[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 229 (Wednesday, November 28, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 70908-70914]
[FR Doc No: 2012-28472]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0060; FRL-9365-1]

Dinotefuran; Pesticide Tolerances

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes tolerances for residues of
dinotefuran in or on rice grain, egg, and poultry meat byproducts.
Mitsui Chemicals Agro Inc., c/o Landis International, Inc., requested
these tolerances under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act
(FFDCA).

DATES: This regulation is effective November 28, 2012. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received on or before January 28, 2013,
and must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40
CFR part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION).

ADDRESSES: The docket for this action, identified by docket
identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0060, is available at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of Pesticide Programs Regulatory
Public Docket (OPP Docket) in the Environmental Protection Agency
Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301 Constitution
Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001. The Public Reading Room is open
from 8:30

a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The
telephone number for the Public Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the
telephone number for the OPP Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Please review
the visitor instructions and additional information about the docket
available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

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

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

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

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

    You may access a frequently updated electronic version of EPA's
tolerance regulations at 40 CFR part 180 through the Government
Printing Office's e-CFR site at http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?&c=ecfr&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title40/40tab_02.tpl.

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

    Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an
objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a
hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a
hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided
in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify
docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0060 in the subject line on the first
page of your submission. All objections and requests for a hearing must
be in writing, and must be received by the Hearing Clerk on or before
January 28, 2013. Addresses for mail and hand delivery of objections
and hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b).
    In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the
Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of
the filing (excluding any Confidential Business Information (CBI)) for
inclusion in the public docket. Information not marked confidential
pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without
prior notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your objection or hearing
request, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0060, by one of
the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Do not submit
electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted
by statute.
     Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental Protection Agency Docket
Center (EPA/DC), (28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC
20460-0001.
     Hand Delivery: To make special arrangements for hand
delivery or delivery of boxed information, please follow the
instructions at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.htm.
Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along
with more information about dockets generally, is available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

II. Summary of Petitioned-For Tolerance

    In the Federal Register of May 23, 2012, (77 FR 30481) (FRL-9347-
8), EPA issued a document pursuant to FFDCA section 408(d)(3), 21
U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a pesticide petition (PP
1F7953) by Mitsui Chemicals Agro, Inc., c/o Landis International Ltd.,
P. O. Box 5126, Valdosta, GA 31603. The petition requested that 40 CFR
180.603 be amended by establishing tolerances for residues of the
insecticide dinotefuran (RS)-1-methyl-2-nitro-3-((tetrahydro-3-
furyl)methyl)guanidine and its major metabolites DN, 1-methyl-3-
(tetrahydro-3-furylmethyl)guanidine and UF, 1- methyl-3-(tetrahydro-3-
furylmethyl)-urea, in or on rice, grain at 10 parts per million (ppm).
That document referenced a summary of the petition prepared by Mitsui
Chemicals Agro, Inc., the registrant, which is available in the docket,
http://www.regulations.gov. There were no comments received in response
to the notice of filing.
    Based upon review of the data supporting the petition, EPA has
modified the level for which the tolerance is being established for
rice, grain. EPA has also established tolerances for residues of
dinotefuran in eggs and poultry, meat byproducts. The reason for these
changes is explained in Unit IV.C.

III. Aggregate Risk Assessment and Determination of Safety

    Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish a
tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a
food) only if EPA determines that the tolerance is ``safe.'' Section
408(b)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines ``safe'' to mean that ``there is a
reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure
to the pesticide chemical residue, including all anticipated dietary
exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable
information.'' This includes exposure through drinking water and in
residential settings, but does not include occupational exposure.
Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA requires EPA to give special
consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide
chemical residue in establishing a tolerance and to ``ensure that there
is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and
children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue. * *
*''
    Consistent with FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), and the factors
specified in FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), EPA has reviewed the available
scientific data and other relevant information in support of this
action. EPA has sufficient data to assess the hazards of and to make a
determination on aggregate exposure for denotefuran including exposure
resulting from the tolerances established by this action. EPA's
assessment of exposures and risks associated with denotefuran follows.

A. Toxicological Profile

    EPA has evaluated the available toxicity data and considered its
validity, completeness, and reliability as well as the relationship of
the results of the studies to human risk. EPA has also considered
available information concerning the variability of the sensitivities
of major identifiable subgroups of consumers, including infants and
children.
    Dinotefuran has low acute toxicity by oral, dermal, and inhalation
exposure routes. It is not a dermal sensitizer, but causes a low level
of skin irritation. The main target of toxicity is the nervous system
but effects on the nervous system were only observed at high doses.
Nervous system toxicity was manifested as clinical signs and

decreased motor activity seen after acute dosing (in both rats and
rabbits) and changes in motor activity which are consistent with
effects on the nicotinic cholinergic nervous system seen after repeated
dosing. Typically, low to moderate levels of neonicotinoids, such as
dinotefuran, activate the nicotinic acetylcholine receptors causing
stimulation of the peripheral nervous system (PNS). High levels of
neonicotinoids can over stimulate the PNS, maintaining cation channels
in the open state which blocks the action potential and leads to
paralysis.
    Dinotefuran was well tolerated at high doses following dietary
administration for 90 days to mice, rats, and dogs. The most sensitive
effects were decreases in body weight and/or body weight gain but even
these effects occurred at or near the limit dose. Changes in spleen and
thymus weights were seen in mice, rats and dogs following subchronic
and chronic dietary exposures. However, these weight changes were not
corroborated with alterations in hematology parameters,
histopathological lesions in these organs, or toxicity to the
hematopoietic system. Furthermore, the toxicology data base contains
immunotoxicity studies in mice and rats and a developmental
immunotoxicity study in rats. In the immunotoxicity studies there were
no effect on T-cell dependent antibody response when tested up to the
limit dose in male and female mice and in male and female rats. There
were no changes in spleen and thymus weight and there were no
histopathological lesions in these organs in those studies. In the
developmental immunotoxicity study, there was no evidence of an effect
on the functionality of the immune system in rats that were exposed to
dinotefuran at the limit dose during the prenatal, postnatal, and post-
weaning periods. Consequently, the thymus weight changes seen in dogs
and the spleen weight changes seen in mice and rats were not considered
to be toxicologically relevant.
    No systemic or neurotoxicity was seen following repeated dermal
applications at the limit dose to rats for 28 days. No systemic or
portal of entry effects were seen following repeated inhalation
exposure at the maximum obtainable concentrations to rats for 28 days.
    In the prenatal studies, no maternal or developmental toxicity was
seen at the limit dose in rats. In rabbits, maternal toxicity
manifested as clinical signs of neurotoxicity but no developmental
toxicity was seen. In the reproduction study, parental, offspring, and
reproductive toxicity was seen at the limit dose. Parental toxicity
included decreased body weight gain, transient decrease in food
consumption, and decreased thyroid weights. Offspring toxicity was
characterized as decreased forelimb grip strength or hindlimb grip
strength in the F1 pups. There was no adverse effect on
reproductive performance at any dose. In the developmental
neurotoxicity study, no maternal or offspring toxicity was seen at any
dose including the limit dose.
    There was no evidence of carcinogenicity in male and female mice
and in male and female rats fed diets containing dinotefuran at the
limit dose for 78 weeks to mice and 104 weeks to rats. Dinotefuran was
non-mutagenic in both in vivo and in vitro assays. Specific information
on the studies received and the nature of the adverse effects caused by
dinotefuran as well as the no-observed-adverse-effect-level (NOAEL) and
the lowest-observed-adverse-effect-level (LOAEL) from the toxicity
studies can be found at http://www.regulations.gov in document
``Dinotefuran: Human Health Risk Assessment for Proposed Section 3 Uses
on Rice and Food/Feed Handling Establishments, and New Horse Spot-On
and Total Release Fogger Products,'' at pages 40-45 in docket ID number
EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0060.

