Docket Number:  EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0023

www.regulations.gov

Coumaphos Summary Document

Registration Review: Initial Docket

June 2008

Registration Review Document for

Coumaphos

Case No. 0018

Approved By:

___________________

								Steven Bradbury, Ph.D.

								Director, Special Review and

		       	      Reregistration Division

TABLE OF CONTENTS

										Page #

Preliminary Work Plan (PWP)					4

Fact Sheet								9

Glossary of Terms and Abbreviations			        16

_________________________________________________

Please Note

This Preliminary Work Plan and Fact Sheet summarize the Environmental
Protection Agency’s current position based on the following documents:

	1.  Revised Registration Review Preliminary Problem Formulation for the
Ecological

                 Risk Assessment of Coumaphos.  April 28, 2008.

	2.  Coumaphos:  Registration Review Scoping Document for Human Health

	     Assessments.   February 28, 2008.

	3.  Coumaphos – California Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR)
Usage Report.

                 October 12, 2007.

Additional supporting documents for coumaphos may be found in the docket
EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0023 which may be found on the internet at   HYPERLINK
"http://www.regulations.gov"  www.regulations.gov .

I. Preliminary Work Plan – Coumaphos

Introduction:

The Food Quality Protection Act of 1996 mandate: registration review.
All pesticides distributed or sold in the United States generally must
be registered by EPA, based on scientific data showing that they will
not cause unreasonable risks to human health, workers, or the
environment when used as directed on product labeling.  The registration
review program is intended to make sure that, as the ability to assess
risk evolves and as policies and practices change, all registered
pesticides continue to meet the statutory standard of no unreasonable
adverse effects.  Changes in science, public policy, and pesticide use
practices will occur over time.  Through the registration review
program, the Agency periodically reevaluates pesticides to make sure
that as change occurs, products in the marketplace can be used safely.
Information on this program is provided at:
http://www.epa.gov/oppsrrd1/registration_review/.

The Agency has begun to implement the Registration Review program, and
will review each registered pesticide every 15 years to determine
whether it continues to meet the FIFRA standard for registration.  The
public phase of registration review begins when the initial docket is
opened for each case.  The docket is the Agency’s opportunity to state
what it knows about the pesticide and what additional risk analyses and
data or information it believes are needed to make a registration review
decision.  After reviewing and responding to comments and data received
in the docket during this initial comment period, the Agency will
develop and commit to a final work plan and schedule for the
registration review of coumaphos.

Coumaphos was first registered as a pesticide in the U.S. in 1958.  The
active ingredient coumaphos is a member of the organophosphate (OP)
insecticide class that primarily affects the nervous system through
cholinesterase (ChE) inhibition. The current supported uses for
coumaphos include direct application to animals, including dairy cattle,
beef cattle, swine, and horses, for the control of arthropod pests
including ticks, scabie mites, lice, flies, fleece worms and screw
worms.  Coumaphos is also used in impregnated plastic strips in bee
hives to control varroa mites and small hive beetles.  Coumaphos
currently has no agricultural crop or residential uses.

Anticipated Risk Assessment and Data Needs:

The Agency anticipates conducting an ecological risk assessment,
including an endangered species assessment for all uses of coumaphos.
The Agency anticipates that no additional human health risk assessments
or related data will be needed.

	Ecological Risk:

The most recent drinking water and ecological risk assessment was
completed on May 16, 2006, for use in beehives to control varroa mites
and small hive beetles.

The Agency anticipates needing the following data in order to conduct a
complete ecological risk assessment for coumaphos, including an
endangered species assessment.  Please refer to section 1.11.3, the
Revised Registration Review Preliminary Problem Formulation for the
Ecological Risk Assessment of Coumaphos for a detailed discussion of the
anticipated risk assessment needs.

		Environmental Fate Studies:

		These studies are intended to provide information on how, or by what
mechanism, 		the pesticide degrades, the rate at which it degradates,
where it goes, and what 		  	transformation products are formed:

Guideline Number: 835.4100 - Aerobic Soil Metabolism (Oxygen

		         Analog; Coumaphoxon)

Guideline Number: 835.1220 - Sediment and Soil Adsorption/Desorption
Batch Equilibrium (Oxygen Analog, Coumaphoxon)

		Ecological Toxicity Studies:

		These studies are intended to determine whether coumaphos is toxic to
algae and 			other aquatic plants.  The registered uses of coumaphos as
a direct treatment for 			cattle may result in exposure to aquatic
habitats when treated cattle wade in 			ponds, streams, and other water
bodies.  The aquatic plant studies will allow EPA 			to conduct a risk
assessment for aquatic habitats:

Guideline Number: 850.4400 - Aquatic Plant Toxicity Test, Tier I

Guideline Number: 850.5400 - Algal Toxicity, Tier I

The planned ecological risk assessment will allow the Agency to
determine whether coumaphos’s use has “no effect” or “may
affect” federally listed threatened or endangered species (listed
species) or their designated critical habitat.  If the assessment
indicates that coumaphos “may affect” a listed species or its
designated critical habitat, the assessment will be refined.  The
refined assessment will allow the Agency to determine whether use of
coumaphos is “likely to adversely affect” the species or critical
habitat or “not likely to adversely affect” the species or critical
habitat.  When an assessment concludes that a pesticide’s use “may
affect” a listed species or its designated critical habitat, the
Agency will consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and/or
National Marine Fisheries Services (the Services), as appropriate.

Human Health Risk:

The previously completed dietary assessments (February 28, 2007) that
considered exposures to coumaphos from food and drinking water are
adequate and there is no dietary risk that exceeds the Agency’s level
concern (LOC).

The Agency does not anticipate requiring any further human health
effects data.  However, the Agency will update the dietary assessment to
reflect tolerances for honey and honeycomb.

The Agency will also need to revisit the United States Department of
Agriculture’s (USDA) Pesticide Data Program (PDP) monitoring data for
beef and milk that were used in the previous dietary risk assessment.
FQPA requires the Agency to revisit the data five years after the
tolerance assessment decision.

Occupational risks have been mitigated below the Agency’s level of
concern, and therefore no additional data or risk assessment are needed

Timeline:

EPA has created the following estimated timeline for the completion of
the coumaphos registration review.

Registration Review for Coumaphos – Projected Registration Review
Timeline

Activities	Time

Phase 1:  Opening the docket

Open Docket and Public Comment  	2008 - June

Close Public Comment	2008 - September

Phase 2:  Case Development

Final Work Plan 	Nov. 2008

Issue DCI	2009 - Jul. - Sept.

Data Submission	2011 - Oct. - Dec.

Preliminary Risk Assessments and Public Comment 	2013 - Apr. - Jun.

Close Public Comment Period	2013 - Jul. -  Sept.

Phase 3:  Registration Review Decision

Proposed Registration Review Decision 	2013 - Oct. – Dec.

Close Public Comment Period 	2014 – Jan. - Mar.

Final Registration Review Decision and Begin Post-Decision Follow-up
2014 -  Jul. – Sept.

Total (years)	6.0

Guidance for Commenters:

The public is invited to comment on EPA’s preliminary registration
review work plan and rationale.  The Agency will carefully consider all
comments as well as any additional information or data provided in a
timely manner prior to issuing a final work plan for the coumaphos case.

