposure scenarios, and the FQPA SF is retained as a UFL
(i.e., use of a LOAEL to extrapolate a NOAEL). A Benchmark Dose (BMD)
analysis of the datasets relevant to the adverse offspring effects
(decreased body weight and brain weight) seen at the LOAEL in the DNT
study was conducted. All of the BMDLs

(benchmark dose limit) modeled successfully on statistically
significant effects are 1-2X lower than the LOAEL. The results also
indicate that an extrapolated NOAEL is not likely to be 10X lower than
the LOAEL and that use of an UFL of 3X would not
underestimate risk. Therefore, the analysis supports reducing the
UFL from 10X to 3X. Using an UFL of 3X in risk
assessment (8.8 mg/kg/day / 3X = 2.9 mg/kg/day) is further supported by
other studies in the tebuconazole toxicity database: Those studies with
the lowest NOAELs were a developmental toxicity study in mice at 3 mg/
kg/day and a chronic toxicity study in dogs at 2.9 mg/kg/day, with
effects being seen at respective LOAELs of 10 and 4.5 mg/kg/day.
    iii. Although there is qualitative evidence of increased
susceptibility in the prenatal developmental studies in rats, the
Agency did not identify any residual uncertainties after establishing
toxicity endpoints and traditional UFs to be used in the risk
assessment of tebuconazole. The degree of concern for residual
uncertainties for prenatal and/or postnatal toxicity is low.
    iv. There are no residual uncertainties identified in the exposure
databases. EPA utilized a tiered approach in estimating exposure to
tebuconazole. While some refinements were incorporated into dietary and
residential exposure calculations, EPA is confident that the aggregate
risk from exposure to tebuconazole in food, water and residential
pathways will not be underestimated. The acute and chronic dietary
exposure assessments incorporated refined estimates of residues in food
commodities from reliable field trial data reflecting maximum use
conditions, recent monitoring data from USDA's PDP, and relevant market
survey data on the percentage of crops treated. Estimated
concentrations of tebuconazole in drinking water were incorporated into
the chronic dietary analysis as the upper bound point estimate and into
the probabilistic acute dietary analysis as a distribution. For the
residential exposure pathway (ornamentals, golf course turf, and
treated wood products), potential exposure resulting from tebuconazole
outdoor uses in the residential setting was assessed using screening-
level inputs that assumes an adult or child will come in contact with
turf and other surfaces immediately after application.

E. Aggregate Risks and Determination of Safety

    EPA determines whether acute and chronic dietary pesticide
exposures are safe by comparing aggregate exposure estimates to the
acute PAD (aPAD) and chronic PAD (cPAD). For linear cancer risks, EPA
calculates the lifetime probability of acquiring cancer given the
estimated aggregate exposure. Short-, intermediate-, and chronic-term
risks are evaluated by comparing the estimated aggregate food, water,
and residential exposure to the appropriate PODs to ensure that an
adequate MOE exists.
    1. Acute risk. Using the exposure assumptions discussed in this
unit for acute exposure, the acute dietary exposure from food and water
to tebuconazole will occupy 84% of the aPAD for children 1-2 years old,
the population group receiving the greatest exposure.
    2. Chronic risk. Using the exposure assumptions described in this
unit for chronic exposure, EPA has concluded that chronic exposure to
tebuconazole from food and water will utilize 14.3% of the cPAD for all
infants <1 year old, the population group receiving the greatest
exposure. Based on the explanation in Unit III.C.3., regarding
residential use patterns, chronic residential exposure to residues of
tebuconazole is not expected.
    3. Short-term risk. Short-term aggregate exposure takes into
account short-term residential exposure plus chronic exposure to food
and water (considered to be a background exposure level).
    Tebuconazole is currently registered for uses that could result in
short-term residential exposure, and the Agency has determined that it
is appropriate to aggregate chronic exposure through food and water
with short-term residential exposures to tebuconazole.
    Using the exposure assumptions described in this unit for short-
term exposures, EPA has concluded the combined chronic food, water, and
short-term residential exposures result in aggregate MOEs of 310 for
adult handlers (post-application); 1,200 for children 11-16 years old
(post-application); 510 for children 6-11 years old (post-application);
and 350 for children 1-2 years old (post-application). Because EPA's
level of concern for tebuconazole is a MOE of 300 or below, these MOEs
are not of concern.
    4. Intermediate-term risk. Intermediate-term aggregate exposure
takes into account intermediate-term residential exposure plus chronic
exposure to food and water (considered to be a background exposure
level).
    An intermediate-term adverse effect was identified; however,
tebuconazole is not registered for any use patterns that would result
in intermediate-term residential exposure. Intermediate-term risk is
assessed based on intermediate-term residential exposure plus chronic
dietary exposure. Because there is no intermediate-term residential
exposure and chronic dietary exposure has already been assessed under
the appropriately protective cPAD (which is at least as protective as
the POD used to assess intermediate-term risk), no further assessment
of intermediate-term risk is necessary, and EPA relies on the chronic
dietary risk assessment for evaluating intermediate-term risk for
tebuconazole.
    5. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. population. Based on the results
of the chronic risk assessment, which the Agency considers to be
protective of any cancer effects, the Agency concludes that there is no
cancer risk from aggregate exposure to tebuconazole.
    6. Determination of safety. Based on these risk assessments, EPA
concludes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result
to the general population, or to infants and children from aggregate
exposure to tebuconazole residues.

