[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 232 (Monday, December 3, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 71483-71484]
[FR Doc No: 2012-28839]

========================================================================
Rules and Regulations
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains regulatory documents
having general applicability and legal effect, most of which are keyed
to and codified in the Code of Federal Regulations, which is published
under 50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.

The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by the Superintendent of Documents.
Prices of new books are listed in the first FEDERAL REGISTER issue of each
week.

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

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 232 / Monday, December 3, 2012 /
Rules and Regulations

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2012-0520; Directorate Identifier 2002-NE-43-AD;
Amendment 39-17273; AD 2012-24-03]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Turbomeca S.A. Turboshaft Engines

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are superseding an existing airworthiness directive (AD)
for all Turbomeca S.A. Arriel 1A, 1A1, 1A2, 1B, 1C, 1C1, 1C2, 1D, 1D1,
1E, 1E2, 1K, 1K1, 1S, and 1S1 turboshaft engines. That AD currently
requires initial and repetitive visual inspections for erosion caused
by dust ingestion and, if necessary, cleaning of the gas generator
(module M03). This new AD requires determining the engine history;
performing a one-time visual inspection of the axial compressor for
erosion; performing initial and repetitive cleaning of the gas
generator hollow shaft; and replacing the rear bearing if the amount of
dust collected during cleaning exceeds 8 grams. This AD also includes
an optional terminating action. This AD was prompted by in-service
experience which has shown that dust inside the gas generator hollow
shaft may be found when the axial compressor wheel has less erosion
than initially assessed. We are issuing this AD to prevent an unbalance
of the gas generator rotating assembly, which may lead to gas generator
rear bearing failure, and uncommanded engine shutdown.

DATES: This AD is effective January 7, 2013.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in the AD as of January 7,
2013.

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this AD, contact
Turbomeca S.A., 40220 Tarnos, France; phone: 33 05 59 74 40 00; telex:
570 042; fax: 33 05 59 74 45 15. You may view this service information
at the FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 12 New England Executive
Park, Burlington, MA. 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 AD, the regulatory evaluation,
any comments received, and other information. The address for the
Docket Office (phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>) is Document Management Facility,
U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West
Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rose Len, Aerospace Engineer, Engine
Certification Office, FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 12 New
England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:
781-238-7199; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 to supersede AD 2003-12-14, Amendment 39-13199 (68 FR 36900,
June 20, 2003). That AD applies to the specified products. The NPRM
published in the Federal Register on July 25, 2012 (77 FR 43550). That
NPRM proposed to require determining the engine history; performing a
one-time visual inspection of the axial compressor for erosion;
performing initial and repetitive cleaning of the gas generator hollow
shaft; and replacing the rear bearing if the amount of dust collected
during cleaning exceeds 8 grams. That NPRM also included an optional
terminating action. That NPRM also removed Turbomeca S.A. Arriel 1E and
1K turboshaft engines from the applicability section of the AD. The 1E
engine is no longer in service. The 1K engine is not an FAA validated
engine.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD. The following presents the comments received on the proposal
and the FAA's response to each comment.

Request To Ease Requirements When Barrier Filters Used Continuously

    Charles E. Greenberg requested that the FAA consider modifying the
AD to accommodate operators of helicopters with barrier filter
installations for the engine intakes. If operator records can show that
specific serial number engines have always operated with filtered air,
the requirement for cleaning the gas generator hollow shaft should be
superseded by a requirement to maintain records of operation with
barrier filter protection. The commenter stated that no dirt can be
ingested by an engine downstream of the filter, as long as the barrier
filter has never gone into bypass mode.
    We disagree. The FAA cannot anticipate all of the available barrier
filter designs installed on helicopter models. Each barrier filter
design and helicopter combination would require its own assessment of
the filter's use and effectiveness. We did not change the AD.
    However, the substantiated continuous use of a barrier filter may
be proposed as an alternative method of compliance (AMOC) to this AD,
using the standard AMOC request procedure.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comment received, and
determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting the
AD as proposed.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD will affect about 1,421 engines installed
on helicopters of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it will take
about 24 work-hours per engine to inspect and clean the gas generator
module. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. A replacement gas
generator rear bearing would cost about $4,128 per engine and take
about 8 work-hours to replace. Based on these figures, we estimate the
cost of the AD on U.S. operators to be $2,898,840.

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 AD will not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a
substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between
the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866,
    (2) Is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT Regulatory Policies and
Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
    (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.

Adoption of the Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by removing airworthiness directive (AD)
2003-12-14, Amendment 39-13199 (68 FR 36900, June 20, 2003), and adding
the following new AD:

2012-24-03 Turbomeca S.A.: Amendment 39-17273; Docket No. FAA-2012-
0520; Directorate Identifier 2002-NE-43-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This airworthiness directive (AD) is effective January 7, 2013.

(b) Affected ADs

    This AD supersedes AD 2003-12-14, Amendment 39-13199 (68 FR
36900, June 20, 2003).

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to all Turbomeca S.A. Arriel 1A, 1A1, 1A2, 1B,
1C, 1C1, 1C2, 1D, 1D1, 1E2, 1K1, 1S, and 1S1 turboshaft engines that
have not incorporated Turbomeca S.A. Modification TU360.

(d) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by in-service experience showing that dust
inside the gas generator hollow shaft may be found when the axial
compressor wheel has less erosion than initially assessed. We are
issuing this AD to prevent an unbalance of the gas generator
rotating assembly, which may lead to deterioration of the gas
generator rear bearing and uncommanded engine shutdown.

(e) Compliance

    Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified,
unless already done.
    (1) Within 50 engine hours after the effective date of this AD,
determine the engine history and perform the maintenance actions at
the specified schedules. Use paragraphs 1.A. and 2.A. through 2.C.
of Turbomeca S.A. Alert Mandatory Service Bulletin (MSB) No. A292 72
0230, Version C, dated February 29, 2012 to perform the maintenance
actions and to establish the cleaning schedule.
    (2) If during any of the cleanings, the dust weight collected
inside the gas generator hollow shaft is more than 8 grams, replace
the gas generator rear bearing before further flight.
    (3) After the effective date of this AD, if there are any
changes in accordance with paragraph 1.A.(1)(a)1.3 of Turbomeca S.A.
Alert MSB No. A292 72 0230, Version C, dated February 29, 2012,
within 50 engine hours time-in-service after such a change,
accomplish the actions as specified in paragraphs (e)(1) and (e)(2)
of this AD.
    (4) After the effective date of this AD, do not install any gas
generator (module M03) on an engine unless it is in compliance with
this AD.
    (5) After the effective date of this AD, do not install any gas
generator rear bearing that has operated on an engine with a hollow
shaft that has been found to have a dust weight more than 8 grams.

(f) Optional Terminating Action

    As optional terminating action to the repetitive actions in this
AD, modify the engine by incorporating Turbomeca S.A. Modification
TU360.