Through the registration review process, the Agency intends to solicit
information on trade irritants and, to the extent feasible, take steps
toward facilitating irritant resolution.  Growers and other stakeholders
are asked to comment on any trade irritant issues resulting from lack of
Maximum Residue Limits (MRLs) or disparities between U.S. tolerances and
MRLs in key export markets, providing as much specificity as possible
regarding the nature of the concern.

Coumaphos is not identified as a cause of impairment for any water
bodies listed as impaired under section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act,
based on information provided at
http://oaspub.epa.gov/tmdl/waters_list.impairments?p_impid=3.  The
Agency invites submission of water quality data for this pesticide.  To
the extent possible, data should conform to the quality standards in
Appendix A of the OPP Standard Operating Procedure: Inclusion of
Impaired Water Body and Other Water Quality Data in OPP’s Registration
Review Risk Assessment and Management Process (see:   HYPERLINK
"http://www.epa.gov/oppfead1/cb/ppdc/2006/november06/session1-sop.pdf"
http://www.epa.gov/oppfead1/cb/ppdc/2006/november06/session1-sop.pdf ),
in order to ensure they can be used quantitatively or qualitatively in
pesticide risk assessments.

EPA seeks to achieve environmental justice, the fair treatment and
meaningful involvement of all people, regardless of race, color,
national origin, or income, in the development, implementation, and
enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies. To help
address potential environmental justice issues, the Agency seeks
information on any groups or segments of the population who, as a result
of their location, cultural practices, or other factors, may have a
typical, unusually high exposure to coumaphos compared to the general
population.  Please comment if you are aware of any sub-populations that
may have a typical, unusually high exposure compared to the general
population.

Stakeholders are also specifically asked to provide information and data
in refining the ecological risk assessment, including any
species-specific effects determinations. The Agency is interesting in
obtaining the following information for coumaphos.

any current information pertaining to disposal of bioremediated cattle
dip spent solution (i.e. dried sludge generated in the evaporation
ponds)

confirmation on the following label information

sites of application

formulations

application methods and equipment

maximum application rates

frequency of application, application intervals, and maximum number of
applications per season

geographic limitations on use

use or potential use distribution (e.g., geographical distribution)

use history

application timing (date of first application and application intervals)
- national, state, and county

usage/use information for non-agricultural uses (e.g., direct
application to animals, bee hives)

directly acquired county-level usage data (not derived from state level
data)

maximum reported use rate from usage data – county

total pounds per year – county

the year the pesticide was last used in the county/sub-county area

the years in which the pesticide was applied in the county/sub-county
area

typical interval (days)

state or local use restrictions

ecological incidents (non-target plant damage and avian, fish,
reptilian, amphibian and mammalian mortalities) not already reported to
the Agency

monitoring data

Next Steps:

After the comment period closes, the Agency will review any comments
received in a timely manner, and then issue a Final Work Plan for this
pesticide.

II. FACT SHEET

Background Information:

Coumaphos registration review case number: 0018.

Coumaphos PC Code: 036501, CAS#: 56-72-4.

Technical registrants:  Bayer HealthCare LLC.

One technical product and 16 end-use products.

First registered as a pesticide in the U.S. in 1958.

Reregistration Eligibility Decision (RED) completed in August 1996.

Finalization of Interim Reregistration Eligibility Decisions (IREDs) and
Interim Tolerance Reassessment and Risk Management Decisions (TREDs
(September 2000), and Completion of the Tolerance Reassessment and
Reregistration Eligibility Process for the Organophosphate Pesticides
was completed in July 2006.

Special Review and Reregistration Division Chemical Review Manager
(CRM): Wilhelmena Livingston<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Registration Division Product Manager (PM): George Larocca:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

Use & Usage Information:  (For additional details, please refer to the
BEAD Appendix A document in the coumaphos docket.)

Coumaphos is an organophosphate insecticide/acaricide.  The current
supported uses for coumaphos include direct application to animals,
including dairy cattle, beef cattle, swine and bedding, and horses, for
the control anthropod pests including ticks, scabie mites, lice, flies,
fleece worms and screw worms.

Coumaphos is also used in impregnated plastic strips in bee hives to
control varroa mites and small hive beetles.

There are no residential uses for coumaphos.

Coumaphos currently has no agricultural crop uses.

The equipment used to applied coumaphos includes dip vats, low and
high-pressure hand wands, back rubber/oiler, mechanical dusters, dust
bags, and shaker cans.

Coumaphos is applied primarily during the early spring to late summer or
during fly season for cattle use.

The CheckMite+ Bee Hive Pest Control Strips consist of plastic strips
(prepackaged) that are impregnated with 10% liquid solution of the
active ingredient, coumaphos. The label allows up to two strips hung in
the hive’s broad chamber for control of varroa mites, and the
concurrent use of another 10% strip attached to the bottom board for
control of beetles. The strips could remain in the hive for up to 45
days.

The use classification for the two liquid products (11.6% emulsifiable
concentrate and the 42% flowable) are Restricted Use Pesticides (RUP).
All other products have general use classifications.

Approximately 71,000 pounds of coumaphos are used annually in the Unites
States.

The formulation types of the registered coumaphos products include the
technical grade active ingredient, dust, emulsifiable concentrate,
flowable concentrate, and impregnated material.

Recent Actions:

A Section 18 emergency exemption for use of coumaphos in beehives to
control varroa mites was issued to 38 states during the 2007 growing
season and expired on February 1, 2008.

A Federal Register notice (72 FR 2887) was issued on May 23, 2007,
establishing permanent tolerances for residues of coumaphos in or on
honey and honeycomb. The Agency issued a Section 3 registration on
January 24, 2008 for honey and honeycomb.  Interregional Research
Project #4 (IR-4) requested these permanent tolerances.

Ecological Risk Assessment Status:

The following are key findings of the coumaphos risk assessment.  Please
refer to Section III, Revised Registration Review Preliminary Problem
Formulation for the Ecological Risk Assessment of Coumaphos, for a
detailed discussion of the anticipated ecological risk assessment needs.
The Agency will utilize the information provided from the previous risk
assessment as a resource for conducting the ecological risk assessment
for the registration review process.

A new assessment will include risk estimates from two pathways:  the
application of coumaphos to cattle via spray based on the registrant
submitted data on wash-off estimates from cowhide, and from application
of bioremediated spent vat-dip solutions to land.

The indoor use of coumaphos and the placement of the coumaphos-treated
strips in beehives to control varroa mites and small hive beetles
suggest that there are no routes of exposure to surface waters or the
surrounding non-target terrestrial environment.  Therefore there are no
acute or chronic risk concerns and no concerns from the indoor use of
coumaphos for effects to federally listed threatened or endangered
species.

Risk to Terrestrial Animals (Birds and Mammals):

Coumaphos is expected to pose a significant acute risk to birds
primarily due to ingestion of hair and skin debris from the treated
cattle or secondary exposure from ingestion of birds killed by the
pesticide, and contaminated with pesticide.  Avian reproduction studies
were not required in the 1996 RED due to the significant acute risk to
birds.  The birds would be killed before chronic effects could occur.

Coumaphos is not expected to pose a risk to endangered or non-endangered
mammals due to the limited use pattern.  The treatment of cattle in
confined areas is not expected to result in significant exposure to
endangered or non-endangered mammals.

