[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 228 (Wednesday, November 26, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 70528]
[FR Doc No: 2014-27899]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0558; FRL-9919-04]

Proposed Removal of Certain Inert Ingredients From Approved
Chemical Substance List for Pesticide Products; Extension of Comment
Period

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice; extension of comment period.

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

SUMMARY: EPA issued a notice in the Federal Register of October 22,
2014, concerning the removal of certain chemical substances from the
current listing of inert ingredients approved for use in pesticide
products because the inert ingredients are no longer used in any
registered pesticide product. This document extends the comment period
for 60 days, from November 21, 2014, to January 20, 2015. Pesticide
registrants and other stakeholders potentially impacted by the EPA
proposal requested an extension on the comment period stating that more
time was needed to confirm the chemical substances against the
registrations. EPA grants the extension request to provide stakeholders
with sufficient time to conduct the necessary record verifications.

DATES: Comments, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-
HQ-OPP-2014-0558, must be received on or before January 20, 2015.

ADDRESSES: Follow the detailed instructions provided under ADDRESSES in
the Federal Register document of October 22, 2014 (79 FR 63120) (FRL-
9916-22).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Cameo G. Smoot, Field and External
Affairs Division (7506P), 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: This document extends the public comment
period established in the Federal Register document of October 22,
2014. In that document, EPA solicits comment from stakeholders on EPA's
proposal to remove 72 inert ingredients from the approved chemical
substance list for pesticide products. EPA is hereby extending the
comment period, which was set to end on November 21, 2014, to January
20, 2015.
    To submit comments, or access the public docket, please follow the
detailed instructions provided under ADDRESSES in the Federal Register
document of October 22, 2014. If you have questions, consult the person
listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

    Authority: 7 U.S.C. 136 et seq.

    Dated: November 17, 2014.
James J. Jones,
Assistant Administrator, Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution
Prevention.
[FR Doc. 2014-27899 Filed 11-25-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 166 (Tuesday, August 27, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 52838-52841]
[FR Doc No: 2013-20730]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2008-0617; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-354-AD;
Amendment 39-17533; AD 2013-15-17]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain
The Boeing Company Model 737-600, -700, -700C, -800, -900, and -900ER
series airplanes. This AD was prompted by a report of an in-service
occurrence of total loss of boost pump pressure of the fuel feed
system, followed by loss of fuel system suction feed capability on one
engine, and in-flight shutdown of the engine. This AD requires
repetitive operational tests of the engine fuel suction feed of the
fuel system, and other related testing and corrective action if
necessary. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct loss of the
engine fuel suction feed capability of the fuel system, which in the
event of total loss of the fuel boost pumps could result in dual engine
flameout, inability to restart the engines, and consequent forced
landing of the airplane.

DATES: This AD is effective October 1, 2013.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in the AD as of October 1,
2013.

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this AD, contact
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management,
P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, WA 98124-2207; telephone 206-544-
5000, extension 1; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You may review copies of the referenced service
information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind
Avenue SW., Renton, Washington. For information on the availability of
this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov; or in person at the Docket Management Facility
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation,
any comments received, and other information. The address for the
Docket Office (phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>) is Document Management Facility,
U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West
Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sue Lucier, Aerospace Engineer,
Propulsion Branch, ANM-140S, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office,
FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; phone: 425-
917-6438; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (SNPRM) to
amend 14 CFR part 39 to include an airworthiness directive (AD) that
would apply to the specified products. The SNPRM published in the
Federal Register on June 25, 2012 (77 FR 37831). We preceded the SNPRM
with a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM), which published in the
Federal Register on June 6, 2008 (73 FR 32255). The NPRM proposed to
require repetitive operational tests of the engine fuel suction feed of
the fuel system, and other related testing if necessary. The SNPRM
proposed to require repetitive operational tests of the engine fuel
suction feed of the fuel system, and other related testing and
corrective action if necessary.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD. The following presents the comments received on the proposal
(77 FR 37831, June 25, 2012) and the FAA's response to each comment.

Requests To Change Certain Methods of Compliance

    Boeing asked that we change the next to last sentence in paragraph
(g) of the SNPRM (77 FR 37831, June 25, 2012), which specifies ``. . .
using a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in
paragraph (h) of this AD'' to read ``If the test is not considered
successful, as specified in AWL No. 28-AWL-101, before further flight,
perform all related testing and corrective actions, and repeat the
operational test specified in AWL No. 28-AWL-101.'' Boeing noted that
paragraph (h) of the SNPRM (paragraph (i) of this final rule) does not
provide testing and corrective actions for a failed test, and FAA
approval of action taken

to address a failed test could result in an excessive burden to
operators and could cause unnecessary grounding of airplanes while
coordinating planned actions with the FAA.
    Delta Airlines (DAL) requested that we include an existing fault
isolation manual (FIM) procedure as an approved method for resolving
unsuccessful testing.
    American Airlines (AAL) stated that paragraph (g) of the SNPRM (77
FR 37831, June 25, 2012) specifies that the corrective action for
findings from the operational test is to perform all related testing
and corrective actions in accordance with the procedures specified in
paragraph (h) of the SNPRM (paragraph (i) of this final rule). AAL
added that paragraph (h) of the SNPRM provides information on obtaining
AMOCs, and asked for clarification on that approval.
    We agree to revise the requirements and methods of compliance
specified in paragraph (g) of this AD. In paragraph (g)(1)(i) of this
final rule, we have retained the requirement for performing all related
testing and corrective actions using a method approved in accordance
with the procedures specified in paragraph (i) of this AD. As requested
by Boeing, we have added new paragraph (g)(1)(ii) to this final rule to
perform all related testing and corrective actions, and to repeat the
operational test specified in AWL No. 28-AWL-101. The actions specified
in paragraph (g)(1)(ii) do not require submitting requests to the FAA
for approval of a method of compliance. Therefore, including an
existing FIM procedure in the AD as an approved method becomes
unnecessary for resolving unsuccessful testing since operators may use
any method of compliance to resolve unsuccessful testing, provided the
operational test is repeated.
    In addition, we have reviewed Boeing 737-600/700/700C/800/900/900ER
Maintenance Planning Data (MPD) Document, Section 9, Airworthiness
Limitations (AWLs) and Certification Maintenance Requirements (CMRs),
D626A001-CMR, Revision August 2012, which includes AWL No. 28-AWL-101.
As an option for the repetitive operational tests (specified in
paragraph (g)(1) of this AD), we have specified incorporating AWL No.
28-AWL-101 into the maintenance program (paragraph (g)(2) of this AD).
Compliance with these actions is required by section 91.403(c) of the
Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 91.403(c)). For airplanes that
have been previously modified, altered, or repaired in the areas
addressed by these inspections, the operator may not be able to
accomplish the inspections described in the revisions. In this
situation, to comply with 14 CFR 91.403(c), the operator must request
approval for an AMOC according to the procedures specified in paragraph
(i) of this AD. The request should include a description of changes to
the required actions that will ensure the continued operational safety
of the airplane.

Requests To Allow Task Card Instructions as an AMOC; Clarify Airplane
Maintenance Manual (AMM) Task

    DAL suggested that the SNPRM (77 FR 37831, June 25, 2012) include
compliance with the engine fuel suction feed test using Boeing 737-600/
700/800 Task Card 28-050-00-01 as an AMOC. DAL stated that this task
card complies with the requirements of AWL No. 28-AWL-101, which is
specified in paragraph (g) of the SNPRM. AAL asked for clarification
that Boeing AMM Task 28-22-00-710-802, Engine Fuel Suction Feed--
Operational Test, can be used as an AMOC.
    Although we agree that the task card contains adequate instructions
to perform the test, we do not agree with identifying the task card
information within the instructions for the mandated action. For
clarification, general maintenance instructions are identified within
the AWL for guidance, which means that if the operator already has an
accepted alternative procedure, that procedure may be used. The
maintenance program with the task cards incorporated is an acceptable
alternative procedure. We have made no change to the AD in this regard.

