[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 157 (Tuesday, August 16, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 50344]
[FR Doc No: 2022-17548]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4652-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2022-0001]

New Mexico; Amendment No. 7 to Notice of a Major Disaster
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of New Mexico (FEMA-4652-DR), dated May 4, 2022, and
related determinations.

DATES: This amendment was issued July 27, 2022.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dean Webster, Office of Response and
Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW,
Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that the incident
period for this disaster is closed effective July 23, 2022.
    The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA)
are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community
Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling;
97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment
Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048,
Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households In
Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially Declared
Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing Operations for Individuals and
Households; 97.050, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance to
Individuals and Households--Other Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants--
Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard
Mitigation Grant.

Deanne Criswell,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2022-17548 Filed 8-15-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 214 (Thursday, November 5, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 68437-68440]
[FR Doc No: 2015-27954]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2014-0649; Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-132-AD;
Amendment 39-18314; AD 2015-22-09]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain
The Boeing Company Model 787-8 airplanes. This AD was prompted by
reports of missing plugs found prior to airplane delivery, during
manufacturing inspections, at various locations in certain stringers of
the lower lobe cargo compartments. This AD requires drilling a hole and
installing and bonding plugs in certain stringers of the lower lobe
cargo compartments. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct
missing or misaligned plugs which, in the event of a fire, could cause
an increased rate of loss of Halon in the lower cargo compartments, and
result in the inability to extinguish a fire and consequent loss of
control of the airplane.

DATES: This AD is effective December 10, 2015.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of December 10,
2015.

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this AD, contact
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management,
P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, WA 98124-2207; telephone 206-544-
5000, extension 1; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You may view this referenced service information
at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW.,
Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the
FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. It is also available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2014-
0649.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2014-
0649; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and
5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket
contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and
other information. The address for the Docket Office (phone: 800-647-
5527) is Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation,
Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Francis Smith, Aerospace Engineer,
Cabin Safety and Environmental Systems Branch, ANM-150S, FAA, Seattle
Aircraft Certification Office, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-
3356; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain The Boeing Company
Model 787-8 airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on
September 23, 2014 (79 FR 56682). The NPRM was prompted by reports of
missing plugs found prior to airplane delivery, during manufacturing
inspections, at various locations in certain stringers of the lower
lobe cargo compartments. The NPRM proposed to require drilling a hole
and installing and bonding plugs in certain stringers of the lower lobe
cargo compartments. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct
missing or misaligned plugs which, in the event of a fire, could cause
an increased rate of loss of Halon in the lower cargo compartments, and
result in the inability to extinguish a fire and consequent loss of
control of the airplane.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD. The following presents the comments received on the NPRM (79
FR 56682, September 23, 2014) and the FAA's response to each comment.

Supportive Comment

    United Airlines stated that it concurs with the NPRM (79 FR 56682,
September 23, 2014), and agrees that the detection and correction of
the missing or misaligned plugs will maintain a higher level of safety.

Request To Delay Issuance of the NPRM (79 FR 56682, September 23, 2014)

    All Nippon Airways (ANA) asked that we delay issuance of the NPRM
(79 FR 56682, September 23, 2014) until Boeing Alert Service Bulletin
B787-81205-SB530024-00, Issue 001, dated May 15, 2014 (referred to as
the appropriate source of service information for accomplishing the
specified actions), can be revised. ANA noted that the service
information specifies using a stringer plug removal/installation tool,
having tool number (T/N) MIT140Z4372-3; however, this tool does not
work well for doing the actions. ANA provided the following reasons to
substantiate its request:
     For the instructions specified in Task 1 of this service
information, the connecting tube on the tool (T/N 140Z4372-8/-15)
interferes with the fasteners at the section 41/43 joint; therefore,
the tool cannot be inserted into the stringers. The connecting tube
needs to be shortened in length and trimmed to taper.
     For the instructions specified in Task 3 of the service
information, the tool (T/N 140Z4372-3) cannot be inserted at stringers
30R through 35R, adjacent to the cargo door, because it won't bend at
the location adjacent to the stringer end and frame.
     For the instructions specified in Task 3 of the service
information, the tool (T/N 140Z4372-3) is inserted into the stringer
from station (STA) 1593 to

STA 1209, and the stringer length is 384 inches. This tool has five
extension rods that are 300 inches, and six extension rods that are 350
inches, respectively; therefore, additional rods are necessary.
     The tool (T/N 140Z4372-3) has a head piece (T/N 140Z4372-
4/-5) and a push rod (T/N 140Z4372-6/-14) with a retaining pin hole.
However, the retaining pin is not centered on the push rod and head
piece, so the head piece detaches from the push rod during the plug
removal/installation, and it takes an extraordinary amount of time to
remove the head piece from the stringer. The retaining pin should be
centered on the push rod and head piece in order to alleviate these
issues.
    Boeing has issued Alert Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB530024-00,
Issue 002, dated June 5, 2015. This service information provides
clarification to the instructions, which addresses the commenter's
concerns. In addition, the stringer plug removal/installation tool,
having T/N MIT140Z4372-3, has been redesigned and retains the same part
number. We have revised paragraphs (c) and (g) of this AD to refer to
Boeing Alert Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB530024-00, Issue 002, dated
June 5, 2015. We have also added new paragraph (h) to this AD to give
credit for actions performed before the effective date of this AD using
Boeing Alert Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB530024-00, Issue 001, dated
May 15, 2014.

Request To Add Use of Fabricated Tool in Service Information
Instructions

    ANA asked that we allow using an alternate stringer plug removal/
installation tool, fabricated by ANA, and include the tool in the
Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin B787-
81205-SB530024-00, Issue 001, dated May 15, 2014, when the service
information is revised. ANA added that, due to the issues previously
identified, it has been using this alternate stringer plug removal/
installation tool to remove existing plugs and install new plugs, with
concurrence from Boeing.
    We acknowledge the commenter's request to allow its fabricated tool
to be included in the service information instructions. However, as
noted previously, Boeing Alert Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB530024-00,
Issue 002, dated June 5, 2015, has been issued; and the stringer plug
removal/installation tool, having T/N MIT140Z4372-3, has been
redesigned and retains the same part number. We have not changed this
AD in this regard.

Request To Add Instructions to Service Information for Clarification

    ANA asked that we add certain instructions to the Accomplishment
Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB530024-00,
Issue 001, dated May 15, 2014. ANA provided the following reasons to
substantiate its request:
     For the instructions specified in Task 1, steps 2 and 3,
of the service information, it specifies drilling a hole on stringers
S-34L and S-35L. Removal of the environmental control system (ECS)
cargo air insulated riser duct is necessary to ensure workspace for
drilling at S-34L and S-35L. ANA asked that these removal and
installation instructions be added when the service information is
revised.
     For the instructions specified in Task 2, step 3, of the
service information, it specifies bonding new plugs in the stringers;
however, the stringer and duct installed at the aft face of STA 825
frame web are adjacent to the stringer, so it is not possible to apply
a resin through the moisture vent hole. Additionally, the tie-up for
supporting the duct should be cut and removed. ANA asked that
instructions be added to cut the tie-up and move the duct if the access
conditions identified in the service information are insufficient.
    Boeing has issued Alert Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB530024-00,
Issue 002, dated June 5, 2015. This service information provides
clarification to the instructions identified, which addresses the
commenter's concerns. We have not changed this AD in this regard.
    ANA also stated that each task in the service information
necessitates confirmation that using a Sharpie marker, or similar, to
mark the centerline of the top surface of the new plug to help locate
the plug at the position of a stringer vent hole is permitted. However,
ANA found that the plug had rotated to 90 degrees; but the centerline
of the top surface of the new plug was at the position of a stringer
vent hole. ANA asked that instructions be added to the service
information specifying that after plug installation operators should
verify the new plug location is correct with a mirror or borescope.
    We acknowledge the commenter's concerns. Boeing has incorporated
instructions into Boeing Alert Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB530024-00,
Issue 002, dated June 5, 2015, which allow the use of a mirror or
borescope to check the proper positioning of a plug before applying the
bond. We have not changed this AD in this regard.
    ANA also stated that the instructions specified in Task 1, Note 9,
of the service information, specify using a 3-step drill process. The
first step is to drill a new pilot hole of \1/8\ inch; the second step
is to drill a new pilot hole of \3/16\ inch; and the third step is to
ream to a final diameter of 0.235 to 0.265 inch. Step 2.3 is required
for compliance (RC), so no deviation of the procedure is permitted. ANA
added that to maintain the 3-step drill process, a special reamer is
needed. ANA noted that the primary objective should be preparing the
final diameter hole, not the number of drilling steps, and asked that
the 3-step drill process be removed, and more steps to the drill
process be allowed.
    We agree that alternative methods may be allowed for drilling the
hole specified in Task 1, Note 9, because the intent of the 3-step
drill process is to effectively ream each hole to its final diameter.
Boeing has incorporated instructions allowing additional drill steps
outside of the 3-step drill process in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin
B787-81205-SB530024-00, Issue 002, dated June 5, 2015. We have not
changed this AD in this regard.

