[Federal Register: December 10, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 238)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 74978-74983]
[DOCID:fr10de08-11]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0438 FRL-8391-5]

Novaluron; Pesticide Tolerances

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes tolerances for residues of
novaluron in or on sugarcane, cane and tomato. Interregional Research
Project Number 4 (IR-4) requested these tolerances under the Federal
Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA). It also revokes the existing,
time-limited tolerance for residues of novaluron in or on sugarcane,
cane and revises the chemical name for novaluron in 40 CFR 180.598 to
reflect EPA's preferred nomenclature.

DATES: This regulation is effective December 10, 2008. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received on or before February 9, 2009,
and must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40
CFR part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION).

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under docket
identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0438. All documents in the
docket are listed in the docket index available at http://
www.regulations.gov. Although listed in the index, some information is
not publicly available, e.g., Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain
other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the
Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form.
Publicly available docket materials are available 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 Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. The Docket
Facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday,
excluding legal holidays. The Docket Facility telephone number is (703)
305-5805.

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

I. General Information

A. Does this Action Apply to Me?

    You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an
agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer.
Potentially affected entities may include, but are not limited to those
engaged in the following activities:
     Crop production (NAICS code 111).
     Animal production (NAICS code 112).
     Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
     Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).
    This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather to
provide a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by
this action. Other types of entities not listed in this unit could also
be affected. The North American Industrial Classification System
(NAICS) codes have been provided to assist you and others in
determining whether this action might apply to certain entities. If you
have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a
particular entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT.

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

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

C. Can I File an Objection or Hearing Request?

    Under section 408(g) of FFDCA, 21 U.S.C. 346a, any person may file
an objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a
hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a
hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided
in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify
docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0438 in the subject line on the first
page of your submission. All requests must be in writing, and must be
mailed or delivered to the Hearing Clerk as required by 40 CFR part 178
on or before February 9, 2009.
    In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the
Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of
the filing that does not contain any CBI for inclusion in the public
docket that is described in ADDRESSES. Information not marked
confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA
without prior notice. Submit this copy, identified by docket ID number
EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0438, by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
     Mail: Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) Regulatory Public
Docket (7502P), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001.
     Delivery: OPP Regulatory Public Docket (7502P),
Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South
Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. Deliveries are only
accepted during the Docket Facility's normal hours of operation (8:30
a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays).
Special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed
information. The Docket Facility telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

II. Petition for Tolerance

    In the Federal Register of July 25, 2007 (72 FR 40877) (FRL-8137-
1), EPA issued a notice pursuant to section 408(d)(3) of FFDCA, 21
U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a pesticide petition (PP
7E7199) by Interregional Research Project Number 4 (IR-4), 500 College
Road East, Suite 201W, Princeton NJ 08540. The petition requested that
40 CFR 180.598 be amended by establishing tolerances for residues of
the insecticide novaluron, 1-[3-chloro-4-(1,1,2-trifluoro-2-
trifluoromethoxyethoxy)phenyl]-3-(2,6-difluorobenzoyl)urea, in or on
sugarcane, cane at 0.50 parts per million (ppm); tomato at 0.40 ppm;
and tomato, paste at 0.80 ppm. That notice referenced a summary of the
petition prepared on behalf of IR-4 by Makhteshim-Agan of North
America, Inc., the registrant, which is available to the public in the
docket, http://www.regulations.gov. Comments were received on the
notice of filing. EPA's response to these comments is discussed in Unit
IV.C.
    Based upon review of the data supporting the petition, EPA has
increased the tolerance on tomato to 1.0 ppm and determined that a
separate tolerance on tomato, paste is not needed. The reasons for
these changes are explained in Unit IV.D.

III. Aggregate Risk Assessment and Determination of Safety

    Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish a
tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a
food) only if EPA determines that the tolerance is ``safe.'' Section
408(b)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines ``safe'' to mean that ``there is a
reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure
to the pesticide chemical residue, including all anticipated dietary
exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable
information.'' This includes exposure through drinking water and in
residential settings, but does not include occupational exposure.
Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA requires EPA to give special
consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide
chemical residue in establishing a tolerance and to ``ensure that there
is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and
children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue. . .
.''
    Consistent with section 408(b)(2)(D) of FFDCA, and the factors
specified in section 408(b)(2)(D) of FFDCA, EPA has reviewed the
available scientific data and other relevant information in support of
this action. EPA has sufficient data to assess the hazards of and to
make a determination on aggregate exposure for the petitioned-for
tolerances for residues of novaluron on sugarcane, cane at 0.50 ppm and
tomato at 1.0 ppm. EPA's assessment of exposures and risks associated
with establishing tolerances follows.

A. Toxicological Profile

    EPA has evaluated the available toxicity data and considered its
validity, completeness, and reliability as well as the relationship of
the results of the studies to human risk. EPA has also considered
available information concerning the variability of the sensitivities
of major identifiable subgroups of consumers, including infants and
children.
    Novaluron has low acute toxicity via the oral, dermal and
inhalation routes of exposure. It is not an eye or skin irritant and is
not a dermal sensitizer. In subchronic and chronic toxicity studies,
novaluron primarily produced hematotoxic effects such as
methemoglobinemia, decreased hemoglobin, decreased hematocrit and
decreased red blood corpuscles (RBCs or erythrocytes) associated with
increased erythropoiesis.
    There was no maternal or developmental toxicity seen in the rat and
rabbit developmental toxicity studies up to the limit doses. In the 2-
generation reproductive toxicity study in rats, both maternal and
offspring toxicity were evidenced by spleenomegaly. Reproductive
toxicity (decreases in epididymal sperm counts and increased age at
preputial separation in the F1 generation) was observed only in males.
    Novaluron does not appear to be a potent neurotoxicant. Signs of
neurotoxicity were seen in the acute neurotoxicity study in rats but
only at the limit dose of 2,000 milligrams/kilogram/day (mg/kg/day).
Neurotoxic signs seen in this study included clinical signs
(piloerection, fast/irregular breathing), functional observation
battery (FOB) parameters (head swaying, abnormal gait) and
neuropathology (sciatic and tibial nerve degeneration). No signs of
neurotoxicity or neuropathology were observed in the subchronic
neurotoxicity study in rats at doses up to 1,752 mg/kg/day in males and
2,000 mg/kg/day in females or in any other subchronic or chronic
toxicity study in rats, mice or dogs.
    There was no evidence of carcinogenic potential in either the rat
or mouse carcinogenicity studies and no evidence of mutagenic activity
in the submitted mutagenicity studies, including a bacterial
(Salmonella, E. coli) reverse mutation assay, an in vitro mammalian
chromosomal aberration assay, an in vivo mouse bone-marrow micronucleus
assay and bacterial DNA damage or repair assay. Based on the results of
these studies, EPA has classified novaluron as ``not likely to be
carcinogen to humans.''
    Specific information on the studies received and the nature of the
adverse effects caused by novaluron as well as the no-observed-adverse-
effect-level (NOAEL) and the lowest-observed-adverse-effect-level
(LOAEL) from the toxicity studies can be found at http://
www.regulations.gov in document PP 7E7199 Novaluron in/on Sugarcane and
Tomato. Health Effects Division (HED) Risk Assessment, pages 24 to 27
in docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0438.