IV. Other Considerations

A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    Adequate enforcement methodology (Gas chromatography/Nitrogen
Phosphorus Detector (GC/NPD) Method 101341) is available to enforce the
tolerance expression.
    The method may be requested from: Chief, Analytical Chemistry
Branch, Environmental Science Center, 701 Mapes Rd., Ft. Meade, MD
20755-5350; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
B. International Residue Limits

    In making its tolerance decisions, EPA seeks to harmonize U.S.
tolerances with international standards whenever possible, consistent
with U.S. food safety standards and agricultural practices. EPA
considers the international maximum residue limits (MRLs) established
by the Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex), as required by FFDCA
section 408(b)(4). The Codex Alimentarius is a joint United Nations
Food and Agriculture Organization/World Health Organization food
standards program, and it is recognized as an international food safety
standards-setting organization in trade agreements to which the United
States is a party. EPA may establish a tolerance that is different from
a Codex MRL; however, FFDCA section 408(b)(4) requires that

EPA explain the reasons for departing from the Codex level.
    There are no Codex, Canadian or Mexican MRLs for tebuconazole in/or
on orange, oil and orange, juice.

C. Revisions to Petitioned-For Tolerances

    Based on the analysis of orange processing data, EPA lowered the
tolerance level for orange, oil to 10 ppm. Tolerances for orange, juice
were unnecessary since the raw agricultural commodity tolerance of 1ppm
covers the proposed juice tolerance.

V. Conclusion

    Therefore, tolerances are established for residues of tebuconazole,
in or on orange, oil at 10 ppm and orange, juice at 1.0 ppm.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This final rule establishes tolerances under FFDCA section 408(d)
in response to a petition submitted to the Agency. The Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these types of actions from
review under Executive Order 12866, entitled ``Regulatory Planning and
Review'' (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Because this final rule has
been exempted from review under Executive Order 12866, this final rule
is not subject to Executive Order 13211, entitled ``Actions Concerning
Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or
Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) or Executive Order 13045, entitled
``Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). This final rule does not contain
any information collections subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork
Reduction Act (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), nor does it require any
special considerations under Executive Order 12898, entitled ``Federal
Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and
Low-Income Populations'' (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    Since tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis
of a petition under FFDCA section 408(d), such as the tolerance in this
final rule, do not require the issuance of a proposed rule, the
requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et
seq.), do not apply.
    This final rule directly regulates growers, food processors, food
handlers, and food retailers, not States or tribes, nor does this
action alter the relationships or distribution of power and
responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions
of FFDCA section 408(n)(4). As such, the Agency has determined that
this action will not have a substantial direct effect on States or
tribal governments, on the relationship between the national government
and the States or tribal governments, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government or between
the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Thus, the Agency has
determined that Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR
43255, August 10, 1999) and Executive Order 13175, entitled
``Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR
67249, November 9, 2000) do not apply to this final rule. In addition,
this final rule does not impose any enforceable duty or contain any
unfunded mandate as described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.).
    This action does not involve any technical standards that would
require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant
to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note).

VII. Congressional Review Act

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

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180

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

    Dated: April 28, 2014.
Lois Rossi,
Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.

    Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:

PART 180--[AMENDED]

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

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

0
2. In Sec.  180.474, in the table in paragraph (a)(1), add
alphabetically entries for ``Orange \1\'' and ``Orange, oil \1\'' and
revise footnote 1 to read as follows:

Sec.  180.474  Tebuconazole; tolerances for residues.

    (a) * * *
    (1) * * *

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Parts per
                         Commodity                             million
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                * * * * *
Orange \1\.................................................          1.0
Orange, oil \1\............................................           10

                                * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\There are no U.S. registrations.

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2014-10216 Filed 5-6-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 163 (Tuesday, August 23, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 52593-52596]
[FR Doc No: 2011-21472]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2011-0596; Directorate Identifier 2008-SW-37-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Eurocopter Canada Ltd. Model BO 105 LS
A-3 Helicopters

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: This document proposes superseding an existing airworthiness
directive (AD) for Eurocopter Canada

Ltd. Model BO 105 LS A-3 helicopters. That AD currently requires
establishing a life limit for certain tension-torsion (TT) straps. This
action would require reducing the ``number of flights'' life limit and
providing a time-in-service (TIS) life limit for those TT straps. This
proposal is prompted by a recalculation by the manufacturer and
subsequent changes to the service information related to the retirement
time of the TT strap initially adopted as a result of an accident in
which a main rotor blade (blade) separated from a Eurocopter
Deutschland GMBH (ECD) Model MBB-BK 117 helicopter due to fatigue
failure of a TT strap. The same part-numbered TT strap is used on Model
BO 105 LS A-3 helicopters. The actions specified by the proposed AD are
intended to prevent fatigue failure of a TT strap, loss of a blade, and
subsequent loss of control of the helicopter.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before October 24, 2011.

