51471 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 166 / Wednesday, August 27, 2003 / Rules and Regulations Reform Act of 1995 ( UMRA) ( Public Law 104   4). 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); or OMB review or any Agency action under Executive Order 13045, entitled Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks ( 62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). This action does not involve any technical standards that would require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant to section 12( d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 ( NTTAA), Public Law 104   113, section 12( d) ( 15 U. S. C. 272 note). Since tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis of a FIFRA section 18 exemption under section 408 of the 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. In addition, the Agency has determined that this action will not have a substantial direct effect on States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132, entitled Federalism ( 64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). Executive Order 13132 requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure `` meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.'' `` Policies that have federalism implications'' is defined in the Executive order to include regulations that have `` substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.'' This final rule directly regulates growers, food processors, food handlers, and food retailers, not States. This action does not alter the relationships or distribution of power and responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions of section 408( n)( 4) of the FFDCA. For these same reasons, the Agency has determined that this rule does not have any `` tribal implications'' as described in Executive Order 13175, entitled Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments ( 65 FR 67249, November 6, 2000). Executive Order 13175, requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure `` meaningful and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies that have tribal implications.'' `` Policies that have tribal implications'' is defined in the Executive order to include regulations that have `` substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and the Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.'' This rule will not have substantial direct effects on tribal governments, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, as specified in Executive Order 13175. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this rule.

IX. 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: August 19, 2003. Debra Edwards, Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.

 Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:

PART 180   [ AMENDED]

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

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

 2. Section 180.568 is amended by adding text to paragraph ( b) to read as follows: § 180.568 Flumioxazin; tolerances for residues.

* * * * * ( b) Section 18 emergency exemptions. Time limited tolerances are established for residues of the herbicide flumioxazin in connection with the use of the pesticides under section 18 emergency exemptions granted by EPA. The tolerances will expire and are revoked on the dates specified in the following table.

Commodity Parts per million Expiration/ Revocation date Sweet potato, roots .............. 0.02 06/ 30/ 05 * * * * *

[ FR Doc. 03   21662 Filed 8   26   03; 8: 45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560   50   S ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 180 [ OPP   2003   0254; FRL   7320   2]

Thiamethoxam; Pesticide Tolerances for Emergency Exemptions AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA). ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes time limited tolerances for the combined residues of thiamethoxam and CGA   322704 on hops at 0.10 parts per million ( ppm); bean, succulent at 0.02 ppm; and bean, dried at 0.02 ppm. This action is in response to EPA's granting of emergency exemptions under section 18 of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act ( FIFRA) authorizing use of the pesticide on hops, succulent bean seed and dry bean seed. This regulation establishes maximum permissible levels for residues of thiamethoxam in these food commodities. The tolerances will expire and are revoked on December 31, 2006. DATES: This regulation is effective August 27, 2003. Objections and requests for hearings, identified by docket ID number OPP   2003   0254, must be received on or before October 27, 2003. ADDRESSES: Written objections and hearing requests may be submitted electronically, by mail, or through hand delivery/ courier. Follow the detailed instructions as provided in Unit VII. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.

VerDate jul< 14> 2003 15: 54 Aug 26, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 27AUR1. SGM 27AUR1 51472 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 166 / Wednesday, August 27, 2003 / Rules and Regulations FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Andrew Ertman, Registration Division ( 7505C), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460   0001; telephone number: ( 703) 308   9367; e mail address: Sec 18 Mailbox@ epa. gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information A. Does This Action Apply to Me?

You may be potentially affected by this action if you are a Federal or State Government Agency involved in administration of environmental quality programs ( i. e., United States Departments of Agriculture, Environment, etc). Potentially affected entities may include, but are not limited to:   Federal or State Government Entity ( NAICS 9241). This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this action. Other types of entities not listed in this unit could also be affected. The North American Industrial Classification System ( NAICS) codes have been provided to assist you and others in determining whether this action might apply to certain entities. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

B. How Can I Get Copies of This Document and Other Related Information?

1. Docket. EPA has established an official public docket for this action under docket ID number OPP   2003   0254. The official public docket consists of the documents specifically referenced in this action, any public comments received, and other information related to this action. Although a part of the official docket, the public docket does not include Confidential Business Information ( CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. The official public docket is the collection of materials that is available for public viewing at the Public Information and Records Integrity Branch ( PIRIB), Rm. 119, Crystal Mall # 2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Hwy., Arlington, VA. This docket facility is open from 8: 30 a. m. to 4 p. m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The docket telephone number is ( 703) 305   5805. 2. Electronic access. 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 http:// www. access. gpo. gov/ nara/ cfr/ cfrhtm_ 00/ Title_ 40/ 40cfr180_ 00. html, a beta site currently under development. An electronic version of the public docket is available through EPA's electronic public docket and comment system, EPA Dockets. You may use EPA Dockets at http:// www. epa. gov/ edocket/ to submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the official public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically. Although not all docket materials may be available electronically, you may still access any of the publicly available docket materials through the docket facility identified in Unit I. B. 1. Once in the system, select `` search,'' then key in the appropriate docket ID number.

II. Background and Statutory Findings EPA, on its own initiative, in accordance with sections 408( e) and 408 ( l)( 6) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act ( FFDCA), 21 U. S. C. 346( a), is establishing tolerances for the combined residues of thiamethoxam and CGA   322704 on hops at 0.10 ppm; bean, succulent at 0.02 ppm; and bean, dried at 0.02 ppm. These tolerances will expire and are revoked on December 31, 2006. EPA will publish a document in the Federal Register to remove the revoked tolerances from the Code of Federal Regulations. Section 408( l)( 6) of the FFDCA requires EPA to establish a time limited tolerance or exemption from the requirement for a tolerance for pesticide chemical residues in food that will result from the use of a pesticide under an emergency exemption granted by EPA under section 18 of FIFRA. Such tolerances can be established without providing notice or period for public comment. EPA does not intend for its actions on section 18 related tolerances to set binding precedents for the application of section 408 of the FFDCA and the new safety standard to other tolerances and exemptions. Section 408( e) of the FFDCA allows EPA to establish a tolerance or an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance on its own initiative, i. e., without having received any petition from an outside party. Section 408( b)( 2)( A)( i) of the 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 the 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 the FFDCA requires EPA to give special consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide chemical residue in establishing a tolerance and to `` ensure that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue. . . .'' Section 18 of FIFRA authorizes EPA to exempt any Federal or State Agency from any provision of FIFRA, if EPA determines that `` emergency conditions exist which require such exemption.'' This provision was not amended by the Food Quality Protection Act ( FQPA) of 1996. EPA has established regulations governing such emergency exemptions in 40 CFR part 166.

III. Emergency Exemption for Thiamethoxam on Hops, Succulent Bean Seed and Dry Bean Seed and FFDCA Tolerances The States of Washington and Idaho requested the use of thiamethoxam on succuelent and dry bean seed to control leaf hoppers. EPA has authorized under FIFRA section 18 the use of thiamethoxam on succulent and dry bean seed for control of leaf hoppers in Washington and Idaho. After having reviewed the submissions, EPA concurs that emergency conditions exist for these States. The State of Oregon requested the use of thiamethoxam on hops to control garden symphylans. EPA has authorized under FIFRA section 18 the use of thiamethoxam on hops for control of garden symphylans in Oregon. After having reviewed the submission, EPA concurs that an emergency condition exists for this State. As part of its assessment of this emergency exemption, EPA assessed the potential risks presented by residues of thiamethoxam in or on hops, succulent bean seed and dry bean seed. In doing so, EPA considered the safety standard in section 408( b)( 2) of the FFDCA, and EPA decided that the necessary tolerances under section 408( l)( 6) of the FFDCA would be consistent with the safety standard and with FIFRA section 18. Consistent with the need to move quickly on the emergency exemption in order to address an urgent non routine situation and to ensure that the resulting food is safe and lawful, EPA is issuing VerDate jul< 14> 2003 15: 54 Aug 26, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 27AUR1. SGM 27AUR1 51473 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 166 / Wednesday, August 27, 2003 / Rules and Regulations these tolerances without notice and opportunity for public comment as provided in section 408( l)( 6) of the FFDCA. Although these tolerances will expire and are revoked on December 31, 2006, under section 408( l)( 5) of the FFDCA, residues of the pesticide not in excess of the amounts specified in the tolerances remaining in or on hops, succulent beans and dry beans after that date will not be unlawful, provided the pesticide is applied in a manner that was lawful under FIFRA, and the residues do not exceed a level that was authorized by these tolerances at the time of that application. EPA will take action to revoke these tolerances earlier if any experience with, scientific data on, or other relevant information on this pesticide indicate that the residues are not safe. Because these tolerances are being approved under emergency conditions, EPA has not made any decisions about whether thiamethoxam meets EPA's registration requirements for use on hops, succulent bean seed and dry bean seed or whether permanent tolerances for these uses would be appropriate. Under these circumstances, EPA does not believe that these tolerances serve as a basis for registration of thiamethoxam by a State for special local needs under FIFRA section 24( c). Nor do these tolerances serve as the basis for any State other than Washington and Idaho ( succulent and dry bean seed) and Oregon ( hops) to use this pesticide on these crops under section 18 of FIFRA without following all provisions of EPA's regulations implementing FIFRA section 18 as identified in 40 CFR part 166. For additional information regarding the emergency exemption for thiamethoxam, contact the Agency's Registration Division at the address provided under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. IV. Aggregate Risk Assessment and Determination of Safety EPA performs a number of analyses to determine the risks from aggregate exposure to pesticide residues. For further discussion of the regulatory requirements of section 408 of the FFDCA and a complete description of the risk assessment process, see the final rule on Bifenthrin Pesticide Tolerances November 26, 1997 ( 62 FR 62961) ( FRL   5754   7). Consistent with section 408( b)( 2)( D) of the 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 thiamethoxam and to make a determination on aggregate exposure, consistent with section 408( b)( 2) of the FFDCA, for time limited tolerances for the combined residues of thiamethoxam and CGA   322704 on hops at 0.10 ppm; bean, succulent at 0.02 ppm; and bean, dried at 0.02 ppm. EPA's assessment of the dietary exposures and risks associated with establishing the tolerance follows.