B. Toxicological Points of Departure/Levels of Concern

    Once a pesticide's toxicological profile is determined, EPA
identifies toxicological points of departure (POD) and levels of
concern to use in evaluating the risk posed by human exposure to the
pesticide. For hazards that have a threshold below which there is no
appreciable risk, the toxicological POD is used as the basis for
derivation of reference values for risk assessment. PODs are developed
based on a careful analysis of the doses in each toxicological study to
determine the dose at which no adverse effects are observed (the NOAEL)
and the lowest dose at which adverse effects of concern are identified
(the LOAEL). Uncertainty/safety factors are used in conjunction with
the POD to calculate a safe exposure level--generally referred to as a
population-adjusted dose (PAD) or a reference dose (RfD)--and a safe
margin of exposure (MOE). For non-threshold risks, the Agency assumes
that any amount of exposure will lead to some degree of risk. Thus, the
Agency estimates risk in terms of the probability of an occurrence of
the adverse effect expected in a lifetime. For more information on the
general principles EPA uses in risk characterization and a complete
description of the risk assessment process, see http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/factsheets/riskassess.htm.
    A summary of the toxicological endpoints for dinotefuran used for
human risk assessment is shown in Table 1 of this unit. The dinotefuran
hazard profile was updated in the most recent risk assessment completed
on July 20, 2012, and nothing has changed since that update. For a more
detailed discussion of the endpoint selection, refer to Appendix A.3 on
pages 44-47 in the document titled ``Dinotefuran: Human Health Risk
Assessment for Proposed Section 3 Uses on Tuberous and Corm Vegetables
Subgroup 1C, Onion Subgroup 3-07A, Onion Subgroup 3-07B, Small Fruit
Subgroup 13-07F, Berry Subgroup 13-07H, Peach, and Watercress, And a
Tolerance on Imported Tea'' in docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0433.

  Table 1--Summary of Toxicological Doses and Endpoints for Dinotefuran for Use in Human Health Risk Assessment
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Point of departure and
         Exposure/scenario              uncertainty/safety   RfD, PAD, LOC for risk    Study and toxicological
                                             factors                assessment                 effects
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acute dietary (General population    NOAEL = 125 mg/kg/day.  aRfD = 1.25 mg/kg/day.  Developmental Toxicity
 including infants and children).    UFA = 10X.............  aPAD = 1.25 mg/kg/day.   Study in Rabbits
                                     UFH = 10X.............                          LOAEL = 300 mg/kg/day based
                                     FQPA SF = 1X..........                           on clinical signs in does
                                                                                (prone position, panting,
                                                                                tremor and erythema) seen
                                                                                following the first dose
                                                                                on Gestation Day 6.
Chronic dietary (All populations)..  NOAEL= 99.7 mg/kg/day.  cRfD = 1.0 mg/kg/day..  Chronic Toxicity/
                                     UFA = 10X.............  cPAD = 1.0 mg/kg/day..   Carcinogenicity Study in
                                     UFH = 10X.............                           Rats
                                     FQPA SF = 1X..........                          LOAEL = 991 mg/kg/day based
                                                                                on decreased body weight
                                                                                gain and nephrotoxicity.

Incidental Oral Short-Term (1-30     NOAEL= 99.7 mg/kg/day.  LOC for MOE = 100.....  Chronic Toxicity/
 days).                              UFA = 10X.............                           Carcinogenicity Study in
                                     UFH = 10X.............                           Rats
                                     FQPA SF = 1X..........                          LOAEL = 991 mg/kg/day based
                                                                                on decreased body weight
                                                                                gain and nephrotoxicity.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FQPA SF = Food Quality Protection Act Safety Factor. LOAEL = lowest-observed-adverse-effect-level. LOC = level
  of concern. mg/kg/day = milligram/kilogram/day. MOE = margin of exposure. NOAEL = no-observed-adverse-effect-
  level. PAD = population adjusted dose (a = acute, c = chronic). RfD = reference dose. UFA = extrapolation from
  animal to human (interspecies). UFH = potential variation in sensitivity among members of the human population
  (intraspecies).

C. Exposure Assessment

    1. Dietary exposure from food and feed uses. In evaluating dietary
exposure to dinotefuran, EPA considered exposure under the petitioned-
for tolerances as well as all existing dinotefuran tolerances in 40 CFR
180.603. EPA assessed dietary exposures from dinotefuran in food as
follows:
    i. Acute exposure. Quantitative acute dietary exposure and risk
assessments are performed for a food-use pesticide, if a toxicological
study has indicated the possibility of an effect of concern occurring
as a result of a 1-day or single exposure.
    Such effects were identified for dinotefuran. In estimating acute
dietary exposure, EPA used food consumption information from the U.S.
Department of Agriculture (USDA) National Health and Nutrition
Examination Survey, What We Eat in America, (NHANES/WWEIA). This
dietary survey was conducted from 2003 to 2008. As to residue levels in
food, EPA assumed 100 percent crop treated (PCT) and tolerance-level
residues for all current and proposed crops.
    ii. Chronic exposure. In conducting the chronic dietary exposure
assessment EPA used the food consumption data from the USDA 1994-1996
and 1998 Continuing Survey of Food Intake (CSFII). As to residue levels
in food, EPA assumed 100 percent crop treated (PCT) and tolerance-level
residues for all current and proposed crops.
    iii. Cancer. Based on the data summarized in Unit III.A., EPA has
concluded that dinotefuran does not pose a cancer risk to humans.
Therefore, a dietary exposure assessment for the purpose of assessing
cancer risk is unnecessary.
    iv. Anticipated residue and percent crop treated (PCT) information.
EPA did not use anticipated residue and/or PCT information in the
dietary assessment for dinotefuran. Tolerance level residues and/or
100% CT were assumed for all food commodities.
    2. Dietary exposure from drinking water. The Agency used screening
level water exposure models in the dietary exposure analysis and risk
assessment for dinotefuran in drinking water. These simulation models
take into account data on the physical, chemical, and fate/transport
characteristics of dinotefuran. Further information regarding EPA
drinking water models used in pesticide exposure assessment can be
found at http://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/models/water/index.htm.
    Based on the Tier 1 Rice Model and Screening Concentration in
Ground Water (SCI-GROW) models, the estimated drinking water
concentrations (EDWCs) of dinotefuran for acute exposures are estimated
to be 269 parts per billion (ppb) for surface water and 4.9 ppb for
ground water and for chronic exposures for non-cancer assessments are
estimated to be 253-257 ppb, depending upon retention time from 10 to
30 days, for surface water and 4.9 ppb for ground water.
    Modeled estimates of drinking water concentrations were directly
entered into the dietary exposure model. For acute dietary risk
assessment, the water concentration value of 269 ppb was used to assess
the contribution to drinking water and for chronic dietary risk
assessment, the water concentration of value 257 ppb was used to assess
the contribution to drinking water.
    3. From non-dietary exposure. The term ``residential exposure'' is
used in this document to refer to non-occupational, non-dietary
exposure (e.g., for lawn and garden pest control, indoor pest control,
termiticides, and flea and tick control on pets).
    Dinotefuran is currently registered for the following uses that
could result in residential exposures: Turf, ornamentals, vegetable
gardens, pet spot-ons, indoor aerosol sprays, crack and crevice sprays.
EPA assessed residential exposure using the following assumptions: Each
of these existing residential use patterns were reassessed in the
latest human health risk assessment using the updated 2012 Residential
Standard Operating Procedures and body weights. Refer to the document
titled ``Dinotefuran: Human Health Risk Assessment for Proposed Section
3 Uses on Tuberous and Corm Vegetables Subgroup 1C, Onion Subgroup 3-
07A, Onion Subgroup 3-07B, Small Fruit Subgroup 13-07F, Berry Subgroup
13-07H, Peach, and Watercress, And a Tolerance on Imported Tea'' in
docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0433.
    There are no non-dietary exposure scenarios associated with use on
rice. Further information regarding EPA standard assumptions and
generic inputs for residential exposures may be found at http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/trac/science/trac6a05.pdf.
    4. Cumulative effects from substances with a common mechanism of
toxicity. Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of FFDCA requires that, when
considering whether to establish, modify, or revoke a tolerance, the
Agency consider ``available information'' concerning the cumulative
effects of a particular pesticide's residues and ``other substances
that have a common mechanism of toxicity.''
    EPA has not found dinotefuran to share a common mechanism of
toxicity with any other substances, and dinotefuran does not appear to
produce a toxic metabolite produced by other substances. For the
purposes of this tolerance action, therefore, EPA has assumed that
dinotefuran does not have a common mechanism of toxicity with other
substances. For information regarding EPA's efforts to determine which
chemicals have a common mechanism of toxicity and to evaluate the
cumulative effects of such chemicals, see EPA's Web site at http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/cumulative.

