  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

WASHINGTON D.C., 20460

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 OFFICE OF

PREVENTION, PESTICIDES AND TOXIC SUBSTANCES

MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT:	Response to Comments on Preliminary Impact Analysis for
Aldicarb on Major Citrus Crops, Potatoes, and Pecans (DP 331541)

FROM:	Monisha Kaul, Biologist

		Biological Analysis Branch

Derek Berwald, Economist

Economic Analysis Branch

Biological and Economic Analysis Division (7503P)

THRU:	Arnet Jones, Chief

Biological Analysis Branch

Istanbul Yusuf, Acting Chief

Economic Analysis Branch

Biological and Economic Analysis Division (7503P)

TO:		Sherrie Kinard, Chemical Review Manager (7509P)

		Robert McNally, Chief

Special Review and Reregistration Division

Peer Review Panel:  August 30, 2006

Summary

As part of the risk-benefit analysis for reregistration, BEAD conducted
an analysis of possible alternatives to aldicarb used on the major
citrus crops (oranges and grapefruit) in Florida and Texas, and also for
potatoes, and pecans.  This document responds to comments received on
BEAD’s analyses.  Most of the comments were about aldicarb use on
citrus, primarily on the use of aldicarb for the Asian citrus psyllid
(AsCP).  BEAD reviewed the comments along with newly available
information, and now concludes aldicarb may provide additional benefits
to citrus growers trying to control the AsCP, in conjunction with other
chemical and biological controls.  Comments also questioned the number
of citrus acres treated with aldicarb.  There is some uncertainty
regarding how many acres are treated with aldicarb annually, but usage
of aldicarb on citrus seems to be increasing, and newly available
estimates of acreage treated by the USDA National Agricultural
Statistics Service (USDA NASS), indicate that about 67,000 citrus acres
were treated in 2005.  Our earlier document estimated that about 57,000
acres of citrus were treated in 2004.  Several comments were also
received about aldicarb use sugar beets, and those are addressed in a
separate alternatives assessment for sugar beets.

Response to Comments

EPA received comments from the Florida Fruit and Vegetable Association
(FFVA), Florida Citrus Mutual (FCM), the University of Florida (UFL),
and Bayer CropScience, among others.  BEAD has summarized and responded
to the comments below.

Comment:

Bayer CropScience provided a document entitled  THE BENEFITS TO
AGRICULTURE OF TEMIK® BRAND 15G ALDICARB PESTICIDE, as a comment. This
document provides estimates of the total benefits of aldicarb by summing
the estimated benefits for the following crops: citrus, cotton, peanuts,
potatoes, sugarbeets, dry beans, flue-cured tobacco, pecans, and
soybeans.  In addition, there is a chapter on the benefits of using
aldicarb as a tool that simplifies pest control management.  This
chapter states that because of the long active life of aldicarb, it can
be used as a preventative treatment, rather than applied in response to
pest activity.  Use of aldicarb can also have the advantages of fewer
trips through the field, and increased consistency in crop quality.

The document provides estimates of the benefits of aldicarb to growers,
with a total benefit across all crops of $445.3 million per year.  The
estimated benefits by crop are reproduced in Table 1.

Table 1.  Bayer CropScience Estimated Benefits of Aldicarb

Crop	Annual Value per Acre	Total Value per Year

Cotton	$69.16 - $70.44	$307 - 313 Million

Peanuts	$77 - $82	$ 50 Million

Potatoes	$253	$ 35.5 Million

Citrus	$230	$ 33.0 Million

Sugar Beets	(not provided)	$   9.2 Million

Dry Beans	$108	$   3.0   Million

Flue-Cured Tobacco	$566	$   2.15 Million

Pecan	$51 - $500	$ 0.7 - $7 Million

Soybeans	$16.61	$ 0.33 Million

Source:  Public Comments submitted by Bayer CropScience

Response:

In all cases, the value of aldicarb on a per acre basis is estimated
from unpublished studies to which BEAD does not have access.  From the
descriptions in the comment, however, it appears that the values
reported compare the use of aldicarb to the use of no alternative method
of control for the target pests.  BEAD estimates benefits by comparing
the use of a chemical with the next best available alternative.  If
growers did not use aldicarb, it is unlikely that they would not attempt
to control the target pests by some other method.  In some cases, the
comment did provide estimates of the benefit of aldicarb relative to
other control methods, although they did not aggregate them to a
national level.  In all cases, however, these reported figures are a
result of unpublished studies to which EPA does not have access.

For comparison BEAD’s estimate of aldicarb benefits are $2 - $28 per
acre for cotton, and from $77 to $257 per acre for potatoes.  Full
estimates for the benefits of aldicarb use in citrus were not calculated
by BEAD, but potential losses from nematode damage (for which we could
not find an alternative control) were in the range of 5 – 10%, or
about $97 – $218 per acre.

Comment:

FFVA, FCM, UFL, and Bayer CropScience stated that aldicarb is effective
for controlling the AsCP and the spread of citrus greening disease.
Aldicarb use and benefits have increased since the AsCP, which is a
vector for citrus greening disease, was found in Florida.  Additionally,
aldicarb is the only systemic, soil-applied insecticide for AsCP that
can be used on trees taller than six to eight feet.

Response:

In mid to late February, when BEAD completed its analysis, the
University of Florida Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences (IFAS)
did not list aldicarb as a recommended insecticide for AsCP.  IFAS has
since updated its recommendations for AsCP.  Aldicarb is now recommended
among several other insecticides.  Because the AsCP is a relatively new
pest to Florida and the spread of citrus greening disease began late in
2005, new information is emerging and research is ongoing.   Citrus
greening has not yet been found in other states.

BEAD has further investigated the available controls for AsCP, including
biological, cultural, and chemical.  To control the spread of citrus
greening disease an integrated approach that manages both the insect
vector and the disease must be addressed.

Cultural controls of citrus greening disease include using clean nursery
stock because the disease can be transmitted through grafting with
infected budwood (Floyd and Krass, 2006).  In addition, infected trees
should be removed once identified (Floyd and Krass, 2006).   Monitoring
of AsCP populations and citrus greening disease should be done regularly
in citrus groves.

Control of citrus greening disease is complicated because early
detection is difficult.  Symptoms may take six months to two years to
appear after infection (Floyd and Krass, 2006).  Antibiotics are
available but they only provide suppression, may not eliminate the
bacteria from the tree, and may be phytotoxic (Floyd and Krass, 2006).

Several biological controls target the AsCP including parasitic wasps,
lady beetles, lacewings, and spiders.  In Florida, the most important
biological control includes coccinellid predators, Olla v-nigrum and
Harmonia axyridis (Halbert and Manjunath, 2004).  Parasitic wasps have
also been released in Florida and only one, T. radiata, established.  In
addition, the AsCP is vulnerable to fungi.  Pathogenic fungi may be
useful in warm, humid environments.  Although some of these biological
controls have been very effective in other countries, their
effectiveness is still being evaluated in Florida.  Therefore, chemical
controls are also recommended by state experts.

Although aldicarb is now a recommended insecticide for AsCP, it will
have to be used along with other forms of chemical control.  Only one
application of aldicarb may be made per year from January through April
(Browning et al., 2006).  IFAS states that aldicarb has been shown to be
effective on trees less than 6 feet in height (Browning et al., 2006).
Effectiveness on large trees is still being investigated, although there
are no restrictions on tree height for aldicarb use.  However, it may
take up to 30 days for aldicarb to affect psyllids that are feeding on
new flush on large trees.  Therefore, applications should be made 30
days before new flush (Browing et al., 2006).

As discussed in BEAD’s analysis of aldicarb on citrus, there are
chemical alternatives to aldicarb available for AsCP control including
imidacloprid, fenpropathrin, and chlorpyrifos.  For best results,
insecticides should be used twice per year on citrus groves with AsCP.
Imidacloprid, another soil applied systemic insecticide recommended for
AsCP, may be applied up to two times per year and is recommended for
trees up to 8 feet tall.  There are no time restrictions for use of this
pesticide as with aldicarb.  Currently, imidacloprid appears to be a
commonly recommended chemical control for AsCP.  Foliar insecticides
including fenpropathrin and chlorpyrifos are recommended for use during
major plant flushes or when fast control is required (Browning et al,
2006).  Broad-spectrum foliar insecticides, such as fenpropathrin and
chlorpyrifos, may be harmful on biological controls.

Aldicarb appears to be a beneficial tool for control of the AsCP among
other biological and chemical controls.  Systemic insecticides such as
aldicarb and imidacloprid are particularly effective for sucking insects
such as AsCP (Halbert and Manjunath, 2004).   To maximize benefits of
biological controls, it is important to use insecticides that are safe
for such organisms (Floyd and Krass, 2006).  However, foliar
insecticides, which may be harmful to beneficial organisms, may be
required for fast-acting control.

Comment:

FFVA and FCM stated the information used in BEAD’s analysis was
primarily based on the 2001 Crop Profile for Citrus in Florida and not
more recent information sources for pests and alternatives.  In
addition, FFVA and FCM made the following statements. “The Profile
estimates that the loss of aldicarb may result in a five to 10 percent
citrus production loss in Florida. That statement may have been true
before the establishment of the psyllid and the appearance of citrus
greening. Wherever greening becomes established in trees results in
complete loss of those trees for the remainder of time in which the
trees remain alive [sic].”