A. Toxicological Endpoints The dose at which no observed adverse effect levels are observed ( the NOAEL) from the toxicology study identified as appropriate for use in risk assessment is used to estimate the toxicological endpoint. However, the lowest dose at which adverse effects of concern are identified ( the LOAEL) is sometimes used for risk assessment if no NOAEL was achieved in the toxicology study selected. An uncertainty factor ( UF) is applied to reflect 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. An UF of 100 is routinely used, 10X to account for interspecies differences and 10X for intraspecies differences. For dietary risk assessment ( other than cancer) the Agency uses the UF to calculate an acute or chronic reference dose ( aRfD or cRfD) where the RfD is equal to the NOAEL divided by the appropriate UF ( RfD = NOAEL/ UF). Where an additional safety factor is retained due to concerns unique to the FQPA, this additional factor is applied to the RfD by dividing the RfD by such additional factor. The acute or chronic Population Adjusted Dose ( aPAD or cPAD) is a modification of the RfD to accommodate this type of FQPA SF. For non dietary risk assessments ( other than cancer) the UF is used to determine the level of concern ( LOC). For example, when 100 is the appropriate UF ( 10X to account for interspecies differences and 10X for intraspecies differences) the LOC is 100. To estimate risk, a ratio of the NOAEL to exposures ( margin of exposure ( MOE) = NOAEL/ exposure) is calculated and compared to the LOC. The linear default risk methodology ( Q*) is the primary method currently used by the Agency to quantify carcinogenic risk. The Q* approach assumes that any amount of exposure will lead to some degree of cancer risk. A Q* is calculated and used to estimate risk which represents a probability of occurrence of additional cancer cases ( e. g., risk is expressed as 1 x 10 6 or one in a million). Under certain specific circumstances, MOE calculations will be used for the carcinogenic risk assessment. In this non linear approach, a `` point of departure'' is identified below which carcinogenic effects are not expected. The point of departure is typically a NOAEL based on an endpoint related to cancer effects though it may be a different value derived from the dose response curve. To estimate risk, a ratio of the point of departure to exposure ( MOEcancer = point of departure/ exposures) is calculated. A summary of the toxicological endpoints for thiamethoxam used for human risk assessment is shown in the following Table 1:

TABLE 1.   SUMMARY OF TOXICOLOGICAL DOSE AND ENDPOINTS FOR THIAMETHOXAM FOR USE IN HUMAN RISK ASSESSMENT Exposure scenario Dose used in risk assessment UF FQPA SF* and level of concern for risk assessment Study and toxicological effects Acute dietary ( general population including infants and children) NOAEL = 100 mg/ kg/ day UF = 100 Acute RfD = 1 mg/ kg/ day FQPA SF = 10 aPAD = acute RfD FQPA SF = 0.1 mg/ kg/ day Acute mammalian neurotoxicity study in the rat LOAEL = 500 mg/ kg/ day based on treatment related neurobehavioral effects observed in the FOB and LMA testing ( drooped palpebral closure, decreased rectal temperature and locomotor activity increased forelimb grip strength).

VerDate jul< 14> 2003 15: 54 Aug 26, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 27AUR1. SGM 27AUR1 51474 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 166 / Wednesday, August 27, 2003 / Rules and Regulations TABLE 1.   SUMMARY OF TOXICOLOGICAL DOSE AND ENDPOINTS FOR THIAMETHOXAM FOR USE IN HUMAN RISK ASSESSMENT   Continued Exposure scenario Dose used in risk assessment UF FQPA SF* and level of concern for risk assessment Study and toxicological effects Chronic dietary ( all populations NOAEL = 0.6 mg/ kg/ day UF = 100 Chronic RfD = 0.006 mg/ kg/ day FQPA SF = 10 cPAD = chronic RfD FQPA SF = 0.0006 mg/ kg/ day 2 Generation reproduction study LOAEL = 1.8 mg/ kg/ day based on increased incidence and severity of tubular atrophy in testes of F1 generation males.

Oral nondietary ( all durations NOAEL = 0.6 mg/ kg/ day LOC for MOE = 1,000 ( Residential) 2 Generation reproduction study LOAEL = 1.8 mg/ kg/ day based on increased incidence and severity of tubular atrophy in testes of F1 generation males.

Dermal ( all durations) ( Residential) Oral study NOAEL = 0.6 mg/ kg/ day ( dermal absorption rate = 5%) LOC for MOE = 1,000 ( Residential) LOC for MOE = 100 ( Occupational) 2 Generation reproduction study LOAEL = 1.8 mg/ kg/ day based on increased incidence and severity of tubular atrophy in testes of F1 generation males.

Inhalation ( all durations) ( Residential) Oral study NOAEL= 0.6 mg/ kg/ day ( inhalation absorption rate = 100%) LOC for MOE = 1,000 ( Residential) LOC for MOE = 100 ( Occupational) 2 Generation reproduction study LOAEL = 1.8 mg/ kg/ day based on increased incidence and severity of tubular atrophy in testes of F1 generation males.

Cancer ( oral, dermal, inhalation Likely carcinogen for humans based on increased incidence of hepatocellular adenomas and carcinomas in male and female mice. Quantification of risk based on most potent unit risk: male mouse liver adenoma and/ or carcinoma combined tumor rate. The upper bound estimate of unit risk, Q1* milligrams/ kilogram/ day ( mg/ kg/ day) 1 is 3.77 x 10 2 in human equivalents.

* The reference to the FQPA SF refers to any additional SF retained due to concerns unique to the FQPA.

