[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 28 (Friday, February 10, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 7149]
[FR Doc No: 2012-3154]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[ER-FRL-9001-5]

Environmental Impacts Statements; Notice of Availability

    Responsible Agency: Office of Federal Activities, General
Information<PHONE_NUMBER> or http://www.epa.gov/compliance/nepa/.
Weekly receipt of Environmental Impact Statements
Filed 01/30/2012 Through 02/03/2012
Pursuant to 40 CFR 1506.9.

Notice

    Section 309(a) of the Clean Air Act requires that EPA make public
its comments on EISs issued by other Federal agencies. EPA's comment
letters on EIS are available at: http://www.epa.gov/compliance/nepa/eisdata.html.

EIS No. 20120027, Final EIS, FERC, CA, Eagle Mountain Pumped Storage
Hydroelectric Project, Licensing Application for Eagle Mountain Mine,
near the Town of Desert Center, Riverside County, CA, Review Period
Ends: 03/12/2012, Contact: Kenneth Hogan<PHONE_NUMBER>.
EIS No. 20120028, Draft EIS, USACE, CA, Clearwater Program, To Meet the
Wastewater Management Needs of the Joint Outfall System (JOS) Through
the Year 2050, near San Pedro, Section 404 Permit, Los Angeles County,
CA, Comment Period Ends: 03/26/2012, Contact: Dr. Aaron O. Allen 805-
585-2148.
EIS No. 20120029, Final EIS, FHWA, NC, Mid-Currituck Bridge Study,
Transportation Improvements in the Currituck Sound Area, US-158 and NC
12, USACE Section 404 Permit, Currituck and Dare Counties, NC, Review
Period Ends: 03/12/2012, Contact: John Sullivan<PHONE_NUMBER>.
EIS No. 20120030, Final EIS, FHWA, AL, Helena Bypass Construction, from
Shelby County Road 52 in Helena to State Route 261 near Bearden Road,
Funding, USACE Section 404 Permit, Shelby County, AL, Review Period
Ends: 03/12/2012, Contact: Mark D. Bartlett<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: February 7, 2012.
Cliff Rader,
Director, NEPA Compliance Division, Office of Federal Activities.
[FR Doc. 2012-3154 Filed 2-9-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

WASHINGTON D.C., 20460

OFFICE  OF

PREVENTION, PESTICIDES AND

TOXIC SUBSTANCES

PC Code: 268800

DP Barcode: D349254

September 3, 2008

MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT:	Drinking Water Assessment for the IR-4 Registration for the New
Uses of      Dimethomorph for New Uses on Ginseng, Lima Beans, Grapes
and Turnip     Greens for Use in Human Health Risk Assessment

TO:		Sidney Jackson, Risk Manager Reviewer

		Daniel Rosenblatt, Branch Chief

		Risk Integration Minor Use and Emergency Response Branch

		Registration Division (7505P)

AND:		William Drew, Chemist

		Registration Action Branch II

		Registration Division (7505P)

		Environmental Risk Branch V

		Environmental Fate and Effects Division (7507P)

THROUGH:	Mah Shamim, Branch Chief

		Environmental Risk Branch V

		Environmental Fate and Effects Division (7507P)

This memo presents the Tier I Estimated Surface Drinking Water
Concentrations and Estimated Ground Water Concentrations (EDWCs) for
Dimethomorph, calculated using the Tier I aquatic models FIRST and
SCI-GROW, respectively, for use in the human health risk assessment.  It
was found that broccoli (representative of brassica head and stem) is
still the use with the major exposure and the highest percent crop area
(PCA), and, therefore, the drinking waters assessment results do not
change from the previous ones.  The previous Drinking Waters Assessment
(DWA) still applies. An electronic copy of the previous assessment is
attached.

The Estimated Drinking Water Concentrations (EDWCs) for dimethomorph
were calculated based on a maximum application rate of 1.4 lb
a.i./A/season.  The acute drinking water concentration in surface water
is 81.1 ppb of dimethomorph, based on applications of the chemical to
broccoli.  The cancer/chronic surface drinking water concentration is
24.7 ppb (based on applications to broccoli).  The SCI-GROW generated
EDWC is 0.264 ppb of dimethomorph, which is recommended for use, both
for acute and chronic exposures.  Table I provides a summary of the Tier
I modeled drinking water concentrations.  Should there be a need for
additional refinements, the EFED can perform a Tier II aquatic
assessment, for surface waters.

Data Gaps and Uncertainties:

There are uncertainties in this assessment related to the mobility
studies.  Three studies are available, but two of them were conducted
with foreign soils.  They indicated more mobility than the study
conducted with domestic soils.  Furthermore, the metabolism studies
showed high levels of nonextractable residues.  At this time, it appears
that there are no terrestrial field dissipation studies, to confirm what
happened in the laboratory.

Table 1.  Maximum Tier I Estimated  Drinking Water Concentrations
(EDWCs) for drinking water  risk assessment based on aerial application
of dimethomorph.

DRINKING WATER SOURCE (MODEL USED) 	USE (rate modeled)	MAXIMUM ESTIMATED
DRINKING WATER CONCENTRATION (EDWC) (ppb)

Groundwater             (SCI-GROW)	Broccoli  (1.4 lb a.i./A)	Acute and
chronic	0.264

Surface water        (FIRST)	Broccoli  (1.4 lb a.i./A)	Acute	81.1

	Broccoli  (1.4 lb a.i./A)	Chronic	      24.7

Use Characterization

Table 2 is an updated summary of all agricultural use patterns for
dimethomorph.  The highlighted uses are the proposed new ones under IR-4
petition.  The bolded and underlined use is the one modeled (also with a
special border).  The use information was obtained from the proposed
label for ACROBAT® 50WP Fungicide, and the proposed label for Forum™
Fungicide.

Table 2.  Summary use information for dimethomorph, based on ACROBAT®
50WP Fungicide label (EPA Reg. No. 241-410), containing 50.0% a.i. and
Forum™ Fungicide label (EPA Reg. No. 241-427), containing 43.1% a.i.

Use	Single App. Rate (lb a.i./A)	No. of Apps.	Seasonal App. Rate (lb
a.i./A)	Interval Between Apps. (day)	App. Method	Incorpo-ration Depth
(in)

Bulb Vegetable (Garlic, leek, onion, shallot)	0.2	5	1.0	5	Ground,
aerial, chemigation	0

Cucurbit vegetable (chayote, cantaloupe, Chinese waxgourd, citron melon,
cucumber, gherkin, edible gourd, momordica spp., muskmelon, pumpkin,
squash, winter watermelon, summer squash)	0.2	5	1.0	5	Ground, aerial,
chemigation	0

Fruiting vegetable group (except tomato) (eggplant, ground cherry,
pepino, pepper, tomatillo)	0.2	5	1.0	5	Ground, aerial, chemigation	0

Leafy brassica greens	0.2	5	1.0	7	Ground, aerial, chemigation	0

Hops	0.2	3	0.6	10	Ground, aerial, chemigation	0

Lettuce (head and leaf)	0.2	5	1.0	5	Ground, aerial, chemigation	0

Potato	0.2	5	1.0	5	Ground, aerial, chemigation	0

Taro	0.2	5	1.0	7	Ground, aerial, chemigation	0

Tobacco	0.25	4	1.0	5	Ground, aerial, chemigation	0

Tomato-Non-staked	0.2	5	1.0	5	Ground, aerial, chemigation	0

Tomato-Staked	0.2	5	1.0	5	Ground, aerial, chemigation	0

Brassica, head and stem, subgroup 5A (broccoli, Brussels sprouts,
cabbage, Chinese cabbage {napa}, Chinese mustard, cauliflower, cavalo
broccolo, kohlrabi	0.2	7	1.4	7	Ground, aerial, chemigation	0

Ginseng	0.2	5	1.0	7	Ground, chemigation	0

Lima beans	0.2	5	1.0	7	Ground, aerial, chemigation	0

Grape and Grape raising	0.2	5	1.0	7	Ground, aerial, chemigation*	0

Turnip greens	0.2	5	1.0	7	Ground, aerial, chemigation	0

*Do not apply West of the Rocky Mountains.

COPY

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

WASHINGTON D.C., 20460

OFFICE  OF

PREVENTION, PESTICIDES AND

TOXIC SUBSTANCES

PC Code: 268800

DP Barcode: D328740

April 26, 2006

MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT:		Drinking Water Assessment for the IR-4 registration for the
new uses of         dimethomorph for use on brassica head and stem
subgroup 5A.

TO:			Barbara Madden, Risk Manager Reviewer

			Daniel Rosenblatt, Risk Manager

			Registration Division (7505P)

AND:			John Redden, Team Leader

			Technical Review Branch

			Registration Division (7505P)

FROM:		José Luis Meléndez, Chemist

			Environmental Risk Branch V

			Environmental Fate and Effects Division

THROUGH:		Karen Whitby, Acting Branch Chief

			Environmental Risk Branch V

			Environmental Fate and Effects Division (7507P)

This memo presents the Tier I Estimated Surface Drinking Water
Concentrations and Estimated Ground Water Concentrations (EDWCs) for
Dimethomorph, calculated using the Tier I aquatic models FIRST and
SCI-GROW, respectively, for use in the human health risk assessment.

