dwcgi 1652 1047484001 400673000. xls Table 1 Annual Agency and Respondent Burden/ Cost Estimates for Substantiation of CBI Claims Information Collection Activity Number Attorney Hours Attorney Wage/ Hr Manager Hours Manager Wage/ Hr Technical Hours Technical Wage/ Hr Clerical Hours Clerical Wage/ Hr Total Hours Per Request Total Costs Per Request Total Hours for All Requests Total Costs for All Requests Total Number of FOIA requests for CBI received by all EPA Program Offices and Regions per year 1384 Total number of other events ( e. g.,

litigation or rulemaking) that require EPA to examine the confidentiality of business information per year 617 Total number of EPA requests to industry for substantiation of CBI claims per year 543 Level of EPA effort to review information,

make a preliminary determination, and request substantiation from industry 543 4.00 $ 35.83 2.00 $ 30.32 1.00 $ 17.58 7.00 $ 221.54 3,801.00 $ 120,296.22 Number of respondents deciding not to submit substantiations per year 100 Level of industry effort to review the information claimed as confidential and decide not to comment 100 0.50 $ 33.42 0.50 $ 30.66 0.00 $ 16.13 1.00 $ 32.04 100.00 $ 3,204.00 Number of respondents submitting substantiations per year 443 Level of industry effort to respond to each substantiation request 443 2.00 $ 50.00 4.00 $ 33.42 7.00 $ 30.66 1.00 $ 16.13 14.00 $ 464.43 6,202.00 $ 205,742.49 Level of EPA effort to review each substantiation and make a final confidentiality determination 443 6.00 $ 35.83 2.00 $ 30.32 0.00 $ 17.58 8.00 $ 275.62 3,544.00 $ 122,099.66 Number of contractor/ subcontractor companies who are given access to CBI 129 Number of contractor/ subcontractor employees who must sign confidentiality agreements and the related level of effort 658 0.10 $ 33.42 0.00 0.00 0.10 $ 3.34 65.80 $ 2,197.72 Level of effort for contractor/ subcontractor businesses to file and maintain confidentiality agreements 129 0.00 0.00 0.50 $ 16.13 0.50 $ 8.07 64.50 $ 1,041.03 Total 13,777.30 $ 454,581.12 Hours and Costs Per Activity dwcgi 1652 1047484001 400673000. xls Table 1 Annual Agency and Respondent Burden/ Cost Estimates for Substantiation of CBI Claims KEY: Wage Rates for Industry Activities Manager Wage/ Hr = Wage per hour for private industry Executives, Administrators, and Managers * EPA wages/ hr taken from the U. S. Office of Personnel Management's 2000 General Schedule  Base Rates, Excluding Locality Rates of Pay Wage Rates for EPA Activities Attorney Wage/ Hr = Wage per hour for a GS 14 Step 5 Attorney.

* Wages/ hr taken from the U. S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics " National Compensation Survey: Occupational Wages in the United States, 1997", Bulletin 2519,

( September 1999). Technical Wage/ Hr = Wage per hour for a GS 13 Step 5 Technical employee.

Clerical Wage/ Hr = Wage per hour for a GS 9 Step 5 Clerical/ Administrative employee.

Technical Wage/ Hr = Wage per hour for private industry Industrial Engineer Clerical Wage/ Hr = Wage per hour for private industry General Administrative employee. dwcgi 1652 1047484001 400673000. xls Table 2 Annual Respondent Burden/ Cost Estimates for Substantiation of CBI Claims Information Collection Activity Number Attorney Hours Attorney Wage/ Hr Manager Hours Manager Wage/ Hr Technical Hours Technical Wage/ Hr Clerical Hours Clerical Wage/ Hr Total Hours Per Request Total Costs Per Request Total Hours for All Requests Total Costs for All Requests Read EPA's request for comments 100 0.20 $ 33.42 0.20 $ 30.66 0.00 $ 16.13 0.40 $ 12.82 40.00 $ 1,282.00 Review the information claimed as confidential and decide not to comment 100 0.30 $ 33.42 0.30 $ 30.66 0.00 $ 16.13 0.60 $ 19.22 60.00 $ 1,922.00 Subtotal 0.50 0.50 0.00 1.00 $ 32.04 100.00 $ 3,204.00 Read EPA's request for comments 443 0.20 $ 33.42 0.20 $ 30.66 0.00 $ 16.13 0.40 $ 12.82 177.20 $ 5,679.26 Review the information claimed as confidential and decide to comment 443 1.00 $ 50.00 1.80 $ 33.42 3.80 $ 30.66 0.00 $ 16.13 6.60 $ 226.66 2,923.80 $ 100,410.38 Prepare and submit a substantiation to EPA 1.00 $ 50.00 2.00 $ 33.42 3.00 $ 30.66 1.00 $ 16.13 7.00 $ 224.95 3,101.00 $ 99,652.85 Subtotal 2.00 4.00 7.00 1.00 14.00 $ 464.43 6,202.00 $ 205,742.49 Number of contractor/ subcontractor companies who are given access to CBI 129 Number of contractor/ subcontractor employees who must sign confidentiality agreements and the related level of effort 658 0.10 $ 33.42 0.00 $ 30.66 0.00 $ 16.13 0.10 $ 3.34 65.80 $ 2,197.72 Level of effort for contractor/ subcontractor businesses to file and maintain confidentiality agreements 129 0.00 $ 33.42 0.00 $ 30.66 0.50 $ 16.13 0.50 $ 8.07 64.50 $ 1,041.03 Subtotal 0.10 0.00 0.50 0.60 $ 11.41 130.30 $ 3,238.75 Total 6,432.30 $ 212,185.24 Burden Hours and Costs by Employee Category * Wages/ hr taken from the U. S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics " National Compensation Survey: Occupational Wages in the United States, 1997", Bulletin 2519,

( September 1999). Technical Wage/ Hr = Wage per hour for private industry Industrial Engineer Clerical Wage/ Hr = Wage per hour for private industry General Administrative employee.

KEY: Wage Rates for Industry and Contractor/ Subcontractor Activities Manager Wage/ Hr = Wage per hour for private industry Executives, Administrators, and Managers dwcgi 1652 1047484001 400673000. xls Table 3 Annual Agency Burden/ Cost Estimates for Substantiation of CBI Claims Information Collection Activity Number Attorney Hours Attorney Wage/ Hr Technical Hours Technical Wage/ Hr Clerical Hours Clerical Wage/ Hr Total Hours Per Request Total Costs Per Request Total Hours for All Requests Total Costs for All Requests Total number of EPA requests to industry for substantiation of CBI claims per year 543 Review and make a preliminary determination whether business information may be entitled to confidential treatment 543 4.00 $ 35.83 1.00 $ 30.32 0.00 $ 17.58 5.00 $ 173.64 2,715.00 $ 94,286.52 Notify the affected business that EPA is making a confidentiality determination and provide an opportunity to comment 543 0.00 $ 35.83 1.00 $ 30.32 1.00 $ 17.58 2.00 $ 47.90 1,086.00 $ 26,009.70 Subtotal 7.00 $ 221.54 3,801.00 $ 120,296.22 Number of respondents submitting substantiations per year 443 Level of EPA effort to review the substantiation received and make a final determination whether the business information is entitled to confidential treatment 443 6.00 $ 35.83 2.00 $ 30.32 0.00 $ 17.58 8.00 $ 275.62 3,544.00 $ 122,099.66 Subtotal 8.00 $ 275.62 3,544.00 $ 122,099.66 Total 7,345.00 $ 242,395.88 Hours and Costs by Employee Category KEY: Wage Rates for EPA Activities * EPA wages/ hr taken from the U. S. Office of Personnel Management's 2000 General Schedule  Base Rates, Excluding Locality Rates of Pay Attorney Wage/ Hr = Wage per hour for a GS 14 Step 5 Attorney.