B. Exposure Assessment 1. Dietary exposure from food and feed uses. Tolerances have been established for the combined residues of thiamethoxam, in or on a variety of raw agricultural commodities ( RAC). The following RAC's have established tolerances: Barley, canola, cotton, sorghum, wheat, tuberous and corm vegetables crop subgroup, fruiting vegetables, crop group, tomato paste, cucurbit vegetables crop group, pome fruits crop group, milk and the meat and meat by products of cattle, goats, horses, and sheep. Risk assessments were conducted by EPA to assess dietary exposures from thiamethoxam in food as follows: i. Acute exposure. Acute dietary risk assessments are performed for a fooduse 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. The Dietary Exposure Evaluation Model ( DEEMTM) analysis evaluated the individual food consumption as reported by respondents in the United States Department of Agriculture ( USDA) 1994   1996 nationwide Continuing Surveys of Food Intake by Individuals ( CSFII) and accumulated exposure to the chemical for each commodity. The following assumptions were made for the acute exposure assessments: Tolerence level residues and 100% crop treated. ii. Chronic exposure. In conducting this chronic dietary risk assessment the DEEMTM analysis evaluated the individual food consumption as reported by respondents in the USDA 1994   1996 nationwide CSFII and accumulated exposure to the chemical for each commodity. The chronic exposure estimates are based on Tier 3 analyses that incorporate anticipated residues and percent crop treated ( PCT) for most commodities. iii. Cancer. Cancer dietary exposure has been estimated using the DEEMFCID version 1.3. The cancer exposure estimates are based on Tier 3 analyses that incorporate anticipated residues and PCT for most commodities. iv. Anticipated residue and PCT information. Section 408( b)( 2)( E) of the 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 chemicals that have been measured in food. If EPA relies on such information, EPA must require 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. Following the initial data submission, EPA is authorized to require similar data on a time frame it deems appropriate. As required by section 408( b)( 2)( E) of the FFDCA, EPA will issue a Data Call In for information relating to anticipated residues to be submitted no later than 5 years from the date of issuance of this tolerance. Section 408( b)( 2)( F) of the FFDCA states that the Agency may use data on the actual percent of food treated for assessing chronic dietary risk only if the Agency can make the following findings: Condition 1, that the data used are reliable and provide a valid basis to show what percentage of the food derived from such crop is likely to contain such pesticide residue; condition 2, that the exposure estimate does not underestimate exposure for any significant subpopulation group; and condition 3, if data are available on pesticide use and food consumption in a particular area, the exposure estimate does not understate exposure for the population in such area. In addition, the Agency must provide for periodic evaluation of any estimates used. To VerDate jul< 14> 2003 15: 54 Aug 26, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 27AUR1. SGM 27AUR1 51475 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 166 / Wednesday, August 27, 2003 / Rules and Regulations provide for the periodic evaluation of the estimate of PCT as required by section 408( b)( 2)( F) of the FFDCA, EPA may require registrants to submit data on PCT. The Agency used PCT information as follows: Potatos, 19%; fruiting vegetables, 15%; cucumbers, 5%; melons, 13%; casabas, 44%; crenshaws, 44%; squash, 44%; pumpkins, 44%; apples, 5%; crabapples, 53%; pears, 9%; quinces, 53%; loquat, 53%; barley, 0.1%; sorghum, 9%; wheat, 2%; canola, 55%; cotton, 20%. The Agency believes that the three conditions listed above have been met. With respect to condition 1, PCT estimates are derived from Federal and private market survey data, which are reliable and have a valid basis. EPA uses a weighted average PCT for chronic dietary exposure estimates. This weighted average PCT figure is derived by averaging State level data for a period of up to 10 years, and weighting for the more robust and recent data. A weighted average of the PCT reasonably represents a person's dietary exposure over a lifetime, and is unlikely to underestimate exposure to an individual because of the fact that pesticide use patterns ( both regionally and nationally) tend to change continuously over time, such that an individual is unlikely to be exposed to more than the average PCT over a lifetime. For acute dietary exposure estimates, EPA uses an estimated maximum PCT. The exposure estimates resulting from this approach reasonably represent the highest levels to which an individual could be exposed, and are unlikely to underestimate an individual's acute dietary exposure. The Agency is reasonably certain that the percentage of the food treated is not likely to be an underestimation. As to conditions 2 and 3, regional consumption information and consumption information for significant subpopulations is taken into account through EPA's computer based model for evaluating the exposure of significant subpopulations including several regional groups. Use of this consumption information in EPA's risk assessment process ensures that EPA's exposure estimate does not understate exposure for any significant subpopulation group and allows the Agency to be reasonably certain that no regional population is exposed to residue levels higher than those estimated by the Agency. Other than the data available through national food consumption surveys, EPA does not have available information on the regional consumption of food to which thiamethoxam may be applied in a particular area. 2. Dietary exposure from drinking water. The Agency lacks sufficient monitoring exposure data to complete a comprehensive dietary exposure analysis and risk assessment for thiamethoxam in drinking water. Because the Agency does not have comprehensive monitoring data, drinking water concentration estimates are made by reliance on simulation or modeling taking into account data on the physical characteristics of thiamethoxam. The Agency uses the Generic Estimated Environmental Concentration ( GENEEC) or the Pesticide Root Zone/ Exposure Analysis Modeling System ( PRZM/ EXAMS) to estimate pesticide concentrations in surface water and ( SCI GROW), which predicts pesticide concentrations in ground water. In general, EPA will use GENEEC ( a Tier 1 model) before using PRZM/ EXAMS ( a Tier 2 model) for a screening level assessment for surface water. The GENEEC model is a subset of the PRZM/ EXAMS model that uses a specific highend runoff scenario for pesticides. GENEEC incorporates a farm pond scenario, while PRZM/ EXAMS incorporate an index reservoir environment in place of the previous pond scenario. The PRZM/ EXAMS model includes a percent crop area factor as an adjustment to account for the maximum percent crop coverage within a watershed or drainage basin. None of these models include consideration of the impact processing ( mixing, dilution, or treatment) of raw water for distribution as drinking water would likely have on the removal of pesticides from the source water. The primary use of these models by the Agency at this stage is to provide a coarse screen for sorting out pesticides for which it is highly unlikely that drinking water concentrations would ever exceed human health levels of concern. Since the models used are considered to be screening tools in the risk assessment process, the Agency does not use estimated environmental concentrations ( EECs) from these models to quantify drinking water exposure and risk as a percent reference dose (% RfD) or percent population adjusted dose (% PAD). Instead drinking water levels of comparison ( DWLOCs) are calculated and used as a point of comparison against the model estimates of a pesticide's concentration in water. DWLOCs are theoretical upper limits on a pesticide's concentration in drinking water in light of total aggregate exposure to a pesticide in food, and from residential uses. Since DWLOCs address total aggregate exposure to thiamethoxam, they are further discussed in the aggregate risk sections below. Based on the PRZM/ EXAMS and SCIGROW models, the EECs of thiamethoxam for acute exposures are estimated to be 7.1 parts per billion ( ppb) for surface water and 1.94 ppb for ground water. The EECs for chronic exposures are estimated to be 0.43 ( noncancer and 0.13 ppb ( cancer) for surface water and 1.94 ppb for ground water ( cancer and non cancer). 3. From non dietary exposure. The term `` residential exposure'' is used in this document to refer to nonoccupational non dietary exposure ( e. g., for lawn and garden pest control, indoor pest control, termiticides, and flea and tick control on pets). Thiamethoxam is not registered for use on any sites that would result in residential exposure. 4. Cumulative exposure to substances with a common mechanism of toxicity. Section 408( b)( 2)( D)( v) of the 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 does not have, at this time, available data to determine whether thiamethoxam has a common mechanism of toxicity with other substances or how to include this pesticide in a cumulative risk assessment. Unlike other pesticides for which EPA has followed a cumulative risk approach based on a common mechanism of toxicity, thiamethoxam does not appear to produce a toxic metabolite produced by other substances. For the purposes of this tolerance action, therefore, EPA has not assumed that thiamethoxam has 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 the final rule for Bifenthrin Pesticide Tolerances ( 62 FR 62961, November 26, 1997).

C. Safety Factor for Infants and Children 1. In general. Section 408 of the FFDCA provides that EPA shall apply an additional tenfold 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 data base on toxicity and exposure unless EPA determines that a different margin of VerDate jul< 14> 2003 15: 54 Aug 26, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 27AUR1. SGM 27AUR1 51476 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 166 / Wednesday, August 27, 2003 / Rules and Regulations safety will be safe for infants and children. Margins of safety are incorporated into EPA risk assessments either directly through use of a MOE analysis or through using uncertainty ( safety) factors in calculating a dose level that poses no appreciable risk to humans. 2. Prenatal and postnatal sensitivity. The developmental toxicity studies indicated no quantitative or qualitative evidence of increased susceptibility of rat or rabbit fetus to in utero exposure based on the fact that the developmental NOAELs are either higher than or equal to the maternal NOAELs. However, the reproductive studies indicate effects in male rats in the form of increased incidence and severity of testicular tubular atrophy. These data are considered to be evidence of increased quantitative susceptibility for male pups when compared to the parents. 3. Conclusions. Based on: i. Effects on endocrine organs observed across species. ii. The significant decrease in alanine amino transferase levels in the companion animal studies and in the dog studies. iii. The mode of action of this chemical in insects ( interferes with the nicotinic acetyl choline receptors of the insect's nervous system) thus a developmental neurotoxicity study is required. iv. The transient clinical signs of neurotoxicity in several studies across species. v. The suggestive evidence of increased quantitative susceptibility in the rat reproduction study, the Agency is retaining the FQPA factor which is l0X.