(g) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    The Manager, Engine Certification Office, may approve AMOCs for
this AD. Use the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19 to make your
request.

(h) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact Rose Len,
Aerospace Engineer, Engine Certification Office, FAA, Engine &
Propeller Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA
01803; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) Refer to European Aviation Safety Agency AD 2012-0071, dated
April 26, 2012, and Turbomeca S.A. Alert MSB No. A292 72 0230,
Version C, dated February 29, 2012, for related information.

(i) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed
in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) Turbomeca S.A. Alert Mandatory Service Bulletin No. A292 72
0230, Version C, dated February 29, 2012.
    (ii) Reserved.
    (3) For Turbomeca S.A. service information identified in this
AD, contact Turbomeca S.A., 40220 Tarnos, France; phone: 33 05 59 74
40 00; telex: 570 042; fax: 33 05 59 74 45 15.
    (4) You may view this service information at FAA, Engine &
Propeller Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington,
MA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA,
call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (5) You may view this service information at the National
Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the
availability of this material at NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to:
http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on November 20, 2012.
Robert J. Ganley,
Acting Manager, Engine & Propeller Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2012-28839 Filed 11-30-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: June 21, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 119)]
[Notices]
[Page 35639-35640]
[DOCID:fr21jn06-78]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. TS04-281-000]

Northern States Power Company, Northern States Power Company
(Wisconsin); Notice of Filing

June 14, 2006.
    Take notice that on September 7, 2004, Northern States Power
Company and Northern States Power Company (Wisconsin) filed a petition
for limited exemption from certain Order No. 2004 requirements and
conditional request for extension of time.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or
before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and

interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov.
 Persons unable to file electronically should submit an

original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the

``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For

TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on June 21, 2006.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E6-9787 Filed 6-20-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 133 (Thursday, July 13, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 32242-32244]
[FR Doc No: 2017-14679]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket Number USCG-2017-0580]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone; Cleveland Triathlon Swim Event; Lake Erie,
Cleveland, OH

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone for
navigable waters of Lake Erie at North Coast Harbor, Cleveland, OH
during the Cleveland Triathlon swim event on July 23, 2017. This
temporary safety zone is necessary to protect personnel, vessels, and
the marine environment from the navigational hazards associated with
the large scale swimming event. Entry of vessels or persons into this
zone is prohibited unless specifically authorized by the Captain of the
Port Sector Buffalo.

DATES: This rule is effective from 5:45 a.m. through 10:00 a.m. on July
23, 2017.

ADDRESSES: To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-
2017-0580 in the ``SEARCH'' box and click ``SEARCH.'' Click on Open
Docket Folder on the line associated with this rule.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or email LT Ryan Junod, Chief of Waterways Management, U.S. Coast
Guard Marine Safety Unit Cleveland; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

CFR Code of Federal Regulations
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
Sec.  Section
U.S.C. United States Code

II. Background Information and Regulatory History

    The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule without prior notice
and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of
the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This
provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and
opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those
procedures are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public
interest. Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good
cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
with respect to this rule. The event sponsor did not submit notice to
the Coast Guard with sufficient time remaining before the event to
publish an NPRM. Delaying this rulemaking to allow for a comment period
to run would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest by
inhibiting the

Coast Guard's ability to protect spectators and vessels from the
hazards associated with this large scale swimming event in the Eastern
Basin.
    Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause
exists for making this temporary rule effective less than 30 days after
publication in the Federal Register because doing so would be
impracticable and contrary to the public interest. Delaying the
effective date would be contrary to the rule's objectives of ensuring
safety of life on the navigable waters and protection of persons and
vessels near the Cleveland Triathlon.

III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

    The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 33 U.S.C.
1231. The Captain of the Port Buffalo, NY (COTP) has determined that a
large scale swimming event on a navigable waterway will pose a
significant risk to participants and the boating public. This rule is
needed to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in the
navigable waters within the safety zone during the Cleveland Triathlon.

IV. Discussion of the Rule

    This rule establishes a safety zone from 5:45 a.m. through 10 a.m.
on July 23, 2017. The safety zone will cover all navigable waters
within 100 feet of a line starting at position 41[deg]30'34.6'' N.,
081[deg]41'51.3'' W. extending in a straight line to the East Basin
Breakwall at position 41[deg]30'51.8'' N., 081[deg]42'08.5'' W. (NAD
83). No vessel or person will be permitted to enter the safety zone
without obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated
representative. Entry into, transiting, or anchoring within the safety
zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Buffalo
or his designated on-scene representative. The Captain of the Port or
his designated on-scene representative may be contacted via VHF Channel
16.

V. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and
Executive Orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses
based on a number of these statutes and Executive Orders, and we
discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits. Executive Order 13771 directs agencies to control
regulatory costs through a budgeting process. This rule has not been
designated a ``significant regulatory action,'' under Executive Order
12866. Accordingly, this rule has not been reviewed by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB), and pursuant to OMB guidance it is exempt
from the requirements of Executive Order 13771.
    We conclude that this rule is not a significant regulatory action
because we anticipate that it will have minimal impact on the economy,
will not interfere with other agencies, will not adversely alter the
budget of any grant or loan recipients, and will not raise any novel
legal or policy issues. The safety zone created by this rule will be
relatively small and enforced for a relatively short time. Also, the
safety zone is designed to minimize its impact on navigable waters.
Furthermore, the safety zone has been designed to allow vessels to
transit around it. Thus, restrictions on vessel movement within that
particular area are expected to be minimal. Under certain conditions,
moreover, vessels may still transit through the safety zone when
permitted by the Captain of the Port.

B. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities.
    While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the
safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section
V.A above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on any
vessel owner or operator.
    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
section.
    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.

C. 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).

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

    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 have
determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism
principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order
13132.
    Also, 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. If
you believe this rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes,
please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section above.

E. 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.

F. 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 (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 lasting approximately 4 hours 15 minutes
that will prohibit entry within all navigable waters in the vicinity of
the swimmers participating in the Cleveland Triathlon. It is
categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(g) of
Figure 2-1 of the Commandant Instruction. A Record of Environmental
Consideration (REC) supporting this determination is available in the
docket where indicated in the ADDRESSES section of this preamble.

G. 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.

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. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1,
6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No.
0170.1.

0
2. Add Sec.  165.T09-0580 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T09-0580  Safety Zone; Cleveland Triathlon; Lake Erie,
Cleveland, OH.