Risk to Aquatic Animals (Fish and Aquatic Invertebrates):

Coumaphos usage on cattle is expected to pose an acute risk to aquatic
invertebrates.  Coumaphos is not expected to pose chronic or acute risks
to endangered or non-endangered fish.

The residues of concern are coumaphos and its oxygen analogue
coumaphoxon.  Coumaphoxon is included in the Agency’s tolerance
expression, and was considered in the drinking water assessment.

Risk to Endangered Species:

Before the risk assessments are developed for public comment, the Agency
will ensure that an endangered species assessment is complete for all
currently registered uses of coumaphos.

On July 28, 2004, the Agency completed an Effects Determination for
Coumaphos for Pacific Anadromous Salmonids.  The Agency concluded that
coumaphos will have no effect on any of the listed or proposed ESUs of
Pacific salmon and steelhead. The risk quotients calculated for fish did
not exceed the endangered species level of concern which indicates no
direct risk to endangered fish.  With regards to indirect effects, the
risk quotients for aquatic invertebrates did exceed the level of
concern.  However, there is no risk to invertebrates due to the low
poundage used in the Pacific Northwest and California and its seasonal
localized treatment application.  The Agency also concludes that
coumaphos will have no indirect effects to endangered salmonids from
loss of food supply.

Human Health Risk Assessment Status:

Please refer to Section IV of this document, Coumaphos Registration
Review Scoping Document for Human Health Assessments, for a detailed
discussion of the anticipated risk assessment needs for human health.  A
summary follows:

Hazard Characterization:

As an organophosphate insecticide, coumaphos primarily affects the
nervous system through cholinesterase (ChE) inhibition.  Systemic
toxicity in the form of decreased body weight gains was observed in
chronic studies; however, the most sensitive hazard endpoint observed
was ChE inhibition.  Females are consistently more sensitive to the
cholinergic effects of coumaphos than males.  In developmental toxicity
studies in rats and rabbits, no developmental toxicity was observed,
while clinical signs of ChE toxicity were seen in the maternal animals.

The available toxicology data for coumaphos are adequate to support
currently registered uses.  The Agency believes that there are reliable
data to select endpoints for dermal and inhalation exposures resulting
from the occupational uses of coumaphos, and to determine the
appropriate uncertainty factors.

The acute toxicity of coumaphos is high via the oral route of exposure
(Category I), moderate via the inhalation route (Category II), and
slight via the dermal route (Category III).  Coumaphos is not a dermal
sensitizer or a dermal irritant, and it does not cause delayed
neuropathy.

Coumaphos is classified as a Group E chemical, indicating that it is
“Not Likely” to be carcinogenic in humans via relevant routes of
exposure.

In the current assessment, no discernible difference in exposure was
observed when coumaphos residues in honey and beeswax were or were not
included in an aggregate assessment.  If coumaphos exposure from honey
is insignificant in comparison to exposure to coumaphos from other uses
of the chemical, it necessarily is insignificant in comparison to
exposure to the more than 30 other OPs.  For these reasons, EPA
concludes that the establishment of a coumaphos honey tolerance will not
raise a concern regarding cumulative OP exposure.

Dietary (Food and Water):

Acute and Chronic exposure estimates for food alone are below the
Agency’s level of concern.

The dietary exposure database is adequate for registration review;
however, the dietary assessment will need to be updated to reflect the
tolerances for honey and honeycomb that were established in January
2008.

The GENEEC and SCI-GROW screening models were used to estimate surface
water and groundwater concentrations of coumaphos and its oxygen
analogue, coumaphoxon.  The total (coumaphos and coumaphoxon) acute
estimated environmental concentrations (EECs) in drinking water that was
derived from surface water sources is not likely to exceed 1.86 ppb, and
the chronic EEC is not likely are exceed 0.41 ppb.

PDP monitoring data for beef and milk were used in a 2007 dietary risk
assessment to estimate the dietary exposure and risk associated with the
Section 3 registration of coumaphos on honey.  FQPA requires that the
Agency revisit the monitoring data five years after the tolerance
assessment decision.  Therefore, EPA will revisit coumaphos monitoring
data.

The existing residue chemistry database for coumaphos is adequate and no
additional data are required.

Residential:

There are no residential uses for coumaphos.  Therefore, a residential
risk assessment is not required.

Aggregate:

The aggregate assessment includes food and drinking water exposures only
(there are no residential uses).

The acute aggregate dietary exposure estimates are below the Agency’s
level of concern for the U.S. population and all population subgroups.
The combined dietary exposures from food and drinking water at the 99.9%
percentile of exposure is 15% of the aPAD for the U.S. and 38% of the
aPAD for all infants, the most highly exposed population subgroup.

The chronic aggregate dietary exposure estimates are below the
Agency’s level of concern for the U.S. population and all population
subgroups. The combined dietary exposure from food and drinking water is
6% of the cPAD for the U.S. population and 13% of the cPAD for all
infants, the most highly exposed population subgroup.

Cumulative Risk Characterization (CRA):

The Agency developed a highly refined and complex cumulative risk
assessment for the OPs that represent’s the state of the science
regarding existing hazard and exposure data and the models and
approaches used.  In accordance with the August 2006 deadline under the
FQPA, the Agency concluded that the results of the OP cumulative risk
assessment support a reasonable certainty of no harm finding.  Although
coumaphos was in the revised OP CRA, through the use of Pesticide Data
Program (PDP) data, there were no residues contributing to the overall
exposure.

EPA does not believe that inclusion of coumaphos residues in honey in
the OP CRA will significantly modify the calculated risk.  This
conclusion is based on three factors.  First, honey is a low consumption
food, and, thus, even if honey contained quantifiable levels of OPs, it
would be unlikely to significantly alter the OP CRA.  Second, available
monitoring data for beef and milk indicates that, despite widespread use
of coumaphos, residues of coumaphos in honey as consumed are exceedingly
low, if present at all.  Finally, a prior risk assessment for coumaphos
indicated that aggregate risk from coumaphos was essentially unchanged
when honey containing levels of coumaphos residues found in field trials
was added to the coumaphos risk assessment.

Occupational:

In the September 2000, Reregistration Eligibility Decision Addendum and
FQPA Tolerance Reassessment Progress Report for Coumaphos, occupational
risk were mitigated to acceptable levels with the addition of personal
protective equipment, engineering controls and the following label
changes: restriction of the 42 % flowable product to only USDA-APHIS
use, prohibition of the mechanical duster use, limitation on the number
of animals and area of animal bedding to be treated.

Occupational postapplication exposure was not assessed because the
Agency determined that there is likely to be minimal exposure to workers
contacting animals immediately after the application is complete and the
amount of exposure is likely to be substantially lower than the exposure
to handlers.

A February 2000 document, Coumaphos Risk Assessment for Section 18 Use
of Coumaphos in Bee Hives in Florida to Control Vorroa Mites, indicated
that a risk assessment for occupational exposure was not required for a
Section 18 use of coumaphos in bee hives in Florida, however, the Agency
recommended that “chemical resistant” gloves be required for use by
applicators when using the end-use product, CheckMite+ Bee hive Pest
Control Strips to control varroa mites.  This label requirement is
currently on the label.