The Estimated Drinking Water Concentrations (EDWCs) for dimethomorph
were calculated based on a maximum application rate of 1.4 lb
a.i./A/season.  The acute drinking water concentration in surface water
is 81.1 ppb of dimethomorph, based on applications of the chemical to
broccoli (representative of brassica head and stem).  The cancer/chronic
drinking water concentration is 24.7 ppb (based on applications to
broccoli, highest application rate).  The SCI-GROW generated EDWC is
0.264 ppb of dimethomorph, which is recommended for use, both for acute
and chronic exposures.  Table I provides a summary of the Tier I modeled
drinking water concentrations.  Should there be a need for additional
refinements, the EFED can perform a Tier II aquatic assessment, for
surface waters.

COPY

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Dimethomorph’s full chemical name is (E,Z)
4-[3-(4-chlorophenyl)-3-(3,4-dimethoxyphenyl)-1-oxo-2-propenyl]
morpholine, CAS# 110488-70-5, and PC code 268800.  The CAS# for the E
diatereoisomer is 113210-97-2.  The CAS# for the Z diastereoisomer is
113210-98-3.  Its’ structure has three rings, two of which are
phenyl-type rings (refer to structure in Appendix D).

Dimethomorph is a systemic fungicide which protects plants from molds,
as well as killing molds on plants and preventing their spread. It is a
cinnamic acid derivative and a member of the morpholine chemical family.
 It’s mode of action is the inhibition of sterol (ergosterol)
synthesis.  It is a mixture of two isomers (E and Z) but only the Z
isomer has fungicidal activity. It is available as a wettable powder.
The use proposed in this IR4 (Interregional Research Project No. 4) is
brassica head stem and stem subgroup 5A.  It is to be applied as a
foliar spray.

This is a Tier I screening drinking waters assessment using Tier I
aquatic models SCI-GROW and FIRST, and maximum application rates for
dimethomorph, with minimum interval between applications.  It was found
that the worst case scenario was brassica head and steam group
(represented by broccoli) for dimethomorph, with the highest seasonal
application rate, and the highest PCA.  There were no major degradates
observed in the aerobic soil metabolism study; therefore, no degradates
were modeled in this exercise.  Should additional refinements of the
assessment are needed, the EFED can schedule a higher Tier analysis.

There are uncertainties in this assessment related to the mobility
studies.  Three studies are available, but two of them were conducted
with foreign soils.  They indicated more mobility than the study
conducted with domestic soils.  Furthermore, the metabolism studies
showed high levels of nonextractable residues.  At this time, it appears
that there are no terrestrial field dissipation studies, to confirm what
happened in the laboratory.

The proposed use involved in this action is for the following IR4
tolerance petition:  brassica head and stem, subgroup 5A.  It includes
broccoli, Chinese broccoli, Brussels sprouts, cabbage, Chinese cabbage
{napa}, Chinese mustard, cauliflower, cavalo broccoli and hohlrabi
(refer to highlighted section of Table 2 for additional details).

Table 1.  Maximum Tier I Estimated  Drinking Water Concentrations
(EDWCs) for drinking water  risk assessment based on aerial application
of dimethomorph.

DRINKING WATER SOURCE (MODEL USED) 	USE (rate modeled)	MAXIMUM ESTIMATED
DRINKING WATER CONCENTRATION (EDWC) (ppb)

Groundwater (SCIGROW)	Broccoli  (1.4 lb a.i./A)	Acute and chronic	0.264

Surface water

(FIRST)	Broccoli  (1.4 lb a.i./A)	Acute	81.1

	Broccoli  (1.4 lb a.i./A)	Chronic	 24.7

COPY

PROBLEM FORMULATION

This is a Tier I drinking water assessment that uses modeling to
estimate the groundwater and surface water concentrations in drinking
water source (pre-treatment), resulting from pesticide use on sites that
are highly vulnerable. This initial tier screens out chemicals with low
potential riskand allows OPP to focus resources on more refined risk
assessments for chemicals which potentially present more significant
risks. This drinking water assessment will report potential exposure
concentrations for the human health dietary risk assessment and provide
a clear and transparent description of how those concentrations were
determined.

ANALYSIS

Use Characterization

Table 2 is a summary of all agricultural use patterns for dimethomorph.
The highlighted use is the proposed new one under IR4 petition.  The use
information was obtained from the current label for ACROBAT® 50WP
Fungicide, and the proposed label for the same product.

Table 2.  Summary use information for dimethomorph, based on ACROBAT®
50WP Fungicide label (EPA Reg. No. 241-410), containing 50.0% a.i., and
50.0% inerts.  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1

USE	SINGLE APP RATE      (lb a.i./A)	NO. OF APPS.	SEASONAL APP. RATE (lb
a.i./A)	INTERVAL BETWEEN APPS. (days)	APP. METHOD	INCORPORATION DEPTH
(inches)

Bulb Vegetable (Garlic, leek, onion, shallot)	0.2	5	1.0	5	Ground,
aerial, chemigation	0

Cucurbit vegetable (chayote, cantaloupe, Chinese waxgourd, citron melon,
cucumber, gherkin, edible gourd, momordica spp., muskmelon, pumpkin,
squash, winter watermelon, summer squash)	0.2	5	1.0	5	Ground, aerial,
chemigation	0

Fruiting vegetable group (except tomato) (eggplant, ground cherry,
pepino, pepper, tomatillo)	0.2	5	1.0	5	Ground, aerial, chemigation	0

Leafy brassica greens	0.2	5	1.0	7	Ground, aerial, chemigation	0

Hops	0.2	3	0.6	10	Ground, aerial, chemigation	0

Lettuce (head and leaf)	0.2	5	1.0	5	Ground, aerial, chemigation	0

Potato	0.2	5	1.0	5	Ground, aerial, chemigation	0

Taro	0.2	5	1.0	7	Ground, aerial, chemigation	0

Tobacco	0.25	4	1.0	5	Ground, aerial, chemigation	0

Tomato-Non-staked	0.2	5	1.0	5	Ground, aerial, chemigation	0

Tomato-Staked	0.2	5	1.0	5	Ground, aerial, chemigation	0

Brassica, head and stem, subgroup 5A (broccoli, Brussels sprouts,
cabbage, Chinese cabbage {napa}, Chinese mustard, cauliflower, cavalo
broccolo, hohlrabi	0.2	7	1.4	7	Ground, aerial, chemigation	0

ACROBAT® 50WP Fungicide is a wettable powder.  It may be applied by
ground methods, chemigation, or aerially.  There are no buffer zone
restrictions in this label.  Usually the maximum seasonal application
rate is 1.0 lb a.i./A.  For the proposed new use (IR4 petition), the
maximum seasonal application rate is 1.4 lb a.i./A.  Thorough coverage
is required to obtain maximum benefit and minimize the potential for
resistance.

The use pattern selected for drinking water modeling was the proposed
new use (brassica head and stem), and the representative crop was
broccoli.  It was selected because it involves the maximum application
rate, and hence, the maximum exposure.  Furthermore, it has the maximum
PCA (the default of 0.87).

Fate and Transport Characterization

Table 3 provides a detailed summary of physical/chemical and
environmental fate/transport properties of dimethomorph, including
measured parameters, values, data sources, and comments.

Table 3.  Summary of physical/chemical and environmental fate and
transport properties of dimethomorph.  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1

PARAMETER	VALUES (s) (units)	SOURCE	COMMENT

  Chemical Name
4-[3-(4-chlorophenyl)-3-(3,4-dimethoxyphenyl)-1-oxo-2-propenyl]morpholin
e

(EZ)-4-[3-(4-chlorophenyl)-3-(3,4-dimethoxyphenyl)acryloyl] morpholine
–	CAS name

IUPAC name

  Molecular Weight	387.86	–	–

  Solubility (20ºC)	E isomer: at pH 5 13 mg/L, at pH 7 12 mg/L, at pH 9
11 mg/L

Z isomer: at pH 5 6 mg/L, at pH 7 6 mg/L, at pH 9  5 mg/L	--	–

  Melting Point	127-148ºC	Tomlin (ed.)	Z isomer169.2-170.2ºC E
isomer135.7-137.5ºC

  Bulk Density	1318 Kg/m3	Tomlin (ed.)	--

  Solubility (20-23ºC)     (g/L)	Acetone: 15 (Z), 88 (E); cyclohexanone
27(Z); dichloromethane 315 (Z); dimethylformamide 40 (Z), 272 (E);
hexane 0.02 (Z), 0.04 (E); methanol 7 (Z); toluene 7 (Z)	Tomlin (ed.)	_

  Vapor Pressure (20ºC)	E isomer 7.3 x 10-9 mmHg

Z isomer 7.5 x 10-9 mmHg	Tomlin (ed.)	–

  Henry’s Law Constant	2.06-2.13 x 10-10 atm-m3/mole	--	Estimated from
vapor pressure and water solubility.

  pKa (20ºC)	Not available	--	–

  Octanol-Water Partition   Coefficient

  Kow, at 20º	479	Tomlin (ed.)	log KOW = 2.68

  Hydrolysis Half-life

  (pH 4, 7, 9 [70 or        90ºC])	stable	MRID: 43917226.	Stable at all
pHs for a period of 10 weeks.