Request To Increase Repetitive Interval for Operational Tests

    AAL asked that we increase the repetitive operational test interval
in the SNPRM (77 FR 37831, June 25, 2012) from 7,500 to 10,000 flight
hours. AAL provided a risk-based assessment for extending the intervals
based on its experience. AAL stated within its assessment that the loss
of suction feed capability would remain remote with the extended
testing interval.
    We do not agree with the request to increase the repetitive
operational test interval. The service data of transport category
airplanes indicates that multi-engine flameouts generally result from a
common cause such as fuel mismanagement, crew action that inadvertently
shuts off the fuel supply to the engines, exposure to common
environmental conditions, or engine deterioration occurring on all
engines of the same type--not solely the failure of multiple fuel boost
pumps. This risk assessment is based on the results of maintenance
findings of one operator's fleet, and does not support increasing the
repetitive interval. The current interval is based on an overall fleet
assessment by the original equipment manufacturer. However, affected
operators may request approval of an AMOC for an increase of the
repetitive operational test interval under the provisions of paragraph
(i) of this AD by submitting data substantiating that the change would
provide an acceptable level of safety. We have made no change to the AD
in this regard.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received,
and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting
this AD with the changes described previously. We also determined that
these changes will not increase the economic burden on any operator or
increase the scope of this AD.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 1,080 airplanes of U.S. registry.
    We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per      Cost on U.S.
                    Action                                 Labor cost                 product        operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Operational Test/Revision.....................  1 work-hour x $85 per hour = $85             $85         $91,800
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide
a cost estimate for the on-condition actions or the optional
terminating action specified in this AD.

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

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness
directive (AD):

2013-15-17 The Boeing Company: Amendment 39-17533; Docket No. FAA-
2008-0617; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-354-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective October 1, 2013.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to The Boeing Company Model 737-600, -700, -
700C, -800, -900, and -900ER series airplanes, certificated in any
category, with a date of issuance of the original airworthiness
certificate or the date of issuance of the original export
certificate of airworthiness before March 22, 2011.

(d) Subject

    Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC)/Air Transport Association
(ATA) of America Code 2800, Aircraft Fuel System.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by a report of an in-service occurrence of
total loss of boost pump pressure of the fuel feed system, followed
by loss of fuel system suction feed capability on one engine, and
in-flight shutdown of the engine. We are issuing this AD to detect
and correct loss of the engine fuel suction feed capability of the
fuel system, which in the event of total loss of the fuel boost
pumps could result in dual engine flameout, inability to restart the
engines, and consequent forced landing of the airplane.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Repetitive Operational Tests or Maintenance Program Revision

    Do the requirements of paragraph (g)(1) or (g)(2) of this AD.
    (1) Within 7,500 flight hours or 36 months after the effective
date of this AD, whichever occurs first: Do the initial operational
test identified in Airworthiness Limitation (AWL) No. 28-AWL-101,
Engine Fuel Suction Feed Operational Test, of Section E., AWL--Fuel
Systems of Section 9, Airworthiness Limitations (AWLs) and
Certification Maintenance Requirements (CMRs), D626A001-CMR,
Revision August 2011 or August 2012, of the Boeing 737-600/700/700C/
800/900/900ER Maintenance Planning Data (MPD) Document. Repeat the
test thereafter at intervals not to exceed 7,500 flight hours or 36
months, whichever is earlier. Thereafter, except as provided in
paragraph (i) of this AD, no alternative procedure or repetitive
test intervals will be allowed. If any test is not considered
successful, as specified in AWL No. 28-AWL-101, before further
flight, do either paragraph (g)(1)(i) or (g)(1)(ii) of this AD.
    (i) Perform all related testing and corrective actions, using a
method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in
paragraph (i) of this AD.
    (ii) Perform all related testing and corrective actions; and
repeat the operational test specified in paragraph (g)(1) of this
AD.
    (2) Within 90 days after the effective date of this AD: Revise
the maintenance program to incorporate the limitations specified in
AWL No. 28-AWL-101, Engine Fuel Suction Feed Operational Test, of
Section E., AWL--Fuel Systems of Section 9, Airworthiness
Limitations (AWLs) and Certification Maintenance Requirements
(CMRs), D626A001-CMR, Revision August 2012, of the Boeing 737-600/
700/700C/800/900/900ER MPD Document. The initial compliance time for
the task is within 7,500 flight hours or 36 months after the
effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first.

(h) No Alternative Actions or Intervals

    After accomplishing the revision provided by paragraph (g)(2) of
this AD, no alternative actions or repetitive test intervals may be
used unless the actions or intervals are approved as an alternative
method of compliance (AMOC) in accordance with the procedures
specified in paragraph (i) of this AD.

(i) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO),
FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested
using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14
CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local
Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending
information directly to the manager of the ACO, send it to the
attention of the person identified in the Related Information
section of this AD. Information may be emailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate
principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager
of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding
district office.

(j) Related Information

    For more information about this AD, contact Sue Lucier,
Aerospace Engineer, Propulsion Branch, ANM-140S, Seattle Aircraft
Certification Office, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington
98057-3356; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
(k) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed
in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) Section 9, Airworthiness Limitations (AWLs) and
Certification Maintenance Requirements (CMRs), D626A001-CMR,
Revision August 2011, of the Boeing 737-600/700/700C/800/900/900ER
Maintenance Planning Data (MPD) Document.
    (ii) Section 9, Airworthiness Limitations (AWLs) and
Certification Maintenance

Requirements (CMRs), D626A001-CMR, Revision August 2012, of the
Boeing 737-600/700/700C/800/900/900ER MPD Document.
    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management,
P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, WA 98124-2207; telephone 206-544-
5000, extension 1; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com.
    (4) 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>.
    (5) You may view this service information that is incorporated
by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA). For information on the availability of this material at
NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on July 21, 2013.
Stephen P. Boyd,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2013-20730 Filed 8-26-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


Comment Info: =================

General Comment:Dear Mr. Zeller:

I am writing as an individual consumer to request an extension of the comment period for the Food and Drug Administration's ("FDA") Proposed Rule Deeming Tobacco Products to be Subject to the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, as amended by the Family Smoking and Prevention and Tobacco Control Act (the "Proposed Rule") published at 79 Fed. Reg. 23,142 and Federal Register No. 2014-09491. On behalf of myself, Jeffrey Vogel, I am requesting that the comment period for the Proposed Rule be extended by the FDA for an additional 105 days, from its current 75-day period, to 180 days.

The Proposed Rule raises a number of significant issues and questions that are important and relevant to me, as a consumer of products that are proposed for regulation under the Proposed Rule. The Proposed Rule asks about a hundred different questions I might want to respond to. I want to provide my thoughts and comments on many of these issues, but my time to devote to researching and providing thoughtful comments on these important questions is limited. I need to have the opportunity to study and research the topics and questions and that takes time. I know that the FDA took many years to even come up with the Proposed Rule, so I do not think it is at all unreasonable to allow the public a mere six months to comment on it. This is our only opportunity, as consumers, to provide our feedback.

