[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 144 (Wednesday, July 27, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 44901]
[FR Doc No: 2011-18909]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. EL11-52-000]

Californians for Renewable Energy, Inc., Michael E. Boyd, Robert
M. Sarvey v. California Public Utilities Commission, Pacific Gas and
Electric Company Southern California Edison Company, San Diego Gas &
Electric Company; Notice of Petition for Enforcement

    Take notice that on July 12, 2011, Californians for Renewable
Energy, Inc. (CARE), acting on behalf of its members, Michael E. Boyd,
and Robert M. Sarvey, individually, (collectively Petitioners) filed a
Petition for Enforcement, pursuant to section 210(h)(2) of the Public
Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 (PURPA), requesting the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) to exercise its authority and
initiate enforcement action against the California Public Utilities
Commission, Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Southern California
Edison Company, and San Diego Gas & Electric Company to ensure that
PURPA regulations are properly and lawfully implemented.
    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, 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. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or
before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant
    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 14 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 Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on August 1, 2011.

    Dated: July 13, 2011.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-18909 Filed 7-26-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 27 (Wednesday, February 9, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 7187]
[FR Doc No: 2011-2804]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 12632-002]

East Texas Electric Cooperative, Inc., Texas; Notice of
Availability of Environmental Assessment

February 2, 2011.
    In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission or FERC's)
regulations, 18 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 380 (Order No.
486, 52 Federal Register [FR] 47897), the Office of Energy Projects has
reviewed East Texas Electric Cooperative, Inc.'s (the Cooperative's)
application for license for the Lake Livingston Hydroelectric Project
(FERC Project No. 12632-002), located on the Trinity River near the
city of Livingston, in San Jacinto, Polk, Trinity, and Walker counties.
The project would not occupy any federal lands.
    Staff prepared an environmental assessment (EA) that analyzes the
potential environmental effects of licensing the project, and concludes
that licensing the project, with appropriate environmental protective
measures, would not constitute a major federal action that would
significantly affect the quality of the human environment.
    A copy of the EA is available for review at the Commission in the
Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at
http://www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket
number excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to
access the document. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll-free at 1-866-208-3676, or for TTY,
202-502-8659. You may also register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be notified via e-mail of new filings and
issuances related to this or other pending projects. For assistance,
contact FERC Online Support.
    For further information, contact Sarah Florentino at (202) 502-
6863, or by e-mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-2804 Filed 2-8-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


Mike Mattheisen/DC/USEPA/US

02/28/2008 02:07 PM

	To  Robert L. Falk

	Cc  Joseph Nash/DC/USEPA/US@EPA

	Subject  Fw: TSCA rulemaking re lead in consumer products intended for
children

	Mr. Falk, EPA is not considering adopting a "grace period" for
enforcement.  Requests for an extension of time are covered in
716.60(c).

In addition, below are answers that EPA recently gave to questions
submitted by another correspondent that provide some additional
clarification and guidance.

1. Persons who must submit include importers of lead and lead compounds
that are in, or part of, articles that are consumer products intended
for use by children.  The phrase “intended for use by children” is
defined in 40 CFR 710.43.

2. Health and safety studies concerning the lead and lead compounds in
articles that are consumer products intended for use by children are
among those studies that must be submitted. The types of studies that
are reportable are described at 40 CFR 716.21(a)(8)(i).  The phrase
“intended for use by children” is defined in 40 CFR 710.43

3. As a general matter, all known health and safety studies of the types
described at 40 CFR 716.21(a)(8)(i) must be reported, regardless of
their date.  However, analyzed aggregations of monitoring data are not
subject to reporting under this rule if they were based on monitoring
data acquired more than 5 years before a substance was listed under 40
CFR 716.120. 40 CFR 716.20(a)(7).  In addition, 40 CFR 716.25 provides
that persons subject to this rule are not required to search their
records for reportable information dated before January 1, 1977, unless
specifically required to do so in a rule.  Health and safety studies
dated before January 1, 1977, must nevertheless be reported if they are
known.

4. The rule only requires the reporting of unpublished health and safety
studies (defined in 40 CFR 716.3) that relate to any measurable lead
content in, or that assess children’s exposure (including
bioavailability) to lead from, consumer products intended for use by
children (except for children’s metal jewelry as described by the
Consumer Product Safety Commission in 72 FR 920 (Jan. 9, 2007)).  That
is, the amendment at 716.21(a)(8) is intended to limit reporting to only
two subsets of all possible unpublished health and safety studies.
Whether or not “product content” data constituted a health and
safety study would depend on the extent to which the information met the
considerations in 716.3.  For example, a simple, isolated list of
ingredients or an isolated analysis of product content would not likely
be considered a health and safety study, whereas an analysis of product
ingredients coupled with an evaluation of hazard or human or
environmental exposure or risks would likely be considered a health and
safety study.  Regulations governing studies to be reported and studies
not subject to reporting are found at 40 CFR 716.10 and 40 CFR 716.20,
respectively.

Mike Mattheisen

Acting Branch Chief

Chemical Information and Testing Branch

Chemical Control Division

US EPA Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics

202-564-3077

----- Forwarded by Joseph Nash/DC/USEPA/US on 02/26/2008 01:37 PM -----

"Falk, Robert L."<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
02/26/2008 01:17 PM

	To

	Tsca-hotline@EPA, <EMAIL_ADDRESS>
	cc

	"Linden, Susan P."<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
	Subject

	RE: TSCA rulemaking re lead in consumer products intended for children

I represent a number of consumer product manufacturers/importers and am
writing to obtain further guidance on the Agency's view concerning who
this rule applies to beyond the following:

Manufacturers (including importers) of costume jewelry and novelty
manufacturing (NAICS code 339914).

Manufacturers (including importers) of dolls and stuffed toys (NAICS
code 339931).

Manufacturers (including importers) of games, toys, and children’s
vehicles (NAICS code 339932).

Manufacturers (including importers) of fasteners, buttons, needles, and
pins (NAICS code 339993).

Wholesalers of toy and hobby goods, establishments with product line
12812 (NAICS code 42392).

Discount department stores (NAICS code 452112).

Warehouse clubs and supercenters (NAICS code 45291).

Please provide me with whatever guidance you have and also any
information on whether the Agency is adopting an enforcement "grace
period" for companies (especially those not specifically delineated
above or in the guidance you provide to me) that are unable to submit
the required information by the end of this month.

P.S.  I also left Mr. Nash with a voicemail message to this effect; a
response to this email will be sufficient and likely easier for all
concerned.