  Aquous Photolysis Half-   life

  (pH 5)	t1/2  = 50-56 days	MRID: 43917227.	Value corresponds to 12 hour
photocycle in midsummer, uncorrected half-life with continuous
irradiation was 25-28 days.

  Soil photolysis half-    life	t1/2  = 75 days	MRID: 43917228.
Continuous irradiation with a xenon arc lamp.

  Aerobic Soil Metabolism   Half-life	t1/2  = 66 days

t1/2  = 117 days

	MRID: 43917229, 43917230.	Study yielding a half-life of 66 days was
deemed supplemental.  Both studies were performed with foreign soils
(British, German).

  Anaerobic Soil           Metabolism

  Half-life	DT50 ~ 5-10 days

DT50 < 20 days

t½ = 26.2 and 25.7 days	MRID 43917231, 43917232, 44780201	Supplemental
studies; system was dosed with Lucerne meal when the flasks were made
anaerobic.  Other study also supplemental.

  Anaerobic Aquatic        Metabolism

  Half-life	<1 day

<1 day

	MRID: 43917233.	Supplemental studies.

  Aerobic Aquatic          Metabolism

  Half-life	      Not Available	NA	--

  Organic Carbon           Partition

  Coefficient (KOC)	566, 402, 290, 515, 377, 388, 316, 1588, 1158, 1485,
787 mL/gOC

	MRID: 46235734, 43917235, 44780202.	Various foreign soils, two soils
tested twice (once in each study).  The last four readings were
performed with domestic soils (acceptable).

  Soil Partition           Coefficient (Kd)	4.47, 11.67, 2.09, 4.94,
8.51, 2.72, 3.03, 15.7, 10.1, 19.0, 11.9

mL/g

  Terrestrial Field        Dissipation

  Half-life	Not available	NA	--

The major routes of dissipation of dimethomorph appear to be metabolism,
which is moderate (66-117 days aerobic and around 26 days anaerobic).
Another possible route of dissipation is leaching, since 5 out of the 11
Kd values were less than 5.  Based on the FAO mobility classification,
the KOC values range from moderately mobile to slightly mobile.
Dimethomorph can reach adjacent bodies of water via spray drift or
through runoff dissolved in the water or partly adsorbed to eroding
particles depending on the properties of the soil.  Dimethomorph has
some potential to be persistent, however there are uncertainties in the
database that do not allow one to reach concrete conclusions.

One aspect of dimethomorph is that the diastereoisomer that is active is
the Z one.  In the last anaerobic soil metabolism and in the aqueous
photolysis studies, it was observed that there was conversion of the E
isomer to the Z isomer (the one that is active). This phenomenon could
have an impact in the assessments if the Z isomer is more toxic than the
E isomer.

There is also uncertainty with respect to the formation of
transformation products.  In the aerobic soil metabolism no major
transformation products were detected but large amounts of unextracted
material were observed.  In the last anaerobic soil metabolism study
(supplemental), two transformation products were observed:  p-desmethyl
dimethomorph and m-desmethyl dimethomorph.  No information on any other
transformation product could be gathered and no degradation pathway
could be traced for dimethomorph.

There is also uncertainty with respect to two mobility studies that were
deemed supplemental because they were conducted with foreign soils.
These studies yielded smaller Kd‘s and KOC‘s than the study
conducted with domestic soils.

Dimethomorph is not likely to bioaccumulate substantially in fish or
other aquatic organisms as indicated by its low octanol/water partition
coefficient (479).

Table 4.  Summary of degradate formation from degradation of
dimethomorph

STUDY TYPE	SOURCE	DEGRADATE and MAXIMUM CONCENTRATION

p-desmethyl dimethomorph  (% applied)	m-desmethyl dimethomorph (%
applied)	DEG3 (% applied)

  Hydrolysis	  MRID: 43917226.	--	–	–

  Aqueous Photolysis	  MRID: 43917227.	--	--	–

  Soil Photolysis	  MRID: 43917228.	--	--	–

  Aerobic Soil         Metabolism	  MRID: 43917230,         43917229.	--
–	–

  Anaerobic Soil       Metabolism	MRID: 43917231,   43917232.	Observed
Observed 	--

  Aerobic Aquatic      Metabolism	Not Available	--	–	–

  Anaerobic Aquatic    Metabolism

	MRID: 43917233.	--	–	–

  Terrestrial Field    Dissipation	Not Available	--	–	–

Drinking Water Exposure Modeling

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1

Models

SCI-GROW (Screening Concentration in Ground Water) is a regression model
used as a screening tool for ground water used as drinking water.
SCIGROW was developed by regressing the results of Prospective Ground
Water studies against the Relative Index of Leaching Potential (RILP).
The RILP is a function of aerobic soil metabolism and the soil-water
partition coefficient.  The output of SCI-GROW represents the
concentrations that might be expected in shallow unconfined aquifers
under sandy soils, which is representative of the ground water most
vulnerable to pesticide contamination likely to serve as a drinking
water source.  (Ref. 2)

FIRST (FQPA Index Reservoir Screening Tool) is a screening model
designed by the Environmental Fate and Effects Division (EFED, 2001a) of
the Office of Pesticide Programs to estimate the concentrations found in
drinking water from surface water sources for use in human health risk
assessment.  As such, it provides upper bound values on the
concentrations that might be found in drinking water due to the use of a
pesticide.  FIRST is a single event model (one runoff event), but can
account for spray drift from multiple applications.  Spray drift
(resulting in direct deposition of the pesticide into the reservoir) is
assumed to be 16% of the applied active ingredient for aerial
application, 6.3% for orchard air blast application, and 6.4% for other
ground spray application.  FIRST is hardwired to represent the Index
Reservoir, a standard water body used by the Office of Pesticide
Programs to assess drinking water exposure (Office of Pesticide
Programs, 2002).  It is based on a real reservoir (albeit not currently
in active use as a drinking water supply), Shipman City Lake in
Illinois, that is known to be vulnerable to pesticide contamination. The
single runoff event moves a maximum of 8% of the applied pesticide into
the reservoir.  This amount can be reduced due to degradation on the
field and the effects of binding to soil in the field.  FIRST also uses
a Percent Cropped Area (PCA) factor to adjust for the area within the
watershed that is planted to the modeled crop.  The default agricultural
PCA is 0.87.  (Ref. 3 and 4)

For volatile and semi-volatile compounds, Tier I modeling will tend to
over-estimate EDWCs because there are no parameters in SCI-GROW and
FIRST that explicitly take into account volatility (ie., no vapor
pressure input).  Therefore, in reality, more of the compound will be
volatilizing than Tier I can account for.  If drinking water levels of
concern are exceeded for over-estimated Tier I EDWCs, Tier II modeling
will be able to refine these EDWCs by including volatility
considerations.

Modeling Approach and Input Parameters

Table 5 provides the input parameter values used for modeling of
dimethomorph using SCI-GROW.  Table 6 provides the input parameter
values used for modeling of dimethomorph using FIRST.  As indicated
earlier, no degradates were included in the modeling because none
exceeded 10% of the applied in the aerobic soil metabolism study.

There were three batch equilibrium studies yielding 11 Kd‘s and
KOC‘s.  Two studies were conducted with foreign soils and yielded
lower K values than the study conducted with domestic soils.  The lowest
non-sand Kd was selected (as opposed to the KOC).   Of the two
solubilities (one for the Z and for the E isomers), the highest one was
selected.  Since there was no aerobic aquatic metabolism data and the
chemical is stable to hydrolysis, twice the input for the aerobic soil
metabolism was used.  In general, the EFED guidance for the selection of
input parameters for FIRST and SCI-GROW was used.  The new version of
FIRST V1.1.0 was utilized.

The Percent Cropped Area (PCA) used in this drinking water assessment
was 0.87.  It is the default value for “other crops” for which there
is no PCA.  It is also the maximum PCA available.

Table 5. SCI-GROW (v2.3) input parameter values for dimethomorph use on
broccoli1.

PARAMETER (units)	VALUE(S)	SOURCE	COMMENT

Maximum Application Rate (lb a.i./A)	0.2	Label ACROBAT® WP Fungicide.
–

Number of Applications per Year	7	Label ACROBAT® WP Fungicide.
Represents most-conservative scenario with the maximum number of
applications.

Organic Carbon Partition Coefficient (Koc; mL/g)	515	MRID: 43917234,
43917235, 44780202.	Median value out of 11 available.  It is noted that
there is more than a five-fold difference in the range.

Aerobic Soil Metabolism Half-life (days)	91.5	MRID: 43917229, 43917290.
Average value of two available (117 and 66 days)

1 Parameters are selected as per Guidance for Selecting Input Parameters
in Modeling the Environmental Fate and Transport of Pesticides; Version
II, February 28, 2002.

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 Table 6. FIRST (v1.0) input parameter values for
dimethomorph use on broccoli1.

PARAMETER (units)	VALUE(S)	SOURCE	COMMENT

Application Rate (lb a.i./A)	0.2	Label ACROBAT® WP Fungicide.	–

Number of Applications	7	Label ACROBAT® WP Fungicide.

