[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 13 (Friday, January 20, 2023)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 3629-3631]
[FR Doc No: 2023-01113]

========================================================================
Rules and Regulations
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains regulatory documents
having general applicability and legal effect, most of which are keyed
to and codified in the Code of Federal Regulations, which is published
under 50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.

The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by the Superintendent of Documents.

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

Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 13 / Friday, January 20, 2023 / Rules
and Regulations

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2023-0021; Project Identifier MCAI-2022-01618-E;
Amendment 39-22306; AD 2023-01-12]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Safran Helicopter Engines, S.A. (Type
Certificate Previously Held by Turbomeca, S.A.) Turboshaft Engines

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all
Safran Helicopter Engines, S.A. (Safran) Arriel 1C, Arriel 1C1, and
Arriel 1C2 model turboshaft engines. This AD was prompted by reports of
false engine fire warnings. This AD requires replacing the affected
fire detectors, as specified in a European Union Aviation Safety Agency
(EASA) AD, which is incorporated by reference. This AD also prohibits
the installation of affected fire detectors. The FAA is issuing this AD
to address the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: This AD is effective February 6, 2023.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of February 6,
2023.
    The FAA must receive comments on this AD by March 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-2023-0021; 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; phone:
+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, 1200
District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803. 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-2023-0021.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kevin Clark, Aviation Safety Engineer,
ECO Branch, FAA, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803; phone:
(781) 238-7088; 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-2023-0021; Project Identifier MCAI-
2022-01618-E'' 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 Kevin
Clark, Aviation Safety Engineer, ECO Branch, FAA, 1200 District Avenue,
Burlington, MA 01803. 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 2022-0256, dated December 19, 2022
(EASA AD 2022-0256) (also referred to as the MCAI), to correct an
unsafe condition on all Safran Arriel 1C, Arriel 1C1, and Arriel 1C2
model turboshaft engines. The MCAI states that there were reports of
false engine fire warnings. The subsequent investigation results
identified a manufacturing non-compliance on the fire detectors, which
caused a shift of the detection threshold towards temperature values
that are lower than specified, potentially leading to a false engine
fire warning. When two engines on a helicopter are fitted with an
affected part, an engine fire warning could occur on both engines
during the same flight. This condition, if not addressed, could lead to
commanded in-flight engine shut-down, possibly

resulting in damage to the helicopter and reduced control of the
helicopter.
    The FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these
products.
    You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket at regulations.gov under
Docket No. FAA-2023-0021.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    The FAA reviewed EASA AD 2022-0256, which specifies procedures for
replacing affected fire detectors. 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

    These products have been approved by the aviation authority of
another country and are approved for operation in the United States.
Pursuant to the FAA's bilateral agreement with this 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 these same type designs.

AD Requirements

    This AD requires accomplishing the actions specified in EASA AD
2022-0256, except for any differences identified as exceptions in the
regulatory text of this AD. This AD also prohibits the installation of
affected fire detectors.

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 2022-0256 is incorporated by reference in this AD. This AD
requires compliance with EASA AD 2022-0256 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 2022-0256 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
2022-0256. Service information required by EASA AD 2022-0256 for
compliance will be available at regulations.gov under Docket No. FAA-
2023-0021 after this AD is published.

Justification for Immediate Adoption 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.
    An unsafe condition exists that requires the immediate adoption of
this AD without providing an opportunity for public comments prior to
adoption. The FAA has found that the risk to the flying public
justifies foregoing notice and comment prior to adoption of this rule
because fire detectors that do not conform to the type design could
lead to false engine fire warnings. Safran was informed of three
occurrences of illumination of the engine fire alarm without confirmed
fire (untimely illumination) on airframes equipped with affected fire
detectors. False engine fire warnings are an unsafe condition requiring
urgent corrective action because, if a helicopter is equipped with two
engines with an affected fire detector installed, an engine fire
warning could occur on both engines during the same flight. This unsafe
condition, if not addressed, could lead to commanded in-flight engine
shut-down, possibly resulting in damage to the helicopter and reduced
control of the helicopter. Replacement of the fire detectors must be
accomplished within 30 flight hours or 60 days from the effective date
of this AD, whichever occurs first. Accordingly, notice and opportunity
for prior public comment are impracticable and contrary to the public
interest pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B).
    In addition, 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,
for the same reasons the FAA found good cause to forego notice and
comment.

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 prior notice and comment, RFA analysis is not
required.

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this AD affects 30 engines installed on
helicopters of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to
comply with this AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per      Cost on U.S.
                Action                         Labor cost           Parts cost        product        operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Replace fire detectors................  1 work-hour x $85 per             $1,800          $1,885         $56,550
                                         hour = $85.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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:

2023-01-12 Safran Helicopter Engines, S.A. (Type Certificate
Previously Held by Turbomeca, S.A.): Amendment 39-22306; Docket No.
FAA-2023-0021; Project Identifier MCAI-2022-01618-E.

(a) Effective Date

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

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to all Safran Helicopter Engines, S.A. (Type
Certificate previously held by Turbomeca, S.A.) Arriel 1C, Arriel
1C1, and Arriel 1C2 model turboshaft engines.

(d) Subject

    Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC) Code 7200, Engine
(Turbine/Turboprop).

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by reports of false engine fire warnings.
The FAA is issuing this AD to prevent false engine fire warnings.
The unsafe condition, if not addressed, could lead to commanded in-
flight engine shut-down, possibly resulting in damage to the
helicopter and reduced control of the helicopter.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Required Actions

    Except as specified in paragraphs (h) and (i) of this AD:
Perform all required actions within the compliance times specified
in, and in accordance with European Union Aviation Safety Agency
(EASA) AD 2022-0256, dated December 19, 2022 (EASA AD 2022-0256).

(h) Exceptions to EASA AD 2022-0256

    (1) Where EASA AD 2022-0256 requires compliance from its
effective date, this AD requires using the effective date of this
AD.
    (2) This AD does not adopt the ``Remarks'' section of EASA AD
2022-0256.
    (3) Although the service information referenced in EASA AD 2022-
0256 specifies to discard any removed fire detectors, this AD
requires removing those parts from service.

(i) No Reporting Requirement

    Although the service information referenced in EASA AD 2022-0256
specifies to submit certain information to the manufacturer, this AD
does not include that requirement.

(j) 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 (k) of this AD and email to: [email protected].
    (2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate
principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager
of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding
district office.