I feel very strongly about e-cigarettes as an alternative to combustible cigarettes. E-cigarettes enabled me to quit a pack a day habit. I wish to provide you with my personal story, as well as my best researched responses to your questions so that you can take my comment into account. I realize that the FDA has the authority under 21 CFR 10.40 to extend this time frame and that the FDA has exercised this authority on numerous occasions in the past. I would therefore ask that you do so here, so that all stakeholders have the opportunity to provide their comments on this proposed regulation.

I appreciate your consideration of my request and am happy to discuss this issue with you further.

Respectfully,

Jeffrey Vogel


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 74 (Friday, April 17, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 21198-21199]
[FR Doc No: 2015-08886]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R05-OAR-2014-0294; FRL-9926-28-Region-5]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Indiana; CO Monitoring

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve a revision to Indiana's monitoring requirements as a revision
to the State Implementation Plan (SIP). The SIP revision was submitted
by Indiana to EPA on January 22, 2014. Once approved, the SIP would
authorize emission units that combust sewage sludge to continuously
monitor carbon

monoxide emissions, consistent with Federal requirements.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before May 18, 2015.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-
OAR-2014-0294, by one of the following methods:
    1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
    2. Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    4. Mail: Pamela Blakley, Chief, Control Strategies Section, Air
Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 77 West
Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604.
    5. Hand Delivery: Pamela Blakley, Chief, Control Strategies
Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. Such
deliveries are only accepted during the Regional Office normal hours of
operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of
boxed information. The Regional Office official hours of business are
Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding Federal
holidays.
    Please see the direct final rule which is located in the Rules
section of this Federal Register for detailed instructions on how to
submit comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Matt Rau, Environmental Engineer,
Control Strategies Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago,
Illinois 60604,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the Final Rules section of this Federal
Register, EPA is approving the State's SIP submittal as a direct final
rule without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a
noncontroversial submittal and anticipates no adverse comments. A
detailed rationale for the approval is set forth in the direct final
rule. If no adverse comments are received in response to this
rulemaking, no further activity is contemplated. If EPA receives
adverse comments, the direct final rule will be withdrawn and all
public comments received will be addressed in a subsequent final rule
based on this proposed rule. EPA will not institute a second comment
period. Any parties interested in commenting on this action should do
so at this time. Please note that if EPA receives adverse comment on an
amendment, paragraph, or section of this rulemaking and if that
provision may be severed from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt
as final those provisions of the rule that are not the subject of an
adverse comment. For additional information, see the direct final rule
which is located in the Rules section of this Federal Register.

    Dated: April 2, 2015.
Susan Hedman,
Regional Administrator, Region 5.
[FR Doc. 2015-08886 Filed 4-16-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: July 12, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 133)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 39211-39213]
[DOCID:fr12jy06-7]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0053;FRL-8073-3]

Imidacloprid; Pesticide Tolerance Technical Correction

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule; technical correction.

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

SUMMARY: EPA issued a final rule in the Federal Register of March 22,
2006, concerning the establishment of pesticide tolerances for combined
residues of imidacloprid on oats and rye. This document is being issued
to correct a typographical error and a typographical omission.

DATES: This final rule is effective on July 12, 2006.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under docket
identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0053. All documents in the
docket are listed in the index for the docket. Although listed in the
index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted
material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available
only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are
available in the electronic docket at http://www.regulations.gov, or,

if only available in hard copy, at the OPP Regulatory Public Docket in
Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South Building), 2777 S. Crystal Drive,
Arlington, VA. The Docket Facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number
for the Docket Facility is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

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

I. General Information

A. Does this Action Apply to Me?

    The Agency included in the final rule a list of those who may be
potentially affected by this action. If you have questions regarding
the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the
person listed under the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

B. How Can I Access Electronic Copies of this Document and Other
RelatedInformation?

    In addition to using regulations.gov (http://www.regulations.gov),

you may access this Federal Register document electronically through
the EPA Internet under the`` Federal Register'' listings at http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/.
 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. What Does this Correction Do?

    FR Doc. 06-2712 published in the Federal Register of March 22, 2006
(71 FR 14406) (FRL-7766-8), in the amendment to Sec.  180.472 is being
corrected because the table in paragraph (a) was inadvertently
published as a two column table. The table should have appeared as a
three column table. The omitted third column should include the heading
``Expiration/Revocation Date'', and the entry ``None'' to correspond to
the tolerance listed in each row. The amendment also includes a
typographical error and lists the established tolerance level for
``Oats, forage'', as ``a2.0'' parts per million. This typographical
error is being corrected as well.

III. Why is this Correction Issued as a Final Rule?

    Section 553 of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C.
553(b)(B), provides that, when an Agency for good cause finds that
notice and public procedure are impracticable, unnecessary or contrary
to the public interest, the agency may issue a final rule without
providing notice and an opportunity for public comment. EPA has
determined that there is good cause for making today's technical
correction final without prior proposal and opportunity for comment,
because the use of notice and comment procedures are unnecessary to
effectuate this correction. As such, EPA finds that this constitutes
good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B).

IV. Do Any of the Statutory and Executive Order Reviews Apply to this
Action?

    No. This action only corrects errors in the amendatory language for
a previously published final rule and does not impose any new
requirements. EPA's compliance with the statutes and Executive Orders
for the underlying rule is discussed in Unit VII. of the March 22,
2006, final rule (71 FR 14406).

V. 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: June 28, 2006.
Donald R. Stubbs,
Acting Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.

0
Therefore, 40 CFR part 180 is corrected 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 180.472 is amended by alphabetically adding commodities to
the table in paragraph (a) to read as follows:

Sec.  180.472  Imidacloprid; tolerances for residues.

    (a) * * *

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          Expiration/
            Commodity              Parts per million    Revocation Date
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                              * * * * * * *
Oats, forage                      2.0...............  None
Oats, grain                       0.05..............  None
Oats, hay                         6.0...............  None
Oats, straw                       3.0...............  None

                              * * * * * * *
Rye, forage                       2.0...............  None
Rye, grain                        0.05..............  None
Rye, hay                          6.0...............  None
Rye, straw                        3.0...............  None
------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
[FR Doc. E6-10860 Filed 7-11-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-S


Assessing the Effect of Five Gasoline Properties on Exhaust Emissions from Light-Duty Vehicles certified to Tier-2 Standards
                           (EPAct/V2/E-89: Phase 3)

                 Part II:  Data Analysis and Model Development

                                  APPENDIX  E

                            Preliminary Reduced Models

Development of the models presented below is described in Section 5.3 of the report. All models are based on the 16-parameter full model, as shown in Equation 1.  All terms were included at the outset of model fitting, with the exception of T90xT90. Using the notation for standardized predictors, also shown in Equation 2, the model is also expressed in Equation 2. Table E.1 summarizes the model-fitting approaches applied to each bag for each emission.  Table E.2 through E.7 present the coefficients for interim reduced models for THC, NMOG, CH4, CO, NOx and PM, respectively.