Robert L. Falk

Morrison & Foerster

425 Market Street

San Francisco, California 94105-2482


[Federal Register: January 28, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 17)]
[Notices]
[Page 4952-4953]
[DOCID:fr28ja09-33]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project Nos. P-2403-056; P-2721-020; P-2312-019]

Penobscot River Restoration Trust; Notice of Application for
Surrender of Licenses Accepted for Filing, Soliciting Comments, Motions
to Intervene and Protests, Ready for Environmental Analysis

    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been
filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection.
    a. Type of Application: Surrender of Licenses.
    b. Project Nos.: P-2403-056, P-2721-020, P-2312-019.
    c. Date filed: November 7, 2008.
    d. Applicant: Penobscot River Restoration Trust (Trust). PPL Maine,
LLC is the licensee for the Veazie (P-2403) and Howland (P-2721)
Projects and PPL Great Works, LLC is the licensee for the Great Works
Project (P-2312). Pursuant to the transfer orders issued January 6,
2009, the Trust is to become the licensee once the instruments of
conveyance are signed. Pursuant to the Lower Penobscot River Basin
Comprehensive Settlement Accord filed on June 25, 2004, the transfer of
ownership to the Trust is contingent upon the issuance of the license
surrender order.
    e. Name of Projects: Veazie, Howland and Great Works Hydroelectric
Projects.
    f. Location: The Veazie and Great Works Projects are located on the
Penobscot River in Penobscot County, Maine. The Howland Project is
located on the Piscataquis River in Penobscot County, Maine.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act 16 U.S.C. 791a--825r.
    h. Applicant Contact: Ms. Laura Rose Day, Penobscot River
Restoration Trust, P.O. Box 5695, Augusta, Maine 04332, Telephone (207)
430-0114, e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    i. FERC Contact: Ms. Brandi Sangunett, Telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>,
and e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    j. Deadline for filing motions to intervene and protests, comments,
recommendations is 30 days from the issuance of this notice. All
documents (original and eight copies) should be filed with: Kimberly D.
Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First
Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    k. Description of Request: The applicant proposes to surrender the
licenses for the Veazie, Great Works and Howland Hydroelectric
Projects. In addition, the applicant proposes to decommission and
remove the dams at the Veazie and Great Works Projects. Further, the
applicant proposes to decommission the powerhouse, generating units,
and existing fish ladder at the Howland Project. The applicant proposes
to keep the Howland dam in place but remove the flashboards to lower
the reservoir by 0.8 feet and create a nature-like fish bypass reach
around the south end of the dam. This application is part of a four
phase program to restore native sea-run fish through improved access to
1,000 miles of their historic habitat in the Penobscot River watershed
while also accommodating the continued generation of hydroelectric
power at specified locations.
    l. Locations of the Application: A copy of the application is
available for inspection and reproduction at the Commission's Public
Reference Room, located at 888 First Street, NE., Room 2A, Washington,
DC 20426, or by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>. This filing may also be viewed
on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov using the
``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three
digits in the docket number field to access the document. You may also
register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to
be notified via e-mail of new filings and issuances related to this or
other pending projects. For assistance, call 1-866-208-3676 or e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>for TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. A copy is
also available for inspection and reproduction at the address in item
(h) above.
    m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing
list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
    n. Comments, Protests, or Motions to Intervene: Anyone may submit
comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the
requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211,
.214. In determining the appropriate action to take, the Commission
will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only those who
file a motion to intervene in accordance with the Commission's Rules
may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments, protests, or
motions to intervene must be received on or before the specified
comment date for the particular application.
    o. Filing and Service of Responsive Documents: All filings must (1)
Bear in all capital letters the title ``COMMENTS'', ``PROTEST'', or

``MOTION TO INTERVENE''; (2) set forth in the heading the name of the
applicant and the project number of the application to which the filing
responds; (3) furnish the name, address, and telephone number of the
person protesting or intervening; and (4) otherwise comply with the
requirements of 18 CFR 385.2001 through 385.2005. All comments, motions
to intervene or protests must set forth their evidentiary basis and
otherwise comply with the requirements of 18 CFR 4.34(b). All comments,
motions to intervene or protests should relate to project works which
are the subject of the license surrender. Agencies may obtain copies of
the application directly from the applicant. A copy of any protest or
motion to intervene must be served upon each representative of the
applicant specified in the particular application. If an intervener
files comments or documents with the Commission relating to the merits
of an issue that may affect the responsibilities of a particular
resource agency, they must also serve a copy of the document on that
resource agency. A copy of all other filings in reference to this
application must be accompanied by proof of service on all persons
listed in the service list prepared by the Commission in this
proceeding, in accordance with 18 CFR 4.34(b) and 385.2010.
    p. As provided for in 18 CFR 4.34(b)(5)(i), a license applicant
must file, no later than 60 days following the date of issuance of this
notice of acceptance and ready for environmental analysis: (1) A copy
of the water quality certification; (2) a copy of the request for
certification, including proof of the date on which the certifying
agency received the request; or (3) evidence of waiver of water quality
certification.
    q. e-Filing: Comments, motions to intervene or protests may be
filed electronically via the Internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR
385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site
at http://www.ferc.gov under the ``e Filing'' link.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E9-1767 Filed 1-27-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


FILE NAME: Gowan Hexythiazox Corn. wpt ( 6/ 24/ 2005) ( xml) Template Number P25 ATTENTION:

All commodity terms must comply with the Food and Feed Commodity Vocabulary database ( http:// www. epa. gov/ pesticides/ foodfeed/).

All text in blue font ( instructions for preparing the document), should be removed prior to sending the document to the Federal Register Staff. Instructional text and prompts in green font should also be removed.

COMPANY FEDERAL REGISTER DOCUMENT SUBMISSION TEMPLATE ( 1/ 1/ 2005)

EPA Registration Division contact: George LaRocca, PM # 13, telephone ( 703) 305 6100 INSTRUCTIONS: Please utilize this outline in preparing tolerance petition documents. In cases where the outline element does not apply please insert " NA Remove" and maintain the outline. The comment notes that appear on the left margin represent hidden typesetting codes designed to expedite the processing of the Federal Register document. Please do not remove or alter these comment notes or change the margins, font, or format in your document. Simply replace the instructions that appear in italics and brackets, i. e., "[ insert company name]," with the information specific to your action.

TEMPLATE:

Gowan Company ( number not currently available)

EPA has received a pesticide petition ( number not currently available) from Gowan Company, 370 South Main Street, Yuma AZ 85364 proposing, pursuant to section 408( d) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act ( FFDCA), 21 U. S. C. 346a( d), to amend 40 CFR part 180 by establishing tolerances for residues of hexythiazox ( trans 5( 4 chlorophenyl) N cyclohexyl 4 methyl 2 oxothiazolidine 3 carboxamide) and 2 its metabolites containing the ( 4 chlorophenyl) 4 methyl 2 oxo 3 thiazolidine moiety in or on the raw agricultural commodities corn, field grain at 0.05 parts per million ( ppm) ( regional tolerance), corn, field, forage at 2.0 parts per million ( ppm) ( regional tolerance) and corn, field, stover at 2.0 parts per million ( ppm) ( regional tolerance). EPA has determined that the petition contains data or information regarding the elements set forth in section 408( d)( 2) of the FFDCA; however, EPA has not fully evaluated the sufficiency of the submitted data at this time or whether the data supports granting of the petition. Additional data may be needed before EPA rules on the petition.

A. Residue Chemistry 1. Plant metabolism. The metabolism of hexythiazox as well as the nature of the residues in plants is adequately understood for purposes of this petition. Metabolism studies were conducted in four crops; viz., pears, grapes, oranges and apples. The major residue component is unmetabolized parent. The metabolites are hydroxylcyclohexyl and ketocyclohexyl analogs of hexythiazox and the amide formed by loss of the cyclohexyl ring. Parent hexythiazox and its thiazolidine metabolites are converted to a common moiety for residue analysis.