(k) Additional Information

    For more information about this AD, contact Kevin Clark,
Aviation Safety Engineer, ECO Branch, FAA, 1200 District Avenue,
Burlington, MA 01803; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
[email protected].

(l) 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 the AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD 2022-0256,
dated December 19, 2022.
    (ii) [Reserved]
    (3) For EASA AD 2022-0256, contact EASA, Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3,
50668 Cologne, Germany; phone: +49 221 8999 000; email:
[email protected]. You may find this material on the EASA website
at ad.easa.europa.eu.
    (4) You may view this service information at the FAA,
Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety 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, email: [email protected], or go to: www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued on January 13, 2023.
Gaetano A. Sciortino,
Acting Director, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, Aircraft
Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2023-01113 Filed 1-18-23; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: September 21, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 182)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 57375-57376]
[DOCID:fr21se10-5]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2009-1189; Airspace Docket No. 09-ANM-28]

Establishment of Class E Airspace; Toledo, WA

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action will establish Class E airspace at Toledo, WA, to
accommodate aircraft using a new Area Navigation (RNAV) Global
Positioning System (GPS) Standard Instrument Approach Procedure (SIAP)
at Ed Carlson Memorial Field-South Lewis County Airport. This will
improve the safety and management of Instrument Flight Rules (IFR)
operations at the airport.

DATES: Effective date, 0901 UTC, November 18, 2010. The Director of the
Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under
1 CFR part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.9 and
publication of conforming amendments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eldon Taylor, Federal Aviation
Administration, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center, 1601
Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, WA, 98057; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

History

    On June 14, 2010, the FAA published in the Federal Register a
notice of proposed rulemaking to amend controlled airspace at Toledo,
WA (75 FR 33559). Interested parties were invited to participate in
this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal
to the FAA. No comments were received.
    Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005 of
FAA Order 7400.9U dated August 18, 2010, and effective September 15,
2010, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E
airspace designations listed in this document will be published
subsequently in that Order.

The Rule

    This action amends Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR)
part 71 by establishing Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet
above the surface, at Ed Carlson Memorial Field-South Lewis County
Airport, to accommodate IFR aircraft executing new RNAV (GPS)

SIAP at the airport. This action is necessary for the safety and
management of IFR operations.
    The FAA has determined this regulation only involves an established
body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments
are necessary to keep them operationally current. Therefore, this
regulation: (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979);
and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the
anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that
will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified this rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the
criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. The FAA's authority to
issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the U.S.
Code. Subtitle 1, section 106 discusses the authority of the FAA
Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more
detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is
promulgated under the authority described in subtitle VII, part A,
subpart I, section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with
prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to
ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This
regulation is within the scope of that authority as it establishes
additional controlled airspace at Ed Carlson Memorial Field-South Lewis
County Airport, Toledo, WA.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

Adoption of the Amendment

0
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration
amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

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

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

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

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of the Federal
Aviation Administration Order 7400.9U, Airspace Designations and
Reporting Points, dated August 18, 2010, and effective September 15,
2010 is amended as follows:

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

* * * * *

ANM WA, E5 Toledo, WA [New]

Ed Carlson Memorial Field-South Lewis County Airport, WA
    (Lat. 46[deg]28'38'' N., long. 122[deg]48'23'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 6.9-mile radius of the Ed Carlson Memorial Field-South
Lewis County Airport, and within 1 mile each side of the 074[deg]
bearing from the Airport, extending from the 6.9-mile radius to 7.9
miles northeast of the airport.

    Issued in Seattle, Washington, on August 30, 2010.
John Warner,
Manager, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2010-23392 Filed 9-20-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: July 15, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 134)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 34216-34218]
[DOCID:fr15jy09-4]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2009-0638; Directorate Identifier 2009-CE-038-AD;
Amendment 39-15968; AD 2009-15-05]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Cessna Aircraft Company Models 208 and
208B Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain
Cessna Aircraft Company (Cessna) Models 208 and 208B airplanes. This AD
requires you to measure the roll and the yaw bridle cable tension
(adjusting as necessary) and to torque the clamp screws. This AD
results from two reported incidences of slack bridle cables with the
swaged balls unseating from their drum recesses. We are issuing this AD
to detect and correct loose bridle cable clamps, which could result in
the swaged ball unseating from the recess in the servo drum and
contacting the cable guard pin. This failure could lead to very limited
control of the rudder and/or aileron with consequent loss of control.

DATES: This AD becomes effective on July 27, 2009.
    On July 27, 2009, the Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this AD.
    We must receive any comments on this AD by September 14, 2009.

ADDRESSES: Use one of the following addresses to comment on this AD.
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    To get the service information identified in this AD, contact
Cessna Aircraft Company, Product Support, P.O. Box 7706; Wichita,
Kansas 67277; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; Internet:
http://www.cessna.com.
    To view the comments to this AD, go to http://www.regulations.gov.
The docket number is FAA-2009-0638; Directorate Identifier 2009-CE-038-
AD.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ann Johnson, Aerospace Engineer,
Wichita Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 1801 Airport Road, Room
100, Wichita, Kansas 67209; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax: (316) 946-
4107; E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We received reports on two Cessna Models 208 and 208B production
airplanes with autopilot heading squawks. Upon investigation by the
manufacturer, technicians found in both cases the bridle cable for the
autopilot aileron servo was slack, and the swaged ball was unseated
from the drum recess.
    The cause of the bridle cables going slack was insufficient torque
on the bridle cable clamp screws, allowing slippage of the bridle cable
clamps on the roll bridle cable. Since the rudder and aileron autopilot
interface are similar, the same condition could exist with the yaw
bridle cable.
    This condition, if not corrected, could result in the swaged ball
unseating from the recess in the servo drum and contacting the cable
guard pin. This failure could lead to very limited control of the
rudder and/or aileron with consequent loss of control.

Relevant Service Information

    We reviewed Cessna Aircraft Company Caravan Service Bulletin CAB08-
9, dated November 24, 2008. The service information describes
procedures for inspecting the bridle cables for looseness, adjusting
the bridle cable tension, and tightening the bridle cable clamp screws
to the correct torque. The manufacturer intends that the actions
specified in the service information adequately address the unsafe
condition.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of This AD

    We are issuing this AD because we evaluated all the information and
determined the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist
or develop on other products of the same type design. This AD requires
you to measure the autopilot roll and yaw bridle cable tensions
(adjusting as necessary) and to torque the bridle cable clamp screws.