Technical Wage/ Hr = Wage per hour for a GS 13 Step 5 Technical employee.

Clerical Wage/ Hr = Wage per hour for a GS 9 Step 5 Clerical/ Administrative employee. dwcgi 1652 1047484001 400673000. xls Table 3 Annual Agency Burden/ Cost Estimates for Substantiation of CBI Claims


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 119 (Tuesday, June 21, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 36170]
[FR Doc No: 2011-15381]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Agency Information Collection Activities; Requests for Comments;
Clearance of Renewed Approval of Information Collection; Application
for Certificate of Waiver or Authorization

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FAA
invites public comments about our intention to request the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) approval to renew an information
collection. U.S. Code authorizes the issuance of regulations governing
the use of navigable airspace. Respondents conducting general operation
and flight of aircraft or any activity that could encroach on airspace
must apply for approval.

DATES: Written comments should be submitted by August 22, 2011.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carla Scott on<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by
e-mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    OMB Control Number: 2120-0027.
    Title: Application for Certificate of Waiver or Authorization.
    Form Numbers: FAA Form 7711-2.
    Type of Review: Renewal of an information collection.
    Background: The information collected by FAA Form 7711-2,
Application for Certificate of Waiver or Authorization, is reviewed and
analyzed by FAA to determine the type and extent of the intended
deviation from prescribed regulations. A certificate of waiver or
authorization to deviate is generally issued to the applicant
(individuals and businesses) if the proposed operation does not create
a hazard to person, property, other aircraft, and includes the
operation of unmanned aircraft. Applications for certificates of waiver
to the provisions of Parts 91 and 101, for authorization to make
parachute jumps (other than emergency or military operations) under
Part 105, Section 105.15 (airshows and meets) use FAA Form 7711-2.
    Respondents: Approximately 25,231 individuals and businesses.
    Frequency: Information is collected on occasion.
    Estimated Average Burden per Response: 32 minutes.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden: 13,646 hours.
    Addresses: Send comments to the FAA at the following address: Ms.
Carla Scott, Room 336, Federal Aviation Administration, AES-300, 950
L'Enfant Plaza, SW., Washington, DC 20024.
    Public Comments Invited: You are asked to comment on any aspect of
this information collection, including (a) Whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary for FAA's performance; (b) the
accuracy of the estimated burden; (c) ways for FAA to enhance the
quality, utility and clarity of the information collection; and (d)
ways that the burden could be minimized without reducing the quality of
the collected information. The agency will summarize and/or include
your comments in the request for OMB's clearance of this information
collection.

    Issued in Washington, DC on June 15, 2011.
Carla Scott,
FAA Information Collection Clearance Officer, IT Enterprises Business
Services Division, AES-200.
[FR Doc. 2011-15381 Filed 6-20-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


PP#6E7074

Summary of Petition

	EPA has received a pesticide petition (PP 6E7074) from Interregional
Research Project Number 4 (IR-4), 500 College Road, Suit 201 W,
Princeton, NJ 08540 proposing, pursuant to section 408(d) of the Federal
Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d), to amend 40 CFR
part 180.421 by establishing a tolerance for residues of fenarimol
[alpha-(2-chlorophenyl)-alpha-(4-chlorophenyl)-5-pyrimidinemethanol] in
or on the raw agricultural commodity hop at 1.0 parts per million (ppm).
 EPA has determined that the petition contains data or information
regarding the elements set forth in section 408(d)(2) of the FFDCA;
however, EPA has not fully evaluated the sufficiency of the submitted
data at this time or whether the data support granting of the petition.
Additional data may be needed before EPA rules on the petition.

A. Residue Chemistry

  The nature of the residue in fenarimol-treated hop has not been
directly determined.  Radioactive metabolism studies with apples and
cherries indicate that fenarimol is the only significant component of
the residue in apples and cherries. The residue of concern in hop is
fenarimol.

 Analytical methodologies used for hop are slight modifications of the
basic PAM II method for fenarimol (Method R039). Residues are extracted
with methanol. Aqueous sodium chloride (5%) is added and the extract is
partitioned with dichloromethane. Residues are cleaned up on a Florisil
or alumina column and detected by GC/ECD.  In hop samples, method
validation recoveries ranged from 72% to 94%, and the limit of detection
was 0.04 ppm.

.  Hop:  In 3 IR-4 residue trials, hop was treated 4 times at a rate of
0.22 lb ai/A per application and harvested 9-12 days after the last
application.  Residues of fenarimol up to 0.74 ppm in dried hop cones
were observed.

 Based on these results and for purposes of this petition, it is
appropriate to base the magnitude of total terminal residues and
proposed tolerance only on residues of the parent compound, fenarimol.

B. Toxicological Profile

.  The acute oral lethal dose (LD50) in the rat is 2,500 milligrams per
kilogram (mg/kg) and the acute dermal LD50 in the rabbit is >2,000
mg/kg. The inhalation lethal concentration (LC50) in the rat is >2.04
mg/liter of air, which is the highest obtainable respirable aerosol
concentration. Fenarimol produced no indications of dermal irritation in
rabbits or sensitization in the guinea pig. End use formulations of
fenarimol have similar low acute toxicity profiles.

Fenarimol tested negative in several assay systems for gene mutation,
structural chromosome aberration and other genotoxic effects. In a
micronucleus test in the mouse, fenarimol did produce a significant
increase in the percent of polychromatic erythrocytes with micronucleus
at 24 hours but not at 48 or 72 hours. Moreover, a second test run at a
higher dosage, which produced significant toxicity including death, was
unequivocally negative.

A developmental toxicity study in rabbits was negative for teratogenic
effects at all doses tested (0, 5, 10, and 35 mg/kg). A developmental
toxicity study in rats demonstrated hydronephrosis at 35 mg/kg (doses
tested were 0,5, 10, and 35 mg/kg). A second developmental toxicity
study in rats, with a postpartum evaluation, again demonstrated
hydronephrosis at 35 mg/kg. Maternal toxicity (decreased body weight)
was also observed at the 35 mg/kg/day dose level. The no observed effect
 level (NOEL) for hydronephrosis and maternal toxicity is 13 mg/kg.

Subchronic toxicity. NA

A 2-year chronic toxicity and carcinogenicity study in rats fed diets
containing 0, 50, 130, or 350 ppm (equivalent to 2.5, 6.5, or 17.5
mg/kg/ day) resulted in a systemic NOEL of 130 ppm, equivalent to 6.5
mg/kg/day. An increase in fatty liver changes was observed in rats fed
diets containing 350 ppm. There were no carcinogenic effects observed
under the conditions of the study.

A second 2-year carcinogenicity study was conducted in rats fed diets
containing 0, 12.5, 25, or 50 ppm, equivalent to 0, 0.63, 1.25, or 2.5
mg/ kg/day. There was no apparent effect on  survival, which was reduced
in all treatment groups due to chronic respiratory disease. An increased
incidence of fatty changes in the liver was observed at the top dose
level of 50 ppm, and the NOEL was established as 25 ppm (1.2 mg/kg/day)
in this study. A third 2-year carcinogenicity study was conducted at the
same dose levels as above. The incidence of liver lesions was similar in
the treated and control groups;  thus the NOEL for liver effects in this
study was greater than 50 ppm (2.5 mg/kg/day).

A 2-year feeding study was conducted in mice fed diets containing
concentrations of 0, 50, 170, or 600 ppm, equivalent to 0, 7, 24.3, or
85.7 mg/kg/day.  The 600 ppm dose level was shown to increase liver
weight. There was no increase in cancer, and no toxicologically
significant treatment related effects were observed at any dose level.
The NOEL was determined to be 600 ppm (85.7 mg/kg/ day).

