[Federal Register: April 26, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 80)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 24586-24590]
[DOCID:fr26ap06-10]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2005-0322; FRL-8065-1]

Benzaldehyde, Captafol, Hexaconazole, Paraformaldehyde, Sodium
dimethyldithiocarbamate, and Tetradifon; Tolerance Actions

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is revoking specific tolerances and tolerance exemptions
for residues of the insecticides paraformaldehyde and tetradifon;
fungicides captafol, hexaconazole, and sodium dimethyldithiocarbamate;
and bee repellent benzaldehyde. EPA canceled food use registrations or
deleted food uses from registrations following requests for voluntary
cancellation or use deletion by the registrants, or non-payment of
registration maintenance fees. Also, stakeholders have withdrawn their
support for import tolerances for captafol and hexaconazole. The
regulatory actions in this document contribute toward the Agency's
tolerance reassessment requirements of the Federal Food, Drug, and
Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) section 408(q), as amended by the Food Quality
Protection Act (FQPA) of 1996. By law, EPA is required by August 2006
to reassess the tolerances in existence on August 2, 1996. The
regulatory actions in this document pertain to the revocation of 39
tolerances and tolerance exemptions of which 38 count as tolerance
reassessments toward the August, 2006 review deadline.

DATES: This regulation is effective April 26, 2006. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received on or before June 26, 2006.

ADDRESSES: To submit a written objection or hearing request follow the
detailed instructions as provided in Unit IV. of the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION. EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket
identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2005-0322. All documents in the
docket are listed on the http://www.regulations.gov website. (EDOCKET, EPA's

electronic public docket and comment system was replaced on November
25, 2005, by an enhanced Federal-wide electronic docket management and
comment system located at http://www.regulations.gov/. Follow the

online instructions.) Although listed in the

index, some information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other
material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on theInternet
and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly
available docket materials are available either electronically in
EDOCKET or in hard copy at the Public Information and Records Integrity
Branch (PIRIB), Rm. 119, Crystal Mall 2, 1801 S. Bell St.,
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<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Important Note: OPP will be moving to a new location the
first week of May 2006. As a result, from Friday, April 28 to Friday,
May 5, 2006, the OPP Regulatory Public Docket will NOT be accepting any
deliveries at the Crystal Mall 2 address and this facility
will be closed to the public. Beginning on May 8, 2006, the OPP
Regulatory Public Docket will reopen at 8:30 a.m. and deliveries will
be accepted in Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South Building), 2777 S.
Crystal Drive, Arlington, VA 22202. The mail code for the mailing
address will change to (7502P), but will otherwise remain the same. The
OPP Regulatory Public Docket telephone number and hours of operation
will remain the same after the move.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joseph Nevola, Special Review and
Reregistration Division (7508C), 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 111), e.g., agricultural workers;
greenhouse, nursery, and floriculture workers; farmers.
     Animal production (NAICS 112), e.g., cattle ranchers and
farmers, dairy cattle farmers, livestock farmers.
     Food manufacturing (NAICS 311), e.g., agricultural
workers; farmers; greenhouse, nursery, and floriculture workers;
ranchers; pesticide applicators.
     Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS 32532), e.g., agricultural
workers; commercial applicators; farmers; greenhouse, nursery, and
floriculture workers; residential users.
    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 and Other
Related Information?

    In addition to using EDOCKET (http://www.epa.gov/edocket/), you may

access this Federal Register document electronically through the EPA
Internet under the ``Federal Register'' listings at http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/.
 A frequently updated electronic version of 40 CFR part 180

is available at E-CFR Beta Site Two at http://www.gpoaccess.gov/ecfr/.

II. Background

A. What Action is the Agency Taking?

    In the Federal Register of December 23, 2005 (70 FR 76224) (FRL-
7751-3), EPA issued a proposed rule to revoke certain tolerances and
tolerance exemptions for residues of the insecticides paraformaldehyde
and tetradifon; fungicides captafol, hexaconazole, and sodium
dimethyldithiocarbamate; and bee repellent benzaldehyde. Also, the
proposal of December 23, 2005 provided a 60-day comment period which
invited public comment for consideration and for support of tolerance
retention under the FFDCA standards.
    In this final rule, EPA is revoking these tolerances and tolerance
exemptions because they pertain to uses no longer current or registered
under FIFRA in the United States and do not pertain to commodities
currently imported into the United States. The tolerances and tolerance
exemptions revoked by this final rule are no longer necessary to cover
residues of the relevant pesticides in or on domestically treated
commodities or commodities treated outside but imported into the United
States. It is EPA's general practice to revoke those tolerances and
tolerance exemptions for residues of pesticide active ingredients on
crop uses for which there are no active registrations under FIFRA,
unless any person in comments on the proposal indicates a need for the
tolerance or tolerance exemption to cover residues in or on imported
commodities or domestic commodities legally treated.
    EPA has historically been concerned that retention of tolerances
that are not necessary to cover residues in or on legally treated foods
may encourage misuse of pesticides within the United States. Thus, it
is EPA's policy to issue a final rule revoking those tolerances for
residues of pesticide chemicals for which there are no active
registrations under FIFRA, unless any person commenting on the proposal
demonstrates a need for the tolerance to cover residues in or on
imported commodities or domestic commodities legally treated.
    Generally, EPA will proceed with the revocation of these tolerances
on the grounds discussed in Unit II.A. if one of the following
conditions applies:
    1. Prior to EPA's issuance of a section 408(f) order requesting
additional data or issuance of a section 408(d) or (e) order revoking
the tolerances on other grounds, commenters retract the comment
identifying a need for the tolerance to be retained.
    2. EPA independently verifies that the tolerance is no longer
needed.
    3. The tolerance is not supported by data that demonstrate that the
tolerance meets the requirements under FQPA.
    Today's final rule does not revoke those tolerances for which EPA
received comments stating a need for the tolerance to be retained. In
response to the proposal published in the Federal Register of December
23, 2005 (70 FR 76224), EPA received one comment during the 60-day
public comment period, as follows:
    Benzaldehyde--comment by WSDA. EPA received a comment from the
Washington State Department of Agriculture (WSDA), which requested that
the Agency determine whether revocation of the tolerance exemption in
40 CFR 180.1229 for benzaldehyde, when used as a bee repellent, would
render honey extracted from hives treated with benzaldehyde to be
considered adulterated. WSDA stated that benzaldehyde is still being
distributed for use by beekeepers and requested retention of the
tolerance exemption if its revocation would cause extracted honey from
treated hives to be adulterated. In an earlier communication, just
prior to the comment submission, WSDA stated that benzaldehyde use as a
bee repellent was not a pesticide use under 40 CFR 152.8.