Response:

While BEAD did refer to the Crop Profile for Citrus (Major)
Orange/Grapefruit in Florida (2001), information for alternatives and
pests were primarily based on recommendations by the University of
Florida Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences (IFAS) Extension’s
pest management guides by Browning et al. (2006); Childers et al.
(2006); Duncan et al. (2006).  These were 2006 IFAS recommendations,
which were current at the time BEAD’s analysis was conducted.
Additional sources including Asian Citrus Psyllid and Citrus Greening-A
Closer Look at the Vector (Hall, 2006), Asian Citrus Psyllid
(Grafton-Cardwell, et al., 2005), and Efficacy of Envidor, a New
Acaricide Against Eriophyidae Mites on Florida Citrus (Bell et al.,
2003) were considered in BEAD’s analysis of citrus pests and
alternatives to aldicarb.

At the time BEAD researched and completed the analysis, aldicarb was not
recommended by IFAS for control of the Asian citrus psyllid.  Therefore,
this pest was not considered when determining the yield loss estimate if
aldicarb was no longer available for citrus.  Because aldicarb is now
recommended by the state for AsCP control and use of aldicarb for this
pest appears to have increased, yield loss estimates would likely
increase if aldicarb were no longer available.  It is difficult to
quantify the yield loss as this is an emerging disease in southern
Florida.  However, in worst cases growers that remove infected trees
would lose all yield until replanted trees mature.  Although there are
no available controls that can eliminate citrus greening disease,
controlling the vector and using clean nursery stocks may help minimize
the spread of this disease.  Therefore, it is unlikely that aldicarb
alone can provide such control.  Biological, cultural, and other
chemical controls are parts of an integrated approach that have allowed
other countries with citrus greening disease to continue citrus
production.

Comment:

FFVA and FCM state methyl bromide is not an alternative to aldicarb for
nematode control because it is unavailable without a critical use
exemption and not economically feasible.

Response:

As stated in the 2006 analysis of aldicarb use on major citrus crops,
BEAD agrees that methyl bromide is not an economically feasible
alternative to aldicarb for post-plant nematode control.  BEAD
considered methyl bromide in the analysis because existing stock can be
used even though newly produced methyl bromide can only be used through
a critical use exemption as of December 31, 2004.

Comment:

FFVA and FCM have stated that there will be an increase in dicofol’s
preharvest interval to 87 days, making it a useless insecticide for
citrus.

Response:

Currently, the dicofol preharvest interval is seven days.  Even if
dicofol’s reentry interval is extended such that its use on citrus
becomes limited, BEAD’s finding that there are alternatives to
aldicarb for mite control will not change, as several other alternatives
are available.

Comment:

Bayer CropScience states that EPA underestimates the impact of using
alternative control methods to aldicarb.  Bayer CropScience estimates
the benefits of aldicarb use to growers at about $33 million per year.
Estimates of the benefits of aldicarb are estimated in the comment at
$230/Acre, and estimated that 144,500 acres of citrus were treated with
aldicarb.

Response:

The estimate of the total value of aldicarb to the citrus industry in
this comment is over three times the value estimated by EPA.  The
difference results from two factors: a difference in the estimated per
acre cost of aldicarb alternatives, and a difference in the estimated
citrus acreage to which aldicarb is applied.

The estimated per acre benefits of aldicarb on citrus provided in the
comments are based on unpublished studies not available to EPA.  It
appears, however, that the estimated benefit of $230/Acre for aldicarb
was based on comparison with untreated control plots, rather than plots
treated with alternative pesticides.  EPA estimates benefits in
comparison to the next best alternative, based on the assumptions that
growers would continue pest control activities.

BEAD estimated acreage treated using publicly available data from the
USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service and from EPA Proprietary
Data Sources.  In the months since our preliminary analysis was
completed, new data on aldicarb use are available.  The latest data
available from the National Agricultural Statistics Service (USDA NASS)
show that aldicarb is used on about 26% of the 71,000 grapefruit acres
in Florida, and 27% of the 18,500 grapefruit acreage in Texas, or about
23,455 acres total.  Aldicarb is used on about 8% of the 541,800 orange
acres in Florida, or about 43,334 acres, total.  Combining oranges and
grapefruit, this new data from NASS shows about 66,799 acres of citrus
treated with aldicarb.  This figure is well below the 144,500 acres
estimated in the comment.  If we were to use the NASS acreage data, and
the comment’s figure of $230 per acre for the benefits of aldicarb,
then the benefits of aldicarb would be about $15.4 million annually.
EPA proprietary data also show about 60,000 acres of citrus treated with
aldicarb.

Table 2 shows the USDA NASS estimates of aldicarb use on major citrus
crops for 2005.

Table 2.  Aldicarb Applications for Major Citrus Crops, 2005

	Area	Applications	Rate per	Rate per	Total

Crop and State	Applied	per Year	Application	Crop Year	Applied

	Percent	Number	Pounds per Acre	Pounds per Acre	1,000 lbs

Grapefruit, Total1	26	1.0	4.118	4.124	110.8

Grapefruit, Florida2	26	1.0	3.871	3.879	71.8

Grapefruit, Texas3	27	1.0	5.026	5.026	25.4

	Oranges, Total4	8	1.0	3.575	3.636	208.0

Oranges, Florida5	8	1.0	3.575	3.636	157.0

Source:  USDA NASS

1 Bearing acreage in 2005 for the 3 Program States was 102,000 acres.
States included are CA, FL, and TX.

2 Bearing acreage in 2005 for Florida was 71,000 acres.

3 Bearing acreage in 2005 for Texas was 18,500 acres

4 Bearing acreage in 2005 for the 2 Program States was 717,800 acres.
States included are CA and FL.

5 Bearing acreage in 2005 for Florida was 541,800 acres.

However, another possible source of data for the aldicarb acres treated
in Florida is the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer
Services.  Permits are required for the application of aldicarb in
Florida, and the number of permits granted is available.  In fiscal year
2004 – 2005 (which corresponds with the timing of the data provided by
USDA NASS), there were permits granted for 334,314 acres of aldicarb
treatment on citrus.  Even though all of these permits may not have been
used, the permitted acres are significantly higher than use estimated by
USDA NASS.  If the number of acres treated is in fact closer to the
number of permitted acres, then the aggregate benefits to aldicarb use
are significantly higher than the estimates provided by EPA and the
comments.   It is also possible that aldicarb use has increased recently
– the number of permitted acres for aldicarb on citrus in Florida is
417,286 for fiscal year 2005 – 2006, about a 25% increase from 2004
– 2005.  This may be due to ordinary fluctuations, or to increased use
against the AsCP.  Because we do not know how many permit applications
are duplicates or not used, the data from the Florida aldicarb permit
program may not be a reliable measure of actual aldicarb use.

Comment:

The FFVA and FCM provided comments that include figures for the amount
of aldicarb used in Florida: “For the 2005-06 production season a
total of 417,400 citrus acres (which represents approximately 56% of the
overall citrus industry in the state) were treated with Temik [Temik®
is the trade name for aldicarb]  at 3,047 sites throughout the state.”

Response:

The number of acres treated for citrus presented in this comment is
based on data from aldicarb application permits requested from the
Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services.  These acreage
figures are much higher than we report, which were based on estimates
from USDA/NASS and EPA Proprietary Data.  As mentioned above, the
Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services data do not
agree with publicly available data from USDA NASS and EPA Proprietary
data.  EPA cannot reconcile the data, but we recognize that if aldicarb
is used on 56% of the citrus acreage, the benefits and the risks of
aldicarb will be significantly higher.

Comment:

Dr. Mark Mossler of the University of Florida submitted comments that
provide information on aldicarb use in Florida, Puerto Rico, and the
Virgin Islands, providing an overview of the use rates and agronomic
advantages to aldicarb use in citrus, cotton, peanut, coffee, and
pecans.  This information is helpful to EPA.  However, the comment does
refer to an EPA Quantitative Usage Analysis (QUA) from 1999, and it
indicates the percent crop treated estimates in the QUA were high, and
the comment provides estimates of the percent crop treated for oranges,
grapefruit and other citrus. For example, the comment suggests that the
QUA indicates that 90% of the oranges acreage in Florida was treated
with aldicarb.

Response:

The estimates of percent crop treated used by EPA in our analysis are
similar to those provided in the comment.  The concern expressed in the
comment is based on a column of the QUA table that indicated which
states are the primary users of aldicarb on that specific crop.  For
example, the table indicates that 90% of the aldicarb used on oranges
was used in Florida, not that 90% of the oranges acreage in Florida was
treated with aldicarb.  In the 1999 QUA, it is estimated that 5% of the
orange crop is treated with aldicarb.  In any case, updated usage data
are used in more recent EPA analyses.

Comment:

Bayer CropScience commented that aldicarb improves the tolerance of
citrus trees to freezes.