In a 1-year chronic toxicity study, dogs were fed diets containing 0,
1.25, 12.5, or 125 mg/kg/day.  The NOEL was 12.5 mg/kg/day based upon an
increase in serum alkaline phosphatase, increased liver weights, an
increase in p-nitroanisole o-demethylase activity, and mild hepatic bile
stasis at the high dose level (125 mg/kg/day).  Based on the chronic
toxicity data, the chronic Reference Dose (RfD) for fenarimol is
established at 0.0006 mg/kg/day. The RfD for fenarimol is based on a
2-year chronic feeding study in rats with a NOEL of 6.5 mg/kg/day and an
uncertainty factor of 1000.

For short-term (<35 day) risk assessments to females 13 - 50 years old,
the Agency selected a LOAEL of 35 mg/kg/day based upon decreased
fertility and dystocia in rats and an uncertainty factor of 3000.

. Metabolism studies conducted in rats show fenarimol is rapidly
metabolized and excreted. Major metabolic pathways were oxidation of the
carbinol-carbon atom, the phenyl rings and the pyrimidine ring.

. NA

.  In a 3-generation reproduction study with rats and in subsequent
special studies, fenarimol was determined to be a weak inhibitor of
aromatase. Rats dosed at 0, 12.5, 25 or 50 ppm (equivalent to 0, 0.625,
1.25 or 2.5 mg/ kg/day) demonstrated decreased fertility in males at 25
ppm and delayed parturition and dystocia in females at 25 and 50 ppm.
The NOEL for reproductive effects was 12.5 ppm (0.625 mg/kg/day). The
infertility effect in males is considered to be a species-specific
effect mediated by the inhibition of aromatase, an enzyme which
catalyzes the conversion of testosterone to estradiol. Estradiol plays
an essential role in the developmental and maintenance of sexual
behavior in rats.

Multigeneration reproduction studies in guinea pigs and mice were
negative for reproductive effects at the highest dose levels tested, 35
mg/kg/day and 20 mg/kg/day, respectively. A NOEL of 35 mg/kg/day for
reproductive effects relevant to humans was established based on the
NOEL from the multigeneration reproduction study in guinea pigs.

C. Aggregate Exposure

.  For the purposes of assessing the potential dietary exposure from use
on hop, an estimate of aggregate exposure is determined by basing the
TMRC from previously established tolerances and the proposed tolerance
on hop at 1.0 ppm while assuming that 100% of these crops have a residue
of fenarimol at the tolerance level.

Exposure of humans to residues could also result if such residues are
transferred to meat, milk, poultry or eggs.  Since there is no livestock
feed commodity associated with hop, there is no reasonable expectation
that measurable secondary residues of fenarimol will occur in meat,
milk, poultry or eggs under the terms of the proposed use.  Other
established tolerances for fenarimol on food or feed crops in the United
States are established under 40 CFR part 180.421.  The use of a
tolerance level and 100% of crop treated clearly results in an
overestimate of human exposure and a safety determination for use on hop
that is based on conservative exposure assessment.

.  Based upon the available environmental studies conducted with
fenarimol wherein its properties show little potential for mobility in
soil and extremely rapid photolysis in water, there is no anticipated
exposure to residues of fenarimol in drinking water.

. The proposed uses on hop involve application of fenarimol to crops
grown in an agricultural environment. Thus, the potential for
non-occupational, non-dietary exposure to the general population is not
expected to be significant.

D. Cumulative Effects

There is no evidence that there is a common mechanism of toxicity with
any other chemical compound or that potential toxic effects of fenarimol
would be cumulative with those of any other pesticide chemical. Thus it
is believed that it is appropriate to consider only the potential risks
of fenarimol in its exposure assessment.

E. Safety Determination

.  It is concluded that aggregate exposure to fenarimol will utilize
less than 2% of the chronic RfD for the U.S. general population and less
than 14% of the acute RfD for females 13 - 50 at the 99.9 percentile
level.  EPA generally has no concern for exposures below 100% of the RfD
because the RfD represents the level at or below which daily aggregate
dietary exposure over a lifetime will not pose appreciable risks to
human health. It is concluded that there is a reasonable certainty that
no harm will result from aggregate exposure to fenarimol residues in or
on hop.

. In assessing the potential for additional sensitivity of infants and
children to residues of fenarimol, data from developmental toxicity
studies in rats and rabbits and a multigeneration reproduction study in
the rat are considered. The developmental toxicity studies are designed
to evaluate adverse effects on the developing organism resulting from
pesticide exposure during prenatal development to one or both parents.
Reproduction studies provide information relating to effects from
exposure to the pesticide on the reproductive capability and potential
systemic toxicity of mating animals and on various parameters associated
with the well-being of offspring.

FFDCA section 408 provides that EPA may apply an additional safety
factor for infants and children in the case of threshold effects to
account for pre- and post-natal toxicity and the completeness of the
data base. Based on the current toxicological data requirements, the
data base for fenarimol relative to pre- and post-natal effects for
children is complete. Further, for fenarimol, the NOEL in the chronic
feeding study which was used to calculate the RID (6.5 mg/kg/day used by
EPA or 1.2 mg/kg/ day used by The World Health Organization) is already
lower than the NOELs from the developmental studies in rats and rabbits.

Concerning the multi-generation reproduction study, the effects on
reproduction are considered to be specific effect caused by aromatase
inhibition. The aromatase enzyme promotes normal sexual behavior in rats
and mice, but not in guinea pigs or primates, including humans. A NOEL
of 35 mg/kg/day for reproductive effects relevant to humans was
established based on the NOEL from the multigeneration reproduction
study in guinea pigs. In addition, a NOEL of 13 mg/kg/ day for
developmental effects was established based upon the NOEL from the
teratology study in rats. Therefore, it is concluded that an additional
uncertainty factor is not needed and that the RfD at 0.065 mg/kg/day is
appropriate for assessing risk to infants and children.

F. International Tolerances

 ADVANCE \d5 There is no Codex or national maximum residue level
established for fenarimol on hop.

 PAGE  5

{<HD2>}

{<HD1>}

{<P>}

{<HD2>}

{<P>}

{<E T=’03'>}

{</E>}

{<P>}

{<E T=’03'>}

{</E>}

{<P>}

{<E T=’03'>}

{</E>}

{<HD2>}

{<P>}

{<E T=’03'>}

{</E>}

{<P>}

{<E T=’03'>}

{</E>}

{<P>}

{<E T=’03'>}

{</E>}

{<P>}

{<E T=’03'>}

{<E T=’03'>}

{</E>}

{</E>}

{<P>}

{<P>}

{<E T=’03'>}

{</E>}

{<P>}

{<E T=’03'>}

{</E>}

{<P>}

{<E T=’03'>}

{</E>}

{<HD2>}

{<P>}

{<E T=’03'>}

{</E>}

{<P>}

{<E T=’03'>}

{</E>}

{<P>}

{<E T=’03'>}

{</E>}

{<P>}

{<E T=’03'>}

{</E>}

{<HD2>}

{<P>}

{<HD2>}

{<P>}

{<E T=’03'>}

{</E>}

{<P>}

{<E T=’03'>}

{</E>}

{<HD2>}


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 183 (Wednesday, September 21, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Page 64976]
[FR Doc No: 2016-22776]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

[AC 187-1K]

Schedule of Charges Outside the United States

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of availability.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is announcing the
availability of Advisory Circular (AC) 187-1K which transmits an
updated schedule of charges for services of FAA Flight Standards
Aviation Safety Inspectors outside the United States. The advisory
circular has been updated in accordance with the procedures listed in
14 CFR part 187, Appendix A.