    Agency response. A tolerance or an exemption from the requirement
of a tolerance is a requirement under FFDCA section 408 for pesticide
residue in or on food. There have been no active pesticide
registrations in the United States for benzaldehyde since 1991, and
therefore the tolerance exemption in 40 CFR 180.1229 is no longer
needed. EPA agrees with WSDA that use of a product intended to force
bees from hives for the collection of honey crops is not considered to
be a pesticidal use under 40 CFR 152.8 because it is not intended for
use against ``pests'' as defined in 40 CFR 152.5. Such a non-pesticidal
use does not require a tolerance or tolerance exemption. EPA expects
that revocation of the tolerance exemption in 40 CFR 180.1229 would
mean that such use of benzaldehyde, in a product which contains no
pesticide active ingredients, intended as a bee repellent in the
collection of honey crops, would not render them adulterated under
FFDCA section 408. Therefore, the Agency believes that such
benzaldehyde treatment of honeycombs even after the revocation of the
tolerance exemption in 40 CFR 180.1229 would not prevent sale of honey
commodities. Consequently, EPA is revoking the tolerance exemption in
40 CFR 180.1229 for residues of benzaldehyde when used as a bee
repellent in the harvesting of honey. Persons interested in the
regulation of benzaldehyde as a food additive under FFDCA section 409
should consult the Food and Drug Administration.
    No comments were received by the Agency concerning the following.
    1. Captafol. The Republic of Indonesia's Indonesian Ministry of
Agriculture had commented on a proposed rule to revoke tolerances for
captafol and several other pesticides, published in the Federal
Register of June 9, 1993 (58 FR 32320) (FRL-4183-6). The commenter had
stated that the use of captafol was being re-evaluated in that country,
might undergo a phase out, and requested that EPA not revoke the onion,
potato, and tomato tolerances in 40 CFR 180.267. In the Federal
Register of July 21, 1999 (64 FR 39049) (FRL-6092-7), EPA published a
final rule in which it revoked specific captafol tolerances and
responded to the 1993 comment received from the Republic of Indonesia
by stating that the Agency would not take final action on the three
tolerances in 40 CFR 180.267 for residues of captafol on onion, potato,
and tomato at that time. In April 2005, EPA determined that captafol
has not been registered in Indonesia since 1998. Also, the Indonesian
Ministry of Agriculture verified that it no longer had a continuing
interest in the three captafol tolerances for importation purposes.
Because the tolerances are no longer needed, EPA is revoking the
tolerances in 40 CFR 180.267 for residues of the fungicide captafol in
or on onion, potato, and tomato.
    2. Hexaconazole. There have been no active U.S. registrations for
hexaconazole on banana since 1992. Recently, Syngenta has informed EPA
that it has voluntarily chosen to no longer support the hexaconazole
tolerance on banana for the purpose of importation. Consequently, the
tolerance is no longer needed. Therefore, EPA is revoking the tolerance
in 40 CFR 180.488 for residues of the fungicide hexaconazole in or on
banana.
    3. Paraformaldehyde. The last active registration for
paraformaldehyde use as an insecticide for the soil treatment of sugar
beets was canceled in 1989 due to non-payment of the maintenance fee,
and therefore the tolerance exemptions are no longer needed. EPA is
revoking the tolerance exemptions in 40 CFR 180.1024 for residues of
the insecticide paraformaldehyde in or on beet, sugar, roots and beet,
sugar, tops, when applied to the soil not later than planting.
    4. Sodium dimethyldithiocarbamate. The last active registration for
use of sodium dimethyldithiocarbamate on melons was canceled in 1993
due to non-payment of the maintenance fee, and therefore the tolerance
is no longer needed. EPA is revoking the tolerance in 40 CFR 180.152
for residues of the fungicide sodium dimethyldithiocarbamate,
calculated as zinc ethylenebisdithiocarbamate, in or on melon.
    5. Tetradifon. The last tetradifon registrations were canceled in
1990 due to non-payment of maintenance fees. Uniroyal Chemical Company
(which later became part of Crompton Corporation) had commented to a
proposed revocation of tetradifon tolerances published in the Federal
Register of August 1, 2001 (66 FR 39705) (FRL-6786-4). Uniroyal noted
that it had submitted certain studies to EPA in 1998 and 1996, and
requested that EPA not revoke any of the tetradifon tolerances in 40
CFR 180.174. In the Federal Register of January 24, 2003 (68 FR 3425)
(FRL-7187-3), EPA published a final rule and responded to Uniroyal's
comment by stating that the Agency would not take final action on the
tetradifon tolerances in 40 CFR 180.174 at that time. During follow-up
communication, EPA received a letter from Crompton Corporation (now
Chemtura Corporation) that it no longer supported retention of the
tolerances for tetradifon. Because the tolerances are no longer needed,
EPA is revoking all the tolerances in 40 CFR 180.174 for residues of
the insecticide tetradifon in or on apple; apricot; cherry; citron,
citrus; crabapples; cucumber; fig; fig, dried fruit; grapefruit; grape;
hop, dried; hop, vine; lemon; lime; meat; melon; milk; nectarine;
orange, sweet; peach; pear; peppermint; plum, prune, fresh; pumpkin;
quince; spearmint, tops; strawberry; tangerine; tea, dried; tomato; and
winter squash.

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

    EPA's general practice is to revoke tolerances for residues of
pesticide active ingredients on crops for which FIFRA registrations no
longer exist and on which the pesticide may therefore no longer be used
in the United States. EPA has historically been concerned that
retention of tolerances that are not necessary to cover residues in or
on legally treated foods may encourage misuse of pesticides within the
United States. Nonetheless, EPA will establish and maintain tolerances
even when corresponding domestic uses are canceled if the tolerances,
which EPA refers to as ``import tolerances,'' are necessary to allow
importation into the United States of food containing such pesticide
residues. However, where there are no imported commodities that require
these import tolerances, the Agency believes it is appropriate to
revoke tolerances for unregistered pesticides in order to prevent
potential misuse.

C. When Do These Actions Become Effective?

    These actions become effective on the date of publication of this
final rule in the Federal Register because their associated uses have
been canceled for several years. The Agency believes that treated
commodities have had sufficient time for passage through the channels
of trade.
    Any commodities listed in the regulatory text of this document that
are treated with the pesticides subject to this final rule, and that
are in the channels of trade following the tolerance revocations, shall
be subject to FFDCA section 408(1)(5), as established by the FQPA.
Under this section, any residues of these pesticides in or on such food
shall not render the food adulterated so long as it is shown to the
satisfaction of the Food and Drug Administration that: (1) The residue
is present as the result of an application or use of the pesticide at a
time and in a manner that was lawful under FIFRA, and (2) the residue
does not exceed the

level that was authorized at the time of the application or use to be
present on the food under a tolerance or exemption from tolerance.
Evidence to show that food was lawfully treated may include records
that verify the dates that the pesticide was applied to such food.