Response:

Freeze tolerance is not a pesticidal use of aldicarb, and so was not
included in our analysis.  The benefits of freeze tolerance are
difficult to estimate, and the risks of freeze damage are unknown to
EPA.

Comment:

Several comments stated that Aldicarb was a critical for control of
Colorado potato beetles in Michigan in the 1980s.  When its registration
was withdrawn, growers were left with few alternatives.  From 1991-1994,
Michigan potato growers experienced $8 to 14 million/year in control
costs and crop losses due to this pest.  Growers currently rely on
imidacloprid and other neonicotinoids for Colorado potato beetle
control, but resistance to imidacloprid appears to be gradually
spreading in Michigan.  Aldicarb would be valuable for resistance
management purposes, could reduce the number of insecticide applications
needed for Colorado potato beetle control, and would reduce costs and
losses to growers.  The use of aldicarb on potatoes in Michigan should
be approved by the U.S. EPA.

Response:

The Agency acknowledges and appreciates these comments.  However, the
comments are focusing on actions that were taken by the Agency in the
past and which are not the subject of review at this time.  When
excessive residues of aldicarb appeared on potatoes in 1990, the Agency
halted its sale and use in potato production.  In 1995, the Agency
reapproved this use, using positive displacement equipment, but only in
certain states, where the risk of ground-water contamination was
believed to be low.  Michigan was not among these states.

Comment:

The California Pecan Growers Association provided comments on behalf of
85 pecan growers in California.  In California, aldicarb is used against
yellow aphids and black aphids.  The aphids damage the tree directly,
and their honeydew secretions also cause black sooty mold growth on the
leaf surfaces.  Other control methods tried by growers in the past were
multiple treatments of organophosphates, which led to resistance and
poor control, and the release of beneficial insects, which was not
effective.

Response:

According to data from the California Department of Pesticide
Regulation, relatively few acres of California pecans are treated with
aldicarb (1,290 acres treated in 2004).  However, that represents nearly
65% of the limited pecan acreage in California, almost 65%.

References

Bell, J., A. Toledo, R. Morris, and R. Rudolph, 2003.  Efficacy of
Envidor, a new acaricide, against

	Eriophyidae mites on Florida citrus.  Florida Entomological Society
2003 Annual Meeting

	Abstracts.  Web address:   HYPERLINK
"http://www.flaentsoc.org/2003annmeetabstracts.html"
http://www.flaentsoc.org/2003annmeetabstracts.html .

Browning, H.W., C.C. Childers, P.A. Stansly, J. Peña and M.E. Rogers.
2006 Florida citrus pest management guide: Soft-bodied insects attacking
foliage and fruit.  University of Florida IFAS Extension. Web Address:
http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/CG004.

California Department of Pesticide Regulation, Pesticide Information
Portal database, which can be queried here:
http://calpip.cdpr.ca.gov/cfdocs/calpip/prod/main.cfm

Childers, C.C., C.W. McCoy, H.N. Nigg, P.A. Stansly, and M.E. Rogers.
2006 Florida citrus pest management guide: rust mites, spider mites, and
other phytophagous mites. University of Florida IFAS Extension. Web
Address:   HYPERLINK "http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/CG002"
http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/CG002 .

Crop Profile for Citrus (Major) Orange/Grapefruit in Florida.  2001.
Web address:   HYPERLINK
"http://www.ipmcenters.org/CropProfiles/docs/FLcitrus(major).html"
http://www.ipmcenters.org/CropProfiles/docs/FLcitrus(major).html

Duncan, L.W., J.W. Noling and R.N. Inserra. 2006 Florida citrus pest
management guide: nematodes. University of Florida IFAS Extension.  Web
Address:   HYPERLINK "http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/CG010"
http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/CG010 .

Hall, D.G. 2006. Asian Citrus Psyllid And Citrus Greening - A Closer
Look At The Vector. Citrus And Vegetable Magazine. 70(5):24-26.  Web
Address:   HYPERLINK
"http://www.ars.usda.gov/research/publications/Publications.htm?seq_no_1
15=189463"
http://www.ars.usda.gov/research/publications/Publications.htm?seq_no_11
5=189463 .

Floyd, J. and C. Krass, 2006. Candidatus Liberibacter africanus Ca. L.
asiaticus Ca. L. americanus, Huanglongbing citrus greening disease.
USDA APHIS PPQ New pest response guidelines: v. 1.1 May 2006. Online:

  HYPERLINK
"http://www.aphis.usda.gov/ppq/ep/citrus_greening/pdf_files/hlb-pubversi
on.pdf"
http://www.aphis.usda.gov/ppq/ep/citrus_greening/pdf_files/hlb-pubversio
n.pdf ).

Grafton-Cardwell, E.E., K.E. Godfrey, M.E. Rogers, C.C. Childers, and
P.A. Stansly.  Asian citrus psyllid. Web address:   HYPERLINK
"http://citrusent.uckac.edu/psyllid/psyllidbrochureAug05.pdf"
http://citrusent.uckac.edu/psyllid/psyllidbrochureAug05.pdf

Halbert, S. and K. L. Manjunath, 2004. Asian citrus psyllids
(Sternorrhyncha: Psyllidae) and greening disease of ctrus: A literature
review and assessment of risk in Florida. Florida Entomol. 87: 330-353.
Online:   HYPERLINK
"http://www.bioone.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&issn=0015-4040&vol
ume=087&issue=03&page=330"
http://www.bioone.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&issn=0015-4040&volu
me=087&issue=03&page=330 )

US Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service
(USDA NASS), Agricultural Chemical Usage: 2005 Fruit Summary.  2006.
Available here:
http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/current/AgriChemUsFruits/AgriChemUs
Fruits-07-26-2006.pdf

 EPA Proprietary Data are data on pesticide use purchased from private
sector firms.

 PAGE

 PAGE   3


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 10 (Friday, January 15, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 2210-2211]
[FR Doc No: 2016-00709]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 2727-092]

Black Bear Hydro Partners LLC; Notice of Application Tendered for
Filing With the Commission and Establishing Procedural Schedule for
Licensing and Deadline for Submission of Final Amendments

    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been
filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection.
    a. Type of Application: New Major License.
    b. Project No.: 2727-092.
    c. Date Filed: December 30, 2015.
    d. Applicant: Black Bear Hydro Partners LLC (Black Bear Hydro).
    e. Name of Project: Ellsworth Hydroelectric Project (Ellsworth
Project).
    f. Location: The existing project is located on the Union River in
Hancock County, Maine. The project does not occupy federal lands.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 791(a)-825(r).
    h. Applicant Contact: Ms. Kelly Maloney, Manager of Licensing and
Compliance, Brookfield White Pine Hydro LLC, 150 Main Street, Lewiston,
ME 04240; Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    i. FERC Contact: Dr. Nicholas Palso,<PHONE_NUMBER> or
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    j.This application is not ready for environmental analysis at this
time.
    k. The Project Description: The existing Ellsworth Project consists
of two developments (Graham Lake and Ellsworth) with a total installed
capacity of 8.9 megawatts (MW). The project's average annual generation
is 30,511 megawatt-hours. The power generated by the project is sold on
the open market through the regional grid.

Graham Lake Development

    The existing Graham Lake Development consists of: (1) A 750-foot-
long, 58-foot-high dam that includes: (i) An 80-foot-long, 58-foot-high
concrete spillway section with three 20-foot-wide, 22.5-foot-high
spillway gates and one 8-foot-wide sluice gate; and (ii) a 670-foot-
long, 45-foot-high west earthen embankment section with a concrete and
sheet pile core wall; (2) a 10,000-acre impoundment (Graham Lake) with
a useable storage volume of 123.97 million acre-feet at a normal
maximum elevation of 104.2 National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD); (3)
a 720-foot-long, 58-foot-high concrete gravity flood control structure
with a 65-foot-diameter, 55-foot-high stone-filled sheet pile retaining
structure; (4) a 71-foot-long, 36.5-foot-high concrete wing wall; and
(5) appurtenant facilities.