D. Aggregate Risks and Determination of Safety To estimate total aggregate exposure to a pesticide from food, drinking water, and residential uses, the Agency calculates DWLOCs which are used as a point of comparison against the model estimates of a pesticide's concentration in water ( EECs). DWLOC values are not regulatory standards for drinking water. DWLOCs are theoretical upper limits on a pesticide's concentration in drinking water in light of total aggregate exposure to a pesticide in food and residential uses. In calculating a DWLOC, the Agency determines how much of the acceptable exposure ( i. e., the PAD) is available for exposure through drinking water e. g., allowable chronic water exposure ( mg/ kg/ day) = cPAD  ( average food + chronic non dietary, nonoccupational exposure). This allowable exposure through drinking water is used to calculate a DWLOC. A DWLOC will vary depending on the toxic endpoint, drinking water consumption, and body weights. Default body weights and consumption values as used by EPA Office of Water are used to calculate DWLOCs: 2 liter ( L)/ 70 kg ( adult male), 2L/ 60 kg ( adult female), and 1L/ 10 kg ( child). Default body weights and drinking water consumption values vary on an individual basis. This variation will be taken into account in more refined screening level and quantitative drinking water exposure assessments. Different populations will have different DWLOCs. Generally, a DWLOC is calculated for each type of risk assessment used: Acute, short term, intermediate term, chronic, and cancer. When EECs for surface water and ground water are less than the calculated DWLOCs, EPA concludes with reasonable certainty that exposures to thiamethoxam in drinking water ( when considered along with other sources of exposure for which EPA has reliable data) would not result in unacceptable levels of aggregate human health risk at this time. Because EPA considers the aggregate risk resulting from multiple exposure pathways associated with a pesticide's uses, levels of comparison in drinking water may vary as those uses change. If new uses are added in the future, EPA will reassess the potential impacts of thiamethoxam on drinking water as a part of the aggregate risk assessment process. 1. Acute risk. Using the exposure assumptions discussed in this unit for acute exposure, the acute dietary exposure from food to thiamethoxam will occupy 3% of the aPAD for the U. S. population; 2% of the aPAD for females 13 years and older; 7% of the aPAD for all infants < 1 year old; and 9% of the aPAD for children 1   2 years old. In addition, despite the potential for acute dietary exposure to thiamethoxam in drinking water, after calculating DWLOCs and comparing them to conservative EECs of thiamethoxam in surface water and ground water, EPA does not expect the aggregate exposure to exceed 100% of the aPAD, as shown in the following Table 2:

TABLE 2.   AGGREGATE RISK ASSESSMENT FOR ACUTE EXPOSURE TO THIAMETHOXAM Population subgroup aPAD ( mg/ kg) % aPAD ( Food) Surface water EEC ( ppb) Ground water EEC ( ppb) Acute DWLOC ( ppb)

General U. S. population 0.1 3 7.1 1.94 3,400 All Infants (< 1 year old) 0.1 7 7.1 1.94 930 Children ( 1   2 years old) 0.1 9 7.1 1.94 910 Children ( 3   5 years old) 0.1 6 7.1 1.94 940 Children ( 6   12 years old) 0.1 4 7.1 1.94 960 Youth ( 13   19 years old) 0.1 2 7.1 1.94 3,400 Adults ( 20   49 years old) 0.1 2 7.1 1.94 3,400 Adults ( 50+ years old) 0.1 2 7.1 1.94 3,400 Females ( 13   49 years old) 0.1 2 7.1 1.94 3,000 2. Chronic risk. Using the exposure assumptions described in this unit for chronic exposure, EPA has concluded that exposure to thiamethoxam from food will utilize 4% of the cPAD for the U. S. population, 8% of the cPAD for all VerDate jul< 14> 2003 15: 54 Aug 26, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 27AUR1. SGM 27AUR1 51477 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 166 / Wednesday, August 27, 2003 / Rules and Regulations infants < 1 year old and 12% of the cPAD for children 1   2 years old. There are no residential uses for thiamethoxam that result in chronic residential exposure to thiamethoxam. In addition, despite the potential for chronic dietary exposure to thiamethoxam in drinking water, after calculating DWLOCs and comparing them to conservative model estimated environmental concentrations of thiamethoxam in surface water and ground water, EPA does not expect the aggregate exposure to exceed 100% of the cPAD, as shown in the following Table 3:

TABLE 3.   AGGREGATE RISK ASSESSMENT FOR CHRONIC ( NON CANCER) EXPOSURE TO THIAMETHOXAM Population subgroup cPAD mg/ kg/ day % cPAD ( Food) Surface water EEC ( ppb) Ground water EEC ( ppb) Chronic DWLOC ( ppb)

General U. S. population 0.0006 4 0.43 1.94 20 All infants (< 1 year old) 0.0006 8 0.43 1.94 5.6 Children ( 1   2 years old) 0.0006 12 0.43 1.94 5.3 Children ( 3   5 years old) 0.0006 10 0.43 1.94 5.4 Children ( 6   12 years old) 0.0006 6 0.43 1.94 5.6 Youth ( 13   19 years old) 0.0006 4 0.43 1.94 20 Adults ( 20   49 years old) 0.0006 3 0.43 1.94 20 Adults ( 50+ years old) 0.0006 3 0.43 1.94 20 Females ( 13   49 years old) 0.0006 3 0.43 1.94 17 3. Short term risk. Short term aggregate exposure takes into account residential exposure plus chronic exposure to food and water ( considered to be a background exposure level). Thiamethoxam is not registered for use on any sites that would result in residential exposure. Therefore, the aggregate risk is the sum of the risk from food and water, which were previously addressed. 4. Intermediate term risk. Intermediate term aggregate exposure takes into account non dietary, nonoccupational exposure plus chronic exposure to food and water ( considered to be a background exposure level). Thiamethoxam is not registered for use on any sites that would result in residential exposure. Therefore, the aggregate risk is the sum of the risk from food and water, which were previously addressed. 5. Aggregate cancer risk for U. S. population. At the present time, there are no uses of thiamethoxam that will result in non dietary, non occupational ( i. e., residential) exposures. Therefore, aggregate cancer risk estimates for thiamethoxam address only the food and drinking water pathways of exposure. EECs for thiamethoxam for comparison to the DWLOCs are 1.94 µ g/ L for cancer scenarios. The Agency does not have aggregate risk concerns when the estimated residues in water are less than the DWLOCs. For cancer risk, which is estimated for the total U. S. population only, the DWLOC is 2.15 µ g/ L and assumes a negligible risk level of 3 x 10 6 rather than 1 x 10 6. For risk management purposes, EPA considers a cancer risk to be greater than negligible when it exceeds the range of 1 in 1 million, however the Agency has generally treated cancer risks up to 3 in 1 million as within the range of 1 in 1 million. The DWLOC value indicates that aggregate exposure to thiamethoxam is not likely to exceed the Agency's level of concern as shown in the following Table 4:

TABLE 4.   AGGREGATE RISK ASSESSMENT FOR CHRONIC ( CANCER) EXPOSURE TO THIAMETHOXAM Population subgroup Maximum acceptable exposure ( mg/ kg/ day) 1 Food exposure ( mg/ kg/ day) Maximum water exposure ( mg/ kg/ day) 2 Surface water EEC ( ppb) Ground water EEC ( ppb) Cancer DWLOC ( ppb) 3 General U. S. population 0.0000795 0.000018 0.000062 0.13 1.94 2.15 1 Maximum acceptable exposure = 3 x 10 6 ÷ 0.0377 ( mg/ kg/ day) 1 = 7.95 x 10 5 mg/ kg/ day. 2 Maximum water exposure = maximum acceptable exposure  food exposure. 3 DWLOC = maximum water exposure ( mg/ kg/ day) 1,000 µ g/ mg H body weight ( 70 kg general population) ÷ water consumption ( 2 L/ day). Value has been rounded to three significant figures.

EPA recognizes that the active ingredient clothianidin is identical to the thiamethoxam metabolite of concern CGA   322704; however, clothianidin has not been classified as a carcinogen and therefore, it has been removed from the cancer assessment. 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, and to infants and children from aggregate exposure to thiamethoxam residues. V. Other Considerations A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology Adequate enforcement methodology High Performance Liquid Chromatography using Ultra Violet or Mass Spectrometry ( HPLC/ UV or MS) is VerDate jul< 14> 2003 15: 54 Aug 26, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 27AUR1. SGM 27AUR1 51478 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 166 / Wednesday, August 27, 2003 / Rules and Regulations available to enforce the tolerance expression. The method may be requested from: Calvin Furlow, PIRIB, IRSD ( 7502C), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: ( 703) 305   5229; e mail address: furlow. calvin@ epa. gov.

B. International Residue Limits There are no CODEX, Canadian, or Mexican maximum residue limits that impact this action.

C. Conditions The thiamethoxam label currently contains the following rotational crop restriction: Immediate rotation to any crop on the label or to cucurbit vegetables, fruiting vegetables, cotton, sorghum, corn, wheat, barley, canola, tuberous and corm vegetables, and tobacco. For all other crops, a 120   day plant back interval must be observed. That restriction is adequate to cover the requested section 18 use as a seed treatment for succulent and dried beans. Hops is not rotated and, therefore, does not raise any potential rotational crop issues.

VI. Conclusion Therefore, the tolerances are established for the combined residues of thiamethoxam and CGA   322704 on hops at 0.10 ppm; bean, succulent at 0.02 ppm; and bean, dried at 0.02 ppm.

VII. Objections and Hearing Requests Under section 408( g) of the FFDCA, as amended by the FQPA, any person may file an objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a hearing on those objections. The EPA procedural regulations which govern the submission of objections and requests for hearings appear in 40 CFR part 178. Although the procedures in those regulations require some modification to reflect the amendments made to the FFDCA by the FQPA, EPA will continue to use those procedures, with appropriate adjustments, until the necessary modifications can be made. The new section 408( g) of the FFDCA provides essentially the same process for persons to `` object'' to a regulation for an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance issued by EPA under new section 408( d) of the FFDCA, as was provided in the old sections 408 and 409 of the FFDCA. However, the period for filing objections is now 60 days, rather than 30 days. A. What Do I Need To Do To File an Objection or Request a Hearing?