There is currently adequate information to support an occupational
assessment of coumaphos.  No new data are required for registration
review.

Incidents:

An analysis of the incidence reports will be included in a separate memo
and placed in the docket.

Data Call-In Status:

There are no current data call-ins for coumaphos.

Tolerances and International Harmonization:

US	Canada

Residue Definition:

	40CFR180.189

coumaphos ( O,O -diethyl O -3-chloro-4-methyl-2-oxo-2H-1-benzopyran-7-yl
phosphorothioate and its oxygen analog ( O,O -diethyl O
-3-chloro-4-methyl-2-oxo-2H-1-benzopyran-7-yl phosphate)	O-3-chloro-4-

methylcoumarin-7-yl

O,O-diethyl

phosphorothioate

Commodity Tolerance (ppm) /Maximum Residue Limit (mg/kg)

Commodity	US	Canada

Cattle, fat	1.0	0.51

Cattle, meat	1.0	0.51

Cattle, meat byproducts	1.0	0.51

Goat, fat	1.0	0.51

Goat, meat	1.0	0.51

Goat, meat byproducts	1.0	0.51

Hog, fat	1.0	0.51

Hog, meat	1.0	0.51

Hog, meat byproducts	1.0	0.51

Honey	0.15

	Honeycomb	45.0

	Horse, fat	1.0	0.51

Horse, meat	1.0	0.51

Horse, meat byproducts	1.0	0.51

Milk, fat (=n in whole milk)	0.5

	Sheep, fat	1.0	0.51

Sheep, meat	1.0	0.51

Sheep, meat byproducts	1.0	0.51

Poultry, meat

0.51

Poultry, meat-by-products

0.51

1Calculated on the fat content.

Note:  There are no tolerances and international harmonization for
Mexico and Codex (withdrawn from Codex in 1980).

Labels:

A list of registration numbers may be found in the coumaphos docket and
the labels can then be obtained from the Pesticide Product Label System
(PPLS) website:   HYPERLINK "http://oaspub.epa.gov/pestlabl/ppls.home"
http://oaspub.epa.gov/pestlabl/ppls.home .

III. GLOSSARY AND TERMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

Glossary of Terms and Abbreviations

AGDCI		Agricultural Data Call-In

ai			Active Ingredient

aPAD			Acute Population Adjusted Dose

BCF			Bioconcentration Factor

CFR			Code of Federal Regulations

cPAD			Chronic Population Adjusted Dose

CSF			Confidential Statement of Formula

CSFII			USDA Continuing Surveys for Food Intake by Individuals

DCI			Data Call-In

DEEM		Dietary Exposure Evaluation Model

DFR			Dislodgeable Foliar Residue

DNT			Developmental Neurotoxicity

EC			Emulsifiable Concentrate Formulation

EDWC		Estimated Drinking Water Concentration

EEC			Estimated Environmental Concentration

EPA			Environmental Protection Agency

EUP			End-Use Product

FDA			Food and Drug Administration

FIFRA		Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act

FFDCA		Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act

FQPA			Food Quality Protection Act

GLN			Guideline Number

IR			Index Reservoir

LC50			Median Lethal Concentration.  A statistically derived
concentration of a substance that can be 	expected to cause death in 50%
of test animals.  It is usually expressed as the weight of substance
per weight or volume of water, air or feed, e.g., mg/l, mg/kg or ppm.

LD50			Median Lethal Dose.  A statistically derived single dose that can
be expected to cause death in 	50% of  the test animals when
administered by the route indicated (oral, dermal, 	inhalation).  It is
expressed as a weight of substance per unit weight of animal, e.g.,
mg/kg.

LOC			Level of Concern

LOAEL		Lowest Observed Adverse Effect Level

MATC		Maximum Acceptable Toxicant Concentration

µg/g			Micrograms Per Gram

µg/L			Micrograms Per Liter

mg/kg/day		Milligram Per Kilogram Per Day

mg/L			Milligrams Per Liter

MOE			Margin of Exposure

MRID			Master Record Identification (number).  EPA's system of recording
and tracking studies 	submitted.

MUP			Manufacturing-Use Product

NOAEL		No Observed Adverse Effect Level

OPP			EPA Office of Pesticide Programs

OPPTS		EPA Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances

PAD			Population Adjusted Dose

PCA			Percent Crop Area

PDP			USDA Pesticide Data Program

PHED			Pesticide Handler's Exposure Data

PHI			Preharvest Interval

ppb			Parts Per Billion

PPE			Personal Protective Equipment

ppm			Parts Per Million

PRZM/EXAMS	Tier II Surface Water Computer Model

Q1*			The Carcinogenic Potential of a Compound, Quantified by the EPA's
Cancer Risk Model

RAC			Raw Agriculture Commodity

RED			Reregistration Eligibility Decision

REI			Restricted Entry Interval

RfD			Reference Dose

RQ			Risk Quotient

SCI-GROW		Tier I Ground Water Computer Model

SAP			Science Advisory Panel

SF			Safety Factor

SLC			Single Layer Clothing

TGAI			Technical Grade Active Ingredient

USDA		United States Department of Agriculture

USGS			United States Geological Survey

UF			Uncertainty Factor

UV			Ultraviolet

WPS			Worker Protection Standard

 PAGE

 PAGE   3


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 203 (Friday, October 19, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 64336-64337]
[FR Doc No: 2012-25794]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-R04-OW-2012-0273; FRL-9743-5]

Public Water System Supervision Program Revision for the State of
Florida

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of tentative approval.

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

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the State of Florida is revising
its Public Water System Supervision Program by adopting the Lead and
Copper Rule Short Term Revisions. EPA has determined that Florida's
rule is no less stringent than the corresponding federal regulations.
Therefore, the EPA is tentatively approving this revision to the State
of Florida's Public Water System Supervision Program.

DATES: Any interested person may request a public hearing. A request
for a public hearing must be submitted by November 19, 2012, to the
Regional Administrator at the EPA, Region 4 address shown below. The
Regional Administrator may deny frivolous or insubstantial requests for
a hearing. However, if a substantial request for a public hearing is
made by November 19, 2012, a public hearing will be held. If the EPA,
Region 4 does not receive a timely and appropriate request for a
hearing and the Regional Administrator does not elect to hold a hearing
on her own motion, this tentative approval shall become final and
effective on November 19, 2012. Any request for a public hearing shall
include the following information: The name, address, and telephone
number of the individual, organization, or other entity requesting a
hearing; a brief statement of the requesting person's interest in the
Regional Administrator's determination; a brief statement of the
information that the requesting person intends to submit at such
hearing; and the signature of the individual making the request, or, if
the request is made on behalf of an organization or other entity, the
signature of a responsible official of the organization or other
entity.

ADDRESSES: All documents relating to this determination are available
for inspection between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday
through Friday, at the following offices: Florida Department of
Environmental Protection, Drinking Water Program, 2600 Blair Stone
Road, Tallahassee, Florida 32399; and the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Region 4, Safe Drinking Water Branch, 61 Forsyth Street SW.,
Atlanta, Georgia 30303.