Ellsworth Development

    The existing Ellsworth Development consists of: (1) A 377-foot-
long, 62.75-foot-high dam that includes: (i) A 102-foot-long, 62.75-
foot-high west concrete bulkhead section; and (ii) a 275-foot-long, 57-
foot-high concrete overflow spillway with 1.7-foot-high flashboards;
(2) an 85-foot-long, 71-foot-high concrete non-over flow wall at the
west end of the bulkhead section; (3) a 26-foot-high abutment at the
east end of the spillway; (4) a 90-acre impoundment (Lake Leonard) with
a gross storage volume of 2.46 million acre-feet at a normal maximum
elevation of 66.7 feet NGVD; (5) generating facility No. 1 that
includes: (i) A headgate and a trashrack with 2.44-inch clear-bar
spacing; (ii) a 10-foot-diameter, 74-foot-long penstock; and (iii) a
30-foot-long, 15-foot-wide concrete and masonry gatehouse that is
integral with the dam and contains a single 2.5 MW turbine-generator
unit; (6) generating facility No. 2 that includes: (i) An 88.4-foot-
wide, 32-foot-high intake structure with three headgates and three
trashracks with 1.0- to 2.37-inch clear-bar spacing; (ii) an 8-foot-
diameter, 164-foot-long penstock, an 8-foot-diameter, 195-foot-long
penstock, and a 12-foot-diameter, 225-foot-long penstock; and (iii) a
52.5-foot-long, 68-foot-wide concrete and masonry powerhouse that
contains two 2.0-MW and one 2.4-MW turbine-generator units; (7)
downstream fish passage facilities that include three 3-foot-wide
surface weirs; (8) upstream fish passage facilities that include a 3-
foot-wide vertical slot fishway and collection station; (9) a 320-foot-
long transmission line connecting the turbine-generator units to the
regional grid; and (10) appurtenant facilities.
    The Graham Lake Development operates as a water storage facility
where water is stored to reduce downstream flooding during periods of
high flow and released during periods of low flow to augment generation
at the Ellsworth Development. The Ellsworth Development operates as a
peaking facility where Lake Leonard is fluctuated up to one foot on a
daily basis to regulate downstream flows and meet peak demands for
hydroelectric generation.
    The existing license requires an instantaneous minimum flow of 250
cubic feet per second (cfs), or inflow (whichever is less), downstream
of each development from May 1 to June 30 each year. The minimum flow
for each development is reduced to 105 cfs from July 1 to April 30 each
year. In addition to the minimum flows, the existing license requires
Black Bear Hydro to maintain Graham Lake and Lake Leonard between
elevations 93.4 and 104.2 feet NGVD and 65.7 and 66.7 feet NGVD,
respectively. Black Bear Hydro proposes to install upstream eel passage
facilities at the Graham Lake and Ellsworth developments, construct a
canoe portage at the Graham Lake Development, and improve angler access
at the Graham Lake Development.
    l. Locations of the Application: A copy of the application is
available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or
may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov using
the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three
digits in the docket number field to access the document. For
assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(866) 208-3676 (toll free), or (202) 502-
8659 (TTY). A copy is also available for inspection and reproduction at
the address in item (h) above.
    m. You may also register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be notified via email of new filings and issuances
related to this or other pending projects. For assistance, contact FERC
Online Support.
    n. Procedural Schedule:
    The application will be processed according to the following
preliminary Hydro Licensing Schedule. Revisions to the schedule may be
made as appropriate.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Milestone                         Target date \1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notice of Acceptance/Notice of Ready     February 2017.
 for Environmental Analysis (REA).
Filing of recommendations, preliminary   April 2017.
 terms and conditions, and fishway
 prescriptions.
Commission issues Non-Draft              October 2017.
 Environmental Assessment (EA).
Comments on EA.........................  November 2017.

Modified terms and conditions..........  January 2018.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ This schedule has been adjusted to account for ongoing studies that
  must be filed with the Commission no later than December 31, 2016.

    o. Final amendments to the application must be filed with the
Commission no later than 30 days from the issuance date of the notice
of ready for environmental analysis.

    Dated: January 11, 2016.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-00709 Filed 1-14-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


18635 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 73 / Wednesday, April 16, 2003 / Notices i. EPA Dockets. Your use of EPA's electronic public docket to submit comments to EPA electronically is EPA's preferred method for receiving comments. Go directly to EPA Dockets at http:// www. epa. gov/ edocket, and follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once in the system, select `` search,'' and then key in docket ID number OPP   2003   0078. The system is an `` anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your identity, e mail address, or other contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. ii. E mail. Comments may be sent by e mail to opp docket@ epa. gov, Attention: Docket ID Number OPP   2003   0078. In contrast to EPA's electronic public docket, EPA's e mail system is not an `` anonymous access'' system. If you send an e mail comment directly to the docket without going through EPA's electronic public docket, EPA's e mail system automatically captures your e mail address. E mail addresses that are automatically captured by EPA's e mail system are included as part of the comment that is placed in the official public docket, and made available in EPA's electronic public docket. iii. Disk or CD ROM. You may submit comments on a disk or CD ROM that you mail to the mailing address identified in Unit I. C. 2. These electronic submissions will be accepted in WordPerfect or ASCII file format. Avoid the use of special characters and any form of encryption. 2. By mail. Send your comments to: Public Information and Records Integrity Branch ( PIRIB) ( 7502C), Office of Pesticide Programs ( OPP), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460, Attention: Docket ID Number OPP   2003   0078. 3. By hand delivery or courier. Deliver your comments to: Public Information and Records Integrity Branch ( PIRIB), Office of Pesticide Programs ( OPP), Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. 119, Crystal Mall # 2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Hwy., Arlington, VA, Attention: Docket ID Number OPP   2003   0078. Such deliveries are only accepted during the docket's normal hours of operation as identified in Unit I. B. 1.

D. How Should I Submit CBI to the Agency? Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI electronically through EPA's electronic public docket or by e mail. You may claim information that you submit to EPA as CBI by marking any part or all of that information as CBI ( if you submit CBI on disk or CD ROM, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD ROM the specific information that is CBI). Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes any information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket and EPA's electronic public docket. If you submit the copy that does not contain CBI on disk or CD ROM, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM clearly that it does not contain CBI. Information not marked as CBI will be included in the public docket and EPA's electronic public docket without prior notice. If you have any questions about CBI or the procedures for claiming CBI, please consult the person identified under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

E. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA?

You may find the following suggestions helpful for preparing your comments: 1. Explain your views as clearly as possible. 2. Describe any assumptions that you used. 3. Provide copies of any technical information and/ or data you used that support your views. 4. If you estimate potential burden or costs, explain how you arrived at the estimate that you provide. 5. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns. 6. Make sure to submit your comments by the deadline in this notice. 7. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, be sure to identify the docket control number assigned to this action in the subject line on the first page of your response. You may also provide the name, date, and Federal Register citation.

II. What Action is the Agency Taking?

EPA has reviewed the revised Kansas Certification Plan and finds it in compliance with FIFRA and 40 CFR part 171 and is announcing its intention to approve the amended plan and seeks public comment.

List of Subjects Environmental protection, Education, Pests and pesticides. Dated: April 7, 2003. Nathaniel Scurry, Regional Administrator, Region VII. [ FR Doc. 03   9339 Filed 4   15   03; 8: 45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560   50   S ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [ OPP   2003   0116; FRL   7300   8]

Notice of Receipt of Requests to Voluntarily Cancel Certain Pesticide Registrations AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA). ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: In accordance with section 6( f)( 1) of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act ( FIFRA), as amended, EPA is issuing a notice of receipt of request by registrants to voluntarily cancel certain pesticide registrations.

DATES: Unless a request is withdrawn by October 13, 2003, or May 16, 2003 for EPA Registration Numbers: 003008   00021, 075341   00001, and 075341   00007, orders will be issued canceling these registrations. The Agency will consider withdrawal requests postmarked no later than October 13, 2003 or 30 days after publication in the Federal Register for EPA Registration Numbers indicated above.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: James A. Hollins, Information Resources Services Division ( 7502C), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460   0001; telephone number: ( 703) 305   5761, e mail address: hollins. james@ epa. gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information A. Does this Action Apply to Me?

This action is directed to the public in general. Although this action may be of particular interest to persons who produce or use pesticides, the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be affected by this action. If you have any questions regarding the information in this notice, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

B. How Can I Get Copies of this Document and Other Related Information?

1. Docket. EPA has established an official public docket for this action under docket identification ( ID) number VerDate Jan< 31> 2003 17: 41 Apr 15, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\ FR\ FM\ 16APN1. SGM 16APN1 18636 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 73 / Wednesday, April 16, 2003 / Notices OPP   2003   0116. The official public docket consists of the documents specifically referenced in this action, any public comments received, and other information related to this action. Although a part of the official docket, the public docket does not include Confidential Business Information ( CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. The official public docket is the collection of materials that is available for public viewing at the Public Information and Records Integrity Branch ( PIRIB), Rm. 119, Crystal Mall # 2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Hwy., Arlington, VA. This docket facility is open from 8: 30 a. m. to 4 p. m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The docket telephone number is ( 703) 305   5805. 2. Electronic access. You may access this Federal Register document electronically through the EPA Internet under the`` Federal Register'' listings at http:// www. epa. gov/ fedrgstr/. An electronic version of the public docket is available through EPA's electronic public docket and comment system, EPA Dockets. You may use EPA Dockets at http:// www. epa. gov/ edocket/ to submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the official public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically. Although not all docket materials may be available electronically, you may still access any of the publicly available docket materials through the docket facility identified in Unit I. B. 1. Once in the system, select `` search,'' then key in the appropriate docket ID number.