Request To Clarify Certain Language in the SUMMARY and Discussion
Sections of the NPRM (79 FR 56682, September 23, 2014) and Paragraph
(e) of the Proposed AD

    Boeing asked that we clarify the reason for the unsafe condition
identified in the SUMMARY and Discussion sections of the NPRM (79 FR
56682, September 23, 2014), and paragraph (e) of the proposed AD.
Boeing stated that the language ``reports of missing bonded plugs''
should be ``reports of missing plugs.'' Boeing noted that bonding the
plugs into the stringers is the solution, not the issue. Boeing also
stated that the language ``certain stringers of the forward electrical
equipment (EE) bay of the lower lobe cargo compartments'' should be
``certain stringers of the lower lobe cargo compartments.'' Boeing
noted that the issue occurred in both the forward and aft cargo bilge
areas, not just the forward compartment, and added that referencing the
forward EE bay is not relevant to the issue.
    Boeing also asked that we clarify the description of the unsafe
condition identified in the SUMMARY and Discussion sections of the NPRM
(79 FR 56682, September 23, 2014), and paragraph (e) of the proposed
AD. Boeing stated that the language ``reports of misaligned bonded
plugs'' should be ``misaligned plugs.'' Boeing noted that

bonding the plugs into the stringers is the solution, not the issue.
    In addition, Boeing asked that we delete ``the cause was determined
to be miscalculated pressure exposures during design'' and ``could
result in missing or misaligned bonded plugs which'' from the
Discussion section of the NPRM (79 FR 56682, September 23, 2014).
Boeing stated that there is no data showing the cause of the plugs to
disengage was miscalculated pressure exposures.
    We acknowledge the commenter's concerns and provide the following.
We agree that the word ``bonded'' should be removed from the language
in the SUMMARY section of this final rule, and in paragraph (e) of this
AD, for clarification; we also agree that the language ``the forward EE
bay'' should be removed throughout this AD, for the reasons provided by
the commenter; we have changed all applicable sections accordingly.
    In addition, we acknowledge the commenter's request that the cause
of disengagement of the plugs is incorrect and should be removed from
the Discussion section of the NPRM (79 FR 56682, September 23, 2014).
We agree that there is no data showing the cause of the plugs to
disengage was miscalculated pressure exposures; this issue stems from
high pressure exposures associated with flight testing pressure
profiles through pressurization checks during production. However, the
Discussion section of the of the NPRM is not restated in this final
rule; therefore, we have not changed this final rule in regard to the
language in that section.

Request To Include Detailed Rework Instructions

    Boeing asked that we include detailed rework instructions in the
actions required by paragraph (g) of the proposed AD (79 FR 56682,
September 23, 2014). Boeing noted that the following language should be
added before the first sentence: ``Ensure all 80 stringer plugs are
installed, and apply adhesive to them to ensure they cannot become
dislodged or misaligned. At 2 locations, this will require rework
beyond a nominal application of adhesive to the stringer plug. The
rework at the unique locations will involve the following. . . .''
    We acknowledge the commenter's concern; however, the rework
instructions are described in detail in the Accomplishment Instructions
of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB530024-00, Issue 002,
dated June 5, 2015. Since this AD requires accomplishing the actions in
accordance with this service information, there is no need to describe
those instructions in detail in paragraph (g) of this AD. We have not
changed this AD in this regard.

Request To Extend the Compliance Time

    Boeing asked that we extend the compliance time for the bonded plug
installation from 12 to 24 months. Boeing stated that a conservative
recalculation of the Boeing risk analysis due to the condition being
resolved in production, and based on a static fleet size of 88
airplanes, resulted in a control program time of 66 months. Boeing
added that a service bulletin compliance time of 24 months will allow
sufficient time for operator planning, scheduling, and accomplishment
of the retrofit within the risk-based control program time.
    We do not agree to extend the compliance time to 24 months. In
developing an appropriate compliance time for this action, we
considered not only the degree of urgency associated with addressing
the subject unsafe condition, but the availability of required parts,
and the practical aspect of doing the bonded plug installation within
an interval of time that corresponds to the typical scheduled
maintenance for the majority of affected operators. Under the
provisions of paragraph (i) of this AD, we may approve requests for
adjustments to the compliance time if data are submitted to
substantiate that such an adjustment would provide an acceptable level
of safety. We have not changed this AD in this regard.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received,
and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting
this AD with the changes described previously--and minor editorial
changes. We have determined that these minor changes:
     Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the
NPRM (79 FR 56682, September 23, 2014) for correcting the unsafe
condition; and
     Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was
already proposed in the NPRM (79 FR 56682, September 23, 2014).
    We also determined that these changes will not increase the
economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of this AD.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    We reviewed Boeing Alert Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB530024-00,
Issue 002, dated June 5, 2015. The service information describes
procedures for drilling a hole and installing and bonding plugs in
certain stringers of the lower lobe cargo compartments. This service
information is reasonably available because the interested parties have
access to it through their normal course of business or by the means
identified in the ADDRESSES section of this AD.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 3 airplanes of U.S. registry.
    We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per       Cost on U.S.
               Action                        Labor cost           Parts cost        product         operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bonded plug installations...........  100 work-hours x $85             $3,466          $11,966    Up to $35,898
                                       per hour = $8,500.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    According to the manufacturer, all of the costs of this AD may be
covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on affected
individuals. We do not control warranty coverage for affected
individuals. As a result, we have included all costs in our cost
estimate.

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,
describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
    We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: ``General
requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in

air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and
procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air
commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because
it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on
products identified in this rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

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

2015-22-09 The Boeing Company: Amendment 39-18314; Docket No. FAA-
2014-0649; Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-132-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective December 10, 2015.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to The Boeing Company Model 787-8 airplanes,
certificated in any category, as identified in Boeing Alert Service
Bulletin B787-81205-SB530024-00, Issue 002, dated June 5, 2015.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 53, Fuselage.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by reports of missing plugs found prior to
airplane delivery, during manufacturing inspections, at various
locations in certain stringers of the lower lobe cargo compartments.
We are issuing this AD to detect and correct missing or misaligned
plugs which, in the event of a fire, could cause an increased rate
of loss of Halon in the lower cargo compartments, and result in the
inability to extinguish a fire and consequent loss of control of the
airplane.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Bonded Plug Installation

    Within 12 months after the effective date of this AD: Drill a
hole in stringers S-34L and S-35L, remove the plugs, and install and
bond new plugs in the lower lobe cargo compartments, as applicable,
in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert
Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB530024-00, Issue 002, dated June 5,
2015.