EPA Analysis

    On October 12, 2010, the State of Florida submitted a request that
the Region approve revisions to the State's Safe Drinking Water Act
PWSS Program to include the authority to implement and enforce the Lead
and Copper Rule Short Term Revisions. EPA reviewed the application
using the federal statutory provisions (Section 1413 of the Safe
Drinking Water Act), federal regulations (at 40 CFR part 142), state

regulations, rule crosswalks and EPA guidance to determine whether the
request for revision is approvable.
    Florida has chosen to not allow certain options set forth in the
federal regulations, to extend time frames for certain activities.
There are specific State regulatory provisions indicating the State is
not allowing the option to extend those time frames. In addition,
Florida has chosen to implement an optional federal requirement
regarding submittal of certain information. These choices are
consistent with and no less stringent than the federal requirements.
    EPA Action: The EPA is tentatively approving this revision. If EPA
does not receive a timely and appropriate request for a hearing and the
Regional Administrator does not elect to hold a hearing on her own
motion, this tentative approval will become final and effective on
November 19, 2012.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Larry Meyer, EPA, Region 4, Safe
Drinking Water Branch, at the address given above, or by telephone at
(404) 562-9449, or via email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Authority: Section 1413 of the Safe Drinking Water Act, as
amended (1996), and 40 CFR part 142.

    Dated: September 11, 2012.
Gwendolyn Keyes Fleming,
Regional Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2012-25794 Filed 10-18-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: October 2, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 190)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 56014-56015]
[DOCID:fr02oc07-5]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket No. CGD08-07-010]
RIN 1625-AA11

Regulated Navigation Area; Cumberland River, Clarksville, TN

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is extending the time period for a Regulated
Navigation Area (RNA) on the Cumberland River (CMR) mile marker (MM)
126 to mile marker MM 127. All vessel traffic transiting beneath the R.
J. Corman Railroad Bridge at MM 126.5 is restricted to the right
descending bank (RDB) on the CMR and tows transiting this RNA cannot be
wider than 80 feet or longer than 800 feet, excluding the length of the
tow boat. The original RNA ended August 2, 2007. This rule extends the
ongoing RNA from September 4 to October 31, 2007.

DATES: This temporary rule is effective from 4 p.m. on August 31, 2007
through 11:30 a.m. October 31, 2007.

ADDRESSES: The Coast Guard is not soliciting comments on this temporary
RNA. However, you may mail comments and related material to Coast Guard
Sector Ohio Valley, 600 Martin Luther King Drive, Louisville, KY 40202,
attention: Prevention Department. Comments and material received from
the public, as well as documents indicated in this preamble as being
available in the docket, will become part of this docket and will be
available for inspection or copying at Coast Guard Sector Ohio Valley
between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: LCDR Phillip Ison, Coast Guard Sector
Ohio Valley, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Regulatory Information

    The Coast Guard originally established this RNA on April 17, 2007.
We did not publish a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) for this
regulation. Under 5 United States Code (USC) 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard
finds that good cause exists for not publishing a NPRM and under 5
U.S.C. 553(d)(3), good cause exists for making this rule effective
immediately. The R. J. Corman Railroad Bridge on the Cumberland River
was struck by a barge and was severely damaged. Repairs to this bridge
have not been completed. This RNA continues to be needed to prevent
further damage to the bridge and to protect vessels transiting under
the bridge.

Background and Purpose

    On March 29, 2007 at approximately 11:15 p.m., the R. J. Corman
Railroad Bridge, located at MM 126.5 on the Cumberland River (CMR) was
struck by a barge being pushed by a towing vessel. The bridge sustained
extensive damage. The Coast Guard set a safety zone at 7 p.m. on March
30, 2007 on the CMR from MM 126 through MM 127 halting all vessel
traffic until the structural integrity of the bridge was evaluated. The
operator of the bridge reported to the Coast Guard that the bridge
damage was isolated to the left descending bank (LDB) bridge pier of
the bridge above the waterline. The bridge operator also informed the
Coast Guard that vessels could safely transit under the bridge on the
right descending bank (RDB) of the CMR. The Coast Guard is restricting
vessel movements to the RDB and is limiting tow sizes to ensure that
vessels pass safely under the bridge and do not cause additional damage
to the bridge. Bridge repairs were estimated to have been completed by
early August 2007; however, repair work will not be completed until
late October 2007.

Discussion of Rule

    The Coast Guard is establishing a Regulated Navigation Area (RNA)
on the CMR mile marker (MM) 126 to mile marker MM 127. All vessel
traffic transiting beneath the R. J. Corman Railroad Bridge at MM 126.5
is restricted to the RDB on the CMR and tows transiting this RNA cannot
be wider than 80 feet or longer than 800 feet, excluding the length of
the tow boat. This RNA is effective from 4 p.m. on August 31, 2007
through 11:30 a.m. October 31, 2007. This RNA may be cancelled earlier
if the Coast Guard determines that it is safe for vessel traffic to
transit under the bridge span adjacent to the LDB.

Regulatory Evaluation

    This rule is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under section
3(f) of Executive Order 12866 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. Commercial vessel traffic
including tow and barge traffic is being allowed to move through this
RNA and this RNA will be cancelled when the Coast Guard determines that
it is safe to open traffic to both sides of the R. J. Corman Railroad
Bridge.

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
would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities. This RNA will not have an impact on a substantial
number of small entities because this rule will not significantly
impact the regular flow of commercial vessel traffic conducting
business within the RNA. Further, the RNA will not have a significant
impact because it will be in place for a limited period of time.
    If you think that your business, organization, or governmental
jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have
a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment to Coast
Guard Sector Ohio Valley at the address listed under ADDRESSES
explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what degree this
rule would economically affect it.

Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this rule so that they can better evaluate
its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. If the rule
would affect your small business, organization, or governmental
jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or
options for compliance; please contact Sector Ohio Valley at (502) 779-
5412.

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 or more in any
one year. Though this rule would not result in such an expenditure, we
do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.

Taking of Private Property

    This rule does not effect 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 might
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. It has not been designated by the Administrator of the
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs 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 Commandant Instruction M16475.1D
and Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 5100.1, which
guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made a
preliminary determination that there are no factors in this case that
would limit the use of a categorical exclusion under section 2.B.2 of
the Instruction. Therefore, we believe that this rule should be
categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(g), of the
Instruction, from further environmental documentation. This rule fits
in paragraph (34)(g) because it is a regulated navigation area. A
preliminary ``Environmental Analysis Check List'' is available in the
docket where indicated under ADDRESSES.

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; 50
U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1(g), 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.T08-826 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T08-826  Cumberland River, TN-regulated navigation area.

    (a) The following is a Regulated Navigation Area (RNA): all waters
of the Cumberland River (CMR) from MM 126 CMR to MM 127 CMR.
    (b) Within the RNA described in paragraph (a), vessels are
restricted to the right descending bank (RDB) of the Cumberland River
and tows cannot be wider than 80 feet or longer than 800 feet,
excluding the length of the tow boat.
    (c) This rule is effective from 4 p.m. on August 31, 2007 through
11:30 a.m. October 31, 2007.

    Dated: September 7, 2007.
J.H. Korn,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Acting Commander, 8th Coast Guard Dist.
[FR Doc. 07-4857 Filed 10-1-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-15-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 15 (Tuesday, January 24, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 4175-4176]
[FR Doc No: 2023-01321]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. IC22-32-000]

Commission Information Collection Activities (FERC-551) Comment
Request; Extension

AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, DOE.