II. What Action is the Agency Taking?

This notice announces receipt by the Agency of applications from registrants to cancel 34 pesticide products registered under section 3 or 24( c) of FIFRA. These registrations are listed in sequence by registration number ( or company number and 24( c) number) in Table 1 of this unit:

TABLE 1.   REGISTRATIONS WITH PENDING REQUESTS FOR CANCELLATION Registration no. Product Name Chemical Name 000100   00754 Supracide 25WP O, O Dimethyl phosphorodithioate, S ester with 4( mercaptomethyl) 2 000279 AZ   93   0002 Prevail FT Termiticide Cyclopropanecarboxylic acid, 3( 2,2 dichloroethenyl) 2,2 dimethyl,

000279 AZ   93   0009 Ammo 2.5 EC Insecticide Cyclopropanecarboxylic acid, 3( 2,2 dichloroethenyl) 2,2 dimethyl,

000279 AZ   95   0004 Biflex TC Termiticide ( 2 Methyl{ 1,1  biphenyl} 3 yl) methyl 3( 2 chloro 3,3,3 trifluoro 1

000572   00329 Urban Insect Spray O, O Diethyl O( 3,5,6 trichloro 2 pyridyl) phosphorothioate 000655   00318 Prentox Warfarin Technical 3( alpha Acetonylbenzyl) 4 hydroxycoumarin 000655   00441 Prentox Residual Concentrate DV One O, O Diethyl O( 3,5,6 trichloro 2 pyridyl) phosphorothioate 2,2 Dichlorovinyl dimethyl phosphate 000655   00557 Prentox Diazinon 14G O, O Diethyl O( 2 isopropyl 6 methyl 4 pyrimidinyl) phosphorothioate 000655   00644 Prentox Pyronyl Oil Concentrate # 1233 A N Octyl bicycloheptene dicarboximide ( Butylcarbityl)( 6 propylpiperonyl) ether 80% and related compounds 20% Pyrethrins 000655   00788 Carbaryl 5D 1 Naphthyl N methylcarbamate 000655   00789 Prentox Carbaryl 10D 1 Naphthyl N methylcarbamate 001757   00041 Amerstat 233 Tetrahydro 3,5 dimethyl 2H 1,3,5 thiadiazine 2 thione 003008   00021 Osmose Special K 33 Preservative Arsenic acid Chromic acid Cupric oxide 004822   00084 Bolt Ant and Roach Killer o Isopropoxyphenyl methylcarbamate 004822   00318 Raid Ant & Roach Killer o Isopropoxyphenyl methylcarbamate ( Butylcarbityl)( 6 propylpiperonyl) ether 80% and related compounds 20% Pyrethrins 005011   00060 Formula GH 18 1,2 Dibromo 2,2 dichloroethyl dimethyl phosphate 007173   00072 Rozol Rodenticide Mineral Oil Concentrate 2(( p Chlorophenyl) phenylacetyl) 1,3 indandione 007173   00216 Maki Paraffin Blocks with Bitrex 3( 3( 4  Bromo( 1,1  biphenyl) 4 yl) 3 hydroxy 1 phenylpropyl) 4 hydroxy 2H 1 010163 AZ   02   0001 Sandea Herbicide 3 Chloro 5((((( 4,6 dimethoxy 2 pyrimidinyl) amino) carbonyl) amino)

010163 OR   99   0003 Savey Ovicide/ Miticide 50 WP trans 5( 4 Chlorophenyl) N cyclohexyl 4 methyl 2 oxo 3 thiazolidinecarboxamide 010163 WA   95   0002 Metasystox R Spray Concentrate S( 2( Ethylsulfinyl) ethyl) O, O dimethyl phosphorothioate 010163 WA   95   0003 Metasystox R Spray Concentrate S( 2( Ethylsulfinyl) ethyl) O, O dimethyl phosphorothioate 010182 AZ   93   0007 Prelude Termiticide/ Insecticide Cyclopropanecarboxylic acid, 3( 2,2 dichloroethenyl) 2,2 dimethyl,

010182 AZ   93   0008 Demon TC Insecticide Cyclopropanecarboxylic acid, 3( 2,2 dichloroethenyl) 2,2 dimethyl,

019713 AZ   94   0005 Drexel Dimethoate 4EC O, O Dimethyl S(( methylcarbamoyl) methyl) phosphorodithioate 019713 AZ   96   0004 Drexel Dimethoate 2.67 O, O Dimethyl S(( methylcarbamoyl) methyl) phosphorodithioate 041200   00002 Rabon 350 Mineral Gardona ( cis isomer) 062719 ID   94   0013 Lorsban 4E HF O, O Diethyl O( 3,5,6 trichloro 2 pyridyl) phosphorothioate 065361 CA   89   0059 Plantfume 103 Smoke Generator O, O, O, O Tetraethyl dithiopyrophosphate VerDate Jan< 31> 2003 17: 41 Apr 15, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\ FR\ FM\ 16APN1. SGM 16APN1 18637 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 73 / Wednesday, April 16, 2003 / Notices TABLE 1.   REGISTRATIONS WITH PENDING REQUESTS FOR CANCELLATION   Continued Registration no. Product Name Chemical Name 067379 AZ   90   0014 Vinco Formaldehyde Solution Formaldehyde 071711 ID   02   0005 Moncut 70 DF a, a, a Trifluoro 3  isopropoxy o toluanalide 071711 OR   01   0015 Moncut 50WP a, a, a Trifluoro 3  isopropoxy o toluanalide 075341   00001 Hollow Heart Concentrate Sodium arsenate Sodium dichromate Sodium fluoride 075341   00007 Osmoplastic SD Wood Preserving Compound Coal tar creosote Sodium dichromate Sodium fluoride Unless a request is withdrawn by the registrant within 180 days ( 30 days where indicated) of publication of this notice, orders will be issued canceling all of these registrations. Users of these pesticides or anyone else desiring the retention of a registration should contact the applicable registrant directly during the indicated comment period. Table 2 of this unit includes the names and addresses of record for all registrants of the products in Table 1 of this unit, in sequence by EPA company number:

TABLE 2   REGISTRANTS REQUESTING VOLUNTARY CANCELLATION EPA Company no. Company Name and Address 000100 Syngenta Crop Protection, Inc., Box 18300, Greensboro, NC 27419. 000279 FMC Corp. Agricultural Products Group, 1735 Market St, Philadelphia, PA 19103. 000572 Rockland Corp., 686 Passaic Ave. Box 809, West Caldwell, NJ 07007. 000655 Prentiss Inc., C. B. 2000, Floral Park, NY 11001. 001757 Drew Industrial Division, Ashland Chemical Co., One Drew Plaza, Boonton, NJ 07005. 003008 Osmose Inc., 980 Ellicott St, Buffalo, NY 14209. 004822 S. C. Johnson & Son Inc., 1525 Howe Street, Racine, WI 53403. 005011 Aire Mate Inc., Box 406, Westfield, IN 46074. 007173 Liphatech, Inc., 3600 W. Elm Street, Milwaukee, WI 53209. 010163 Gowan Co, Box 5569, Yuma, AZ 85366. 010182 Zeneca Ag Products, Inc., Box 18300, Greensboro, NC 27419. 019713 Drexel Chemical Co, 1700 Channel Ave. Box 13327, Memphis, TN 38113. 041200 Midway Co Op, Inc., Box 40, Osborne, KS 67473. 062719 Dow Agrosciences LLC, 9330 Zionsville Rd 308/ 2E225, Indianapolis, IN 46268. 065361 Glad A Way Gardens Inc., 2669 E. Clark Ave., Santa Maria, CA 93455. 067379 Associated Citrus Packers Inc., 2 W. 6th St, Yuma, AZ 85364. 071711 Nichino America, Inc., 4550 New Linden Hill Rd., Suite 501, Wilmington, DE 19808. 075341 Osmose Utilities Services, Inc., 980 Ellicott Street, Buffalo, NY 14209.

III. What is the Agency's Authority for Taking this Action?

Section 6( f)( 1) of FIFRA provides that a registrant of a pesticide product may at any time request that any of its pesticide registrations be canceled. FIFRA further provides that, before acting on the request, EPA must publish a notice of receipt of any such request in the Federal Register. Thereafter, the Administrator may approve such a request.

IV. Procedures for Withdrawal of Request Registrants who choose to withdraw a request for cancellation must submit such withdrawal in writing to the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT, postmarked before October 13, 2003 or May 16, 2003 for EPA Registration Numbers 003008   00021, 075341   00001 and 075341   00007. This written withdrawal of the request for cancellation will apply only to the applicable FIFRA section 6( f)( 1) request listed in this notice. If the product( s) have been subject to a previous cancellation action, the effective date of cancellation and all other provisions of any earlier cancellation action are controlling. The withdrawal request must also include a commitment to pay any reregistration fees due, and to fulfill any applicable unsatisfied data requirements.

V. Provisions for Disposition of Existing Stocks The effective date of cancellation will be the date of the cancellation order. The orders effecting these requested cancellations will generally permit a registrant to sell or distribute existing stocks for 1 year after the date the cancellation request was received. This policy is in accordance with the Agency's statement of policy as prescribed in the Federal Register of June 26, 1991 ( 56 FR 29362) ( FRL   3846   4). Exceptions to this general rule will be made if a product poses a risk concern, or is in noncompliance with reregistration requirements, or is subject to a data call in. In all cases, productspecific disposition dates will be given in the cancellation orders. Existing stocks are those stocks of registered pesticide products which are currently in the United States and which have been packaged, labeled, and released for shipment prior to the effective date of the cancellation action.