FAA's Determination of the Effective Date

    An unsafe condition exists that requires the immediate adoption of
this AD. The FAA has found that the risk to the flying public justifies
waiving notice and comment prior to adoption of this rule because the
swaged ball on the bridle cable could unseat from the servo drum and
contact the cable guard pin. This failure could lead to very limited
control of the rudder and/or aileron. Therefore, we determined that
notice and opportunity for public comment before issuing this AD are
impracticable and that good cause exists for making this amendment
effective in fewer than 30 days.

Comments Invited

    This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight
safety, and we did not precede it by notice and an opportunity for
public comment. We invite you to send any written relevant data, views,
or arguments regarding this AD. Send your comments to an address listed
under the ADDRESSES section. Include the docket number ``FAA-2009-0638;
Directorate Identifier 2009-CE-038-AD'' at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the AD. We will consider
all comments received by the closing date and may amend the AD in light
of those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive concerning this AD.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

products identified in this rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

    We determined that 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); and
    (3) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to
comply with this AD and placed it in the AD docket.

Examining the AD Docket

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

0
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator,
the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

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

2009-15-05 Cessna Aircraft Company: Amendment 39-15968; Docket No.
FAA-2009-0638; Directorate Identifier 2009-CE-038-AD.

Effective Date

    (a) This AD becomes effective on July 27, 2009.

Affected ADs

    (b) None.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to the following airplane models and serial
numbers that are certificated in any category:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Model                              Serial No.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
208..............................  20800500 through 20800504.
208B.............................  208B1216, 208B2001, 208B2003 through
                                    208B2023, 208B2025 through 208B2029,
                                    208B2031 through 208B2037, 208B2040,
                                    208B2042, and 208B2043.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Unsafe Condition

    (d) This AD is the result of two reported incidences of slack
bridle cables with the swaged balls unseated from their drum
recesses. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct loose bridle
cable clamps, which could result in the swaged ball unseating from
the recess in the servo drum and contacting the cable guard pin.
This failure could lead to very limited control of the rudder and/or
aileron with consequent loss of control.

Compliance

    (e) To address this problem, you must do the following, unless
already done:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Actions                 Compliance            Procedures
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Measure and adjust as     Within the next 10    Follow
 necessary, the roll bridle    hours time-in-        Accomplishment
 cable tension and yaw         service after July    Instructions,
 bridle cable tension, and     27, 2009 (the         paragraphs 2.
 torque the 12 bridle cable    effective date of     through 7., of
 clamp screws.                 this AD).             Cessna Aircraft
                                                     Company Caravan
                                                     Service Bulletin
                                                     CAB08-9, dated
                                                     November 24, 2008.
(2) Use the form (Figure 1    Within 10 days after  Send the report to
 of this AD) to report the     the inspection        the FAA at the
 results of the inspections    required in           address specified
 required in paragraph         paragraph (e)(1).     in paragraph (f) of
 (e)(1) of this AD. The        If Cessna Aircraft    this AD.
 Office of Management and      Company Caravan
 Budget (OMB) approved the     Service Bulletin
 information collection        CAB08-9, dated
 requirements contained in     November 24, 2008,
 this regulation under the     was done before
 provisions of the Paperwork   July 27, 2009 (the
 Reduction Act of 1980 (44     effective date of
 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) and      this AD) the report
 assigned OMB Control Number   is not required.
 2120-0056.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                     AD 2009-15-05 Inspection Report
  [If the SB was done before the effective date of this AD, this report
     does not need to be completed and returned to the Wichita ACO]
------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Airplane Model                              ............................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Airplane Serial Number                      ............................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Did you find the yaw bridle cable tension   ............................
 to be within the range of 15-25 lbs?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Did you find the roll bridle cable tension  ............................
 to be within the range of 10-14 lbs?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Were any other discrepancies noted during   ............................
 the inspection?
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Name                                        ............................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Telephone and/or e-mail address             ............................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date                                        ............................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                             Send report to:
                     Ann Johnson, Aerospace Engineer
             ACE-116W, Wichita Aircraft Certification Office
                       1801 Airport Road, Room 100
                            Wichita, KS 67209
                           fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>
                       e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>------------------------------------------------------------------------

Figure 1

Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (f) The Manager, Wichita 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. Send information to
Attn: Ann Johnson, Aerospace Engineer, Wichita Aircraft
Certification Office (ACO), 1801 Airport Road, Room 100, Wichita,
Kansas 67209; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; E-
mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Before using any approved AMOC on any
airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify your appropriate
principal inspector (PI) in the FAA Flight Standards District Office
(FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local FSDO.

Material Incorporated by Reference

    (g) You must use Cessna Aircraft Company Caravan Service
Bulletin CAB08-9, dated November 24, 2008, to do the actions
required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference of this service information under 5
U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Cessna Aircraft Company, Product Support, P.O. Box 7706; Wichita,
Kansas 67277; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
Internet: http://www.cessna.com.
    (3) You may review copies of the service information
incorporated by reference for this AD at the FAA, Central Region,
Office of the Regional Counsel, 901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri
64106. For information on the availability of this material at the
Central Region, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (4) You may also review copies of the service information
incorporated by reference for this AD 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/code_of_federal_regulations/
ibr_locations.html.

    Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on July 6, 2009.
Kim Smith,
Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
 [FR Doc. E9-16465 Filed 7-14-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


NEWS BRIEF

May 14, 2007

Methyl Bromide Inventory Continues Downward Trend

Contact:  John Millett,<PHONE_NUMBER> -<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
The methyl bromide inventory held by U.S. companies at the end of 2006
continues to shrink, according to data released by EPA today.  The data
show a steady decline in the inventory since 2003, when the Agency began
collecting such information.

 Methyl bromide is an ozone-depleting chemical that has been used as a
general pesticide across a wide range of agricultural sectors for many
years.  Under the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone
Layer and the Clean Air Act, the United States phased out new production
and import of methyl bromide, except for allowable exemptions for users
who have no technically and economically feasible alternatives.

The data that EPA is releasing includes, in aggregate form, the
inventory held by approximately 35 companies in the United States at the
end of 2006.  The methyl bromide inventory data, displayed graphically
below, shows a steady decline – approximately 16,422 metric tons in
2003, 12,994 metric tons in 2004, 9,974 metric tons in 2005, and 7,671
metric tons in 2006 – and demonstrates that the United States
continues to manage its domestic inventory appropriately.