D. What is the Contribution to Tolerance Reassessment?

    By law, EPA is required by August 2006 to reassess the tolerances
in existence on August 2, 1996. As of April 18, 2006, EPA has
reassessed over 8,070 tolerances. This document revokes a total of 39
tolerances and tolerance exemptions of which 38 are counted as
tolerance reassessments toward the August, 2006 review deadline of
FFDCA section 408(q), as amended by FQPA in 1996.

III. Are There Any International Trade Issues Raised by this Final
Action?

    EPA is working to ensure that the U.S. tolerance reassessment
program under FQPA does not disrupt international trade. EPA considers
Codex Maximum Residue Limits (MRLs) in setting U.S. tolerances and in
reassessing them. MRLs are established by the Codex Committee on
Pesticide Residues, a committee within the Codex Alimentarius
Commission, an international organization formed to promote the
coordination of international food standards. When possible, EPA seeks
to harmonize U.S. tolerances with Codex MRLs. EPA may establish a
tolerance that is different from a Codex MRL; however, FFDCA section
408(b)(4) requires that EPA explain in a Federal Register document the
reasons for departing from the Codex level. EPA's effort to harmonize
with Codex MRLs is summarized in the tolerance reassessment section of
individual REDs. The U.S. EPA has developed guidance concerning
submissions for import tolerance support (65 FR 35069, June 1, 2000)
(FRL-6559-3). This guidance will be made available to interested
persons. Electronic copies are available on the internet at http://www.epa.gov/.
 On the Home Page select ``Laws and Regulations,'' then

select ``Regulations and Proposed Rules'' and then look up the entry
for this document under ``Federal Register--Environmental Documents.''
You can also go directly to the ``Federal Register'' listings at
http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/.

IV. Objections and Hearing Requests

    Under section 408(g) of FFDCA, as amended by 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. Although the procedures in those regulations require
some modification to reflect the amendments made to FFDCA by FQPA, EPA
will continue to use those procedures, with appropriate adjustments,
until the necessary modifications can be made. The new section 408(g)
of FFDCA provides essentially the same process for persons to
``object'' to a regulation for an exemption from the requirement of a
tolerance issued by EPA under new section 408(d) of FFDCA, as was
provided in the old sections 408 and 409 of FFDCA. However, the period
for filing objections is now 60 days, rather than 30 days.

A. What Do I Need to Do to File an Objection or Request a Hearing?

    You must file your objection or request a hearing on this
regulation in accordance with the instructions provided in this unit
and in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must
identify docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2005-0322 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 26,
2006.
    1. Filing the request. Your objection must specify the specific
provisions in the regulation that you object to, and the grounds for
the objections (40 CFR 178.25). If a hearing is requested, the
objections must include a statement of the factual issues(s) on which a
hearing is requested, the requestor's contentions on such issues, and a
summary of any evidence relied upon by the objector (40 CFR 178.27).
Information submitted in connection with an objection or hearing
request may be claimed confidential by marking any part or all of that
information as CBI. Information so marked will not be disclosed except
in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. A copy of the
information that does not contain CBI must be submitted for inclusion
in the public record. Information not marked confidential may be
disclosed publicly by EPA without prior notice.
    Mail your written request to: Office of the Hearing Clerk (1900L),
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC 20460-0001. You may also deliver your request to the
Office of the Hearing Clerk in Suite 350, 1099 14th St.,
NW., Washington, DC 20005. The Office of the Hearing Clerk is open from
8 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The
telephone number for the Office of the Hearing Clerk is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    2. Copies for the Docket. In addition to filing an objection or
hearing request with the Hearing Clerk as described in Unit IV.A.1.,
you should also send a copy of your request to the PIRIB for its
inclusion in the official record that is described in ADDRESSES. Mail
your copies, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2005-0322, to:
Public Information and Records Integrity Branch, Information Resources
and Services Division (7502C), Office of Pesticide Programs,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC 20460-0001. In person or by courier, bring a copy to the
location of the PIRIB described in ADDRESSES. You may also send an
electronic copy of your request via e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Please use an ASCII file format and avoid the use of special characters
and any form of encryption. Copies of electronic objections and hearing
requests will also be accepted on disks in WordPerfect 6.1/8.0 or ASCII
file format. Do not include any CBI in your electronic copy. You may
also submit an electronic copy of your request at many Federal
Depository Libraries.

B. When Will the Agency Grant a Request for a Hearing?

    A request for a hearing will be granted if the Administrator
determines that the material submitted shows the following: There is a
genuine and substantial issue of fact; there is a reasonable
possibility that available evidence identified by the requestor would,
if established resolve one or more of such issues in favor of the
requestor, taking into account uncontested claims or facts to the
contrary; and resolution of the factual issues(s) in the manner sought
by the requestor would be adequate to justify the action requested (40
CFR 178.32).

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    In this final rule, EPA revokes specific tolerances established
under FFDCA section 408. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has
exempted this type of action (i.e., a tolerance revocation for which
extraordinary circumstances do not exist) 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 due to its lack of significance, 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). 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., or 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). Nor does it require any special considerations as required by
Executive Order 12898, entitled Federal Actions to Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994); or OMB review or any other
Agency action under Executive Order 13045, entitled Protection of
Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks (62 FR 19885,
April 23, 1997). 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 104-13, section 12(d)
(15 U.S.C. 272 note). Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
(5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), the Agency previously assessed whether
revocations of tolerances might significantly impact a substantial
number of small entities and concluded that, as a general matter, these
actions do not impose a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. This analysis was published on December 17,
1997 (62 FR 66020), and was provided to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy
of the Small Business Administration. Taking into account this
analysis, and available information concerning the pesticides listed in
this rule, the Agency hereby certifies that this final rule will not
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. In a memorandum dated May 25, 2001, EPA determined that eight
conditions must all be satisfied in order for an import tolerance or
tolerance exemption revocation to adversely affect a significant number
of small entity importers, and that there is a negligible joint
probability of all eight conditions holding simultaneously with respect
to any particular revocation. (This Agency document is available in the
docket of this final rule). Furthermore, for the pesticides named in
this final rule, the Agency knows of no extraordinary circumstances
that exist as to the present revocations that would change EPA's
previous analysis. In addition, the Agency has determined that this
action will not have a substantial direct effect on 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, as specified in Executive Order 13132, entitled Federalism
(64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). Executive Order 13132 requires EPA to
develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful and timely input
by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies
that have federalism implications.'' ``Policies that have federalism
implications'' is defined in the Executive order to include regulations
that have ``substantial direct effects 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.'' This final rule directly regulates growers, food
processors, food handlers and food retailers, not States. This action
does not alter the relationships or distribution of power and
responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions
of section 408(n)(4) of FFDCA. For these same reasons, the Agency has
determined that this rule does not have any ``tribal implications'' as
described in Executive Order 13175, entitled Consultation and
Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments (65 FR 67249, November 6,
2000). Executive Order 13175, requires EPA to develop an accountable
process to ensure ``meaningful and timely input by tribal officials in
the development of regulatory policies that have tribal implications.''
``Policies that have tribal implications'' is defined in the Executive
order to include regulations that have ``substantial direct effects on
one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal
Government and the Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.''
This rule will not have substantial direct effects on tribal
governments, 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, as specified in
Executive Order 13175. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to
this rule.