ADDRESSES: Use one of the following addresses to submit comments on
this proposed AD:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    You may get the service information identified in this proposed AD
from American Eurocopter Corporation, 2701 Forum Drive, Grand Prairie,
TX 75053-4005, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, fax<PHONE_NUMBER>, or at
http://www.eurocopter.com.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sharon Miles, Aviation Safety
Engineer, FAA, Rotorcraft Directorate, Regulations and Policy Group,
2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, Texas 76137, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>,
fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address
listed under the caption ADDRESSES. Include the ``Docket No. FAA-2011-
0596; Directorate Identifier 2008-SW-37-AD'' at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the proposed AD. We will
consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend the
proposed AD because of those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact
with FAA personnel concerning this proposed rulemaking. Using the
search function of the docket web site, you can find and read the
comments to any of our dockets, including the name of the individual
who sent or signed the comment. You may review the DOT's complete
Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on April 11,
2000 (65 FR 19477-78).

Examining the Docket

    You may examine the docket that contains the proposed AD, any
comments, and other information 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 Docket Operations office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is
located in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the West Building at the
street address stated in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be
available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

Discussion

    On September 5, 2000, we issued superseding AD 2000-18-13,
Amendment 39-11899 (65 FR 55452, September 14, 2000), to establish a
life limit for TT strap, part number (P/N) 2604067 (Bendix) or P/N
J17322-1 (Lord), of 120 months or 40,000 flights, whichever occurs
first. That action was prompted by an accident in July 1999 in which a
blade separated from a Eurocopter Deutschland GMBH (ECD) Model MBB-BK
117 helicopter due to fatigue failure of a TT strap. The same part-
numbered TT strap is also used on the Eurocopter Canada Ltd. Model BO
105 LS A-3 helicopters. The requirements of that AD are intended to
prevent failure of a TT strap, loss of a blade, and subsequent loss of
control of the helicopter.
    Since issuing that AD, the manufacturer has recalculated the
retirement time, provided a time-in-service (TIS) limit, and issued
revised service information related to the life limit of the TT strap.
    Transport Canada, which is the aviation authority for Canada, has
issued Canadian AD No. CF-2008-17R1, dated May 26, 2008, to correct an
unsafe condition for the Eurocopter Canada Ltd. (formerly MBB Canada
Ltd.) Model BO 105-LS-A3 helicopters. Transport Canada advises that
``the tension-torsion strap (TTS) failure on a MBB BK 117 helicopter in
July 1999, initiated a TTS service life recalculation. This
recalculation changed the retirement time in Chapter 4 of Maintenance
Manual. As a result of this change, the TTS in service are to be
replaced or inspected as a precautionary measure, pending already
accumulated service hours and the calendar time since their last
installation.''
    Since the issuance of the Transport Canada AD, the type certificate
for this helicopter model has been transferred to the Federal Republic
of Germany. The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the
Technical Agent for the Federal Republic of Germany, has adopted
Transport Canada AD No. CF-2008-17R1, dated May 26, 2008, and requires
compliance with that AD.

Related Service Information

    Eurocopter Canada Limited issued Alert Service Bulletin No. ASB-BO
105 LS-10-10, Revision 1, dated January 8, 2008 (ASB). The ASB
describes procedures for determining the total accumulated installation
time and factoring the number of flights on each TT strap. The ASB also
describes and contains a graph for determining the revised life limit,
and provides various compliance intervals, inspection provisions, and
replacement criteria for the TT strap. The previously described ASB
specifies procedures for determining the total accumulated installation
time and number of flights on TT strap, P/N 2604067 (Bendix) or P/N
J17322-1 (Lord). The ASB also describes establishing a revised life
limit for the TT strap of 120 months, 25,000 flights, or 3,800 hours,
whichever occurs first. Transport Canada classified this alert service
bulletin as mandatory and issued AD No. CF-2008-17R1, dated May 26,
2008, to ensure the continued airworthiness of these helicopters. EASA,
the Technical Agent for the current type certificate holder, the
Federal Republic of Germany, has adopted and requires compliance with
Transport Canada AD No. CF-2008-17R1, dated May 26, 2008.

FAA's Evaluation and Unsafe Condition Determination

    This helicopter has been approved by the aviation authority of the
Federal Republic of Germany and is approved for operation in the United
States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with

the Federal Republic of Germany, EASA, their technical representative,
has notified us of the unsafe condition described in the Transport
Canada AD, which has been adopted by EASA. We are proposing this AD
because we evaluated all information provided by EASA and Transport
Canada and determined the unsafe condition exists and is likely to
exist or develop on other helicopters of the same type design. This
proposed AD would require establishing a revised life limit for TT
strap, P/N 2604067 (Bendix) or P/N J17322-1 (Lord), of 120 months,
25,000 flights, or 3,800 hours time-in-service (TIS), whichever occurs
first.