The phaseout of new production and import, and the orderly reduction in
the existing inventory, are facilitating a transition to alternatives in
a manner consistent with previous successful phaseouts of
ozone-depleting substances, such as chloroflourocarbons (CFCs) and
halons.  The United States continues to protect the ozone layer and meet
its obligations under the Montreal Protocol while meeting the needs of
American farmers.

For more information on the phaseout of methyl bromide, please visit:
HYPERLINK "http://www.epa.gov/ozone/mbr"  http://www.epa.gov/ozone/mbr

 PAGE

 PAGE   2


EPA BIOPESTICIDES AND POLLUTION PREVENTION DIVISION COMPANY NOTICE OF FILING FOR PESTICIDE PETITIONS PUBLISHED IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER

EPA Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention Division contact: [insert name and telephone number with area code]

INSTRUCTIONS:  Please utilize this outline in preparing the pesticide petition.  In cases where the outline element does not apply, please insert "NA-Remove" and maintain the outline. Please do not change the margins, font, or format in your pesticide petition. Simply replace the instructions that appear in green, i.e., "[insert company name]," with the information specific to your action.

SUBMISSION: Email the completed template to<EMAIL_ADDRESS> TEMPLATE:

[Becker Underwood, Inc.]

[Insert petition number is not available (OPP Decision Number D-457601)]

	EPA has received a pesticide petition ([insert petition number is not available]) from [Becker Underwood, Inc.], [801 Dayton Avenue, Ames, IA 50010] requesting, 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

(Options (pick one)        	1. by establishing a tolerance for residues of NA-Remove

	2. to establish an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for 	 	3. to establish an amendment/expansion of an existing tolerance exemption for the NA-Remove

(Options (pick one)        	1. microbial pesticide  [NA-Remove]

	2. biochemical pesticide [Methyl jasmonate]

	3. plant-pesticide [NA-Remove] in or on [NA-Remove].

	 Pursuant to section 408(d)(2)(A)(i) of  FFDCA, as amended, [Becker Underwood, Inc.] has submitted the following summary of information, data, and arguments in support of their pesticide petition. This summary was prepared by [Becker Underwood, Inc.] and EPA has not fully evaluated the merits of the pesticide petition. The summary may have been edited by EPA if the terminology used was unclear, the summary contained extraneous material, or the summary unintentionally made the reader conclude that the findings reflected EPA's position and not the position of the petitioner.

I. [Becker Underwood, Inc.] Petition Summary        	[Insert petition number  -  not available]

A. Product Name and Proposed Use Practices

      [1) Methyl Jasmonate Technical Grade (TGAI; for manufacturing use only)       2) SCIMITAR (EP; for agricultural use)                Methyl jasmonate acts as a plant signaling molecule in stimulating the plant's own defense system resulting in enhanced resistance of the plant to attack by insects, fungi, and bacteria.         The group of jasmonates is widely distributed in plants and include biologically active intermediates such as methyl jasmonate, as well as other jasmonic acid derivatives synthesized in the jasmonic acid biosynthesis pathway. These chemicals trigger plant responses to biotic and abiotic stresses and regulate such processes as wound responses clearly demonstrated in plants like Arabidopsis.       Methyl jasmonate is produced in response to stress and serves as a signal, in the form of a chemical vapor, to turn on natural defense mechanisms. Methyl jasmonate signals plants to synthesize proteins that increase their resistance to temperature changes as well as attack by insects. Furthermore, these proteins can also lead to production of antifungal and/or antibacterial compounds.        Jasmonates induce gene expression leading to synthesis of many proteins that increase systemic resistance against biotic damage. In conifers, jasmonates act as plant elicitors, which induce a wide range of chemical and anatomical defense reactions. 	An analytical method for residues is not applicable.  It is expected that, when used as proposed, methyl jasmonate would not result in residues that are of toxicological concern.  Application of methyl jasmonate to seeds through seed treatment, in-furrow or soil drench applications is not expected to increase the levels of the biochemical in the environment above natural concentrations.         The proposed use of SCIMITAR, the formulated end-use product containing methyl jasmonate, is a seed applied bioactive for protection against flea beetles in canola, rapeseed, mustard, safflower, sunflower and camelina. As such, the proposed use pattern and low application rates minimize the potential for exposure above the natural background levels of methyl jasmonate.]

B. Product Identity/Chemistry

	1. Identity of the pesticide and corresponding residues. [Methyl jasmonate CAS No. 1211-29-6; Cyclopentaneacetic acid, 3-oxo-2-(2-pentenyl)-, methyl ester]

	2. Magnitude of residues at the time of harvest and method used to determine the residue. [NA-Remove]

	3. A statement of why an analytical method of detecting and measuring the levels of the pesticide residue are not needed. [An analytical method for residues of methyl jasmonate is not necessary as this petition requests an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance without numerical limitations.]

C. Mammalian Toxicological Profile

	[Acute Oral Toxicity (OCSPP 870.1100):  Methyl jasmonate was categorized in Toxicity Category III in an acute oral toxicity study with an estimated rat LD50 of 3129 mg/kg/day (Kuhn, 2010). In this study on the Technical Grade Active Ingredient (TGAI) (98.7% methyl jasmonate), the up-and-down procedure was used to identify an oral LD50.  Three rats received a dose of 1750 mg/kg, and none died, while three rats that received 5000 mg/kg did die.  The study was terminated according to the guideline rules for stopping.

Acute Dermal Toxicity (OCSPP 870.1200): Methyl jasmonate was categorized in Toxicity Category IV in an acute dermal toxicity study with an estimated rat LD50 greater than 5050 mg/kg/day (Kuhn, 2010). In this study on the TGAI (98.7% methyl jasmonate), five male and five female rats received a dermal dose of 5050 mg/kg of the undiluted test article, and the area of application was covered with a 2 x 4 inch surgical gauze patch. After 24 hours the wrappings were removed and the application site gently washed with tap water. There were no mortalities following exposure, and no signs of dermal irritation at any observation during the study.  .