                                                                     Equation 1

                                                                     Equation 2

 Table E.1.  Design and Modeling Parameters for Best-fit models, by Compound and Bag.
Compound
                                      Bag
nremoved
Model Type
Selection Method
THC
                                       1
                                       0
                                     Mixed
                                 Minimize BIC

                                       2
                                       0
                                     Mixed
                                 Minimize BIC

                                       3
                                       0
                                     Mixed
                                 Minimize BIC
CO
                                       1
                                       0
                                     Mixed
                                 Minimize BIC

                                       2
                                       0
                                     Mixed
                                 Minimize BIC

                                       3
                                       0
                                     Mixed
                                 Minimize BIC
NOx
                                       1
                                       0
                                     Mixed
                                 Minimize BIC

                                       2
                                       0
                                     Mixed
                                 Minimize BIC

                                       3
                                       0
                                     Tobit
                             Backwards elimination
PM
                                       1
                                       2
                                     Tobit
                             Backwards elimination

                                       2
                                       1
                                     Tobit
                             Backwards elimination

                                       3
                                       1
                                     Tobit
                             Backwards elimination
NMOG
                                       1
                                       0
                                     Mixed
                                 Minimize BIC

                                       2
                                       0
                                     Tobit
                             Backwards elimination

                                       3
                                       0
                                     Tobit
                             Backwards elimination
CH4
                                       1
                                       0
                                     Mixed
                             Backwards elimination

                                       2
                                       0
                                     Mixed
                             Backwards elimination

                                       3
                                       0
                                     Mixed
                             Backwards elimination

Table E.2.   THC:  Reduced Models, starting from 16-term full model.
Model term
Notation
                                                                          Bag 1
                                                                          Bag 2
                                                                          Bag 3
Intercept
Intercept
                                                                        -0.8658
                                                                        -4.9092
                                                                        -4.2300
etOH
Ze
                                                                        0.06793
                                                                        0.06814
                                                                       0.007879
Arom
Za
                                                                        0.08343
                                                                       -0.02281
                                                                       -0.06120
RVP
Zr
                                                                       -0.04669

                                                                       -0.01423
T50
Z5
                                                                         0.1490
                                                                       -0.03953
                                                                        0.03595
T90
Z9
                                                                        0.01435
                                                                        0.07154
                                                                        0.04904
etOH x etOH
ZZee
                                                                        0.04065
                                                                        0.06681

T50 x T50
ZZ55
                                                                        0.07555

etOH x Arom
ZZea
                                                                        0.02297
                                                                        0.03054

etOH x RVP
ZZer

                                                                        0.01666
etOH x T50
ZZe5
                                                                        0.03426
                                                                        0.04028
                                                                       -0.03125
etOH x T90
ZZe9
                                                                        0.04782

Arom x RVP
ZZar

Arom x T50
ZZa5

                                                                        0.03386

Arom x T90
ZZa9
                                                                        0.02264

T50 x T90
ZZ59

                                                                        0.02886

RVP x T90
ZZr9

Table E.3.  NMOG:  Reduced Models, starting from 16-term full model.
Model term
Notation
                                                                          Bag 1
                                                                          Bag 2
                                                                          Bag 3
Intercept
Intercept
                                                                         0.9513
                                                                     -5.5166[1]
                                                                     -5.8449[1]
etOH
Ze
                                                                        0.09272
                                                                         0.0730
                                                                         0.0339
Arom
Za
                                                                         0.1051
                                                                         0.0355

RVP
Zr
                                                                       -0.04834
                                                                        -0.0463
                                                                        -0.0572
T50
Z5
                                                                         0.1541
                                                                         0.0859
                                                                         0.0783
T90
Z9
                                                                        0.01124
                                                                         0.1091
                                                                         0.1467
etOH x etOH
ZZee
                                                                        0.04204
                                                                        -0.0424

T50 x T50
ZZ55
                                                                        0.07866
                                                                         0.0412

etOH x Arom
ZZea
                                                                        0.02171
                                                                         0.0718

etOH x RVP
ZZer

                                                                        -0.0313
                                                                         0.0707
etOH x T50
ZZe5
                                                                        0.03576

                                                                        -0.0728
etOH x T90
ZZe9
                                                                        0.04763

Arom x RVP
ZZar
                                                                        0.02724

Arom x T50
ZZa5

                                                                         0.0738

Arom x T90
ZZa9
                                                                        0.02049
                                                                         0.0327

T50 x T90
ZZ59
                                                                        0.05437
                                                                         0.0293

RVP x T90
ZZr9

[1] Not fit by Tobit model; calculated manually from intercepts for individual vehicles.
Table E.4.  CH4:  Reduced Models, starting from 16-term full model.
Model term
Notation
                                                                          Bag 1
                                                                          Bag 2
                                                                          Bag 3
Intercept
Intercept
                                                                        -3.0068
                                                                        -5.7076
                                                                        -4.5979
etOH
Ze
                                                                        0.08877
                                                                        0.06076
                                                                        0.03187
Arom
Za
                                                                       -0.09816
                                                                       -0.09211
                                                                        -0.1004
RVP
Zr
                                                                       -0.02455
                                                                       -0.02082

T50
Z5
                                                                         0.1059
                                                                        0.04477
                                                                        0.01886
T90
Z9
                                                                       0.008573
                                                                        0.02445
                                                                        0.01856
etOH x etOH
ZZee
                                                                        0.03133

T50 x T50
ZZ55
                                                                        0.05882
                                                                        0.01398

etOH x Arom
ZZea
                                                                        0.03977
                                                                        0.01047

etOH x RVP
ZZer

etOH x T50
ZZe5
                                                                        0.02883

                                                                       -0.02007
etOH x T90
ZZe9
                                                                        0.02655

Arom x RVP
ZZar
                                                                        0.02791

Arom x T50
ZZa5
                                                                        0.02585

Arom x T90
ZZa9
                                                                        0.03072

T50 x T90
ZZ59
                                                                         0.0228
                                                                        0.01374

RVP x T90
ZZr9

                                                                       -0.00992

Table E.5.   CO: Reduced Models, starting from 16-term full model.
Model term
Notation
                                                                          Bag 1
                                                                          Bag 2
                                                                          Bag 3
Intercept
Intercept
                                                                         1.3472
                                                                        -1.3896
                                                                        -1.1409
etOH
Ze
                                                                       -0.06967

                                                                       -0.08154
Arom
Za
                                                                       -0.01156
                                                                        0.09798
                                                                        0.07191
RVP
Zr
                                                                        0.02063
                                                                        0.02838
                                                                        0.02393
T50
Z5
                                                                        0.02159
                                                                        0.02486

T90
Z9
                                                                        -0.1469
                                                                        0.04180
                                                                        0.05781
etOH x etOH
ZZee
                                                                        0.08535

T50 x T50
ZZ55
                                                                        0.07222

etOH x Arom
ZZea
                                                                        0.06244

etOH x RVP
ZZer

etOH x T50
ZZe5
                                                                         0.1117

etOH x T90
ZZe9

Arom x RVP
ZZar

Arom x T50
ZZa5

Arom x T90
ZZa9
                                                                        0.03861

T50 x T90
ZZ59

                                                                        0.02177

RVP x T90
ZZr9

Table E.6.  NOx: Reduced Models, starting from 16-term full model.
Model term
Notation
                                                                          Bag 1
                                                                          Bag 2
                                                                          Bag 3
Intercept
Intercept
                                                                       -3.01636
                                                                        -4.7882
                                                                        -5.2554
etOH
Ze
                                                                        0.03802
                                                                        0.04112
                                                                         0.0884
Arom
Za
                                                                         0.1336
                                                                        0.03534
                                                                         0.0667
RVP
Zr
                                                                       -0.01418
                                                                       -0.01464
                                                                          0.169
T50
Z5
                                                                        0.01026

                                                                        -0.0224
T90
Z9
                                                                        0.02389
                                                                     -0.0004567
                                                                          0.085
etOH x etOH
ZZee
                                                                       -0.05980

T50 x T50
ZZ55
                                                                       -0.05701

etOH x Arom
ZZea
                                                                       -0.03038
                                                                        0.02739

etOH x RVP
ZZer

etOH x T50
ZZe5
                                                                        -0.9774

                                                                         0.0637
etOH x T90
ZZe9
                                                                        0.02544

Arom x RVP
ZZar

Arom x T50
ZZa5

                                                                         0.0894
Arom x T90
ZZa9
                                                                       -0.04769

T50 x T90
ZZ59

RVP x T90
ZZr9
                                                                        0.04562
                                                                       -0.04014

