[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 122 (Monday, June 27, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 38149]
[FR Doc No: 2022-13649]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER22-2141-000]

Sun Mountain Solar 1, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial
Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204
Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of
Sun Mountain Solar 1, LLC's application for market-based rate
authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such
application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR
part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington,
DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's
Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone
filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability, is July 11, 2022.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically may mail similar pleadings to
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE,
Washington, DC 20426. Hand delivered submissions in docketed
proceedings should be delivered to Health and Human Services, 12225
Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
    In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
Federal Register, the Commission provides all interested persons an
opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the
internet through the Commission's Home Page (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. At this time,
the Commission has suspended access to the Commission's Public
Reference Room, due to the proclamation declaring a National Emergency
concerning the Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19), issued by the
President on March 13, 2020. For assistance, contact the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission at [email protected] or call toll-free,
(886) 208-3676 or TYY,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: June 21, 2022.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-13649 Filed 6-24-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: February 1, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 22)]
[Notices]
[Page 6187]
[DOCID:fr01fe08-74]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee;
Notice of Meeting

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

    This notice announces a forthcoming meeting of a public advisory
committee of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The meeting will
be open to the public.
    Name of Committee: Vaccines and Related Biological Products
Advisory Committee.
    General Function of the Committee: To provide advice and
recommendations to the agency on FDA's regulatory issues.
    Date and Time: The meeting will be held on February 20, 2008, from
8:30 a.m. to approximately 4 p.m., and on February 21, 2008 from 8:30
a.m. to approximately 4:30 p.m.
    Location: Hilton Hotel DC North/Gaithersburg, 620 Perry Pkwy.,
Gaithersburg, MD 20877.
    Contact Person: Christine Walsh or Denise Royster, Center for
Biologics Evaluation and Research (HFM-71), Food and Drug
Administration, 1401 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
or FDA Advisory Committee Information Line, 1-800-741-8138 (301-443-
0572 in the Washington, DC area), code<PHONE_NUMBER>. Please call the
Information Line for up-to-date information on this meeting. A notice
in the Federal Register about last minute modifications that impact a
previously announced advisory committee meeting cannot always be
published quickly enough to provide timely notice. Therefore, you
should always check the agency's Web site and call the appropriate
advisory committee hot line/phone line to learn about possible
modifications before coming to the meeting.
    Agenda: On February 20, 2008, the committee will discuss and make
recommendations on a rotavirus vaccine manufactured by GlaxoSmithKline
Biologicals. On February 21, 2008, in the morning, the committee will
discuss the selection of strains to be included in the influenza
vaccine for the 2008--2009 influenza season. In the afternoon, the
committee will discuss clinical development of influenza vaccines for
pandemic and pre-pandemic uses.
    FDA intends to make background material available to the public no
later than 2 business days before the meeting. If FDA is unable to post
the background material on its Web site prior to the meeting, the
background material will be made publicly available at the location of
the advisory committee meeting, and the background material will be
posted on FDA's Web site after the meeting. Background material is
available at http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/ac/acmenu.htm, click on

the year 2008 and scroll down to the appropriate advisory committee
link.
    Procedure: Interested persons may present data, information, or
views, orally or in writing, on issues pending before the committee.
Written submissions may be made to the contact person on or before
February 13, 2008. Oral presentations from the public will be scheduled
between approximately 1 p.m. and 1:30 p.m. on February 20, 2008, and
approximately 11:20 a.m. and 11:50 a.m. and 2:45 p.m. and 3:15 p.m. on
February 21, 2008. Those desiring to make formal oral presentations
should notify the contact person and submit a brief statement of the
general nature of the evidence or arguments they wish to present, the
names and addresses of proposed participants, and an indication of the
approximate time requested to make their presentation on or before
February 6, 2008. Time allotted for each presentation may be limited.
If the number of registrants requesting to speak is greater than can be
reasonably accommodated during the scheduled open public hearing
session, FDA may conduct a lottery to determine the speakers for the
scheduled open public hearing session. The contact person will notify
interested persons regarding their request to speak by February 7,
2008.
    Persons attending FDA's advisory committee meetings are advised
that the agency is not responsible for providing access to electrical
outlets.
    FDA welcomes the attendance of the public at its advisory committee
meetings and will make every effort to accommodate persons with
physical disabilities or special needs. If you require special
accommodations due to a disability, please contact Christine Walsh or
Denise Royster at least 7 days in advance of the meeting.
    FDA is committed to the orderly conduct of its advisory committee
meetings. Please visit our Web site at http://www.fda.gov/oc/advisory/default.htm
 for procedures on public conduct during advisory committee

meetings.
    Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory
Committee Act (5 U.S.C. app. 2).