D. Safety Factor for Infants and Children

    1. In general. Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA provides that EPA
shall apply an additional tenfold (10X) margin of safety for infants
and children in the

case of threshold effects to account for prenatal and postnatal
toxicity and the completeness of the database on toxicity and exposure
unless EPA determines based on reliable data that a different margin of
safety will be safe for infants and children. This additional margin of
safety is commonly referred to as the FQPA Safety Factor (SF). In
applying this provision, EPA either retains the default value of 10X,
or uses a different additional safety factor when reliable data
available to EPA support the choice of a different factor.
    2. Prenatal and postnatal sensitivity. In the pre-natal studies, no
maternal or developmental toxicity was seen at the limit dose in rats.
In rabbits, maternal toxicity manifested as clinical signs of
neurotoxicity but no developmental toxicity was seen. In the rat
reproduction study, parental, offspring, and reproductive toxicity was
seen at the limit dose. Parental toxicity included decreased body
weight gain, transient decrease in food consumption, and decreased
thyroid weights. Offspring toxicity was characterized as decreased
forelimb grip strength or hindlimb grip strength in the F1
pups. There was no adverse effect on reproductive performance at any
dose. In the developmental neurotoxicity study, no maternal or
offspring toxicity was seen at any dose including the limit dose.
    3. Conclusion. EPA has determined that reliable data show the
safety of infants and children would be adequately protected if the
FQPA SF were reduced to 1X. That decision is based on the following
findings:
    i. The toxicity database for dinotefuran is complete.
    ii. The neurotoxic potential of dinotefuran has been adequately
considered. Dinotefuran is a neonicotinoid and has a neurotoxic mode of
pesticidal action. Consistent with the mode of action, changes in motor
activity were seen in repeat-dose studies, including the subchronic
neurotoxicity study. Additionally, decreased grip strength and brain
weight was observed in the offspring of a multi-generation reproduction
study albeit at doses close to the limit dose. For these reasons, a
developmental neurotoxicity (DNT) study was required. The DNT study did
not show evidence of a unique sensitivity of the developing nervous
system; no effects on neurobehavioral parameters were seen in the
offspring at any dose, including the limit dose.
    iii. There is no evidence that dinotefuran results in increased
susceptibility in in utero rats or rabbits in the prenatal
developmental studies or in young rats in the 2-generation reproduction
study.
    iv. There are no residual uncertainties identified in the exposure
databases. The dietary food exposure assessments were performed based
on 100 percent crop treated (PCT) and tolerance-level residues. EPA
made conservative (protective) assumptions in the ground and surface
water modeling used to assess exposure to dinotefuran in drinking
water. EPA used similarly conservative assumptions to assess
postapplication exposure of children for incidental oral exposures.
These assessments will not underestimate the exposure and risks posed
by dinotefuran.

E. Aggregate Risks and Determination of Safety

    EPA determines whether acute and chronic dietary pesticide
exposures are safe by comparing aggregate exposure estimates to the
acute PAD (aPAD) and chronic PAD (cPAD). For linear cancer risks, EPA
calculates the lifetime probability of acquiring cancer given the
estimated aggregate exposure. Short-, intermediate-, and chronic-term
risks are evaluated by comparing the estimated aggregate food, water,
and residential exposure to the appropriate PODs to ensure that an
adequate MOE exists.
    1. Acute risk. Using the exposure assumptions discussed in this
unit for acute exposure, the acute dietary exposure from food and water
to dinotefuran will occupy 7.6 percent of the aPAD for all infants < 1
year old, the population group receiving the greatest exposure.
    2. Chronic risk. Using the exposure assumptions described in this
unit for chronic exposure, EPA has concluded that chronic exposure to
dinotefuran from food and water will utilize 3.9 percent of the cPAD
for children 1 to 2 years old, the population group receiving the
greatest exposure. Based on the explanation in Unit III.C.3., regarding
residential use patterns, chronic residential exposure to residues of
dinotefuran is not expected.
    3. Short-term risk. Short-term aggregate exposure takes into
account short-term residential exposure plus chronic exposure to food
and water (considered to be a background exposure level).
    Dinotefuran is currently registered for uses that could result in
short-term residential exposure, and the Agency has determined that it
is appropriate to aggregate chronic exposure through food and water
with short-term residential exposures to dinotefuran.
    Using the exposure assumptions described in this unit for short-
term exposures, EPA has concluded the combined short-term food, water,
and residential exposures result in aggregate MOEs of 790 for children
for co-occurring post-application exposure resulting in the greatest
exposure (i.e., from the potentially co-occurring use of the total
release fogger product and the existing cat and dog spot-on uses.
Because EPA's level of concern for dinotefuran is a MOE of 100 or
below, these MOEs are not of concern.
    4. Intermediate-term risk. Intermediate-term aggregate exposure
takes into account intermediate-term residential exposure plus chronic
exposure to food and water (considered to be a background exposure
level). Intermediate-term exposure is not expected for the adult
residential exposure pathway. Therefore, the intermediate-term
aggregate risk would be equivalent to the chronic dietary exposure
estimate. For children, intermediate-term incidental oral exposures
could potentially occur from indoor uses. However, while it is possible
for children to be exposed for longer durations, the magnitude of
residues is expected to be lower due to dissipation or other
activities. Since incidental oral short- and intermediate-term toxicity
endpoints and points of departure are the same, the short-term
aggregate risk estimate, which includes the highest residential
exposure estimate (from turf), is protective of any intermediate-term
exposures.
    5. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. population. Based on the lack of
evidence of carcinogenicity in two adequate rodent carcinogenicity
studies, dinotefuran is not expected to pose a cancer risk to humans.
    6. Determination of safety. Based on these risk assessments, EPA
concludes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result
to the general population, or to infants and children from aggregate
exposure to dinotefuran residues.

IV. Other Considerations

A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    Adequate enforcement methodology a high performance liquid
chromatography/tandem mass spectrometry (HPLC/MS/MS method for the
determination of residues of dinotefuran, and the metabolites DN, and
UF; an HPLC/ultraviolet (UV) detection method for the determination of
residues of dinotefuran; and HPLC/MS and HPLC/MS/MS methods for the
determination of DN and UF) 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>; email address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
B. International Residue Limits

    In making its tolerance decisions, EPA seeks to harmonize U.S.
tolerances with international standards whenever possible, consistent
with U.S. food safety standards and agricultural practices. EPA
considers the international maximum residue limits (MRLs) established
by the Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex), as required by FFDCA
section 408(b)(4). The Codex Alimentarius is a joint United Nations
Food and Agriculture Organization/World Health Organization food
standards program, and it is recognized as an international food safety
standards-setting organization in trade agreements to which the United
States is a party. EPA may establish a tolerance that is different from
a Codex MRL; however, FFDCA section 408(b)(4) requires that EPA explain
the reasons for departing from the Codex level.
    The Codex has not established a MRL for dinotefuran for any of the
commodities in this rule.

C. Revisions to Petitioned-For Tolerances

    Use of the Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development
tolerance calculation procedures indicates that the tolerances for
residues in or on rice grain should be established at 9.0 ppm, instead
of 10.0 ppm proposed by the registrant. The appropriate residue
definition is rice, grain.
    EPA has also concluded that poultry tolerances in egg and poultry
meat byproducts at 0.01 ppm are now needed as a result of the increased
dietary burden resulting from addition of rice grain and bran to the
diet.