DATES: This AC is effective on October 1, 2016.

ADDRESSES: How to obtain copies: A copy of this publication may be
downloaded from: http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/.pdf.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Tish Thompkins, Flight Standards
Service, AFS-50, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence
Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on September 8, 2016.
John Barbagallo,
Deputy Director, Flight Standards Service.
[FR Doc. 2016-22776 Filed 9-20-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 146 (Friday, July 29, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 45420]
[FR Doc No: 2011-19186]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[Docket No. USCG-2011-0617]

Drawbridge Operation Regulations; Annisquam River and Blynman
Canal, Gloucester, MA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of temporary deviation from regulations.

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

SUMMARY: The Commander, First Coast Guard District, has issued a
temporary deviation from the regulation governing the operation of the
Blynman (SR127) Bridge across the Blynman Canal, mile 0.0, at
Gloucester, Massachusetts. This deviation is necessary to facilitate
the 2011 Gloucester Fisherman Triathlon. The deviation allows the
bridge to remain in the closed position during this public event.

DATES: This deviation is effective from 7:30 a.m. through 10:30 a.m. on
August 7, 2011.

ADDRESSES: Documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in
the docket are part of docket USCG-2011-0617 and are available online
at http://www.regulations.gov, selecting the Advanced Docket Search
option on the right side of the screen, inserting USCG-2011-0617 in the
docket ID box, pressing enter, and then clicking on the item in the
Docket ID column. This material is also available for inspection or
copying at the Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S. Department of
Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or e-mail Mr. John McDonald, Project Officer, First Coast Guard
District, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you
have questions on viewing the docket, call Renee V. Wright, Program
Manager, Docket Operations, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Blynman (SR127) Bridge, across the
Blynman Canal, mile 0.0, at Gloucester, Massachusetts has a vertical
clearance in the closed position of 7 feet at mean high water and 16
feet at mean low water. The existing drawbridge operation regulations
are listed at 33 CFR 117.586.
    The waterway supports both commercial and seasonal recreational
vessel traffic.
    Under this deviation the Blynman (SR127) Bridge may remain in the
closed position from 7:30 a.m. through 10:30 a.m. on August 7, 2011, to
facilitate a public event, the 2011 Gloucester Fisherman Triathlon.
Vessels that can pass under the closed draws may do so at any time.
    This deviation is necessary for public safety, to facilitate
vehicular traffic management during the 2011 Gloucester Fisherman
Triathlon.
    In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the bridge 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: July 12, 2011.
Gary Kassof,
Bridge Program Manager, First Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2011-19186 Filed 7-28-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 30 (Wednesday, February 17, 2021)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 9869-9872]
[FR Doc No: 2021-03181]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2019-0580; FRL-10018-53]

Orthosulfamuron; Pesticide Tolerances

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes tolerances for residues of
orthosulfamuron (1-(4,6-dimethoxypyrimidin-2-yl)-3-{[2-
(dimethylcarbamoyl)phenyl]csulfamoyl{time} urea) in or on Almond,
hulls; Fruit, small, vine climbing, except fuzzy kiwifruit, subgroup
13-07F; Nut, tree, group 14-12. Nichino America, Inc. requested
tolerances for these commodities under the Federal Food, Drug, and
Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).

DATES: This regulation is effective February 17, 2021. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received on or before April 19, 2021, and
must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR
part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION).

ADDRESSES: The docket for this action, identified by docket
identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2019-0580, is available at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of Pesticide Programs Regulatory
Public Docket (OPP Docket) in the Environmental Protection Agency
Docket Center (EPA/DC), West William Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334,
1301 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001. The Public
Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public
Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number for the OPP
Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Due to the public health concerns related to COVID-19, the EPA
Docket Center (EPA/DC) and Reading Room is closed to visitors with
limited exceptions. The staff continues to provide remote customer
service via email, phone, and webform. For the latest status
information on EPA/DC services and docket access, visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets.

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

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

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

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

    You may access a frequently updated electronic version of EPA's
tolerance regulations at 40 CFR part 180 through the Government
Publishing Office's e-CFR site at http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?&c=ecfr&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title40/40tab_02.tpl.

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

    Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an
objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a
hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a
hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided
in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify
docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2019-0580 in the subject line on the first
page of your submission. All objections and requests for a hearing must
be in writing and must be received by the Hearing Clerk on or before
April 19, 2021. Addresses for mail and hand delivery of objections and
hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b).
    In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the
Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of
the filing (excluding any Confidential Business Information (CBI)) for
inclusion in the public docket. Information not marked confidential
pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without
prior notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your objection or hearing
request, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2019-0580, by one of
the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Do not submit
electronically any information you consider to be CBI or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
     Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental Protection Agency Docket
Center (EPA/DC), (28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC
20460-0001.
     Hand Delivery: To make special arrangements for hand
delivery or delivery of boxed information, please follow the
instructions at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.html.
    Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along
with more information about dockets generally, is available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

II. Summary of Petitioned-For Tolerance

    In the Federal Register of March 3, 2020 (85 FR 12454) (FRL-10005-
58), EPA issued a document pursuant to FFDCA section 408(d)(3), 21
U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a pesticide petition (PP
9F8776) by Nichino America, Inc., 4550 Linden Hill Road, Suite 501,
Wilmington, DE 19808. The petition requested that 40 CFR 180.625 be
amended by establishing tolerances for residues of the herbicide
orthosulfamuron in or on almond hulls at 0.03 parts per million (ppm),
small fruit vine climbing subgroup, except fuzzy kiwifruit (crop
subgroup 13-07F) at 0.01 ppm, and tree nuts (crop group 14-12) at 0.01
ppm. That document referenced a summary of the petition prepared by
Nichino America, Inc., the registrant, which is available in the
docket, http://www.regulations.gov. There were no comments received in
response to the notice of filing. Based upon review of the data
supporting the petition, EPA has corrected the commodity definitions to
reflect current Agency terminology.

III. Aggregate Risk Assessment and Determination of Safety

    Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of the FFDCA allows EPA to establish a
tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a
food) only if EPA determines that the tolerance is ``safe.'' Section
408(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the FFDCA defines ``safe'' to mean that ``there is
a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure
to the pesticide chemical residue, including all anticipated dietary
exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable
information.'' This includes exposure through drinking water and in
residential settings but does not include

occupational exposure. Section 408(b)(2)(C) of the FFDCA requires EPA
to give special consideration to exposure of infants and children to
the pesticide chemical residue in establishing a tolerance and to
``ensure that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result
to infants and children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide
chemical residue. . . .''
    Consistent with FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), and the factors
specified therein, 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 orthosulfamuron including exposure resulting
from the tolerances established by this action. EPA's assessment of
exposures and risks associated with orthosulfamuron 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.
    Orthosulfamuron is included in a group of herbicides referred to as
sulfonylureas that control weeds through inhibition of the enzyme
acetolactate synthase (ALS). The toxicological database for
orthosulfamuron is complete and no additional data are required.
Orthosulfamuron showed low acute toxicity by all routes and no dermal
irritation or sensitization (Category IV) and was a mild eye irritant
(Category III). The major target organs of orthosulfamuron are the
liver, kidneys and thyroid gland, with effects generally observed at
high doses following chronic oral exposure. No evidence of pre- and/or
post-natal quantitative or qualitative susceptibility was observed, and
the database overall did not show evidence of neurotoxicity.
    Thyroid follicular cell tumors were observed at high doses in only
one sex and one species, and there was no evidence of genotoxicity.
Therefore, in accordance with the EPA Final Guidelines for Carcinogen
Risk Assessment (March 2005), orthosulfamuron is classified as
``Suggestive Evidence of Carcinogenicity.''
    Specific information on the studies received and the nature of the
adverse effects caused by orthosulfamuron as well as the no-observed-
adverse-effect-level (NOAEL) and the lowest-observed-adverse-effect-
level (LOAEL) from the toxicity studies can be found at http://www.regulations.gov in document ``Orthosulfamuron. Human Health Risk
Assessment for Proposed New Uses on Small Fruit Vine Climbing Subgroup,
Except Fuzzy Kiwifruit (13-07F), Tree Nuts (14-12), Non-Bearing Citrus
Fruit (10-10), and Non-Bearing Stone Fruit (12-12)'' (hereinafter
``Orthosulfamuron Human Health Risk Assessment'') on page numbers 25-35
in docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2019-0580.