You must file your objection or request a hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided in this unit and in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify docket ID number OPP   2003   0254 in the subject line on the first page of your submission. All requests must be in writing, and must be mailed or delivered to the Hearing Clerk on or before October 27, 2003. 1. Filing the request. Your objection must specify the specific provisions in the regulation that you object to, and the grounds for the objections ( 40 CFR 178.25). If a hearing is requested, the objections must include a statement of the factual issues( s) on which a hearing is requested, the requestor's contentions on such issues, and a summary of any evidence relied upon by the objector ( 40 CFR 178.27). Information submitted in connection with an objection or hearing request may be claimed confidential by marking any part or all of that information as CBI. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. A copy of the information that does not contain CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public record. Information not marked confidential may be disclosed publicly by EPA without prior notice. Mail your written request to: Office of the Hearing Clerk ( 1900C), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460   0001. You may also deliver your request to the Office of the Hearing Clerk in Rm. 104, Crystal Mall # 2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Hwy., Arlington, VA. The Office of the Hearing Clerk is open from 8 a. m. to 4 p. m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Office of the Hearing Clerk is ( 703) 603   0061. 2. Tolerance fee payment. If you file an objection or request a hearing, you must also pay the fee prescribed by 40 CFR 180.33( i) or request a waiver of that fee pursuant to 40 CFR 180.33( m). You must mail the fee to: EPA Headquarters Accounting Operations Branch, Office of Pesticide Programs, P. O. Box 360277M, Pittsburgh, PA 15251. Please identify the fee submission by labeling it `` Tolerance Petition Fees.'' EPA is authorized to waive any fee requirement `` when in the judgement of the Administrator such a waiver or refund is equitable and not contrary to the purpose of this subsection.'' For additional information regarding the waiver of these fees, you may contact James Tompkins by phone at ( 703) 305   5697, by e mail at tompkins. jim@ epa. gov, or by mailing a request for information to Mr. Tompkins at Registration Division ( 7505C), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460   0001. If you would like to request a waiver of the tolerance objection fees, you must mail your request for such a waiver to: James Hollins, Information Resources and Services Division ( 7502C), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460   0001. 3. Copies for the Docket. In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the Hearing Clerk as described in Unit VII. A., you should also send a copy of your request to the PIRIB for its inclusion in the official record that is described in Unit I. B. 1. Mail your copies, identified by the docket ID number OPP   2003   0254, to: Public Information and Records Integrity Branch, Information Resources and Services Division ( 7502C), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460   0001. In person or by courier, bring a copy to the location of the PIRIB described in Unit I. B. 1. You may also send an electronic copy of your request via e mail to: opp docket@ epa. gov. Please use an ASCII file format and avoid the use of special characters and any form of encryption. Copies of electronic objections and hearing requests will also be accepted on disks in WordPerfect 6.1/ 8.0 or ASCII file format. Do not include any CBI in your electronic copy. You may also submit an electronic copy of your request at many Federal Depository Libraries.

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

VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews This final rule establishes timelimited tolerances under section 408 of VerDate jul< 14> 2003 15: 54 Aug 26, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00050 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 27AUR1. SGM 27AUR1 51479 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 166 / Wednesday, August 27, 2003 / Rules and Regulations the FFDCA. The Office of Management and Budget has exempted these types of actions from review under Executive Order 12866, entitled Regulatory Planning and Review ( 58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Because this rule has been exempted from review under Executive Order 12866 due to its lack of significance, this rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use ( 66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This final rule does not contain any information collections subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act ( PRA), 44 U. S. C. 3501 et seq., or impose any enforceable duty or contain any unfunded mandate as described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 ( UMRA) ( Public Law 104   4). Nor does it require any special considerations under Executive Order 12898, entitled Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low Income Populations ( 59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994); or OMB review or any Agency action under Executive Order 13045, entitled Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks ( 62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). This action does not involve any technical standards that would require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant to section 12( d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 ( NTTAA), Public Law 104   113, section 12( d) ( 15 U. S. C. 272 note). Since tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis of a FIFRA section 18 exemption under section 408 of the FFDCA, such as the [ tolerances] in this final rule, do not require the issuance of a proposed rule, the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act ( RFA) ( 5 U. S. C. 601 et seq.) do not apply. In addition, the Agency has determined that this action will not have a substantial direct effect on States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132, entitled Federalism ( 64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). Executive Order 13132 requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure `` meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications. `` Policies that have federalism implications'' is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations that have `` substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.'' This final rule directly regulates growers, food processors, food handlers, and food retailers, not States. This action does not alter the relationships or distribution of power and responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions of section 408( n)( 4) of the FFDCA. For these same reasons, the Agency has determined that this rule does not have any `` tribal implications'' as described in Executive Order 13175, entitled Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments ( 65 FR 67249, November 6, 2000). Executive Order 13175, requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure `` meaningful and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies that have tribal implications.'' `` Policies that have tribal implications'' is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations that have `` substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and the Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.'' This rule will not have substantial direct effects on tribal governments, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, as specified in Executive Order 13175. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this rule.

IX. 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: August 14, 2003. Debra Edwards, Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.

 Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:

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

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

 2. Section 180.565 is amended by adding text to paragraph ( b) to read as follows:

§ 180.565 Thiamethoxam; tolerances for residues.

* * * * * ( b) Section 18 emergency exemptions. Time limited tolerances are established for the combined residues of the insecticide thiamethoxam [ 3[( 2 chloro 5 thiazolyl) methyl] tetrahydro 5 methyl N nitro 4H 1,3,5 oxadiazin 4 imine] and its metabolite CGA 322704 in connection with use of the pesticide under section 18 emergency exemptions granted by EPA. These tolerances will expire and are revoked on the dates specified in the following table:

Commodity Parts per million Expiration/ revocation date Bean, dried ....... 0.02 12/ 31/ 06 Bean, succulent 0.02 12/ 31/ 06 Hops ................. 0.10 12/ 31/ 06 * * * * *

[ FR Doc. 03   21783 Filed 8   26   03; 8: 45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560   50   S ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 180 [ OPP   2003   0279; FRL   7323   1]

Diflubenzuron; Pesticide Tolerances for Emergency Exemptions AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA). ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes time limited tolerances for combined residues of diflubenzuron in or on wheat and barley commodities. This action is in response to treatment of these crops under section 18 of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and VerDate jul< 14> 2003 15: 54 Aug 26, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00051 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 27AUR1. SGM 27AUR1


[Federal Register: June 28, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 124)]
[Notices]
[Page 36765]
[DOCID:fr28jn06-58]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket Nos. ER06-743-000 and ER06-743-001; Docket Nos. ER06-744-000
and ER06-744-001]

Air Liquide Large Industries, U.S. LP; Sabine Cogen, LP; Notice
of Issuance of Order

June 19, 2006.
    Air Liquide Large Industries U.S. LP (Air Liquide) and Sabine
Cogen, LP (Sabine Cogen) filed separate applications for market-based
rate authority, with accompanying rate schedules. The proposed market-
based rate schedules each provide for the sale of energy, capacity and
ancillary services at market-based rates. Air Liquide and Sabine Cogen
also requested waiver of various Commission regulations. In particular,
Air Liquide and Sabine Cogen requested that the Commission grant
blanket approval under 18 CFR part 34 of all future issuances of
securities and assumptions of liability by Air Liquide and Sabine
Cogen.
    On June 15, 2006, pursuant to delegated authority, the Director,
Division of Tariffs and Market Development--West, granted the request
for blanket approval under part 34. The Director's order also stated
that the Commission would publish a separate notice in the Federal
Register establishing a period of time for the filing of protests.
Accordingly, any person desiring to be heard or to protest the blanket
approval of issuances of securities or assumptions of liability by Air
Liquide and Sabine Cogen should file a motion to intervene or protest
with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure. 18 CFR 385.211, 385.214
(2004).
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing motions to
intervene or protest is July 17, 2006.
    Absent a request to be heard in opposition by the deadline above,
Air Liquide and Sabine Cogen are authorized to issue securities and
assume obligations or liabilities as a guarantor, indorser, surety, or
otherwise in respect of any security of another person; provided that
such issuance or assumption is for some lawful object within the
corporate purposes of Air Liquide and Sabine Cogen, compatible with the
public interest, and is reasonably necessary or appropriate for such
purposes.
    The Commission reserves the right to require a further showing that
neither public nor private interests will be adversely affected by
continued approval of Air Liquide's and Sabine Cogen's issuances of
securities or assumptions of liability.
    Copies of the full text of the Director's Order are available from
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426. The Order may also be viewed on the Commission's
Web site at http://www.ferc.gov, using the eLibrary link. Enter the

docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number
filed to access the document. Comments, protests, and interventions may
be filed electronically via the internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR
385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site
under the ``e-Filing'' link. The Commission strongly encourages
electronic filings.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E6-10121 Filed 6-27-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 11 (Tuesday, January 19, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 5314-5316]
[FR Doc No: 2021-00994]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

[Docket Number: DOT-OST-2020-0254]

Extension of the Comment Deadline Date; Request for Information
for the Inclusive Design Reference Hub

AGENCY: Office of the Secretary of Transportation (OST), Department of
Transportation.