 V. Conclusion

    Therefore, tolerances are established for residues of dinotefuran,
(R,S)-1-methyl-2-nitro-3-((tetrahydro-3-furanyl)methyl)guanidine,
including its metabolites and degradates, in or on rice, grain at 9.0
ppm, and in or on egg and poultry, meat byproducts at 0.01 ppm.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

VII. Congressional Review Act

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

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180

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

    Dated: October 26, 2012.
Lois Rossi,
Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.
    Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:

PART 180--[AMENDED]

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

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

0
2. Section 180.603 is amended as follows:
0
i. Add an entry for ``rice, grain'' in alphabetical order to the table
in paragraph (a)(1).
0
ii. Add entries for ``egg'' and ``poultry, meat byproducts'' in
alphabetical order to the table in paragraph (a)(2).
0
iii. Revise paragraph (b) to read as set forth below.
    The added and revised text read as follows:

Sec.  180.603  Dinotefuran, tolerances for residues.

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

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

                                * * * * *
Rice, grain................................................          9.0

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

     (2) * * *

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

                                * * * * *
Egg........................................................         0.01

                                * * * * *
Poultry, meat byproducts...................................         0.01

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

     (b) Section 18 emergency exemptions. [Reserved]
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2012-28472 Filed 11-27-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


Sustainable Water Leadership Program

Application: Recognition of Sustainable Water Systems

Purpose of the Sustainable Water Leadership Program

This application is for recognition and is open to those entities
described in the ‘Eligibility’ section below.  EPA is implementing
this program to recognize applicants that have made a commitment to
sustainable management approaches that promote resource efficiency and
protection. Organizations applying for recognition will be evaluated on
the basis of the criteria described in this application but will not
compete directly with other applicants for recognition.

The public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of
information is estimated to average 20 hours per response.  Send
comments on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of the
provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing
respondent burden, including through the use of automated collection
techniques to the Director, Collection Strategies Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (2822T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW,
Washington, D.C. 20460.  Include the OMB control number in any
correspondence.  Do not send the completed application to this address.

I.	Eligibility

Applicants are limited to: publicly or privately owned wastewater
treatment plants or systems, community drinking water systems, managed
decentralized treatment systems (public or private), and
municipally-owned stormwater systems

Applicants must be in compliance with applicable Federal, State, Tribal
and local water quality requirements for one year and have a
satisfactory record with respect to environmental quality.

Indicate the type of facility (check all that apply):

Publicly or privately owned wastewater treatment plant or system

Community drinking water system

Municipally-owned stormwater system

Managed decentralized treatment system

Indicate the organization size:

Large (wastewater utility designed to discharge 1 million gallons per
day (MGD) or more;  drinking water utility designed to serve at least
10,000 people; and municipally-owned storm sewer system designed to
serve 100,000 people or more)

Small (wastewater utility designed to discharge less than 1 MGD;
drinking water utility designed to serve fewer than 10,000 people;
municipally-owned storm sewer system designed to serve less than 100,000
people; and managed decentralized system)

Note: Combined systems meeting either of the criteria for “Large”
systems above will be considered large systems for the purposes of this
recognition program.

II.	Application Requirements

All applicants must submit a written narrative of the activities the
organization (or other entity described in the Eligibility section) is
implementing.  Applicant may describe past activities, but the written
narrative must illustrate how those activities impact current
accomplishments (within the past 12 months). The narrative must not
exceed 5000 words (approximately 10 pages of single-spaced, 12-point
text).

This application consists of two sections; Effective Utility Management,
and Resource Efficiency and Protection. (IV - sections A & B)  For your
application to be complete, both sections must be addressed according to
the section specific directions.  Please read each section carefully to
ensure all requirements are fully understood.  For questions or
assistance with the application, please visit the SWLP program website
for helpful resources.    HYPERLINK
"http://www.epa.gov/owm/mtb/intnet.htm"
http://www.epa.gov/owm/mtb/intnet.htm

III	Contact Information

A. 	Applicant Information

Organization Name:

City: _________________________________________________ State:

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit or Public
Water Supply Identification Number(s) (as applicable):

Facility Manager Name and Title:

Mailing Address:

City: ___________________________________State: _______ZIP:

Phone: ____________________________ Fax:

E-mail:

Secondary Contact Name:

Phone and E-mail:

B	Project Partner Information (Optional)

You may wish to list your project partner organizations whose help and
assistance may have been important to the success of your programs or
activities cited in your application. However, this list of project
partners will not increase your eligibility nor will it be used in the
actual evaluation of your application.

_______________________________________________________________________

IV.        Recognition Application Sections

A.	Effective Utility Management

Prepare a written narrative of the types of management practices the
applicant conducts or has conducted that demonstrate Effective Utility
Management (EUM) based on the 10 Attributes of Effectively Managed
Utilities. (May 2007)  Background information on the attributes,
including the Keys to Management Success and a list of potential
performance measures is found in the EUM Primer, Appendix C.  The Primer
provides guidance on assessment processes and a list of potential
performance measures related to each of the Attributes.  Applicants may
use the performance measures contained in the Primer as a useful
reference point for consideration. The Primer also describes a process
that applicants can use to assess their existing programs and how well
they address the 10 attributes.  To view the Primer or learn more about
EUM please visit:    HYPERLINK
"http://www.epa.gov/waterinfrastructure/pdfs/tools_si_watereum_primerfor
effectiveutilities.pdf"
http://www.epa.gov/waterinfrastructure/pdfs/tools_si_watereum_primerfore
ffectiveutilities.pdf .

In developing the narrative under this category, describe the following:
(1) How the applicant’s current management program addresses the
selected attributes and how the applicant assessed its operations before
selecting these attributes; (2) the specific performance measures the
applicant is using to track improvements in the selected attribute
areas; (3) how the applicant evaluates performance based on these
measures and makes any necessary changes based on this evaluation; and
(4) subsequent changes or improvements to the operation that increases
current or future performance.

Drinking water facilities may be more familiar with the Capacity
Development Program based on 1996 Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA)
Amendments than the EUM.  These organizations are strongly encouraged to
apply and will be equally eligible for recognition.  While some
differences in terminology exist, the technical, managerial, and
financial (TMF) elements of Capacity Development correspond very closely
to the attributes of EUM.  Applicants may refer to TMF elements in their
narrative statements, but must refer back to the corresponding EUM
category for review purposes.  Please visit the SWLP website for helpful
resources to assist in matching the elements of TMF and the attributes
of EUM. If TMF elements are utilized, the response requirements of the
application do not change. For more information on the Capacity
Development Program, please visit   HYPERLINK
"http://www.epa.gov/safewater/smallsystems/basicinformation.html"
http://www.epa.gov/safewater/smallsystems/basicinformation.html .

Requirements for large organizations:

Demonstrate 6 of the 10 Attributes of Effectively Managed Utilities
under the Effective Utility Management category.

Requirements for small organizations:

Demonstrate 4 of the 10 Attributes of Effectively Managed Utilities
under the Effective Utility Management category.

The applicant should select attributes that their organization can most
effectively demonstrate.  Please only address the number of attributes
required even if your organization is able to demonstrate more.

Effective Utility Management

Entity is managing its operation and infrastructure based on the
Attributes of Effectively Managed Utilities, Keys to Management Success,
and Utility Performance measures endorsed by EPA and six major water and
wastewater associations.

Descriptions of the Attributes are below.  Please check which attributes
you are describing.

Product Quality: Produces potable water, treated effluent, and process
residuals in full compliance with regulatory and reliability
requirements and consistent with customer, public health, and ecological
needs.

Customer Satisfaction: Provides reliable, responsive, and affordable
services in line with explicit, customer-accepted service levels.
Receives timely customer feedback to maintain responsiveness to customer
needs and emergencies.

Employee and Leadership Development: Recruits and retains a workforce
that is competent, motivated, adaptive, and safe-working. Establishes a
participatory, collaborative organization dedicated to continual
learning and improvement. Ensures employee institutional knowledge is
retained and improved upon over time. Provides a focus on and emphasizes
opportunities for professional and leadership development and strives to
create an integrated and well-coordinated senior leadership team.