    (a) Location. This zone will encompass all U.S. waterways of Lake
Erie at North Coast Harbor, Cleveland, OH within 100 feet of a line
starting at position 41[deg]30'34.6'' N., 081[deg]41'51.3'' W.
extending in a straight line to the East Basin Breakwall at position
41[deg]30'51.8'' N., 081[deg]42'08.5'' W. (NAD 83).
    (b) Effective and enforcement period. This regulation is effective
and will be enforced on July 23, 2017, from 5:45 a.m. until 10 a.m.
    (c) Regulations. (1) In accordance with the general regulations in
Sec.  165.23, entry into, transiting, or anchoring within this safety
zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Buffalo
or his designated on-scene representative.
    (2) This safety zone is closed to all vessel traffic, except as may
be permitted by the Captain of the Port Buffalo or his designated on-
scene representative.
    (3) The ``on-scene representative'' of the Captain of the Port
Buffalo is any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant or petty officer who
has been designated by the Captain of the Port Buffalo to act on his
behalf.
    (4) Vessel operators desiring to enter or operate within the safety
zone shall contact the Captain of the Port Buffalo or his on-scene
representative to obtain permission to do so. The Captain of the Port
Buffalo or his on-scene representative may be contacted via VHF Channel
16. Vessel operators given permission to enter or operate in the safety
zone must comply with all directions given to them by the Captain of
the Port Buffalo, or his on-scene representative.

    Dated: July 7, 2017.
J.S. Dufresne,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Buffalo.
[FR Doc. 2017-14679 Filed 7-12-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register: April 23, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 79)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 21839-21843]
[DOCID:fr23ap08-11]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0003; FRL-8359-7]

Pyraclostrobin; Pesticide Tolerance for Emergency Exemptions

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes a time-limited tolerance for
combined residues of the fungicide pyraclostrobin (carbamic acid, [2-
[[[1-(4-chlorophenyl)-1H-pyrazol-3-yl]oxy]methyl]phenyl]methoxy-,
methyl ester) and its desmethoxy metabolite (methyl-N-[[[1-(4-
chlorophenyl) pyrazol-3-yl]oxy]o-tolyl]carbamate), expressed as parent
compound, in or on Belgian endive. This action is in response to EPA's
granting of an emergency exemption under section 18 of the Federal
Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) authorizing post
harvest use of the pesticide on endive, Belgian to control the fungal
pathogen, Sclerotinia sclerotiorum. This regulation establishes a
maximum permissible level for residues of pyraclostrobin in this food
commodity. The time-limited tolerance expires and is revoked on
December 31, 2009.

DATES: This regulation is effective April 23, 2008. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received on or before June 23, 2008, and
must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR
part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION).

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under docket
identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0003. To access the
electronic docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, select ``Advanced
Search,'' then ``Docket Search.'' Insert the docket ID number where
indicated and select the ``Submit'' button. Follow the instructions on
the regulations.gov website to view the docket index or access
available documents. All documents in the docket are listed in the
docket index available in regulations.gov. Although listed in the
index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted
material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available
only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are

available either in the electronic docket at http://
www.regulations.gov, or, if only available in hard copy, at the Office
of Pesticide Programs (OPP) Regulatory Public Docket in Rm. S-4400, One
Potomac Yard (South Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. The
hours of operation of this Docket Facility are from 8:30 a.m. to 4
p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The Docket
Facility telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

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

I. General Information

A. Does this Action Apply to Me?

    You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an
agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer.
Potentially affected entities may include, but are not limited to:
     Crop production (NAICS code 111).
     Animal production (NAICS code 112).
     Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
     Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).
    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 Access Electronic Copies of this Document?

    In addition to accessing an electronic copy of this Federal
Register document through the electronic docket at http://
www.regulations.gov, you may access this Federal Register document
electronically through the EPA Internet under the ``Federal Register''
listings at http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr. You may also access a
frequently updated electronic version of 40 CFR part 180 through the
Government Printing Office's pilot e-CFR site at http://
www.gpoaccess.gov/ecfr.

C. Can I File an Objection or Hearing Request?

    Under section 408(g) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act
(FFDCA), as amended by the Food Quality Protection Act of 1996 (FQPA),
any person may file an objection to any aspect of this regulation and
may also request a hearing on those objections. The EPA procedural
regulations which govern the submission of objections and requests for
hearings appear in 40 CFR part 178. You must file your objection or
request a hearing on this regulation in accordance with the
instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by
EPA, you must identify docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0003 in the
subject line on the first page of your submission. All requests must be
in writing, and must be mailed or delivered to the Hearing Clerk on or
before June 23, 2008.
    In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the
Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of
the filing that does not contain any CBI for inclusion in the public
docket that is described in ADDRESSES. Information not marked
confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA
without prior notice. Submit your copies, identified by docket ID
number EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0003, by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
     Mail: Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) Regulatory Public
Docket (7502P), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001.
     Delivery: OPP Regulatory Public Docket (7502P),
Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South
Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. Deliveries are only
accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation (8:30 a.m. to 4
p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays). Special
arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. The
Docket Facility telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

II. Background and Statutory Findings

    EPA, on its own initiative, in accordance with sections 408(e) and
408(l)(6) of FFDCA, 21 U.S.C. 346a(e) and 346a(1)(6), is establishing a
time-limited tolerance for combined residues of the fungicide,
pyraclostrobin, in or on endive, Belgian at 11.0 parts per million
(ppm). This time-limited tolerance expires and is revoked on December
31, 2009. EPA will publish a document in the Federal Register to remove
the revoked tolerance from the CFR.
    Section 408(l)(6) of FFDCA requires EPA to establish a time-limited
tolerance or exemption from the requirement for a tolerance for
pesticide chemical residues in food that will result from the use of a
pesticide under an emergency exemption granted by EPA under section 18
of FIFRA. Such tolerances can be established without providing notice
or period for public comment. EPA does not intend for its actions on
section 18 related time-limited tolerances to set binding precedents
for the application of section 408 of FFDCA and the new safety standard
to other tolerances and exemptions. Section 408(e) of FFDCA allows EPA
to establish a tolerance or an exemption from the requirement of a
tolerance on its own initiative, i.e., without having received any
petition from an outside party.
    Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish a time-
limited tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in
or on a food) only if EPA determines that the tolerance is ``safe.''
Section 408(b)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines ``safe'' to mean that ``there
is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate
exposure to the pesticide chemical residue, including all anticipated
dietary exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable
information.'' This includes exposure through drinking water and in
residential settings, but does not include occupational exposure.
Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA requires EPA to give special
consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide
chemical residue in establishing a tolerance and to ``ensure that there
is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and
children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue. . .
.''
    Section 18 of FIFRA authorizes EPA to exempt any Federal or State
agency from any provision of FIFRA, if EPA determines that ``emergency
conditions exist which require such exemption.'' EPA has established
regulations governing such emergency exemptions in 40 CFR part 166.