	Interval between Applications (days)	7	Label ACROBAT® WP Fungicide.

	Percent Cropped Area (decimal)	0.87	Proposed label.	National default.

Soil Partition Coefficient [Kd; (mL/g) or KOC (mL/gOC)]	3.03	MRID:
43917234, 43917235, 44780202.	Represents the lowest non-sand Kd value
among eleven values ranging from 2.09 to 19.0 mL/g.

Aerobic Soil Metabolism Half-life (days)	147	MRID: 43917229, 43917230.
Represents the 90th percentile of the upper confidence bound on the mean
of two half-life values:  117 and 66 days; mean 91.5 days, std. dev,
25.5

Wetted in?	No	Label ACROBAT® WP Fungicide.	–

Depth of Incorporation (inches)	0	Label ACROBAT® WP Fungicide.	–

Method of Application	Aerial spray	Label ACROBAT® WP Fungicide.	–

Solubility in Water @ 20 OC, unbuffered (mg/L or ppm)	12	_	At pH 7 the
solubility of the Z isomer is 12 mg/L and the E isomer is 6 mg/L; the
maximum value was used.

Aerobic Aquatic Metabolism Half-life (days)	294	     MRID:
43917229,     43917230	No aerobic aquatic metabolism data are available
and the pesticide is hydrolytically stable.  2X the aerobic soil
metabolism half-life input value is used.

Hydrolysis Half-life @ pH 7 (days)	0	MRID: 43917226.	Stable.

Aquatic Photolysis Half-life  @ pH 7 (days)	56	MRID: 43917227.	–

1 Parameters are selected as per Guidance for Selecting Input Parameters
in Modeling the Environmental Fate and Transport of Pesticides; Version
II, February 28, 2002

Modeling Result

Table 7.  Maximum Tier I Estimated Drinking Water Concentrations (EDWCs)
for drinking water risk assessment based on aerial application of
dimethomorph.

DRINKING WATER SOURCE (MODEL USED) 	USE (rate modeled)	MAXIMUM ESTIMATED
DRINKING WATER CONCENTRATION  (EDWC)  ( ppb)

Groundwater (SCIGROW)	Broccoli (1.4 lb a.i./A)	Acute and Chronic	0.264

Surface water  (FIRST)	Broccoli (1.4 lb a.i./A)	Acute	81.1

	Broccoli (1.4 lb a.i./A)	Chronic	            24.7

SCI-GROW concentration (ppb) represents the groundwater concentration
that might be expected in shallow unconfined aquifers under sandy soils.
Output is used for both acute and chronic endpoints.

FIRST concentrations (ppb) represent untreated surface water
concentrations.

The peak day concentration (over 30 years) is used for acute endpoints
and the annual average concentration (over 30 years) is used for chronic
endpoints.

The estimated concentrations provided in this assessment are
conservative estimates of concentrations in drinking water.  If dietary
risks require refinement, higher tiered crop-specific and
location-specific models and modeling scenarios can be utilized.

Monitoring Data

Monitoring data usually provide different kinds of information than
modeling (e.g., monitoring reflects current use pattern, underestimates
frequency of occurrence, often misses peaks, inputs cannot be adjusted
as modeled ones can, usually done for purposes other than characterizing
exposure from a particular pesticide), and, consequently, tend to
complement the modeling rather than refine it.  In general, a useful
interpretation of monitoring values requires in-depth assessment of the
data, which is beyond the scope of a Tier I assessment.

Drinking Water Treatment

There are no data available on the effects of water treatment on the
possible increasing dissipation and/or the transformation into products
that may be less or more toxic than the parent. (Ref. 6)

CONCLUSIONS

In this assessment it has been assumed that the reported value is the
total dimethomorph (Z + E isomers).  The results yielded an acute
estimated surface water concentration of 81.1 ppb and a cancer/chronic
drinking water concentration of 24.7 ppb.  The groundwater EDWC,
suitable for acute and chronic exposure is 0.264 ppb.

Several uncertainties surround the environmental fate database utilized
in this assessment.  Several of the studies were deemed supplemental and
discrepancies were observed as described earlier in the summary of the
environmental fate.

APPENDIX A.  References

Policy Establishing Current Versions of Exposure Models and
Responsibility for Model Maintenance (11/06/2002)

SCIGROW: Users Manual (11/01/2001, revised 08/23/2002)

FIRST Users Manual (08/01/2001)

FIRST: A Screening Model to Estimate Pesticide Concentrations in
Drinking Water (05/01/2001)

Guidance for Selecting Input Parameters in Modeling the Environmental
Fate and Transport of Pesticides, Version II (02/28/2002)

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 6	The Incorporation of Water Treatment Effects on
Pesticide Removal and Transformations in Food Quality Protection Act
(FQPA) Drinking Water Assessments  (10/25/2001)

Tomlin, CDS (ed.) The Pesticide Manual-World Compendium, 11th edition,
British Crop Protection Council, Surrey, England 1997, p. 416

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.  FAO PESTICIDE
DISPOSAL SERIES 8.  Assessing Soil Contamination: A Reference Manual.
Appendix 2.  Parameters of pesticides that influence processes in the
soil.  Editorial Group, FAO Information Division: Rome, 2000 [
HYPERLINK "http://www.fao.org/DOCREP/003/X2570E00.htm"
http://www.fao.org/DOCREP/003/X2570E00.htm  ]

Appendix B.  SCI-GROW Output File

                           SCIGROW

                          VERSION 2.3

            ENVIRONMENTAL FATE AND EFFECTS DIVISION

                 OFFICE OF PESTICIDE PROGRAMS

             U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

                        SCREENING MODEL

                FOR AQUATIC PESTICIDE EXPOSURE

 SciGrow version 2.3

 chemical:Dimethomorph

 time is  4/19/2006  11:47:19

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

  Application      Number of       Total Use    Koc      Soil Aerobic

  rate (lb/acre)  applications   (lb/acre/yr)  (ml/g)   metabolism
(days)

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

      0.200           7.0           1.400      5.15E+02       91.5

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

 groundwater screening cond (ppb) =   2.64E-01

 ***********************************************************************
*

Appendix C.  FIRST Output File

   RUN No.   1 FOR Dimetomorph      ON   Broccoli      * INPUT VALUES *

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

   RATE (#/AC)   No.APPS &   SOIL  SOLUBIL   APPL TYPE  %CROPPED INCORP

    ONE(MULT)    INTERVAL     Kd   (PPM )    (%DRIFT)     AREA    (IN)

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

   .200(  1.271)   7   7       3.0   12.0   AERIAL(16.0)  87.0      .0

   FIELD AND RESERVOIR HALFLIFE VALUES (DAYS)

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

   METABOLIC  DAYS UNTIL  HYDROLYSIS   PHOTOLYSIS   METABOLIC  COMBINED

    (FIELD)  RAIN/RUNOFF  (RESERVOIR)  (RES.-EFF)   (RESER.)   (RESER.)

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

    147.00        2          N/A     56.00- 6944.00   294.00    282.06

   UNTREATED WATER CONC (MICROGRAMS/LITER (PPB)) Ver 1.1.0 DEC 12, 2005

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

        PEAK DAY  (ACUTE)      ANNUAL AVERAGE (CHRONIC)

          CONCENTRATION             CONCENTRATION

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

             81.144                     24.736

Appendix D.  Molecular Structure of Dimethomorph

 PAGE

 PAGE   4

&

'

)

D

'

G

g

Š

¨

Ú

Û

ý

D

F

I

^

`

c

e

f

g

ˆ

‰

²

Ù

Û

â

ã

ä

î

Y

[

\

m

u

v

¡

®

±

É

Ú

í

ð

ñ

葝摧ؤ¿

h s

CJ

aJ

	ˆÿ&	¸

h s

h s

hn6

愀Ĥ摧ㆢ«

h

h

摧㙮

瑹㙮

  h s

CJ

aJ

$	\

愀Ĥ摧炟9

愀Ĥ摧ؤ¿

愀Ĥ摧ؤ¿

愀Ĥ摧ؤ¿

愀Ĥ摧ؤ¿

愀Ĥ摧ؤ¿

愀Ĥ摧ؤ¿

愀Ĥ摧ؤ¿

愀Ĥ摧ؤ¿

愀Ĥ摧ؤ¿

愀Ĥ摧ؤ¿

愀Ĥ摧ؤ¿

愀Ĥ摧ؤ¿

摧⵳

愀Ĥ摧ؤ¿

愀Ĥ摧ؤ¿

愀Ĥ摧沕b

_

愀Ĥ摧ؤ¿

愀Ĥ摧ؤ¿

愀Ĥ摧ؤ¿

愀Ĥ摧ؤ¿

'