VI. Congressional Review Act

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. 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 11, 2006.
James Jones,
Director, 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.

Sec. Sec.  180.152, 180.174, 180.267, 180.488, 180.1024 and
180.1229  [Removed]

0
2. Sections 180.152, 180.174, 180.267, 180.488, 180.1024 and 180.1229
are removed.
[FR Doc. 06-3853 Filed 4-25-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-S


PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT SUBMISSION Please read the instructions before completing this form. For additional forms or assistance in completing this form, contact your agency's Paperwork Clearance Officer. Send two copies of this form, the collection instrument to be reviewed, the Supporting Statement and any additional documentation to: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Docket Library, Room 10102, 725 17th Street NW Washington, DC 20503.

1. Agency/ Subagency originating request Environmental Protection Agency 2. OMB control number b. X None a__ __ __ __  __ __ __ __ 2050

3. Type of information collection ( check one) a. O New collection b. G Revision of a currently approved collection c. G Extension of a currently approved collection d. G Reinstatement, without change, of a previously approved collection for which approval has expired e. G Reinstatement, with change, of a previously approved collection for which approval has expired f. G Existing collection in use without an OMB control number 4. Type of review requested ( check one) a. O Regular b. G Emergency  Approval requested by: / / c. G Delegated 5. Small entities Will this information collection have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? G Yes O No For b f, note item A2 of Supporting Statement Instructions 6. Requested expiration date a. O Three years from approval date b. G Other Specify: / /___

7. Title Soil Ingestion Research 8. Agency form number( s) ( If applicable) 1965.01 9. Keywords Soil Ingestion 10. Abstract This ICR supports a cooperative agreement that funds the University of Massachusetts at Amherst to study soil ingestion. Construction workers will be studied. Construction workers may be at high risk due to their exposure in environments with contaminated soils. Higher ingestion of contaminated soils would be expected both from normal hand to mouth contact as well as ingestion of soil/ dust particles that are inhaled ( larger particles will be deposited in the airways and ingested). Workers engaged in this study will be paid for their efforts and the questions asked of these workers will be used to verify that the study procedures were/ were not followed. Questions for the workers are attached.

11. Affected public ( Mark primary with " P" and all others that apply with " X") a. P Individuals or households d. Farms b. Business or other for profit e. Federal Government c. Not for profit institutions f. State, Local or Tribal Government 12. Obligation to respond ( Mark primary with " P" and all others that apply with " X") a. X Voluntary b. __ Required to obtain or retain benefits c. __ Mandatory 13. Annual reporting and recordkeeping hour burden a. Number of respondents 20 b. Total annual responses 200 1. Percentage of these responses collected electronically 0 % c. Total annual hours requested 20 d. Current OMB inventory 0 e. Difference 20 f. Explanation of difference 1. Program Change 20 2. Adjustment 0 14. Annual reporting and recordkeeping cost burden ( in thousands of dollars)

a. Total annualized capital/ startup costs 0 b. Total annual costs ( O& M) 0 c. Total annualized cost requested 0 d. Current OMB inventory 0 e. Difference 0 f. Explanation of difference 1. Program change 0 2. Adjustment 0 15. Purpose of information collection ( Mark Primary With " P" and all others that apply with " X") a. __ Application for benefits e. __ Program planning or management b. __ Program evaluation f. P Research c. __ General purpose statistics g.. __ Regulatory or compliance d. __ Audit 16. Frequency of recordkeeping or reporting ( check all that apply) a. Q Recordkeeping b. Q Third party disclosure c. X Reporting 1. Q On occasion 2. Q Weekly 3. Q Monthly 4. Q Quarterly 5. Q Semi annually 6. Q Annually 7. Q Biennually 8. O Other ( describe) Daily ( For 2 week study)

17. Statistical methods Does this information collection employ statistical methods? __ Yes X No 18. Agency contact ( person who can best answer questions regarding the content of this submission) Name: Larry Zaragoza Phone: 703 603 8867 OMB 83 I 10/ 95 19. Certification for Paperwork Reduction Act Submissions On behalf of this Federal agency, 1 certify that the collection of information encompassed by this request complies with' 5 CFR 1320.9.

NOTE: The text of 5 CFR 1320.9, and the related provisions of 5 CFR 1320.8( b)( 3), appear at the end of the instructions. The certification is to be made with reference to those regulatory provisions as set forth in the instructions.

The following is a summary of the topics, regarding the proposed collection of information, that the certification covers:

( a) It is necessary for the proper performance of agency functions;

( b) It avoids unnecessary duplication;

( c) It reduces burden on small entities;

( d) It uses plain, coherent, and unambiguous terminology that is understandable to respondents;

( e) Its implementation will be consistent and compatible with current reporting and recordkeeping practices;

( f) It indicates the retention periods for recordkeeping requirements;

( g) It informs respondents of the information called for under 5 CFR 1320.8( b)( 3): ( i) Why the information is being collected; ( ii) Use of information; ( iii) Burden estimate; ( iv) Nature of response ( voluntary, required for a benefit, or mandatory); ( v) Nature and extent of confidentiality; and ( vi) Need to display currently valid OMB control number;

( h) It was developed by an office that has planned and allocated resources for the efficient and effective management and use of the information to be collected ( see note in Item 19 of the instructions);

( i) It uses effective and efficient statistical survey methodology; and ( j) It makes appropriate use of information technology.

If you are unable to certify compliance with any of these provisions, identify the item below and explain the reason in Item 18 of the Supporting Statement.