B. Toxicological Endpoints

    For hazards that have a threshold below which there is no
appreciable risk, a toxicological point of departure (POD) is
identified as the basis for derivation of reference values for risk
assessment. The POD may be defined as the highest dose at which the
NOAEL are observed in the toxicology study identified as appropriate
for use in risk assessment. However, if a NOAEL cannot be determined,
the LOAEL concern are identified or a benchmark dose (BMD) approach is
sometimes used for risk assessment. Uncertainty/safety factors (UFs)
are used in conjunction with the POD to take into account uncertainties
inherent in the extrapolation from laboratory animal data to humans and
in the variations in sensitivity among members of the human population
as well as other unknowns. Safety is assessed for acute and chronic
dietary risks by comparing aggregate food and water exposure to the
pesticide to the acute population adjusted dose (aPAD) and chronic
population adjusted dose (cPAD). The aPAD and cPAD are calculated by
dividing the POD by all applicable UFs. Aggregate short-term,
intermediate-term, and chronic-term risks are evaluated by comparing
food, water, and residential exposure to the POD to ensure that the
margin of exposure (MOE) called for by the product of all applicable
UFs is not exceeded. This latter value is referred to as the Level of
Concern (LOC).
    For non-threshold risks, the Agency assumes that any amount of
exposure will lead to some degree of risk. Thus, the Agency estimates
risk in terms of the probability of an occurrence of the adverse effect
greater than that expected in a lifetime. For more information on the
general principles EPA uses in risk characterization and a complete
description of the risk assessment process, see http://www.epa.gov/
pesticides/factsheets/riskassess.htm.
    A summary of the toxicological endpoints for novaluron used for
human risk assessment can be found at http://www.regulations.gov in
document PP-7E7199 Novaluron in/on Sugarcane and Tomato. Health Effects
Division (HED) Risk Assessment, pages 10 to 11 in docket ID number EPA-
HQ-OPP-2007-0438.

C. Exposure Assessment

    1. Dietary exposure from food and feed uses. In evaluating dietary
exposure to novaluron, EPA considered exposure under the petitioned-for
tolerances as well as all existing novaluron tolerances in 40 CFR
180.598. EPA assessed dietary exposures from novaluron in food as
follows:
    i. Acute exposure. Quantitative acute dietary exposure and risk
assessments are performed for a food-use pesticide, if a toxicological
study has indicated the possibility of an effect of concern occurring
as a result of a 1-day or single exposure. No such effects were
identified in the toxicological studies for novaluron; therefore, a
quantitative acute dietary exposure assessment is unnecessary.
    ii. Chronic exposure. In conducting the chronic dietary exposure
assessment

EPA used the food consumption data from the United States Department of
Agriculture (USDA) 1994-1996 and 1998 Continuing Surveys of Food
Intakes by Individuals (CSFII). As to residue levels in food, EPA
incorporated anticipated residues (average field trial residues) for
some commodities, including the new commodities (sugarcane and
tomatoes); empirical processing factors for apple juice (translated to
pear juice); and DEEM (ver 7.81) default processing factors for the
remaining processed commodities. In estimating dietary exposure from
secondary residues in livestock, EPA relied on anticipated residues for
meat and milk commodities but used tolerance-level residues for poultry
commodities. 100 percent crop treated (PCT) was assumed for all
existing and new uses of novaluron.
    iii. Cancer. Based on the results of carcinogenicity studies in
rats and mice, EPA has classified novaluron as ``not likely to be
carcinogenic to humans;'' therefore, a quantitative cancer exposure
assessment is unnecessary.
    iv. Anticipated residue information. Section 408(b)(2)(E) of FFDCA
authorizes EPA to use available data and information on the anticipated
residue levels of pesticide residues in food and the actual levels of
pesticide residues that have been measured in food. If EPA relies on
such information, EPA must require pursuant to FFDCA section 408(f)(1)
that data be provided 5 years after the tolerance is established,
modified, or left in effect, demonstrating that the levels in food are
not above the levels anticipated. For the present action, EPA will
issue such Data Call-Ins as are required by FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(E)
and authorized under FFDCA section 408(f)(1). Data will be required to
be submitted no later than 5 years from the date of issuance of these
tolerances.
    2. Dietary exposure from drinking water. The residues of concern in
drinking water are novaluron and its chlorophenyl urea and
chloroaniline degradates. The Agency used screening level water
exposure models in the dietary exposure analysis and risk assessment
for novaluron and its degradates in drinking water. These simulation
models take into account data on the physical, chemical, and fate/
transport characteristics of novaluron. Further information regarding
EPA drinking water models used in pesticide exposure assessment can be
found at http://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/models/water/index.htm.
    Based on the Pesticide Root Zone Model/Exposure Analysis Modeling
System (PRZM/EXAMS) and Screening Concentration in Ground Water (SCI-
GROW) models, the estimated drinking water concentrations (EDWCs) of
novaluron, chlorophenyl urea and chloroaniline for chronic exposures
for non-cancer assessments are estimated to be 1.8 parts per billion
(ppb), 0.86 ppb and 2.6 ppb, respectively, for surface water and 0.0055
ppb, 0.0045 ppb and 0.0090 ppb, respectively, for ground water.
    Modeled estimates of drinking water concentrations were directly
entered into the dietary exposure model. The highest drinking water
concentrations were estimated for surface water. Of the three EDWC
values for surface water, the chronic EDWC for the terminal metabolite,
chloroaniline, is the highest (assuming 100 percent molar conversion
from parent to aniline). This is consistent with the expected
degradation pattern for novaluron. Therefore, for chronic dietary risk
assessment, the water concentration value for chloroaniline of 2.6 ppb
was used to assess the contribution to drinking water.
    3. From non-dietary exposure. The term ``residential exposure'' is
used in this document to refer to non-occupational, non-dietary
exposure (e.g., for lawn and garden pest control, indoor pest control,
termiticides, and flea and tick control on pets). Novaluron is not
registered for any specific use patterns that would result in
residential exposure.
    4. Cumulative effects from substances with a common mechanism of
toxicity. Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of FFDCA requires that, when
considering whether to establish, modify, or revoke a tolerance, the
Agency consider ``available information'' concerning the cumulative
effects of a particular pesticide's residues and ``other substances
that have a common mechanism of toxicity.''
    EPA has not found novaluron to share a common mechanism of toxicity
with any other substances, and novaluron does not appear to produce a
toxic metabolite produced by other substances. For the purposes of this
tolerance action, therefore, EPA has assumed that novaluron does not
have a common mechanism of toxicity with other substances. For
information regarding EPA's efforts to determine which chemicals have a
common mechanism of toxicity and to evaluate the cumulative effects of
such chemicals, see EPA's website at http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/
cumulative.