Operational Optimization: Ensures ongoing, timely, cost-effective,
reliable, and sustainable performance improvements in all facets of its
operations. Minimizes resource use, loss, and impacts from day-to-day
operations. Maintains awareness of information and operational
technology developments to anticipate and support timely adoption of
improvements.

Financial Viability: Understands the full life-cycle cost of the utility
and establishes and maintains an effective balance between long-term
debt, asset values, operations and maintenance expenditures, and
operating revenues. Establishes predictable rates— consistent with
community expectations and acceptability—adequate to recover costs,
provide for reserves, maintain support from bond rating agencies, and
plan and invest for future needs.

Infrastructure Stability: Understands the condition of and costs
associated with critical infrastructure assets. Maintains and enhances
the condition of all assets over the long-term at the lowest possible
life-cycle cost and acceptable risk consistent with customer, community,
and regulator-supported service levels, and consistent with anticipated
growth and system reliability goals. Assures asset repair,
rehabilitation, and replacement efforts are coordinated within the
community to minimize disruptions and other negative consequences.

Operational Resiliency: Ensures utility leadership and staff work
together to anticipate and avoid problems. Proactively identifies,
assesses, establishes tolerance levels for, and effectively manages a
full range of business risks (including legal, regulatory, financial,
environmental, safety, security, and natural disaster-related) in a
proactive way consistent with industry trends and system reliability
goals.  For additional information, see EPA’s “10 Features of an
Active and Effective Protective Program” located at:   HYPERLINK
"http://cfpub.epa.gov/safewater/watersecurity/features.cfm"
http://cfpub.epa.gov/safewater/watersecurity/features.cfm .

Community Sustainability: Is explicitly cognizant of and attentive to
the impacts its decisions have on current and long-term future community
and watershed health and welfare.  Manages operations, infrastructure,
and investments to protect, restore, and enhance the natural
environment; efficiently use water and energy resources; promote
economic vitality; and engender overall community improvement.
Explicitly considers a variety of pollution prevention, watershed, and
source water protection approaches as part of an overall strategy to
maintain and enhance ecological and community sustainability.

Water Resource Adequacy: Ensures water availability consistent with
current and future customer needs through long-term resource supply and
demand analysis, conservation, and public education. Explicitly
considers its role in water availability and manages operations to
provide for long-term aquifer and surface water sustainability and
replenishment.

Stakeholder Understanding and Support: Engenders understanding and
support from oversight bodies, community and watershed interests, and
regulatory bodies for service levels, rate structures, operating
budgets, capital improvement programs, and risk management decisions.
Actively involves stakeholders in the decisions that will affect them.

B.		Resource Efficiency and Protection

To be recognized, the applicant must demonstrate implementation of
activities in the appropriate number of categories below.  Where
appropriate, identify changes or improvements to the operation that
increases current or future performance. Place an X in the appropriate
box(s) to indicate the applicant’s selection for the other activities
of choice.  The applicant should select the box(s) for the area in which
the organization can demonstrate the greatest success.

Large organizations: demonstrate activities in 3 boxes in this category

Small organizations: demonstrate activities in 2 boxes in this category

Note: Because of the breadth of activities under the category of Ground
Water and Surface Water Protection on a Watershed Basis this box counts
as two boxes.  For example, to complete this section (B), a small
organization would not need to demonstrate additional activities, and a
large organization would only need to demonstrate one additional
selection.

Water Efficiency

The organization has adopted and is implementing a Water
Efficiency/Water Conservation Program or a Stormwater Program that has
at least three of the following elements in place (for additional detail
see EPA’s Water Conservation Plan Guidelines, EPA-832-D-98-001,
August, 1998; online at   HYPERLINK
"http://www.epa.gov/watersense/pubs/guide.htm"
http://www.epa.gov/watersense/pubs/guide.htm ):

Joining, and actively participating in EPA’s WaterSense Program as a
Promotional Partner

Water metering measures including, but not limited to: source-water
metering, service connection metering and reading, public use metering
(e.g., parks), meter accuracy analyses, and meter repair/replacement

Active water system audit program(s). Activities may include: analysis
of impervious surface; leak detection and repair; loss-prevention
program; large-volume user and landscape audits; and/or analysis of
non-accounted for water (e.g. using the IWA/AWWA water audit method at
HYPERLINK
"http://www.awwa.org/Resources/WaterLossControl.cfm?ItemNumber=48055"
www.awwa.org/Resources/WaterLossControl.cfm?ItemNumber=48055 );

The entity has conservation rate structures in place.

Active outreach program such as: understandable and informative utility
bills, prompt public violation notifications, school activities, public
education/workshops, “downspout disconnect” programs, or
establishment of advisory committees

Promoting new technologies and implementing rebate/voucher/incentive
programs

Retrofit program(s) and kits are available and are being targeted and
distributed

The entity has active conservation programs for commercial, industrial,
and institutional facilities (e.g. a rewards program for users that
significantly conserve or reuse water or reduce runoff)

Active and successful water recycling, reuse, or reclamation operations
that treat wastewater or divert runoff to be used for beneficial
purposes (e.g. agricultural and landscape irrigation, industrial
processes, toilet flushing, and/or ground water basin replenishment;
refer to “Guidelines for Water Reuse, EPA-625-R-04-108, September
2004; online at   HYPERLINK
"http://www.epa.gov/nrmrl/pubs/625r04108/625r04108.pdf"
http://www.epa.gov/nrmrl/pubs/625r04108/625r04108.pdf ).

Pretreatment

Facility has adopted and is implementing an approved Pretreatment
Program Plan, as described in 40 CFR 403.  An applicant under this
category should include at least two of the following achievements.

Pretreatment programs or pollutant strategies in place that address
existing and emerging pollutants or sources with demonstrated
environmental and/or staff resource benefits.  (Examples could include:
fats, oils, and greases (FOG) programs with food services industries
that demonstrate decreases in sanitary sewer overflows and reductions in
staff response resources; dental amalgam separation programs; or expired
pharmaceutical collection programs with health services industries.)

Production of high quality biosolids meeting limits in Tables 1 and 3 of
40 CFR 503.13 attributable to pollutant control programs with industrial
users.

Participation in state or local incentive or recognition programs to
encourage zero discharge for categorical industrial users (CIUs) and
non-categorical significant industrial users (SIUs)

Decentralized Systems

Organization has an actively managed decentralized treatment system in
place that is implementing at least six of the following activities (for
additional detail see EPA’s Voluntary National Guidelines for
Management of Onsite and Clustered (Decentralized) Wastewater Treatment
Systems, EPA 832-B-03-001, March 2003; online at   HYPERLINK
"http://www.epa.gov/owm/septic/pubs/septic_guidelines.pdf"
http://www.epa.gov/owm/septic/pubs/septic_guidelines.pdf ):

Maintain an inventory of all systems within the service area

Conduct public education efforts to inform owners of plans and actions
to be taken

Employ trained and certified system installers, operators and haulers

Employ subsurface treatment options based on a soil evaluation by a
licensed soil evaluator

Conduct regular inspections and/or monitoring

Dispose of residuals in accordance with regulatory requirements

Utilize specific and measurable performance requirements along with
compliance monitoring

Require system inspection prior to sale of property

Send maintenance reminders to owners at regular intervals

Utilize a responsible management entity (RME) with legal authority to
implement its management practices

Biosolids / Septage / Residuals Management

Facility has a certified environmental management system (EMS) under the
National Biosolids Partnership (NBP) (  HYPERLINK
"http://www.biosolids.org"  www.biosolids.org ) or has undertaken
significant activities to address biosolids/septage/residuals management
utilizing the principles and practices described in the NBP EMS Program
Manual of Good Practice at:

	www.biosolids.org/ems_main.asp?sectionid=48&pageid=189&pagename=Manual%
20of%20Good%20Practice in two or more of the following areas:

Innovative reuse activities focused on soil improvement and productivity
 (e.g., revegetating/restoring/reclaiming mine sites and spoils piles,
construction sites, and other highly disturbed or contaminated areas,
including industrial Superfund and Brownfields sites)

Conversion to high value products (e.g., Class A/EQ-quality soil
amendments or fertilizers, fuel sources comparable to powdered coal or
low grade oil, etc.)