2. Analytical method. A practical analytical method, high pressure liquid chromatography with an ultraviolet detector, which detects and measures residues of hexythiazox and its metabolites as a common moiety, is available for enforcement purposes with a limit of detection that allows monitoring of food with residues at or above the levels set in these tolerances.

3. Magnitude of residues. Three field trials were conducted in Texas and Kansas. These trials are sufficient to support regional tolerances in the Western United States. Samples of corn grain, forage and stover were analyzed. A processing study was not conducted because residues were not detected in corn grain from plots treated at 5 times the proposed application rate. Residues in corn forage sampled 45 ± 1 day after treatment averaged 0.57 ppm and ranged up to 1.38 ppm., while residues in corn stover averaged 0.36 ppm and ranged up to 0.83 ppm.

B. Toxicological Profile 1. Acute toxicity. A battery of acute toxicity studies places technical grade hexythiazox in Toxicity Category IV for acute oral lethal dose ( LD 50 ) > 5,000 milligrams per kilogram ( mg/ kg), Category III for dermal LD 50 > 5,000 mg/ kg, Category III for inhalation lethal concentration ( LC 50 ) > 2.0 milligrams per liter ( mg/ L), Category III for primary eye irritation ( mild irritation, reddened conjunctiva), and Category IV for dermal irritation ( non irritant). Hexythiazox is a non sensitizer.

NA  Remove 2. Genotoxicty. The following genotoxicity studies were all negative: Ames gene mutation, CHO chromosome aberration, mouse micronucleus and rat hepatocyte unscheduled DNA synthesis. 3 NA  Remove 3. Reproductive and developmental toxicity. In a developmental toxicity study in rats, the maternal No Observed Adverse Effect Level ( NOAEL) was 240 mg/ kg/ day and the maternal Lowest Observed Adverse Effect Level ( LOAEL) was 720 mg/ kg/ day based on increased ovarian weights and decreased bone ossification. In a developmental toxicity study in rabbits, the maternal NOAEL was 1,080 mg/ kg/ day , the highest dose tested ( HDT). The developmental LOAEL was not determined in a 2 generation reproduction study in rats; the parental NOAEL was 35 mg/ kg/ day and the parental LOAEL was 200 mg/ kg/ day based on decreased body weight gain, decreased food consumption and efficiency, and increased liver, kidney and ovarian weights. The reproductive NOAEL was 35 mg/ kg/ day and the reproductive LOAEL based on decreased pup body weight ( bwt) during lactation, delayed hair growth and eye opening. NA  Remove 4. Subchronic toxicity. In a 1 month feeding study in dogs, the NOAEL was 1.75 mg/ kg/ day and the LOAEL was 12.5 mg/ kg/ day, based on increased liver and adrenal weights. NA  Remove 5. Chronic toxicity. In a 1 year feeding study in dogs, the NOAEL was 2.5 mg/ kg/ day and the LOAEL was 12.5 mg/ kg/ day, based on increased alkaline phosphatase, increased adrenal and liver weights, and liver and adrenal lesions. In a carcinogenicity study in mice, the NOAEL was 36 mg/ kg/ day and the LOAEL was 215 mg/ kg/ day. Effects were decreased bwt in males and increased hepatocellular carcinomas and combined adenoma/ carcinomas. In a chronic feeding/ carcinogenicity study in rats, the NOAEL ( systemic) was 26 mg/ kg/ day and the LOAEL ( systemic) was 180 mg/ kg/ day based on decreased bwt gain and increased liver weights in both sexes. The chronic reference dose ( RfD) for hexythiazox is based on the 1 year dog feeding study with a NOAEL of 2.5 mg/ kg/ day and an uncertainty factor of 100. The Agency has classified hexythiazox as a category C ( possible human) carcinogen based on an increased incidence of hepatocellular carcinomas ( p = 0.028) and combined adenomas/ carcinomas ( p = 0.024) in female mice at the highest dose tested ( 1,500 ppm) when compared to the controls as well as a significantly increased ( p< 0.001) incidence of pre neoplastic hepatic nodules in both males and females at the HDT. The decision supporting a category C classification was based primarily on the fact that only one species was affected and mutagenicity studies were negative. In classifying hexythiazox as a category C carcinogen, the Agency concluded that a quantitative estimate of the carcinogenic potential for humans should be calculated because of the increased incidence of liver tumors in the female mouse. A Q1* of 0.022 mg/ kg/ day 1 in human equivalents was published in the Federal Register of October 16, 1998 ( 63 FR 55430) ( FRL 6035 2).

NA  Remove 6. Animal metabolism. The metabolism of hexythiazox has been studied in goats, hens and 4 rats. Metabolic pathways in the animal are similar to those in plants. NA  Remove 7. Metabolite toxicology. There are no metabolites of toxicological concern based on a differential metabolism between plants and animals. NA  Remove 8. Endocrine disruption. No specific tests have been conducted with hexythiazox to determine whether the chemical may have an effect in humans that is similar to an effect produced by a naturally occurring estrogen or if it has other endocrine effects. However, there were no significant findings in other relevant toxicity tests; i. e., the teratology and multigeneration studies, that would suggest that hexythiazox produces effects characteristic of the disruption of the estrogenic hormone. NA  Remove C. Aggregate Exposure 1. Dietary exposure. Tolerances have been established ( 40 CFR 180.448) for residues of hexythiazox and its metabolites containing the ( 4 chlorophenyl) 4 methyl 2 oxo 3 thiazolidine moiety in or on almond hulls, apples, wet apple pomace, the caneberry crop subgroup, cotton seed, cotton gin byproducts, dates, the stone fruit crop group, the tree nut crop group, pears, peppermint, pistachios, strawberries, milk and the meat, fat and meat byproducts of cattle, goats, horses, sheep and swine. Time limited tolerances for field corn grain, forage and stover, equal to the tolerance levels proposed here, already exist. EPA has estimated the following dietary exposures from hexythiazox in food ( Federal Register of September 29, 2000 ( 65 FR 58437) ( FRL 6746 5). NA  Remove i. Food. i. Acute exposure. For acute dietary exposure of the general population including infants and children, a dose and endpoint attributable to a single exposure were not identified by the Agency from the available oral toxicity studies. An acute RfD of 2.4 mg/ kg/ day for females 13 50 years of age was identified from the rat developmental toxicology based on delayed ossification. A conservative analysis was performed by the Agency using existing and recommended tolerance level residues and 100% crop treated ( CT) information for all commodities. The acute dietary exposure estimate for the female 13 50 year old subgroup was 0.002617 mg/ kg/ day at the 95th percentile. The registrant has concluded that the proposed use on corn will not contribute to a significant incremental increase to this dietary exposure.

ii. Chronic exposure. A partially refined deterministic analysis was performed by the Agency using anticipated residue ( AR) levels for mos crops and % CT or anticipated market share information for all crops. Dietary exposure estimates for the U. S. population were and other representative subgroups were < 0.00003 mg/ kg/ day. The registrant has concluded that the proposed use on corn will not contribute to a significant incremental increase to this dietary exposure. 5 iii. Cancer. A partially refined deterministic analysis was performed by the Agency using AR levels and % CT or anticipated market share information for all crops. The chronic dietary exposure estimate for the U. S. population was 0.000011 mg/ kg/ day. The registrant has concluded that the proposed use on corn will not contribute to a significant incremental increase in oncogenic risk.