ACTION: Notice of information collection and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission or
FERC) is soliciting public comment on a renewal of currently approved
information collection, FERC-551, (Reporting of Flow Volume and
Capacity by Interstate Natural Gas Pipelines), which will be submitted
to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review. No Comments
were received on the 60-day notice published on September 29, 2022.

DATES: Comments on the collection of information are due February 23,
2023.

ADDRESSES: Send written comments on FERC-551 to OMB through
www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain. Attention: Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission Desk Officer. Please identify the OMB Control Number (1902-
0243) in the subject line of your comments. Comments should be sent
within 30 days of publication of this notice to www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain.
    Please submit copies of your comments to the Commission. You may
submit copies of your comments (identified by Docket No. IC22-32-000)
by one of the following methods:
    Electronic filing through https://www.ferc.gov, is preferred.
     Electronic Filing: Documents must be filed in acceptable
native applications and print-to-PDF, but not in scanned or picture
format.
     For those unable to file electronically, comments may be
filed by USPS mail or by hand (including courier) delivery.
    [cir] Mail via U.S. Postal Service Only: Addressed to: Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, Secretary of the Commission, 888 First
Street NE, Washington, DC 20426.
    [cir] Hand (Including Courier) Delivery: Deliver to: Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, Secretary of the Commission, 12225 Wilkins
Avenue, Rockville, MD 20852.
    Instructions: OMB submissions must be formatted and filed in
accordance with submission guidelines at www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain. Using the search function under the ``Currently Under Review''
field, select Federal Energy Regulatory Commission; click ``submit,''
and select ``comment'' to the right of the subject collection.
    FERC submissions must be formatted and filed in accordance with
submission guidelines at: https://www.ferc.gov. For user assistance,
contact FERC Online Support by email at [email protected], or
by phone at:<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll-free).
    Docket: Users interested in receiving automatic notification of
activity in this docket or in viewing/downloading comments and
issuances in this docket may do so at https://www.ferc.gov/ferc-online/overview.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ellen Brown may be reached by email at
[email protected], telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    >Title: FERC-551, Reporting of Flow Volume and Capacity by
Interstate Natural Gas Pipelines.
    OMB Control No.: 1902-0243.
    Type of Request: Three-year extension of the FERC-551 information
collection requirements with no changes to the current reporting
requirements.
    Abstract: The Commission is authorized to facilitate price
transparency in markets for the sale or transportation of natural gas
in interstate commerce, regarding the public interest, the integrity of
those markets, fair competition, and the protection of consumers. FERC-
551 uses the information provided by pipelines as part of its overall
implementation of the statutory

provisions of section 23 of the Natural Gas Act (NGA) and 16 U.S.C.
717t-2. More specifically, the Commission relies, in part, on section
23(a)(1) of the NGA, for the authority to collect this information and
uses the pipelines' FERC-551 postings as part of fulfilling the
transparency provisions of section 23(a)(1) of the NGA. The data
requirements for pipelines are listed in the Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) under 18 CFR 284.13 (Reporting requirements for
interstate pipelines). The Commission has directed that the data
requirements under FERC-551 are to be posted on interstate pipelines'
websites and provided in downloadable file formats, in conformity with
18 CFR 284.12.
    The posting requirements are based on the Commission's authority
under section 23 of the NGA (as added by the Energy Policy Act of
2005), which provides, in relevant part, that the Commission may issue
such rules as necessary and appropriate to provide for the
dissemination of ``information about the availability and prices of
natural gas at wholesale and in interstate commerce.'' \1\ This
provision enhances the Commission's authority to ensure confidence in
the Nation's natural gas markets. The Commission's market-oriented
policies for the wholesale natural gas industry require that interested
persons have broad confidence that reported market prices accurately
reflect the interplay of legitimate market forces. Without confidence
in the efficiency of price formation, the true value of transactions is
very difficult to determine. Further, price transparency facilitates
ensuring that jurisdictional prices are ``just and reasonable.'' \2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Section 23(a)(2) of the NGA, 15 U.S.C. 717t-2(a)(2) (2000 &
Supp. V 2005).
    \2\ See sections 4 and 5 of the NGA, 15 U.S.C. 717c and 717d.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The posting of FERC-551 information occurs on a daily basis. The
data must be available for download for not less than 90 days from the
date of posting and must be retained by the pipeline for three years.
    The daily posting requirements for major non-interstate pipelines
prescribed in the Commission's Order No. 720 are no longer required.
The number of respondents used to develop the burden estimates do not
include any major non-interstate pipelines.
    Type of Respondents: Interstate Natural Gas Pipelines.
    Estimate of Annual Burden: \3\ The Commission estimates the total
public reporting burden and cost for this information collection as
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Burden is defined as the total time, effort, or financial
resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or
disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. For
further explanation of what is included in the information
collection burden, refer to 5 CFR 1320.3.

                                   FERC-551--Reporting of Flow Volume and Capacity by Interstate Natural Gas Pipelines
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Annual number  of                       Average burden &   Total annual burden
                                      Number of        responses  per    Total number  of   cost per response      hours & total     Burden hours & cost
                                     respondents         respondent         responses              \4\              annual cost      per respondent  ($)
                                                (1)                (2)    (1) * (2) = (3)  (4)................  (3) * (4) = (5)....  (5) / (1)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FERC-551........................                181                365             66,065  0.5 hours; $37.....  33,032.50 hrs.;      182.5 hrs.;
                                                                                $2,444,405.          $13,505.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comments: Comments are invited on: (1) whether the collection of
information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of
the Commission, including whether the information will have practical
utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden and
cost of the collection of information, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality,
utility and clarity of the information collection; and (4) ways to
minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are
to respond, including the use of automated collection techniques or
other forms of information technology.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The hourly figure (wages plus benefits) is based on the
average of the occupational categories for 2022 found on the Bureau
of Labor Statistics website (http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/naics2_22.htm and http://www.bls.gov/news.release/ecec.nr0.htm):
    --Management (Occupation Code: 11-0000): $102.41.
    --Business (Occupation Code: 13-0000): $47.71.
    --Financial (Occupation Code: 13-2051): $70.68.
    These various occupational categories' wage (and benefits)
figures are averaged and weighted equally, giving an average of
$73.60/hour. The resulting wage figure is rounded to $74.00/hour for
use in calculating wage figures in the FERC-551 renewal.

    Dated: January 18, 2023.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-01321 Filed 1-23-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: October 31, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 212)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 64879-64881]
[DOCID:fr31oc08-7]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2008-0848; Directorate Identifier 2008-NM-082-AD;
Amendment 39-15702; AD 2008-22-07]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Saab AB, Saab Aerosystems Model SAAB
2000 Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

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

    Subsequent to accidents involving Fuel Tank System explosions in
flight * * * and on ground, * * * Special Federal Aviation
Regulation 88 (SFAR88) * * * required * * * a design review against
explosion risks.
* * * * *
    The unsafe condition is the potential of ignition sources inside
fuel tanks, which, in combination with flammable fuel vapors, could
result in fuel tank explosions and consequent loss of the airplane. We
are issuing this AD to require actions to correct the unsafe condition
on these products.