(h) Credit for Previous Actions

    This paragraph provides credit for actions required by paragraph
(g) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective
date of this AD using Boeing Alert Service Bulletin B787-81205-
SB530024-00, Issue 001, dated May 15, 2014, which is not
incorporated by reference in this AD.

(i) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO),
FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested
using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14
CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local
Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending
information directly to the manager of the ACO, send it to the
attention of the person identified in paragraph (i) of this AD.
Information may be emailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate
principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager
of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding
district office.
    (3) For service information that contains steps that are labeled
as Required for Compliance (RC), the provisions of paragraphs
(i)(3)(i) and (i)(3)(ii) apply.
    (i) The steps labeled as RC, including substeps under an RC step
and any figures identified in an RC step, must be done to comply
with the AD. An AMOC is required for any deviations to RC steps,
including substeps and identified figures.
    (ii) Steps not labeled as RC may be deviated from using accepted
methods in accordance with the operator's maintenance or inspection
program without obtaining approval of an AMOC, provided the RC
steps, including substeps and identified figures, can still be done
as specified, and the airplane can be put back in an airworthy
condition.

(j) Related Information

    For more information about this AD, contact Francis Smith,
Aerospace Engineer, Cabin Safety and Environmental Systems Branch,
ANM-150S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, 1601 Lind
Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax: 425-
917-6590; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
(k) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed
in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) Boeing Alert Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB530024-00, Issue
002, dated June 5, 2015.
    (ii) Reserved.
    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management,
P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, WA 98124-2207; telephone 206-544-
5000, extension 1; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com.
    (4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport
Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For
information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call
425-227-1221.
    (5) You may view this service information that is incorporated
by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA). For information on the availability of this material at
NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on October 22, 2015.
Jeffrey E. Duven,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2015-27954 Filed 11-4-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: November 19, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 222)]
[Notices]
[Page 65120-65121]
[DOCID:fr19no07-113]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-56776; File No. SR-Phlx-2007-81]

 Self-Regulatory Organizations; Philadelphia Stock Exchange,
Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule
Change Relating to the Exchange's Automated Opening System

November 9, 2007.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on October 16, 2007, the Philadelphia Stock Exchange, Inc. (``Phlx'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and
II below, which Items have been substantially prepared by the Exchange.
The Exchange filed the proposal as a ``non-controversial'' proposed
rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) \3\ of the Act and Rule
19b-4(f)(6) thereunder,\4\ which renders the proposal effective upon
filing with the Commission. The Commission is publishing this notice to
solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance
of the Proposed Rule Change

    The Exchange proposes to amend Exchange Rule 1017 ``Openings in
Options'' to establish additional criteria to determine the single
opening price in a particular option series when the Exchange's system
could open trading in such series at two or more prices.\5\ The text of
the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange, the Commission's
Public Reference Room, and http://www.phlx.com.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The Exchange has advised that it anticipates implementing
the proposed rule change on December 1, 2007. The Exchange states
that, if this date is delayed, it will inform its members through a
circular. Telephone conversation among Richard Rudolph, Vice
President and Counsel, Exchange, and Hong-Anh Tran and Michou H.M.
Nguyen, Special Counsels, Division of Market Regulation, Commission
on November 6, 2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change, and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. Phlx has substantially prepared summaries, set forth in
Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such
statements.

A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    The Exchange states that the purpose of the proposed rule change is
to ensure that the Exchange's opening price in a particular option
series is established at a single price when two or more opening prices
would satisfy the requirement in Exchange Rule 1017(c) that such price
be the price at which the maximum quantity of contracts will trade. The
Exchange believes that this proposal should facilitate fair and orderly
markets on the opening of a particular option series on the Exchange at
a single price.
    Rule 1017(c) sets forth the methodology by which the Exchange's
system establishes the opening price of a series. Generally, the
opening price of a series is the price at which the maximum quantity of
contracts will be traded. The Exchange notes that frequently, however,
there will be more than one price that will satisfy the ``maximum
quantity'' test in determining the opening price of a series.
Accordingly, Rule 1017(c) lists a number of ``tie-breakers'' used by
the

system to determine the actual opening price of a series.
    Currently, Rule 1017(c)(i) defines the opening price as the price
at which the maximum quantity of contracts would be traded. The rule
establishes a series of ``tie-breakers,'' which are additional criteria
that the system follows in establishing the opening price when two or
more prices would satisfy the maximum quantity criteria. Specifically,
when the maximum quantity of contracts could be traded at two or more
prices, the system establishes the opening price based on the following
criteria, in the following order: (1) The price at which the greatest
number of customer orders would be traded; (2) the price at which the
maximum number of Phlx XL participants would trade; and (3) the price
that is closest to the closing price from the previous trading
session.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ For a complete description of the Exchange's automated
opening system, see Securities Exchange Act Release No. 52667
(October 25, 2005), 70 FR 65953 (November 1, 2005) (SR-Phlx-2005-
25).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange has observed that the existing ``tie-breakers'' in
Rule 1017(c) can still result in the situation where two or more prices
could satisfy the maximum quantity criteria. Accordingly, the Exchange
proposes to add another ``tie-breaker'' to be used in determining the
opening price when two or more prices satisfy the maximum quantity
criteria.
    Specifically, the Exchange proposes to amend Rule 1017(c) to
provide that, after all existing ``tie-breakers'' have been exhausted,
should there continue to be two or more prices that satisfy the maximum
quantity criteria, the opening price will be the mid-point of the
highest possible price and lowest possible price that satisfy the
maximum quantity criteria (rounded as needed to the side of the market
with the greatest number of Phlx XL participants).
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b) of the Act,\7\ in general, and furthers the
objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\8\ in particular, because it
is designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to
remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open
market and a national market system, and, in general, to protect
investors and the public interest, by clarifying the single opening
price in a particular series on the Exchange when two or more prices
would result in the maximum number of contracts traded at the opening
in such series.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change would
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed
Rule Change Received From Members, Participants, or Others

    The Exchange has neither solicited nor received written comments on
the proposed rule change.

III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for
Commission Action

    Because the proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect
the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any
significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30
days after the date of filing (or such shorter time as the Commission
may designate if consistent with the protection of investors and the
public interest), the proposed rule change has become effective
pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \9\ and subparagraph (f)(6)
of Rule 19b-4 thereunder.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \10\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission may summarily abrogate such rule change if it
appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate
in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise
in the furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of
the following methods:

Electronic Comments:

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://
www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-Phlx-2007-81 on the subject line.

Paper Comments:

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-1090.

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-Phlx-2007-81. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/
sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and
copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10
a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-Phlx-2007-81 and should be
submitted on or before December 10, 2007.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-22484 Filed 11-16-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 58 (Tuesday, March 26, 2019)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 11211-11214]
[FR Doc No: 2019-05708]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2018-0924; Product Identifier 2018-NE-34-AD; Amendment
39-19600; AD 2019-06-02]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Pratt & Whitney Division Turbofan
Engines

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain
Pratt & Whitney Division (PW) PW4158 turbofan engines. This AD was
prompted by several reports of high cycle fatigue (HCF) cracks found in
the fuel nozzle supply manifold. This AD requires replacement of the
affected fuel nozzles and fuel nozzle manifold supply assemblies with
parts eligible for installation. This AD also requires installation of
new brackets and clamps on the fuel nozzle supply manifold assemblies.
We are issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these
products.

DATES: This AD is effective April 30, 2019.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of April 30,
2019.