D. Safety Factor for Infants and Children

    1. In general. Section 408(b)(2)(c) of FFDCA provides that EPA
shall apply an additional tenfold (10X) margin of safety for infants
and children in the case of threshold effects to account for prenatal
and postnatal toxicity and the completeness of the database on toxicity
and exposure unless EPA determines based on reliable data that a
different margin of safety will be safe for infants and children. This
additional margin of safety is commonly referred to as the FQPA safety
factor (SF). In applying this provision, EPA either retains the default
value of 10X, or uses a different additional safety factor when
reliable data available to EPA support the choice of a different
factor.
    2. Prenatal and postnatal sensitivity. The prenatal and postnatal
toxicology database for novaluron includes rat and rabbit prenatal
developmental toxicity studies and a 2-generation reproduction toxicity
study in rats. There was no evidence of increased quantitative or
qualitative susceptibility following in utero exposure of rats or
rabbits in the developmental toxicity studies and no evidence of
increased quantitative or qualitative susceptibility of offspring in
the reproduction study. Neither maternal nor developmental toxicity was
seen in the developmental studies up to the limit doses. In the
reproduction study, offspring and maternal toxicity (increased absolute
and relative spleen weights) were similar and occurred at the same
dose; and reproductive effects (decreases in epididymal sperm counts
and increased age at preputial separation in the F1 generation)
occurred at a higher dose than that which resulted in maternal
toxicity.
    3. Conclusion. EPA has determined that reliable data show the
safety of infants and children would be adequately protected if the
FQPA SF were reduced to 1X. That decision is based on the following
findings:
    i. The toxicity database for novaluron is complete, except for
immunotoxicity testing. EPA began requiring functional immunotoxicity
testing of all food and non-food use pesticides on December 26, 2007.
Since this requirement went into effect after the tolerance petition
was submitted, these studies are not yet available for novaluron. In
the absence of specific immunotoxicity studies, EPA has evaluated the
available novaluron toxicity data to determine whether an additional
database uncertainty factor is needed to account for potential
immunotoxicity. There was no evidence of adverse effects on the organs
of the

immune system at the LOAEL in any study novaluron. In addition,
novaluron does not belong to a class of chemicals (e.g., the
organotins, heavy metals, or halogenated aromatic hydrocarbons) that
would be expected to be immunotoxic. Based on the above considerations,
EPA does not believe that conducting a special series 870.7800
immunotoxicity study will result in a point of departure less than the
NOAEL of 0.011 mg/kg/day used in calculation the cPAD for novaluron,
and therefore, an additional database uncertainty factor is not needed
to account for potential immunotoxicity.
    ii. There were signs of neurotoxicity in the acute neurotoxicity
study in rats, including clinical signs (piloerection, fast/irregular
breathing), functional observation battery (FOB) parameters (head
swaying, abnormal gait) and neuropathology (sciatic and tibial nerve
degeneration). However, the signs observed were not severe and were
seen only at the limit dose (2,000 mg/kg/day); further, the
neuropathological effects that were seen at the limit dose also
occurred in a few untreated control animals. No signs of neurotoxicity
or neuropathology were observed in the subchronic neurotoxicity study
in rats at doses up to 1,752 mg/kg/day in males, and 2,000 mg/kg/day in
females or in any other subchronic or chronic toxicity study in rats,
mice or dogs, including the developmental and reproduction studies.
Therefore, novaluron does not appear to cause significant neurotoxicant
effects, and there is no need for a developmental neurotoxicity study
or additional UFs to account for neurotoxicity.
    iii. There is no evidence that novaluron results in increased
susceptibility in in utero rats or rabbits in the prenatal
developmental studies or in young rats in the 2-generation reproduction
study.
    iv. There are no residual uncertainties identified in the exposure
databases. The dietary food exposure assessments were performed based
on 100% CT and tolerance-level or anticipated residues derived from
reliable residue field trials. EPA made conservative (protective)
assumptions in the ground and surface water modeling used to assess
exposure to novaluron in drinking water. Residential exposures are not
expected. These assessments will not underestimate the exposure and
risks posed by novaluron.

E. Aggregate Risks and Determination of Safety

    EPA determines whether acute and chronic pesticide exposures are
safe by comparing aggregate exposure estimates to the aPAD and cPAD.
The aPAD and cPAD represent the highest safe exposures, taking into
account all appropriate SFs. EPA calculates the aPAD and cPAD by
dividing the POD by all applicable UFs. For linear cancer risks, EPA
calculates the probability of additional cancer cases given the
estimated aggregate exposure. Short-term, intermediate-term, and
chronic-term risks are evaluated by comparing the estimated aggregate
food, water, and residential exposure to the POD to ensure that the MOE
called for by the product of all applicable UFs is not exceeded.
    1. Acute risk. An acute aggregate risk assessment takes into
account exposure estimates from acute dietary consumption of food and
drinking water. No adverse effect resulting from a single-oral exposure
was identified and no acute dietary endpoint was selected. Therefore,
novaluron is not expected to pose an acute risk.
    2. Chronic risk. Using the exposure assumptions described in this
unit for chronic exposure, EPA has concluded that chronic exposure to
novaluron from food and water will utilize 74% of the cPAD for children
1 to 2 years old, the population group receiving the greatest exposure.
Based on the explanation in Unit III.C.3., regarding residential use
patterns, chronic residential exposure to residues of novaluron is not
expected.
    3. Short-term risk. Short-term aggregate exposure takes into
account short-term residential exposure plus chronic exposure to food
and water (considered to be a background exposure level). Novaluron is
not registered for any use patterns that would result in residential
exposure. Therefore, the short-term aggregate risk is the sum of the
risk from exposure to novaluron through food and water and will not be
greater than the chronic aggregate risk.
    4. Intermediate-term risk. Intermediate-term aggregate exposure
takes into account intermediate-term residential exposure plus chronic
exposure to food and water (considered to be a background exposure
level). Novaluron is not registered for any use patterns that would
result in intermediate-term residential exposure. Therefore, the
intermediate-term aggregate risk is the sum of the risk from exposure
to novaluron through food and water, which has already been addressed,
and will not be greater than the chronic aggregate risk.
    5. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. population. EPA has classified
novaluron as ``not likely to be carcinogenic to humans.''Novaluron is
not expected to pose a cancer risk.
    6. Determination of safety. Based on these risk assessments, EPA
concludes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result
to the general population, or to infants and children from aggregate
exposure to novaluron residues.