DATES: This AD becomes effective December 5, 2008.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of December 5,
2008.

ADDRESSES: You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://
www.regulations.gov or in person at the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 to include an AD that would apply to the specified products.
That NPRM was published in the Federal Register on August 7, 2008 (73
FR 45888). That NPRM proposed to correct an unsafe condition for the
specified products. The MCAI states:

    Subsequent to accidents involving Fuel Tank System explosions in
flight * * * and on ground, the FAA has published Special Federal
Aviation Regulation 88 (SFAR88) in June 2001. In their Letters
referenced 04/00/02/07/01-L296 dated March 4th, 2002 and 04/00/02/
07/03-L024, dated February 3rd, 2003, the Joint Aviation Authorities
(JAA) recommended the application of a similar regulation to the
National Aviation Authorities (NAA).
    Under current European Union regulation, all holders of type
certificates for passenger transport aircraft with either a
passenger capacity of 30 or more, or a payload capacity of 7,500
pounds (3,402 kg) or more, which have received their certification
after January 1st, 1958, are required to conduct a design review
against explosion risks.
    This Airworthiness Directive (AD), which is the result of one of
these design reviews, requires a wiring modification of the FQIS
(Fuel Quantity Indication System) Signal conditioner 28VDC (volts
direct current) supply and replacement of the Fuel Pump harness
inside the wing tanks (both LH and RH (left- and right-hand)).

    The unsafe condition is the potential of ignition sources inside
fuel tanks, which, in combination with flammable fuel vapors, could
result in fuel tank explosions and consequent loss of the airplane. The
corrective actions include functional and operational tests. You may
obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD docket.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD. We received no comments on the NPRM or on the determination of
the cost to the public.

Explanation of Change to Applicability

    We have revised the applicability of the existing AD to identify
the type certificate holder as published in the most recent type
certificate data sheet for the affected model.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the available data and determined that air safety and
the

public interest require adopting the AD with the change described
previously. We determined that this change will not increase the
economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of the AD.

Differences Between This AD and the MCAI or Service Information

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

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD will affect about 6 products of U.S.
registry. We also estimate that it will take about 80 work-hours per
product to comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average
labor rate is $80 per work-hour. Required parts will cost about $14,040
per product. Where the service information lists required parts costs
that are covered under warranty, we have assumed that there will be no
charge for these parts. As we do not control warranty coverage for
affected parties, some parties may incur costs higher than estimated
here. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD to the
U.S. operators to be $122,640, or $20,440 per product.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this AD will not have federalism implications
under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct
effect on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify this AD:
    1. Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order
12866;
    2. Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and
    3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to
comply with this AD and placed it in the AD docket.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://
www.regulations.gov; or in person at the Docket Operations office
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains the NPRM, the regulatory evaluation,
any comments received, and other information. The street address for
the Docket Operations office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the
ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly
after receipt.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

0
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator,
the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13   [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new AD:

2008-22-07 Saab AB, Saab Aerosystems: Amendment 39-15702. Docket No.
FAA-2008-0848; Directorate Identifier 2008-NM-082-AD.

Effective Date

    (a) This airworthiness directive (AD) becomes effective December
5, 2008.

Affected ADs

    (b) None.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to Saab AB, Saab Aerosystems Model SAAB 2000
airplanes, certificated in any category, all serial numbers.

Subject

    (d) Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 28: Fuel.

Reason

    (e) The mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI)
states:
    Subsequent to accidents involving Fuel Tank System explosions in
flight * * * and on ground, the FAA has published Special Federal
Aviation Regulation 88 (SFAR88) in June 2001. In their Letters
referenced 04/00/02/07/01-L296 dated March 4th, 2002 and 04/00/02/
07/03-L024, dated February 3rd, 2003, the Joint Aviation Authorities
(JAA) recommended the application of a similar regulation to the
National Aviation Authorities (NAA).
    Under current European Union regulation, all holders of type
certificates for passenger transport aircraft with either a
passenger capacity of 30 or more, or a payload capacity of 7,500
pounds (3,402 kg) or more, which have received their certification
after January 1st, 1958, are required to conduct a design review
against explosion risks.
    This Airworthiness Directive (AD), which is the result of one of
these design reviews, requires a wiring modification of the FQIS
(Fuel Quantity Indication System) Signal conditioner 28VDC (volts
direct current) supply and replacement of the Fuel Pump harness
inside the wing tanks (both LH and RH (left- and right-hand)).
    The unsafe condition is the potential of ignition sources inside
fuel tanks, which, in combination with flammable fuel vapors, could
result in fuel tank explosions and consequent loss of the airplane.
The corrective actions include functional and operational tests.

Actions and Compliance

    (f) Unless already done, do the following actions.
    (1) Within 72 months after the effective date of this AD,
replace the fuel pump harness inside each (both left- and right-
hand) inboard wing fuel tank in accordance with the Accomplishment
Instructions of Saab 2000 Service Bulletin 2000-28-013, dated
October 11, 2007 (Modification 6250), including a follow-up
functional test and operational test.
    (2) Within 72 months after the effective date of this AD, modify
the wiring of the 28 VDC supply to the signal conditioner and the
132VP (feed-through connector) in accordance with the Accomplishment
Instructions of Saab 2000 Service Bulletin 2000-28-014, Revision 02,
dated January 23, 2008 (Modification 6251), including the follow-up
operational test.
    (3) Actions done before the effective date of this AD in
accordance with Saab 2000 Service Bulletin 2000-28-014, Revision 01,
dated November 6, 2007, are acceptable for

compliance with the requirements of paragraph (f)(2) of this AD.

FAA AD Differences

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

Other FAA AD Provisions

    (g) The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA,
has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using
the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send information to ATTN:
Shahram Daneshmandi, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-
116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW.,
Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax (425)
227-1149. Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which
the AMOC applies, notify your appropriate principal inspector (PI)
in the FAA Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI,
your local FSDO.
    (2) Airworthy Product: For any requirement in this AD to obtain
corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these
actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered
FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority
(or their delegated agent). You are required to assure the product
is airworthy before it is returned to service.
    (3) Reporting Requirements: For any reporting requirement in
this AD, under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has approved the information
collection requirements and has assigned OMB Control Number 2120-
0056.

Related Information

    (h) Refer to MCAI European Aviation Safety Agency Airworthiness
Directive 2008-0031, dated February 15, 2008; Saab 2000 Service
Bulletin 2000-28-013, dated October 11, 2007; and Saab 2000 Service
Bulletin 2000-28-014, Revision 02, dated January 23, 2008; for
related information.