Signature of Program Office Official Elaine Davies, Acting Director Office of Emergency and Remedial Response ( OERR)/( OSWER) Date Signature of Senior Official or designee Oscar Morales, Director Collection Strategies Division Office of Environmental Information ( OEI) Date OMB 83 I 10/ 95 Certification Requirement for Paperwork Reduction Act Submissions 5 CFR 1320.9 reads " As part of the agency submission to OMB of a proposed collection of information, the agency ( through the head of the agency, the Senior Official or their designee) shall certify ( and provide a record supporting such certification) that the proposed collection of information

"( a) is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including that the information to be collected will have practical utility;

"( b) is not unnecessarily duplicative of information otherwise reasonably accessible to the agency;

"( c) reduces to the extent practicable and appropriate the burden on persons who shall provide information to or for the agency, including with respect to small entities, as defined in the Regulatory Flexibility Act 5 U. S. C § 601( 6)), the use of such techniques as:

"( 1) establishing differing compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into account the resources available to those who are to respond; "( 2) the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance and reporting requirements; or collection of information , or any part thereof; "( 3) an exemption from coverage of the collection of information, or any part thereof;

"( d) is written using plain, coherent, and unambiguous terminology and is understandable to those who are to respond;

"( e) is to be implemented in ways consistent and compatible, to the maximum extent practicable, with the existing reporting and recordkeeping practices of those who are to respond;

"( f) indicates for each recordkeeping requirement the length of time persons are required to maintain the records specified;

"( g) informs potential respondents of the information called for under § 1320.8( b)( 3); [ see below]

"( h) has been developed by an office that has planned and allocated resources for the efficient and effective management and use of the information to be collected, including the processing of the information in a manner which shall enhance, where appropriate, the utility of the information to agencies and the public;

"( i) uses effective and efficient statistical survey methodology appropriate to the purpose for which the information is to be collected; and "( j) to the maximum extent practicable, uses appropriate information technology to reduce burden and improve data quality, agency efficiency and responsiveness to the public."

NOTE: 5 CFR 1320.8( b)( 3) requires that each collection of information:

"( 3) informs and provides reasonable notice to the potential persons to whom the collection of information is addressed of: "( i) the reasons the information is planned to be and/ or has been collected; "( ii) the way such information is planned to be and/ or has been used to further the proper performance of the functions of the agency; "( iii) an estimate, to the extent practicable, of the average burden of the collection ( together with a request that the public direct to the agency any comments concerning the accuracy of this burden estimate and any suggestions for reducing this burden); "( iv) whether responses to the collection of information are voluntary, required to obtain or retain a benefit ( citing authority), or mandatory ( citing authority); "( v) the nature and extent of confidentiality to be provided, if any ( citing authority); and "( vi) the fact that any agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number."

10/ 95


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 122 (Friday, June 24, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 37127-37128]
[FR Doc No: 2011-15910]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2008-E-0092]

Determination of Regulatory Review Period for Purposes of Patent
Extension; XYZAL

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has determined the
regulatory review period for XYZAL and is publishing this notice of
that determination as required by law. FDA has made the determination
because of the submission of an application to the Director of Patents
and Trademarks, Department of Commerce, for the extension of a patent
which claims that human drug product.

ADDRESSES: Submit electronic comments to http://www.regulations.gov.
Submit written petitions along with three copies and written comments
to the Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug
Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Beverly Friedman, Office of Regulatory
Policy, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg.
51, rm. 6222, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Drug Price Competition and Patent Term
Restoration Act of 1984 (Pub. L. 98-417) and the Generic Animal Drug
and Patent Term Restoration Act (Pub. L. 100-670) generally provide
that a patent may be extended for a period of up to 5 years so long as
the patented item (human drug product, animal drug product, medical
device, food additive, or color additive) was subject to regulatory
review by FDA before the item was marketed. Under these acts, a
product's regulatory review period forms the basis for determining the
amount of extension an applicant may receive.
    A regulatory review period consists of two periods of time: A
testing phase and an approval phase. For human drug products, the
testing phase begins when the exemption to permit the clinical
investigations of the drug becomes effective and runs until the
approval phase begins. The approval phase starts with the initial
submission of an application to market the human drug product and
continues until FDA grants permission to market the drug product.
Although only a portion of a regulatory review period may count toward
the actual amount of extension that the Director of Patents and
Trademarks may award (for example, half the testing phase must be
subtracted as well as any time that may have occurred before the patent
was issued), FDA's determination of the length of a regulatory review
period for a human drug product will include all of the testing phase
and approval phase as specified in 35 U.S.C. 156(g)(1)(B).
    FDA recently approved for marketing the human drug product XYZAL
(levocetirizine dihydrochloride). XYZAL is indicated for the relief of
symptoms associated with seasonal and perennial allergic rhinitis, and
the treatment of the uncomplicated skin manifestations of chronic
idiopathic urticaria. Subsequent to this approval, the Patent and
Trademark Office received a patent term restoration application for
XYZAL (U.S. Patent No. 5,698,558) from UCB Inc., and the Patent and
Trademark Office requested FDA's assistance in determining this
patent's eligibility for patent term restoration and that FDA determine
the product's regulatory review period. In a letter dated June 1, 2011,
FDA advised the Patent and Trademark Office that this human drug
product had undergone a regulatory review period and that the approval
of XYZAL represented the first permitted commercial marketing or use of
the product.
    FDA has determined that the applicable regulatory review period for
XYZAL is 305 days. Of this time, 0 days occurred during the testing
phase of the regulatory review period, while 305 days occurred during
the approval phase. These periods of time were derived from the
following dates:
    1. The date an exemption under section 505(i) of the Federal Food,
Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 355(i)) became
effective: FDA has verified the applicant's claim that no
investigational new drug application was submitted.
    2. The date the application was initially submitted with respect to
the human drug product under section 505(b) of the FD&C Act: July 25,
2006. The applicant claims July 24, 2006, as the date the new drug
application (NDA) for Xyzal (NDA 22-064) was initially submitted.
However, FDA records indicate that NDA 22-064 was submitted on July 25,
2006.
    3. The date the application was approved: May 25, 2007. FDA has
verified the applicant's claim that NDA 22-064 was approved on May 25,
2007.
    This determination of the regulatory review period establishes the
maximum potential length of a patent extension.

However, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office applies several statutory
limitations in its calculations of the actual period for patent
extension. In its application for patent extension, this applicant
seeks 245 days of patent term extension.
    Anyone with knowledge that any of the dates as published are
incorrect may submit to the Division of Dockets Management (see
ADDRESSES) either electronic or written comments and ask for a
redetermination by August 23, 2011. Furthermore, any interested person
may petition FDA for a determination regarding whether the applicant
for extension acted with due diligence during the regulatory review
period by December 21, 2011. To meet its burden, the petition must
contain sufficient facts to merit an FDA investigation. (See H. Rept.
857, part 1, 98th Cong., 2d sess., pp. 41-42, 1984.) Petitions should
be in the format specified in 21 CFR 10.30.
    Interested persons may submit to the Division of Dockets Management
(see ADDRESSES) electronic or written comments and written petitions.
It is only necessary to send one set of comments. It is no longer
necessary to send three copies of mailed comments. However, if you
submit a written petition, you must submit three copies of the
petition. Identify comments with the docket number found in brackets in
the heading of this document.
    Comments and petitions that have not been made publicly available
on http://www.regulations.gov may be viewed in the Division of Dockets
Management between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.

    Dated: June 2, 2011.
Jane A. Axelrad,
Associate Director for Policy, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research.
[FR Doc. 2011-15910 Filed 6-23-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-P


4/ 7/ 04 1 Next Steps Donna Randall Office of Pesticide Programs,

Environmental Fate and Effects Division 4/ 7/ 04 2 Overview ° Finalization of Version 2.0  highest priority ( summer 2004)

 Model and QA/ QC Documentation  Beta testing and case studies ° Additional Modifications ( Version 2. x  3. x)

1) Species sensitivity distribution extrapolation 2) Effect endpoint 3) Initial application date window 4) Crop scenario specific drainage area to volume capacity distributions 5) Variability and uncertainty in dispersion rate constants  reevaluation 4/ 7/ 04 3 1) Species Sensitivity Distribution ° Extrapolation of a species sensitivity distribution from a minimum required Level I risk assessment data set Species Sensitivity CDF ChemY GF C GS BG TP FHM FDS BKB WSYP CC SMB BT LMB BBH RBT FLC 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 LC50 ( Log 10)

Probability 4/ 7/ 04 4 1) Species Sensitivity Distribution

Acute freshwater fish  2 species ( prefer bluegill sunfish and rainbow trout)

Acute saltwater invertebrate  2 species ( mysid shrimp, mollusc,)

Acute saltwater fish  1 species ( prefer silverside species)

Acute freshwater invertebrate  1 species ( prefer Daphnia magna)

Required Level I Acute Tests 4/ 7/ 04 5 1) Species Sensitivity Distribution

Freshwater fish embryo/ larval ( or full life cycle) test  1 species

Saltwater invertebrate full life cycle ( or embryo/ larval) test  1 species ( mysid shrimp)

Saltwater fish embryo/ larval ( or full life cycle) test  1 species

Acute freshwater invertebrate life cycle test  1 species ( Daphnia magna)

Required Level I Chronic Tests 4/ 7/ 04 6 2) Effects Endpoint ° Develop tools, in collaboration with ORD, that provide risk managers with population level risk assessments 4/ 7/ 04 7 3) Initial Application Date ° Incorporate initial application date as a uniform distribution rather than a single input date Each line represents a different initial application date 4/ 7/ 04 8 4) Crop Scenario Specific DA/ VC Distributions ° Develop national or regional crop scenariospecific DA/ VC and water body volume distributions using digitized DA/ VC, water volume and crop data.

Kansas sorghum Texas sorghum 4/ 7/ 04 9 5) Variability and Uncertainty in Rate Constants ° Formal evaluation, using an expanded data set, regarding assumptions,

extrapolation and uncertainty factors used for setting rate constants   Magnitude of variability   Sample size and affect on uncertainty in estimates   Correlations between rate constants


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 176 (Wednesday, September 13, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 42932-42934]
[FR Doc No: 2017-19075]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 97

[Docket No. 31152; Amdt. No. 3763]

Standard Instrument Approach Procedures, and Takeoff Minimums and
Obstacle Departure Procedures; Miscellaneous Amendments

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This rule establishes, amends, suspends, or removes Standard
Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAPs) and associated Takeoff Minimums
and Obstacle Departure Procedures (ODPs) for operations at certain
airports. These regulatory actions are needed because of the adoption
of new or revised criteria, or because of changes occurring in the
National Airspace System, such as the commissioning of new navigational
facilities, adding new obstacles, or changing air traffic requirements.
These changes are designed to provide safe and efficient use of the
navigable airspace and to promote safe flight operations under
instrument flight rules at the affected airports.

DATES: This rule is effective September 13, 2017. The compliance date
for each SIAP, associated Takeoff Minimums, and ODP is specified in the
amendatory provisions.
    The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in
the regulations is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as
of September 13, 2017.

ADDRESSES: Availability of matters incorporated by reference in the
amendment is as follows:

For Examination

    1. U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Ops-M30, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., West Bldg., Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
    2. The FAA Air Traffic Organization Service Area in which the
affected airport is located;
    3. The office of Aeronautical Navigation Products, 6500 South
MacArthur Blvd., Oklahoma City, OK 73169 or,
    4. The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For
information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-
6030, or go to:http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html.

Availability

    All SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs are available online free
of charge. Visit the National Flight Data Center at nfdc.faa.gov to
register. Additionally, individual SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and ODP
copies may be obtained from the FAA Air Traffic Organization Service
Area in which the affected airport is located.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thomas J. Nichols, Flight Procedure
Standards Branch (AFS-420), Flight Technologies and Programs Divisions,
Flight Standards Service, Federal Aviation Administration, Mike
Monroney Aeronautical Center, 6500 South MacArthur Blvd., Oklahoma
City, OK 73169 (Mail Address: P.O. Box 25082, Oklahoma City, OK 73125)
Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This rule amends Title 14 of the Code of
Federal Regulations, Part 97 (14 CFR part 97), by establishing,
amending, suspending, or removes SIAPS, Takeoff Minimums and/or ODPS.
The complete regulatory description of each SIAP and its associated
Takeoff Minimums or ODP for an identified airport is listed on FAA form
documents which are incorporated by reference in this amendment under 5
U.S.C. 552(a), 1 CFR part 51, and 14 CFR part 97.20. The applicable FAA
forms are FAA Forms 8260-3, 8260-4, 8260-5, 8260-15A, and 8260-15B when
required by an entry on 8260-15A.
    The large number of SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, their complex
nature, and the need for a special format make publication in the
Federal Register expensive and impractical. Further, airmen do not use
the regulatory text of the SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums or ODPs, but instead
refer to their graphic depiction on charts printed by publishers of
aeronautical materials. Thus, the advantages of incorporation by
reference are realized and publication of the complete description of
each SIAP, Takeoff Minimums and ODP listed on FAA form documents is
unnecessary. This amendment provides the affected CFR sections and
specifies the types of SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs with their
applicable effective dates. This amendment also identifies the airport
and its location, the procedure, and the amendment number.