VerDate Jan< 31> 2003 17: 41 Apr 15, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\ FR\ FM\ 16APN1. SGM 16APN1 18638 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 73 / Wednesday, April 16, 2003 / Notices Unless the provisions of an earlier order apply, existing stocks already in the hands of dealers or users can be distributed, sold, or used legally until they are exhausted, provided that such further sale and use comply with the EPA approved label and labeling of the affected product. Exception to these general rules will be made in specific cases when more stringent restrictions on sale, distribution, or use of the products or their ingredients have already been imposed, as in a Special Review action, or where the Agency has identified significant potential risk concerns associated with a particular chemical.

List of Subjects Environmental protection, Pesticides and pests.

Dated: April 1, 2003. Linda Vlier Moos Acting Director, Information Resources Services Division, Office of Pesticide Programs. [ FR Doc. 03   8959 Filed 4   15   03; 8: 45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560   50   S ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [ OPP   2002   0281; FRL   7299   1]

Pesticides; North American Free Trade Agreement Guidance Document on Requirements for Tolerances on Imported Commodities; Notice of Availability AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA). ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: This document provides detailed guidance on data requirements that meet North American Free Trade Agreement ( NAFTA) standards for the establishment of pesticide import tolerances or maximum residue levels in Canada, Mexico, and the United States. It has been developed consistently with the goals of the North American Free Trade Agreement. This guidance document does not change the U. S. data requirements for obtaining a U. S. import tolerance. This notice starts a 60   day public comment period, during which the public is encouraged to submit comments to EPA in accordance with procedures described in Unit I. of this document. DATES: Comments, identified by docket ID number OPP   2002   0281, must be received on or before June 16, 2003. ADDRESSES: Comments may be submitted electronically, by mail, or through hand delivery/ courier. Follow the detailed instructions as provided in Unit I. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert McNally, Special Review and Reregistration Division ( 7508C), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460   0001; telephone number: ( 703) 308   8085; fax number: ( 703) 308   8041; email address: mcnally. robert@ epa. gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information Does this Action Apply to Me? You may be potentially affected by this action if you sell, distribute, manufacture, or use pesticides for agricultural applications, produce food, distribute or sell food, or implement governmental pesticide regulations. Potentially affected entities may include, but are not limited to:   Food manufacturers ( NAICS 311), e. g., commercial processors   Pesticide manufacturers ( NAICS 32532), e. g., pesticide registrants and pesticide producers This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this action. Other types of entities not listed in this unit could also be affected. The North American Industrial Classification System ( NAICS) codes have been provided to assist you and others in determining whether this action might apply to certain entities. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

B. How Can I Get Copies of this Document and Other Related Information? 1. Docket. EPA has established an official public docket for this action under docket identification ( ID) number OPP   2002   0281. The official public docket consists of the documents specifically referenced in this action, any public comments received, and other information related to this action. Although a part of the official docket, the public docket does not include Confidential Business Information ( CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. The official public docket is the collection of materials that is available for public viewing at the Public Information and Records Integrity Branch ( PIRIB), Rm. 119, Crystal Mall # 2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Hwy., Arlington, VA. This docket facility is open from 8: 30 a. m. to 4 p. m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The docket telephone number is ( 703) 305   5805. 2. Electronic access. You may access this Federal Register document electronically through the EPA Internet under the `` Federal Register'' listings at http:// www. epa. gov/ fedrgstr/. An electronic version of the public docket is available through EPA's electronic public docket and comment system, EPA Dockets. You may use EPA Dockets at http:// www. epa. gov/ edocket/ to submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the official public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically. Once in the system, select `` search,'' then key in the appropriate docket ID number. Certain types of information will not be placed in the EPA Dockets. Information claimed as CBI and other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute, which is not included in the official public docket, will not be available for public viewing in EPA's electronic public docket. EPA's policy is that copyrighted material will not be placed in EPA's electronic public docket but will be available only in printed, paper form in the official public docket. To the extent feasible, publicly available docket materials will be made available in EPA's electronic public docket. When a document is selected from the index list in EPA Dockets, the system will identify whether the document is available for viewing in EPA's electronic public docket. Although not all docket materials may be available electronically, you may still access any of the publicly available docket materials through the docket facility identified in Unit I. B. EPA intends to work towards providing electronic access to all of the publicly available docket materials through EPA's electronic public docket. For members of the public submitting comments, it is important to note that EPA's policy is that public comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made available for public viewing in EPA's electronic public docket as EPA receives them and without change, unless the comment contains copyrighted material, CBI, or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. When EPA identifies a comment containing copyrighted material, EPA will provide a reference to that material in the version of the comment that is placed in EPA's electronic public docket. The entire printed comment, including the copyrighted material, will be available in the public docket.

VerDate Jan< 31> 2003 17: 41 Apr 15, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\ FR\ FM\ 16APN1. SGM 16APN1


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 107 (Wednesday, June 4, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 32167-32169]
[FR Doc No: 2014-12987]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket No. USCG-2014-0307]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone: Village West Marina 4th of July Fireworks Display,
Fourteenmile Slough, Stockton, CA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone in the
navigable waters of Fourteenmile Slough near Stockton, CA in support of
the Village West Marina 4th of July Fireworks Display on July 4, 2014.
This safety zone is established to ensure the safety of participants
and spectators from the dangers associated with the pyrotechnics.
Unauthorized persons or vessels are prohibited from entering into,
transiting through, or remaining in the safety zone without permission
of the Captain of the Port or their designated representative.

DATES: This rule is effective on July 4, 2014. This rule will be
enforced from 9 p.m. to 10 p.m. on July 4, 2014.

ADDRESSES: Documents mentioned in this preamble are part of docket
USCG-2014-0307. To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type the
docket number in the ``SEARCH'' box and click ``SEARCH.'' Click on Open
Docket Folder on the line associated with this rulemaking. You may also
visit the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground
floor of the Department of Transportation West Building, 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 rule,
call or email Lieutenant Junior Grade Joshua Dykman, U.S. Coast Guard
Sector San Francisco; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER> or email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have questions on viewing or submitting
material to the docket, call Program Manager, Docket Operations,
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Acronyms

DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

A. Regulatory History and 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(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. The Coast Guard received the
information about the fireworks display on April 10, 2014, and the
fireworks display would occur before the rulemaking process would be
completed. Because of the dangers posed by the pyrotechnics used in
this fireworks display, the safety zone is necessary to provide for the
safety of event participants, spectators, spectator craft, and other
vessels transiting the event area. For the safety concerns noted, it is
in the public interest to have these regulations in effect during the
event.

B. Basis and Purpose

    The legal basis for the proposed rule is 33 U.S.C 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, 160.5; Public Law 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of
Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1, which collectively authorize
the Coast Guard to establish safety zones.
    Village West Marina will sponsor the Village West Marina 4th of
July Fireworks Display on July 4, 2014, in Wright Tract over
Fourteenmile Slough near Stockton, CA in approximate position
38[deg]00'08'' N, 121[deg]22'17'' W (NAD 83) as depicted in National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Chart 18663. Upon the
commencement of the fireworks display, the safety zone will encompass
the navigable waters around the launch site within a radius of 420
feet. The fireworks display is meant for entertainment purposes. This
restricted area around the launch site is necessary to protect
spectators, vessels, and other property from the hazards associated
with the pyrotechnics.

C. Discussion of the Final Rule

    The Coast Guard will enforce a safety zone in navigable waters
around the land based launch site in Wright Tract over Fourteenmile
Slough near Stockton, CA. Upon the commencement of the 20 minute
fireworks display, scheduled to begin at 9 p.m. on July 4, 2014, the
safety zone will encompass the navigable waters around the fireworks
launch site within a radius 420 feet from approximate position
38[deg]00'08'' N, 121[deg]22'17'' W (NAD 83) for the Village West
Marina 4th of July Fireworks Display. At the conclusion of the
fireworks display the safety zone shall terminate.
    The effect of the temporary safety zone will be to restrict
navigation in the vicinity of the launch site until the conclusion of
the scheduled display. Except for persons or vessels authorized by the
Coast Guard Patrol Commander, no person or vessel may enter or remain
in the restricted area. These regulations are needed to keep spectators
and vessels away from the immediate vicinity of the launch site to
ensure the safety of participants, spectators, and transiting vessels.

D. 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 and executive orders.

1. Regulatory Planning and Review

    This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f)
of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, as
supplemented by Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and
Regulatory Review, and does not require an assessment of potential
costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of Executive Order 12866 or
under section 1 of Executive Order 13563. The Office of Management and
Budget has not reviewed it under those Orders.
    We expect the economic impact of this rule will not rise to the
level of necessitating a full Regulatory Evaluation. The safety zone is
limited in duration, and is limited to a narrowly tailored geographic
area. In addition, although this rule restricts access to the waters
encompassed by the safety zone, the effect of this rule will not be

significant because the local waterway users will be notified via
public Broadcast Notice to Mariners to ensure the safety zone will
result in minimum impact. The entities most likely to be affected are
pleasure craft engaged in recreational activities.

2. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. 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 may affect owners and operators of waterfront facilities,
commercial vessels, and pleasure craft engaged in recreational
activities and sightseeing. This safety zone would not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
for the following reasons. This safety zone would be activated, and
thus subject to enforcement, for a limited duration. When the safety
zone is activated, vessel traffic could pass safely around the safety
zone. The maritime public will be advised in advance of this safety
zone via Broadcast Notice to Mariners.