Differences Between This Proposed AD and the Transport Canada AD

    Our AD differs from the Transport Canada AD as follows:
     The Transport Canada AD uses the terms ``air time hours''
and ``flight hours'' to describe compliance times, and this proposed AD
uses the term ``hours time-in-service''.
     The Transport Canada AD requires inspections for tension-
torsion straps that have an accumulated installation time of 10 or more
years, and our AD does not require these inspections.
     The Transport Canada AD requires verifying and
establishing a new service life for the tension-torsion straps within
the next 25 hours TIS, and this AD requires this to be done before
further flight.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD would affect 13 helicopters of
U.S. registry and the proposed actions would take about 15 work hours
per helicopter to accomplish at an average labor rate of $85 per work
hour. Required parts would cost about $13,867 per helicopter. Based on
these figures, we estimate the total cost impact of the proposed AD on
U.S. operators to be $196,846 to replace all the affected TT straps in
the entire fleet.

Regulatory Findings

    We have determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. Additionally, 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 that the proposed
regulation:
    1. Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order
12866;
    2. Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
    3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska to the extent that
it justifies making a regulatory distinction; and
    4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    We prepared an economic evaluation of the estimated costs to comply
with this proposed AD. See the AD docket to examine the economic
evaluation.

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.

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. Section 39.13 is amended by removing Amendment 39-11899 (65 FR
55452; September 14, 2000), and adding the following new airworthiness
directive (AD):

EUROCOPTER CANADA LTD.: Docket No. FAA-2011-0596; Directorate
Identifier 2008-SW-37-AD. Supersedes AD 2000-18-13; Amendment 39-
11899; Docket No. 99-SW-68-AD.

    Applicability: Model BO 105 LS A-3 helicopters, with tension-
torsion (TT) strap, part number (P/N) 2604067 (Bendix) or J17322-1
(Lord), installed, certificated in any category.
    Compliance: Required as indicated, unless accomplished
previously.
    To prevent fatigue failure of a TT strap, loss of a main rotor
blade, and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter accomplish
the following:
    (a) Before further flight:
    (1) Create a component log card or equivalent record for each TT
strap.
    (2) Review the history of each helicopter and TT strap.
Determine the age since initial installation on any helicopter (age)
and the number of flights on each affected TT strap. Enter the age,
hours time-in-service (TIS), and the number of flights for each TT
strap on the component log card or equivalent record. When the
number of flights is unknown, multiply the number of hours TIS by 5
to determine the number of flights. If a TT strap has been
previously used at any time on Model BO-105LS A-3 `SUPER LIFTER'',
BO-105 CB-5, BO-105 CBS-5, BO-105 DBS-5, or any MBB-BK 117 series
helicopter, multiply the total number of flights accumulated on
those other models by a factor of 1.6 and then add that result to
the number of flights accumulated on the helicopters affected by
this AD.
    (3) Remove any TT strap from service if the total hours TIS or
number of flights and age cannot be determined.
    (b) Remove any TT strap, P/N 2604067 (Bendix) or P/N J17322-1
(Lord), that has been in service for 120 months since initial
installation on any helicopter, or has accumulated 25,000 flights (a
flight is a takeoff and a landing), or has been in service for 3,800
hours TIS.
    (c) This AD revises the Airworthiness Limitations Section of the
maintenance manual by establishing a revised life limit for the TT
strap, P/N 2604067 (Bendix) or P/N J17322-1 (Lord), of 120 months,
25,000 flights, or 3,800 hours TIS, whichever occurs first.

    Note 1:  Eurocopter Canada Limited Alert Service Bulletin No.
ASB-BO 105 LS-10-10, Revision 1, dated January 8, 2008, which is not
incorporated by reference, contains additional information about the
subject of this AD.

    (d) To request a different method of compliance or a different
compliance time for this AD, follow the procedures in 14 CFR 39.19.
Contact the Manager, Safety Management Group, FAA, ATTN: Sharon
Miles, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, Rotorcraft Directorate,
Regulations and Policy Group, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, Texas
76137, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, fax<PHONE_NUMBER>, for information
about previously approved alternative methods of compliance.
    (e) The Joint Aircraft System/Component (JASC) Code is 6200:
Main Rotor System.

    Note 2:  The subject of this AD is addressed in Transport Canada
(Canada) AD No. CF-2008-17R1, dated May 26, 2008. The European
Aviation Safety Agency, which is the Technical Agent for the current
type certificate holder, the Federal Republic of

Germany, has adopted and requires compliance with the Transport
Canada AD.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on June 3, 2011.
Kim Smith,
Manager, Rotorcraft Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2011-21472 Filed 8-22-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 141 (Friday, July 22, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 47737-47738]
[FR Doc No: 2016-17310]

========================================================================
Proposed Rules
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of
the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these
notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in
the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.