Acute Inhalation Toxicity (OCSPP 870.1300): Methyl jasmonate was evaluated for acute inhalation toxicity potential in laboratory rats (Doig, 2010).  Five female and five male rats were exposed to an aerosol generated from the undiluted liquid test article at a concentration of 2.23 mg/L for 4 hours. No mortality occurred during the exposure or the 14 day observation period. The acute rat inhalation LC50 identified in this study was >2.23 mg/L, which is Toxicity Category IV according to the U.S. EPA criteria. 	 Primary Eye Irritation (OCSPP 870.2400): Methyl jasmonate was evaluated for primary eye irritation potential in laboratory rabbits (Kuhn, 2010).  In this study, undiluted methyl jasmonate (0.1 ml) was instilled in the conjunctival sac of the right eyes of three albino rabbits selected for testing.  Immediately after the 24-hour observation, all treated eyes were rinsed with room temperature deionized water for one minute.  No effects categorized as positive were reported in the eyes at any time after treatment.  Methyl jasmonate was described as minimally irritating to the eyes and assigned an EPA Toxicity Category IV by the study author.

Primary Dermal Irritation (OCSPP 870.2500): Methyl jasmonate was evaluated for primary dermal irritation potential in albino laboratory rabbits (Kuhn, 2010).  In this study, 0.5 ml of undiluted methyl jasmonate was applied to an intact test site on each of three rabbits and covered with a semi-permeable dressing for four hours.  Observations for potential dermal irritation were performed 1, 24, 48 and 72 hours after dressing removal.  Methyl jasmonate was assigned a primary irritation index of 0.0 and rated as non-irritating.  Based on the irritation scores at the 72-hour time point, methyl jasmonate was assigned to EPA Toxicity Category IV for dermal irritation.

Dermal Sensitization (OCSPP 870.2600): Methyl jasmonate was evaluated for dermal sensitization potential in guinea pigs using a modification of the Buehler method (Kuhn, 2010).  In this study, 15 male and 15 female guinea pigs were separated into Naïve control (5/sex) and Test (10/sex) groups. The Test group subjects were treated dermally with 0.4 ml of undiluted methyl jasmonate once per week, 6 hours per day for 3 weeks.  After a two-week rest period, Test and Naïve groups were challenged with a dermal application of 0.4 ml of methyl jasmonate, applied to a virgin site.  The challenge dose did not elicit a reaction in the Naïve or Test animals and study authors concluded methyl jasmonate was not a sensitizing agent in guinea pigs.

The results of toxicity testing show there is no risk to human health from exposure to methyl jasmonate. Furthermore, there is a long history of safe dietary exposure to methyl jasmonate as it naturally occurs in fruits that children and adults commonly eat as well as food that methyl jasmonate is commonly added to as a flavoring agent. International experts have even established an acceptable human dietary exposure level of 540 ug/day.]

D. Aggregate Exposure

	1. Dietary exposure. [Methyl jasmonate naturally occurs in ordinary fruits that children and adults eat routinely, including apples and strawberries. In addition, methyl jasmonate is commonly used in foods as a flavoring agent. International experts specified an acceptable dietary exposure level of 540 ug/day. The potential exposure to methyl jasmonate from use of the proposed Becker Underwood, Inc. product is well below the current estimated dietary exposure.

The results of toxicity testing indicate there is no risk to human health or the environment from methyl jasmonate. There are no reports of ecological or human health hazards caused by methyl jasmonate.]

	i. Food. [The proposed use pattern may result in dietary exposure with possible residues in or on agricultural commodities. However, no risk is expected  for the general population, including infants and children, or animals because of the lack of demonstrated toxicity of methyl jasmonate. There is a long history of safe dietary exposure to methyl jasmonate as it naturally occurs in fruits that children and adults commonly eat as well as food that methyl jasmonate is commonly added to as a flavoring agent. The potential exposure to methyl jasmonate from use in the proposed Becker Underwood, Inc. product is well below the current estimated dietary exposure.]

	ii. Drinking water. [Application of methyl jasmonate to pre-planted seeds through seed treatment applications is not expected to increase the levels of the biochemical in the environment above natural concentrations. The potential exposure to methyl jasmonate from use in the proposed Becker Underwood, Inc. product is well below the current estimated dietary exposure. Exposure to humans from residues of methyl jasmonate in potable water would be at most, insignificant. Similarly, exposure to surface water as well as drinking water from wells or surface water would be negligible.]

	2. Non-dietary exposure. [The potential for non-dietary exposure to the general population, including infants and children, is unlikely as the proposed use sites are agricultural. The intended use of methyl jasmonate is to apply it to the seeds of agricultural crops for the purposes of stimulating the target plant's defense system.  Application of methyl jasmonate to pre-planted seeds is not expected to increase the levels of the biochemical in the environment above natural concentrations.

The results of toxicity testing indicate there is no risk to human health or the environment from methyl jasmonate. There are no reports of ecological or human health hazards caused by methyl jasmonate. The absence of acute toxicity in laboratory animals demonstrates the benign nature of this strain.  Non-dietary exposures would not be expected to pose any quantifiable risk due to a lack of residues of toxicological concern]

E. Cumulative Effects

	[It is not expected that, when used as proposed, methyl jasmonate would result in residues that are of toxicological concern. The intended use of methyl jasmonate is to apply it to the seeds of agricultural crops for the purposes of stimulating the plant's defense system.  Application of methyl jasmonate to pre-planted seeds is not expected to increase the levels of the biochemical in the environment above natural concentrations.  The results of toxicity testing indicate there is no risk to human health or the environment from methyl jasmonate. There are no reports of ecological or human health hazards caused by methyl jasmonate. The absence of acute toxicity in laboratory animals demonstrates the benign nature of this strain.]

F. Safety Determination

	1. U.S. population. [Acute toxicity studies have shown methyl jasmonate is not toxic or irritating to mammals.  The intended use of methyl jasmonate is to apply it to the seeds of agricultural crops for the purposes of stimulating the plant's defense system. Application of methyl jasmonate to pre-planted seeds is not expected to increase the levels of the biochemical in the environment above natural concentrations.  The results of toxicity testing indicate there is no risk to human health or the environment from methyl jasmonate. There are no reports of ecological or human health hazards caused by methyl jasmonate.  The absence of acute toxicity in laboratory animals demonstrates the benign nature of this strain. There is a reasonable certainty of no harm to the general US population from exposure to this active ingredient.]

	2. Infants and children. [As mentioned above, it is not expected that, when used as proposed, methyl jasmonate would result in residues that are of toxicological concern. There is a reasonable certainty of no harm for infants and children from exposure to methyl jasmonate from the proposed uses.]

G. Effects on the Immune and Endocrine Systems

	[To date there is no evidence to suggest that methyl jasmonate functions in a manner similar to any known hormone, or that it acts as an endocrine disrupter.]

H. Existing Tolerances

	[There is no US. EPA Tolerance for methyl jasmonate.]