Effective management of treatment operations leading to overcoming
serious odors/acceptance problems, significant energy production,
recovery of useful products, etc.

Effective and open communication with and involvement of stakeholders
and active dialog with the public on issues of concern regarding
biosolids/septage/residuals management.

Energy Management

Facility has conducted an energy audit and is implementing changes in
process(s), procedures and/or equipment to reduce energy consumption by
at least 20%, or produce 50% or more of its energy needs by sustainable
power either onsite (e.g., by CHP using biogas from anaerobic digestion,
etc.) or by alternatives energy production technologies (e.g., solar,
wind, geothermal) to decrease purchase and use of energy derived from
non-renewable fossil fuels, consistent with the steps described in EPA's
Energy Management Guidelines for Wastewater and Water Utilities, located
at   HYPERLINK
"http://www.epa.gov/waterinfrastructure/bettermanagement_energy.html"
http://www.epa.gov/waterinfrastructure/bettermanagement_energy.html ,
including the use of EPA's Energy Benchmarking tool located at
HYPERLINK "http://www.energystar.gov/benchmark"
www.energystar.gov/benchmark .  Other resource documents include:

“Opportunities for and Benefits of Combined Heat and Power at
Wastewater Treatment Facilities” (EPA-430-R-07-003; April 2007) at:
www.epa.gov/chp/documents/chp_wwtf_opportunities.pdf

"Water and Energy: Leveraging Voluntary Programs to Save Both Water and
Energy” (March 2008) at:   HYPERLINK
"http://www.energystar.gov/ia/partners/publications/pubdocs/Final%20Repo
rt%20Mar%202008.pdf"
www.energystar.gov/ia/partners/publications/pubdocs/Final%20Report%20Mar
%202008.pdf

”Water and Wastewater Energy Best Practice Guidebook” (2006) at:
www.werf.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Home&TEMPLATE=/CM/ContentDisplay.cf
m&CONTENTID=10245

Climate Change Adaptation or Mitigation

Facility is actively adapting to the effects of climate change or taking
actions to mitigate these effects.  For example:

Entity has assessed the organization’s vulnerability to impacts of
climate change in order to plan for needed adaptation.  For additional
information, see Feature 4 of EPA’s “10 Features of an Active and
Effective Protective Program” located at:   HYPERLINK
"http://cfpub.epa.gov/safewater/watersecurity/features.cfm"
http://cfpub.epa.gov/safewater/watersecurity/features.cfm .

A drought management plan, including a water  efficiency program as
described under the water efficiency section above  has been developed
and includes 50-year sustainable yield and demand analyses

The implementation of adaptation strategies into capital planning and
budgeting processes (e.g., relocation or hardening of facility,
redesigning systems, and adopting stormwater strategies that include
green infrastructure solutions and account for more extreme fluctuations
in precipitation)

Entity is collecting gases as an energy source for either the facility
and/or local community (e.g., capturing methane from a bioreactive
landfill; or scrubbing and converting anaerobic digester biogas to fuel
local city transit fleet)

Entity has enacted community outreach information programs to address:
water supply issues; climate change; and/or linking water use to energy
use and greenhouse gas emissions.  See   HYPERLINK
"http://www.epa.gov/ow/climatechange"
http://www.epa.gov/ow/climatechange .

Entity has adopted Water Environment Research Foundation’s (WERF’s)
Roadmap to Sustainability, with goals and milestones for 100% energy
self-sustainability by 2040 (final document in development; reference to
be provided).

Ground Water and Surface Water Protection on a Watershed Basis (counts
as 2 boxes under section B.  All four components must be addressed)

Engage With Local or Regional Partners

Facility has engaged local or regional partners to jointly take action
to protect source water/watershed.

Examples include:

Applicant participates in or manages a committee made up of key
stakeholders in land use decisions in the delineated area (watershed or
wellhead protection area).

The committee engages with local officials on land-use planning and
land-use management, environmental regulations, review of site designs
for residential, commercial, and industrial development within source
water/watershed areas, works with relevant Federal and state government
program managers.

Meetings are held several times a year and recommendations are made to
key decision makers who have jurisdictional authority over source
water/watershed areas.

Characterize the Watershed

Facility has in place goals, priorities and strategies based on an
analysis of the watershed.  Describe how data analysis is conducted and
documented to identify current and future infrastructure, watershed,
water quality, and water quantity issues.

Examples include:

Uses the state-developed or locally modified source water assessments as
a basis for analyzing prevalence of current drinking water contaminants
of concern and/or prevalence of current sources of those contaminants.

Uses data, mapping and surveying to evaluate the hydrologic system and
to evaluate water and wastewater infrastructure needs, including, for
example, “build-out” analyses showing effects of long-term
development trends; has determined susceptibility of waters to pollution
from point and nonpoint sources of contamination; has projected changes
in hydrologic cycles due to climate change, etc.

Has undertaken an integrated evaluation or analysis of wet weather
problems tied to receiving water integrity

Evaluates multimedia effects of industrial sites within a municipality
(pretreatment, stormwater, and air emissions from industrial
facilities).

Identifies goals, strategies and, where possible, measurable objectives
as a result of analysis.  Examples of metrics include:

Reducing flow rates in existing storm sewer systems by 50% by 2015,
resulting in decreased sedimentation and improved aquatic habitat.

Removal of 50 acres of asphalt and replacing it with pervious surface by
2015, and in increments thereafter, to achieve at least 90% effective
permeability in the plan area.

All new construction will conform to LID principles by 2012 and will
retain and filter a rainfall volume equal to a 10-year storm frequency
event without discharge to the municipal storm sewer system.

Substantially reduce the risk of drinking water contaminants from
identified sources (e.g. on-site decentralized systems) in drinking
water source areas thereby decreasing the need for utilities to invest
in treatment technologies.

Actively Implement the Watershed Plan

Describe the institutional frameworks that are in place and how the
watershed plan is being implemented by the applicant.

Examples include:

Riparian reforestation to enhance pollutant mitigation functions.

Stream channel restoration for increased hydrologic stability.

Critical land acquisitions (e.g., conservation easements, purchases).

Formal and informal agreements that include sources and leveraging of
funding.

A holistic, integrated protection approach implemented to manage
significant potential sources of contaminants in the watershed that
covers both ground water and surface water sources of drinking water and
avoids transferring pollutants from one resource to another.

Community has developed an integrated program to address wet weather
issues, including such sources as: regulated stormwater, unregulated
runoff (nonpoint sources), CSOs, SSOs, peak flow at POTWs, source water
protection.

Codes and ordinances with green infrastructure performance standards
have been adopted (e.g., infiltration, evapotranspiration, capture and
reuse of stormwater); a site plan review process is active; inspection,
tracking and enforcement procedure are in place.

Ordinances are protective of public drinking water supplies and source
water protection areas.

Prioritization of cost-effective activities which support source water
protection.

Applicant is implementing a watershed-based permit under a watershed
permitting strategy, where applicable.

Active nutrient water quality trading is being implemented under a
watershed-based permit.

Use an Adaptive Management Process to Document Results

Progress is monitored and environmental improvements are documented, and
data supports a formal adaptive management process.  Document and
summarize your analytical approach to evaluating the effectiveness of
actions. Describe, as applicable, how results are being monitored; time
frames for re-evaluation and adjustment; uncertainties and research
needs, and how the project contributes to filling those needs; how data
has been collected and used to modify plans; quality standards for
applying new information; and/or process to ensure transparency to
stakeholders and the public.

Examples include:

Sustainable infrastructure measures that are used to document project
benefits, such as anticipated or actual capital cost-avoidance.

An evaluation strategy is in place that uses environmental metrics
demonstrating environmental improvement or protection to determine
whether the land-use policies/watershed plan is effective in reducing
the risks to the source water/watershed.