========================================================================

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 141 / Friday, July 22, 2016 /
Proposed Rules

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2012-1308; Airspace Docket No. 12-ASO-44]

Proposed Establishment of Class E Airspace; Camden, AL

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: This action proposes to establish Class E airspace at Camden,
AL, to accommodate new Area Navigation (RNAV) Global Positioning System
(GPS) Standard Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAPs) serving Camden
Municipal Airport. Controlled airspace is necessary for the safety and
management of instrument flight rules (IFR) operations at the airport.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before September 6, 2016.

ADDRESSES: Send comments on this rule to: U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West
Building Ground Floor, Room 12-140, Washington, DC 20590; Telephone: 1-
800-647-5527 or<PHONE_NUMBER>. You must identify the Docket Number FAA-
2012-1308; Airspace Docket No. 12-ASO-44, at the beginning of your
comments. You may also submit and review received comments through the
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. You may review the public
docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any final
disposition in person in the Dockets Office between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Docket Office
(telephone 1-800-647-5527), is on the ground floor of the building at
the above address.
    FAA Order 7400.9Z, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and
subsequent amendments can be viewed on line at http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. For further information, you can contact the
Airspace Policy Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
The Order is also available for inspection at the National Archives and
Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of
FAA Order 7400.9Z at NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal-regulations/ibr_locations.html.
    FAA Order 7400.9, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is
published yearly and effective on September 15.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Fornito, Operations Support
Group, Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, P.O.
Box 20636, Atlanta, Georgia 30320; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. 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. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described
in Subtitle VII, Part, A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section,
the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of
airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient
use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority
as it would establish Class E airspace at Camden Municipal Airport,
Camden, AL.

Comments Invited

    Interested persons are invited to comment on this proposed
rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as
they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the
views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing
reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are
specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic,
environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.
    Communications should identify both docket numbers and be submitted
in triplicate to the address listed above. You may also submit comments
through the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov.
    Persons wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on
this action must submit with those comments a self-addressed stamped
postcard on which the following statement is made: ``Comments to Docket
No. FAA-2012-1308; Airspace Docket No. 12-ASO-44.'' The postcard will
be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.
    All communications received before the specified closing date for
comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule.
The proposal contained in this notice may be changed in light of the
comments received. A report summarizing each substantive public contact
with FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the
docket.

Availability of NPRMs

    An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded from and
comments submitted through http://www.regulations.gov. Recently
published rulemaking documents can also be accessed through the FAA's
Web page at http://www.regulations.gov.
    You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any
comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets
Office (see the ADDRESSES section for address and phone number) between
9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
Holidays. An informal docket may also be examined between 8:00 a.m. and
4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays at the office
of the Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, Room
350, 1701 Columbia Avenue, College Park, Georgia 30337.

Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

    This document proposes to amend FAA Order 7400.9Z, Airspace
Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 6, 2015, and effective
September 15, 2015. FAA Order 7400.9Z is publicly available as listed
in the ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order 7400.9Z lists
Class A, B, C,

D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting
points.

The Proposal

    The FAA is considering an amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal
Regulations (14 CFR) Part 71 to establish Class E airspace at Camden,
AL., providing the controlled airspace required to support the new RNAV
(GPS) standard instrument approach procedures for Camden Municipal
Airport. Controlled airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the
surface within a 7.7-mile radius of the airport would be established
for IFR operations.
    Class E airspace designations are published in Paragraph 6005 of
FAA Order 7400.9Z, dated August 6, 2015, and effective September 15,
2015, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E
airspace designation listed in this document will be published
subsequently in the Order.

Regulatory Notices and Analyses

    The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves
an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
It, therefore; (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979);
and (3) does not warrant preparation of a Regulatory Evaluation as the
anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that
will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified that this proposed rule, when promulgated, will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Environmental Review

    This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in
accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, ``Environmental Impacts: Policies
and Procedures'' prior to any FAA final regulatory action.

Lists of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (Air).

The Proposed Amendment:

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

PART 71 --DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS;
AIR TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS

0
1. The authority citation for Part 71 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O.
10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.9Z,
Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 6, 2015,
effective September 15, 2015, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas Extending Upward From 700
Feet or More Above the Surface of the Earth.

* * * * *

ASO AL E5 Camden, AL [New]

Camden Municipal Airport, AL
    (Lat. 31[deg]58'47'' N., long. 87[deg]20'21'' W.)

That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 7.7-mile radius of Camden Municipal Airport

    Issued in College Park, Georgia, on July 15, 2016.
Ryan W. Almasy,
Manager, Operations Support Group, Eastern Service Center, Air Traffic
Organization.
[FR Doc. 2016-17310 Filed 7-21-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 239 (Tuesday, December 14, 2010)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 77756-77758]
[FR Doc No: 2010-31305]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket No. USCG-2010-1011]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone; San Diego Parade of Lights Fireworks, San Diego, CA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a safety zone upon the
navigable water of the San Diego Bay in San Diego, CA in support of the
two San Diego Parade of Lights Fireworks Displays on December 12 and
December 19, 2010. This safety zone is necessary to ensure the safety
of vessels, spectators, participants and others in the vicinity of the
fireworks displays. Persons and vessels are prohibited from entering
into, transiting through, or anchoring within this safety zone unless
authorized by the Captain of the Port, or his designated
representative.