IV. Other Considerations

A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    Adequate enforcement methodology (a gas chromatography/electron-
capture detection (GC/ECD) method; and a high pressure liquid
chromatography/ultraviolate detection (HPLC/UV) method) is available to
enforce the tolerance expression. The methods may be requested from:
Chief, Analytical Chemistry Branch, Environmental Science Center, 701
Mapes Rd., Ft. Meade, MD 20755-5350; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
B. International Residue Limits

    No Canadian or Mexican MRLs have been established for novaluron on
the sugarcane or tomato commodities. A CODEX MRL is established for
novaluron (fat soluble) on tomato at 0.02 ppm, significantly below the
U.S. tolerance being established by this regulation (1.0 ppm). The U.S.
tolerance is based on a different use pattern, including both a higher
application rate (12.8x higher) and shorter pre-harvest interval (PHI)
(2 days vs. 7 days). For these reasons, the U.S. tolerance cannot be
harmonized with the CODEX MRL at this time.

C. Response to Comments

    EPA received comments from a private citizen complaining that she
was unable to open the ``proposal'' at http://www.regulations.gov. If
by ``proposal,'' the commenter is referring to the registrant's notice
of filing, EPA notes that it is available in the docket in two common
file formats, MicroSoft Word and Portable Document Format (PDF) and
cannot explain the commenter's inability to open it. User support is
available for anyone having trouble using the regulations website by
calling 1-877-ERUL HLP (1-877-378-5457) or by using the Web form link
provided under ``Contact Us.''

D. Revisions to Petitioned-For Tolerances

    Based upon review of the data supporting the petition, EPA
determined that the proposed tolerance on tomato should be increased to
1.0 ppm and that a separate tolerance on tomato paste is not needed.
EPA revised the tolerance level for tomato based on analyses of both
field- and greenhouse-

grown residue trials using the Agency's Tolerance Spreadsheet in
accordance with the Agency's Guidance for Setting Pesticide Tolerances
Based on Field Trial Data. The tolerance level of 1.0 ppm is based on
the spreadsheet results for greenhouse-grown tomatoes, the cropping
scenario that resulted in the higher recommended tolerance. The
submitted tomato processing data indicate that residues of novaluron
are not likely to concentrate in puree but may concentrate slightly in
paste. Based on the processing factor (1.1x) for paste and the highest
average field trial (HAFT) residue of 0.365 ppm from the tomato trials,
residues of novaluron in paste are not expected to exceed the tolerance
for tomato (1.0 ppm); therefore, no tolerances for tomato processed
commodities are needed.
    The tolerance expression at 40 CFR 180.598 uses the International
Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry (IUPAC) nomenclature for novaluron
(1-[3-chloro-4-(1,1,2-trifluoro-2-trifluoro-methoxyethoxy)phenyl]-3-
(2,6-difluorobenzoyl)urea). Since it is EPA's policy to use the
Chemical Abstracts Service (CAS) nomenclature in tolerance expressions,
EPA is revising the tolerance expression to reflect the correct CAS
designation for novaluron (N-[[[3-chloro-4-[1,1,2-trifluoro-2-
(trifluoromethoxy)ethoxy]phenyl]amino]carbonyl]-2,6-difluorobenzamide).
EPA has determined that it is reasonable to make this change final
without prior proposal and opportunity for comment, because public
comment is not necessary, in that the change has no substantive effect
on the tolerance, but rather is a minor change in scientific
nomenclature consistent with accepted Agency policy and practice.

V. Conclusion

    Therefore, tolerances are established for residues of novaluron, N-
[3-chloro-4-[1,1,2-trifluoro-2-
(trifluoromethoxy)ethoxy]phenyl]amino]carbonyl]-2,6-difluorobenzamide,
in or on sugarcane, cane at 0.50 ppm and tomato at 1.0 ppm.
    A time-limited tolerance of 0.15 ppm was established for residues
of novaluron on sugarcane, cane in connection with a FIFRA section 18
emergency exemption granted by EPA. This tolerance (set to expire on
12/31/09) is superseded by the higher tolerance being established on
sugarcane, cane and is no longer needed. Therefore, the time-limited
tolerance is being revoked.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

VII. Congressional Review Act

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

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180

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

    Dated: November 25, 2008.
Lois Rossi,
Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.

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

PART 180--[AMENDED]

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

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

0
2. Section 180.598 is amended by removing the entry for sugarcane, cane
from the table in paragraph (b); revising paragraph (a) introductory
text and alphabetically adding the following commodities to the table
in paragraph (a) to read as follows:

Sec.  180.598  Novaluron; tolerances for residues.

    (a) General. Tolerances are established for residues of the
insecticide novaluron, N-[[[3-chloro-4-[1,1,2-trifluoro-2-
(trifluoromethoxy)ethoxy]phenyl]amino]carbonyl]-2,6-difluorobenzamide,
in or on the following raw agricultural commodities:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                            Commodity                                            Parts per million
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    * * * * *
Sugarcane, cane                                                                                0.50
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tomato                                                                                1.0
                                                    * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
* * * * *
 [FR Doc. E8-29117 Filed 12-9-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-S


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 37 (Friday, February 24, 2023)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 11781-11783]
[FR Doc No: 2023-03606]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2022-1490; Project Identifier MCAI-2022-01177-R;
Amendment 39-22338; AD 2023-03-13]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Helicopters

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all
Airbus Helicopters Model AS355E, AS355F, AS355F1, AS355F2, and AS355N
helicopters. This AD was prompted by a report of a partially broken
tail rotor drive fan support (fan support) and a completely broken fan
support. This AD requires repetitively inspecting certain part-numbered
fan supports (affected parts), and depending on the results, removing
an affected part from service and replacing it with a serviceable part,
which constitutes a terminating action for the repetitive inspections.
This AD also requires replacing affected parts with serviceable parts
unless already accomplished and prohibits installing an affected part
on any helicopter, as specified in a European Union Aviation Safety
Agency (EASA) AD, which is incorporated by reference. The FAA is
issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: This AD is effective March 31, 2023.

    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of March 31,
2023.

ADDRESSES:
    AD Docket: You may examine the AD docket at regulations.gov under
Docket No. FAA-2022-1490; or in person at Docket Operations between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD
docket contains this final rule, any comments received, and other
information. The address for Docket Operations is U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.
    Material Incorporated by Reference:
     For EASA material that is incorporated by reference in
this final rule, contact EASA, Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3, 50668 Cologne,
Germany; telephone +49 221 8999 000; email [email protected]; internet
easa.europa.eu.
     You may view this material at the FAA, Office of the
Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Room 6N-321,
Fort Worth, TX 76177. For information on the availability of this
material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. It is also available at
regulations.gov under Docket No. FAA-2022-1490.
    Other Related Service Information: For Airbus Helicopters service
information identified in this final rule, contact Airbus Helicopters,
2701 North Forum Drive, Grand Prairie, TX 75052; telephone (972) 641-
0000 or<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; or at airbus.com/helicopters/services/technical-support.html. This service information
is also available at the FAA contact information under Material
Incorporated by Reference above.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jared Hyman, Aerospace Engineer,
Boston ACO Branch, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, FAA, 1200
District Avenue, Burlington, Massachusetts 01803; telephone (781) 238-
7799; email [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the
European Union, has issued a series of EASA ADs with the most recent
being EASA AD 2022-0180, dated August 29, 2022 (EASA AD 2022-0180), to
correct an unsafe condition for Airbus Helicopters Model AS 355 E, AS
355 F, AS 355 F1, AS 355 F2, and AS 355 N helicopters, all serial
numbers.
    The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14
CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to Airbus Helicopters
Model AS355E, AS355F, AS355F1, AS355F2, and AS355N helicopters. The
NPRM published in the Federal Register on December 5, 2022 (87 FR
74330). The NPRM was prompted by a report of a partially broken right-
hand side (RH) fan support and a completely broken left-hand side (LH)
fan support found during scheduled maintenance on a Model AS355
helicopter. The NPRM proposed to require repetitively inspecting
certain part-numbered fan supports, and depending on the results,
removing an affected part from service and replacing it with a
serviceable part, which constitutes a terminating action for the
repetitive inspections. The NPRM also proposed to require replacing
affected parts with serviceable parts unless already accomplished and
prohibit installing an affected part on any helicopter, as specified in
EASA AD 2022-0180.
    You may examine EASA AD 2022-0180 in the AD docket at
regulations.gov under Docket No. FAA-2022-1490.