NA  Remove ii. Drinking water. Using the Generic Expected Environmental Concentration ( GENEEC) and Screening Concentration in Ground Water ( SCI GROW) models, the Agency has calculated the estimated environmental concentrations ( EECs) of hexythiazox to be 910.32 nanograms per liter ( ng/ L) for surface water and 1.47 ng/ L for ground water. These estimates are based on a maximum application rate of 0.1875 lb active ingredient per acre.

NA  Remove 2. Non dietary exposure. The term " residential exposure" is used by the Agency to refer to non occupational, non dietary exposure; e. g., for lawn and garden pest control, indoor pest control, termiticides, and flea and tick control on pets. Hexythiazox is not registered for use on any sites that would result in residential exposure.

NA  Remove D. Cumulative Effects . EPA has not determined whether hexythiazox has a common mechanism of toxicity with other substances or how to include this pesticide in a cumulative risk assessment. Unlike other pesticides for which EPA has followed a cumulative risk approach based on a common mechanism of toxicity, hexythiazox does not share a toxic metabolite with other substances. For the purposes of this tolerance action, therefore, the registrant has not assumed that hexythiazox has a common mechanism of toxicity with other substances. For purposes of this petition the potential risks of hexythiazox in its aggregate exposure only will be considered.

E. Safety Determination EPA evaluated aggregate risks and made a determination of safety in Unit IV. D. of the Federal Register of November 10, 2004 ( 69 FR 65073). Field corn was included in that evaluation, so that evaluation remains equally valid at the present time.

1. U. S. population. i. Acute risk. Aggregate exposure risk includes exposure from food and water. For acute dietary exposure of the general population, a dose and endpoint attributable to a single exposure were not identified by the Agency from the available oral toxicity studies. For the relevant population subgroup of females 13+ years, the risk from acute " food only" exposure is less than 1% of the RfD, which is less than EPA's level of concern. The acute drinking water level of comparison ( DWLOC) 6 calculated for the relevant population subgroup of females 13+ years is 72,000 parts per billion ( ppb). The calculated DWLOC is significantly higher than the drinking water EECs for ground water ( 0.0015 ppb) and surface water ( 0.910 ppb). EPA has concluded with reasonable certainty that residues of hexythiazox in drinking water do not contribute to the acute aggregate health risk.

ii. Short and intermediate term risk. Hexythiazox is not registered for use on any sites that would result in residential exposure. Therefore the aggregate risk is the sum of the risk from food and water, which do not exceed the Agency's level of concern.

iii. Chronic risk. Aggregate chronic risk ( non cancer) exposure from " food only" exposure utilizes less than 1% of the RfD for all population subgroups. The chronic DWLOC for hexythiazox exposure in drinking water is 870 ppb for the U. S. population and 250 ppb for infants and children. The calculated DWLOCs are significantly higher than the drinking water EECs for ground water ( 0.0015 ppb) and surface water ( 0.910 ppb). EPA has concluded with reasonable certainty that residues of hexythiazox in drinking water do not contribute to the chronic ( non cancer) aggregate health risk.

iv. Cancer risk. The carcinogenic risk estimate ( food only) for the general U. S. population is < 5 x 10 7. Thus the carcinogenic dietary risk associated with the existing and proposed uses of hexythiazox does not exceed the level of concern for excess lifetime cancer risk ( 1 x 10 6). The surface water and ground water EECs were used to compare against the back calculated DWLOC for aggregate risk assessments. For the carcinogenic risk scenario, EPA calculated a DWLOC of 1.2 ppb for the U. S. population. The EECs for ground water and surface water ( 0.0015 ppb and 0.910 ppb respectively) are less than EPA's calculated DWLOC. Therefore, EPA concluded that residues of hexythiazox in drinking water do not contribute significantly to the carcinogenic aggregate human health risk.

NA  Remove 2. Infants and children. For acute dietary exposure of infants and children, a dose and endpoint attributable to a single exposure were not identified by the Agency from the available oral toxicity studies. The Agency has determined that the 10x safety factor to protect infants and children should be removed and reduced to 1x. It is concluded that there is a reasonable certainty of no harm to infants and children from aggregate exposure to hexythiazox residues. NA  Remove F. International Tolerances There are no international maximum residue limits for hexythiazox on field corn.


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 94 (Tuesday, May 15, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 22509-22510]
[FR Doc No: 2018-10244]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

[Docket No. USCG-2018-0135]

Collection of Information Under Review by Office of Management
and Budget; OMB Control Number: 1625-0068

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Thirty-day notice requesting comments.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 the
U.S. Coast Guard is forwarding an Information Collection Request (ICR),
abstracted below, to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Office
of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), requesting an extension
of its approval for the following collection of information: 1625-0068,
State Access to the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund for removal costs
under the Oil Pollution Act of 1990; without change. Our ICR describes
the information we seek to collect from the public. Review and comments
by OIRA ensure we only impose paperwork burdens commensurate with our
performance of duties.

DATES: Comments must reach the Coast Guard and OIRA on or before June
14, 2018.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by Coast Guard docket
number [USCG-2018-0135] to the Coast Guard using the Federal
eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. Alternatively, you
may submit comments to OIRA using one of the following means:
    (1) Email: [email protected].
    (2) Mail: OIRA, 725 17th Street NW, Washington, DC 20503, attention
Desk Officer for the Coast Guard.
    A copy of the ICR is available through the docket on the internet
at http://www.regulations.gov. Additionally, copies are available from:
COMMANDANT (CG-612), ATTN: PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT MANAGER, U.S. COAST
GUARD, 2703 MARTIN LUTHER KING JR AVE SE, STOP 7710, WASHINGTON, DC
20593-7710.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Anthony Smith, Office of
Information Management, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, or fax<PHONE_NUMBER>,
for questions on these documents.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Public Participation and Request for Comments

    This Notice relies on the authority of the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995; 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended. An ICR is an application to
OIRA seeking the approval, extension, or renewal of a Coast Guard
collection of information (Collection). The ICR contains information
describing the Collection's purpose, the Collection's likely burden on
the affected public, an explanation of the necessity of the Collection,
and other important information describing the Collection. There is one
ICR for each Collection. The Coast Guard invites comments on whether
this ICR should be granted based on the Collection being necessary for
the proper performance of Departmental functions. In particular, the
Coast Guard would appreciate comments addressing: (1) The practical
utility of the Collection; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden of
the Collection; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity
of information subject to the Collection; and (4) ways to minimize the
burden of the Collection on respondents, including the use of automated
collection techniques or other forms of information technology. These
comments will help OIRA determine whether to approve the ICR referred
to in this Notice.
    We encourage you to respond to this request by submitting comments
and related materials. Comments to Coast Guard or OIRA must contain the
OMB Control Number of the ICR. They must also contain the docket number
of this request, [USCG-2018-0135], and must be received by June 14,
2018.

Submitting Comments

    We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking
Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. If your material cannot be
submitted using http://www.regulations.gov, contact the person in the
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document for alternate
instructions. Documents mentioned in this notice, and all public
comments, are in our online docket at http://www.regulations.gov and
can be viewed by following that website's instructions. Additionally,
if you go to the online docket and sign up for email alerts, you will
be notified when comments are posted.
    We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted
without change to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any
personal information you have provided. For more about privacy and the
docket, you may review a Privacy Act notice regarding the Federal
Docket Management System in the March 24, 2005, issue of the Federal
Register (70 FR 15086).
    OIRA posts its decisions on ICRs online at http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain after the comment period for each ICR. An OMB Notice
of Action on each ICR will become available via a hyperlink in the OMB
Control Number: 1625-0068.