DATES: This rule is effective from 5:30 p.m. on December 12, 2010, to 8
p.m. on December 19, 2010.

ADDRESSES: Documents indicated in this preamble as being available in
the docket are part of docket USCG-2010-1011 and are available online
by going to http://www.regulations.gov, inserting USCG-2010-1011 in the
``Keyword'' box, and then clicking ``Search.'' They are also available
for inspection or copying at the Docket Management Facility (M-30),
U.S. Department of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this
temporary rule, call or e-mail Petty Officer Shane Jackson, Waterways
Management, U.S. Coast Guard Sector San Diego, Coast Guard; telephone
619-278-7267, e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have questions on
viewing the docket, call Renee V. Wright, Program Manager, Docket
Operations, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Regulatory Information

    The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary final rule without prior
notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section
4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This
provision

authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and
opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those
procedures are ``impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public
interest.'' Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good
cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
with respect to this rule because immediate action is necessary to
ensure the safety of vessels, spectators, participants and others in
the vicinity of the fireworks displays.
    Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause
exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after
publication in the Federal Register. Immediate action is necessary to
ensure the safety of the crew, spectators, and other vessels and users
of the waterway.

Basis and Purpose

    Fireworks and Stage FX America INC are sponsoring the San Diego
Parade of Lights Fireworks Displays, which will include two fireworks
presentations conducted from a tug and barge in San Diego Bay on
December 12 and December 19, 2010. The barge will be located near the
navigational channel in the vicinity of Harbor Island. The safety zone
will cover a 500 foot area around the firing barge. The sponsor will
provide a chase boat to patrol the safety zone and inform vessel
operators that a safety zone is in place. This safety zone is necessary
to ensure the safety of vessels, spectators, participants and others in
the vicinity of the fireworks displays.

Discussion of Rule

    The Coast Guard is establishing a safety zone that will be enforced
from 5:30 p.m. to 8 p.m. on December 12, 2010 and December 19, 2010.
The limits of the safety zone will cover a 500 foot area around the tug
and barge in approximate position 32[deg]43.25' N., 117[deg]11.50' W.
    The safety zone is necessary to ensure the safety of vessels,
spectators, participants and others in the vicinity of the fireworks
displays. Persons and vessels will be prohibited from entering into,
transiting through, or anchoring within the safety zone unless
authorized by the Captain of the Port, or his designated
representative.

Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and
executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses
based on 13 of these statutes or executive orders.

Regulatory Planning and Review

    This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f)
of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does not
require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section
6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not
reviewed it under that Order.
    We expect the economic impact of this rule to be so minimal that a
full Regulatory Evaluation is unnecessary. The safety zone is of a
limited duration, two and a half hours, and is limited to a relatively
small geographic area.

Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have
considered whether this rule would have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities. The term ``small entities''
comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are
independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields,
and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000.
    The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities.
    This rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities for the following reasons: Vessel
traffic can pass safely around the safety zone. Before the effective
period, the Coast Guard will publish a local notice to mariners (LNM)
and will issue broadcast notice to mariners (BNM) alerts via marine
channel 16 VHF before the safety zone is enforced.

Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we offer to assist small
entities in understanding the rule so that they can better evaluate its
effects on them and participate in the rulemaking process.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or
action of the Coast Guard.

Collection of Information

    This rule calls for no new collection of information under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

Federalism

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local
governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial
direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this rule under
that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for
federalism.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

Taking of Private Property

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

Civil Justice Reform

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

Protection of Children

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

Indian Tribal Governments

    This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order
13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments,
because it does not have a substantial

direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between
the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of
power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian
tribes.

Energy Effects

    We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a ``significant
energy action'' under that order because it is not a ``significant
regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to
have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use
of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy
action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects
under Executive Order 13211.

Technical Standards

    The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15
U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards
in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress,
through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why
using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., specifications of materials, performance, design, or
operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management
systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus
standards bodies.
    This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not
consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which
guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded
this action is one of a category of actions which do not individually
or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment.
This rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph
(34)(g), of the Instruction. An environmental analysis checklist and a
categorical exclusion determination are available in the docket where
indicated under ADDRESSES. This rule involves establishment of a safety
zone.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

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

0
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33
CFR part 165 as follows:

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

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

    Authority:  33 U.S.C. 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701, 3306,
3703; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5;
Pub. L. 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security
Delegation No. 0170.1.

0
2. Add Sec.  165.T11-374 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T11-374  Safety zone; San Diego Parade of Lights Fireworks;
San Diego, California.