III. Emergency Exemption for Pyraclostrobin on Endive, Belgian and
FFDCA Tolerances

    The California Environmental Protection Agency, Department of
Pesticide Regulation, utilized the crisis

provision under section 18 of FIFRA for emergency use of pyraclostrobin
as a post harvest treatment on chicory roots to control fungal growth
of Sclerotinia sclerotiorum during cold storage. According to the
applicant, portions of the dormant roots are periodically removed from
cold storage and propagated in sheds within a controlled environment in
order to stimulate bud development. These edible buds are known as
Belgian endives, and are marketed. Based on information provided in the
submission, an emergency situation exists because the pathogen,
Sclerotinia sclerotiorum, resides in field soils and can grow on the
chicory root during cold storage, which makes the produce unmarketable.
The state's application asserts there are currently no other fungicides
registered for the post harvest treatment of chicory root to control
fungal growth. Further, the State claims that good agricultural
practices are not sufficient to suppress this fungal pathogen. EPA has
authorized a crisis exemption for the California Department of
Pesticide Regulation under FIFRA section 18 for the use of
pyraclostrobin on endive, Belgian for control of Sclerotinia
sclerotiorum. The crisis exemption program ended on January 31, 2008.
    As part of its evaluation of the emergency exemption application,
EPA assessed the potential risks presented by residues of
pyraclostrobin in or on endive, Belgian. In doing so, EPA considered
the safety standard in section 408(b)(2) of FFDCA, and EPA decided that
the necessary time-limited tolerance under section 408(l)(6) of FFDCA
would be consistent with the safety standard and with FIFRA section 18.
Consistent with the need to move quickly on the emergency exemption in
order to address an urgent non-routine situation and to ensure that the
resulting food is safe and lawful, EPA is issuing this time-limited
tolerance without notice and opportunity for public comment as provided
in section 408(l)(6) of FFDCA. Although this time-limited tolerance
expires and is revoked on December 31, 2009, under section 408(l)(5) of
FFDCA, residues of the pesticide not in excess of the amounts specified
in the tolerance remaining in or on endive, Belgian after that date
will not be unlawful, provided the pesticide was applied in a manner
that was lawful under FIFRA, and the residues do not exceed a level
that was authorized by these time-limited tolerances at the time of
that application. EPA will take action to revoke this time-limited
tolerance earlier if any experience with, scientific data on, or other
relevant information on this pesticide indicate that the residues are
not safe.
    Because this time-limited tolerance is being approved under
emergency conditions, EPA has not made any final decisions about
whether pyraclostrobin meets FIFRA's registration requirements for use
on endive, Belgian or whether a permanent tolerance for this use would
be appropriate. Under these circumstances, EPA does not believe that
this time-limited tolerance decision serves as a basis for registration
of pyraclostrobin by a State for special local needs under FIFRA
section 24(c). Nor does this time-limited tolerance serve as the basis
for persons in any State other than California to use this pesticide on
this crop under FIFRA section 18 absent the issuance of an emergency
exemption applicable within that State. For additional information
regarding the emergency exemption for pyraclostrobin, contact the
Agency's Registration Division at the address provided under FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

IV. Aggregate Risk Assessment and Determination of Safety

    Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish a time-
limited tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in
or on a food) only if EPA determines that the tolerance is ``safe.''
Section 408(b)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines ``safe'' to mean that ``there
is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate
exposure to the pesticide chemical residue, including all anticipated
dietary exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable
information.'' This includes exposure through drinking water and in
residential settings, but does not include occupational exposure.
Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA requires EPA to give special
consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide
chemical residue in establishing a tolerance and to ``ensure that there
is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and
children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue. . .
.''
    EPA performs a number of analyses to determine the risks from
aggregate exposure to pesticide residues. For further discussion of the
regulatory requirements of section 408 of FFDCA and a complete
description of the risk assessment process, see http:www.epa.gov/
fedrgstr/EPA-PEST/1997/November/Day-26/p30948.htm.
    Consistent with the factors specified in section 408(b)(2)(D) of
FFDCA, EPA has reviewed the available scientific data and other
relevant information in support of this action. EPA has sufficient data
to assess the hazards of and to make a determination on aggregate
exposure expected as a result of this emergency exemption request and
the time-limited tolerance for combined residues of pyraclostrobin on
endive, Belgian at 11.0 ppm. EPA's assessment of exposures and risks
associated with establishing a time-limited tolerance follows.
    In the Federal Register of September 26, 2007 (72 FR 54564, FRL-
8148-6), EPA published a final rule establishing tolerances for the
combined residues of pyraclostrobin and its desmethoxy metabolite in or
on berry, group 13; cotton, undelinted seed; and cotton, gin
byproducts. When the Agency conducted the risk assessments in support
of the above referenced tolerance action, EPA also assessed data
submitted in the California Department of Environmental Protection
emergency exemption request from trials that used backpack sprayers in
both pre-cold storage and pre-forcing trays. This assessment determined
that the backpack sprayer trials reflected the worse-case scenario and
that the Agency could support the section 18 request and grant a time-
limited tolerance of 11 ppm on Belgian endive.
    This time-limited tolerance is expected to adequately cover any
pyraclostrobin residues using the backpack sprayer application method.
The values for combined pyraclostrobin residues were used to calculate
the appropriate tolerance for Belgian endive. A detailed summary of
this evaluation can be found in the document dated May 30, 2007
entitled, ``Pyraclostrobin. Amendment. Petition for Tolerance on
Belgian endive. Additional Discussion of Residue Data and Its Use For
Adjustment of Previous Tolerance Recommendation'' by going to http://
www.regulations.gov. The referenced document is available in the docket
established by this action, which is described under ADDRESSES, and is
identified as EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0003 in that docket. Locate and click on
the hyperlink for docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0003. Double-click
on the document to view the referenced information of page 2 of 8.
    Since EPA calculated a time-limited tolerance of 11.0 ppm for
Belgian endive in the May 30, 2007 amendment, the establishment of this
time-limited tolerance will not change the estimated aggregate risks
resulting from use of pyraclostrobin as discussed in the final rule
published in the Federal Register on September 26, 2007. Refer to this
Federal Register document available at http://www.regulations.gov for a
more

detailed discussion of the aggregate risk assessments and determination
of safety. EPA relies upon those risk assessments and the findings made
in the Federal Register document in support of this action as well as
the amendment dated May 30, 2007 referenced in Unit. IV. Refer to
docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0003 at http://www.regulations.gov for
a detailed review of this document.
    Based on the risk assessments discussed in the final rule published
in the Federal Register on September 26, 2007, (72 FR 54564, FRL-8148-
6), and the document ``Pyraclostrobin. Amendment. Petition for
Tolerance on Belgian endive. Additional Discussion of Residue Data and
Its Use For Adjustment of Previous Tolerance Recommendation,'' EPA
concludes that there is reasonable certainty that no harm will result
to the general population and to infants and children from aggregate
exposure to the combined residues of pyraclostrobin.

V. Other Considerations

A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    Adequate enforcement methodology (a liquid chromatography/mass
spectrometry (LC/MS/MS) method (BASF Method D9808), and a high
performance liquid chromatography/ultraviolet (HPLC/UV) method (BASF
Method D9904)) is available to enforce the tolerance expression. The
methods may be requested from: Chief, Analytical Chemistry Branch,
Environmental Science Center, 701 Mapes Rd., Ft. Meade, MD 20755-5350;
telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
B. International Residue Limits

    There are no established or proposed Codex Maximum Residue Limits
(MRLs) for pyraclostrobin. There are no Canadian or Mexican MRLs
established for Belgian endive.