Availability and Summary of Material Incorporated by Reference

    The material incorporated by reference is publicly available as
listed in the ADDRESSES section.
    The material incorporated by reference describes SIAPS, Takeoff
Minimums and/or ODPS as identified in the amendatory language for part
97 of this final rule.

The Rule

    This amendment to 14 CFR part 97 is effective upon publication of
each separate SIAP, Takeoff Minimums and ODP as Amended in the
transmittal. Some SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and textual ODP amendments
may have been issued previously by the FAA in a Flight Data Center
(FDC) Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) as an emergency action of immediate
flight safety relating directly to published aeronautical charts.
    The circumstances that created the need for some SIAP and Takeoff
Minimums and ODP amendments may require making them effective in less
than 30 days. For the remaining SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, an
effective date at least 30 days after publication is provided.
    Further, the SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs contained in this
amendment are based on the criteria contained in the U.S. Standard for
Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS). In developing these SIAPs and
Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, the TERPS criteria were applied to the
conditions existing or anticipated at the affected airports. Because of
the close and immediate relationship between these SIAPs, Takeoff
Minimums and ODPs, and safety in air commerce, I find that notice and
public procedure under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) are impracticable and contrary
to the public interest and, where applicable, under 5 U.S.C. 553(d),
good cause exists for making some SIAPs effective in less than 30 days.
    The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
It, therefore--(1) is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26,1979); and
(3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the
anticipated impact is so minimal. For the same reason, the FAA
certifies that this amendment will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of
the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 97

    Air traffic control, Airports, Incorporation by reference,
Navigation (air).

    Issued in Washington, DC, on August 25, 2017.
John S. Duncan,
Director, Flight Standards Service.

Adoption of the Amendment

    Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, Title 14,
Code of Federal Regulations, Part 97 (14 CFR part 97) is amended by
establishing, amending, suspending, or removing Standard Instrument
Approach Procedures and/or Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle Departure
Procedures effective at 0901 UTC on the dates specified, as follows:

PART 97--STANDARD INSTRUMENT APPROACH PROCEDURES

0
1. The authority citation for part 97 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40103, 40106, 40113,
40114, 40120, 44502, 44514, 44701, 44719, 44721-44722.

0
2. Part 97 is amended to read as follows:

Effective 12 October 2017

Grayling, AK, Grayling, RNAV (GPS) RWY 17, Orig
Grayling, AK, Grayling, RNAV (GPS) RWY 35, Orig
Grayling, AK, Grayling, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Orig
Del Norte, CO, Astronaut Kent Rominger, HOMME ONE, Graphic DP
Del Norte, CO, Astronaut Kent Rominger, RNAV (GPS) RWY 24, Orig
Del Norte, CO, Astronaut Kent Rominger, Takeoff Minimums and
Obstacle DP, Orig
Danbury, CT, Danbury Muni, LOC RWY 8, Amdt 6
Washington, DC, Ronald Reagan Washington National, LDA Y RWY 19,
Amdt 1
Orlando, FL, Orlando Intl, ILS OR LOC RWY 17L, ILS RWY 17L (SA CAT
I), ILS RWY 17L (CAT II), Amdt 2A
Orlando, FL, Orlando Intl, ILS OR LOC RWY 17R, ILS RWY 17R (CAT II),
Amdt 5D
Orlando, FL, Orlando Intl, ILS OR LOC RWY 18R, Amdt 10A
Orlando, FL, Orlando Intl, ILS OR LOC RWY 35L, ILS RWY 35L (SA CAT
I), ILS RWY 35L (CAT II), ILS RWY 35L (CAT III), Amdt 8
Orlando, FL, Orlando Intl, ILS OR LOC RWY 35R, ILS RWY 35R (SA CAT
I), ILS RWY 35R (CAT II), Amdt 3
Orlando, FL, Orlando Intl, ILS OR LOC RWY 36R, ILS RWY 36R (SA CAT
I), ILS RWY 36R (CAT II), ILS RWY 36R (CAT III), Amdt 11
Orlando, FL, Orlando Intl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 36L, Amdt 2
Orlando, FL, Orlando Intl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 36R, Amdt 2
Ashburn, GA, Turner County, RNAV (GPS) RWY 17, Orig
Ashburn, GA, Turner County, RNAV (GPS) RWY 35, Orig
Ashburn, GA, Turner County, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Orig