愀Ĥ摧ؤ¿

愀Ĥ摧ؤ¿

愀Ĥ摧ؤ¿

愀Ĥ摧ؤ¿

愀Ĥ摧ؤ¿

愀Ĥ摧ؤ¿

愀Ĥ摧ؤ¿

愀Ĥ摧ؤ¿

愀Ĥ摧ؤ¿

愀Ĥ摧ؤ¿

愀Ĥ摧ؤ¿

愀Ĥ摧ؤ¿

愀Ĥ摧ؤ¿

愀Ĥ摧ؤ¿

愀Ĥ摧ؤ¿

愀Ĥ摧ؤ¿

愀Ĥ摧ؤ¿

愀Ĥ摧ؤ¿

  hb

 hb


[Federal Register: May 19, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 97)]
[Notices]
[Page 28812-28813]
[DOCID:fr19my08-42]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 13160-000]

Red River Hydro, LLC; Notice of Application Accepted for Filing
and Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and Protests

May 12, 2008.
    Take notice that the following hydroelectric applications have been
filed with the Commission and are available for public inspection:
    a. Type of Application: Preliminary Permit.
    b. Project No.: P-13160-000.
    c. Date Filed: April 2, 2008.
    d. Applicant: Red River Hydro, LLC.
    e. Name of the Project: Overton Lock and Dam Hydroelectric Project.
    f. Location: The project would be located on the Red River in
Rapides Parish, Louisiana. The Overton Lock and Dam is owned and
maintained by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 791a-825r.
    h. Applicant Contact: Mr. Brent Smith, Symbiotics, LLC, P.O. Box
535, Rigby, ID 83442, Phone<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    i. FERC Contact: Patricia W. Gillis,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    j. Deadline for filing comments, protests, and motions to
intervene: 60 days from the issuance date of this notice.
    All documents (original and eight copies) should be filed with:
Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426. Comments, protests, and interventions may be
filed electronically via the Internet in lieu of paper; see 18 CFR
385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and. the instructions on the Commission's Web site
under the ``e-Filing'' link. The Commission strongly encourages
electronic filings. Please include the project number (P-13160-000) on
any comments or motions filed.
    The Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure require all
intervenors filing documents with the Commission to serve a copy of
that document on each person in the official service list for the
project. Further, if an intervenor 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.
    k. Description of Project: The proposed project would utilize the
existing U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' Overton Lock and Dam and would
consist of: (1) A proposed powerhouse containing four generating units
with an installed capacity of 86-megawatts; (2) a switchyard; (3) a
proposed 1-mile 69-kV transmission line; and (4) appurtenant
facilities. The proposed project would have an estimated annual
generation of approximately 276 gigawatts and would be sold to a local
utility.
    l. Location of Application: A copy of the application is available
for inspection and reproduction at the Commission in the 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. For
assistance, call toll-free 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. Competing Preliminary Permit--Anyone desiring to file a
competing application for preliminary permit for a proposed project
must submit the competing application itself, or a notice of intent to
file such an application, to the Commission on or before the specified
comment date for the particular application (see 18 CFR 4.36).
Submission of a timely notice of intent allows an interested person to
file the competing preliminary permit application no later than 30 days
after the specified comment date for the particular application. A
competing preliminary permit application must conform with 18 CFR 4.30
and 4.36.
    o. Competing Development Application--Any qualified development
applicant desiring to file a competing development application must
submit to the Commission, on or before a specified comment date for the
particular application, either a competing development application or a
notice of intent to file such an application. Submission of a timely
notice of intent to file a development application allows an interested
person to file the competing application no later than 120 days after
the specified comment date for the particular application. A competing
license application must conform with 18 CFR 4.30 and 4.36.
    p. Notice of Intent--A notice of intent must specify the exact
name, business address, and telephone number of the prospective
applicant, and must include an unequivocal statement of intent to
submit, if such an application may be filed, either a preliminary
permit application or a development application (specify which type of
application). A notice of intent must be served on the applicant(s)
named in this public notice.
    q. Proposed Scope of Studies Under Permit--A preliminary permit, if
issued, does not authorize construction. The term of the proposed
preliminary permit would be 36 months. The work proposed under the
preliminary permit would include economic analysis, preparation of
preliminary engineering plans, and a study of environmental impacts.
Based on the results of these studies, the Applicant would decide
whether to proceed with the preparation of a development application to
construct and operate the project.
    r. 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.
    Comments, protests and interventions may be filed electronically
via the Internet in lieu of paper. See 18 CFR 385.2001 (a)(1)(iii) and
the instructions on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov
under the ``e-Filing'' link.
    s. Filing and Service of Responsive Documents--Any filings must
bear in all capital letters the title ``COMMENTS'', ``NOTICE OF INTENT
TO FILE COMPETING APPLICATION'', ``COMPETING APPLICATION'',
``PROTEST'', and ``MOTION TO INTERVENE'', as applicable, and the
Project Number of the particular application to which the filing
refers. Any of the above-named documents must be filed by providing the
original and the number of copies provided by the Commission's
regulations to: The Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,
888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. An additional copy must be
sent to Director, Division of Hydropower Administration and Compliance,
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, at the above-mentioned

address. A copy of any notice of intent, competing application or
motion to intervene must also be served upon each representative of the
Applicant specified in the particular application.
    t. Agency Comments--Federal, state, and local agencies are invited
to file comments on the described application. A copy of the
application may be obtained by agencies directly from the Applicant. If
an agency does not file comments within the time specified for filing
comments, it will be presumed to have no comments. One copy of an
agency's comments must also be sent to the Applicant's representatives.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E8-11098 Filed 5-16-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 187 (Thursday, September 28, 2023)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 66683-66686]
[FR Doc No: 2023-21100]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2023-1405; Project Identifier MCAI-2023-00381-T;
Amendment 39-22550; AD 2023-18-09]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Dassault Aviation Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is superseding Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2023-04-
16, which applied to certain Dassault Aviation Model FALCON 900EX
airplanes. AD 2023-04-16 required revising the existing maintenance or
inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate new or more
restrictive airworthiness limitations. Since the FAA issued AD 2023-04-
16, the FAA has determined that new or more restrictive airworthiness
limitations are necessary. This AD continues to require the actions in
AD 2023-04-16, and also requires revising the existing maintenance or
inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate new or more
restrictive airworthiness limitations, as specified in a European Union
Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD, which is incorporated by reference.
The FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these
products.

DATES: This AD is effective November 2, 2023.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of November 2,
2023.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain other publication listed in this AD as of May
12, 2023 (88 FR 20738, April 7, 2023).

ADDRESSES:
    AD Docket: You may examine the AD docket at regulations.gov under
Docket No. FAA-2023-1405; 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
address for Docket Operations is U.S. Department of Transportation,
Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.
    Material Incorporated by Reference:

     For material incorporated by reference in this AD, contact
EASA, Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3, 50668 Cologne, Germany; telephone +49 221
8999 000; email [email protected]; website easa.europa.eu. You may
find this material on the EASA website ad.easa.europa.eu.
     You may view this material at the FAA, Airworthiness
Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200 South 216th Street,
Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this material at
the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. It is also available in the AD docket at
regulations.gov under Docket No. FAA-2023-1405.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tom Rodriguez, Aviation Safety
Engineer, FAA, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14
CFR part 39 to supersede AD 2023-04-16, Amendment 39-22363 (88 FR
20738, April 7, 2023) (AD 2023-04-16). AD 2023-04-16 applied to certain
Dassault Aviation Model FALCON 900EX airplanes. AD 2023-04-16 required
revising the existing maintenance or inspection program, as applicable,
to incorporate new or more restrictive airworthiness limitations. The
FAA issued AD 2023-04-16 to address reduced structural integrity of the
airplane.
    The NPRM published in the Federal Register on July 12, 2023 (88 FR
44228). The NPRM was prompted by AD 2023-0047, dated March 2, 2023,
issued by EASA (EASA AD 2023-0047) (also referred to as the MCAI). The
MCAI states that new or more restrictive airworthiness limitations have
been developed. You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket at
regulations.gov under Docket No. FAA-2023-1405.
    In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to continue to require the actions in
AD 2023-04-16 and would require revising the existing maintenance or
inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate new or more
restrictive airworthiness limitations, as specified in EASA AD 2023-
0047. The FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on
these products.

Discussion of Final Airworthiness Directive

Comments

    The FAA received no comments on the NPRM or on the determination of
the cost to the public.

Conclusion

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another
country and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to
the FAA's bilateral agreement with this State of Design Authority, it
has notified the FAA of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI
referenced above. The FAA reviewed the relevant data and determined
that air safety requires adopting this AD as proposed. Accordingly, the
FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on this product.
Except for minor editorial changes, this AD is adopted as proposed in
the NPRM. None of the changes will increase the economic burden on any
operator.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    The FAA reviewed EASA AD 2023-0047. This service information
specifies new or more restrictive airworthiness limitations for
airplane structures and safe life limits.
    This AD also requires EASA AD 2022-0141, dated July 7, 2022, which
the Director of the Federal Register approved for incorporation by
reference as of May 12, 2023 (88 FR 20738, April 7, 2023).
    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 the ADDRESSES section.

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this AD affects 144 airplanes of U.S.
registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:
    The FAA estimates the total cost per operator for the retained
actions from AD 2023-04-16 to be $7,650 (90 work-hours x $85 per work-
hour).
    The FAA has determined that revising the existing maintenance or
inspection program takes an average of 90 work-hours per operator,
although the agency recognizes that this number may vary from operator
to operator. Since operators incorporate maintenance or inspection
program changes for their affected fleet(s), the FAA has determined
that a per-operator estimate is more accurate than a per-airplane
estimate.
    The FAA estimates the total cost per operator for the new actions
to be $7,650 (90 work-hours x $85 per work-hour).