B. Toxicological Points of Departure/Levels of Concern

    Once a pesticide's toxicological profile is determined, EPA
identifies toxicological points of departure (POD) and levels of
concern to use in evaluating the risk posed by human exposure to the
pesticide. For hazards that have a threshold below which there is no
appreciable risk, the toxicological POD is used as the basis for
derivation of reference values for risk assessment. PODs are developed
based on a careful analysis of the doses in each toxicological study to
determine the dose at which no adverse effects are observed (the NOAEL)
and the lowest dose at which adverse effects of concern are identified
(the LOAEL). Uncertainty/safety factors are used in conjunction with
the POD to calculate a safe exposure level--generally referred to as a
population-adjusted dose (PAD) or a reference dose (RfD)--and a safe
margin of exposure (MOE). For non-threshold risks, the Agency assumes
that any amount of exposure will lead to some degree of risk. Thus, the
Agency estimates risk in terms of the probability of an occurrence of
the adverse effect expected in a lifetime. For more information on the
general principles EPA uses in risk characterization and a complete
description of the risk assessment process, see http://www2.epa.gov/pesticide-science-and-assessing-pesticide-risks/assessing-human-health-risk-pesticides.
    A summary of the toxicological endpoints for orthosulfamuron used
for human risk assessment can be found on page 13 in the
Orthosulfamuron Human Health Risk Assessment.

C. Exposure Assessment

    1. Dietary exposure from food and feed uses. In evaluating dietary
exposure to orthosulfamuron, EPA considered exposure under the
petitioned-for tolerances as well as all existing orthosulfamuron
tolerances in 40 CFR 180.625. EPA assessed dietary exposures from
orthosulfamuron in food as follows:
    i. Acute exposure. Quantitative acute dietary exposure and risk
assessments are performed for a food-use pesticide, if a toxicological
study has indicated the possibility of an effect of concern occurring
as a result of a 1-day or single exposure.
    No such effects were identified in the toxicological studies for
orthosulfamuron; therefore, a quantitative acute dietary exposure
assessment is unnecessary.
    ii. Chronic exposure. In conducting the chronic dietary exposure
assessment, EPA used 2003-2008 food consumption data from the U.S.
Department of Agriculture's (USDA's) National Health and Nutrition
Examination Survey, What We Eat in America (NHANES/WWEIA). As to
residue levels in food, EPA assumed tolerance-level residues and 100
percent crop treated (PCT).
    iii. Cancer. EPA determines whether quantitative cancer exposure
and risk assessments are appropriate for a food-use pesticide based on
the weight of the evidence from cancer studies and other relevant data.
Cancer risk is quantified using a linear or nonlinear approach. Based
on the available data for orthosulfamuron, which is summarized in Unit
III.A., EPA has concluded that a nonlinear approach is appropriate for
assessing cancer risk to orthosulfamuron. The chronic dietary reference
dose (cRfD) is significantly lower than the dose that caused thyroid
tumors in male rats, and therefore is protective of potential
carcinogenicity. Cancer risk was assessed using the same exposure
estimates as discussed in Unit III.C.1.ii., chronic exposure.
    iv. Anticipated residue and percent crop treated (PCT) information.
EPA did not use anticipated residue or PCT information in the dietary
assessment for orthosulfamuron. Tolerance-level residues and 100 PCT
were assumed for all food commodities.
    2. Dietary exposure from drinking water. The Agency used screening
level water exposure models in the dietary exposure analysis and risk
assessment for orthosulfamuron in drinking water. These simulation
models take into account data on the physical, chemical, and fate/
transport characteristics of orthosulfamuron. Further information
regarding EPA drinking water models used in pesticide exposure
assessment can be found at http://www2.epa.gov/pesticide-science-and-assessing-pesticide-risks/about-water-exposure-models-used-pesticide.
    Screening groundwater-sourced drinking water exposure estimates
were

generated with the Pesticide Root Zone Model for GroundWater (PRZM-GW,
version 1.07) for use in sulfonylurea dietary risk assessments. Rather
than using chemical-specific estimated drinking water concentrations
(EDWCs) following the usual assessment procedures, these coarse-screen
estimates should exceed upper-bound, chemical-specific EDWCs for any
sulfonylurea (SU). This was achieved by using model inputs that
represent the use pattern of highest exposure from any SU, the highest
soil mobility of any SU residue of concern, and the highest persistence
to any route of degradation over time. The resulting coarse-screen EDWC
from PRZM-GW was used as the conservative estimate of exposure. The
chronic dietary assessment for orthosulfamuron used the coarse-screen
maximum daily concentration of 0.751 ppm.
    3. 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). Orthosulfamuron is
not registered for any specific use patterns that would result in
residential exposure.
    4. Cumulative effects from substances with a common mechanism of
toxicity. Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of the FFDCA requires that, when
considering whether to establish, modify, or revoke a tolerance, the
Agency consider ``available information'' concerning the cumulative
effects of a particular pesticide's residues and ``other substances
that have a common mechanism of toxicity.''
    The Agency has assessed orthosulfamuron, and its chemical class,
sulfonylureas, and determined that the SUs do not share a common
mechanism of toxicity (EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-04538-0024). The SUs share a
core chemical structure with varying degrees of structural similarity
based on individual substituents on either side of the molecule. In
addition, the SUs share a pesticidal mode of action (MOA) (inhibition
of acetolactate synthase (ALS)), although the function of ALS in humans
is unknown and the relevance of this MOA in humans in unclear. Based on
toxicity studies, the SUs do not share a common toxicological profile;
instead the target organs vary among the class and are often non-
specific, such as changes in body weight or general effects on the
liver. Further dividing the SUs into subclasses based on the urea
substituent did not result in a clear association of a target organ
with any particular substructure.
    Based on the weight of the evidence, which includes the lack of a
common toxicological profile, the uncertainty in the human relevance of
ALS inhibition, and the lack of mammalian MOA data, a testable
hypothesis for a common mechanism of action cannot be identified.
Therefore, the Agency concludes that no common mechanism of toxicity
exists among these pesticides and a cumulative risk assessment approach
is not appropriate for this class of pesticides.

D. Safety Factor for Infants and Children

    Section 408(b)(2)(C) of the FFDCA provides that EPA shall apply an
additional tenfold (10X) margin of safety for infants and children in
the case of threshold effects to account for prenatal and postnatal
toxicity and the completeness of the database on toxicity and exposure
unless EPA determines based on reliable data that a different margin of
safety will be safe for infants and children. This additional margin of
safety is commonly referred to as the FQPA Safety Factor (SF). In
applying this provision, EPA either retains the default value of 10X,
or uses a different additional safety factor when reliable data
available to EPA support the choice of a different factor.
    EPA has determined that reliable data show the safety of infants
and children would be adequately protected if the FQPA SF were reduced
to 1x. The rationale for that decision remains the same as in the
February 28, 2007 final rule establishing tolerances for a use on rice.
See 72 FR 8928 (FRL-8113-4) for the full rationale in Unit III.D.