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this final rule,
contact Pratt & Whitney, 400 Main Street, East Hartford, CT 06108;
phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>. You may view this service
information at the FAA, Engine and Propeller Standards Branch, 1200
District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803. For information on the
availability of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. It is also
available on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching
for and locating Docket No. FAA-2018-0924.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2018-
0924; or in person at Docket Operations between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains
this final rule, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and
other information. The address for Docket Operations (phone: 800-647-
5527) is U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30,
West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE,
Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Scott Hopper, Aerospace Engineer, ECO
Branch, FAA, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA, 01803; phone: 781-

238-7154; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain PW PW4158 turbofan
engines. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on November 19,
2018 (83 FR 58199). The NPRM was prompted by several reports of HCF
cracks found in the fuel nozzle supply manifold. The NPRM proposed to
require replacement of the affected fuel nozzles and fuel nozzle
manifold supply assemblies with parts eligible for installation. The
NPRM also proposed to require installation of new brackets and clamps
on the fuel nozzle supply manifold assemblies. We are issuing this AD
to address the unsafe condition on these products.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this final rule. The following presents the comments received on the
NPRM and the FAA's response to each comment.

Request To Use Overhauled Fuel Manifolds

    United Parcel Service Co. (UPS) and Pratt & Whitney requested that
the AD clarify that overhauled fuel manifolds that have had new tube
details installed meet the intent of installing new fuel manifolds
called for in Pratt & Whitney Service Bulletin (SB) PW4ENG 73-224,
dated November 8, 2017. UPS and Pratt & Whitney noted that the
equivalent Pratt & Whitney SB PW4G-100-73-48, Revision No. 1, dated
April 24, 2018, for PW PW4000-100 engines, allows use of repaired
manifolds.
    We disagree because Pratt & Whitney SB PW4ENG 73-224, dated
November 8, 2017, does not allow the installation of overhauled fuel
manifolds with new tube details. We recommend that operators who would
like to use overhauled manifolds submit an AMOC request.

Request To Clarify Applicability

    SR Technics Switzerland Ltd. requested we clarify the
identification of potentially affected engines since part number (P/N)
51J228 is a sales order option and does not appear in PW service
bulletins. UPS recommended that we revise the applicability to refer to
``All Engines that incorporate Talon II Burner Sales Order Option P/N
51J228.'' The commenters indicated that P/N 51J228 is not listed in the
applicable PW parts catalogue or in a service bulletin.
    We partially agree. We agree to clarify the applicability of this
AD. We disagree with referring to ``engines that incorporate Talon II
Burner Sales Order Option P/N 51J228'' as this reference is not
sufficiently clear to operators. We revised the Applicability of this
AD to refer to the specifically affected engine serial numbers.

Request for Previous Credit

    UPS requested that the rule include a ``Credits for Previous
Actions'' section in this AD stating that affected engines that have
fully incorporated prior revisions of both Pratt & Whitney SB PW4ENG
73-223, dated February 5, 2018, and Pratt & Whitney SB PW4ENG 73-224,
dated November 8, 2017, may take credit for the required actions. UPS
reasoned that PW is considering publishing a revision to Pratt &
Whitney SB PW4ENG 73-224 that will allow use of overhauled fuel supply
manifolds.
    We disagree. We cannot give credit for previous action based on
service bulletins that have not been published. We did not change this
AD.

Request To Revise Compliance

    UPS commented that paragraph (g)(1) in the NPRM only referred to P/
N 51J344. UPS noted that there are other pre-SB 73-223 part numbers,
such as P/N 51J235, that may be found installed in Talon II engines.
UPS suggested that we revise the compliance paragraph (g)(1) in this AD
to be similar to paragraph (g)(2) of this AD--for example, ``Replace
the 24 fuel nozzles with part number 51J397 per Pratt & Whitney SB
PW4ENG 73-223.''
    We agree. Fuel nozzle designs other than P/N 51J397 are also
susceptible to braze joint cracking. We revised paragraph (g)(1) of
this AD based on the change suggested by the commenter.

Support for the AD

    The Air Line Pilots Association International expressed support for
the AD as written.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received,
and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting
this final rule with the changes described previously and minor
editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:
     [Agr]re consistent with the intent that was proposed in
the NPRM for addressing the unsafe condition; and
     Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was
already proposed in the NPRM.
    We also determined that these changes will not increase the
economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of this final
rule.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    We reviewed Pratt & Whitney SB PW4ENG 73-224, dated November 8,
2017. The SB describes procedures for replacing the fuel nozzle supply
manifold assemblies with parts eligible for installation, and
installing new brackets and clamps on the fuel nozzle supply manifolds.
This service information is reasonably available because the interested
parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by
the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

Other Related Service Information

    We reviewed Pratt & Whitney SB PW4ENG 73-223, dated February 5,
2018. This SB describes procedures for replacing the fuel nozzles and
fuel nozzle support assemblies with parts eligible for installation.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 114 engines installed on airplanes
of U.S. registry.
    We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per        Cost on U.S.
               Action                        Labor cost          Parts cost        product         operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Remove and replace (24) fuel nozzles  48 work-hours x $85 per     $423,471.12     $427,551.12     $48,740,827.68
                                       hour =$4,080.
Replace fuel supply manifold tubes    16 work-hours x $85 per       77,158.97       78,518.97       8,951,162.58
 and install new clamps and brackets.  hour = $1,360.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.
    This AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the
Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by
FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order, issuance of ADs is
normally a function of the Compliance and Airworthiness Division, but
during this transition period, the Executive Director has delegated the
authority to issue ADs applicable to engines, propellers, and
associated appliances to the Manager, Engine and Propeller Standards
Branch, Policy and Innovation Division.

Regulatory Findings

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

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

2019-06-02 Pratt & Whitney Division: Amendment 39-19600; Docket No.
FAA-2018-0924; Product Identifier 2018-NE-34-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective April 30, 2019.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Pratt & Whitney Division PW4158 turbofan
engines designated by a-3 on the Engine Data Plate and with the
following engine serial numbers: 728534 to 728555; 728557 to 728585;
728587 to 728591; 728593; 728598; 729808 to 729824; or 729826 to
729864.

(d) Subject

    Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC) Code 7310, Engine Fuel
Distribution.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by several reports of high cycle fatigue
(HCF) cracks found in the fuel nozzle supply manifold tube at the
braze joint interface. We are issuing this AD to prevent failure of
the fuel nozzles. The unsafe condition, if not addressed, could
result in engine fire, damage to the engine, and damage to the
airplane.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Required Actions

    No later than the next engine shop visit after the effective
date of this AD, do the following:
    (1) Remove any of the 24 fuel nozzles, part number (P/N) 51J235
or 51J344, and replace with P/N 51J397.
    (2) Replace the fuel nozzle manifold supply assemblies and
install new brackets and clamps on the fuel supply manifolds in
accordance with the ``For Engines Installed on Aircraft'' or ``For
Engines Not Installed on Aircraft'' sections, as applicable, of the
Accomplishment Instructions in Pratt & Whitney Service Bulletin (SB)
PW4ENG 73-224, dated November 8, 2017.

(h) Definitions

    For the purpose of this AD, an ``engine shop visit'' is the
induction of an engine into the shop for maintenance involving the
separation of pairs of major mating engine case flanges, except for
the following situations, which do not constitute an engine shop
visit:
    (1) Separation of engine flanges solely for the purposes of
transportation of the engine without subsequent maintenance.
    (2) Separation of engine flanges solely for the purposes of
replacing the fan or propulsor without subsequent maintenance.

(i) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

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

(j) Related Information

    For more information about this AD, contact Scott Hopper,
Aerospace Engineer, ECO Branch, FAA, 1200 District Avenue,
Burlington, MA 01803; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
(k) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed
in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) Pratt & Whitney Service Bulletin PW4ENG 73-224, dated
November 8, 2017.
    (ii) [Reserved]
    (3) For Pratt & Whitney service information identified in this
AD, contact Pratt & Whitney, 400 Main Street, East Hartford, CT
06108; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Engine and
Propeller Standards Branch, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA
01803. For information on the availability of this material at the
FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (5) You may view this service information that is incorporated
by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA). For information on the availability of this material at
NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on March 19, 2019.
Karen M. Grant,
Acting Manager, Engine and Propeller Standards Branch, Aircraft
Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2019-05708 Filed 3-25-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 244 (Friday, December 19, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 75757-75758]
[FR Doc No: 2014-29747]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

49 CFR Part 219

[Docket No. FRA-2001-11213, Notice No. 18]

Alcohol and Drug Testing: Determination of Minimum Random Testing
Rates for 2015

AGENCY: Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Notice of determination.