Has established a process for reviewing the results of the evaluation
strategy, for communicating these results to local officials, and for
adjusting source water/watershed protection measures as needed to better
meet program goals.

Provides examples of how the program has adapted to information from the
evaluation program.

Documents improvements based on established targets and goals.

V.	Certification Statement

I certify that this document and all attachments were prepared under my
direction or supervision in accordance with a system designed to assure
that qualified personnel properly gathered and evaluated the information
submitted. Based upon my inquiry of the person or persons directly
involved in gathering and evaluating the information, the information
submitted is to the best of my knowledge and belief true, accurate and
complete.  I further certify that the applicant organization is in
compliance with applicable Federal, State, Tribal, and local water
quality requirements, has been for the past 12 months and has a
satisfactory record with respect to environmental quality.

Print Name:

Title:

___________________________________________________ /

Signature of Facility Management Representative 			Date

VI.	Application Submittal Instructions

EPA requests that all completed applications be electronically submitted
and must be completely filled out.  These applications must be submitted
using only one submission method, and must be sent in its entirety.
Multiple submissions or sections of the application received piece meal
will not be reviewed.

In addition to the written narrative, applicants may also submit up to
three electronic photos (in jpg format) with descriptive captions of
activities or facilities related to the main achievements of the
application.  These photos may be used for publicizing recognition
winners.

Note: photos will not be reviewed for purposes of determining whether
criteria have been met – only the written narrative will be reviewed.
If you plan to include pictures but are not submitting your application
electronically, please include the pictures along with your mailed
application.

Applicants that are unable to submit electronically, may produce the
application on double-sided recycled paper, and submit the complete
application to the Sustainable Water Leadership Program Coordinator by
[date pending]:

Sustainable Water Leadership Program

United States Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Water

MC 4204M

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW

Washington, DC 20460

(202) 564 1997

  HYPERLINK<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>

                                             OMB Control Number
2040-0101

                                             Expiration Date -

 PAGE

 June 7, 2010 – Page   PAGE  1


[Federal Register: November 27, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 227)]
[Notices]
[Page 68609-68610]
[DOCID:fr27no06-100]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Notice of Application for Amendment of License and Soliciting
Comments, Motions To Intervene, and Protests

November 17, 2006.
    Take notice that the following application has been filed with the
Commission and is available for public inspection:
    a. Application Type: Recreation Facilities Report.
    b. Project No: 2110-017.
    c. Date Filed: April 5, 2006, and supplemented June 7, 2006.
    d. Applicant: Consolidated Water Power Company (CWPC).
    e. Name of Project: Stevens Point.
    f. Location: The project is located on the Wisconsin River in
Portage County, Wisconsin.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 791(a) 825(r)
and 799 and 801.

    h. Applicant Contact: Mr. Mike Scheirer, Consolidated Water Power
Company, P.O. Box 8050, Wisconsin Rapids, Wisconsin 54495-8050. Phone:
715/422-3927.
    i. FERC Contact: Any questions on this notice should be addressed
to Mrs. Patricia Grant at 312/596-4435, or e-mail address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    j. Deadline for filing comments and or motions: December 18, 2006.
    k. All documents (original and eight copies) should be filed with:
Ms. Magalie Roman Salas, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington DC 20426. Please include
the project number (P-2110-017) on any comments or motions filed.
Comments, protests, and interventions may be filed electronically via
the Internet in lieu of paper. See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the
instructions on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov under

the e-Filing link. The Commission strongly encourages e-filings.
    l. Description of the Application: The filed report contains
information supplementing the project recreation plan, including: (1)
CWPC's proposal to provide a barrier-free, bank-fishing site on the
east side of the project tailrace instead of the west side, as
initially proposed; (2) CWPC's determination that it is premature to
arrange for the development of a campground at the Wisconsin River
Recreation Area; and (3) proposed measures to control soil erosion
during the construction of recreation facilities.
    m. Location of the Application: This filing is available for review
at the Commission in the Public Reference Room 888 First Street, NE.,
Room 2A, Washington, DC 20426 or may be viewed on the Commission's Web
site at http://www.ferc.gov using the ``E-Library'' link. Enter the

docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number
field to access the document. For assistance, call toll-free 1-866-208-
3676 or e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For TTY, call (202) 502-
8659. A copy is also available for inspection and reproduction at the
address in item h above.
    n. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing
list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
    o. Comments, Protests, or Motions to Intervene--Anyone may submit
comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the
requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211,
.214. In determining the appropriate action to take, the Commission
will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only those who
file a motion to intervene in accordance with the Commission's Rules
may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments, protests, or
motions to intervene must be received on or before the specified
comment date for the particular application.
    p. Filing and Service of Responsive Documents--Any filings must
bear in all capital letters the title ``COMMENTS'', ``RECOMMENDATIONS
FOR TERMS AND CONDITIONS'', ``PROTEST'', or ``MOTION TO INTERVENE'', as
applicable, and the Project Number of the particular application to
which the filing refers. A copy of any motion to intervene must also be
served upon each representative of the Applicant specified in the
particular application.
    q. Agency Comments--Federal, state, and local agencies are invited
to file comments on the described application. A copy of the
application may be obtained by agencies directly from the Applicant. If
an agency does not file comments within the time specified for filing
comments, it will be presumed to have no comments. One copy of an
agency's comments must also be sent to the Applicant's representatives.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E6-19946 Filed 11-24-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

NATIONAL VEHICLE AND FUEL EMISSIONS LABORATORY

2565 PLYMOUTH ROAD

ANN ARBOR, MICHIGAN 48105-2498

OFFICE OF

AIR AND RADIATION

MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT:	Heavy-Duty Hybrid Onboard Diagnostics

FROM:		Amy Kopin

TO:		The Docket

DATE:		July 15, 2011

	On May 16th, 2011 we held a conference call with Azure to discuss
concerns raised by hybrid manufacturers regarding heavy-duty onboard
diagnostic (OBD) requirements and timing. Concerns were raised during
the comment period for the heavy-duty greenhouse gas notice of proposed
rulemaking that heavy-duty hybrid applications may not be able to meet
the 2013 heavy-duty OBD regulations that were published in the 2009 OBD
Final Rulemaking.,  Attendees from this meeting are shown in the table
below.

 Attendee 	Affiliation

Cleophas Jackson 	EPA – Compliance and Innovative Strategies Division

Anthony Neam 	EPA – Assessment and Standards Division

Amy Kopin 	EPA – Assessment and Standards Division

Jim Mancuso	Azure

Mike Kiers	Azure

Nicolas Bouchon	Azure

 U.S. EPA, NHTSA, and DOT, “Greenhouse Gas Emission Standards and Fuel
Efficiency Standards for Medium- and Heavy-Duty Engines and Vehicles,”
republished December 29, 2010.  Available here:
http://origin.www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2010-12-29/html/2010-32726.htm

 U.S. EPA, “Control of Air Pollution from New Motor Vehicles and New
Motor Vehicles Engines; Final Rule Regulations Requiring Onboard
Diagnostic Systems on 2010 and Later Heavy-Duty Engines Used in Highway
Applications Over 14,000 Pounds; Revisions to Onboard Diagnostic
Requirements for Diesel Highway Heavy-Duty Vehicles Under 14,000
Pounds,” published February 24, 2009.  Available here:
http://www.epa.gov/otaq/regs/im/obd/regtech/hd-obd-frm-02-24-09-notice-7
4-fr-8310.pdf


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 13 (Friday, January 20, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 2928-2930]
[FR Doc No: 2012-1131]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2012-0033; Directorate Identifier 2011-NM-086-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all
Airbus Model A310 series airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by a
report of an electrical arc and hydraulic haze in the wheel bay of the
left-hand main landing gear (MLG) possibly resulting from chafing
between the hydraulic high pressure hose and electrical wiring of the
green electrical motor pump (EMP). This proposed AD would require
prohibiting in-flight use of the green EMPs; revising the airplane
flight manual (AFM) limitations section; installing a placard in the
cockpit overhead panel; doing a one-time general visual inspection for
correct condition and installation of hydraulic pressure hoses,
electrical conduits, feeder cables, and associated clamping devices;
and corrective action if necessary. We are proposing this AD to detect
and correct chafing of hydraulic pressure hoses and electrical wiring
of the green EMPs, which in combination with a system failure, could
cause an uncontrolled and undetected fire in the MLG bay.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by March 5, 2012.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact
Airbus SAS--EAW (Airworthiness Office), 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte,
31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61
93 44 51; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet http://www.airbus.com. You may review copies of the referenced service
information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind
Avenue SW., Renton, Washington. For information on the availability of
this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov; or in person at the Docket Operations office
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the

regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information.
The street address for the Docket Operations office (telephone (800)
647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in
the AD docket shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dan Rodina, Aerospace Engineer,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA,
1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone (425)
227-2125; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address
listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2012-0033;
Directorate Identifier 2011-NM-086-AD'' at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposed AD based on those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this proposed AD.