VI. Conclusion

    Therefore, a time-limited tolerance is established for combined
residues of pyraclostrobin, (carbamic acid, [2-[[[1-(4-chlorophenyl)-
1H-pyrazol-3-yl]oxy]methyl] phenyl]methoxy-, methyl ester) and its
desmethoxy metabolite (methyl-N-[[[1-(4-chlorophenyl) pyrazol-3-
yl]oxy]o-tolyl]carbamate), expressed as parent compound, in or on
endive, Belgian at 11.0 ppm. This tolerance expires and is revoked on
December 31, 2009.

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This final rule establishes tolerances under sections 408(e) and
408(l)(6) of FFDCA in response to a petition submitted to the Agency.
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these types of
actions from review under Executive Order 12866, entitled Regulatory
Planning and Review (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Because this rule
has been exempted from review under Executive Order 12866, this rule is
not subject to Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations
That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use (66 FR
28355, May 22, 2001) or Executive Order 13045, entitled Protection of
Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks (62 FR 19885,
April 23, 1997). This final rule does not contain any information
collections subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act
(PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., nor does it require any special
considerations under Executive Order 12898, entitled Federal Actions to
Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    Since tolerances and exemptions that are established in accordance
with sections 408(e) and 408(l)(6) of FFDCA, such as the tolerances in
this final rule, do not require the issuance of a proposed rule, the
requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et
seq.) do not apply.
    This final rule directly regulates growers, food processors, food
handlers, and food retailers, not States or tribes, nor does this
action alter the relationships or distribution of power and
responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions
of section 408(n)(4) of FFDCA. As such, the Agency has determined that
this action will not have a substantial direct effect on States or
tribal governments, on the relationship between the national government
and the States or tribal governments, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government or between
the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Thus, the Agency has
determined that Executive Order 13132, entitled Federalism (64 FR
43255, August 10, 1999) and Executive Order 13175, entitled
Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments (65 FR
67249, November 9, 2000) do not apply to this rule. In addition, this
rule does not impose any enforceable duty or contain any unfunded
mandate as described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
of 1995 (UMRA) (Public Law 104-4).
    This action does not involve any technical standards that would
require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant
to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272
note).

VIII. Congressional Review Act

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report to each House of the Congress and to
the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report
containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate,
the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the
United States prior to publication of this final rule in the Federal
Register. This final rule is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5
U.S.C. 804(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180

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

    Dated: April 7, 2008.
Donald R. Stubbs,
Acting Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.

0
Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:

PART 180--[AMENDED]

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

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

0
2. Section 180.582 is amended by alphabetically adding text to
paragraph (b) after the paragraph heading to read as follows:

Sec.  180.582  Pyraclostrobin; tolerances for residues.

* * * * *
    (b)* * * A time-limited tolerance is established for combined
residues of the fungicide pyraclostrobin, (carbamic acid, [2-[[[1-(4-
chlorophenyl)-1H-pyrazol-3-yl]oxy]methyl] phenyl]methoxy-, methyl
ester) and its desmethoxy metabolite (methyl-N-[[[1-(4-chlorophenyl)
pyrazol-3-yl]oxy]o-tolyl]carbamate) in connection with use of the
pesticide under section 18 emergency exemptions granted by EPA. The
time-limited tolerance will expire and is revoked on the date specified
in the following table.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Expiration/revocation
                           Commodity                               Parts per million               date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Endive, Belgian...............................................                     11.0                 12/31/09
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *

[FR Doc. E8-8675 Filed 4-22-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-S


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 163 (Monday, August 24, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 51347]
[FR Doc No: 2015-20916]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Notice of Intent To Rule on Request To Release Airport Property
at the Gillespie County Airport in Fredericksburg, Texas

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of request to release airport property.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to rule and invite public comment on the
release of land at the Gillespie County Airport under the provisions of
Section 125 of the Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment Reform Act for
the 21st Century (AIR 21).

DATES: Comments must be received on or before September 23, 2015.

ADDRESSES: Comments on this application may be mailed or delivered to
the FAA at the following address: Mr. Ed Agnew, Manager, Federal
Aviation Administration, Southwest Region, Airports Division, Texas
Airports Development Office, ASW-650, Fort Worth, Texas 76177.
    In addition, one copy of any comments submitted to the FAA must be
mailed or delivered to Mr. Roger Hansen, Airport Manager, at the
following address: 101 W Main Unit 9, Fredericksburg, Texas 78624.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Anthony Mekhail, Program Manager,
Federal Aviation Administration, Texas Airports Development Office,
ASW-650, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177, Telephone: (817)
222-5663, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    The request to release property may be reviewed in person at this
same location.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FAA invites public comment on the
request to release property at the Gillespie County Airport under the
provisions of the AIR 21.
    The following is a brief overview of the request:
    Gillespie County requests the release of 5 acres of non-
aeronautical airport property. The property is located south of FM 2093
and between Airport Road and Business Court. The property to be
released will be sold and revenues shall be used for the operation and
maintenance at the airport.
    Any person may inspect the request in person at the FAA office
listed above under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
    In addition, any person may, upon request, inspect the application,
notice and other documents relevant to the application in person at the
Gillespie County Airport, telephone number<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas on 7 August, 2015.
Ignacio Flores,
Manager, Airports Division.
[FR Doc. 2015-20916 Filed 8-21-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


<Notice of Filing: PP#7E7230>

<EPA Registration Division contact: Barbara Madden,<PHONE_NUMBER>>

<TEMPLATE:>

<Interregional Research Project Number 4 (IR-4)>

<7E7230>

<	EPA has received a pesticide petition (7E7230) from Interregional
Research Project Number 4 (IR-4), 500 College Road East, Suite 201-W,
Princeton, NJ  08540 proposing, pursuant to section 408(d) of the
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d), to
amend 40 CFR part 180 by establishing a tolerance for residues of
Dichlobenil, 2,6-dichlorobenzonitrile and its metabolite
2,6-dichlorobenzamide in or on the raw agricultural commodity rhubarb at
0.15 parts per million (ppm) and Caneberry, subgroup 13A and Wild
raspberry at  0.1 ppm and Bushberry, subgroup 13B; Aronia berry;
Bluberry, lowbush; Buffalo currant; Chilian guava; European barberry;
Highbush cranberry; Honeysuckle; Jostaberry; Juneberry; Lingonberry;
Native currant; Salal; and Sea buckthorn at 0.15 ppm.  EPA has
determined that the petition contains data or information regarding the
elements set forth in section 408 (d)(2) of the FDDCA; however, EPA has
not fully evaluated the sufficiency of the submitted data at this time
or whether the data supports granting of the petition.  Additional data
may be needed before EPA rules on the petition.>