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

SUMMARY: This notice of determination provides the FRA Administrator's
minimum annual random drug and alcohol testing rates for calendar year
2015. According to data from FRA's Management Information System, the
rail industry's random drug testing positive rate has remained below
1.0 percent for the last two years. FRA's Administrator has therefore
determined that the minimum annual random drug testing rate for the
period January 1, 2015 through December 31, 2015, will remain at 25
percent of covered railroad employees. In addition, because the
industry-wide random alcohol testing violation rate has remained below
0.5 percent for the last two years, the Administrator has determined
that the minimum random alcohol testing rate will remain at 10 percent
of covered railroad employees for the period January 1, 2015 through
December 31, 2015. Railroads remain free, as always, to conduct random
testing at higher rates.

DATES: This notice of determination is effective December 19, 2014.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jerry Powers, FRA Drug and Alcohol
Program Manager, W38-105, Federal Railroad Administration, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590 (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>); or
Sam Noe, FRA Drug and Alcohol Program Specialist (telephone 615-719-
2951).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: FRA determines the minimum annual random
drug testing rate and minimum random alcohol testing rate for the next
calendar year based on railroad industry data available for two
calendar years (for this Notice, calendar years 2012 and 2013). Data
from FRA's Management Information System shows the rail industry's
random drug testing positive rate has remained below 1.0 percent for
the applicable two calendar years. FRA's Administrator has therefore
determined the minimum annual random drug testing rate for the period

January 1, 2015, through December 31, 2015, will remain at 25 percent
of covered railroad employees under 49 CFR 219.602. In addition,
because the industry-wide random alcohol testing violation rate has
remained below 0.5 percent for the applicable two calendar years, the
Administrator has determined the minimum random alcohol testing rate
will remain at 10 percent of covered railroad employees for the period
January 1, 2015, through December 31, 2015 under 49 CFR 219.608.
Because these rates represent minimums, railroads may conduct FRA
random testing at higher rates.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on December 10, 2014.
Joseph C. Szabo,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2014-29747 Filed 12-18-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-06-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 134 (Monday, July 14, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 40636-40637]
[FR Doc No: 2014-16324]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[Docket No. USCG-2014-0545]

Drawbridge Operation Regulation; New Jersey Intracoastal Waterway
(NJICW), at Atlantic City, NJ

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of deviation from drawbridge regulation.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard has issued a temporary deviation from the
operating schedule that governs the US 40-322 (Albany Avenue) Bridge
across Inside Thorofare, NJICW mile 70.0, at Atlantic City, NJ. The
deviation is necessary to facilitate the 4th Annual Atlantic City
Triathlon. The deviation allows the bridge to remain in the closed
position to vessels requesting a bridge opening to ensure the
participants' safety and that there are no delays.

DATES: This deviation is effective from 6 a.m. to Noon on September 13
and 14, 2014.

ADDRESSES: The docket for this deviation [USCG-2014-0545] is available
at http://www.regulations.gov. Type the docket number in the ``Search''
box and click ``Search.'' Click on the Open Docket Folder on the line
associated with this deviation. You may also visit the Docket
Management Facility in Room W12-140, on the ground floor of the
Department of Transportation West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this
temporary deviation, call or email Kashanda Booker, Bridge Management
Specialist, Fifth Coast Guard District, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have questions on reviewing the
docket, call Cheryl Collins, Program Manager, Docket Operations,
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Atlantic City Emergency Management
Office has requested a temporary

deviation from the current operating regulation of the US 40-322
(Albany Avenue) Bridge across Inside Thorofare, NJICW mile 70.0, at
Atlantic City, NJ. The closure has been requested to ensure the safety
of the runners and spectators that will be participating in the 4th
Annual Atlantic Triathlon on September 13th and 14th, 2014. Under this
temporary deviation, the US 40-322 (Albany Avenue) Bridge will remain
in the closed position from 6 a.m. to Noon on September 13 and 14,
2014.
    The vertical clearance of this bascule bridge is 10 feet above mean
high water in the closed position and unlimited in the open position.
The current operating regulation is outlined at 33 CFR 117.733(f),
which requires that on the weekdays during this time of year, the
bridge shall open on signal; except that from 11 p.m. to 7 a.m., the
draw need only open if at least four hours of notice is given, from 9
a.m. to 4 p.m. and from 6 p.m. to 9 p.m., the draw need only open on
the hour and half hour, and from 4 p.m. to 6 p.m. the draw need not
open.
    Vessels that can pass under the bridge without a bridge opening may
do so at all times. The bridge will be able to open for emergencies.
The Atlantic Ocean is an alternate route for vessels with mast heights
greater than 10 feet. The Coast Guard will inform the users of the
waterway through our Local and Broadcast Notice to Mariners' of the
closure periods so that vessels can plan their transits to minimize any
impact caused by the temporary deviation. At all other times during the
affected period, the bridge will operate as outlined at 33 CFR
117.733(f).
    In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridge must return to
its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the designated
time period. This deviation from the operating regulations is
authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.

    Dated: June 26, 2014.
Waverly W. Gregory, Jr.,
Bridge Program Manager, Fifth Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2014-16324 Filed 7-11-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register: December 28, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 248)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 73631-73635]
[DOCID:fr28de07-14]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0114; FRL-8343-2]

Fluroxypyr; Pesticide Tolerance

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes tolerances for combined residues
of fluroxypyr and its metabolite in or on pome fruit, group 11; millet
(grain, forage, hay and proso millet straw). Interregional Research
Project Number 4 (IR-4) requested these tolerances under the Federal
Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).

DATES: This regulation is effective December 28, 2007. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received on or before February 26, 2008,
and must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40
CFR part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION).

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under docket
identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0114. To access the
electronic docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, select ``Advanced

Search,'' then ``Docket Search.'' Insert the docket ID number where
indicated and select the ``Submit'' button. Follow the instructions on
the regulations.gov website to view the docket index or access
available documents. All documents in the docket are listed in the
docket index available in regulations.gov. Although listed in the
index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted
material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available
only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are
available in the electronic docket at http://www.regulations.gov, or,

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

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

I. General Information

A. Does this Action Apply to Me?

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

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

    In addition to accessing an electronic copy of this Federal
Register document through the electronic docket at http://www.regulations.gov
, you may access this Federal Register document

electronically through the EPA Internet under the ``Federal Register''
listings at http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr. You may also access a

frequently updated electronic version of EPA's tolerance regulations at
40 CFR part 180 through the Government Printing Office's pilot e-CFR
site at http://www.gpoaccess.gov/ecfr.

C. Can I File an Objection or Hearing Request?

    Under section 408(g) of FFDCA, any person may file an objection to
any aspect of this regulation and may also request a hearing on those
objections. You must file your objection or request a hearing on this
regulation in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part
178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify docket ID
number EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0114 in the subject line on the first page of
your submission. All requests must be in writing, and must be mailed or
delivered to the Hearing Clerk as required by 40 CFR part 178 on or
before February 26, 2008.
    In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the
Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of
the filing that does not contain any CBI for inclusion in the public
docket that is described in ADDRESSES. Information not marked
confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA
without prior notice. Submit this copy, identified by docket ID number
EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0114, by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.

Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
     Mail: Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) Regulatory Public
Docket (7502P), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001.
     Delivery: OPP Regulatory Public Docket (7502P),
Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. S-4400, One

Potomac Yard (South Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA.
Deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of
operation (8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal
holidays). Special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed
information. The Docket Facility telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

II. Petition for Tolerance

    In the Federal Register of April 4, 2007 (72 FR 16352) (FRL-8119-
2), EPA issued a notice pursuant to section 408(d)(3) of FFDCA, 21
U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a pesticide petition (PP
6E7168) by Interregional Research Project Number 4 (IR-4), 500 College
Road East, Suite 201 W, Princeton, NJ 08540. The petition requested
that 40 CFR 180.535 be amended by establishing tolerances for combined
residues of the herbicide fluroxypyr, 1-methylheptyl ester [1-
methylheptyl ((4-amino-3,5-dichloro-6-fluoro-2-pyridinyl)oxy)acetate]
and its metabolite fluroxypyr [((4-amino-3,5-dichloro-6-fluoro-2-
pyridinyl)oxy)acetic acid], in or on pome, fruit, group 11 at 0.02
parts per million (ppm); millet, grain at 0.5 ppm; millet, forage at
12.0 ppm; millet, hay at 20.0 ppm; millet, proso, grain at 0.5 ppm;
millet, proso, straw at 12.0 ppm; millet, proso, forage at 12.0 ppm;
millet, proso, hay at 20.0 ppm; millet, pearl, grain at 0.5 ppm;
millet, pearl, forage at 12.0 ppm; and millet, pearl, hay at 20.0 ppm.
That notice referenced a summary of the petition prepared by Dow
AgroSciences, the registrant, which is available to the public in the
docket, http://www.regulations.gov. There were no comments received in

response to the notice of filing.
    Based upon review of the data supporting the petition, EPA has
determined that separate tolerances for proso and pearl millet grain,
forage, and hay are not needed since these commodities are covered by
the tolerances being established for millet grain, millet forage and
millet hay.
    EPA is also deleting all the tolerances in Sec.  180.535(b) for
field and sweet corn, onion, and sorghum commodities that are no longer
needed since they have expired. The deletions under Sec.  180.535(b)
are time-limited tolerances that were established under section 18
emergency exemptions that have since expired and have been superceded
by the establishment of general tolerances for the same commodities
under Sec.  180.535(a).

III. Aggregate Risk Assessment and Determination of Safety

    Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish a
tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a
food) only if EPA determines that the tolerance is ``safe.'' Section
408(b)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines ``safe'' to mean that ``there is a
reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure
to the pesticide chemical residue, including all anticipated dietary
exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable
information.'' This includes exposure through drinking water and in
residential settings, but does not include occupational exposure.
Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA requires EPA to give special
consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide
chemical residue in establishing a tolerance and to ``ensure that there
is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and
children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue. . .
.'' These provisions were added to FFDCA by the Food Quality Protection
Act (FQPA) of 1996.
    Consistent with section 408(b)(2)(D) of FFDCA, and the factors
specified in section 408(b)(2)(D) of FFDCA, EPA has reviewed the
available scientific data and other relevant information in support of
this action. EPA has sufficient data to assess the hazards of and to
make a determination on aggregate exposure for the petitioned-for
tolerance for combined residues of fluroxypyr, 1-methylheptyl ester [1-
methylheptyl ((4-amino-3,5-dichloro-6-fluoro-2-pyridinyl)oxy)acetate]
and its metabolite fluroxypyr [((4-amino-3,5-dichloro-6-fluoro-2-
pyridinyl)oxy)acetic acid] on fruit, pome, group 11 at 0.02 ppm;
millet, grain at 0.5 ppm; millet, forage at 12.0 ppm; millet, hay at
20.0 ppm and millet, proso, straw at 12.0 ppm. EPA's assessment of
exposures and risks associated with establishing the tolerance follows.

A. Toxicological Profile

    EPA has evaluated the available toxicity data and considered its
validity, completeness, and reliability as well as the relationship of
the results of the studies to human risk. EPA has also considered
available information concerning the variability of the sensitivities
of major identifiable subgroups of consumers, including infants and
children. Specific information on the studies received and the nature
of the adverse effects caused by fluroxypyr as well as the no-observed-
adverse-effect-level (NOAEL) and the lowest-observed-adverse-effect-
level (LOAEL) from the toxicity studiescan be found at http://www.regulations.gov
 in document Fluroxypyr: Human Health Risk

Assessment to Support Proposed New Uses on Pome Fruits and Millet at
Attachment 2 page 27 - 30 in docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-
0114.
    Fluroxypyr has low acute toxicity by the oral and dermal routes and
moderate acute toxicity by the inhalation route. The kidney is the
target organ for fluroxypyr following oral exposure to rats, mice, and
dogs. In the rat, increased kidney weight and death were observed in
both sexes in the 90-day feeding study, increased kidney weight and
chronic progressive glomerulonephropathy were observed in both sexes in
the chronic study. Increased kidney weight was observed in the maternal
rat in the developmental toxicity study, and kidney effects (deaths due
to renal failure; increased kidney weight, and microscopic kidney
lesions) were observed in both sexes in the 2-generation reproduction
study. Although kidney toxicity (early signs of acute tubular
nephrosis) was observed in dogs in the 28-day feeding study, no kidney
effects or other treatment related toxicity was seen in the chronic
feeding study in dogs. Increased kidney lesions (increased incidences
of renal papillary necrosis and regenerative nephrosis in females) were
observed in mice following long-term exposure. Treatment related deaths
were noted in maternal rats (600 milligrams/kilograms/day (mg/kg/day))
and rabbits (400 mg/kg/day). Endpoints for risk assessment were based
on kidney effects seen in the database. There was no evidence of
increased susceptibility (quantitative/qualitative) following in utero
exposure to the acid and the ester in rats and rabbits, or following
prenatal and/or postnatal exposure in rats. There are no neurotoxicity
concerns from the acute and subchronic neurotoxicity studies, and the
weight of the evidence indicates a lack of concern for developmental
neurotoxicity. Therefore, a developmental neurotoxicity study (DNT) is
not required. Fluroxypyr is classified as ``not likely'' as a human
carcinogen and there was no concern for its mutagenicity potential.

B. Toxicological Endpoints

    For hazards that have a threshold below which there is no
appreciable risk, the toxicological level of concern (LOC) is derived
from the highest dose at which no adverse effects are observed (the
NOAEL) in the toxicology study identified as appropriate for use in
risk assessment. However, if a NOAEL cannot be determined, the lowest
dose

at which adverse effects of concern are identified (the LOAEL) is
sometimes used for risk assessment. Uncertainty/safety factors (UFs)
are used in conjunction with the LOC to take into account uncertainties
inherent in the extrapolation from laboratory animal data to humans and
in the variations in sensitivity among members of the human population
as well as other unknowns. Safety is assessed for acute and chronic
risks by comparing aggregate exposure to the pesticide to the acute
population adjusted dose (aPAD) and chronic population adjusted dose
(cPAD). The aPAD and cPAD are calculated by dividing the LOC by all
applicable UFs. Short-, intermediate-, and long-term risks are
evaluated by comparing aggregate exposure to the LOC to ensure that the
margin of exposure (MOE) called for by the product of all applicable
UFs is not exceeded.
    For non-threshold risks, the Agency assumes that any amount of
exposure will lead to some degree of risk and estimates risk in terms
of the probability of occurrence of additional adverse cases.
Generally, cancer risks are considered non-threshold. For more
information on the general principles EPA uses in risk characterization
and a complete description of the risk assessment process, see http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-PEST/1997/November/Day-26/p30948.htm
.

    A summary of the toxicological endpoints for fluroxypyr used for
human risk assessment can be found at http://www.regulations.gov in

document Fluroxypyr: Human Health Risk Assessment to Support Proposed
New Uses on Pome Fruits and Millet at page 11 in docket ID number EPA-
HQ-OPP-2007-0114.