    (a) Location. The limits of the safety zones for both fireworks
displays will cover a 500 foot area around the tug and barge in
approximate position 32[deg]43.25' N., 117[deg]11.50'' W.
    (b) Enforcement Period. This section will be enforced from 5:30
p.m. to 8 p.m. on December 12, 2010 and December 19, 2010.
    (c) Definitions. The following definition applies to this section:
Designated representative, means any commissioned, warrant, and petty
officers of the Coast Guard on board Coast Guard, Coast Guard
Auxiliary, and local, state, and federal law enforcement vessels who
have been authorized to act on the behalf of the Captain of the Port.
    (d) Regulations. (1) Entry into, transit through or anchoring
within this safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain
of the Port of San Diego or his designated on-scene representative.
    (2) Mariners requesting permission to transit through the safety
zone may request authorization to do so from the Sector San Diego
Command Center. The Command Center may be contacted on VHF-FM Channel
16.
    (3) All persons and vessels shall comply with the instructions of
the Coast Guard Captain of the Port or the designated representative.
    Upon being hailed by U.S. Coast Guard patrol personnel by siren,
radio, flashing light, or other means, the operator of a vessel shall
proceed as directed.
    (4) The Coast Guard may be assisted by other federal, state, or
local agencies.

    Dated: November 23, 2010.
T.H. Farris,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port San Diego.
[FR Doc. 2010-31305 Filed 12-13-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register: September 16, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 180)]
[Notices]
[Page 53457]
[DOCID:fr16se08-88]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

Upon Written Request, Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of Investor Education and Advocacy, Washington, DC
20549-0213

Extension:
    Rule 17f-2(d), SEC File No. 270-36, OMB Control No. 3235-0028

    Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') has submitted to the Office of Management
and Budget a request for approval of extension of the previously
approved collection of information discussed below.
 Rule 17f-2(d) (17 CFR 240.17f-2(d))
    Rule 17f-2(d) was adopted on March 16, 1976, and was last amended
on November 18, 1982. Paragraph (d) of the rule (i) requires that
records produced pursuant to the fingerprinting requirements of Section
17(f)(2) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Exchange Act'') be
maintained, (ii) permits the designated examining authorities of
broker-dealers or members of exchanges, under certain circumstances, to
store and maintain records required to be kept by this rule, and (iii)
permits the required records to be maintained on microfilm.
    The general purpose of Rule 17f-2 is: (i) To identify security risk
personnel; (ii) to provide criminal record information so that
employers can make fully informed employment decisions; and (iii) to
deter persons with criminal records from seeking employment or
association with covered entities.
    Retention of fingerprint records, as required under paragraph (d)
of the Rule, enables the Commission or other examining authority to
ascertain whether all required persons are being fingerprinted and
whether proper procedures regarding fingerprint are being followed.
Retention of these records for the term of employment of all personnel
plus three years ensures that law enforcement officials will have easy
access to fingerprint cards on timely basis. This in turn acts as an
effective deterrent to employee misconduct.
    Approximately 5,984 respondents are subject to the recordkeeping
requirements of the rule. Each respondent keeps approximately 62 new
records per year, which takes approximately 2 minutes per record for
the respondent to maintain, for an annual burden of approximately 2
hours per respondent or a total annual burden of approximately 11,968
hours on all respondents, collectively. All records subject to the rule
must be retained for the term of employment plus 3 years.
    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 control number. Written comments regarding the above
information should be directed to the following persons: (i) Desk
Officer for the Securities and Exchange Commission, Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget,
Room 10102, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503 or by
sending an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>and (ii) Lewis
W. Walker, Acting Director/Chief Information Officer, Securities and
Exchange Commission, C/O Shirley Martinson, 6432 General Green Way,
Alexandria, Virginia 22312; or by sending an e-mail to: PRA_
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Comments must be submitted to OMB within 30 days of
this notice.

    Dated: September 8, 2008.
Florence E. Harmon,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-21532 Filed 9-15-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 209 (Monday, October 29, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 65544]
[FR Doc No: 2012-26525]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings

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

Filings Instituting Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: RP13-172-000.
    Applicants: Questar Southern Trails Pipeline Company.
    Description: Section 35 Segmentation of Capacity to be effective
12/1/2012.
    Filed Date: 10/22/12.
    Accession Number: 20121022-5139.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/5/12.

    Docket Numbers: RP13-173-000.
    Applicants: Central New York Oil And Gas, L.L.C.
    Description: 10-22 Amended MARC I Non-Conforming FTSAs (Revised
Exhibit As) to be effective 12/31/9998.
    Filed Date: 10/23/12.
    Accession Number: 20121023-5001.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/5/12.

    Docket Numbers: RP13-174-000.
    Applicants: Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC.
    Description: Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC Request for Extension
of Time to File Semi-Annual Operational Transactions Rate Adjustment
Filing.
    Filed Date: 10/22/12.
    Accession Number: 20121022-5179.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/29/12.

    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the
proceeding.