Discussion

    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical
Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued EASA
Airworthiness Directive 2011-0071, dated April 18, 2011 (referred to
after this as ``the MCAI''), to correct an unsafe condition for the
specified products. The MCAI states:

    An operator reported an electrical arc and a large hydraulic
haze in the left hand Main Landing Gear (LH MLG) wheel bay that
occurred during ground operation. The analysis revealed that this
occurrence is likely the result of chafing between hydraulic high
pressure hose and electrical wiring of the Green Electrical Motor
Pump (EMP).
    This condition, if not detected and corrected, and in
combination with a system failure leading to the use of the Green
EMPs in flight, could lead to an uncontrolled and undetected fire in
the MLG bay.
    For the reasons explained above, this AD temporarily prohibits
the in-flight use of green EMPs, by mandating an update of the
Aeroplane Flight Manual (AFM) limitations section and installation
of a placard in the cockpit overhead panel. This [EASA] AD requires
also a one-time [general] visual inspection of hydraulic pressure
hoses and electrical wiring of Green EMPs and corrective action(s),
depending on findings.

Corrective actions include repair or replacement of the hydraulic
pressure hoses and electrical wiring with new hydraulic pressure hoses
and electrical wiring. You may obtain further information by examining
the MCAI in the AD docket.

Relevant Service Information

    Airbus has issued All Operators Telex A310-29A2101, Revision 01,
dated April 12, 2011; and All Operators Telex A310-29A2102, dated April
12, 2011. The actions described in this service information are
intended to correct the unsafe condition identified in the MCAI.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another
country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant
to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have
been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service
information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we
evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition
exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same
type design.

Costs of Compliance

    Based on the service information, we estimate that this proposed AD
would affect about 58 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that
it would take about 2 work-hours per product to comply with the basic
requirements of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $85 per
work-hour. Required parts would cost about $200 per product. Where the
service information lists required parts costs that are covered under
warranty, we have assumed that there will be no charge for these parts.
As we do not control warranty coverage for affected parties, some
parties may incur costs higher than estimated here. Based on these
figures, we estimate the cost of the proposed AD on U.S. operators to
be $21,460, or $370 per product.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Proposed Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

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

Airbus: Docket No. FAA-2012-0033; Directorate Identifier 2011-NM-
086-AD.

(a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by March 5, 2012.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Airbus Model A310-203, -204, -221, -222, -
304, -322, -324, and -325 airplanes, certificated in any category,
all serial numbers.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 29: Hydraulic
Power.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by a report of an electrical arc and
hydraulic haze in the wheel bay of the left-hand main landing gear
(MLG) possibly resulting from chafing between the hydraulic high
pressure hose and electrical wiring of the green electrical motor
pump (EMP). We are issuing this AD to detect and correct chafing of
hydraulic pressure hoses and electrical wiring of the green EMPs,
which in combination with a system failure, could cause an
uncontrolled and undetected fire in the MLG bay.

(f) Compliance

    You are responsible for having the actions required by this AD
performed within the compliance times specified, unless the actions
have already been done.

(g) Installing Placard and Revising Airplane Flight Manual

    For all airplanes, as of the effective date of this AD, the in-
flight use of green EMPs is prohibited. Before the next flight, do
the actions specified in paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(2) of this AD.
    (1) Install in the cockpit on the hydraulic power overhead panel
427VU, a locally manufactured self-adhesive placard prohibiting the
in-flight use of the green EMPs, in accordance with the instructions
in Airbus All Operators Telex A310-29A2101, Revision 01, dated April
12, 2011 (for airplanes equipped with EATON (formerly VICKERS)
hydraulic EMPs); or Airbus All Operators Telex A310-29A2102, dated
April 12, 2011 (for airplanes equipped with PARKER (formerly ABEX)
hydraulic EMPs).
    (2) Revise the Limitations section of the applicable airplane
flight manual (AFM) to prohibit the in-flight use of the green EMPs.

    Note 1:  Inserting a copy of this AD into the AFM Limitations
section is acceptable for complying with the requirement of
paragraph (g)(2) of this AD.

(h) Inspecting for Damage and Chafing

    Within 500 flight hours or 4 months after the effective date of
this AD, whichever occurs first, do a one-time general visual
inspection for correct condition (i.e., no damage and no chafing)
and correct installation of the hydraulic pressure hoses, electrical
conduits, feeder cables, and associated clamping devices at frame
54, as well as the electrical conduits and feeder cables underneath
the clamps (including removal of the concerned clamps), in
accordance with the instructions in Airbus All Operators Telex A310-
29A2101, Revision 01, dated April 12, 2011 (for airplanes equipped
with EATON (formerly VICKERS) hydraulic EMPs); or Airbus All
Operators Telex A310-29A2102, dated April 12, 2011 (for airplanes
equipped with PARKER (formerly ABEX) hydraulic EMPs). If any
incorrect installation is found, before further flight, install the
affected parts correctly, in accordance with Airbus All Operators
Telex A310-29A2101, Revision 01, dated April 12, 2011 (for airplanes
equipped with EATON (formerly VICKERS) hydraulic EMPs); or Airbus
All Operators Telex A310-29A2102, dated April 12, 2011 (for
airplanes equipped with PARKER (formerly ABEX) hydraulic EMPs).
    (1) If any damage or chafing marks are found during the
inspection required by paragraph (h) of this AD, before further
flight, replace or repair the affected parts (hydraulic pressure
hoses, electrical conduits, feeder cables, clamps, and spacer, if
installed), in accordance with the instructions in Airbus All
Operators Telex A310-29A2101, Revision 01, dated April 12, 2011 (for
airplanes equipped with EATON (formerly VICKERS) hydraulic EMPs); or
Airbus All Operators Telex A310-29A2102, dated April 12, 2011 (for
airplanes equipped with PARKER (formerly ABEX) hydraulic EMPs).
    (2) Before further flight after compliance with the requirements
of paragraph (h) of this AD, as applicable, remove the placard
required by paragraph (g)(1) of this AD; and remove the revision of
the Limitations section of the AFM, as required by paragraph (g)(2)
of this AD; from the airplane and the AFM, respectively.

(i) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
International Branch, ANM-116, FAA, has the authority to approve
AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR
39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your
principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as
appropriate. If sending information directly to the International
Branch, send it to Attn: Dan Rodina, Aerospace Engineer,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA,
1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone (425)
227-2125; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>. Information may be emailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Before using any approved AMOC, notify
your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal
inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district
office/certificate holding district office. The AMOC approval letter
must specifically reference this AD.
    (2) Airworthy Product: For any requirement in this AD to obtain
corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these
actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered
FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority
(or their delegated agent). You are required to assure the product
is airworthy before it is returned to service.

(j) Related Information

    Refer to MCAI EASA Airworthiness Directive 2011-0071, dated
April 18, 2011; Airbus All Operators Telex A310-29A2101, Revision
01, dated April 12, 2011; and Airbus All Operators Telex A310-
29A2102, dated April 12, 2011; for related information.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on January 13, 2012.
John Piccola,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2012-1131 Filed 1-19-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P