ACTION: Notice; request for information (RFI).

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

SUMMARY: On December 21, 2020, DOT published in the Federal Register a
request for information (RFI) regarding an Inclusive Design Reference
Hub. This notice extends the deadline date for receiving comments until
February 19, 2021 at 5:00 p.m. (ET).

DATES: Responses to the RFI must be received by February 19, 2021, no
later than 5:00 p.m. (ET) to ensure consideration of your views.

ADDRESSES: Written comments may be submitted using any one of the
following methods:
     Electronic mail: Email comments to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>with a courtesy copy to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Responses must be provided
as attachments to an email. It is recommended that attachments with
file sizes exceeding 25MB be compressed (i.e., zipped) to ensure
message delivery. Responses must be provided as a Microsoft Word
(.docx) attachment to the email, and be no more than 5 pages in length,
with 12-point font and 1-inch margins.
     Internet: To submit comments electronically, go to the
Federal regulations website at http://www.regulations.gov. Search by
using the docket number (DOT-OST-2020-0254). Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
    Respondents may answer as many or as few questions (see the
questions below) as they wish.
    DOT will not respond to individual submissions or publish publicly
a compendium of responses. A response to this RFI will not be viewed as
a binding commitment to develop or pursue the project or ideas
discussed.
    Respondents are requested to provide the following information at
the beginning of their response to this RFI:

 Company/institution name
 Company/institution contact
 Contact's address, phone number, and email address

Proprietary Information

    Because information received in response to this RFI may be used to
structure future programs and/or otherwise be made available to the
public, respondents are strongly advised to NOT include any information
in their responses that might be considered business sensitive,
proprietary, or otherwise confidential. However, respondents may choose
to include such information in their submissions if they believe it
will significantly assist DOT in the design of the program.
    Responses containing confidential, proprietary, or privileged
information must be conspicuously marked as described below. Failure to
comply with these marking requirements may result in the disclosure of
the unmarked information under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C.
552.
    If a response contains trade secrets or confidential commercial or
financial information, the respondent must include a cover sheet
identifying the specific pages containing that information. The cover
sheet must also provide evidence that the respondent actually or
customarily treats the information as private.
    In addition, the respondent must (1) mark the header and footer of
every page that contains trade secrets or confidential commercial or
financial information with ``Contains Confidential Information Exempt
from Public Disclosure'' and (2) identify every line and paragraph
containing such information with double brackets or highlighting.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The monitored inbox at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>You may also contact the Contracting Officer,
Robin Gates, at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Please reference ``RFI for Inclusive Design Reference Hub'' in the
subject line when submitting your response.
    DOT looks forward to your submission in response to this notice.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Summary

    On December 21, 2020, DOT published in the Federal Register (85 FR
83152) a request for information (RFI) regarding an Inclusive Design
Reference Hub. This notice extends the deadline date for receiving
comments until February 19, 2021 at 5:00 p.m. (ET). Note: All other
information in the December 21, 2020 Federal Register Notice (85 FR
83152) remain the same, and is included below for easy reference.
    In July 2020, as part of an event celebrating the 30th anniversary
of the Americans with Disabilities Act, DOT committed to undertake a
new initiative to establish a library of resources for accessibility in
automation, and work with outside experts to study voluntary best
practices for ensuring accessibility in automated vehicles. DOT invites
stakeholders to provide input on critical first steps in this process,
the qualifications of entities that are best suited to perform this
work, and considerations to ensure long-term sustainability of this
initiative. This notice is not a Solicitation, and it does not seek the
submission of formal, binding quotations/proposals. In the event OST-P
determines that services will be procured, a formal Request for Quote/
Proposal will be issued. OST-P cannot and will not reimburse any
organization for its time, effort, or costs expended in responding to
this RFI.
    The purpose of this RFI is to collect input on a proposed
initiative to establish and curate a library of existing technical
specifications, voluntary consensus or consortia standards, and best
practices and a roadmap of such resources that may be needed to enable
accessibility of automated vehicles for persons with physical, sensory,
and cognitive disabilities. This initiative, tentatively entitled the
Inclusive Design Reference Hub, will involve consultation with a range
of stakeholders. This RFI will serve to refine DOT's vision, next
steps, and long-term ownership and maintenance plan for this
initiative. Respondents are encouraged to visit https://www.transportation.gov/accessibility for more information on DOT's
accessibility initiatives.

Background

    As transportation evolves, DOT is committed to a more accessible
future and exploring accessibility opportunities that may materialize
as vehicles and mobility services evolve. DOT encourages research into
technologies that have the potential to remove barriers to
accessibility in the transportation system and will seek to complement
research done by leading academic institutions, the private sector and
other entities to fill gaps that industry is not already covering. To
this end, DOT recently announced its intent to establish a library of
resources for accessibility in automation, and to work with outside
experts to study voluntary best practices for ensuring accessibility in
automated vehicles.

Needs Statement

    DOT has made early investments intended to begin unlocking this
potential through its Accessible Transportation Technologies Research
Initiative (ATTRI), the Inclusive Design Challenge, the Complete Trip--
ITS4US Deployment Program, and numerous research projects.
    Industry stakeholders and others have reported difficulty in
finding existing technical specifications and best practices for
designing accessible vehicle features, or in prioritizing development
of new resources where there are knowledge gaps. In addition, the
expertise for developing such resources is fragmented across
traditional organizational and sectoral bounds, making it difficult to
begin new technical resource development. Early and widespread action
by a coalition of industry, disability advocacy, academia, and
government partners can help ensure shared understanding of the needs
of individuals with a range of disabilities and corresponding technical
specifications and best practices. An open and inclusive partnership to
develop voluntary, consensus-based technical specifications, best
practices, and standards can provide a foundation for consistently and
comprehensively meeting the needs of people with disabilities and
inform the design of future automated vehicles (AVs).
    A robust research pipeline can accelerate the accumulation of
knowledge and encourage private sector experimentation. Tracking and
sharing less mature, early stage research through technical
specifications and best practices--in addition to developing and
maintaining published technical standards--can help clarify where
technical consensus is emerging and where investment and attention is
most needed to fill long-term gaps.
    Numerous voluntary consensus standards, technical specifications,
recommended practices, and other technical resources currently exist
that relate either directly to vehicle accessibility or could
indirectly inform future automated vehicle accessibility. For example,
the former category includes numerous voluntary consensus standards
focused on the safety, functionality, and interoperability of
wheelchair-accessible vehicles, while the latter includes voluntary
consensus and consortia standards from the consumer electronics sector
that provide insights into how to design interfaces that are useable by
people with sensory or cognitive disabilities. A list of such resources
is included at the end of this RFI for reference. While these existing
resources form a starting point for considering the accessibility of
passenger vehicles, DOT also recognizes that gaps likely exist between
current technical standards and specifications and best practices and a
set of resources that would comprehensively address the physical,
sensory, and cognitive accessibility needs of future vehicle users,
including users of automated vehicles.

Proposed Approach

    This initiative will serve as a ``one-stop shop'' for engineers,
designers, and individuals with disabilities to find and to collaborate
on technical resources for an inclusive future. The Hub could either be
a stand-alone resource or built within an existing platform. All
content will need to be compliant with requirements stated in Section
508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and accompanying standards
developed by the U.S. Access Board.
    An initial investment to launch this initiative will seek to
establish a process to maintain this resource in regular consultation
with stakeholders, including relevant standards development
organizations, primarily through existing forums. DOT will assess
potential approaches in terms of how likely they are to result in a
self-sustaining long-term effort that includes active participation
from all stakeholders with relevant expertise and perspective.

Request for Information

    In launching the proposed initiative outlined above, DOT is seeking
input from its stakeholders and potential partners on defining its
scope, the most critical first steps, the necessary qualifications and
expertise to support it, and how to ensure long-term ownership and
maintenance of the resulting resources. To clarify input provided in
response to this notice, DOT may seek additional follow-up information.
Through this notice specifically, DOT seeks input on the following
questions:

Background and Current Condition Information

    1. What existing initiatives, industry activities, best practices,
or other resources/actions could help to inform this initiative?
    2. What existing technical standards and specifications and best
practices are relevant or potentially relevant to the accessibility of
vehicles for people with physical, sensory, and cognitive disabilities?
What dependencies exist between existing resources and needed
resources?
    3. What information could help stakeholders understand the user
population, potential market, and business case for inclusive design
solutions? What information does not exist but could potentially help
fill gaps in knowledge regarding the user population, potential market,
and business case for inclusive design solutions?
    4. What existing and needed resources are applicable to all
vehicles? What existing and needed resources are specific to automated
vehicles and when will they be needed?
    5. How can this initiative support improved accessibility of
conventional vehicles in the short-term while also enabling the
accessibility of automated vehicles in the long-term?