<A. Residue Chemistry>

<1. Plant metabolism. The qualitative nature of the residue in plants is
adequately understood based on acceptable plant metabolism studies.  The
major residue of concern is BAM, 2,6-dichlorobenzamide; the parent
compound, dichlobenil, was not detected.  The residues to be regulated
in plant commodities are dichlobenil and BAM.>

<	2. Analytical method. Dichlobenil and BAM are extracted with a
solution of ethyl acetate in hexane.  A cleanup system utilizes an
alumina column.  Detection and quantitation are achieved by a gas
chromatograph equipped with an electron capture detector.  The lowest
limit of method validation for dichlobenil and BAM is 0.05 and 0.01 ppm,
respectively.>

<3. Magnitude of residues. Field trials were conducted at 3 locations in
commercial growing areas of the United States, to evaluate the quantity
of dichlobenil and BAM residues in rhubarb.  The residue in all samples,
treated according to label directions, was less than the lowest level of
method validation.>

<B. Toxicological Profile>

<	1. Acute toxicity.  Acute toxicity studies on dichlobenil technical
indicate that the acute oral LD50 in rats is 4.25 g/kg, the acute dermal
LD50 in rabbits is >2g/kg and the acute inhalation LC50 in rats is >0.25
mg/l.  Dichlobenil technical is non-irritating to the eye and skin of
rabbits and it is not a dermal sensitizer in guinea pigs.>

<	2. Genotoxicty. Dichlobenil technical did not show any mutagenic
activity in the following:  Ames reverse mutation assay, B. subtilis REC
assay, L5178Y mouse lymphoma forward mutation assay, human lymphocyte
chromosome aberration assay, S. cerevisiae mitotic gene conversion
assay, mouse micronucleus and the BalbC/3T3 fibroblast transformation
assay.  It was equivocal in a DNA repair assay in human epithelial
cells.>

<	3. Reproductive and developmental toxicity. In a rat developmental
toxicity study, dichlobenil technical was administered by oral gavage to
pregnant Sprague-Dawley rats at dosage levels of 20, 60 and 180
mg/kg/day.  Maternal toxicity, as evidenced by a reduction in food
intake and body weight gain, was seen at 60 and 180 mg/kg/day.  There
were no developmental or teratogenic effects at any dosage level.  The
NOEL for maternal toxicity in rats is 20 mg/kg/day and the NOEL for
developmental toxicity is greater than 180 mg/kg/day.

Dichlobenil technical was also administered by oral gavage to pregnant
New Zealand White rabbits at dosage levels of 15, 45 and 135 mg/kg/day.
Maternal toxicity, as evidenced by a reduction in food intake and body
weight gain from day 7 to 13, was seen at the high dosage level.
Litters of three does show reduced fetal weight and an increased
incidence of developmental malformations that were attributed to severe
maternal toxicity.  The NOEL for maternal and developmental toxicity is
45 mg/kg/day.

In a rat reproduction study, dichlobenil technical was fed to two
generations of male and female Sprague-Dawley rats at dietary
concentrations of 60, 350 and 2000 ppm.  Body weight gains were impaired
in males and females receiving 2000 ppm and males receiving 350 ppm.
Mean pup weights were reduced at dosage levels of 350 and 2000 ppm.  No
effects were seen on reproductive parameters.  The NOEL for systemic and
developmental toxicity in rats is 60 ppm (3 mg/kg/day).  The NOEL for
reproductive toxicity is greater than 2000 ppm (100 mg/kg/day). >

<	4. Subchronic toxicity. In a dermal toxicity study dichlobenil
technical was applied to the backs of male and female rabbits for three
weeks (5 days/week) at dosages of 100, 300 and 1000 mg/kg/day.  No
treatment related effects were seen on body weights, food consumption,
organ weights, clinical chemistry or histopathology.  The NOEL for
subchronic dermal toxicity in rabbits is greater than 1000 mg/kg/day.>

<	5. Chronic toxicity. Dichlobenil technical was administered in
capsules to male and female Beagle dogs for one year at dosages of 1, 6
and 36 mg/kg/day.  Body weight gain was reduced in high dose males.  Mid
and high dose males had lower albumin, hemoglobin, packed red cell
volume and red blood cell count.  Male and female dogs in the mid and
high dose groups and low dose males had elevated serum cholesterol,
triglyceride, and phospholid concentrations in blood.  Mid and high dose
males and females and low dose females had increased liver weights,
while all treated females and high dose males had increased thyroid
weights.  Kidney weights were increased in high dose males and females
in the high dose group had reduced uterus and ovary weights.  High dose
male and female dogs exhibited liver cell hypertrophy and adrenal
cortical vacuolation.  At a dose level of 1 mg/kg/day, the only effects
seen were slightly higher blood triglyceride levels in males and
increased liver and thyroid weight in females.  Since there were no
histopathological lesions at this dosage level and no evidence of
functional impairment in any organ the no observable adverse effect
level (NOAEL) for chronic toxicity in dogs is 1 mg/kg/day.

Dichlobenil technical was fed to male and female Fischer 344 rats for
two years at dietary concentrations of 50, 400 or 3200 ppm.  Reduced
survival was seen in male rats given 3200 ppm.  A reduction in body
weight gain and food intake was seen in males and females at the high
dose level.  Histopathological effects were seen in kidneys of high dose
males and females and in livers of mid and high dose females.  There was
no treatment related increase in tumor incidence.  The NOEL for chronic
toxicity in rats was 50 ppm (2.5 mg/kg/day).

Two chronic feeding studies were conducted with Syrian hamsters.  In one
study dichlobenil technical was fed to male and female hamster for 88
and 80 weeks, respectively, at dietary concentrations of 26, 132 and 675
ppm.  Hamsters in the high dose group had slightly reduced body weight
gains.  High dose females had an increased incidence of adrenal cortical
hyperplasia and hepatocellular enlargement.  There was no increase in
tumor incidence resulting from dichlobenil administration.  The NOEL for
chronic toxicity in hamsters was 132 ppm.  In a second study,
dichlobenil technical was fed to male and female hamsters for 91 and 78
weeks, respectively, at dietary concentrations of 675, 1500 and 3375
ppm.  Reduced body weight gain was seen in all treated males and in high
dose female hamsters.  Microscopic evidence of liver toxicity was seen
in males and females given 1500 and 3375 ppm.  An increased incidence of
liver adenoma was seen in high dose males, which was considered to be
the result of liver toxicity.  The NOEL for chronic toxicity in hamsters
in this study was less than 675 ppm.>

<	6. Animal metabolism. Radiolabeled dichlobenil was administered to
both male and female Sprague-Dawley rats by either intravenous or oral
administration in single doses of 5 mg/kg. Urine and feces were
collected at various intervals after dosing.  Results from both routes
of administration were similar for both male and female rats.  That is,
seven days after IV administration, male rats had excreted 70.7% of the
dose in urine and 25.4% in feces.  In females, 65.1% and 30.9% of the
dose was excreted in urine and feces, respectively.  In rats
administered dichlobenil orally, males excreted 65.1% and 19.2% of the
dose in urine and feces whereas females excreted 64.9% and 20.7% of the
dose in urine and feces, respectively.  Although recoveries following IV
administration were higher than oral administration, absorption via
either route was deemed significant. The rate of urinary excretion was
rapid for both routes of administration with 95% of the dose excreted
within 24 hours.