C. Exposure Assessment

    1. Dietary exposure from food and feed uses. In evaluating dietary
exposure to fluroxypyr, EPA considered exposure from the petitioned-for
tolerances as well as all existing fluroxypyr tolerances in (40 CFR
180.535). EPA assessed dietary exposures from fluroxypyr in food as
follows:
    i. Acute exposure. Quantitative acute dietary exposure and risk
assessments are performed for a food-use pesticide, if a toxicological
study has indicated the possibility of an effect of concern occurring
as a result of a single exposure.
    No such effects were identified in the toxicological studies for
fluroxypyr; therefore, a quantitative acute dietary exposure assessment
is unnecessary.
    ii. Chronic exposure. In conducting the chronic dietary exposure
assessment EPA used the food consumption data from the USDA 1994-1996
and 1998 Nationwide Continuing Surveys of Food Intake by Individuals
(CSFII). As to residue levels in food, assumed all foods for which
there are tolerances were treated and contain tolerance-level residues.
    iii. Cancer. Based on the results of carcinogenicity studies in
rats and mice, EPA has concluded that fluroxypyr is ``not likely to be
carcinogenic to humans.'' Consequently, a quantitative cancer exposure
and risk assessment is not appropriate for fluroxypyr.
    2. Dietary exposure from drinking water. The Agency lacks
sufficient monitoring data to complete a comprehensive dietary exposure
analysis and risk assessment for fluroxypyr 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 environmental fate characteristics of
fluroxypyr. Further information regarding EPA drinking water models
used in pesticide exposure assessment can be found at http://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/models/water/index.htm
.

    Based on the Pesticide Root Zone Model/Exposure Analysis Modeling
System (PRZM/EXAMS) and Screening Concentration in Groundwater (SCI-
GROW) models, the estimated environmental concentrations (EECs) of
fluroxypyr for chronic exposures are estimated to be 3.28 ppb for
surface water and 0.04 ppb for ground water.
    Modeled estimates of drinking water concentrations were directly
entered into the dietary exposure model. For chronic dietary risk
assessment, the water concentration value of 3.28 ppb was used to
assess the contribution to drinking water.
    3. From non-dietary exposure. The term ``residential exposure'' is
used in this document to refer to non-occupational, non-dietary
exposure (e.g., for lawn and garden pest control, indoor pest control,
termiticides, and flea and tick control on pets).
    Fluroxypyr is currently registered for the following residential
non-dietary sites: Application to residential turf grass and
recreational sites such as golf courses, parks, and sports fields. EPA
assessed residential exposure using the following assumptions:
    Residential handlers may receive short-term dermal and inhalation
exposure to fluroxypyr when mixing, loading and applying the
formulations. However, toxicity by the dermal route of exposure is not
expected; therefore only inhalation daily doses for residential
handlers were calculated. Adults and children may be exposed to
fluroxypyr residues from dermal contact with turf during post-
application activities. Toddlers may receive short- and intermediate-
term oral exposure from incidental ingestion during post-application
activities. A dermal risk assessment for post-application exposures was
not conducted because a dermal endpoint was not selected. Therefore,
only the following post-application exposure scenarios resulting from
lawn treatment were assessed:
    i. Toddlers' incidental ingestion of pesticide residues on lawns
from hand-to-mouth transfer,
    ii. Object-to-mouth transfer from mouthing of pesticide-treated
turfgrass, and
    iii. Incidental ingestion of soil from pesticide-treated
residential areas.
    4. Cumulative effects from substances with a common mechanism of
toxicity. Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of FFDCA requires that, when
considering whether to establish, modify, or revoke a tolerance, the
Agency consider ``available information'' concerning the cumulative
effects of a particular pesticide's residues and ``other substances
that have a common mechanism of toxicity.''
    Unlike other pesticides for which EPA has followed a cumulative
risk approach based on a common mechanism of toxicity, EPA has not made
a common mechanism of toxicity finding as to fluroxypyr and any other
substances and fluroxypyr 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 fluroxypyr 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
EPA's website at http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/cumulative.

D. Safety Factor for Infants and Children

    1. In general. Section 408 of FFDCA provides that EPA shall apply
an additional (``10X'') 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 database on toxicity and
exposure unless EPA determines based on reliable data that a different
margin of safety will be safe for infants and children. This additional
margin of safety is commonly referred to as the

FQPA safety factor. In applying this provision, EPA either retains the
default value of 10X when reliable data do not support the choice of a
different factor, or, if reliable data are available, EPA uses a
different additional FQPA safety factor value based on the use of
traditional UFs and/or special FQPA safety factors, as appropriate.
    2. Prenatal and postnatal sensitivity. There was no evidence of
increased susceptibility (quantitative/qualitative) following in utero
exposure to the fluroxypyr in rats and rabbits, or following prenatal
and/or postnatal exposure in rats. There are no neurotoxicity concerns
from the acute and subchronic neurotoxicity studies, and the weight of
the evidence indicates a lack of concern for developmental
neurotoxicity.
    3. Conclusion. EPA has determined that reliable data show that it
would be safe for infants and children to reduce the FQPA safety factor
to 1X. That decision is based on the following findings:
    i. The toxicity database for fluroxypyr is complete.
    ii. There is no indication that fluroxypyr is a neurotoxic chemical
and there is no need for a developmental neurotoxicity study or
additional UFs to account for neurotoxicity.
    iii. There is no evidence that fluroxypyr results in increased
susceptibility in in utero rats or rabbits in the prenatal
developmental studies or in young rats in the 2-generation reproduction
study.
    iv. There are no residual uncertainties identified in the exposure
databases. The dietary food exposure assessments were performed based
on 100% crop treated and tolerance-level residues. Conservative ground
and surface water modeling estimates were used. EPA used similarly
conservative assumptions to assess post-application exposure of
children as well as incidental oral exposure of toddlers. These
assessments will not underestimate the exposure and risks posed by
fluroxypyr.

E. Aggregate Risks and Determination of Safety

    Safety is assessed for acute and chronic risks by comparing
aggregate exposure to the pesticide to the aPAD and cPAD. The aPAD and
cPAD are calculated by dividing the LOC by all applicable UFs. For
linear cancer risks, EPA calculates the probability of additional
cancer cases given aggregate exposure. Short-, intermediate-, and long-
term risks are evaluated by comparing aggregate exposure to the LOC to
ensure that the MOE called for by the product of all applicable UFs is
not exceeded.
    1. Acute risk. None of the toxicology studies available for
fluroxypyr indicated the possibility of an effect of concern occurring
as a result of a single exposure; therefore, fluroxypyr is not expected
to pose an acute risk.
    2. Chronic risk. Using the exposure assumptions described in this
unit for chronic exposure, EPA has concluded that exposure to
fluroxypyr from food and water will utilize 1.4% of the cPAD for
children 1-2 years old, the subpopulation group with greatest exposure.
Based on the use patterns, chronic residential exposure to residues of
fluroxypyr is not expected.
    3. Short-term risk and intermediate-term. Short-term and
intermediate-term aggregate exposure takes into account residential
exposure plus chronic exposure to food and water (considered to be a
background exposure level).
    Fluroxypyr is currently registered for uses that could result in
short-term and intermediate-term residential exposure and the Agency
has determined that it is appropriate to aggregate chronic food and
water and short-term exposures for fluroxypyr.
    Using the exposure assumptions described in this unit for short-
term and intermediate-term exposures, EPA has concluded that food,
water, and residential exposures aggregated result in aggregate MOEs of
4,400 to 53,000. The MOE for the U.S. population is 8,200. The most
highly exposed subgroup was Children, 1-2 years old, with an MOE of
4,400.
    4. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. population. There was no evidence
of carcinogenicity in two carcinogenicity studies in rats and mice with
fluroxypyr. Therefore, fluroxypyr is considered ``Not likely to be
carcinogenic to humans.'' Fluroxypyr is not expected to pose a cancer
risk.
    5. Determination of safety. Based on these risk assessments, EPA
concludes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result
to the general population, or to infants and children from aggregate
exposure to fluroxypyr residues.