Table E.7.   PM: Reduced models, starting from 16-term full model.
Model term
Notation
                                                                          Bag 1
                                                                          Bag 2
                                                                          Bag 3
                                   Intercept

                                     etOH
Ze
                                                                         0.1640
                                                                         0.1158
                                                                       -0.02120
                                     Arom
Za
                                                                         0.3795
                                                                         0.1988
                                                                        0.01860
                                      RVP
Zr

                                                                        -0.1275
                                      T50
Z5
                                                                        0.06650
                                                                       -0.00370
                                                                       -0.04110
                                      T90
Z9
                                                                         0.2882
                                                                        0.09530

                                 etOH x etOH
ZZee

                                  T50 x T50
ZZ55
                                                                        0.08560

                                 etOH x Arom
ZZea

                                                                        0.08490
                                  etOH x RVP
ZZer

                                  etOH x T50
ZZe5

                                                                       -0.08240
                                  etOH x T90
ZZe9

                                  Arom x RVP
ZZar

                                                                        -0.1062
                                  Arom x T50
ZZa5

                                  Arom x T90
ZZa9

                                  T50 x T90
ZZ59

                                                                         0.1059

                                  RVP x T90
ZZr9


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 181 (Tuesday, September 18, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 57524-57528]
[FR Doc No: 2012-22714]

========================================================================
Proposed Rules
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of
the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these
notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in
the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.

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

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 181 / Tuesday, September 18, 2012 /
Proposed Rules

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 36

[Docket No.: FAA-2012-0948; Notice No. 12-06]
RIN 2120-AJ96

Stage 3 Helicopter Noise Certification Standards

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: This rulemaking proposes to adopt more stringent noise
certification standards for helicopters that are certificated in the
United States (U.S.). This rule would apply to applications for a new
helicopter type design and for a supplemental type certificate for
those new type designs. A helicopter type certificated under this
standard would be designated as a Stage 3 helicopter. This rule
proposes to adopt the same noise certification standards for
helicopters that exist in the standards of the International Civil
Aviation Organization (ICAO). The proposal of these more stringent
noise certification standards into U.S. regulations is consistent with
the FAA's goal of harmonizing U.S. regulations with international
standards.

DATES: Send comments on or before November 19, 2012.

ADDRESSES: Send comments identified by docket number FAA-2012-0948
using any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and follow the online instructions for sending your
comments electronically.
     Mail: Send comments to Docket Operations, M-30; U.S.
Department of Transportation (DOT), 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room
W12-140, West Building Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: Take comments to Docket
Operations in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Fax: Fax comments to Docket Operations at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Privacy: The FAA will post all comments it receives, without
change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal
information the commenter provides. Using the search function of the
docket web site, anyone can find and read the electronic form of all
comments received into any FAA docket, including the name of the
individual sending the comment (or signing the comment for an
association, business, labor union, etc.). DOT's complete Privacy Act
Statement can be found in the Federal Register published on April 11,
2000 (65 FR 19477-19478), as well as at  http://DocketsInfo.dot.gov.
    Docket: Background documents or comments received may be read at
http://www.regulations.gov at any time. Follow the online instructions
for accessing the docket or go to the Docket Operations in Room W12-140
of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical questions concerning
this proposed rule contact Sandy Liu, AEE-100, Office of Environment
and Energy, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue
SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; facsimile (202)
267-5594; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For legal questions concerning this
proposed rule contact Karen Petronis, AGC-200, Office of the Chief
Counsel, Regulations Division, Federal Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-
3073; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety is found in
Title 49 of the United States Code. 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.
    This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44715, Controlling aircraft
noise and sonic boom. Under that section, the FAA is charged with
prescribing regulations to measure and abate aircraft noise. This
proposed regulation is within the scope of that authority since it
would establish new noise certification standards for helicopters that
would be applicable to new type designs.

Background

ICAO Noise Certification Standards

    The International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) is the
international body with the responsibility for the development of
international standards under the Convention on International Civil
Aviation (the Chicago Convention). Consistent with their obligations
under the Chicago Convention, Contracting States agree to implement
ICAO standards in their national regulations to the extent practicable.
The United States is a Contracting State to the ICAO. The standards for
aircraft noise are contained in ICAO Annex 16, Environmental
Protection, Volume 1, Aircraft Noise.
    In 1997, ICAO's Committee on Aviation Environmental Protection
(CAEP) chartered the Rotorcraft Task Group (RTG) to study potential
increases in the stringency of noise certification standards for
helicopters. The FAA participated in the RTG from 1997 to 2000. By the
fifth session of CAEP in 2001, more stringent noise standards for
helicopters were defined. These standards prescribe the lowering of
noise limits for new helicopter types while using the same helicopter
noise certification test procedures that the United States had
incorporated into part 36, Appendices H (1988) and J (1992).
    On June 29, 2001, CAEP's proposed noise stringency increases were
adopted by the ICAO Council for incorporation into Annex 16, Volume 1,
Chapter 8 and Chapter 11 (Amendment 7). ICAO guidelines became
effective on October 29, 2001, with an applicability date of March 21,
2002.

Statement of the Problem

    Although ICAO adopted increased noise stringency standards for
helicopters in 2002, the United States has yet to adopt these standards
into part 36. There has been heightened

public awareness of helicopter noise in the United States, and the FAA
has determined that the public would benefit from adoption of these
more stringent standards. The FAA's adoption of these more stringent
certification standards into part 36, including in Appendices H and J,
would also satisfy the goal of harmonizing U.S. regulations with
international standards. This rulemaking proposes to adopt the same
noise certification standards for helicopters that exist in ICAO Annex
16, Volume 1, Chapter 8 and Chapter 11 (Amendment 7).

History of U.S. Helicopter Noise Regulations

    In 1973, the FAA published an advanced notice of proposed
rulemaking (ANPRM) (38 FR 35487, December 28, 1973) that proposed
standards for aircraft with efficient short stage length operations.
This class of aircraft, referred to as ``short-haul'', included
aircraft with short, reduced, vertical, or near vertical takeoff and
landing capabilities. Subsequently, the FAA sought further study of
appropriate noise technologies. At the time of the ANPRM, U.S. noise
regulations in part 36 did not include regulations applicable to short-
haul aircraft, including helicopters.
    The ANPRM invited public participation in the identification and
development of standards for additional relief and protection to the
public health and welfare from aircraft noise. Comments from the ANPRM
caused the FAA to focus on appropriate noise limits consistent with the
current technology in drafting an NPRM. In 1979, the FAA issued an NPRM
(44 FR 42410, July 9, 1979) that proposed first ever helicopter noise
certification standards that included noise limits. Comments to the
NPRM indicated that there was no noise abatement technology available
at the time that could meet the proposed noise levels. The FAA
subsequently withdrew the NPRM (Notice No. 79-13, 46 FR 61486, December
17, 1981).
    In 1982, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA),
the FAA, and American helicopter manufacturers set up an accelerated
joint research program to develop helicopter noise abatement
technology. This cooperative, 20-million dollar, multi-year program was
established to reduce helicopter external noise, and develop noise
prediction tools that could significantly lower the costs of applying
the technology. The FAA continued to study the issues of noise
certification of helicopters in collaboration with ICAO's noise working
group. On March 6, 1986, the FAA issued an NPRM (Notice No. 86-3, 51 FR
7878) that proposed helicopter certification standards that were more
consistent with then-current technology, and followed procedures
similar to ICAO Annex 16.
    On February 5, 1988, the FAA amended part 36 to include the first
U.S. helicopter noise certification regulations. These regulations set
limits on noise emissions for new helicopter type designs. The
regulations designated Stage 1 helicopters as those that did not meet
the newly established limits or had never been tested. Stage 2
helicopters were those that met the new certification standards as
defined by the noise limits and test procedures designated in the
regulations. The new certification standards applied to the issuance of
original and amended type certificates for helicopters. In addition,
the regulations prohibited changes in the type design of helicopters
that might increase their noise levels beyond certain limits. These
regulations followed the standards adopted in ICAO Annex 16 and
included additional corrective conditions for engine thrust or power.
    This rulemaking proposes the adoption of the most recent
international noise standards for helicopters and would allow compliant
designs to be designated Stage 3. These standards would apply to any
person submitting an application for a new helicopter type design on
and after the effective date of the final rule. This proposal is
consistent with the effort of the fifth session of CAEP and its
approval of the ICAO standards for helicopter noise that were developed
internationally.