Previous Request for Comments

    This request provides a 30-day comment period required by OIRA. The
Coast Guard published the 60-day notice (83 FR 9012, March 2, 2018)
required by 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2). That Notice elicited no comments.
Accordingly, no changes have been made to the Collection.

Information Collection Request

    Title: State Access to the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund for
removal costs under the Oil Pollution Act of 1990.
    OMB Control Number: 1625-0068.
    Summary: This information collection is the mechanism for a
Governor, or their designated representative, of a state to make a
request for payment from the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund (OSLTF) in
an amount not to exceed $250,000 for removal cost consistent with the
National Contingency Plan required for the immediate removal of a
discharge, or the mitigation or prevention of a substantial threat of
discharge, of oil.
    Need: This information collection is required by, 33 CFR part 133,
for implementing 33 U.S.C. 2712 (d) (1) of the Oil Pollution Act of
1990 (OPA 90). The information provided by the state to the NPFC is
used to determine whether expenditures submitted by the state to the
OSLTF are compensable, and, where compensable, to ensure the correct
amount of reimbursement is made by the OSLTF to the state. If the
information is not collected, the Coast Guard and the National
Pollution Funds Center will be unable to justify the resulting
expenditures, and thus be unable to recover costs from the parties
responsible for the spill when they can be identified.
    Forms: None.
    Respondents: Governor of a state or their designated
representative.
    Frequency: On occasion.
    Hour Burden Estimate: The estimated annual burden remains 3 hours a
year.

    Authority: The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C.
Chapter 35, as amended.

    Dated: May 8, 2018.
James D. Roppel,
Acting Chief, U.S. Coast Guard, Office of Information Management.
[FR Doc. 2018-10244 Filed 5-14-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


December 19, 2003 Addendum to Technical Support Document, Document ID 2230 in Docket OAR 2002 0068 This is to acknowledge that document OAR 2002 0068 2230 serves as the final " Technical Support Document for the Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Nonattainment Area New Source Review: Routine Maintenance, Repair and Replacement Regulations." The document was entered into the Docket No. OAR 2002 0068 on August 27, 2003. Subsequent to submittal, the EPA is noting that, for the final document, the correct footer date should be " August 27, 2003," and the footer that reads " Internal and Deliberative Draft, Do not quote, cite, copy, or distribute" should be omitted. The EPA also acknowledges that Appendix A was not included in the final document.


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 44 (Tuesday, March 6, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 9419-9423]
[FR Doc No: 2018-04547]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Parts 27 and 29

[Docket No.: FAA-2016-9275; Amdt. No(s). 27-50, 29-57]
RIN 2120-AK91

Rotorcraft Pilot Compartment View

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is revising its rules for pilot compartment view to
allow

ground tests to demonstrate compliance for night operations. The
requirement for night flight testing to demonstrate compliance is not
necessary in every case. The revision will relieve the burden of
performing a night flight test under certain conditions.

DATES: Effective May 7, 2018.

ADDRESSES: For information on where to obtain copies of rulemaking
documents and other information related to this final rule, see ``How
To Obtain Additional Information'' in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
section of this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical questions concerning
this action, contact Clark Davenport, Aviation Safety Engineer, Safety
Management Group, Rotorcraft Directorate, FAA, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy.,
Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety is found in
Title 49 of the United States Code. 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.
    This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Sections 44701 and 44704. Under
section 44701, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing
minimum standards required in the interest of safety for the design and
performance of aircraft. Under section 44704, the Administrator issues
type certificates for aircraft, aircraft engines, propellers, and
specified appliances when the Administrator finds the product is
properly designed and manufactured, performs properly, and meets the
regulations and minimum standards prescribed under section 44701(a).
This regulation is within the scope of these authorities because it
promotes safety by updating the existing minimum prescribed standards
used during the type certification process to address an equivalent
method of showing compliance.

I. Background

A. Statement of the Problem

    The FAA's rules on airworthiness standards for the pilot
compartment in rotorcraft and the requirements for each pilot's view
from that compartment are located in parts 27 and 29 of title 14 of the
Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). Specifically, Sec. Sec.
27.773(a) and 29.773(a) require that each pilot compartment must be
free of glare and reflection that could interfere with the pilot's
view. Sections 27.773(b) and 29.773(b) require a flight test to show
compliance with paragraph (a) of their respective sections if
certification for night operations is requested. While this requirement
applies to all applicants for rotorcraft installations that may affect
the pilot's ability to see outside the aircraft, the FAA finds that a
flight test may not be the only means available to show compliance for
some modifications. The purpose of the internal lighting tests is to
determine whether the lighting creates glare and reflections within the
cockpit that could interfere with the pilot's view outside of the
aircraft.
    The FAA has conducted rotorcraft ground and flight internal
lighting tests over the past 15 years where all external lighting was
blocked from entering the cockpit on the ground evaluation and then
conducted the follow-on night flight tests. They found that the ground
test results were the same as the flight tests. Based on this
experience, the FAA concluded that the two tests will provide the same
results. The FAA has determined that creating an environment where
external light is blocked from entering the cockpit or where the
rotorcraft is placed in a darkened hangar or paint booth, provides the
same environment as a night flight test would for cockpit lighting
evaluations. The FAA has concluded that a ground test provides the same
level of safety and that the current requirements in Sec. Sec.  27.773
and 29.773 for a night flight test are imposing an unnecessary economic
burden on applicants for certification for night operations.

B. Summary of the NPRM

    On October 17, 2016, the FAA published a notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPRM), ``Rotorcraft Pilot Compartment View'' (81 FR 71412).
The FAA proposed to allow a ground test as an alternative to a night
flight test in certain cases to show compliance for night operations.
The FAA included two Draft Advisory Circulars, (AC) 27-1B,
Certification of Normal Category Rotorcraft and AC 29-2C, Certification
of Transport Category Rotorcraft, setting forth the conditions under
which a ground test would be acceptable and an acceptable means of
compliance for the ground test.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The original comment period closed on November 16, 2016. However,
the FAA did not post the associated draft advisory circulars (AC) for
public display until November 9, 2016. As a result, the FAA reopened
the comment period (81 FR 83744) until December 13, 2016.

II. Discussion of Public Comments and Final Rule

    The FAA received comments from three aviation companies (Aviation
Specialists Unlimited, Inc., Garmin International, and The Boeing
Company) and three individuals. Two of the aviation companies and an
individual supported the proposed rule. The remaining commenters
supported the rule but suggested changes, which are discussed below.

A. Ground Test Criteria

    An individual requested the FAA clearly define when a ground test
can and cannot be performed and address factors such as the amount of
interior light emissions, exterior light emissions, color of light
emissions, and focal point of light intensity.
    The FAA notes that Advisory Circular (AC) 27-1B, Certification of
Normal Category Rotorcraft and AC 29-2C, Certification of Transport
Category Rotorcraft address the individual's comments. AC 27-1B and AC
29-2C already provide qualitative general guidance to determine
appropriate testing methods.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Advisory Circular (AC) 27-1B and AC 29-2C will be posted in
Docket No. FAA-2016-9275.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Validation of Ground Testing

    An individual requested the FAA conduct tests to analyze specific
proficiencies and deficiencies of simulated night ground testing.
Alternatively, if there is already empirical and observational evidence
that proves the safety factors in ground testing, the commenter
requested this be identified in the final rule.
    The FAA's determination that a ground test provides the same level
of safety is based on the FAA's experience with cockpit lighting
evaluations for rotorcraft certification projects. The FAA found the
two tests had the same results.