Discussion of Final Airworthiness Directive

Comments

    The FAA received no comments on the NPRM or on the determination of
the costs.

Conclusion

    These helicopters have been approved by EASA and are approved for
operation in the United States. Pursuant to the FAA's bilateral
agreement with the European Union, EASA has notified the FAA about the
unsafe condition described in its AD. The FAA reviewed the relevant
data and determined that air safety requires adopting this AD as
proposed. Accordingly, the FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe
condition on these helicopters. Except for minor editorial changes,
this AD is adopted as proposed in the NPRM.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    EASA AD 2022-0180 requires repetitively inspecting certain part-
numbered RH and LH fan supports for a crack and broken leg and, if
there is any crack or broken leg, replacing the affected fan support
with a serviceable fan support. If the replacement is not required as a
result of the inspection, EASA AD 2022-0180 requires the replacement at
a longer compliance time. EASA AD 2022-0180 also states that the
replacement constitutes terminating action for the repetitive
inspections and prohibits installing an affected part on any
helicopter.
    This material is reasonably available because the interested
parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by
the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

Other Related Service Information

    The FAA also reviewed Airbus Helicopters Alert Service Bulletin No.
AS355-05.00.88, Revision 1, dated July 20, 2022. This service
information specifies procedures for inspecting the RH and LH fan
supports for a crack and failure (broken leg), replacing an affected
part with a serviceable part, and performing a balancing of the tail
rotor drive shaft.

Differences Between This AD and the EASA AD

    EASA AD 2022-0180 requires replacing each affected part with a
serviceable part if any crack or broken leg is found during any
required inspection or if the replacement was not previously performed
as a result of an inspection, whereas this AD requires removing each
affected part from service and replacing with a serviceable part if any
crack or broken leg is found during any required inspection or if the
replacement was not previously performed as a result of an inspection.

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this AD affects 31 helicopters of U.S.
Registry. Labor rates are estimated at $85 per work-hour. Based on
these numbers, the FAA estimates the following costs to comply with
this AD.
    Visually inspecting a fan support for a crack and broken leg takes
about 1 work-hour for an estimated cost of $170 per helicopter (2 fan
supports per helicopter) per inspection cycle and up to $5,270 for the
U.S. fleet per inspection cycle.
    Replacing a fan support takes about 8 work-hours and parts cost
about $600 for an estimated cost of $1,280 per replacement and up to
$39,680 for the U.S. fleet.

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.
    The FAA is 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) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
    (3) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The 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:

2023-03-13 Airbus Helicopters: Amendment 39-22338; Docket No. FAA-
2022-1490; Project Identifier MCAI-2022-01177-R.

(a) Effective Date

    This airworthiness directive (AD) is effective March 31, 2023.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Airbus Helicopters Model AS355E, AS355F,
AS355F1, AS355F2, and AS355N helicopters, all serial numbers,
certificated in any category.

(d) Subject

    Joint Aircraft Service Component (JASC) Code: 6500, Tail Rotor
Drive System.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by a report of a partially broken right-
hand side tail rotor drive fan support (fan support) and a
completely broken left-hand side fan support. The FAA is issuing
this AD to detect a cracked or broken fan support leg. The unsafe
condition, if not addressed, could result in loss of main gearbox
and engine oil cooling function, loss of tail rotor drive, and
subsequent loss of control of the helicopter.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Requirements

    Except as specified in paragraphs (h) and (i) of this AD: Comply
with all required actions and compliance times specified in, and in
accordance with, European Union Aviation Safety Agency AD 2022-0180,
dated August 29, 2022 (EASA AD 2022-0180).

(h) Exceptions to EASA AD 2022-0180

    (1) Where EASA AD 2022-0180 requires compliance in terms of
flight hours, this AD requires using hours time-in-service.
    (2) Where EASA AD 2022-0180 refers to the effective dates
specified in paragraphs (h)(2)(i) and (ii) of this AD, this AD
requires using the effective date of this AD.
    (i) May 3, 2022 (the effective date of EASA AD 2022-0069, dated
April 19, 2022).
    (ii) The effective date of EASA AD 2022-0180.
    (3) Where paragraphs (2) and (3) of EASA AD 2022-0180 specify
``replacing each affected part with a serviceable part,'' for this
AD, replace that text with ``removing each affected part from
service and replacing it with a serviceable part.''
    (4) Where the service information referenced in EASA AD 2022-
0180 specifies to use tooling, this AD allows the use of equivalent
tooling.
    (5) Where the service information referenced in EASA AD 2022-
0180 specifies to discard parts, this AD requires removing those
parts from service.
    (6) This AD does not adopt the Remarks paragraph of EASA AD
2022-0180.

(i) No Reporting Requirement

    Although the service information referenced in EASA AD 2022-0180
specifies to submit certain information to the manufacturer, this AD
does not include that requirement.

(j) Special Flight Permit

    Special flight permits are prohibited.

(k) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, International Validation Branch, 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 International Validation Branch, send
it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (l) of
this AD. Information may be emailed to: [email protected].
    (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.

(l) Related Information

    For more information about this AD, contact Jared Hyman,
Aerospace Engineer, Boston ACO Branch, Compliance & Airworthiness
Division, FAA, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, Massachusetts
01803; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email [email protected].