General Discussion of the Proposal

    This rulemaking proposes more stringent noise limits for
helicopters to be type certificated in the United States. The standards
would apply to the issuance of a new type certificate, and subsequent
changes to a type certificate for which application is made after the
effective date of this rule. This rule proposes to incorporate the same
standards for helicopters adopted in ICAO Annex 16, Volume 1, Chapter 8
and Chapter 11 (Amendment 7), consistent with the FAA goal of
harmonization of regulations with international standards.
    These proposed regulations would:
     Amend Sec.  36.1 noise certification standards for the
issuance of type and airworthiness certificates for helicopters,
including new definitions and an applicability date for the standards;
     Revise Sec.  36.11 acoustical change requirements to
include Stage 3 helicopters;
     Amend Sec.  36.805 to add dates of applicability for the
new Stage 3 noise limits prescribed in appendices H and J of part 36;
     Amend Appendix H to part 36 to include new noise
certification limits for Stage 3 helicopters of all helicopter weights;
and
     Amend Appendix J to part 36 to include a new noise
certification limit for Stage 3 helicopters of 7,000 pounds or less.

Regulatory Evaluation, Regulatory Flexibility Determination,
International Trade Impact Assessment, and Unfunded Mandates Assessment

    Changes to Federal regulations must undergo several economic
analyses. First, Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct that each
Federal agency shall propose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned
determination that the benefits of the intended regulation justify its
costs. Second, the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-354)
requires agencies to analyze the economic impact of regulatory changes
on small entities. Third, the Trade Agreements Act (Pub. L. 96-39)
prohibits agencies from setting standards that create unnecessary
obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States. In developing
U.S. standards, this Trade Act requires agencies to consider
international standards and, where appropriate, that they be the basis
of U.S. standards. Fourth, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(Pub. L. 104-4) requires agencies to prepare a written assessment of
the costs, benefits, and other effects of proposed or final rules that
include a Federal mandate likely to result in the expenditure by State,
local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private
sector, of $100 million or more annually (adjusted for inflation with
base year of 1995). This portion of the preamble summarizes the FAA's
analysis of the economic impacts of this proposed rule.
    Department of Transportation Order DOT 2100.5 prescribes policies
and procedures for simplification, analysis, and review of regulations.
If the expected cost impact is so minimal that a proposed or final rule
does not warrant a full evaluation, this order permits that a statement
to that effect and the basis for it be included in the preamble if a
full regulatory evaluation of the cost and benefits is not prepared.
Such a determination has been made for this proposed rule. The
reasoning for this determination follows,

    The proposed rule:
    (1) Imposes no incremental costs and provides benefits,
    (2) Is not an economically ``significant regulatory action'' as
defined in section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866,
    (3) Is not significant as defined in DOT's Regulatory Policies and
Procedures;
    (4) Would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities;
    (5) Would not create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce
of the United States; and
    (6) Would not impose an unfunded mandate on state, local, or tribal
governments, or on the private sector by exceeding the monetary
threshold identified.
These analyses are summarized below.
    Currently, there is no U.S. noise certification standard for Stage
3 helicopters in part 36. Part 36 includes only noise certification
standards for Stage 1 and Stage 2 helicopters. There are more stringent
international noise standards for helicopters in ICAO Annex 16,
Environmental Protection, Volume 1, Aircraft Noise, Chapter 8 and
Chapter 11 (Amendment 7). This proposed rule includes the amendments to
part 36 certification requirements that would require more stringent
noise limits and allow new helicopter type designs to be designated
Stage 3. This proposed rule would allow a helicopter that meets the
ICAO standards to be classified as a Stage 3 helicopter in the United
States and would also apply to new helicopter type certification
applications dated after the effective date of this proposed rule.
    This proposed rule has two major benefits. This proposed rule may
result in quieter helicopter operations for those models type
certificated under these proposed standards. This proposed rule also
would make it easier to sell U.S. Stage 3 helicopters outside the
United States because the noise standards will be the same as those of
ICAO Annex 16, Volume 1, Chapter 8 and 11 standards.
    Given the complexity and expense in developing new helicopter
models, the FAA estimates that applications for two new helicopter type
designs will be submitted in the next 10 year period; this would mirror
the development of helicopter type designs in the last decade.
    This proposed rule is not expected to result in additional costs.
The U.S. testing procedures for helicopter noise certification already
exist and require no changes when certificating a helicopter to Stage 3
standards. Further, these proposed standards are not retroactive. The
proposed rule does not include any requirement to modify existing Stage
1 and Stage 2 helicopters. Therefore, there would be no incremental
costs for certificating a helicopter to Stage 3 standards.
    Although the FAA cannot quantify the benefits of the proposed rule,
the rule would provide for quieter future helicopter models, would be
consistent with international standards, and would not increase the
cost of certification or noise testing. Thus the FAA finds that the
benefits exceed the costs of the proposed rule.

Regulatory Flexibility Determination

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA) establishes ``as a
principle of regulatory issuance that agencies shall endeavor,
consistent with the objective of the rule and of applicable statutes,
to fit regulatory and informational requirements to the scale of the
business, organizations, and governmental jurisdictions subject to
regulation.'' To achieve that principle, the RFA requires agencies to
solicit and consider flexible regulatory proposals and to explain the
rationale for their actions. The RFA covers a wide-range of small
entities, including small businesses, not-for-profit organizations and
small governmental jurisdictions.
    Agencies must perform a review to determine whether a proposed or
final rule will have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. If the agency determines that it will, the
agency must prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis as described in
the Act.
    However, if an agency determines that a proposed or final rule is
not expected to have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities, section 605(b) of the 1980 RFA provides that
the head of the agency may so certify and a regulatory flexibility
analysis is not required. The certification must include a statement
providing the factual basis for this determination, and the reasoning
should be clear.

Helicopter Manufacturers

    Size standards for small entities are published by the Small
Business Administration (SBA) on their Web site at http://www.sba.gov/size. The size standards used herein are from ``SBA U.S. Small Business
Administration, Table of Small Business Size Standards, Matched to
North American Industry Classification System Codes''.
    Aircraft manufacturer size standards are listed in the above Table
of small business size standards under Sector 31-33-Manufacturing;
Subsector 336-Transportation Equipment Manufacturing; NAICS Code
336411-Aircraft Manufacturing. The small entity size standard for
aircraft manufacturing is 1,500 employees.
    American helicopter manufacturers range in size from several
hundred employees to many thousands of employees. Therefore, some
American helicopter manufacturers are small entities. However, this
proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on any small
entity because the proposed rule imposes no incremental costs.
    Consequently, the FAA certifies that this proposed rule would not
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
helicopter manufacturers.