E. Aggregate Risks and Determination of Safety

    EPA determines whether acute and chronic dietary pesticide
exposures are safe by comparing aggregate exposure estimates to the
acute PAD (aPAD) and chronic PAD (cPAD). Short-, intermediate-, and
chronic-term risks are evaluated by comparing the estimated aggregate
food, water, and residential exposure to the appropriate PODs to ensure
that an adequate MOE exists.
    1. Acute risk. An acute aggregate risk assessment takes into
account acute exposure estimates from dietary consumption of food and
drinking water. No adverse effect resulting from a single oral exposure
was identified and no acute dietary endpoint was selected. Therefore,
orthosulfamuron is not expected to pose an acute risk.
    2. Chronic risk: Using the exposure assumptions described in this
unit for chronic exposure, EPA has concluded that chronic exposure to
orthosulfamuron from food and water will utilize 81% of the cPAD for
all infants less than 1 year old, the population group receiving the
greatest exposure. There are no residential uses for orthosulfamuron.
    3. Short-term and intermediate-term risk. Short-term and
intermediate-term aggregate exposure takes into account short-term or
intermediate-term residential exposure plus chronic exposure to food
and water (considered to be a background exposure level).
    Short-term and intermediate-term adverse effects were identified in
the toxicity database (e.g., kidney and liver effects); however,
orthosulfamuron is not registered for any use patterns that would
result in short-term or intermediate-term residential exposure. Short-
term risk is assessed based on short-term residential exposure plus
chronic dietary exposure. Intermediate-term risk is assessed based on
intermediate-term residential exposure plus chronic dietary exposure.
Because there is no short-term or intermediate-term residential
exposure and chronic dietary exposure has already been assessed under
the appropriately protective cPAD (which is at least as protective as
the POD used to assess short-term or intermediate-term risk), no
further assessment of short-term or intermediate-term risk is
necessary, and EPA relies on the chronic dietary risk assessment for
evaluating short-term and intermediate-term risk for orthosulfamuron.
    4. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. population. As stated in Unit
III.C.1.iii, EPA has concluded that the chronic reference dose (RfD)
will adequately account for all repeated exposure/chronic toxicity,
including carcinogenicity, which could result from exposure to
orthosulfamuron. As there is no chronic risk of concern, EPA concludes
that exposure to orthosulfamuron will not pose an aggregate 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 orthosulfamuron residues.

IV. Other Considerations

A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    Adequate enforcement methodology utilizing high-performance liquid
chromatography with tandem mass spectrometric detection (LC/MS/MS) 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>; email address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
B. International Residue Limits

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

V. Conclusion

    Therefore, tolerances are established for residues of
orthosulfamuron in or on Almond, hulls at 0.03 ppm; Fruit, small, vine
climbing, except fuzzy kiwifruit, subgroup 13-07F at 0.01 ppm; and Nut,
tree, group 14-12 at 0.01 ppm.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This action establishes tolerances under the FFDCA section 408(d)
in response to a petition submitted to the Agency. The Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these types of actions from
review under Executive Order 12866, entitled ``Regulatory Planning and
Review'' (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Because this action has been
exempted from review under Executive Order 12866, this action is not
subject to Executive Order 13211, entitled ``Actions Concerning
Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or
Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) or Executive Order 13045, entitled
``Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), nor is it considered a
regulatory action under Executive Order 13771, entitled ``Reducing
Regulations and Controlling Regulatory Costs'' (82 FR 9339, February 3,
2017). This action does not contain any information collections subject
to OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501
et seq.), nor does it require any special considerations under
Executive Order 12898, entitled ``Federal Actions to Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations'' (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    Since tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis
of a petition under FFDCA section 408(d), such as the tolerances in
this final rule, do not require the issuance of a proposed rule, the
requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et
seq.), do not apply.
    This action 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 the FFDCA section 408(n)(4). As such, the Agency has determined that
this action will not have a substantial direct effect on States or
tribal governments, on the relationship between the national government
and the States or tribal governments, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government or between
the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Thus, the Agency has
determined that Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR
43255, August 10, 1999) and Executive Order 13175, entitled
``Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR
67249, November 9, 2000) do not apply to this action. In addition, this
action does not impose any enforceable duty or contain any unfunded
mandate as described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
(UMRA) (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.).
    This action does not involve any technical standards that would
require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant
to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note).

VII. Congressional Review Act

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

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180

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

    Dated: January 4, 2021.
Marietta Echeverria,
Acting Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.

    Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:

PART 180--TOLERANCES AND EXEMPTIONS FOR PESTICIDE CHEMICAL RESIDUES
IN FOOD

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. In Sec.  180.625,
0
a. Revise paragraph (a) introductory text;
0
b. Designate the table in paragraph (a) and add alphabetically the
commodities ``Almond, hulls''; ``Fruit, small, vine climbing, except
fuzzy kiwifruit, subgroup 13-07F''; and ``Nut, tree, group 14-12''.
    The revision and additions read as follows:

Sec.  180.625  Orthosulfamuron; tolerances for residues.

    (a) General. Tolerances are established for residues of the
herbicide orthosulfamuron, including its metabolites and degradates, in
or on the commodities in the table, below. Compliance with the
tolerance levels specified in the following table is to be determined
by measuring only orthosulfamuron, 1-(4,6-dimethoxypyrimidin-2-yl)-3-
{[2-(dimethylcarbamoyl)phenyl]sulfamoyl{time} urea, in or on the
following commodities:

                         Table to Paragraph (a)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Parts per
                          Commodity                             million
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Almond, hulls...............................................        0.03
Fruit, small, vine climbing, except fuzzy kiwifruit,                0.01
 subgroup 13-07F............................................
Nut, tree, group 14-12......................................        0.01

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

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2021-03181 Filed 2-16-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 199 (Monday, October 15, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 51975-51976]
[FR Doc No: 2018-22304]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4393-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2018-0001]

North Carolina; Major Disaster and Related Determinations

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This is a notice of the Presidential declaration of a major
disaster for the State of North Carolina (FEMA-4393-DR), dated
September 14, 2018, and related determinations.

DATES: The declaration was issued September 14, 2018.

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, in a letter
dated September 14, 2018, the President issued a major disaster
declaration under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster
Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq. (the
``Stafford Act''), as follows:

    I have determined that the damage in certain areas of the State
of North Carolina resulting from Hurricane Florence beginning on
September 7, 2018, and continuing, is of sufficient severity and
magnitude to warrant a major disaster declaration under the Robert
T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C.
5121 et seq. (the ``Stafford Act''). Therefore, I declare that such
a major disaster exists in the State of North Carolina.
    In order to provide Federal assistance, you are hereby
authorized to allocate from funds available for these purposes such
amounts as you find necessary for Federal disaster assistance and
administrative expenses.
    You are authorized to provide Individual Assistance and
assistance for debris removal and emergency protective measures
(Categories A and B) under the Public Assistance program in the
designated areas, Hazard Mitigation throughout the State, and any
other forms of assistance under the Stafford Act that you deem
appropriate subject to completion of Preliminary Damage Assessments
(PDAs). Direct Federal assistance is authorized.
    Consistent with the requirement that Federal assistance is
supplemental, any Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for
Hazard Mitigation and Other Needs Assistance will be limited to 75
percent of the total eligible costs. Federal funds provided under
the Stafford Act for Public Assistance also will be limited to 75
percent of the total eligible costs, with the exception of projects
that meet the eligibility criteria for a higher Federal cost-sharing
percentage under the Public Assistance Alternative Procedures Pilot
Program for Debris Removal implemented pursuant to section 428 of
the Stafford Act.
    Further, you are authorized to make changes to this declaration
for the approved assistance to the extent allowable under the
Stafford Act.