C. Requirements for Night Testing

    Two individuals requested that night testing account for various
lighting scenarios. One of these individuals requested the FAA conduct
tests to ensure the accuracy of each ground test simulation using both
interior and exterior lighting effects on the rotorcraft

windshield and visibility. Another individual requested that testing
account for different outside lighting scenarios through multiple
ground tests, in both a well-lit airfield and a dark hanger.
    The intent of this rule is to allow ground tests, under certain
circumstances, to demonstrate compliance for night operations. The FAA
notes the request to add additional night testing requirements is
beyond the scope of this rulemaking. In light of the comments, the FAA
recognizes the material in the AC regarding exterior lighting may
create confusion. As a result, we have revised the AC to clarify that
exterior lighting is identified as exterior aircraft lighting only.

D. Eliminate Testing Requirement

    An aviation company requested that the FAA eliminate the
requirement to perform either a ground test or a flight test and
require instead that applicants show ``compliance.'' In support of this
request, the commenter stated the FAA and industry are generally in
agreement that regulations be performance-based without specifying a
means of compliance which, instead, is established through policy,
guidance, or industry standards.
    The requested change to eliminate testing would compromise the
level of safety intended by this rule. Because of the complexity and
variables involved in lighting interaction in rotorcraft cockpits, the
FAA has determined that either a night flight test or a ground test is
required.
    The FAA is adopting the rule as proposed.

IV. Regulatory Notices and Analyses

A. Regulatory Evaluation

    Changes to Federal regulations must undergo several economic
analyses. First, Executive Order 12866 and Executive Order 13563 direct
that each Federal agency shall propose or adopt a regulation only upon
a reasoned determination that the benefits of the intended regulation
justify its costs. Second, the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub.
L. 96-354) requires agencies to analyze the economic impact of
regulatory changes on small entities. Third, the Trade Agreements Act
(Pub. L. 96-39) prohibits agencies from setting standards that create
unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States. In
developing U.S. standards, the Trade Act requires agencies to consider
international standards and, where appropriate, that they be the basis
of U.S. standards. Fourth, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(Pub. L. 104-4) requires agencies to prepare a written assessment of
the costs, benefits, and other effects of proposed or final rules that
include a Federal mandate likely to result in the expenditure by State,
local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private
sector, of $100 million or more annually (adjusted for inflation with
base year of 1995).
    In conducting these analyses, FAA has determined that this proposed
rule: (1) Has regulatory cost savings, (2) is not an economically
``significant regulatory action'' as defined in section 3(f) of
Executive Order 12866, (3) is not ``significant'' as defined in DOT's
Regulatory Policies and Procedures; (4) would not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities; (5) would
not create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United
States; and (6) would not impose an unfunded mandate on state, local,
or tribal governments, or on the private sector by exceeding the
threshold identified above. These analyses are summarized below.
    This portion of the preamble summarizes the FAA's analysis of the
economic impacts of this rule.
    The FAA determined that this action will likely result in
regulatory cost savings. The current regulations require night flight
testing to demonstrate compliance for night operations. This rule
provides a less costly ground test as an alternative to a night flight
test for certain interior lighting modifications. Currently, the FAA
estimates the total cost for a night flight test to be $37,280. These
costs include company costs associated with a ground evaluation
($3,600); company flight test, including flight preparation ($16,240);
company preparation of the test report ($800); and FAA flight test,
including flight preparation ($16,640). Under this final rule,
companies can demonstrate compliance on the ground, thereby avoiding
the company and FAA flight test costs and saving an estimated $32,880
per demonstration. Under this rule, the total cost for a ground test is
about $4,400, which is substantially less costly than a night flight
test of $37,280.
    The FAA estimates that 10,506 helicopters in the current fleet will
be affected by the final rule. In addition, the FAA receives
approximately 120 certification project tests annually. Note that after
certification, new helicopters may not need to be upgraded in the next
10 years.\3\ However, the other helicopters will need at least 1
cockpit illumination upgrade within the next 10 years based on FAA
data. In particular, approximately 4,000 rotorcraft will have to
upgrade their automatic dependent surveillance-broadcast (ADS-B) in the
first 3 years after the rule goes into effect.\4\ All of the remaining
6,506 are expected to have cockpit lighting night testing due to
upgrading communication, surveillance systems, or navigation/electronic
indicators in the remaining 7 years.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ As a result, we do not include new helicopters in this
analysis.
    \4\ This is due to the requirements in 14 CFR 91.225, which
requires equipage by January 1, 2020. At the time of this analysis,
this equates to about 1,333 per year in the first three years. The
actual number of ADS-B related upgrades available for cost savings
may vary from this analysis depending on the publication and
implementation of this rule and the ability of all operators to
equip ADS-B by January 1, 2020.
    \5\ This equates to about 929 per year in the remaining seven
years of the period of analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As a result, this rule will relieve industry from performing higher
cost night flight tests with lower cost ground tests resulting in cost
savings. The FAA estimates industry will gain about $384.9 million in
total undiscounted cost savings over a 10-year period of analysis
[$32,880 x (10,506 tests + 1,200 certification projects)]. The FAA
estimates industry's present value cost savings to be about $277.2
million and annualized costs savings to be about $39.5 million using a
7 percent discount rate. The following table provides cost savings to
industry over a 10-year period of analysis.

                                                   Industry Cost Savings of Forgone Night Flight Tests
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                          Number of tests                               Cost savings  ($) *
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                          Year                             Certification    Rotorcraft                                    Present  value  Present  value
                                                               tests           tests           Total       Undiscounted        at 7%           at 3%
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.......................................................             120           1,333           1,453      47,785,600      44,659,439      46,393,786
2.......................................................             120           1,333           1,453      47,785,600      41,737,794      45,042,511
3.......................................................             120           1,333           1,453      47,785,600      39,007,284      43,730,593
4.......................................................             120             929           1,049      34,505,211      26,323,861      30,657,433
5.......................................................             120             929           1,049      34,505,211      24,601,739      29,764,498
6.......................................................             120             929           1,049      34,505,211      22,992,279      28,897,571
7.......................................................             120             929           1,049      34,505,211      21,488,112      28,055,895
8.......................................................             120             929           1,049      34,505,211      20,082,347      27,238,733
9.......................................................             120             929           1,049      34,505,211      18,768,549      26,445,371
10......................................................             120             929           1,049      34,505,211      17,540,700      25,675,118
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total...............................................           1,200          10,500          11,700     384,893,280     277,202,103     331,901,510
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Annualized......................................  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............      39,467,343      38,908,982
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The cost savings estimates in this table use $32,880 per forgone rotorcraft night flight test (e.g., in the first year, the undiscounted cost savings
  = $32,880 x 1,453 rotorcraft = $47.8 million).