(m) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference 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 this AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD 2022-0180,
dated August 29, 2022.
    (ii) [Reserved]
    (3) For EASA AD 2022-0180, contact EASA, Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3,
50668 Cologne, Germany; telephone +49 221 8999 000; email
[email protected]; internet easa.europa.eu. You may find the EASA
material on the EASA website at ad.easa.europa.eu.
    (4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Office of
the Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Room
6N-321, Fort Worth, TX 76177. For information on the availability of
this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (5) You may view this material that is incorporated by reference
at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For
information on the availability of this material at NARA, email
[email protected], or go to: www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued on February 7, 2023.
Christina Underwood,
Acting Director, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, Aircraft
Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2023-03606 Filed 2-23-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 37 (Tuesday, February 25, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 10518-10519]
[FR Doc No: 2014-04103]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0879; FRL-9905-50]

Exposure Modeling Public Meeting; Notice of Public Meeting

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: An Exposure Modeling Public Meeting will be held for 1 day on
March 24, 2014. This notice announces the location and time for the
meeting and sets forth the tentative agenda topics.

DATES: The meeting will be held on March 24, 2014, from 9 a.m. to 4:30
p.m. Requests to participate in the meeting must be received on or
before March 7, 2014.
    To request accommodation of a disability, please contact the person
listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATON CONTACT, preferably at least 10
days prior to the meeting, to give EPA as much time as possible to
process your request.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the Environmental Protection
Agency, Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP), One Potomac Yard (South
Building), First Floor Conference Center (S-1204/06), 2777 S. Crystal
Drive, Arlington, VA 22202.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Melanie Biscoe, Environmental Fate and
Effects Division, Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-
0001; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    You may be potentially affected by this action if you are required
to conduct testing of chemical substances under the Toxic Substances
Control Act (TSCA), the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA),
or the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA).
Since other entities may also be interested, the Agency has not
attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be affected by
this action. The following list of North American Industrial
Classification System (NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive,
but rather provides a guide to help readers determine whether this
document applies to them. Potentially affected entities may include:
     Agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting (NAICS code
11).
     Utilities (NAICS code 22).
     Professional, scientific and technical (NAICS code 54).

B. How can I get copies of this document and other related Information?

    The docket for this action, identified by docket identification
(ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0879, is available at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of Pesticide Programs Regulatory
Public Docket (OPP Docket) in the Environmental Protection Agency
Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301 Constitution
Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001. The Public Reading Room is open
from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal
holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202)
566-1744, and the telephone number for the OPP Docket is (703) 305-
5805. Please review the visitor instructions and additional information
about the docket available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

II. Background

    On a biannual interval, an Exposure Modeling Public Meeting (EMPM)
is held for presentation and discussion of current issues related to
modeling pesticide fate, transport, and exposure for risk assessment in
a regulatory context. Meeting dates and abstract requests are announced
through the ``empmlist'' forum on the LYRIS list server at https://lists.epa.gov/read/all_forums/. The EMPM scheduled for October 2013
was canceled due to the government shutdown. As a consequence, EPA will
use the October 2013 agenda at the March 24, 2014 meeting with the
addition of a presentation on PRZM-GW model implementation and
evaluation due to extensive stakeholder interest.

III. How can I request to participate in this meeting?

    You may submit a request to participate in this meeting to the
person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. Do not submit any
information in your request that is considered CBI. Requests to
participate in the meeting, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-
2009-0879, must be received on or before March 7, 2014.

IV. Tentative Topics for the Meeting

    1. Estimating the magnitude of pesticide effects on avian
reproductive success: Markov chain nest productivity model (MCnest).
    2. The Surface Water Concentration Calculator.
    3. Development of a conceptual model for estimating aquatic
exposure from the use of pesticides on rice using the Pesticide Flooded
Application Model.
    4. Evaluation of NAFTA kinetics guidance.
    5. Comparison of multiple spray drift deposition data sets.
    6. Guidance on modeling offsite deposition of pesticides via spray
drift.
    7. Use of the OECD ENASGIPS tool in U.S. settings.
    8. A better sorption model for predicting pesticide behavior.
    9. The significance of time-dependent sorption on leaching
potential: A comparison of measured field results and modeled
estimates.
    10. Evaluation of PRZM-GW using long-term ground water monitoring
data.
    11. Comparing ground water models--why are there differences?
    12. Modeling pesticide fate and transport through flowing water
bodies for endangered species assessment in the California Central
Valley.
    13. Spatial Aquatic Model (SAM) pilot project update.
    14. EPA PRZM-GW Evaluation.

List of Subjects

    Environmental protection, Endangered species assessment, Exposure
modeling, Groundwater, Leaching, Pesticide exposure assessment,
Pesticide monitoring, Spray drift.

    Dated: February 3, 2014.
Donald J. Brady,
Director, Environmental Fate and Effects Division, Office of Pesticide
Programs.
[FR Doc. 2014-04103 Filed 2-24-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: September 5, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 171)]
[Notices]
[Page 52351]
[DOCID:fr05se06-55]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Sunshine Act Meeting

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the
Government in the Sunshine Act, Pub. L. 94-409, that the Securities and
Exchange Commission will hold the following meeting during the week of
September 5, 2006:
    A closed meeting will be held on Thursday, September 7, 2006 at 2
p.m.
    Commissioners, Counsels to the Commissioners, the Secretary to the
Commission, and recording secretaries will attend the closed meeting.
Certain staff members who have an interest in the matters may also be
present.
    The General Counsel of the Commission, or his designee, has
certified that, in his opinion, one or more of the exemptions set forth
in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(3), (5), (6), (7), (9)(B) and (10) and 17 CFR
200.402(a)(3), (5), (6), 7(i)(A), (C), (D), and (E), (9)(ii), and (10)
permit consideration of the scheduled matters at the closed meeting.
    Commissioner Atkins, as duty officer, voted to consider the items
listed for the closed meeting in closed session.
    The subject matters of the closed meeting scheduled for Thursday,
September 7, 2006 will be:
    Formal orders of investigation;
    Institution and settlement of injunctive actions;
    Institution and settlement of administrative proceedings of an
enforcement nature;
    Litigation matters; and
    Consideration of amicus participation.
    At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in
the scheduling of meeting items.
    For further information and to ascertain what, if any, matters have
been added, deleted or postponed, please contact: The Office of the
Secretary at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: August 30, 2006.
Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 06-7442 Filed 8-31-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-M


[Federal Register: August 15, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 159)]
[Notices]
[Page 47949-47950]
[DOCID:fr15au08-58]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-ORD-2008-0200; FRL-8705-5]

Board of Scientific Counselors, Water Quality Mid-Cycle
Subcommittee Meetings--2008

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of meetings.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Pub. L. 92-
463, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Office of Research and
Development (ORD), gives notice of two meetings of the Board of
Scientific Counselors (BOSC) Water Quality Mid-Cycle Subcommittee.

DATES: The meetings (teleconference calls) will be held on Thursday,
September 4, 2008 and Monday, September 15, 2008. Both calls are
scheduled to be held from 1 p.m. to 3 p.m. Eastern Standard Time. The
meetings may adjourn early if all business is finished. Requests for
the draft agendas or for making oral presentations at the conference
calls will be accepted up to one business day before the meeting.