    The time period prescribed for the implementation of section
310(a), Priority to Certain Applications for Public Facility and Public
Housing Assistance, 42 U.S.C. 5153, shall be for a period not to exceed
six months after the date of this declaration.
    The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice
that pursuant to the authority vested in the Administrator, under
Executive Order 12148, as amended, Albert Lewis, of FEMA is appointed
to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this major disaster.
    The following areas of the State of North Carolina have been
designated as adversely affected by this major disaster:

    Beaufort, Brunswick, Carteret, Craven, New Hanover, Onslow,
Pamlico, and Pender Counties for Individual Assistance.
    Beaufort, Brunswick, Carteret, Craven, New Hanover, Onslow,
Pamlico, and Pender Counties for debris removal and emergency
protective measures (Categories A and B), including direct federal
assistance, under the Public Assistance program.
    All areas within the State of North Carolina are eligible for
assistance under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.

(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.)

Brock Long,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2018-22304 Filed 10-12-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9111-11-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 196 (Wednesday, October 9, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Page 54136]
[FR Doc No: 2019-22104]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER20-27-000]

Wright Solar Park LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-
Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204
Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced Wright Solar
Park LLC's application for market-based rate authority, with an
accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a
request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future
issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington,
DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's
Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone
filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability, is October 23, 2019.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in
the above list. They are also available for electronic review in the
Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an
eSubscription link on the website that enables subscribers to receive
email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s).
For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: October 3, 2019.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-22104 Filed 10-8-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 245 (Thursday, December 22, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 78527-78530]
[FR Doc No: 2022-27687]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2022-1571; Project Identifier MCAI-2022-01359-T;
Amendment 39-22270; AD 2022-25-14]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus SAS Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for
certain Airbus SAS Model A350-1041 airplanes. This AD was prompted by a
report of a computer software error leading to the rudder oscillatory
failure case not being calculated properly. This AD requires updating
certain computer software, as specified in a European Union Aviation
Safety Agency (EASA) AD, which is incorporated by reference. The FAA is
issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: This AD becomes effective January 6, 2023.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of January 6,
2023.
    The FAA must receive comments on this AD by February 6, 2023.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR
11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to regulations.gov. Follow
the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-

30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue
SE, Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail address above between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    AD Docket: You may examine the AD docket at regulations.gov under
Docket No. FAA-2022-1571; 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 mandatory continuing airworthiness
information (MCAI), any comments received, and other information. The
street address for Docket Operations is listed above.
    Material Incorporated by Reference:
     For EASA material incorporated by reference in this AD,
contact EASA, Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3, 50668 Cologne, Germany; telephone
+49 221 8999 000; email [email protected]; website easa.europa.eu. You
may find this material on the EASA website at ad.easa.europa.eu.
     You may view this service information at the FAA,
Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200 South
216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this
material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. It is also available at
regulations.gov under Docket No. FAA-2022-1571.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dat Le, Aerospace Engineer, Large
Aircraft Section, FAA, International Validation Branch, 2200 South
216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    The FAA invites you to send any written data, views, or arguments
about this final rule. Send your comments to an address listed under
ADDRESSES. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2022-1571; Project Identifier MCAI-
2022-01359-T'' at the beginning of your comments. The most helpful
comments reference a specific portion of the final rule, explain the
reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. The FAA
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this final rule because of those comments.
    Except for Confidential Business Information (CBI) as described in
the following paragraph, and other information as described in 14 CFR
11.35, the FAA will post all comments received, without change, to
regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. The
agency will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal
contact received about this final rule.

Confidential Business Information

    CBI is commercial or financial information that is both customarily
and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of
Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public
disclosure. If your comments responsive to this AD contain commercial
or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that
you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to
this AD, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted
comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission containing
CBI as ``PROPIN.'' The FAA will treat such marked submissions as
confidential under the FOIA, and they will not be placed in the public
docket of this AD. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to Dat Le,
Aerospace Engineer, Large Aircraft Section, FAA, International
Validation Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email [email protected]. Any commentary that
the FAA receives which is not specifically designated as CBI will be
placed in the public docket for this rulemaking.

Background

    EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the
European Union, has issued EASA AD 2022-0211, dated October 17, 2022
(EASA AD 2022-0211) (also referred to as the MCAI), to correct an
unsafe condition for certain Airbus SAS Model A350-1041 airplanes. The
MCAI states that during the A350-1041 type certification follow-up
activity, it was determined that the loads for the rudder oscillatory
failure case were not calculated properly. This condition, if not
corrected, could result in rudder oscillations leading to unacceptably
high loads on the fuselage, which could compromise the structural
integrity of the airplane.
    You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket at regulations.gov under
Docket No. FAA-2022-1571.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    EASA AD 2022-0211, dated October 17, 2022, specifies procedures for
installing the software integrated modular avionics, core processing
input output modules, avionics Batch 7A--Part 1 (SW1) and PRIMary
flight control computers (PRIM) SW standard P13.1.2 (SW2) updates. This
material is reasonably available because the interested parties have
access to it through their normal course of business or by the means
identified in ADDRESSES.

FAA's Determination

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another
country and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to
the FAA's bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, it
has notified the FAA of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI
described above. The FAA is issuing this AD after determining that the
unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop on
other products of the same type design.

Requirements of This AD

    This AD requires accomplishing the actions specified in EASA AD
2022-0211 described previously, except for any differences identified
as exceptions in the regulatory text of this AD.

Explanation of Required Compliance Information

    In the FAA's ongoing efforts to improve the efficiency of the AD
process, the FAA developed a process to use some civil aviation
authority (CAA) ADs as the primary source of information for compliance
with requirements for corresponding FAA ADs. The FAA has been
coordinating this process with manufacturers and CAAs. As a result,
EASA AD 2022-0211 is incorporated by reference in this AD. This AD
requires compliance with EASA AD 2022-0211 in its entirety through that
incorporation, except for any differences identified as exceptions in
the regulatory text of this AD. Using common terms that are the same as
the heading of a particular section in EASA AD 2022-0211 does not mean
that operators need comply only with that section. For example, where
the AD requirement refers to ``all required actions and compliance
times,'' compliance with this AD requirement is not limited to the
section titled ``Required Action(s) and Compliance Time(s)'' in EASA AD
2022-0211. Service information required by EASA AD 2022-0211 for
compliance will be available at regulations.gov under Docket No. FAA-
2022-1571 after this AD is published.

FAA's Justification and Determination of the Effective Date

    Section 553(b)(3)(B) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5
U.S.C. 551 et seq.) authorizes agencies to dispense with notice and
comment procedures for rules when the agency,

for ``good cause,'' finds that those procedures are ``impracticable,
unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.'' Under this section,
an agency, upon finding good cause, may issue a final rule without
providing notice and seeking comment prior to issuance. Further,
section 553(d) of the APA authorizes agencies to make rules effective
in less than thirty days, upon a finding of good cause.
    There are currently no domestic operators of these products.
Accordingly, notice and opportunity for prior public comment are
unnecessary, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B). In addition, for the
forgoing reason(s), the FAA finds that good cause exists pursuant to 5
U.S.C. 553(d) for making this amendment effective in less than 30 days.

Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    The requirements of the RFA do not apply when an agency finds good
cause pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553 to adopt a rule without prior notice and
comment. Because the FAA has determined that it has good cause to adopt
this rule without notice and comment, RFA analysis is not required.