    This rule will also save the FAA about $1,200 per forgone night
flight test from the associated preparation and reviewing of test
flight plans, reports, and testing time. The FAA will save about $14
million (undiscounted) over a 10-year period of analysis [$1,200 x
(10,506 tests + 1,200 certification projects)]. The FAA estimates its
10-year present value cost savings to be about $10 million and the
annualized cost savings to be about $1.4 million at a 7 percent
discount rate.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Determination

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-354) (RFA)
establishes ``as a principle of regulatory issuance that agencies shall
endeavor, consistent with the objectives of the rule and of applicable
statutes, to fit regulatory and informational requirements to the scale
of the businesses, organizations, and governmental jurisdictions
subject to regulation.'' To achieve this principle, agencies are
required to solicit and consider flexible regulatory proposals and to
explain the rationale for their actions to assure that such proposals
are given serious consideration. The RFA covers a wide-range of small
entities, including small businesses, not-for-profit organizations, and
small governmental jurisdictions.
    Agencies must perform a review to determine whether a rule will
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. If the agency determines that it will, the agency must
prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis as described in the RFA.
However, if an agency determines that a rule is not expected to have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities,
section 605(b) of the RFA provides that the head of the agency may so
certify and a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required. The
certification must include a statement providing the factual basis for
this determination, and the reasoning should be clear.
    This rule provides a ground test as an alternative to a night
flight test in certain cases, such as internal lighting modifications.
The requirements for a ground test are less costly and stringent than a
night flight test. Thus, this rule will relieve the industry from the
costly burden of performing night flight tests under certain
conditions. The rule will result in cost savings for small entities
affected by this rulemaking action.
    If an agency determines that a rulemaking will not result in a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities,
the head of the agency may so certify under section 605(b) of the RFA.
Therefore, as provided in section 605(b), the head of the FAA certifies
that this rulemaking will not result in a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities.

C. International Trade Impact Assessment

    The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (Pub. L. 96-39), as amended by the
Uruguay Round Agreements Act (Pub. L. 103-465), prohibits Federal
agencies from establishing standards or engaging in related activities
that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United
States. Pursuant to these Acts, the establishment of standards is not
considered an unnecessary obstacle to the foreign commerce of the
United States, so long as the standard has a legitimate domestic
objective, such as the protection of safety, and does not operate in a
manner that excludes imports that meet this objective. The statute also
requires consideration of international standards and, where
appropriate, that they be the basis for U.S. standards. The FAA has
assessed the potential effect of this rule and determined that it will
only have a domestic impact and, therefore, no effect on international
trade.

D. Unfunded Mandates Assessment

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-
4) requires each Federal agency to prepare a written statement
assessing the effects of any Federal mandate in a proposed or final
agency rule that may result in an expenditure of $100 million or more
(in 1995 dollars) in any one year by State, local, and tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector; such a mandate
is deemed to be a ``significant regulatory action.'' The FAA currently
uses an inflation-adjusted value of $155 million in lieu of $100
million. This rule does not contain such a mandate; therefore, the
requirements of Title II of the Act do not apply.

E. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)) requires
that the FAA consider the impact of paperwork and other information
collection burdens imposed on the public. The FAA has determined that
there is no new requirement for information collection associated with
this final rule.

F. International Compatibility and Cooperation

    In keeping with U.S. obligations under the Convention on
International Civil Aviation, it is FAA policy to conform to
International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Standards and
Recommended Practices to the maximum extent practicable. The FAA has
determined that there are no ICAO Standards and Recommended Practices
that correspond to these regulations.

G. Environmental Analysis

    FAA Order 1050.1F identifies FAA actions that are categorically
excluded from preparation of an environmental assessment or
environmental impact statement under the National Environmental Policy
Act in the absence of extraordinary circumstances. The FAA has
determined this rulemaking action qualifies for the categorical
exclusion identified in paragraph 5-6.6 and involves no extraordinary
circumstances.

V. Executive Order Determinations

A. Executive Order 13132, Federalism

    The FAA has analyzed this rule under the principles and criteria of
Executive Order 13132, Federalism. The agency has determined that this
action will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, or the
relationship between the Federal Government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government, and, therefore, will not have Federalism implications.

B. Executive Order 13211, Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use

    The FAA analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions
Concerning Regulations that Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use (May 18, 2001). The FAA has determined that this
action will not be a ``significant energy action'' under the executive
order and will not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the
supply, distribution, or use of energy.

C. Executive Order 13609, International Cooperation

    Executive Order 13609, Promoting International Regulatory
Cooperation, promotes international regulatory cooperation to meet
shared challenges involving health, safety, labor, security,
environmental, and other issues and to reduce, eliminate, or prevent
unnecessary differences in regulatory requirements. The FAA has
analyzed this action under the policies and agency responsibilities of
Executive Order 13609, and has determined that this action will have no
effect on international regulatory cooperation.

D. Executive Order 13771, Reducing Regulation and Controlling
Regulatory Costs

    This final rule is considered an E.O. 13771 deregulatory action.
Details on the estimated cost savings of this final rule can be found
in the rule's economic analysis, above.

VI. How To Obtain Additional Information

A. Rulemaking Documents

    An electronic copy of a rulemaking document may be obtained by
using the internet.
    1. Search the Federal eRulemaking Portal (http://www.regulations.gov);
    2. Visit the FAA's Regulations and Policies web page at http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/ or
    3. Access the Government Publishing Office's web page at http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/.
    Copies may also be obtained by sending a request (identified by
notice, amendment, or docket number of this rulemaking) to the Federal
Aviation Administration, Office of Rulemaking, ARM-1, 800 Independence
Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591, or by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>.

B. Comments Submitted to the Docket

    Comments received may be viewed by going to http://www.regulations.gov and following the online instructions to search the
docket number for this action. Anyone is able to search the electronic
form of all comments received into any of the FAA's dockets by the name
of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if
submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.).

C. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act

    The Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of
1996 requires FAA to comply with small entity requests for information
or advice about compliance with statutes and regulations within its
jurisdiction. A small entity with questions regarding this document,
may contact its local FAA official, or the person listed under the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT heading at the beginning of the preamble.
To find out more about SBREFA on the internet, visit http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/rulemaking/sbre_act/.

List of Subjects

14 CFR Part 27

    Aircraft, Aviation safety.

14 CFR Part 29

    Aircraft, Aviation safety.

The Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration amends chapter I of title 14, Code of Federal
Regulations as follows:

PART 27--AIRWORTHINESS STANDARDS: NORMAL CATEGORY ROTORCRAFT

0
1. The authority citation for part 27 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701-44702, 44704.

0
2. Amend Sec.  27.773 by revising paragraph (b) to read as follows:

Sec.  27.773  Pilot compartment view.

* * * * *
    (b) If certification for night operation is requested, compliance
with paragraph (a) of this section must be shown by ground or night
flight tests.
* * * * *

PART 29--AIRWORTHINESS STANDARDS: TRANSPORT CATEGORY ROTORCRAFT

0
3. The authority citation for part 29 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701-44702, 44704.

0
4. Amend Sec.  29.773 by revising paragraph (a)(2) to read as follows:

Sec.  29.773  Pilot compartment view.