ADDRESSES: Participation in the meetings will be by teleconference
only--meeting rooms will not be used. Members of the public may obtain
the call-in number and access code for the call from Susan Peterson,
the Designated Federal Officer, whose contact information is listed
under the ``FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT'' section of this notice.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-ORD-2008-0200,
by one of the following methods:
     http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line
instructions for submitting comments.
     E-mail: Send comments by electronic mail (e-mail) to:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-ORD-2008-0200.
     Fax: Fax comments to:<PHONE_NUMBER>, Attention Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-ORD-2008-0200.
     Mail: Send comments by mail to: Board of Scientific
Counselors, Water Quality Mid-Cycle Subcommittee--2008 Docket,
Mailcode: 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460,
Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-ORD-2008-0200.
     Hand Delivery or Courier. Deliver comments to: EPA Docket
Center (EPA/DC), Room B102, EPA West Building, 1301 Constitution
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC, Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-ORD-2008-
0200. Note: This is not a mailing address. Such deliveries are only
accepted during the docket's normal hours of operation, and special
arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-ORD-
2008-0200. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through http://
www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site
is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without
going through http://www.regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of
any defects or viruses. For additional information about EPA's public
docket visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/
epahome/dockets.htm.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the http://
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is

not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information whose disclosure
is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted
material, will be publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly
available docket materials are available either electronically in
http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Board of Scientific
Counselors, Water Quality Mid-Cycle Subcommittee--2008 Docket, EPA/DC,
EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The
Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public
Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number for the ORD
Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The Designated Federal Officer via
mail at: Susan Peterson, Mail Code 8104-R, Office of Science Policy,
Office of Research and Development, Environmental Protection Agency,
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460; via phone/voice
mail at:<PHONE_NUMBER>; via fax at:<PHONE_NUMBER>; or via e-mail at:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

General Information

    The purpose of the meetings is to prepare for the September 23,
2008 face-to-face meeting of the subcommittee. Proposed agenda items
for the conference calls include, but are not limited to: Overview of
the subcommittee's charge, rating the water quality research program
performance and overall progress, and reviewing the revised Multi-Year
Plan. The conference calls are open to the public.
    Information on Services for Individuals With Disabilities: For
information on access or services for individuals with disabilities,
please contact Susan Peterson at<PHONE_NUMBER> or
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>To request accommodation of a disability,
please contact Susan Peterson, preferably at least ten days prior to
the meeting, to give EPA as much time as possible to process your
request.

    Dated: August 6, 2008.
Fred Hauchman,
Acting Director, Office of Science Policy.
[FR Doc. E8-18947 Filed 8-14-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 26 (Wednesday, February 8, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 6529-6530]
[FR Doc No: 2012-2730]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R04-OAR-2011-0084-201167(b); FRL-9628-3]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Alabama,
Georgia, and Tennessee: Chattanooga; Particulate Matter 2002 Base Year
Emissions Inventory

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve the fine particulate matter
(PM2.5) 2002 base year emissions inventory portion of the
State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the States of
Alabama on July 31, 2009, Georgia on October 27, 2009, and Tennessee on
October 15, 2009. The emissions inventory is part of the Chattanooga,
Alabama-Georgia-Tennessee, PM2.5 attainment demonstrations
that were submitted for the 1997 annual PM2.5 National
Ambient Air Quality Standards. This action is being taken pursuant to
section 110 of the Clean Air Act. In the Final Rules Section of this
Federal Register, EPA is approving the State's SIP revision as a direct
final rule without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a
noncontroversial submittal and anticipates no adverse comments.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before March 9, 2012.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-
OAR-2011-0084 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: ``EPA-R04-OAR-2011-0084,'' Regulatory Development Section,
Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW.,
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960.
    5. Hand Delivery or Courier: Lynorae Benjamin, Regulatory
Development Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics
Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61
Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Such deliveries are
only accepted during the Regional Office's normal hours of operation.
The Regional Office's official hours of business are Monday through
Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, 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: Sean Lakeman, Regulatory Development
Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management
Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth
Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. The telephone number is (404)
562-9043. Mr. Lakeman can be reached via electronic mail at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For additional information see the direct
final rule which is published in the Rules Section of this Federal
Register. A detailed rationale for the approval is set forth in the
direct final rule. If no adverse comments are received in response to
this rule, 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 on
this document. Any parties interested in commenting on this document
should do so at this time.

    Dated: January 27, 2012.
A. Stanley Meiburg,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. 2012-2730 Filed 2-7-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 214 (Monday, November 5, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 66409-66411]
[FR Doc No: 2012-26971]

========================================================================
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. 214 / Monday, November 5, 2012 /
Proposed Rules

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2012-1172; Directorate Identifier 2012-CE-040-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Diamond Aircraft Industries GmbH
Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for
Diamond Aircraft Industries GmbH Model H-36, HK 36 R, HK 36 TS, and HK
36 TTS airplanes. This proposed AD results from mandatory continuing
airworthiness information (MCAI) originated by an aviation authority of
another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an
aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as
installation of an unsuitable self-locking nut on the bell crank of the
elevator push rod that can cause failure of the elevator, resulting in
loss of control. We are issuing this proposed AD to require actions to
address the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by December 20,
2012.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact
Diamond Aircraft Industries GmbH, N.A. Otto-Stra[beta]e 5, A-2700
Wiener Neustadt, Austria, telephone: +43 2622 26700; fax: +43 2622
26780; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet: www.diamond-air.at/
hk36--super--dimona+M52087573ab0.html. You may review copies of the
referenced service information at the FAA, Small Airplane Directorate,
901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. For information on the
availability of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Examining the AD Docket

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mike Kiesov, Aerospace Engineer, FAA,
Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri
64106; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address
listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2012-1172;
Directorate Identifier 2012-CE-040-AD'' at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposed AD because of those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this proposed AD.

Discussion

    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical
Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued EASA
AD No.: 2012-0173, dated September 3, 2012 (referred to after this as
``the MCAI''), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified
products. The MCAI states:

    A HK 36 R aeroplane recently experienced an in-flight elevator
control failure after take-off which resulted in an uncontrolled
landing. The results of the subsequent investigation revealed that
the elevator control rod had disconnected from the elevator bell
crank in the tail section of the fuselage, as a result of
installation of a non-suitable self-locking nut.
    The subsequent design review of the affected elevator bell crank
joint with elevator control rod identified that its current
configuration has a failure potential when components such as thin
self-securing nuts and bearings are aging and original clearance of
the control system cannot be maintained in service. Both the designs
of elevator bell crank and elevator control rod are installed in DV
20 aeroplanes.
    This condition, if not corrected, could lead to further cases of
elevator control failure, likely resulting in reduced control of the
aeroplane, consequent damage to the aeroplane and injury to the
occupants.
    To address this concern, Diamond Aircraft Industries (DAI)
published Mandatory Service Bulletin (MSB) 36-108 and MSB 20-061/1
to improve the affected elevator control joint by embodiment of new
design which prevents elevator bell crank and push rod
disconnection.
    For reasons described above, this AD requires replacement of
aeroplane elevator bell cranks with improved parts and prohibits
installation of any previous design elevator bell crank.