IV. Other Considerations

A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    Adequate enforcement methodology (gas chromatography/mass-selective
detector (GC/MSD)) is available to enforce the tolerance expression.
The method may be requested from: Chief, Analytical Chemistry Branch,
Environmental Science Center, 701 Mapes Rd., Ft. Meade, MD 20755-5350;
telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

B. International Residue Limits

    There are no Codex, Canadian or Mexican MRLs for fluroxypyr for
pome fruits or millet.

V. Conclusion

    Therefore, tolerances are established for combined residues of
fluroxypyr, 1-methylheptyl ester [1-methylheptyl ((4-amino-3,5-
dichloro-6-fluoro-2-pyridinyl)oxy)acetate] and its metabolite
fluroxypyr [((4-amino-3,5-dichloro-6-fluoro-2-pyridinyl)oxy)acetic
acid] in or on fruit, pome, group 11 at 0.02 ppm; millet, grain at 0.5
ppm; millet, forage at 12.0 ppm; millet, hay at 20.0 ppm and millet,
proso, straw at 12.0 ppm.
    Time-limited tolerances were established in 40 CFR 180.535(b) for
residues of fluroxypyr on field and sweet corn, onion, and sorghum
commodities in connection with FIFRA section 18 emergency exemptions
granted by the EPA. All of these time-limited tolerances have expired
and are no longer in force. Permanent tolerances have been established
on these commodities in Sec.  180.535(a). Because expired, time-limited
tolerances for residues of fluroxypyr are without effect, this final
rule removes them from EPA's regulations. EPA finds there is good cause
to make this latter change without prior notice and comment because it
eliminates obsolete portions of the regulation. EPA concludes notice
and comment are unnecessary on such changes.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This final rule establishes a tolerance under section 408(d) of
FFDCA in response to a petition submitted to the Agency. The Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these types of actions from
review under Executive Order 12866, entitled Regulatory Planning and
Review (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Because this rule has been
exempted from review under Executive Order 12866, 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) or Executive Order 13045, entitled Protection of Children
from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks (62 FR 19885, April
23, 1997). This final rule does not contain any information collections
subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq., nor does it require any special considerations
under Executive Order 12898, entitled Federal Actions to Address
Environmental Justice in

Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations (59 FR 7629, February
16, 1994).
    Since tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis
of a petition under section 408(d) of FFDCA, such as the tolerance in
this final rule, do not require the issuance of a proposed rule, the
requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et
seq.) do not apply.
    This final rule directly regulates growers, food processors, food
handlers, and food retailers, not States or tribes, nor does this
action alter the relationships or distribution of power and
responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions
of section 408(n)(4) of FFDCA. As such, the Agency has determined that
this action will not have a substantial direct effect on States or
tribal governments, on the relationship between the national government
and the States or tribal governments, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government or between
the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Thus, the Agency has
determined that Executive Order 13132, entitled Federalism (64 FR
43255, August 10, 1999) and Executive Order 13175, entitled
Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments (65 FR
67249, November 6, 2000) do not apply to this rule. In addition, This
rule does not impose any enforceable duty or contain any unfunded
mandate as described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
of 1995 (UMRA) (Public Law 104-4).
    This action does not involve any technical standards that would
require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant
to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272
note).

VII. Congressional Review Act

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

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180

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

    Dated: December 14, 2007.
Lois Rossi,
Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.

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

PART 180--[AMENDED]

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

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

0
2. Section 180.535 is amended by alphabetically adding the following
commodities to the table in paragraph (a), removing the expired time-
limited tolerances in paragraph (b), and reserving it to read as
follows:

Sec.  180.535  Fluroxypyr 1-methylheptyl ester; tolerances for
residues.

    (a) * * *

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Parts per
                         Commodity                             million
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                * * * * *
Fruit, pome, group 11......................................         0.02
                                * * * * *
Millet, forage.............................................         12.0
Millet, grain..............................................          0.5
Millet, hay................................................         20.0
Millet, proso, straw.......................................         12.0
                                * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (b) Section 18 emergency exemptions. [Reserved]
* * * * *
[FR Doc. E7-25092 Filed 12-27-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-S


FIFRA SCIENTIFIC ADVISORY PANEL (SAP)

OPEN MEETING

June 13-15, 2006

FIFRA SAP WEB SITE:    HYPERLINK "http://www.epa.gov/scipoly/sap/"  http://www.epa.gov/scipoly/sap/

OPP Docket Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>

Docket Number:  OPP 2006-0217

ANALYSIS OF A NATURAL REFUGE OF NON-COTTON HOSTS FOR MONSANTO’S BOLLGARD II COTTON

Holiday Inn – National Airport

2650 Jefferson Davis Highway

Arlington, Virginia  22202

Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>

FIFRA SAP Session Chair

Steven G. Heeringa, Ph.D.

Research Scientist & Director for Statistical Design

Institute for Social Research

University of Michigan

P.O. Box 1248

Ann Arbor, MI 48106-1248

Designated Federal Official

Myrta R. Christian, M.S.

FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel

Office of Science Coordination and Policy

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

EPA East Building

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20460

Phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>, Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>

  HYPERLINK<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS> FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel Members

Janice Elaine Chambers, Ph.D.

William L. Giles Distinguished Professor

Director, Center for Environmental Health Sciences

College of Veterinary Medicine

Mississippi State University

P.O. Box 6100

Mississippi State, MS  39762-6100

Gary E. Isom, Ph.D.

Professor of Toxicology

School of Pharmacy & Pharmacal Sciences

Purdue University

575 Stadium Mall Drive

West Lafayette, IN  47907-2091

Kenneth M. Portier, Ph.D.

Program Director, Statistics

American Cancer Society

Statistics & Evaluation Center

National Home Office

1599 Clifton Road, N.E., Room 5.406

Atlanta, GA  32329-4251

FQPA Science Review Board Members

Gary P. Fitt, Ph.D.

Assistant Chief, CSIRO Entomology

Australian Cotton CRC

120 Meiers Road

Indooroopilly, Queensland

Australia  4068

Fred L. Gould, Ph.D.

William Neal Reynolds Professor of Agriculture

North Carolina State University

Campus Box 7634

Raleigh, NC  27695-7634

Charles A. Guse, M.S.

Research Associate

Box 21 National Soybean Research Center

Department of Crop Sciences

University of Illinois

1101 W. Peabody Drive

Urbana, IL  61801

David G. Heckel, Ph.D.

Director, Max-Planck-Institute of Chemical Ecology

Beutenberg Campus

Hans-Knoll-Strasse 8

D-07745 Jena

Germany

Terrance M. Hurley, Ph.D.

Associate Professor

Department of Applied Economics

University of Minnesota

1994 Buford Avenue, Room 249C

St. Paul, MN  55108-6040

Anthony R. Ives, Ph.D.

Professor, Department of Zoology

University of Wisconsin-Madison

430 Lincoln Drive

Madison, WI  53706

Michael J. Livingston, Ph.D.

Agricultural Economist

U.S. Department of Agriculture

Economic Research Service

1800 M Street, N.W., S-4028

Washington, D.C.  20036

Thomas W. Sappington, Ph.D.

Research Entomologist

U.S.D.A., Agricultural Research Service

Corn Insects & Crop Genetics Research Unit

Genetics Laboratory

Iowa State University

Ames, IA  50011

John C. Schneider, Ph.D.

Professor/Research Entomologist

Department of Entomology and Plant Pathology

Mississippi State University, Box 9775

Clay Lyle Entomology Building

Mississippi State, MS  39762-9775

 PAGE

 PAGE   2