Three bile-duct cannulated male rats were dosed orally with 5 mg/kg and
bile was collected at 2, 5 and 24 hours post administration.  For these
rats, 78.9% of the dose was recovered in bile and 19.8% recovered in
urine 24 hours after dosing again indicating extensive oral absorption.

Metabolism was also studied using single as well as multiple doses at
dosing levels of 3.75, 30 and 240 mg/kg administered orally.  There were
no significant sex-related differences.  Although some saturation
kinetics were evident at the high dose, there were no major differences
related to sex or dosing regimens.  These results indicate that
dichlobenil was readily absorbed and excreted by rats even at the
highest doses.

Nine metabolites were found in urine and four in feces.  Major
metabolites identified in both urine and feces and were comprised of
2,6-dichloro-3-hydroxybenzonitrile and its sulfate conjugate;
6-chloro-3-hydroxy-2-cysteinyl-benzonitrile; and
6-chloro-2-cysteinyl-benzonitrile.  Based on identified metabolites, two
metabolic pathways were postulated: (1) oxidation at the 3 or 4 position
of the phenyl ring followed by sulfation or glucuronidation of the
resulting hydroxyl group and (2) conjugation with gluthathione through
displacement of a chlorine atom.>

<	7. Metabolite toxicology. BAM was administered by oral gavage to
pregnant New Zealand White rabbits at dosage levels of 10, 30 and 90
mg/kg/day.  Maternal toxicity, in the form of mortality and reduced body
weight gain, was seen at 90 mg/kg/day.  No teratogenic or developmental
effects were seen.  The NOEL for maternal toxicity in rabbits was 30
mg/kg/day and the NOEL for developmental toxicity was greater than 90
mg/kg/day.

BAM was fed to three generations of male and female Sprague Dawley rats
at dietary concentrations of 60, 100 and 180 ppm.  No effects were seen
on parental body weight gain.  Pup weights were reduced in F1B, F3A and
F3B litters at a dose level of 180 ppm.  The NOEL for systemic and
reproductive toxicity was greater than 180 ppm (9 mg/kg/day) and the
NOEL for developmental toxicity was 100 ppm (5 mg/kg/day).

BAM was fed to male and female Beagle dogs for two years at dietary
concentrations of 60, 180 and 500 ppm.  Body weight gain was reduced and
the relative liver weight was elevated in high dose male dogs.  No
additional effects were seen.  The NOEL for chronic toxicity in dogs was
180 ppm (4.5 mg/kg/day.)

BAM was fed to male and female Sprague-Dawley rats at dietary
concentrations of 60, 100 180 and 500 ppm.  Body weight gain was reduced
in males and females at a dose level of 500 ppm, which was accompanied
by an occasional reduction in RBC level and hematocrit.  There was a
slight increase in the incidence of liver degeneration in high dose
females.  Occasional depressions in hematocrit, RBC levels or hemoglobin
levels were seen in males and females at a dose level of 180 ppm.  There
was a slight increase in the incidence of liver adenoma in female rats
given 500 ppm.  The NOEL for chronic toxicity in rats was 100 ppm (5
mg/kg/day).>

<	8. Endocrine disruption. There are no known reported adverse
reproductive or developmental effects in domestic animals or wildlife as
a result of exposure to this chemical or its metabolite.

A standard battery of required toxicity tests have been conducted on
dichlobenil.  No effects were seen in the reproduction or teratology
studies to indicate that dichlobenil has an effect on the endocrine
system.  While dichlobenil administration to hamsters for 90 days at
dose levels of 16, 79 and 263 mg/kg/day (300, 1500 and 5000 ppm)
resulted in decreased prostate weight and prostate degeneration and
demineralization with a no observable effect level (NOEL) of 3 mg/kg/day
(60 ppm), no correlating effects were seen in 2 chronic hamster studies.
 In one chronic hamster feeding study, no prostate effects were seen in
male hamsters fed 3375 ppm for 91 weeks and in another study no prostate
effects were observed in male hamsters fed 675 ppm for 88 weeks.
Furthermore, no similar effects were seen in rats or dogs fed
dichlobenil.

A standard battery of required toxicity tests have been conducted on the
dichlobenil metabolite, BAM.  No effects were seen in the reproduction
or teratology studies to indicate that BAM has an effect on the
endocrine system.>

<C. Aggregate Exposure>

<	1. Dietary exposure. Based on dietary, drinking water, and
non-occupational exposure assessments, there is reasonable certainty of
no harm to the US population, any population subgroup, or infants and
children from chronic exposure to dichlobenil.  The tolerance expression
for dichlobenil includes both parent compound (2,6-dichlorobenzonitrile
or dichlobenil) and a metabolite (2,6-dichlorobenzamide or BAM).
Dichlobenil residues are not found on food, whereas they may occur in
surface and ground water.  BAM residues are found on food commodities
treated with dichlobenil and also in water.>

<	i. Food. Tier 1 chronic dietary exposure estimates to BAM were based
on: (1) tolerance level residues for all current and proposed crops, (2)
default processing factors, (3) assumption of 100% crop treated, and (4)
consumption data from the 1994 through 1998 USDA Continuing Survey of
Food Intake by Individuals (CSFII).  Estimates of dietary exposure were
calculated using Exponent’s Dietary Exposure Evaluation Module –
Food Consumption Intake Database (DEEM-FCID)( software.  Chronic dietary
exposure is estimated for the U.S. Population to be 0.000841 mg/kg/day,
which corresponds to 5.6% of the chronic reference dose (RfD) of 0.015
mg/kg/day.  The highest chronic dietary exposure (0.006236 mg/kg/day)
was estimated for children 1-2 years of age.  This exposure corresponds
to 41.6% of the cPAD.  These chronic dietary exposure estimates indicate
reasonable certainty of no harm for all population subgroups.  The
chronic dietary results for the U.S. Population and select
subpopulations are summarized in the table below.  An acute dietary
assessment was not conducted for BAM because EPA has concluded that
there is no acute toxicological endpoint of concern for BAM.