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,
    (2) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, 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.

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:
0
a. Removing Airworthiness Directive 2023-04-16, Amendment 39-22363 (88
FR 20738, April 7, 2023); and
0
b. Adding the following new Airworthiness Directive:

2023-18-09 Dassault Aviation: Amendment 39-22550; Docket No. FAA-
2023-1405; Project Identifier MCAI-2023-00381-T.

(a) Effective Date

    This airworthiness directive (AD) is effective November 2, 2023.

(b) Affected ADs

    (1) This AD replaces AD 2023-04-16, Amendment 39-22363 (88 FR
20738, April 7, 2023) (AD 2023-04-16).
    (2) This AD affects AD 2010-26-05, Amendment 39-16544 (75 FR
79952, December 21, 2010) (AD 2010-26-05).

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Dassault Aviation Model FALCON 900EX
airplanes, serial number (S/N) 97 and S/Ns 120 and higher,
certificated in any category, with an original airworthiness
certificate or original export certificate of airworthiness issued
on or before November 15, 2022.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 05, Time Limits/
Maintenance Checks.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by a determination that new or more
restrictive airworthiness limitations are necessary. The FAA is
issuing this AD to address among other things, fatigue cracking and
damage in principal structural elements. The unsafe condition, if
not addressed, could result in reduced structural integrity of the
airplane.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Retained Revision of the Existing Maintenance or Inspection
Program, With a New Terminating Action

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (j) of AD
2023-04-16, with a new terminating action. For airplanes with an
original airworthiness certificate or original export certificate of
airworthiness issued on or before November 15, 2021: Except as
specified in paragraph (h) of this AD, comply with all required
actions and compliance times specified in, and in accordance with,
European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD 2022-0141, dated
July 7, 2022 (EASA AD 2022-0141). Accomplishing the revision of the
existing maintenance or inspection program required by paragraph (j)
of this AD terminates the requirements of this paragraph.

(h) Retained Exceptions to EASA AD 2022-0141, With No Changes

    This paragraph restates the exceptions specified in paragraph
(k) of AD 2023-04-16, with no changes.
    (1) The requirements specified in paragraphs (1) and (2) of EASA
AD 2022-0141 do not apply to this AD.
    (2) Paragraph (3) of EASA AD 2022-0141 specifies revising ``the
approved AMP'' within 12 months after its effective date, but this
AD requires revising the existing maintenance or inspection program,
as applicable, within 90 days after May 12, 2023 (the effective date
of AD 2023-04-16).
    (3) The initial compliance time for doing the tasks specified in
paragraph (3) of EASA AD 2022-0141 is at the applicable
``limitations'' and ``associated thresholds'' as incorporated by the
requirements of paragraph (3) of EASA AD 2022-0141, or within 90
days after May 12, 2023 (the effective date of AD 2023-04-16),
whichever occurs later.
    (4) The provisions specified in paragraphs (4) and (5) of EASA
AD 2022-0141 do not apply to this AD.
    (5) The ``Remarks'' section of EASA AD 2022-0141 does not apply
to this AD.

(i) Retained Restrictions on Alternative Actions and Intervals, With a
New Exception

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (l) of AD
2023-04-16, with a new exception. Except as required by paragraph
(j) of this AD, after the maintenance or inspection program has been
revised as required by paragraph (g) of this AD, no alternative
actions (e.g., inspections) and intervals are allowed unless they
are approved as specified in the provisions of the ``Ref.
Publications'' section of EASA AD 2022-0141.

(j) New Revision of the Existing Maintenance or Inspection Program

    Except as specified in paragraph (k) of this AD: Comply with all
required actions and compliance times specified in, and in
accordance with, EASA AD 2023-0047, dated March 2, 2023 (EASA AD
2023-0047). Accomplishing the revision of the existing maintenance
or inspection program required by this paragraph terminates the
requirements of paragraph (g) of this AD.

(k) Exceptions to EASA AD 2023-0047

    (1) This AD does not adopt the requirements specified in
paragraphs (1) and (2) of EASA AD 2023-0047.
    (2) Paragraph (3) of EASA AD 2023-0047 specifies revising ``the
approved AMP'' within 12 months after its effective date, but this
AD requires revising the existing maintenance or inspection program,
as applicable, within 90 days after the effective date of this AD.
    (3) The initial compliance time for doing the tasks specified in
paragraph (3) of EASA AD 2023-0047 is at the applicable
``limitations'' and ``associated thresholds'' as incorporated by the
requirements of paragraph (3) of EASA AD 2023-0047, or within 90
days after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later.
    (4) This AD does not adopt the provisions specified in
paragraphs (4) and (5) of EASA AD 2023-0047.
    (5) This AD does not adopt the ``Remarks'' section of EASA AD
2023-0047.

(l) New Provisions for Alternative Actions and Intervals

    After the existing maintenance or inspection program has been
revised as required by paragraph (j) of this AD, no alternative
actions (e.g., inspections) and intervals are allowed unless they
are approved as specified in the provisions of the ``Ref.
Publications'' section of EASA AD 2023-0047.

(m) Terminating Action for AD 2010-26-05

    Accomplishing the actions required by paragraph (g) or (j) of
this AD terminates the requirements of paragraph (g)(1) of AD 2010-
26-05, for Dassault Aviation Model FALCON 900EX airplanes, S/N 97
and S/Ns 120 and higher only.

(n) Additional AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
International Validation Branch, FAA, has the authority to approve
AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR
39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your
principal inspector or responsible Flight Standards Office, as
appropriate. If sending information directly to manager of the
International Validation Branch, mail it to the attention address
identified in paragraph (o) of this AD or email to: [email protected]. If mailing information, also submit information by
email. Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate
principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager
of the responsible Flight Standards Office.
    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD
to obtain instructions from a manufacturer, the instructions must be
accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, International
Validation Branch, FAA; or EASA; or Dassault Aviation's EASA Design
Organization Approval (DOA). If approved by the DOA, the approval
must include the DOA-authorized signature.

(o) Additional Information

    For more information about this AD, contact Tom Rodriguez,
Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410,
Westbury, NY 11590; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
[email protected].

(p) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed
in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise.
    (3) The following service information was approved for IBR on
November 2, 2023.
    (i) European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD 2023-0047,
dated March 2, 2023.
    (ii) [Reserved]
    (4) The following service information was approved for IBR on
May 12, 2023 (88 FR 20738, April 7, 2023).
    (i) EASA AD 2022-0141, dated July 7, 2022.
    (ii) [Reserved]
    (5) For EASA ADs 2022-0141 and 2023-0047, contact EASA, Konrad-
Adenauer-Ufer 3, 50668 Cologne, Germany; telephone +49 221 8999 000;
email [email protected]; website easa.europa.eu. You may find these

EASA ADs on the EASA website ad.easa.europa.eu.
    (6) You may view this material at the FAA, Airworthiness
Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200 South 216th
Street, Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this
material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (7) You may view this material that is incorporated by reference
at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For
information on the availability of this material at NARA, email
[email protected], or go to: www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued on September 22, 2023.
Victor Wicklund,
Deputy Director, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, Aircraft
Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2023-21100 Filed 9-27-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 235 (Wednesday, December 8, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 76511-76512]
[FR Doc No: 2010-30702]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-63406; File No. SR-Phlx-2010-165]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Relating to
Transaction Billing and Other Clarifying Amendments