Initiative Scope, Focus, and Proposed Initial Steps

    1. Are there any technical references in this area that do not
currently exist and should be prioritized for development?
    (a) Please describe the need and ways to expedite the development
of needed references with relevant stakeholders, including consumers.
    (b) Please also discuss the extent to which the topic(s) identified
are at an appropriate stage for voluntary standards development in
terms of industry consensus and technological maturity.
    2. Are there any existing resources or programs on which DOT could
build or model this effort? Should the Inclusive Design Reference Hub
be developed as a stand-alone resource, or integrated into an existing
platform?
    3. Are there any aspects of DOT's vision for this effort that could
be clarified or improved ahead of a potential procurement?
    4. Should the DOT directly host the resource, or should it be
hosted by a third-party organization or coalition of organizations
serving as the convener(s) and technical curator(s) on behalf of DOT?
    5. How can this initiative be maintained in the long term with more
limited federal involvement? What conditions need to be met in order
for partner organizations to continue support for this initiative
following an initial phase?
    6. How could DOT assess the success of this activity over a two-
year period? How can processes to support long-term sustainability be
established in this timeframe?

Performing Organization Qualifications--General Input

    1. What entities, organizations, groups, or Government agencies are
most qualified and appropriate to perform this work?
    2. What perspectives need to be represented in the execution of
this initiative? Which groups should represent these perspectives?
    3. What partnerships are critical?
    4. What organizations currently play a role with respect to the
development of standards around automated vehicles, transportation
accessibility, and the intersection of the two? For responding
organizations that currently have a role, please discuss your
organizational and technical capabilities and experience in this area.
Please also discuss how you might augment your qualifications with
those of potential partner organizations.

Additional Information

    Below are existing resources that might be featured in the
Inclusive Design Reference Hub.
     Automated Driving Systems:

[cir] SAE J3171: Identifying Automated Driving Systems-Dedicated
Vehicles (ADS-DVs) Passenger Issues for Persons with Disabilities (SAE)

     Vehicles:

[cir] 49 CFR 571.141: Minimum Sound Requirements for Hybrid and
Electric Vehicles (NHTSA)
[cir] 49 CFR 571.206: Door locks and door retention components (NHTSA)
[cir] 49 CFR 571.222: School bus passenger seating and crash protection
(NHTSA)
[cir] 49 CFR 571.403: Platform Lift Systems for Motor Vehicles (NHTSA)
[cir] 49 CFR 571.404: Platform Lift Installations in Motor Vehicles
(NHTSA)
[cir] 49 CFR part 38: Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA)--
Accessibility Specifications For Transportation Vehicles (U.S. Access
Board/U.S. DOT)
[cir] QAP-103: National Mobility Equipment Dealers Association Quality
Assurance Program Guidelines (NMEDA)
[cir] SAE J1725: Structural Modification for Personally Licensed
Vehicles to Meet the Transportation Needs of Persons with Disabilities
(SAE)
[cir] SAE J1903: Automotive Adaptive Driver Controls, Manual (SAE)
[cir] SAE J2092: Testing of Wheelchair Lifts for Entry to or Exit from
a Personally Licensed Vehicle (SAE)
[cir] SAE J2093: Design Considerations for Wheelchair Lifts for Entry
to or Exit from a Personally Licensed Vehicle (SAE)
[cir] SAE J2094: Vehicle and Control Modifications for Drivers with
Physical Disabilities Terminology (SAE)
[cir] SAE J2603: Recommended Practice for Powered Gas Brake Control
Systems (SAE)

     Mobility Equipment:

[cir] ANSI/RESNA WC-4:2017: Wheelchairs and Transportation (RESNA)
[cir] ISO 10542-1: Technical systems and aids for disabled or
handicapped persons--Wheelchair tiedown and occupant-restraint systems
(ISO)
[cir] ISO 10865: Wheelchair containment and occupant retention systems
for accessible transport vehicles designed for use by both sitting and
standing passengers (ISO)
    [ssquf] ISO 10865: Part 1: Systems for rearward-facing wheelchair-
seated passengers (ISO)
    [ssquf] ISO 10865: Part 2: Systems for forward-facing wheelchair-
seated passengers (ISO)
[cir] ISO 16840-4: Wheelchair seating--Part 4: Seating systems for use
in motor vehicles (ISO)
[cir] ISO 7176-19: Wheeled mobility devices for use as seats in motor
vehicles (ISO)
[cir] RESNA SP-3 (under development): Universal Docking Interface
Guidelines (UDIG) (RESNA)
[cir] SAE J2249: Wheelchair Tiedown and Occupant Restraint Systems for
Use in Motor Vehicles (SAE)

     Electronic Interfaces/Devices:

[cir] 36 CFR 1194.1: Standards for Section 508 of the Rehabilitation
Act (U.S. Access Board)
[cir] ANSI/RESNA CA-1: Universal Criteria for Reporting the Cognitive
Accessibility of Products and Technologies (RESNA)
[cir] CTA-CEB27: Recommended Practice for Audio Accessibility of
Audiovisual Devices (CTA)
[cir] ISO 21801-1: Cognitive accessibility--Part 1: General guidelines
(ISO)
[cir] ISO 9241-171: Ergonomics of human-system interaction--Part 171:
Guidance on software accessibility (ISO)
[cir] ISO/IEC 24786: Information Technology--User interfaces--
Accessible user interface for accessibility settings (ISO/IEC)
[cir] ISO/IEC 29138-1: Information technology--User interface
accessibility--Part 1: User accessibility needs (ISO/IEC)
[cir] ISO/IEC TS 20071-21:2015: Information technology--User interface
component accessibility--Part 21: Guidance on audio descriptions (ISO/
IEC)
[cir] WCAG 2.1: Web Content Accessibility Guidelines Overview (W3C)

     General Product Usability and Accessibility:

[cir] ISO/IEC 20282: Ease of operation of everyday products (ISO)
    [ssquf] ISO/IEC 20282-1: Part 1: Design requirements for context
and use and user characteristics (ISO)
    [ssquf] ISO/IEC 20282-2: Part 2: Summative test method (ISO)
    [ssquf] ISO/IEC 20282-3: Part 3: Test method for consumer products
(ISO)
    [ssquf] ISO/IEC 20282-3: Part 4: Test method for the installation
of consumer products (ISO)
[cir] ISO/IEC 24756: Framework for specifying a common access profile
(CAP) of needs and capabilities of users, systems, and their
environments (ISO)

    Issued on: January 12, 2021.
Thomas Finch Fulton,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Transportation Policy.
[FR Doc. 2021-00994 Filed 1-15-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-9X-P


[Federal Register: August 16, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 158)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 45961-45963]
[DOCID:fr16au07-21]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2007-28990; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-033-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Boeing Model 757-200, -200CB, and -300
Series Airplanes

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

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD)
for certain Boeing Model 757-200, -200CB, and -300 series airplanes.
This proposed AD would require repetitive inspections for cracks of the
intercostal tee clips and attachment fasteners at the number 3 and
number 4 doorstops of the passenger door cutouts, or repetitive
inspections for cracks of the intercostal tee clips; and related
investigative/ corrective actions if necessary. This proposed AD also
provides an optional terminating action for the repetitive inspections.
This proposed AD results from reports of cracked intercostal tee clips
at the number 3 and number 4 doorstops of the passenger door cutouts.
We are proposing this AD to detect and correct cracking of the tee
clips, which could result in additional stress on the adjacent tee
clips, surrounding intercostals, edge frame, door structure and
doorstops. This additional stress could cause further cracking or
breaking of the tee clips, which could result in failure of the door to
seal and consequent rapid decompression of the airplane.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by October 1, 2007.

ADDRESSES: Use one of the following addresses to submit comments on
this proposed AD.
     DOT Docket Web site: Go to http://dms.dot.gov and follow

the instructions for sending your comments electronically.
     Government-wide rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov
 and follow the instructions for sending your

comments electronically.
     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.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Hand Delivery: Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the
West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    Contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, P.O. Box 3707, Seattle,
Washington 98124-2207, for the service information identified in this
proposed AD.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dennis Stremick, Aerospace Engineer,
Airframe Branch, ANM-120S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office,
1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98055-4056; telephone (425)
917-6450; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to submit any relevant written data, views, or
arguments regarding this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address
listed in the ADDRESSES section. Include the docket number ``FAA-2007-
28990; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-033-AD'' at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the proposed AD. We will
consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend the
proposed AD in light of those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://dms.dot.gov
, including any personal information you provide. We will

also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact with FAA
personnel concerning this proposed AD. Using the search function of
that Web site, anyone can find and read the comments in any of our
dockets, including the name of the individual who sent the comment (or
signed the comment on behalf of an association, business, labor union,
etc.). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the
Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78), or you
may visit http://dms.dot.gov.