I. International Tolerances

	[Methyl jasmonate safety as a flavoring food additive was reviewed by the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA, 2005). The JECFA procedure for safety evaluation of flavoring agents that was used to evaluate methyl jasmonate integrates information on toxicity, metabolism and structure-activity relationships to identify acceptable intakes. Data on toxicology and metabolism, and structure activity relationships among compounds are important components of the safety evaluation.   JECFA evaluations generally emphasize that the majority of flavoring agents are metabolized to innocuous end-products. Methyl jasmonate was evaluated for safety as one of the structural class of monocyclic and bicyclic secondary alcohols, ketones and related esters. The method used by JECFA to evaluate this group of flavoring substances is described below.

The JECFA procedure for safety evaluation of flavoring substances is based on recognized pathways of activation and deactivation, data on toxicity, and knowledge of each substance as a component of traditional foods.  The first step in the safety evaluation of a flavoring additive is to classify the substance as belonging to one of three categories, depending on chemical structure and metabolism.        1. Class I substances have simple chemical structures with known metabolic pathways and innocuous end products that suggest a low order of oral toxicity.             2. Class II substances have chemical structures that appear less innocuous than class I, but do not contain features that suggest toxicity.            3. Class III substances have a chemical structure that does not allow an initial presumption of safety and may suggest toxicity.

Methyl jasmonate was identified as a structural class II flavoring agent by JECFA, with a "human exposure threshold" of 540 ug/day.  The human exposure threshold identified by JECFA for Category II flavoring substances is based on the 5[th] percentile animal-based no-observed-effect-level (NOEL) of 0.906 mg/kg/day for this Category. The database of toxicity studies that was used to derive this NOEL included chronic, subchronic and developmental toxicity studies. To derive the human exposure threshold, JECFA divided the NOEL by an uncertainty factor of 100, and assumed a body weight of 60 kg.  The JECFA NOEL of 0.906 mg/kg/day for structural Class II flavoring substances is a reasonable surrogate for a compound-specific NOEL for developmental toxicity of methyl jasmonate because the database of surrogate data included data from developmental toxicity studies.]


[Federal Register: June 21, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 118)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 34956-34958]
[DOCID:fr21jn10-22]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2010-0632; Directorate Identifier 2010-CE-025-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Robert E. Rust, Jr. Model DeHavilland
DH.C1 Chipmunk 21, DH.C1 Chipmunk 22, and DH.C1 Chipmunk 22A Airplanes

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

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all
Robert E. Rust, Jr. Model DeHavilland DH.C1 Chipmunk 21, DH.C1 Chipmunk
22, and DH.C1 Chipmunk 22A airplanes. This proposed AD would require a
one-time inspection of the flap operating system for an unauthorized
latch plate design installation. This proposed AD results from a report
of a latch plate failing in service that was not made in accordance
with the applicable de Havilland drawing. We are proposing this AD to
detect and correct unauthorized latch plate design installation, which
could result in an un-commanded retraction of the flaps. This failure
could lead to a stall during a landing approach.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by August 5, 2010.

ADDRESSES: Use one of the following addresses to comment on this
proposed AD:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact de
Havilland Support Limited, Duxford Airfield, Cambridgeshire, CB22 4QR,
England, phone: +44 (0) 1223 830090; fax: +44 (0) 1223 830085; e-mail:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet: http://www.dhsupport.com/.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carey O'Kelley, Aerospace Engineer,
FAA, Atlanta Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 1701 Columbia Avenue,
College Park, Georgia 30337; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax: (404) 474-
5606.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments regarding this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address
listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include the docket number, ``FAA-
2010-0632; Directorate Identifier 2010-CE-025-AD'' at the beginning of
your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall
regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the proposed
AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may
amend the proposed AD in light of those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive concerning this proposed AD.

Discussion

    We have received a report of a latch plate supplied under part
number (P/N) C1-CF-1489 failing in service on a Model DeHavilland DH.C1
Chipmunk 21, DH.C1 Chipmunk 22, or DH.C1 Chipmunk 22A airplane. The
part in question was not manufactured to the de Havilland drawing for
P/N C1-CF-1489. The unapproved latch plate was made of a shaft that was
pressed into a plate, rather than being machined from bar material as
one piece. The shaft and plate on the unapproved part can become
separated or bent, resulting in rapid wear and failure of the part.
    This condition, if not corrected, could result in an un-commanded
retraction of the flaps. This failure could lead to a stall during a
landing approach.

Relevant Service Information

    We have reviewed de Havilland Support Limited Technical News Sheet
(TNS) CT(C1) No 208 Issue 1, dated January 3, 2009. The service
information describes procedures for inspecting the flap operating
system latch plate for an unapproved part installation.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of the Proposed AD

    We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all information and
determined the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist
or develop on other products of the same type design. This proposed AD
would require a one-time inspection of the flap operating system for an
unauthorized latch plate design installation.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD would affect 64 airplanes in the
U.S. registry.
    We estimate the following costs to do the proposed inspection:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Total cost   Total cost
          Labor cost              Parts cost        per        on U.S.
                                                  airplane    operators
------------------------------------------------------------------------
3 work-hours x $85 per hour =  Not Applicable.         $255      $16,320
 $255.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

     We estimate the following costs to do any necessary replacements
that would be required based on the results of the proposed inspection.
We have no way of determining the number of airplanes that may need
this replacement:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         Total cost per
              Labor cost                  Parts cost        airplane
------------------------------------------------------------------------
.5 work-hour x $85 per hour = $42.50..            $175           $217.50
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

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

    We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to
comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket.

Examining the AD Docket

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Proposed Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

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

Robert E. Rust, Jr.: Docket No. FAA-2010-0632; Directorate
Identifier 2010-CE-025-AD.

Comments Due Date

    (a) We must receive comments on this airworthiness directive
(AD) action by August 5, 2010.

Affected ADs

    (b) None.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to Model DeHavilland DH.C1 Chipmunk 21,
DH.C1 Chipmunk 22, and DH.C1 Chipmunk 22A airplanes, all serial
numbers, that are certificated in any category.

    Note: These airplanes are also identified as CHIPMUNK 22A,
CHIPMUNK DHC-1T10, CHIPMUNK T.10 MK-22, DH.C1 MK22A, DHC-1, DHC-1
CHIPMUNK, DHC-1 CHIPMUNK 22, DHC-1 SERIES 22, or DHC-1 T.MK. 10.