	It is important to remember that this assessment is quite conservative
because it includes tolerance level residues in all current and proposed
crops and the assumption of 100% crop treated for all crops.  Actual
exposures are likely to be considerably less than those estimated here.>

<	ii. Drinking Water. Balu, et al. (2006) reports ground water
monitoring results from 25 wells located in major dichlobenil use areas.
 109 samples were collected and analyzed for dichlobenil.
Concentrations of DCB and BAM were well below the level of concern.
Surface water monitoring data for dichlobenil and BAM are not available.
 Therefore, it was necessary to estimate concentrations using FIRST.
According to the Casoron 4G label, dichlobenil is applied to a variety
of food crops and non-food crops (i.e., woody ornamentals and
shelterbelts, hybrid cottonwood and poplar plantations, and various
non-crop areas).  For food crops, the maximum single application rate is
6 lb ai/A, with just one application per season, and the product
granules are to be completely incorporated into the surface through
watering-in.  For woody ornamentals and cottonwood/poplar plantations,
the maximum single application rate is 8 lb ai/A, with just one
application per season, and the product granules are to be completely
incorporated into the surface through watering-in.  Finally, for
non-crop areas, the maximum single application rate is 10 lb ai/A for
nutsedge control, and the product granules are to be incorporated to a
depth of 4-6 inches.

For the maximum estimated peak dichlobenil residue in surface water (673
ppb), the acute exposure is therefore estimated to be 0.0224 mg/kg/d
with a corresponding margin of exposure (MOE) of 2,000.  Since the MOE
is greater than 100, it can be concluded that acute exposures to
dichlobenil in drinking water will be associated with a reasonable
certainty of no harm.

For the maximum estimated chronic dichlobenil concentration in surface
water of 5.3 ppb, the exposure for children is estimated to be 0.00053
mg/kg/d, which corresponds to 4.1% of the RfD.  Thus, there is
reasonable certainty of no harm resulting from the chronic consumption
of water containing dichlobenil residues.

The calculated DWLOCs for chronic exposure for adult males, adult
females and toddlers were estimated to be 496 ppb, 439 ppb and 88 ppb,
respectively.   As a comparison, the annual average concentration of BAM
measured in any well in the ground water monitoring study (Balu, et al.,
2006) was 10.4 ppb.  For BAM, the DWLOCs are greater than the DWEC, and
therefore there is reasonable certainty that no harm will result from
combined dietary (food and water) exposure to BAM resulting from the use
of dichlobenil on all registered and proposed crops.>

<	2. Non-dietary exposure. The only source of non-dietary exposure to
dichlobenil for consideration under FQPA is in the use of CASORON® 2G
in residential areas.  The 2G granular formulation of dichlobenil is
used by homeowners in landscape areas and around buildings and
structures.  Residential exposure to dichlobenil is possible through
homeowner application of CASORON® 2G granular.  However, foliar
residues are not anticipated.  CASORON is not applied directly to lawns
and it will not adhere to foliage of ornamental plants.  In addition,
CASORON is typically applied during the winter season when there is less
potential for contact with outdoor areas.  This implies that handler
exposure is by far the greatest contributor to residential non-dietary
exposure

Applicator Exposures

Granular formulations of dichlobenil are intended for the home use
market.  Residential dichlobenil products are intended for the control
of annual and certain perennial grassy and broadleaved weeds around
established ornamental trees and shrubs, fruit trees, nut trees and
berries, and in non-crop areas (i.e., around buildings and fences).
Dichlobenil is not applied to turf.  Dichlobenil granular products are
applied by shaking uniformly over the soil area to be treated at rates
of 2 to 3 tablespoons per 10 square feet.  This corresponds to a maximum
application rate of 6 pounds active ingredient per acre for a 2%
product:

3 T	=	1.125 oz	(	43560 ft²	(	1 lb	(	2%	=	6 lb ai

10 ft²

10 ft²

A

16 oz

A

For residents applying a granular product with a shaker can, the
Residential SOPs (EPA, 1997) provide unit exposure estimates of 430
mg/lb ai for dermal exposures and 467 µg/lb ai for inhalation
exposures.  Results from a radiolabeled in vitro study indicate that
0.99% of dichlobenil (applied to excised skin in an aqueous slurry of a
6.75% product) was absorbed within 24 hours, as defined by OECD
Guideline 428.  Applications of granular products by residents are
assumed to cover 1000 ft2 (EPA, 2001). Since the product is applied just
once per year, handler exposures are expected to be short-term only.
The short-term toxicity endpoint (45 mg/kg/d) for dichlobenil is from a
developmental toxicity study, so the population of interest is adult
females, who are assumed to have a body weight of 60 kg.  Using these
assumptions, the total applicator exposure is estimated to be 0.0108
mg/kg/d.  The associated MOE of 4,100 indicates a reasonable certainty
of no harm for residents applying dichlobenil granular products.

Postapplication Exposures

Granular dichlobenil products are applied only in small areas (e.g.,
under trees or ornamentals where weed control is desired, and in
non-crop areas around buildings, etc.).  Applications are typically made
between late fall (after a killing frost) and mid-winter or in early
spring.  These granular products are fully watered in (¼ to ½ half
inch deep) upon application.  Furthermore, dichlobenil is not applied to
turf.  Due to the use pattern for dichlobenil products, the potential
for postapplication exposures to children is very low.  Since
applications are made only once a year at times when there is minimal
potential contact with outdoor area, any postapplication exposures are
expected to be quite low and would be of short-term duration only.  For
dichlobenil, the short-term toxicity endpoint is from a developmental
toxicity study.  Since there is no short-term toxicity endpoint
appropriate for children (i.e., the population most likely to experience
postapplication exposures), it is inappropriate to estimate MOEs for
this population.  Consequently, postapplication exposures are not
estimated for children.

Aggregate (Water + Application) Exposures

As calculated in the previous section, the short-term dichlobenil
drinking water exposure is estimated using the peak dichlobenil residue
in surface water (673 ppb) to be:

Exposure (mg/kg/d) = 0.673 mg/L ( 2 L/day / 60 kg = 0.0224 mg/kg/d.

Applicator exposures were estimated above to be 0.0108 mg/kg/d.
Therefore, the maximum total short-term dichlobenil exposure (i.e.,
drinking water and application exposures) would be 0.0322 mg/kg/d.  The
associated MOE of 1,350 indicates a reasonable certainty of no harm for
short-term aggregate (water + application) exposures to dichlobenil.>

<D. Cumulative Effects>

<	EPA has not made a common mechanism of toxicity finding as to
dichlobenil and any other substances and dichlobenil does not appear to
produce a metabolite produced by other registered substances.>

<E. Safety Determination>

<	1. U.S. population. Dichlobenil residues are not present in food,
therefore the worst-case chronic residue exposure is due to the BAM
metabolite in food and water.  Based on the toxicology database and
available information on anticipated residues, chronic dietary exposure
to the U.S. population (total) was 5.6% of the cPAD.>

<	2. Infants and children. Dichlobenil residues are not present in food,
therefore the worst-case chronic residue exposure is due to the BAM
metabolite in food and water.  Most sensitive group was children 1-2
years of age with a chronic dietary exposure of 41.6%.>

<F. International Tolerances>

<	Maximum residue limits are established in the EU on vegetables, grain,
fruit at 0.05 to 0.2 mg/kg; in Canada on fruit at 0.1 mg/kg. No Codex
MRLs have been established for residues of dichlobenil.  Therefore,
there are no questions with respect to compatibility of U.S. tolerances
with Codex MRLs.>