Examining the Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://dms.dot.gov
, or in person at the Docket Operations office between 9

a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The
Docket Operations office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is located on the
ground floor of the West Building at the DOT street address stated in
the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket
shortly after the Docket Management System receives them.

Discussion

    We have received eight reports indicating that cracked intercostal
tee clips were found at the number 3 and number 4 doorstops of the
passenger door cutouts on certain Boeing Model 757-200, -200CB, and -
300 series airplanes. These cracks were found during normal maintenance
checks on passenger doorway number 4, at the aft edge frame of body
station 1681.8 on the left and right sides. On two airplanes, cracks
were found on the intercostal tee clips at both the number 3 and number
4 doorstops. The cracks occurred in the radius area of the tee clip,
between the horizontal and vertical flange. The number of flight cycles
for these airplanes was between 22,700 and 25,000. The cracks in the
tee clips are attributed to a preload of the tee clip; continued flight
with cracks in the tee clips can place additional stress on the
adjacent tee clips, surrounding intercostals, edge frame, door
structure and doorstops. This additional stress, if not corrected,
could cause further cracking or breaking of the tee clips, which could
result in failure of the door to seal and consequent rapid
decompression of the airplane.

Relevant Service Information

    We have reviewed Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757-53A0093, dated
November 8, 2006. The service bulletin describes procedures for
repetitive detailed inspections with a borescope for cracks of the
intercostal tee clips; or repetitive detailed inspections for cracks of
the intercostal tee clips and attachment fasteners at the number 3 and
number 4 doorstops of the passenger door cutouts after the galley/
lavatory has been removed; and related investigative and corrective
actions if necessary. The related investigative and corrective actions
include the following:

     Condition 1: For airplanes on which any tee clip for only
door stop intercostal number 3 is cracked or broken; the procedures
specify replacing any cracked tee clip with a new tee clip and
contacting Boeing before further flight. In addition, the procedures
describe inspections of the door stop fittings on the forward side of
body station 1681.8 edge frame; the inner chord, web, and outer chord;
the number 4 door structure including the door stop fittings and stop
beams above and below the cracked tee clips; and the number 4 aft door
frame.
     Condition 2: For airplanes on which any tee clip for only
door stop intercostal number 4 is cracked or broken; the procedures
specify replacing any cracked tee clip with a new tee clip and
contacting Boeing before further flight. In addition, the procedures
describe inspections of the tee clip and intercostal for cracking at
door stop intercostal number 5; and from door stop number 3 through
number 5: Inspecting the door stop fittings on the forward side of the
body station 1681.8 edge frame; the inner chord, web, and outer chord;
the number 4 door structure including the door stop fittings and stop
beams above and below the cracked tee clips; and the number 4 aft door
frame.
     Condition 3: For airplanes on which both tee clips for
only door stop intercostal numbers 3 and 4 are cracked or broken; the
procedures specify replacing the cracked tee clip with a new tee clip
and contacting Boeing before further flight. In addition, the
procedures describe inspections of the fasteners; the door stop
fittings on the forward side of the body station 1681.8 edge frame; the
inner chord, web, and outer chord; the number 4 door structure
including the door stop fittings and stop beams above and below the
cracked tee clips; for airplanes with greater than 28,000 flight
cycles, the fasteners and the fillet radius of the stop fittings; and
the number 4 aft door frame.
    If cracked or broken tee clips are found during any inspection, the
procedures describe inspecting the tee clip and intercostal for cracks
of the door stop intercostal number 2 and doing inspections from door
stop numbers 2 through 5. The additional inspections are for cracks of
the door stop fittings; the inner chord, web, and outer chord; and the
body station 1681.8 edge frame.
    Replacing both tee clips on the left and right sides with new tee
clips would eliminate the need for the repetitive inspections.
Accomplishing the actions specified in the service information is
intended to adequately address the unsafe condition.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of the Proposed AD

    We have evaluated all pertinent information and identified an
unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on other airplanes
of this same type design. For this reason, we are proposing this AD,
which would require accomplishing the actions specified in the service
information described previously, except as discussed under
``Difference Between the Proposed AD and Service Information.''

Difference Between the Proposed AD and Service Information

    The service bulletin specifies to contact the manufacturer for
instructions on how to repair certain conditions, but this proposed AD
would require repairing those conditions in one of the following ways:
     Using a method that we approve; or
     Using data that meet the certification basis of the
airplane, and that have been approved by an Authorized Representative
for the Boeing Commercial Airplanes Delegation Option Authorization
Organization whom we have authorized to make those findings.

Costs of Compliance

    There are about 912 airplanes of the affected design in the
worldwide fleet. This proposed AD would affect about 324 airplanes of
U.S. registry.
    The proposed detailed inspection, if accomplished, would take about
2 work hours per airplane, at an average labor rate of $80 per work
hour. Based on these figures, the estimated cost of the inspections
proposed by this AD is $51,840, or $160 per airplane, per inspection
cycle.
    The proposed borescope inspection, if accomplished, would take
about 3 work hours per airplane, at an average labor rate of $80 per
work hour. Based on these figures, the estimated cost of the
inspections proposed by this AD is $77,760, or $240 per airplane, per
inspection cycle.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

    We have determined that this 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 that the 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); 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.
    We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to
comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket. See the
ADDRESSES section for a location to examine the regulatory evaluation.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, 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 Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) amends Sec.  39.13 by
adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD):

Boeing: Docket No. FAA-2007-28990; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-
033-AD.

Comments Due Date

    (a) The FAA must receive comments on this AD action by October
1, 2007.

Affected ADs

    (b) None.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to Boeing Model 757-200, -200CB, and -300
series airplanes, certificated in any category; as identified in
Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757-53A0093, dated November 8, 2006.

Unsafe Condition

    (d) This AD results from reports of cracked intercostal tee
clips at the number 3 and number 4 doorstops of the passenger door
cutouts. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct cracking of
the tee clips, which could result in additional stress on the
adjacent tee clips, surrounding intercostals, edge frame, door
structure and doorstops. This additional stress could cause further
cracking or breaking of the tee clips, which could result in failure
of the door to seal and consequent rapid decompression of the
airplane.

Compliance

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

Repetitive Inspections/Investigative and Corrective Actions

    (f) Before the accumulation of 20,000 total flight cycles or
within 3,000 flight cycles after the effective date of this AD,
whichever is later: Do the applicable inspection specified in
paragraph (f)(1) or (f)(2) of this AD by doing all the actions
including all applicable related investigative (additional detailed
inspections if necessary) and corrective actions; except as provided
by paragraph (g) of this AD; in accordance with the Accomplishment
Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757-53A0093, dated
November 8, 2006. All related investigative and corrective actions
must be done before further flight.
    (1) Do a detailed inspection for cracks of the intercostal tee
clips and attachment fasteners at the number 3 and number 4
doorstops of the passenger door cutouts. Repeat the inspection
thereafter at intervals not to exceed 3,000 flight cycles until
accomplishment of the terminating action specified in paragraph (h)
of this AD.
    (2) Do a detailed inspection with a borescope for cracks of the
intercostal tee clips. Repeat the inspection thereafter at intervals
not to exceed 3,000 flight cycles until accomplishment of the
terminating action specified in paragraph (h) of this AD.
    (g) If any cracked structure is found during any inspection
required by this AD, and the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing
Alert Service Bulletin 757-53A0093, dated November 8, 2006, specify
to contact Boeing for appropriate action: Before further flight,
repair any cracked structure using a method approved in accordance
with the procedures specified in paragraph (i)(2) of this AD.

Optional Terminating Action

    (h) Replacing both intercostal tee clips on the left and right
sides with new tee clips in accordance with Part 3 of the
Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757-
53A0093, dated November 8, 2006, terminates the repetitive
inspections required by this AD.

Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (i)(1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO),
FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested in
accordance with the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.
    (2) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be
used for any repair required by this AD, if it is approved by an
Authorized Representative for the Boeing Commercial Airplanes
Delegation Option Authorization Organization who has been authorized
by the Manager, Seattle ACO, to make those findings. For a repair
method to be approved, the repair must meet the certification basis
of the airplane, and the approval must specifically refer to this
AD.
    (3) To request a different method of compliance or a different
compliance time for this AD, follow the procedures in 14 CFR 39.19.
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.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on August 2, 2007.
Ali Bahrami,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. E7-16103 Filed 8-15-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P