International Trade Impact Assessment

    The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (Pub. L. 96-39), as amended by the
Uruguay Round Agreements Act (Pub. L. 103-465), prohibits Federal
agencies from establishing standards or engaging in related activities
that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United
States. Pursuant to these Acts, the establishment of standards is not
considered an unnecessary obstacle to the foreign commerce of the
United States, so long as the standard has a legitimate domestic
objective, such as the protection of safety, and does not operate in a
manner that excludes imports that meet this objective. The statute also
requires consideration of international standards and, where
appropriate, that they be the basis for U.S. standards.
    The FAA has assessed the potential effect of this proposed rule and
determined that it would encourage international trade by using
international standards as the basis for a rule for the United States
noise certification of Stage 3 helicopters.

Unfunded Mandates Assessment

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-
4) requires each Federal agency to prepare a written statement
assessing the effects of any Federal mandate in a proposed or final
agency rule that may result in an expenditure of $100 million or more
(adjusted annually for inflation) in any 1 year by State, local, and
tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector; such a
mandate is deemed to be a ``significant regulatory action.'' The FAA
currently uses an inflation-adjusted value of $143.1 million in lieu of
$100 million. This proposed rule does not contain such a

mandate; therefore the requirements of Title II do not apply.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)) requires
that the FAA consider the impact of paperwork and other information
collection burdens imposed on the public. The FAA has determined that
there would be no new requirement for information collection associated
with this proposed rule.

International Compatibility and Coordination

    In keeping with U.S. obligations under the Convention on
International Civil Aviation, it is FAA policy to conform our
regulations to ICAO Standards and Recommended Practices to the maximum
extent practicable. In 2001, ICAO adopted stringent helicopter noise
standards. This proposed regulation will harmonize U.S. noise standards
with the international standards by adopting the same requirements,
adapted for U.S. regulatory format.
    Executive Order (EO) 13609, Promoting International Regulatory
Cooperation, (77 FR 26413, May 4, 2012) promotes international
regulatory cooperation to meet shared challenges involving health,
safety, labor, security, environmental, and other issues and reduce,
eliminate, or prevent unnecessary differences in regulatory
requirements. The FAA has analyzed this action under the policy and
agency responsibilities of Executive Order 13609, Promoting
International Regulatory Cooperation. The agency has determined that
this action would eliminate differences between U.S. aviation standards
and those of other civil aviation authorities by adopting international
standards, adapted for U.S. regulatory format.

Environmental Analysis

    FAA Order 1050.1E identifies FAA actions that are categorically
excluded from preparation of an environmental assessment or
environmental impact statement under the National Environmental Policy
Act (NEPA) in the absence of extraordinary circumstances. This rule
proposes to adopt the same noise certification standards for
helicopters adopted by ICAO. This rule proposes these noise limits to
control the maximum noise levels of newly certificated helicopters. The
FAA finds the applicability of these stricter noise standards to be
environmentally consistent with available technology. The adoption of
more stringent noise standards will require new type certificated
helicopters in the U.S. to comply with lower noise levels, thus
offering increased environmental protection.
    The FAA has determined this rulemaking action qualifies for the
categorical exclusion identified in paragraph 312f of NEPA and involves
no extraordinary circumstances.

Executive Order Determinations

Executive Order 13132, Federalism

    The FAA has analyzed this proposed rule under the principles and
criteria of Executive Order 13132, Federalism. The agency has
determined that this action would not have a substantial direct effect
on the States, or the relationship between the Federal Government and
the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among
the various levels of government, and, therefore, would not have
Federalism implications.

Executive Order 13211, Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use

    The FAA analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13211,
Actions Concerning Regulations that Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use (May 18, 2001). The agency has determined that it
would not be a ``significant energy action'' under the executive order
and would not be likely to have a significant adverse effect on the
supply, distribution, or use of energy.

Additional Information

Comments Invited

    The FAA invites interested persons to participate in this
rulemaking by submitting written comments, data, or views. The agency
also invites comments relating to the economic, environmental, energy,
or federalism impacts that might result from adopting the proposals in
this document. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion
of the proposal, explain the reason for any recommended change, and
include supporting data. To ensure the docket does not contain
duplicate comments, commenters should send only one copy of written
comments, or if comments are filed electronically, commenters should
submit this only once.
    The FAA will file in the docket all comments it receives, as well
as a report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA
personnel concerning this proposed rulemaking. Before acting on this
proposal, the FAA will consider all comments it receives on or before
the closing date for comments. The FAA will consider comments filed
after the comment period has closed if it is possible to do so without
incurring expense or delay. The agency may change this proposal in
light of the comments it receives.

Availability of Rulemaking Documents

    An electronic copy of rulemaking documents may be obtained from the
Internet by--
    1. Searching the Federal eRulemaking Portal (http://www.regulations.gov);
    2. Visiting the FAA's Regulations and Policies Web page at  http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies or
    3. Accessing the Government Printing Office's Web page at  http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/.
    Copies may also be obtained by sending a request to the Federal
Aviation Administration, Office of Rulemaking, ARM-1, 800 Independence
Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591, or by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>.
Commenters must identify the docket or notice number of this
rulemaking.
    All documents the FAA considered in developing this proposed rule,
including economic analyses and technical reports, may be accessed from
the Internet through the Federal eRulemaking Portal referenced in item
(1) above.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 36

    Aircraft, Noise Control.

The Proposed Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration proposes to amend chapter I of title 14, Code of Federal
Regulations as follows:

PART 36--NOISE STANDARDS: AIRCRAFT TYPE AND AIRWORTHINESS
CERTIFICATION

    1. The authority citation for part 36 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.; 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113,
44701-44702, 44704, 44715; sec. 305, Pub. L. 96-193, 94 Stat. 50,
57; E.O. 11514, 35 FR 4247, 3 CFR, 1966-1970 Comp., p. 902.

    2. Amend Sec.  36.1 by redesignating paragraph (h)(5) as (h)(7);
adding new paragraph (h)(5); and adding new paragraph (h)(6) to read as
follows:

Sec.  36.1  Applicability and definitions.

* * * * *
    (h) * * *
    (5) A ``Stage 3 noise level'' means a takeoff, flyover, or approach
noise level at or below the Stage 3 noise limit prescribed in section
H36.305 of appendix H of this part, or a flyover noise level at or
below the Stage 3 noise

limit prescribed in section J36.305 of appendix J of this part.
    (6) A ``Stage 3 helicopter'' means a helicopter that has been shown
under this part to comply with the Stage 3 noise limits (including
applicable tradeoffs) prescribed in section H36.305 of appendix H of
this part, or a helicopter that has been shown under this part to
comply with Stage 3 noise limits prescribed in section J36.305 of
appendix J of this part.
    (7) Maximum normal operating RPM means the highest rotor speed
corresponding to the airworthiness limit imposed by the manufacturer
and approved by the FAA. Where a tolerance on the highest rotor speed
is specified, the maximum normal operating rotor speed is the highest
rotor speed for which that tolerance is given. If the rotor speed is
automatically linked with flight condition, the maximum normal
operating rotor speed corresponding with reference conditions must be
used during the noise certification procedure. If rotor speed can be
changed by pilot action, the highest normal operating rotor speed
specified in the flight manual limitation section for reference
conditions must be used during the noise certification procedure.
    3. Amend Sec.  36.11 by revising paragraph (c) and adding paragraph
(d) to read as follows:

Sec.  36.11  Acoustical change: Helicopters.