December 1, 2010.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on November 23, 2010, NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC (``Phlx'' or ``Exchange'')
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``SEC'' or
``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III, below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The
Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend its Fee Schedule to: (i) Amend the
calculation of transaction fees for billing purposes from a settlement
date to trade date; and (ii) make other minor technical conforming
amendments to the Fee Schedule.
    While changes to the Exchange's Fee Schedule pursuant to this
proposal are effective upon filing, the Exchange has designated this
proposal to be operative for invoices received by members and member
organizations for January 2011 monthly billing, except for the minor
technical amendments, which are effective upon filing.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
Web site at http://nasdaqtrader.com/micro.aspx?id=PHLXfilings, at the
principal office of the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public
Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The purpose of the proposed rule change is to amend the Exchange's
Fee Schedule to include language to specify that the Exchange will
calculate transaction fees on a calendar month trade date basis. The
Exchange is proposing to enhance its billing system to be consistent
with that of other NASDAQ OMX self-regulatory organizations.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ NASDAQ Stock Market LLC and the NASDAQ Options Market both
utilize trade date billing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Currently, the Exchange calculates its transaction fees, except the
Options Regulatory Fee, on a settlement date basis.\4\ For example, a
member or member organization who will receive a billing invoice for
the month of November 2010 will be assessed fees for trades which
settled on November 1, 2010 through November 30, 2010 (``settlement
date billing''). In other words, the member is being assessed fees for
trades that occurred on October 29, 2010 (trade date) through November
29, 2010 (trade date).\5\ This is an example of the Exchange's current
settlement date billing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ In the United States options settle on a trade date (``T'')
+ 1 basis or one day after the trade took place.
    \5\ The Exchange invoices its members for fees on a monthly
basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange is proposing to bill its members on a trade date basis
beginning with the January monthly billing. The impact to members would
be as follows for the December and January monthly billing periods. A
member who receives an invoice for the month of December 2010 would be
assessed fees from November 30, 2010 (trade date) through December 31,
2010 (trade date) instead of through December 30, 2010 (trade date). A
member who receives an invoice for the month of January 2011 would be
assessed fees from January 3, 2010 (trade date) through January 31,
2010 (trade date) (``trade date billing'') [sic].\6\ This January
monthly invoice would include fees for trade date January 3, 2010. In
the current billing system, the member would have been assessed fees
for settlement date January 3, 2010 in the December billing invoice,
but because of the conversion to trade date billing, the Exchange would
assess fees for January 3, 2010 as trade date billing and include that
day in the January monthly billing invoice. The Exchange would then
continue to bill members for each month thereafter including in that
month's invoice the first trade day of the month as the first billing
date and the last trade day of that month as the last billing date for
that monthly invoice.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The Commission notes that the references in this sentence to
2010 should be to 2011.
    \7\ The Exchange intends to issue an Options Trader Alert
specifying the exact days that would be included in both the
December 2010 and January 2011 billing cycles as notice to members.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, the Exchange intends to make a few minor technical
conforming amendments to the Fee Schedule to reflect the Exchange's
recent conversion to an LLC,\8\ recent amendments to Rule 1014 \9\ and
recent amendments to Section II of the Fee Schedule.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 62783 (August 27,
2010), 75 FR 54204 (September 3, 2010) (SR-Phlx-2010-104) (a rule
change to amend NASDAQ OMX PHLX from a Delaware corporation to a
Delaware limited liability company).
    \9\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 63036 (October 4,
2010), 75 FR 62621 (October 12, 2010) (SR-Phlx-2010-131) (a rule
change to amend Exchange Rule 1014 to among other things amend the
definitions of Streaming Quote Traders and Remote Streaming Quote
Traders).
    \10\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 63252 (November 5,
2010), 75 FR 69486 (November 12, 2010) (SR-Phlx-2010-150) (a rule
change to add the KBW Bank Index (``BKX'') to the Equity Option
Fees).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While changes to the Exchange's Fee Schedule pursuant to this
proposal are effective upon filing, the Exchange has designated this
proposal to be operative for invoices received by members and member
organizations for January 2011 monthly billing, except for the minor
technical amendments, which are effective upon filing.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal to amend its Fee Schedule
is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act \11\ in general, and
furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(4) of the Act \12\ in
particular, in that it is an equitable allocation of reasonable fees
and other charges among Exchange members and other persons using its
facilities. The Exchange believes that the proposed conversion from
settlement date billing to calendar month trade date billing is
equitable because it would apply uniformly to all members. The Exchange
also believes that the proposal is reasonable because other self-
regulatory organizations already assess transaction fees on a trade
date basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed technical conforming amendments to the Fee Schedule
are minor in nature and provide clarity to

the Fee Schedule by conforming the text of the Fee Schedule to the
other Rules of the Exchange.

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

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

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act\13\ and paragraph (f)(2) of Rule 19b-4\14\
thereunder. At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed
rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \14\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-Phlx-2010-165 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-Phlx-2010-165. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549 on official business days between the hours of 10
a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-Phlx-2010-165 and should be
submitted on or before December 29, 2010.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-30702 Filed 12-7-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 138 (Tuesday, July 19, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 42610-42612]
[FR Doc No: 2011-18171]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2010-0710; Directorate Identifier 2010-NE-26-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Turbomeca Arriel 1 Series Turboshaft
Engines

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to revise an existing airworthiness directive (AD)
that applies to the products listed above. The existing AD currently
requires removing from service certain gas generator second stage
turbine discs, part number (P/N) 0 292 25 040 0, that are not marked
with ``CFR'' before the discs exceed 2,500 cycles-in-service (CIS)
since-new or within 20 CIS from the effective date of the AD, whichever
occurs later. That AD also requires removing from service certain gas
generator second stage turbine discs, P/N 0 292 25 040 0, that are
marked with ``CFR'' before the discs exceed 3,500 CIS since-new. Since
we issued that AD, Turbomeca has restored all or part of the life
limits of the affected discs, and the European Aviation Safety Agency
(EASA) issued AD 2010-0101R2, dated March 24, 2011 to do the same. This
proposed AD would still prevent disc failure but extends the life
limits of the affected discs. We are proposing this AD to prevent
failure of the gas generator second stage turbine disc which could
result in the release of high energy debris and damage to the
helicopter.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by September 2,
2011.

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 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: Deliver to Mail address above between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this AD, contact Turbomeca,
40220 Tarnos, France; phone: 33 05 59 74 40 00, fax: 33 05 59 74 45 15.
You may review copies of the referenced service information at the FAA,
Engine & Propeller Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park,
Burlington, MA. For information on the availability of this material at
the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket 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 AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory
evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street
address for the Docket Office (phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the ADDRESSES
section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after
receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rose Len, Aerospace Engineer, Engine
Certification Office, FAA, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington,
MA 01803; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address
listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2010-0710;
Directorate Identifier 2010-NE-26-AD'' at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposed AD because 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 about this proposed AD.

Discussion

    On September 10, 2010, we issued AD 2010-19-06, Amendment 39-16434
(75 FR 57371, September 21, 2010), for Turbomeca Arriel 1 series
turboshaft engines. That AD requires removing from service gas
generator second stage turbine discs, P/N 0 292 25 040 0 that do not
have the ``CFR'' marking, before exceeding 2,500 CIS since-new or
within 20 CIS from the effective date of the AD, whichever occurs
later. That AD also requires removing from service gas generator second
stage turbine discs, P/N 0 292 25 040 0 that have the ``CFR'' marking,
before exceeding 3,500 CIS since-new. Discs that have the ``CFR''
marking have been inspected using a ``reinforced'' eddy-current
inspection (ECI). Discs that do not have the ``CFR'' marking have not
been inspected using the ``reinforced'' ECI. Based on the
``reinforced'' ECI and additional analysis finding performed by
Turbomeca, the discs with the ``CFR'' marking are compliant with their
original published life limit of 6,500 CIS since-new, and the life
limit of discs with no ``CFR'' marking can be increased to 4,000 CIS
since-new. AD 2010-19-06 resulted from Mandatory Continuing
Airworthiness Information (MCAI) issued by an aviation authority of
another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an
aviation product. We issued that AD to prevent failure of the gas
generator second stage turbine disc which could result in the release
of high energy debris and damage to the helicopter.

Actions Since Existing AD Was Issued

    Since we issued AD 2010-19-06, Turbomeca has restored all or part
of the life limits of the affected discs, based on the reinforced eddy
current inspection that provides an improved detection threshold of any
metallurgical non-conformities in the discs, in combination with
additional testing and analysis.
    Also since we issued AD 2010-19-06, EASA has issued MCAI AD 2010-
0101R2, dated March 24, 2011, which, for gas generator second stage
turbine discs, P/N 0 292 25 040 0 that do not have the ``CFR'' marking,
increases the life limit to 4,000 cycles, and for gas generator second
stage turbine discs, P/N 0 292 25 040 0 that have the ``CFR'' marking,
returns the life limit to the original published life limit of 6,500
cycles.

FAA's Determination

    We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all the relevant
information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is
likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design.

Proposed AD Requirements

    This proposed AD would require removing gas generator second stage
turbine discs, P/N 0 292 25 040 0 that do not have the ``CFR'' marking,
from service before exceeding 4,000 CIS since-new. This proposed AD
would also require removing gas generator second stage turbine discs,
P/N 0 292 25 040 0 that have the ``CFR'' marking, from service before
exceeding 6,500 CIS since-new.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD would affect 203 Turbomeca Arriel
1 series turboshaft engines on helicopters of U.S. registry. We
estimate that no additional labor costs would be incurred to return
part of the life limit of the discs that do not have the ``CFR''
marking, to the original published life limit. Based on these figures,
we estimate the total cost of the proposed AD to U.S. operators to be
$0.

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),
    (3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
    (4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, 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 removing airworthiness directive
(AD) 2010-19-06, Amendment 39-16434 (75 FR 57371 September 21, 2010),
and adding the following new AD:

Turbomeca: Docket No. FAA-2010-0710; Directorate Identifier 2010-NE-
26-AD.

(a) Comments Due Date

    The FAA must receive comments on this AD action by September 2,
2011.

(b) Affected ADs

    This AD revises AD 2010-19-06, Amendment 39-16434.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Turbomeca Arriel 1A, 1A1, 1B, 1C, 1C1, 1C2,
1D, 1D1, and 1S1 turboshaft engines that have incorporated
Modification TU347.

(d) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by Turbomeca restoring all or part of the
life limits of the affected discs. We are issuing this AD to prevent
failure of the gas generator second stage turbine disc which could
result in the release of high energy debris and damage to the
helicopter.