3. 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. 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 the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT,
above.
    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.

4. Collection of Information

    This rule will not call for a new collection of information under
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

5. Federalism

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has 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. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and determined
that this rule does not have implications for federalism.

6. Protest Activities

    The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters.
Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section to coordinate protest activities so that
your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or
security of people, places or vessels.

7. 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.

8. 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.

9. 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.

10. 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.

11. 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.

12. Energy Effects

    This action is not a ``significant energy action'' under Executive
Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use.

13. Technical Standards

    This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not
consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

14. 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 determined
that this action is one of a category of actions that do not
individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human
environment. This rule involves a safety zone of limited size and
duration. This rule is categorically excluded from further review under
paragraph 34(g) of Figure 2-1 of the Commandant Instruction. An
environmental analysis checklist supporting this determination and a
Categorical Exclusion Determination are available in the docket where
indicated under ADDRESSES. We seek any comments or information that may
lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this
rule.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

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

    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 temporary Sec.  165.T11-633 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T11-633  Safety zone; Village West Marina 4th of July
Fireworks Display, Fourteenmile Slough, Stockton, CA.

    (a) Location. This temporary safety zone is established for the
navigable waters of Fourteenmile Slough near Stockton, CA as depicted
in National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Chart 18663.
The temporary safety zone will encompass the navigable waters around
the fireworks launch site in approximate position 38[deg]00'08'' N,
121[deg]22'17'' W (NAD 83) within a radius of 420 feet.
    (b) Enforcement period. The zone described in paragraph (a) of this
section will be enforced from 9 p.m. through 10 p.m. on July 4, 2014.
The Captain of the Port San Francisco (COTP) will notify the maritime
community of periods during which this zone will be enforced via
Broadcast Notice to Mariners in accordance with 33 CFR 165.7.
    (c) Definitions. As used in this section, ``designated
representative'' means a Coast Guard Patrol Commander, including a
Coast Guard coxswain, petty officer, or other officer on a Coast Guard
vessel or a Federal, State, or local officer designated by or assisting
the COTP in the enforcement of the safety zone.
    (d) Regulations. (1) Under the general regulations in 33 CFR part
165, subpart C, entry into, transiting or anchoring within this safety
zone is prohibited unless authorized by the COTP or a designated
representative.
    (2) The safety zone is closed to all vessel traffic, except as may
be permitted by the COTP or a designated representative.
    (3) Vessel operators desiring to enter or operate within the safety
zone must contact the COTP or a designated representative to obtain
permission to do so. Vessel operators given permission to enter or
operate in the safety zone must comply with all directions given to
them by the COTP or a designated representative. Persons and vessels
may request permission to enter the safety zone on VHF-23A or through
the 24-hour Command Center at telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: May 15, 2014.
Gregory G. Stump,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port San Francisco.
[FR Doc. 2014-12987 Filed 6-3-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 150 (Friday, August 3, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 46340-46343]
[FR Doc No: 2012-18882]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2012-0803; Directorate Identifier 2011-NM-214-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to supersede an existing airworthiness directive
(AD) that applies to all The Boeing Company Model 777-200, -200LR, -
300, and -300ER series airplanes. The existing AD currently requires
repetitive inspections for cracking of the elevator actuator fittings.
Since we issued that AD, the manufacturer has developed a modification
that was approved as an optional terminating action to the currently
required repetitive inspections. We have been advised that the
modification procedures include certain incorrect torque values. This
proposed AD would require, for previously modified airplanes,
repetitive inspections for movement of the fittings or fastener heads,
and eventual replacement of certain bolts (including related
investigative and corrective actions if necessary). For all airplanes,
this replacement, with corrected torque values, would terminate the
requirements of the AD. This proposed AD would also remove certain
airplanes from the applicability. We are proposing this AD to detect
and correct a cracked actuator fitting or incorrectly installed bolts
to the actuator fitting, which could lead to the elevator becoming
detached and unrestrained, and a consequent unacceptable flutter
condition and loss of control of the airplane.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by September 17,
2012.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR
11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail address above between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this AD, contact Boeing
Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management, P. O. Box
3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, WA 98124-2207; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>,
extension 1; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com.
You may review copies of the referenced service information at the FAA,
Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton,
Washington. For information on the availability of this material at the
FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Examining the AD Docket

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Melanie Violette, Aerospace Engineer,
Airframe Branch, ANM-120S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office,
1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA<PHONE_NUMBER>; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>;

fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address
listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2012-0803;
Directorate Identifier 2011-NM-214-AD'' at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposed AD 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 we
receive about this proposed AD.

Discussion

    On December 10, 2007, we issued AD 2007-26-05, Amendment 39-15307
(72 FR 71212, December 17, 2007), for all Boeing Model 777-200, -200LR,
-300, and -300ER series airplanes. That AD requires initial and
repetitive inspections for cracking of the elevator actuator fittings,
and replacement of any cracked fitting with a new fitting. That AD
resulted from a report of a cracked left elevator actuator fitting. We
issued that AD to detect and correct a cracked actuator fitting, which
could detach from the elevator and lead to an unrestrained elevator and
an unacceptable flutter condition, and consequent loss of airplane
control.

Actions Since Existing AD Was Issued

    The preamble to AD 2007-26-05, Amendment 39-15307 (72 FR 71212,
December 17, 2007), specifies that we consider the requirements
``interim action'' and that the manufacturer is developing a
modification to address the unsafe condition. AD 2007-26-05 also
explains that we might consider further rulemaking if a modification is
developed, approved, and available. The manufacturer developed such a
modification, which is specified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 777-
55A0016, dated October 27, 2009. We issued an alternative method of
compliance (AMOC) specifying that the optional accomplishment of the
actions specified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 777-55A0016, dated
October 27, 2009, terminate the requirements of AD 2007-26-05. Boeing
Alert Service Bulletin 777-55A0016, dated October 27, 2009, however,
specified incorrect torque values for the BACB30NR4K6 and BACB30NR4K7
bolts, which could recreate the original unsafe condition. We have thus
determined that further rulemaking is necessary to address this
potentially reintroduced unsafe condition.

Relevant Service Information

    We reviewed Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 777-55A0016, Revision 1,
dated August 25, 2011, which describes procedures for replacing the
elevator actuator fitting assemblies with new assemblies, and torquing
the bolts with correct torque values, which eliminates the need for the
repetitive inspections required by AD 2007-26-05, Amendment 39-15307
(72 FR 71212, December 17, 2007).
    Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 777-55A0016, Revision 1, dated August
25, 2011, also describes additional work for airplanes that were
modified using Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 777-55A0016, dated October
27, 2009, which specified certain incorrect fastener torque values. For
those airplanes that were modified using the incorrect torque values,
Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 777-55A0016, Revision 1, dated August 25,
2011, also describes procedures for repetitive detailed inspections for
movement of the fastener heads and the fittings along the spar web of
the elevator actuator fitting assemblies, and eventual replacement of
the 12 bolts common to the elevator actuator fitting and the spar web
(including related investigative and corrective actions), which
eliminates the need for the repetitive inspections. Related
investigative actions include a detailed inspection for fitting damage,
a detailed inspection of the composite spar web for damage, and an
ultrasonic inspection for cracks, delaminations, and damage. Corrective
actions include contacting Boeing and doing the repairs.
    We also reviewed Boeing Service Bulletin 777-55A0015, Revision 3,
dated November 24, 2009, which describes the same actions as Boeing
Alert Service Bulletin 777-55A0015, dated April 19, 2007 (which was
cited in AD 2007-26-05, Amendment 39-15307 (72 FR 71212, December 17,
2007), as the appropriate source of service information for the
required actions), and adds an optional terminating action for certain
inspection requirements using Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 777-
55A0016, dated October 27, 2009.

Differences Between Proposed Rule and Service Bulletin

    Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 777-55A0016, Revision 1, dated August
25, 2011, specifies to contact the manufacturer for instructions on how
to repair certain conditions, but this proposed AD would require
repairing those conditions in one of the following ways:
     In accordance with a method that we approve; or
     Using data that meet the certification basis of the
airplane, and that have been approved by the Boeing Commercial
Airplanes Organization Designation Authorization (ODA) whom we have
authorized to make those findings.

FAA's Determination

    We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all the relevant
information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is
likely to exist or develop in other products of these same type
designs.

Proposed AD Requirements

    This proposed AD would retain all requirements of AD 2007-26-05,
Amendment 39-15307 (72 FR 71212, December 17, 2007). This proposed AD
would remove new production airplanes from the applicability. This
proposed AD would also require accomplishing the actions specified in
the service information described previously.