Subject

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

Unsafe Condition

    (e) This AD results from a report of a latch plate supplied
under part number C1-CF-1489 failing in service. The part in
question was not manufactured to the applicable de Havilland
drawing. The unapproved latch plate was made of a shaft that was
pressed into a plate, rather than being machined from bar material
as one piece. The shaft and plate on the unapproved part can become
separated or bent, resulting in rapid wear and failure of the part.
This condition, if not corrected, could result in an un-commanded
retraction of the flaps. This failure could lead to a stall during a
landing approach.

Compliance

    (f) To address this problem, you must do the following, unless
already done:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Actions                             Compliance                            Procedures
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Inspect the flap operating        Within 50 hours time-in-service       Follow de Havilland Support Limited
 system to identify the part number    (TIS) after the effective date of     Technical News Sheet (TNS) CT(C1)
 (P/N) of the latch plate installed.   this AD or within 90 days after the   No 208 Issue 1, dated January 3,
 If latch plate P/N C1-CF-1489 is      effective date of this AD,            2009.
 installed, inspect the latch plate    whichever occurs first.
 to determine if it is in compliance
 with the design standard. An
 unapproved latch plate P/N C1-CF-
 1489 is made from two pieces
 pressed together while one that
 complies with the design standard
 is machined in one piece from bar
 material.
(2) If during the inspection          Before further flight after the       Follow de Havilland Support Limited
 required in paragraph (f)(1) of       inspection where the unapproved       TNS CT(C1) No 208 Issue 1, dated
 this AD an unapproved latch plate P/  latch plate P/N C1-CF-1849 was        January 3, 2009.
 N C1-CF-1489 is found, replace the    found.
 latch plate with a latch plate that
 complies with the design standard.
 The following U.S. standard
 hardware may be substituted for the
 hardware specified in the service
 information:
(i) 1/16'' diameter cotter pin that
 is P/N MS24665-153 (or equivalent)
 in place of split pin P/N SP90/C
 and;
(ii) Washer that is P/N MS15795-806B
 (or equivalent) in place of washer
 P/N SP13/B.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (g) The Manager, Atlanta 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. Send information to
Attn: Carey O'Kelley, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Atlanta Aircraft
Certification Office (ACO), 1701 Columbia Avenue, College Park,
Georgia 30337; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC
applies, notify your appropriate principal inspector (PI) in the FAA
Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local
FSDO.

Related Information

    (h) To get copies of the service information referenced in this
AD, contact de Havilland Support Limited, Duxford Airfield,
Cambridgeshire, CB22 4QR, England, phone: +44 (0) 1223 830090; fax:
+44 (0) 1223 830085; e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet: http://
www.dhsupport.com/. To view the AD docket, go to U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, or
on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov.

    Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on June 14, 2010.
Sandra J. Campbell,
Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2010-14989 Filed 6-18-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 124 (Wednesday, June 27, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 30162]
[FR Doc No: 2018-13851]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. EL18-177-000]

CXA La Paloma, LLC v. California Independent System Operator
Corporation; Notice of Complaint

    Take notice that on June 20, 2018, pursuant to section 206 of the
Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 824e and Rule 206 of the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission's (Commission) Rules of Practice and Procedure,
18 CFR 385.206, CXA La Paloma, LLC (Complainant) filed a formal
complaint against California Independent System Operator Corporation
(CAISO or Respondent) alleging that, CAISO's continued reliance on
short-term, interim, stopgap mechanisms for resource adequacy has
created a resource adequacy regime that is unjust and unreasonable and
unduly discriminatory. CXA La Paloma, LLC requests that the Commission
order CAISO to implement a centralized resource adequacy procurement
process including a downward sloped demand curve, uniform locational
pricing, and several other key features, all as more fully explained in
the complaint.
    CXA La Paloma, LLC certifies that copies of the complaint were
served on the contacts for Respondent as listed on the Commission's
list of Corporate Officials.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. The Respondents'
answer and all interventions, or protests must be filed on or before
the comment date. The Respondents' answer, motions to intervene, and
protests must be served on the Complainant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the eFiling link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an
original and 5 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
eLibrary link and is available for 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 protected], or call
(866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on July 10, 2018.

    Dated: June 21, 2018.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-13851 Filed 6-26-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 180 (Tuesday, September 21, 2021)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 52416-52418]
[FR Doc No: 2021-20411]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2021-0160; FRL-8960-01-OCSPP]

Styrene- Maleic Anhydride Ethyl Amine Salt Copolymer; Exemption
From the Requirement of a Tolerance

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes an exemption from the requirement
of a tolerance for residues of styrene- maleic anhydride ethyl amine
salt copolymer when used as an inert ingredient in a pesticide chemical
formulation. S.A. Ajinomoto Omnichem N.V., submitted a petition to EPA
under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), requesting an
exemption from the requirement of a tolerance. This regulation
eliminates the need to establish a maximum permissible level for
residues of styrene- maleic anhydride ethyl amine salt copolymer on
food or feed commodities when used in accordance with these exemptions.

DATES: This regulation is effective September 21, 2021. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received on or before November 22, 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-2021-0160, 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 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. Can I file an objection or hearing request?

    Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a(g), 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-2021-0160 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
November 22, 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-2021-0160, 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. Background and Statutory Findings

    In the Federal Register of March 22, 2021 (86 FR 15162) (FRL-10021-
44), EPA issued a document pursuant to FFDCA section 408, 21 U.S.C.
346a, announcing the receipt of a pesticide petition (PP IN-11408) by
Wagner Regulatory Associates, Inc., on behalf of, S.A. Ajinomoto
Omnichem N.V., Cooppallaan, 91 B-9230, Wetteren, Belgium. The petition
requested that 40

CFR 180.960 be amended by establishing an exemption from the
requirement of a tolerance for residues of styrene- maleic anhydride
ethyl amine salt copolymer. That document included a summary of the
petition prepared by the petitioner and solicited comments on the
petitioner's request. The Agency did not receive any comments in
response to the notice of filing.
    Section 408(c)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish an
exemption from the requirement for a tolerance (the legal limit for a
pesticide chemical residue in or on a food) only if EPA determines that
the exemption is ``safe.'' Section 408(c)(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 use 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 an exemption from the
requirement of 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...'' and specifies
factors EPA is to consider in establishing an exemption.