(e) Compliance

    (1) Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified,
unless already done.
    (2) Remove from service gas generator second stage turbine
discs, part number (P/N) 0 292 25 040 0 that do not have the ``CFR''
marking, before exceeding 4,000 cycles-in-service (CIS) since-new.
    (3) Remove from service gas generator second stage turbine
discs, P/N 0 292 25 040 0 that have the ``CFR'' marking, before
exceeding 6,500 CIS since-new.

(4) Gas Generator Second Stage Turbine Installation Prohibition

    (i) After the effective date of this AD, do not install into any
engine gas generator second stage turbine discs, P/N 0 292 25 040 0
that do not have the ``CFR'' marking, and have 4,000 or more CIS
since-new.
    (ii) After the effective date of this AD, do not install into
any engine gas generator second stage turbine discs, P/N 0 292 25
040 0 that have the ``CFR'' marking, and have 6,500 or more CIS
since-new.

(f) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    The Manager, Engine Certification Office, FAA, has the authority
to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures
found in 14 CFR 39.19.

(g) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Turbomeca Alert Mandatory Service Bulletin No. A292
72 0831, Version C, dated March 3, 2011, for related information.
Contact Turbomeca, 40220 Tarnos, France; phone: 33 05 59 74 40 00,
fax: 33 05 59 74 45 15, for a copy of this service information.
    (2) You may review copies of the referenced service information
at the FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 12 New England Executive
Park, Burlington, MA. For information on the availability of this
material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (3) For more information about this AD, contact Rose Len,
Aerospace Engineer, Engine Certification Office, FAA, 12 New England
Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax: 781-
238-7199; e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
(h) Material Incorporated by Reference

    None.

    Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on July 13, 2011.
Colleen M. D'Alessandro,
Acting Manager, Engine & Propeller Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.

[FR Doc. 2011-18171 Filed 7-18-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: January 4, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 3)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 836-838]
[DOCID:fr04ja08-13]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R03-OAR-2007-0534; FRL-8513-7]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Pennsylvania; VOC and NOX RACT Determinations for Merck and Co., Inc.

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve a State Implementation Plan (SIP)
revision submitted by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania to establish and
require reasonably available control technology (RACT) for Merck and
Co., Inc. (Merck) located in Northumberland County, Pennsylvania. Merck
is a major source of volatile organic compounds (VOC) and nitrogen
oxides (NOX). This action is being taken under the Clean Air
Act (CAA).

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before February 4, 2008.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA-
R03-OAR-2007-0534 by one of the following methods:
    A. http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for

submitting comments.
    B. E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    C. Mail: EPA-R03-OAR-2007-0534, Cristina Fernandez, Chief, Air
Quality Planning Branch, Mailcode 3AP21, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103.
    D. Hand Delivery: At the previously-listed EPA Region III address.
Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of
operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of
boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R03-OAR-
2007-0534. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change, and may be made available online
at http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,

unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information
that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through
http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The www.regulations.gov Web site is an

``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without
going through http://www.regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be

automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of
any defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the
http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some

information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available either electronically in http://www.regulations.gov or

in hard copy during normal business hours at the Air Protection
Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch
Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. Copies of the State submittal
are available at the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental
Protection, Bureau of Air Quality Control, P.O. Box 8468, 400 Market
Street, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17105.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rose Quinto,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by e-
mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On June 13, 2007, the Pennsylvania
Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) submitted a revision to
its SIP. This SIP revision consists of a source-specific operating
permit issued by PADEP to establish and require RACT for Merck pursuant
to Pennsylvania's SIP-approved generic RACT regulations.

I. Background

    Pursuant to sections 182(b)(2) and 182(f) of the CAA, the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (the Commonwealth or Pennsylvania) is
required to establish and implement RACT for all major VOC and
NOX sources. The major source size is determined by its
location, the classification of that area and whether it is located in
the ozone transport region (OTR). Under section 184 of the CAA, RACT as
specified in sections 182(b)(2) and 182(f), applies throughout the OTR.
The entire Commonwealth is located within the OTR. Therefore, RACT is
applicable statewide in Pennsylvania.
    SIP revisions imposing RACT for three classes of VOC sources are
required under section 182(b)(2) of the CAA. The categories are:
    (1) All sources covered by a Control Technique Guideline (CTG)
document issued between November 15, 1990 and the date of attainment;
    (2) All sources covered by a CTG issued prior to November 15, 1990;
and
    (3) All major non-CTG sources.
    The Pennsylvania SIP already has approved RACT regulations and
requirements for all sources and source categories covered by the CTGs.
The Pennsylvania SIP also has approved regulations to require major
sources of NOX and additional major sources of VOC emissions
(not covered by a CTG) to implement RACT. These regulations are
commonly termed the ``generic RACT regulations''. A generic RACT
regulation is one that does not, itself, specifically define RACT for a
source or source categories but instead establishes procedures for
imposing case-by-case RACT determinations. The Commonwealth's SIP-
approved generic RACT regulations consist of the procedures PADEP uses
to establish and impose RACT for subject sources of VOC and
NOX. Pursuant to the SIP-approved generic RACT rules, PADEP
imposes RACT on each subject source in an enforceable document, usually
a plan approval (PA) or operating permit (OP). The Commonwealth then
submits these PAs and OPs to EPA for approval as source-specific SIP
revisions. EPA reviews these SIP revisions to ensure that PADEP has
determined and imposed RACT in accordance with the provisions of the
SIP-approved generic RACT rules.
    It must be noted that the Commonwealth has adopted and is
implementing additional ``post RACT requirements'' to reduce seasonal
NOX emissions in the form of a NOX cap and trade
regulation, 25 Pa Code Chapters 121 and 123, based upon a model rule
developed by the States in the OTR. That regulation was approved as a
SIP revision on June 6, 2000 (65 FR 35842). Pennsylvania has also
adopted 25 Pa Code Chapter 145 to satisfy Phase I of the NOX
SIP call. That regulation was approved as a SIP revision on August 21,
2001 (66 FR 43795). Federal approval of a source-specific RACT
determination for a major source of NOX in no way relieves
that source from any applicable requirements found in 25 Pa Code
Chapters 121, 123 and 145.

II. Summary of SIP Revision

    Merck is a chemical process facility and is a major source of VOC
and NOX emissions located in Northumberland County,
Pennsylvania. The Commonwealth's submittal consists of an operating
permit (OP-49-0007B) that imposes VOC and NOX RACT
requirements for Merck. PADEP established and imposed these RACT
requirements in accordance with the criteria set forth in its SIP-
approved generic RACT regulations applicable to Merck. In accordance
with its SIP-approved generic RACT rule, the Commonwealth has also
imposed recordkeeping, monitoring, and testing requirements on Merck
sufficient to determine compliance with the applicable RACT
determinations.

III. Proposed Action

    EPA is proposing to approve the Pennsylvania SIP revision submitted
by PADEP on June 13, 2007 to establish and require VOC and
NOX RACT for Merck and Co., Inc. (OP-49-0007B) located in
Northumberland County, Pennsylvania, pursuant to the Commonwealth's
SIP-approved generic RACT regulations. EPA is soliciting public
comments on this proposed rule to approve this source-specific RACT
determination established and imposed by PADEP in accordance with the
criteria set forth in its SIP-approved generic RACT regulation
applicable to Merck. These comments will be considered before taking
final action.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this
proposed action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and
therefore is not subject to review by the Office of Management and
Budget. For this reason, this action is also not subject to Executive
Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001)).
This action merely proposes to approve state law as meeting Federal
requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those
imposed by

state law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this proposed
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C.
601 et seq.). Because this rule proposes to approve pre-existing
requirements under state law and does not impose any additional
enforceable duty beyond that required by state law, it does not contain
any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small
governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(Pub. L. 104-4). This proposed rule also does not have a substantial
direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between
the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of
power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian
tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9,
2000), nor will it have substantial direct effects on the States, on
the relationship between the national government and the States, or on
the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels
of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255,
August 10, 1999), because it merely proposes to approve a state rule
implementing a Federal requirement, and does not alter the relationship
or the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the
CAA. This proposed rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045
(62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it approves a state rule
implementing a Federal standard.
    In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. In this
context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the State
to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to
disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be
inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP
submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise
satisfies the provisions of the CAA. Thus, the requirements of section
12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995
(15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. As required by section 3 of
Executive Order 12988 (61 FR 4729, February 7, 1996), in issuing this
proposed rule, EPA has taken the necessary steps to eliminate drafting
errors and ambiguity, minimize potential litigation, and provide a
clear legal standard for affected conduct. EPA has complied with
Executive Order 12630 (53 FR 8859, March 15, 1988) by examining the
takings implications of the rule in accordance with the ``Attorney
General's Supplemental Guidelines for the Evaluation of Risk and
Avoidance of Unanticipated Takings'' issued under the executive order.
This proposed rule approving the VOC and NOX RACT
determinations for Merck and Co., Inc. located in Northumberland
County, Pennsylvania, does not impose an information collection burden
under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C.
3501 et seq.).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Dated: December 19, 2007.
Donald S. Welsh,
Regional Administrator, Region III.
[FR Doc. E7-25641 Filed 1-3-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P