    (a) * * *
    (2) Each pilot compartment must be free of glare and reflection
that could interfere with the pilot's view. If certification for night
operation is requested, this must be shown by ground or night flight
tests.
* * * * *

    Issued under authority provided by 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 44701(a),
and 44703 in Washington, DC.
Daniel K. Elwell,
Acting Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2018-04547 Filed 3-5-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


1/21/16 Thidiazuron Risk Mitigation Teleconference: Meeting Notes
EPA attendance: Khue Nguyen (PRD), Christina Motilall (PRD), Melissa Grable (PRD), Mark Corbin (EFED), Stephen Carey (EFED), Bill Eckel (EFED), Kathryn Montague (RD), Steve Smearman (BEAD), Sunil Ratnayake (BEAD), Monisha Kaul (BEAD)
Industry attendance (via teleconference): Danielle Larochelle (Nufarm), Jamin Huang (Bayer), Trish Sheehy (Adama), Rodney Akers (Arysta), Chris Mason (Loveland), Eric Henry (Bayer), Brad Glenn (Bayer), Alex Nikolakis (Bayer)
Notes:
EPA was supportive of thidiazuron's continued registration as it was a chemical with low risks and high benefits.  EPA was primarily interested in addressing spray drift risk to certain sensitive dicots (ex. lettuce).  EPA proposed via email correspondence (dated 1/13/16) the following proposed risk mitigation measures for the thidiazuron labels, with the goal of achieving greater protection from spray drift and more parity between all the different labels:
   1.  	No aerial application within 0.5 miles of lettuce (this language already appears on some labels)
   2.	No aerial application within 5 miles upwind of citrus in flush (this language already appears on some labels)
   3.	No ground application within 100 feet of lettuce (this language already appears on some labels)
   4.	No ground application within 0.5 miles upwind from citrus (this language already appears on some labels)
   5.	Apply with medium or coarser spray (according to ASAE standard 572) for standard nozzles for both aerial and ground applications (this language already appears on some labels)
   6.	When using ground application, apply with nozzle height no more than 2 feet above the ground or crop canopy (this language already appears on some labels)
   7.	Mixtures with organophosphates can increase non-target crop phytotoxicity. Additional care should be exercised when lettuce, citrus, cantaloupes or any other edible crops are adjacent to treated cotton fields (this language already appears on some labels).
   8.	Maximum application rate of 0.3 pounds of active ingredient per acre per year (this was RED risk mitigation, this language already appears on most labels, all registrants need to check that this appears on their label).
   9.	Maximum of 2 applications, but not to exceed 0.3 pounds of active ingredient per acre per year (this language already appears on some labels)
   10.	Minimum retreatment interval of 21 days (this language already appears on some labels)

Industry unanimously agreed to implement measures 1-9, but had comments on item number 10.  Nufarm was concerned about the 21-day minimum retreatment interval (MRI) restriction and thought it was unjustified for several reasons:
 the 21 day MRI requirement that appears on some thidiazuron labels was for products co-formulated with diuron and was meant to satisfy the diuron RED requirements
 the thidiazuron RED did not specify a requirement for a 21-day MRI
 the 21-day MRI restriction interferes with situations where two successive applications of thidiazuron are needed to ensure adequate defoliation.  Often a second application of defoliant is applied approximately 7 days after the first application.
 The 21-day MRI restriction is not supported by current dissipation data for thidiazuron

There was some discussion about the single application rate of thidiazuron, the maximum application rate of thidiazuron, and the thidiazuron application rates on thidiazuron/diuron labels and how it related to the 21-day MRI restriction, but it was difficult to understand over the phone.
EPA suggested that Nufarm submit comments via email so EPA could fully review.  Nufarm agreed to submit comments separately via email.  EPA stated it would follow up regarding item 10 once it had a chance to review comments.
EPA discussed next steps for thidiazuron.  EPA intended to publish the proposed interim decision for public comment in March 2016.  EPA intended to require the full suite of pollinator data for thidiazuron in a GDCI to be issued in the near future, noting that industry would not have to initiate tier 2 and tier 3 pollinator testing until EPA had completed tier 1 pollinator screening and given notice that tier 2 and tier 3 data were required.
Industry thought that additional pollinator data were unjustified since current data indicates that thidiazuron is not very toxic to bees.  EPA said that requiring additional pollinator data was consistent with its new policy for pollinator risk assessment.  Thidiazuron was among a list of many chemicals with additional pollinator data requirements.  In addition, exposure to pollinators could not be precluded because cotton flowering was intermittent and some flower buds may still be open during thidiazuron application.
The meeting was subsequently disbanded.


[Federal Register: November 20, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 225)]
[Notices]
[Page 70391-70392]
[DOCID:fr20no08-103]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Proposed Collection; Comment Request

Upon Written Request, Copy Available From: Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of Investor Education and Advocacy, Washington, DC
20549-0213

Extension:
    Form N-6F, SEC File No. 270-185, OMB Control No. 3235-0238.

    Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange
Commission (the ``Commission'') is soliciting comments on the
collection of information summarized below. The Commission plans to
submit this existing collection of information to the Office of
Management and Budget for extension and approval.
    The title for the collection of information is ``Form N-6F (17 CFR
274.15), Notice of Intent to be Subject to Sections 55 through 65 of
the Investment Company Act of 1940.'' The purpose of Form N-6F is to
allow business development companies to

take advantage of the less burdensome regulatory provisions available
to such companies under the Investment Company Act of 1940 (15 U.S.C.
80a-1 et seq.) (``1940 Act'').
    Certain companies may have to make a filing with the Commission
before they are ready to elect to be regulated as a business
development company.\1\ A company that is excluded from the definition
of ``investment company'' by Section 3(c)(1) of the 1940 Act because it
has fewer than one hundred shareholders and is not making a public
offering of its securities may lose such an exclusion solely because it
proposes to make a public offering of securities as a business
development company. Such a company, under certain conditions, would
not lose its exclusion if it notifies the Commission on Form N-6F of
its intent to make an election to be regulated as a business
development company. The company only has to file a Form N-6F once.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ A company might not be prepared to elect to be subject to
Sections 55 through 65 of the 1940 Act because its capital structure
or management compensation plan is not yet in compliance with the
requirements of those sections.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It is estimated that 6 respondents per year file with the
Commission a Form N-6F. Form N-6F requires approximately 0.5 burden
hours per response resulting from creating and filing the information
required by the Form. The total burden hours for Form N-6F would be 3
hours per year in the aggregate. The estimated annual burden of 3 hours
represents an increase from the prior estimate of 1 hour. This increase
in burden hours is attributable to an increase in the total number of
respondents from 2 to 6.
    The estimate of average burden hours for Form N-6F is made solely
for the purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act and is not derived from
a comprehensive or even representative survey or study of the costs of
Commission rules and forms.
    Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed
collections of information are necessary for the proper performance of
the functions of the agency, including whether the information will
have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of
the burden of the collections of information; (c) ways to enhance the
quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (d)
ways to minimize the burden of the collections of information on
respondents, including through the use of automated collection
techniques or other forms of information technology. Consideration will
be given to comments and suggestions submitted in writing within 60
days of this publication.
    Please direct your written comments to Lewis W. Walker, Acting
Director/CIO, Securities and Exchange Commission, C/O Shirley
Martinson, 6432 General Green Way, Alexandria, VA 22312; or send an e-
mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Dated: November 13, 2008.
Florence E. Harmon,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-27581 Filed 11-19-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P