Costs of Compliance

    Currently, there are no affected U.S.-registered airplanes. If an
affected airplane is imported and placed on the U.S. Register in the
future, the FAA provides the following cost estimates to comply with
this AD:

                  Estimated Costs for Required Actions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Cost per
              Labor cost                   Parts cost        product
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Up to 12.5 work-hours x $85 per hour =          $5,400           $6,463
 $1,063...............................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    According to the manufacturer, some or all of the costs of this AD
may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on
affected individuals. The FAA does not control warranty coverage for
affected individuals. As a result, the FAA has included all known costs
in the 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.
    The FAA is issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.
Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight
of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for
practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary
for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that
authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to
exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

    This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order
13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States,
on the relationship between the national government and the States, or
on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various
levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866, and
    (2) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

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

2022-25-14 Airbus SAS: Amendment 39-22270; Docket No. FAA-2022-1571;
Project Identifier MCAI-2022-01359-T.

(a) Effective Date

    This airworthiness directive (AD) is effective January 6, 2023.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Airbus SAS Model A350-1041 airplanes,
certificated in any category, as identified in European Union
Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD 2022-0211, dated October 17, 2022
(EASA AD 2022-0211).

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code: 27, Flight
Controls; Code 42, Flight Control and Guidance System.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by a report of a computer software error
leading to the rudder oscillatory failure case not being calculated
properly. The FAA is issuing this AD to address the computer
software error. The unsafe condition, if not corrected, could result
in rudder oscillations leading to unacceptable high loads on the
fuselage, possibly affecting the structural integrity of the
airplane and consequent loss of the airplane.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Requirements

    Except as specified in paragraph (h) of this AD: Comply with all
required actions and compliance times specified in, and in
accordance with, EASA AD 2022-0211.

(h) Exceptions to EASA AD 2022-0211

    (1) Where EASA AD 2022-0211 refers to its effective date, this
AD requires using the effective date of this AD.
    (2) This AD does not adopt the ``Remarks'' paragraph of EASA AD
2022-0211.
    (3) This AD only requires the concurrent requirements as
specified in EASA AD 2022-0211, paragraph (1). The service
information referenced in EASA AD 2022-0211 specifies additional
concurrent requirements that are not required by this AD.

(i) Additional AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
International Validation Branch, FAA, has the authority to approve
AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR
39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your
principal inspector or responsible Flight Standards Office, as

appropriate. If sending information directly to the International
Validation Branch, send it to the attention of the person identified
in paragraph (j) of this AD. Information may be emailed to: [email protected]. Before using any approved AMOC, notify your
appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector,
the manager of the responsible Flight Standards Office.
    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD
to obtain instructions from a manufacturer, the instructions must be
accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, International
Validation Branch, FAA; or EASA; or Airbus SAS Airplane's EASA
Design Organization Approval (DOA). If approved by the DOA, the
approval must include the DOA-authorized signature.
    (3) Required for Compliance (RC): Except as required by
paragraph (i)(2) of this AD, if any service information contains
procedures or tests that are identified as RC, those procedures and
tests must be done to comply with this AD; any procedures or tests
that are not identified as RC are recommended. Those procedures and
tests that are not identified 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 procedures and tests identified as RC can be done and the
airplane can be put back in an airworthy condition. Any
substitutions or changes to procedures or tests identified as RC
require approval of an AMOC.

(j) Additional Information

    For more information about this AD, contact Dat Le, Aerospace
Engineer, Large Aircraft Section, FAA, International Validation
Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone (516)
228-7317; email [email protected].

(k) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference of the service information listed in this
paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD 2022-0211,
dated October 17, 2022.
    (ii) [Reserved]
    (3) For EASA AD 2022-0211, contact EASA, Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3,
50668 Cologne, Germany; telephone +49 221 8999 000; email
[email protected]; website easa.europa.eu. You may find this EASA
AD on the EASA website at ad.easa.europa.eu.
    (4) You may view this material at the FAA, Airworthiness
Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200 South 216th St.,
Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this material
at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (5) You may view this material that is incorporated by reference
at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For
information on the availability of this material at NARA, email
[email protected], or go to: www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued on November 30, 2022.
Christina Underwood,
Acting Director, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, Aircraft
Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2022-27687 Filed 12-21-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: June 19, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 117)]
[Notices]
[Page 33751-33752]
[DOCID:fr19jn07-52]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 2281-011]

Pacific Gas and Electric Company; Notice of Application Accepted
for Filing and Soliciting Motions To Intervene and Protests

May 16, 2007.
    Take notice that the following Transmission Line Only Application
has been filed with the Commission and is available for public
inspection.
    a. Type of Application: New Major License.
    b. Project No: P-2281-011.
    c. Date Filed: March 30, 2007.
    d. Applicant: Pacific Gas and Electric Company.
    e. Name of Project: Woodleaf-Kanaka Junction Transmission Line
Project.
    f. Location: The project is located in Butte County California,
within the South Fork Feather River watershed. The project is not
located within any designated cities, towns, subdivisions or Indian
Tribe reservations. The project is located about 15 miles east of
Oroville, California. The project affects 31.79 acres of federal lands
that is administered by the Plumas National Forest.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act 16 U.S.C. 791(a)-825(r).
    h. Applicant Contact: Forrest Sullivan, Senior Project Manger,
Pacific Gas & Electric Company, 5555 Florin-Perkins Road, Building 500,
Sacramento, CA, 95826. Tel:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    i. FERC Contact: John Mudre,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    j. Deadline for filing motions to intervene and protests: 60 days
from the issuance date of this notice.
    All documents (original and eight copies) should be filed with:
Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888
First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    Motions to intervene and protests may be filed electronically via
the Internet in lieu of paper. The Commission strongly encourages
electronic filings. See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions
on the Commission's Web site (http://www.ferc.gov) under the ``e-

Filing'' link.
    k. This application has been accepted, but is not ready for
environmental analysis at this time.
    l. The Woodleaf-Kanaka Junction Transmission Line Project is a
transmission line only project that transmits electricity 6.2 miles
from the Woodleaf Powerhouse (owned and operated by the South Feather
Water and Power Agency under FERC Project No. 2088) to the Kanaka
Junction. The Project also includes a 0.02-mile long tap line extending
to Forbestown Powerhouse (also under FERC Project No. 2088). The
Woodleaf-Kanaka Junction Transmission Line is composed of a single-
circuit, 115-kV transmission line, supported primarily on wood-pole, H-
frame towers within a 75-foot wide right-of-way. The project is linked
to the Licensee's Sly Creek Transmission Line (FERC License No. 4851),
via the Woodleaf Powerhouse Switchyard, a component of FERC Project No.
2088.
    m. A copy of the application is available for review at the
Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the
Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary''

link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the
docket number field to access the document. For assistance, contact
FERC Online Support at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll-free at 1-
866-208-3676, or for TTY,<PHONE_NUMBER>. A copy is also available

for inspection and reproduction at the address in item h above.
    You may also register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp
 to be notified via e-mail of new filings and

issuances related to this or other pending projects. For assistance,
contact FERC Online Support.
    n. Anyone may submit a protest or a motion to intervene in
accordance with the requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18
CFR 385.210, 385.211, and 385.214. In determining the appropriate
action to take, the Commission will consider all protests filed, but
only those who file a motion to intervene in accordance with the
Commission's Rules may become a party to the proceeding. Any protests
or motions to intervene must be received on or before the specified
deadline date for the particular application.
    All filings must (1) bear in all capital letters the title
``PROTEST'' or ``MOTION TO INTERVENE;'' (2) set forth in the heading
the name of the applicant and the project number of the application to
which the filing responds; (3) furnish the name, address, and telephone
number of the person protesting or intervening; and (4) otherwise
comply with the requirements of 18 CFR 385.2001 through 385.2005.
Agencies may obtain copies of the application directly from the
applicant. A copy of any protest or motion to intervene must be served
upon each representative of the applicant specified in the particular
application.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E7-11738 Filed 6-18-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P