* * * * *
    (c) Stage 2 helicopters. For a helicopter that is a Stage 2
helicopter prior to a change in type design, the following apply:
    (1) A helicopter must be a Stage 2 helicopter after a change in
type design, or
    (2) A helicopter must meet Stage 3 requirements after the change in
type design and must remain a Stage 3 helicopter.
    (d) Stage 3 helicopters. For a helicopter that is a Stage 3
helicopter prior to a change in type design, the helicopter must remain
a Stage 3 helicopter after a change in type design.
    4. Amend Sec.  36.805 by revising paragraphs (b)(1) and (2) to read
as follows:

Sec.  36.805  Noise limits.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (1) When an application for issuance of a type certificate in the
primary, normal, transport, or restricted category is made between
March 6, 1986 and [effective date of rule], that the noise levels of
the helicopter are no greater than the Stage 2 noise limits prescribed
in either section H36.305 of appendix H of this part or section J36.305
of appendix J of this part, as applicable; or
    (2) When an application for issuance of a type certificate in the
primary, normal, transport, or restricted category is made after
[effective date of rule], that the noise levels of the helicopter are
no greater than the Stage 3 noise limits prescribed in either section
H36.305 of appendix H of this part, or section J36.305 of appendix J of
this part, as applicable.
* * * * *
    5. In Appendix H of part 36 in section H36.305:
    A. Revise paragraph (a) introductory text;
    B. Revise paragraph (a)(2);
    C. Add paragraph (a)(3).
    The additions and revisions read as follows:

Appendix H to Part 36--Noise Requirements for Helicopters Under Subpart
H

* * * * *
    Section H36.305 * * *
    (a) Limits. For compliance with this appendix, the applicant
must show by flight test that the calculated noise levels of the
helicopter, at the measuring points described in section H36.305(a)
of this appendix, do not exceed the following, (with appropriate
interpolation between weights):
* * * * *
    (2) Stage 2 noise limits are as follows:
    (i) For takeoff--For a helicopter having a maximum certificated
takeoff weight of 176,370 pounds (80,000 kg) or more, the noise
limit is 109 EPNdB, which decreases linearly with the logarithm of
the helicopter weight (mass) at a rate of 3.01 EPNdB per halving of
the weight (mass) down to 89 EPNdB, after which the limit is
constant.
    (ii) For flyover--For a helicopter having a maximum certificated
takeoff weight of 176,370 pounds (80,000 kg) or more, the noise
limit is 108 EPNdB, which decreases linearly with the logarithm of
the helicopter weight (mass) at a rate of 3.01 EPNdB per halving of
the weight (mass) down to 88 EPNdB, after which the limit is
constant.
    (iii) For approach--For a helicopter having a maximum
certificated takeoff weight of 176,370 pounds (80,000 kg) or more,
the noise limit is 110 EPNdB, which decreases linearly with the
logarithm of the helicopter weight (mass) at a rate of 3.01 EPNdB
per halving of the weight (mass) down to 90 EPNdB, after which the
limit is constant.
    (3) Stage 3 noise limits are as follows:
    (i) For takeoff--For a helicopter having a maximum certificated
takeoff weight of 176,370 pounds (80,000 kg) or more, the noise
limit is 106 EPNdB, which decreases linearly with the logarithm of
the helicopter weight (mass) at a rate of 3.01 EPNdB per halving of
the weight (mass) down to 86 EPNdB, after which the limit is
constant.
    (ii) For flyover--For a helicopter having a maximum certificated
takeoff weight of 176,370 pounds (80,000 kg) or more, the noise
limit is 104 EPNdB, which decreases linearly with the logarithm of
the helicopter weight (mass) at a rate of 3.01 EPNdB per halving of
the weight (mass) down to 84 EPNdB, after which the limit is
constant.
    (iii) For approach--For a helicopter having a maximum
certificated takeoff weight of 176,370 pounds (80,000 kg) or more,
the noise limit is 109 EPNdB, which decreases linearly with the
logarithm of the helicopter weight (mass) at a rate of 3.01 EPNdB
per halving of the weight (mass) down to 89 EPNdB, after which the
limit is constant.
* * * * *

    6. Amend Appendix J of part 36 by revising the appendix heading and
in section J36.305 by revising paragraph (a) to read as follows:

Appendix J to Part 36--Alternative Noise Certification Procedure for
Helicopters Having a Maximum Certificated Takeoff Weight of Not More
Than 7,000 Pounds

    Section J36.305 * * *
    (a) For primary, normal, transport, and restricted category
helicopters having a maximum certificated takeoff weight of not more
than 7, 000 pounds that are noise tested under this appendix:
    (1) Stage 2 noise limit is constant at 82 decibels SEL for
helicopters up to 1,737 pounds (787 kg) maximum certificated takeoff
weight (mass) and increases linearly with the logarithm of the
helicopter weight at a rate of 3.01 decibels SEL per the doubling of
weight thereafter. The limit may be calculated using the equation:

LAE(limit) = 82 + 3.01 [log10(MTOW/1737)/log10(2)] dB,

where MTOW is the maximum takeoff weight, in pounds.

    (2) Stage 3 noise limit is constant at 82 decibels SEL for
helicopters up to 3,125 pounds (1,417 kg) maximum certificated
takeoff weight (mass) and increases linearly with the logarithm of
the helicopter weight at a rate of 3.01 decibels SEL per the
doubling of weight thereafter. The limit may be calculated using the
equation:

LAE(limit) = 82 + 3.01 [log10(MTOW/3125)/log10(2)] dB,

where MTOW is the maximum takeoff weight, in pounds.
* * * * *

    Issued in Washington, DC, on August 31, 2012.
Lourdes Maurice,
Director, Office of Environment and Energy.
[FR Doc. 2012-22714 Filed 9-17-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: August 21, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 161)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 42175]
[DOCID:fr21au09-5]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

21 CFR Part 601

[Docket No. FDA-2009-N-0100]

Revision of the Requirements for Publication of License
Revocation; Confirmation of Effective Date

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Direct final rule; confirmation of effective date.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is confirming the
effective date of September 17, 2009, for the direct final rule that
appeared in the Federal Register of May 5, 2009 (74 FR 20583). The
direct final rule amends the biologics regulations to clarify the
regulatory procedures for notifying the public about the revocation of
a biologics license. The rule provides that FDA will publish a notice
in the Federal Register following revocation of a biologics license
under FDA regulations and will include a statement of the specific
grounds for the revocation. This document confirms the effective date
of the direct final rule.

DATES: Effective date confirmed: September 17, 2009.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul E. Levine, Jr., Center for
Biologics Evaluation and Research (HFM-17), Food and Drug
Administration, 1401 Rockville Pike, suite 200N, Rockville, MD 20852-
1448,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the Federal Register of May 5, 2009 (74
FR 20583), FDA issued a direct final rule amending the biologics
regulations for notifying the public about the revocation of a
biologics license by clarifying that FDA will publish a notice of
license revocation in cases where the Commissioner has made a finding
that reasonable grounds for revocation exist under 21 CFR 601.5(b). The
rule, as amended, does not affect other regulations or procedures for
notification of license revocation. The rule, as amended, also does not
affect existing FDA practices for publishing notices of voluntary
withdrawal, including notices of voluntary withdrawal of new drug
applications.
    FDA solicited comments concerning the direct final rule for a 75-
day period ending July 20, 2009. FDA stated that the effective date of
the direct final rule would be on September 17, 2009, 60 days after the
end of the comment period, unless any significant adverse comment was
submitted to FDA during the comment period. FDA did not receive any
significant adverse comments.

    Authority: Therefore, under the biological products provisions
under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and the Public Health
Service Act, and under authority delegated to the Commissioner of
Food and Drugs, 21 CFR part 601 is amended. Accordingly, the
amendments issued thereby are effective.

    Dated: August 14, 2009.
David Horowitz,
Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. E9-20119 Filed 8-20-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4160-01-S