Atlanta, GA, Hartsfield--Jackson Atlanta Intl, RNAV (RNP) Z RWY 8L,
Amdt 1
Atlanta, GA, Hartsfield--Jackson Atlanta Intl, RNAV (RNP) Z RWY 10,
Amdt 1
Atlanta, GA, Hartsfield--Jackson Atlanta Intl, RNAV (RNP) Z RWY 26R,
Amdt 1
Atlanta, GA, Hartsfield--Jackson Atlanta Intl, RNAV (RNP) Z RWY 28,
Amdt 1
Muscatine, IA, Muscatine Muni, ILS OR LOC RWY 24, Amdt 2
Muscatine, IA, Muscatine Muni, VOR RWY 6, Orig-D, CANCELED
Mc Call, ID, Mc Call Muni, PEPUC TWO, Graphic DP
Gonzales, LA, Louisiana Rgnl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 35, Orig-A
Boston, MA, General Edward Lawrence Logan Intl, ILS OR LOC RWY 4R,
ILS RWY 4R (SA CAT I), ILS RWY 4R, (CAT II), ILS RWY 4R (CAT III),
Amdt 10C
Boston, MA, General Edward Lawrence Logan Intl, ILS OR LOC RWY 15R,
Amdt 1F
Boston, MA, General Edward Lawrence Logan Intl, ILS OR LOC RWY 22L,
Amdt 8C
Boston, MA, General Edward Lawrence Logan Intl, ILS OR LOC RWY 27,
Amdt 2D
Boston, MA, General Edward Lawrence Logan Intl, ILS OR LOC RWY 33L,
ILS RWY 33L (SA CAT I), ILS RWY 33L (CAT II), ILS RWY 33L (CAT III),
Amdt 5D
Boston, MA, General Edward Lawrence Logan Intl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 4L,
Orig-A
Boston, MA, General Edward Lawrence Logan Intl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 4R,
Amdt 2A
Boston, MA, General Edward Lawrence Logan Intl, RNAV (GPS) 15R, Amdt
1D
Boston, MA, General Edward Lawrence Logan Intl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 22L,
Amdt 1C
Boston, MA, General Edward Lawrence Logan Intl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 27,
Orig-E
Boston, MA, General Edward Lawrence Logan Intl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 32,
Orig-G
Boston, MA, General Edward Lawrence Logan Intl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 33L,
Amdt 2C
Mc Gregor, MN, Isedor Iverson, RNAV (GPS) RWY 14, Amdt 1
Laurel, MS, Hesler-Noble Field, NDB RWY 13, Amdt 8A, CANCELED
Cross Keys, NJ, Cross Keys, VOR OR GPS RWY 9, Amdt 6A
Wildwood, NJ, Cape May County, LOC RWY 19, Amdt 7
Wildwood, NJ, Cape May County, RNAV (GPS) RWY 1, Orig
Wildwood, NJ, Cape May County, RNAV (GPS) RWY 10, Amdt 1
Wildwood, NJ, Cape May County, RNAV (GPS) RWY 19, Amdt 1
Wildwood, NJ, Cape May County, RNAV (GPS) RWY 28, Orig
Wildwood, NJ, Cape May County, VOR-A, Amdt 4
Bucyrus, OH, Port Bucyrus-Crawford County, RNAV (GPS) RWY 22, Orig-A
Willard, OH, Willard, VOR-A, Orig-A
Amarillo, TX, Rick Husband Amarillo Intl, RNAV (RNP) Z RWY 4, Amdt 1
Amarillo, TX, Rick Husband Amarillo Intl, RNAV (RNP) Z RWY 13, Amdt
1
Amarillo, TX, Rick Husband Amarillo Intl, RNAV (RNP) Z RWY 22, Amdt
1
Amarillo, TX, Rick Husband Amarillo Intl, RNAV (RNP) Z RWY 31, Amdt
1
Georgetown, TX, Georgetown Muni, RNAV (GPS) RWY 11, Amdt 1
Georgetown, TX, Georgetown Muni, RNAV (GPS) RWY 29, Amdt 1
Fillmore, UT, Fillmore Muni, RNAV (GPS) RWY 4, Amdt 1
Fillmore, UT, Fillmore Muni, RNAV (GPS) RWY 22, Amdt 1
Salt Lake City, UT, Salt Lake City Intl, ILS OR LOC RWY 16R, ILS RWY
16R (SA CAT I), ILS RWY 16R (CAT II), ILS RWY 16R (CAT III), Amdt 3D
Salt Lake City, UT, Salt Lake City Intl, ILS OR LOC RWY 34L, ILS RWY
34L (SA CAT I), ILS RWY 34L (CAT II), ILS RWY 34L (CAT III), Amdt 3C
Seattle, WA, Seattle-Tacoma Intl, ILS OR LOC 16C, ILS RWY 16C (SA
CAT I), ILS RWY 16C (CAT II), ILS RWY 16C (CAT III), Amdt 16A
Seattle, WA, Seattle-Tacoma Intl, ILS OR LOC RWY 16L, ILS RWY 16L
(SA CAT I), ILS RWY 16L (CAT II), ILS RWY 16L (CAT III), Amdt 7A
Seattle, WA, Seattle-Tacoma Intl, ILS OR LOC RWY 16R, ILS RWY 16R
(SA CAT I), ILS RWY 16R (CAT II), ILS RWY 16R (CAT III), Amdt 4A
Seattle, WA, Seattle-Tacoma Intl, ILS OR LOC RWY 34C, ILS RWY 34C
(SA CAT I), ILS RWY 34C (SA CAT II), Amdt 3D
Seattle, WA, Seattle-Tacoma Intl, ILS OR LOC RWY 34L, ILS RWY 34L
(SA CAT I), ILS RWY 34L (SA CAT II), Amdt 1E
Seattle, WA, Seattle-Tacoma Intl, ILS OR LOC RWY 34R, ILS RWY 34R
(SA CAT I), ILS RWY 34R (SA CAT II), Amdt 2D
Seattle, WA, Seattle-Tacoma Intl, RNAV (GPS) Y RWY 16C, Amdt 3A
Seattle, WA, Seattle-Tacoma Intl, RNAV (GPS) Y RWY 16L, Amdt 5A
Seattle, WA, Seattle-Tacoma Intl, RNAV (GPS) Y RWY 16R, Amdt 2A
Seattle, WA, Seattle-Tacoma Intl, RNAV (GPS) Y RWY 34C, Amdt 2C
Seattle, WA, Seattle-Tacoma Intl, RNAV (GPS) Y RWY 34L, Amdt 1C
Seattle, WA, Seattle-Tacoma Intl, RNAV (GPS) Y RWY 34R, Amdt 2D
Seattle, WA, Seattle-Tacoma Intl, RNAV (RNP) Z RWY 16C, Amdt 1A
Seattle, WA, Seattle-Tacoma Intl, RNAV (RNP) Z RWY 16L, Amdt 2A
Seattle, WA, Seattle-Tacoma Intl, RNAV (RNP) Z RWY 16R, Amdt 1A
Seattle, WA, Seattle-Tacoma Intl, RNAV (RNP) Z RWY 34C, Amdt 2A
Seattle, WA, Seattle-Tacoma Intl, RNAV (RNP) Z RWY 34L, Amdt 2A
Seattle, WA, Seattle-Tacoma Intl, RNAV (RNP) Z RWY 34R, Amdt 1A
Casper, WY, Casper/Natrona County Intl, ILS OR LOC RWY 8, Amdt 25B,
CANCELED
Casper, WY, Casper/Natrona County Intl, LOC RWY 8, Orig
Riverton, WY, Riverton Rgnl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 10, Amdt 2B
Riverton, WY, Riverton Rgnl, VOR RWY 10, Amdt 10B

    Rescinded: On August 17, 2017 (82 FR 39011), the FAA published
an Amendment in Docket No. 31148, Amdt No. 3759 to Part 97 of the
Federal Aviation Regulations under section 97.23, 97.33 and 97.37.
The following entries for Newberry, MI, and Seattle, WA, effective
October 12, 2017, are hereby rescinded in their entirety:

Newberry, MI, Luce County, VOR RWY 11, Amdt 12, CANCELED
Newberry, MI, Luce County, VOR RWY 29, Amdt 12, CANCELED
Seattle, WA, Boeing Field/King County Intl, RNAV (RNP) Z RWY 14R,
Amdt 1
Seattle, WA, Boeing Field/King County Intl, Takeoff Minimums and
Obstacle DP, Amdt 8

[FR Doc. 2017-19075 Filed 9-12-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P