You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD
docket.

Relevant Service Information

    Diamond Aircraft Industries GmbH has issued Diamond Aircraft
Industries GmbH Mandatory Service Bulletin MSB 36-108, and Diamond
Aircraft Industries GmbH Work Instruction WI-MSB 36-108, both dated
February 28, 2012. The actions described in this service information
are intended to correct the unsafe condition identified in the MCAI.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of the Proposed AD

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

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD will affect 25 products of U.S.
registry. We also estimate that it would take about 2 work-hours per
product to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. The
average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Required parts would cost
about $352 per product.
    Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the proposed AD on
U.S. operators to be $13,050, or $522 per product.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Proposed Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

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

Diamond Aircraft Industries GmbH: Docket No. FAA-2012-1172;
Directorate Identifier 2012-CE-040-AD.

(a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by December 20, 2012.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to the following Diamond Aircraft Industries
GmbH models and serial number (S/N) airplanes, certificated in any
category: H-36 and HK 36 R airplanes, S/Ns 36.300 through 36.414, HK
36 TS airplanes, S/Ns 36.415 and 36.416; and HK 36 TTS airplane, S/N
36.393.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association of America (ATA) Code 27: Flight
Controls.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by mandatory continuing airworthiness
information (MCAI) originated by an aviation authority of another
country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation
product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as installation of
an unsuitable self-locking nut on the bell crank of the elevator
push rod that can cause failure of the elevator, resulting in loss
of control. We are issuing this AD to prevent disconnection of the
elevator bell crank and push rod.

 (f) Actions and Compliance

    Unless already done, do the following actions following Diamond
Aircraft Industries GmbH Mandatory Service Bulletin MSB 36-108, and
Diamond Aircraft Industries GmbH Work Instruction WI-MSB 36-108,
both dated February 28, 2012:
    (1) Within the next 200 hours time-in-service (TIS) after the
effective date of this AD, or within the next 12 months after the
effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first, replace each
elevator bell crank assembly with part number (P/N) 820-2730-12-00,
and replace each elevator bell crank mount with P/N 820-2730-11-00.
    (2) After the effective date of this AD, only install on the
airplane elevator bell crank assemblies with P/N 820-2730-12-00 and
elevator bell crank mounts with P/N 820-2730-11-00.

(g) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
Standards Office, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this
AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send
information to ATTN: Mike Kiesov, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Small
Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri
64106; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane
to which the AMOC applies, notify your appropriate principal
inspector (PI) in the FAA Flight Standards District Office (FSDO),
or lacking a PI, your local FSDO.
    (2) Airworthy Product: For any requirement in this AD to obtain
corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these
actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered
FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority
(or their delegated agent). You are required to assure the product
is airworthy before it is returned to service.
    (3) Reporting Requirements: For any reporting requirement in
this AD, a federal agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person
is not required to respond to, nor shall a person be subject to a
penalty for failure to comply with a collection of information
subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act unless
that collection of information displays a current valid OMB Control
Number. The OMB Control Number for this information collection is
2120-0056. Public reporting for this collection of information is
estimated to be approximately 5 minutes per response, including the
time for reviewing instructions, completing and reviewing the
collection of information. All responses to this collection of
information are mandatory. Comments concerning the accuracy of this
burden and suggestions for reducing the burden should be directed to
the FAA at: 800 Independence Ave. SW., Washington, DC 20591, Attn:
Information Collection Clearance Officer, AES-200.

(h) Related Information

    Refer to MCAI European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD No.:
2012-0173, dated

September 3, 2012; Diamond Aircraft Industries GmbH Mandatory
Service Bulletin MSB 36-108, dated February 28, 2012; and Diamond
Aircraft Industries GmbH Work Instruction WI-MSB 36-108, dated
February 28, 2012, for related information. For service information
related to this AD, contact Diamond Aircraft Industries GmbH, N.A.
Otto-Stra[szlig]e 5, A-2700 Wiener Neustadt, Austria, telephone: +43
2622 26700; fax: +43 2622 26780; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Internet: www.diamond-air.at/hk36--super--dimona+M52087573ab0.html.
You may review copies of the referenced service information at the
FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri
64106. For information on the availability of this material at the
FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on October 25, 2012.
James E. Jackson,
Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2012-26971 Filed 11-2-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 229 (Tuesday, November 29, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 73501-73502]
[FR Doc No: 2011-30580]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2011-0845; Airspace Docket No. 11-ACE-19]

Amendment of Class E Airspace; Carroll, IA

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action amends Class E airspace for Carroll, IA.
Decommissioning of the Carroll non-directional beacon (NDB) at Arthur
N. Neu Airport, Carroll, IA, has made this action necessary to enhance
the safety and management of Instrument Flight Rule (IFR) operations at
the airport.

DATES: Effective date: 0901 UTC, February 9, 2012. The Director of the
Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under
1 CFR Part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.9 and
publication of conforming amendments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Scott Enander, Central Service Center,
Operations Support Group, Federal Aviation Administration, Southwest
Region, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, TX 76137; telephone (817) 321-
7716.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

History

    On August 26, 2011, the FAA published in the Federal Register a
notice of proposed rulemaking to amend Class E airspace for Carroll,
IA, reconfiguring controlled airspace at Arthur N. Neu Airport (76 FR
53353) Docket No. FAA-2011-0845. Interested parties were invited to
participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on
the proposal to the FAA. No comments were received. Class E airspace
designations are published in paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.9V dated
August 9, 2011, and effective September 15, 2011, which is incorporated
by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designations listed
in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

The Rule

    This action amends Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR)
part 71 by amending Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet
above the surface for the Carroll, IA area. Decommissioning of the
Carroll NDB and cancellation of the NDB approach at Arthur N. Neu
Airport has made reconfiguration of the airspace necessary for the
safety and management of IFR operations at the airport.
    The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
Therefore, this regulation: (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory
action'' under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule''
under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26,
1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation
as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter
that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified that this rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the
criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the U.S. Code. Subtitle 1, 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 I, section 40103. Under that section, the
FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of
airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient
use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority
as it amends controlled airspace at Arthur N. Neu Airport, Carroll, IA.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

Adoption of the Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

PART 71--DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR
TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS

0
1. The authority citation for 14 CFR part 71 continues to read as
follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854,
24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR Part 71.1 of the Federal
Aviation Administration Order 7400.9V, Airspace Designations and
Reporting Points, dated August 9, 2011, and effective September 15,
2011 is amended as follows:
* * * * *

Paragraph 6005 Class E airspace areas extending upward from 700
feet or more above the surface.

* * * * *

ACE IA E5 Carroll, IA [Amended]

Arthur N. Neu Airport, IA
    (Lat. 42[deg]02'46'' N., long. 94[deg]47'20'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 6.5-mile radius of Arthur N. Neu Airport.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on November 9, 2011.
Gail L. Kasson,
Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, ATO Central Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2011-30580 Filed 11-28-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P