Material Incorporated by Reference

    (i) You must use Saab 2000 Service Bulletin 2000-28-013, dated
October 11, 2007; and Saab 2000 Service Bulletin 2000-28-014,
Revision 02, dated January 23, 2008; as applicable; to do the
actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference of this service information under 5
U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact Saab
Aircraft AB, SAAB Aerosystems, SE-581.88, Link[ouml]ping, Sweden;
telephone 011 46 13 18 5591; fax 011 46 13 18 4874; e-mail http://
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet http://
www.saabgroup.com.
    (3) You may review copies at the FAA, Transport Airplane
Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington; or at the
National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information
on the availability of this material at NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>,
or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_
federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on October 9, 2008.
Ali Bahrami,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. E8-25307 Filed 10-30-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 127 (Tuesday, July 2, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 39725-39726]
[FR Doc No: 2013-15856]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[FFP Missouri 2, LLC; Project No. 13702-001--Mississippi]

Grenada Lake Hydroelectric Project; Notice Of Proposed Restricted
Service List for a Programmatic Agreement

    Rule 2010 of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's
(Commission) Rules of Practice and Procedure \1\ provides that, to
eliminate unnecessary expense or improve administrative efficiency, the
Secretary may establish a restricted service list for a particular
phase or issue in a proceeding. The restricted service list should
contain the names of persons on the service list who, in the judgment
of the decisional authority establishing the list, are active
participants with respect to the phase or issue in the proceeding for
which the list is established.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 18 CFR 385.2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission staff is consulting with the Mississippi Department
of Archives and History (Mississippi SHPO) and the Advisory Council on
Historic Preservation (Advisory Council) pursuant to the Advisory
Council's regulations, 36 CFR Part 800, implementing section 106 of the
National Historic Preservation Act, as amended, (16 U.S.C. 70f), to
prepare a Programmatic Agreement for managing properties included in,
or eligible for inclusion in, the National Register of Historic Places
that could be affected by issuance of a license for the proposed
Grenada Lake Hydroelectric Project No. 13702.
    The Programmatic Agreement, when executed by the Commission and the
Mississippi SHPO, would satisfy the Commission's section 106
responsibilities for all individual undertakings carried out in
accordance with the license until the license expires or is terminated
(36 CFR 800.13[e]). The Commission's responsibilities pursuant to
section 106 for the project would be fulfilled through the Programmatic
Agreement, which the Commission staff proposes to draft in consultation
with certain parties listed below. The executed Programmatic Agreement
would be incorporated into any Order issuing a license.
    FFP Missouri 2, LLC, as applicant for the proposed Grenada Lake
Hydroelectric Project, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the Choctaw
Nation of Oklahoma, the Jena Band of Choctaw Indians, the Chickasaw
Nation, the Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians,

the Quapaw Tribe of Oklahoma, the Tunica-Biloxi Tribe of Louisiana, and
the Muscogee (Creek) Nation have expressed an interest in this
proceeding and are invited to participate in consultations to develop
the Programmatic Agreement. For purposes of commenting on the
Programmatic Agreement, we propose to restrict the service list for
Project No. 13702 as follows:

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

------------------------------------------------------------------------
John Eddins, Advisory Council on         LaDonna Brown, Chickasaw
 Historic Preservation, The Old Post      Nation, P.O. Box 1548, Ada, OK
 Office Building, Suite 803, 1100         74821.
 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington,
 DC 20004.
Greg Williamson, Mississippi Department  Kenneth H. Carlton, THPO,
 of Archives and History, 100 South       Mississippi Band of Choctaw
 State Street, Jackson, MS 39201.         Indians, P.O. Box 6257,
                                          Choctaw, MS 39350.
Andrew Tomlinson, U.S. Army Corps of     Jean Ann Lambert, THPOM, Quapaw
 Engineers, Vicksburg District, 4155      Tribe of Oklahoma, 5681 South
 Clay Street, Vicksburg, MS 39183.        630 Road, Quapaw, OK 74363.
Thomas M. Feldman or Representative,     Earl Barbry, Jr., Tunica-Biloxi
 Free Flow Power Corporation, 239         Tribe of Louisiana, 151
 Causeway Street, Suite 300, Boston, MA   Melacon Drive, Marksville, LA
 02114.                                   71351.
Dr. Ian Thompson, THPO, Choctaw Nation   Emman Spain, Muscogee (Creek)
 of Oklahoma, P.O. Box 1210, Durant, OK   Nation, P.O. Box 580,
 74702.                                   Okmulgee, OK 74447.
Johnnie Jacobs, Choctaw Nation of        Sarah Koeppel, U.S. Army Corps
 Oklahoma, P.O. Box 1210, Durant, OK      of Engineers, Vicksburg
 74702.                                   District, 4155 Clay Street,
                                          Vicksburg, MS 39183.
Dana Masters, THPO, Jena Band of
 Choctaw Indians, P.O. Box 14, Jena, LA
 71342.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Any person on the official service list for the above-captioned
proceeding may request inclusion on the restricted service list, or may
request that a restricted service list not be established, by filing a
motion to that effect within 15 days of this notice date. In a request
for inclusion, please identify the reason(s) why there is an interest
to be included. Also, please identify any concerns about historic
properties, including traditional cultural properties. If historic
properties might be identified within the motion, please use a separate
page and label it Non-Public information.
    Any such motion may be filed electronically via the Internet in
lieu of paper. See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on
the Commission's Web site (http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ferconline.asp). For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll-free at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or for TTY,
(202) 502-8659. Although the Commission strongly encourages electronic
filing, documents may also be paper-filed. To paper-file, mail an
original and five copies to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC
20426. Please put the project number (P-13702-001) on the first page of
the filing.
    If no such motions are filed, the restricted service list will be
effective at the end of the 15 day period. Otherwise, a further notice
will be issued ruling on any motion or motions within the 15-day
period.

    Dated: June 26, 2013.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-15856 Filed 7-1-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


Cooling Water Intake Structure ( CWIS) Information Data Required Rig Information Rig Name: Transocean Marianas Rig Type: Semi submersible Total Installed Power Generation Capacity 23,800 HP ( 6 x 3600 BHP & 1 x 2200 BHP)

Number of Cooling Water Intake Structures ( CWISs) 2 Brief description of each CWIS ( e. g., sea chest, simple pipe) Sea Chests Rough dimensions of each CWIS and indicate whether onboard CWIS has an existing flange 18 inch pipe w/ 18" gate valve Screen type ( e. g., strainer, wedge wire) with mesh size Simplex Basket Strainers w/ ¼ " perforations Total Design Specifications for Daily Maximum Water Intake Volume of each CWIS Total Daily Water Intake Volume of each CWIS ( Set up/ Drilling) 2,447,570 gals ( 58,285 bbls)

Design Specs for Through Screen Velocity of each CWIS ( i. e., Q= V* A) ( Set up/ Drilling) 0.76 fps List of Purposes of Cooling Water Intakes ( e. g., cool crude oil, produced water, power generators, drill pipe brakes) Winch cooling, Plate heat exchangers for fresh water cooling system, 7 engine shell and tube heat exchangers List of Purposes of Non cooling Water Intakes ( e. g., fire water, hotel loads) Water Makers, Fire Main, Ballast, Sanitary, Pits,

Total Volume of Water Intake for Ballasting, Duration of the Ballast intake, and the Through Screen Velocity of the Ballast intake 227,556 gal ( 5416 bbls) Total / 20 day duration Through Screen Velocity = 11.38 fps Mitigation Measures for reducing Exotic Species Migration through Ballast water The rig does not carry much ballast water from location to location. It is taken on and dumped at the same location. Mitigation Measures for reducing Impingement and Entrainment of Aquatic Organisms, as well as Bio fouling Prevention Measures Sea chest screens, simplex baskets, cathodic protection Is the Rig equipped with a Radiator Cooling System for the Main Engines? No