III. Risk Assessment and Statutory Findings

    EPA establishes exemptions from the requirement of a tolerance only
in those cases where it can be shown that the risks from aggregate
exposure to pesticide chemical residues under reasonably foreseeable
circumstances will pose no appreciable risks to human health. In order
to determine the risks from aggregate exposure to pesticide inert
ingredients, the Agency considers the toxicity of the inert in
conjunction with possible exposure to residues of the inert ingredient
through food, drinking water, and through other exposures that occur as
a result of pesticide use in residential settings. If EPA is able to
determine that a finite tolerance is not necessary to ensure that there
is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate
exposure to the inert ingredient, an exemption from the requirement of
a tolerance may be established.
    Consistent with FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), EPA has reviewed the
available scientific data and other relevant information in support of
this action and considered its validity, completeness and reliability
and the relationship of this information 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. In the case of certain chemical substances that
are defined as polymers, the Agency has established a set of criteria
to identify categories of polymers expected to present minimal or no
risk.
    The definition of a polymer is given in 40 CFR 723.250(b) and the
exclusion criteria for identifying these low-risk polymers are
described in 40 CFR 723.250(d). Styrene- maleic anhydride ethyl amine
salt copolymer conforms to the definition of a polymer given in 40 CFR
723.250(b) and meets the following criteria that are used to identify
low-risk polymers.
    1. The polymer is not a cationic polymer nor is it reasonably
anticipated to become a cationic polymer in a natural aquatic
environment.
    2. The polymer does contain as an integral part of its composition
at least two of the atomic elements carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, oxygen,
silicon, and sulfur.
    3. The polymer does not contain as an integral part of its
composition, except as impurities, any element other than those listed
in 40 CFR 723.250(d)(2)(ii).
    4. The polymer is neither designed nor can it be reasonably
anticipated to substantially degrade, decompose, or depolymerize.
    5. The polymer is manufactured or imported from monomers and/or
reactants that are already included on the TSCA Chemical Substance
Inventory or manufactured under an applicable TSCA section 5 exemption.
    6. The polymer is not a water absorbing polymer with a number
average molecular weight (MW) greater than or equal to 10,000 daltons.
    7. The polymer does not contain certain perfluoroalkyl moieties
consisting of a CF3- or longer chain length as listed in 40
CFR 723.250(d)(6).
    Additionally, the polymer also meets as required the following
exemption criteria specified in 40 CFR 723.250(e).
    8. The polymer's number average MW of 1,700 is greater than 1,000
and less than 10,000 daltons. The polymer contains less than 10%
oligomeric material below MW 500 and less than 25% oligomeric material
below MW 1,000, and the polymer does not contain any reactive
functional groups.
    Thus, styrene- maleic anhydride ethyl amine salt copolymer meets
the criteria for a polymer to be considered low risk under 40 CFR
723.250. Based on its conformance to the criteria in this unit, no
mammalian toxicity is anticipated from dietary, inhalation, or dermal
exposure to styrene- maleic anhydride ethyl amine salt copolymer.

IV. Aggregate Exposures

    For the purposes of assessing potential exposure under this
exemption, EPA considered that styrene- maleic anhydride ethyl amine
salt copolymer could be present in all raw and processed agricultural
commodities and drinking water, and that non-occupational non-dietary
exposure was possible. The number average MW of styrene- maleic
anhydride ethyl amine salt copolymer is 1,700 daltons. Generally, a
polymer of this size would be poorly absorbed through the intact
gastrointestinal tract or through intact human skin. Since styrene-
maleic anhydride ethyl amine salt copolymer conforms to the criteria
that identify a low-risk polymer, there are no concerns for risks
associated with any potential exposure scenarios that are reasonably
foreseeable. The Agency has determined that a tolerance is not
necessary to protect the public health.

V. Cumulative Effects From Substances With a Common Mechanism of
Toxicity

    Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of FFDCA requires that, when considering
whether to establish, modify, or revoke a tolerance, the Agency
consider ``available information'' concerning the cumulative effects of
a particular pesticide's residues and ``other substances that have a
common mechanism of toxicity.''
    EPA has not found styrene- maleic anhydride ethyl amine salt
copolymer to share a common mechanism of toxicity with any other
substances, and styrene- maleic anhydride ethyl amine salt copolymer
does not appear to produce a toxic metabolite produced by other
substances. For the purposes of this tolerance action, therefore, EPA
has assumed that styrene- maleic anhydride ethyl amine salt copolymer
does not have a common mechanism of toxicity with other substances. For
information regarding EPA's efforts to determine which chemicals have a
common mechanism of toxicity and to evaluate the cumulative effects of
such chemicals, see EPA's website at http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/cumulative.

VI. Additional Safety Factor for the Protection of Infants and Children

    Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA provides that EPA shall apply an
additional tenfold margin of safety for infants and children in the
case of

threshold effects to account for prenatal and postnatal toxicity and
the completeness of the data base unless EPA concludes that a different
margin of safety will be safe for infants and children. Due to the
expected low toxicity of styrene- maleic anhydride ethyl amine salt
copolymer, EPA has not used a safety factor analysis to assess the
risk. For the same reasons the additional tenfold safety factor is
unnecessary.

VII. Determination of Safety

    Based on the conformance to the criteria used to identify a low-
risk polymer, EPA concludes that there is a reasonable certainty of no
harm to the U.S. population, including infants and children, from
aggregate exposure to residues of styrene- maleic anhydride ethyl amine
salt copolymer.

VIII. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    An analytical method is not required for enforcement purposes since
the Agency is establishing an exemption from the requirement of a
tolerance without any numerical limitation.

IX. Conclusion

    Accordingly, EPA finds that exempting residues of styrene- maleic
anhydride ethyl amine salt copolymer from the requirement of a
tolerance will be safe.

X. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This action establishes a tolerance under 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). 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 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 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 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).

XI. 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: September 13, 2021.
Marietta Echeverria,
Acting Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.

    Therefore, for the reasons stated in the preamble, EPA is amending
40 CFR chapter I 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.  180.960, add in alphabetical order the polymer ``Styrene-
maleic anhydride ethyl amine salt copolymer, minimum number average
molecular weight (in amu), 1,700'' to the table to read as follows:

Sec.  180.960  Polymers; exemptions from the requirement of a
tolerance.

* * * * *

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Polymer                              CAS No.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                              * * * * * * *
Styrene- maleic anhydride ethyl amine salt   None.
 copolymer, minimum number average
 molecular weight (in amu), 1,700.

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

[FR Doc. 2021-20411 Filed 9-20-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P