Change to Existing AD

    This proposed AD would retain all requirements of AD 2007-26-05,
Amendment 39-15307 (72 FR 71212, December 17, 2007). Since AD 2007-26-
05 was issued, the AD format has been revised, and certain paragraphs
have been rearranged. As a result, the corresponding paragraph
identifier has changed in this proposed AD, as listed in the following
table:

                      Revised Paragraph Identifiers
------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Requirement in existing AD
   2007[dash]26[dash]05, Amendment       Corresponding  requirement in
39[dash]15307 (72 FR 71212,  December          this  proposed AD
              17, 2007))
------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Paragraph (f)                        paragraph (g)
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 139 airplanes of U.S.
registry. We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed
AD:

                                                                     Estimated Costs
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Action                            Labor cost            Parts cost      Cost per product                Cost on U.S. operators
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inspection (retained actions from AD    10 work-hours x $85 per hour            $0  $850 per inspection       $118,150 per inspection cycle.
 2007[dash]26[dash]05, Amendment         = $850 per inspection cycle.                cycle.
 39[dash]15307 (72 FR 71212, December
 17, 2007)).
Inspection (new proposed action)......  14 work-hours x $85 per hour            $0  $1,190..................  Up to $165,410 per inspection cycle.
                                         = $1,190 per inspection
                                         cycle.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We estimate the following costs to do any necessary replacements
that would be required based on the results of the proposed
inspections. We have no way of determining the number of aircraft that
might need these replacements:

                                               On-condition Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per
                    Action                                    Labor cost                 Parts cost    product
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fitting replacement...........................  132 work-hours x $85 per hour =             $21,643      $32,863
                                                 $11,220.
Bolt replacement..............................  105 work-hours x $85 per hour = $8,925           65        8,990
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 have determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not
have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship
between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify 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, and
    (4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Proposed Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

    2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by removing airworthiness directive
(AD) 2007-26-05, Amendment 39-15307 (72 FR 71212, December 17, 2007),
and adding the following new AD:

The Boeing Company: Docket No. FAA-2012-0803; Directorate Identifier
2011-NM-214-AD.

(a) Comments Due Date

    The FAA must receive comments on this AD action by September 17,
2012.

(b) Affected ADs

    This AD supersedes AD 2007-26-05, Amendment 39-15307 (72 FR
71212, December 17, 2007).

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to The Boeing Company Model 777-200, -200LR, -
300, and -300ER series airplanes; certificated in any category, as
identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 777-55A0016, Revision 1,
dated August 25, 2011.

(d) Subject

    Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC)/Air Transport Association
(ATA) of America Code 55, Stabilizers.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by a report of a cracked left elevator
actuator fitting, and the recent determination that certain
incorrect torque values had been specified for an alternative method
of compliance intended to terminate the requirements of the existing
AD. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct a cracked actuator
fitting or incorrectly installed bolts to the actuator fitting,
which could lead to the elevator becoming detached and unrestrained,
and a consequent unacceptable flutter condition and loss of control
of the airplane.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Retained Inspections and Corrective Actions With No Changes

    This paragraph restates the inspections and corrective actions
required by paragraph (f) of AD 2007-26-05, Amendment 39-15307 (72
FR 71212, December 17, 2007), with no changes.
    (1) Do all inspections and actions described in paragraphs
(g)(1) and (g)(2) of this AD, in accordance with the Accomplishment
Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 777-55A0015, dated
April 19, 2007; or Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 777-55A0015,
Revision 3, dated November 24, 2009. As of the effective date of
this AD, Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 777-55A0015, Revision 3,
dated November 24, 2009, must be used to accomplish the actions
required by this paragraph. At the applicable time specified in
paragraph 1.E., ``Compliance,'' of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin
777-55A0015,

dated April 19, 2007, except as provided by paragraph (g)(3) of this
AD, do an initial dye penetrant or high-frequency eddy current
(HFEC) inspection for cracking of the elevator actuator fittings,
and, thereafter, do repetitive dye penetrant, HFEC, or detailed
inspections at the applicable times specified in paragraph 1.E.,
``Compliance,'' of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 777-55A0015, dated
April 19, 2007.
    (2) Before further flight, replace any fitting found to be
cracked during any inspection required by paragraph (g)(1) of this
AD with a new fitting having the same part number, or an optional
part number as identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 777-
55A0015, dated April 19, 2007; or Boeing Service Bulletin 777-
55A0015, Revision 3, dated November 24, 2009. Thereafter, do initial
and repetitive inspections of the replacement fitting at the time
specified in paragraph 1.E., ``Compliance,'' of Boeing Alert Service
Bulletin 777-55A0015, dated April 19, 2007.
    (3) Where Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 777-55A0015, dated April
19, 2007, specifies a compliance time after the date on that service
bulletin, this AD requires compliance within the specified
compliance time after January 22, 2008 (the effective date of AD
2007-26-05, Amendment 39-15307 (72 FR 71212, December 17, 2007)).

(h) New Additional Actions for Certain Airplanes

    For airplanes on which the elevator actuator fitting assemblies
have been replaced in accordance with and using the fastener torque
values specified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 777-55A0016, dated
October 27, 2009: Within 180 days after the effective date of this
AD, do a detailed inspection of the elevator actuator fitting
assemblies to detect discrepancies (including indications of
fastener head movement, and fitting movement along the spar web), in
accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert
Service Bulletin 777-55A0016, Revision 1, dated August 25, 2011.
    (1) If no discrepancy is detected, do the actions specified in
paragraphs (h)(1)(i) and (h)(1)(ii) of this AD:
    (i) Repeat the inspection thereafter at intervals not to exceed
90 days or 360 flight cycles, whichever occurs first, until the
actions specified in paragraph (h)(1)(ii) are done.
    (ii) Within 4,200 flight cycles or 750 days after the effective
date of this AD, whichever occurs first, replace the 12 bolts common
to the elevator actuator fitting and the spar web, and do all
applicable related investigative and corrective actions, in
accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert
Service Bulletin 777-55A0016, Revision 1, dated August 25, 2011,
except as provided by paragraph (j) of this AD. Do all applicable
related investigative and corrective actions before further flight.
The replacement of all 12 bolts in accordance with the
Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 777-
55A0016, Revision 1, dated August 25, 2011, terminates the
requirements of this AD for that fitting only.
    (2) If any discrepancy is detected, before further flight,
replace the 12 bolts common to the elevator actuator fitting and the
spar web using new parts, and do all applicable related
investigative and corrective actions, in accordance with the
Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 777-
55A0016, Revision 1, dated August 25, 2011, except as provided by
paragraph (j) of this AD. Do all applicable related investigative
and corrective actions before further flight. The replacement of all
12 bolts in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of
Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 777-55A0016, Revision 1, dated August
25, 2011, terminates the requirements of this AD for that fitting
only.

(i) New Optional Replacement of Elevator Actuator Fitting Assembly

    For airplanes on which the elevator actuator fitting assemblies
have not been replaced in accordance with Boeing Alert Service
Bulletin 777-55A0016, dated October 27, 2009: Replacement of these
fitting assemblies with new parts, in accordance with the
Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 777-
55A0016, Revision 1, dated August 25, 2011, except as provided by
paragraph (j) of this AD, terminates the requirements of this AD.

(j) Exception

    If any discrepancy or cracking is found during any inspection
required by this AD, and Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 777-55A0016,
Revision 1, dated August 25, 2011, specifies to contact Boeing for
appropriate action: Before further flight, repair, using a method
approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph
(l) of this AD.

(k) Credit for Previous Actions

    (1) This paragraph provides credit for inspecting and replacing
the elevator actuator fitting assemblies, as required by paragraphs
(h) and (i) of this AD, if the replacement was performed before the
effective date of this AD using Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 777-
55A0016, dated October 27, 2009, and using the correct torque values
as specified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 777-55A0016, Revision
1, dated August 25, 2011.
    (2) This paragraph provides credit for inspecting and replacing
actuator fittings, as required by paragraph (g) of this AD, if the
inspection and replacement was performed before the effective date
of this AD using the service bulletins specified in paragraphs
(k)(2)(i) and (k)(2)(ii) of this AD and using the correct torque
values as specified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 777-55A0016,
Revision 1, dated August 25, 2011.
    (i) Boeing Service Bulletin 777-55A0015, Revision 1, dated
January 31, 2008.
    (ii) Boeing Service Bulletin 777-55A0015, Revision 2, dated
December 4, 2008.

(l) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO),
FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested
using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14
CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local
Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending
information directly to the manager of the ACO, send it to the
attention of the person identified in the Related Information
section of this AD. Information may be emailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate
principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager
of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding
district office.
    (3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be
used for any repair required by this AD if it is approved by The
Boeing Commercial Airplanes Organization Designation Authorization
(ODA) that has been authorized by the Manager, Seattle ACO, to make
those findings. For a repair method to be approved, the repair must
meet the certification basis of the airplane, and the approval must
specifically refer to this AD.
    (4) AMOCs approved for AD 2007-26-05, Amendment 39-15307 (72 FR
71212, December 17, 2007), are not approved as AMOCs for this AD.

(m) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact Melanie
Violette, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM-120S, FAA,
Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton,
WA<PHONE_NUMBER>; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management,
P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, WA 98124-2207; telephone 206-544-
5000, extension 1; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You may review copies of the referenced
service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601
Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington<PHONE_NUMBER>. For information on
the availability of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on July 25, 2012.
Kalene C. Yanamura,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.

[FR Doc. 2012-18882 Filed 8-2-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P