Filings in Existing Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: RP12-318-004.
    Applicants: Texas Eastern Transmission, LP.
    Description: Reservation Charge Credit Compliance Filing to be
effective 12/31/9998.
    Filed Date: 10/22/12.
    Accession Number: 20121022-5162.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/5/12.
    Any person desiring to protest in any of the above proceedings must
file in accordance with Rule 211 of the Commission's Regulations (18
CFR 385.211) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified
comment date.
    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, and service 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 (202) 502-
8659.

    Dated: October 23, 2012.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-26525 Filed 10-26-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


This item contains materials that cannot be uploaded to the federal docket. A CD containing files submitted to EPA with the extension .las is available by contacting docket staff via email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 214 (Tuesday, November 9, 2021)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 62096-62098]
[FR Doc No: 2021-24258]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R10-OAR-2020-0648; FRL-8787-02-R10]

Air Plan Approval; AK; Eagle River Second 10-Year PM10 Limited
Maintenance Plan

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving the
Eagle River, Alaska (AK) limited maintenance plan (LMP) submitted on
November 10, 2020, by the Alaska Department of Environmental
Conservation (ADEC or ``the State''). This plan addresses the second
10-year maintenance period after redesignation for particulate matter
with an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to a nominal 10
micrometers (PM10). The plan relies upon control measures
contained in the first 10-year maintenance plan and the determination
that the Eagle River area currently monitors PM10 levels
well below the PM10 National Ambient Air Quality Standard
(NAAQS or ``the standard''). The EPA is approving Alaska's LMP as
meeting Clean Air Act (CAA) requirements.

DATES: This final rule is effective December 9, 2021.

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under
Docket ID No. EPA-R10-OAR-2020-0648. All documents in the docket are
listed on the https://www.regulations.gov website. Although listed in
the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g.,
Confidential Business Information or other information the disclosure
of which is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as
copyrighted material, is not placed on the internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available at https://www.regulations.gov, or please
contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section for additional availability information.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Christi Duboiski, EPA Region 10, 1200
Sixth Avenue (Suite 155), Seattle, WA 98101, at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document wherever ``we'' or
``our'' is used, it refers to the EPA.

I. Background

    On November 10, 2020, ADEC submitted to the EPA for approval a
second 10-year PM10 LMP for Eagle River. The SIP revision,
State effective November 7, 2020, fulfills the second 10-year planning
requirement of CAA section 175A(b) to ensure PM10 NAAQS
compliance through 2033. The Eagle River area has been meeting the
PM10 standard for multiple years and was redesignated to
attainment on March 8, 2013 with an approved 10-year PM10
maintenance plan. The area currently monitors PM10 levels
well below the PM10 NAAQS.
    We proposed to approve the Eagle River second 10-year LMP on
September 2, 2021 (86 FR 49278). The reasons for our approval are
included in that proposal and will not be restated here. The public
comment period for our proposed action closed on October 4, 2021. We
received no public comments. Therefore, we are finalizing our action as
proposed.

II. Final Action

    In this final action, the EPA is approving Alaska's second 10-year
LMP for Eagle River submitted on November 10, 2020, as satisfying the
requirements of section 175A of the CAA.

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely approves State law as meeting Federal requirements and
does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by State
law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21,
2011);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have federalism implications as specified in
Executive

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     Does not provide the EPA with the discretionary authority
to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or
environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible
methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or
in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated
that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the
rule does not have tribal implications and it will not impose
substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. The EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by January 10, 2022. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor
does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may
be filed and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or
action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements. See section 307(b)(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

    Dated: November 1, 2021.
Michelle L. Pirzadeh,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 10.

    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 40 CFR part 52 is
amended as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

Subpart C--Alaska

0
2. In Sec.  52.70, the table in paragraph (e) is amended by:
0
a. Adding entry ``II.III.D.2.b. Eagle River Second 10-year
PM10 Limited Maintenance Plan'' after the entry
``II.III.D.2.a. Eagle River PM10 Limited Maintenance Plan'';
and
0
b. Revising the entry ``III.III.D.2. Eagle River PM10
Control Plan''.
    The addition and revision read as follow:

Sec.  52.70  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *

                   EPA-Approved Alaska Nonregulatory Provisions and Quasi-Regulatory Measures
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   Applicable geographic or       State
      Name of SIP provision           nonattainment area     submittal date   EPA approval date    Explanations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
           State of Alaska Air Quality Control Plan: Volume II. Analysis of Problems, Control Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 Section III. Areawide Pollutant Control Program
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
II.III.D.2.b. Eagle River Second   Eagle River.............      11/10/2020  11/9/2021, [INSERT
 10-year PM10 Limited Maintenance                                             FEDERAL REGISTER
 Plan.                                                                        CITATION].

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                         State of Alaska Air Quality Control Plan: Volume II. Appendices
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 Section III. Areawide Pollutant Control Program
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
III.III.D.2. Eagle River PM10      Eagle River.............      11/10/2020  11/9/2021, [INSERT
 Control Plan.                                                                FEDERAL REGISTER
                                                                              CITATION].

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

[FR Doc. 2021-24258 Filed 11-8-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P