    Dated: January 24, 2008.
Randall W. Lutter,
Deputy Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. E8-1889 Filed 1-31-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4160-01-S


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 136 (Friday, July 15, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 41790-41791]
[FR Doc No: 2011-17747]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 12718-002]

Natural Currents Energy Services, LLC; Notice of Intent To File
License Application, Filing of Draft Application, Request for Waivers
of Integrated Licensing Process Regulations Necessary for Expedited
Processing of a Hydrokinetic Pilot Project License Application, and
Soliciting Comments

    a. Type of Filing: Notice of Intent To File a License Application
for an Original License for a Hydrokinetic Pilot Project.

    b. Project No.: 12718-002.
    c. Date Filed: June 28, 2011.
    d. Submitted By: Natural Currents Energy Services, LLC (Natural
Currents).
    e. Name of Project: Wards Island Tidal Energy Project.
    f. Location: Off the south shore of Wards Island, in the Hell Gate
Waterway near the junction of the Harlem River, East River, and Long
Island Sound in New York City, NY.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: 18 CFR 5.3 of the Commission's regulations.
    h. Applicant Contact: Roger Bason, President, Natural Currents
Energy Services, LLC, 24 Roxanne Blvd, Highland, NY 12528; (845) 691-
4008.
    i. FERC Contact: Emily Carter at<PHONE_NUMBER> or e-mail at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    j. Natural Currents has filed with the Commission: (1) A notice of
intent (NOI) to file an application for an original license for a
hydrokinetic pilot project and a draft license application with
monitoring plans; (2) a request for waivers of the integrated licensing
process regulations necessary for expedited processing of a
hydrokinetic pilot project license application; (3) a proposed process
plan and schedule; (4) a request to be designated as the non-federal
representative for section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA)
consultation; and (5) a request to be designated as the non-federal
representative for section 106 consultation under the National Historic
Preservation Act (collectively the pre-filing materials).
    k. With this notice, we are soliciting comments on the pre-filing
materials listed in paragraph j above, including the draft license
application and monitoring plans. All comments should be sent to the
address above in paragraph h. In addition, all comments may be filed
electronically via the Internet. See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the
instructions on the Commission's Web site http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can submit brief comments up to 6,000
characters, without prior registration, using the eComment system at
http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You must include your
name and contact information at the end of your comments. For
assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll free at 1-866-208-3676, or for TTY,
(202) 502-8659. Although the Commission strongly encourages electronic
filing, documents may also be paper-filed. To paper-file, mail an
original and seven copies to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426. Any individual or entity interested in submitting comments on
the pre-filing materials must do so by September 6, 2011.
    l. With this notice, we are approving Natural Current's request to
be designated as the non-federal representative for section 7 of the
ESA and its request to initiate consultation under section 106 of the
National Historic Preservation Act; and recommending that it begin
informal consultation with: (a) the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and
the National Marine Fisheries Service as required by section 7 of ESA;
and (b) the New York State Historic Preservation Officer, as required
by section 106, National Historical Preservation Act, and the
implementing regulations of the Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation at 36 CFR 800.2.
    m. With this notice, we also are asking federal, state, local, and
tribal agencies with jurisdiction and/or expertise with respect to
environmental issues to cooperate with us in the preparation of the
environmental document. Agencies who would like to request cooperating
status should follow the instructions for filing comments described in
paragraph ``k'' above.
    n. This notice does not constitute the Commission's approval of
Natural Current's request to use the Pilot Project Licensing
Procedures. Upon its review of the project's overall characteristics
relative to the pilot project criteria, the draft license application
contents, and any comments filed, the Commission will determine whether
there is adequate information to conclude the pre-filing process.
    o. The proposed Wards Island Tidal Energy Project would consist of:
(1) A 15-meter-long, 1.6-meter-diameter, vessel mounted 150-kW Natural
Currents Sea Dragon Tidal Turbine; (2) a vessel-based deployment
Principal Project Works or Structural Support system; (3) six 40-foot-
long steel support pilings; (3) a 50-meter-long subsea transmission
line connecting to an electrical cabinet owned by the New York City
Parks; and (4) appurtenant facilities. The hydrokinetic project would
have an estimated average annual generation of 350,400 kilowatt hours
per year.
    p. A copy of the draft license application and all pre-filing
materials are available for review at the Commission in the Public
Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site (http://www.ferc.gov), using the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number
(12718), excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to
access the document. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll free at 1-866-208-3676, or for TTY,
(202) 502-8659.
    q. Pre-filing process schedule. The pre-filing process will be
conducted pursuant to the following tentative schedule. Revisions to
the schedule below may be made based on staff's review of the draft
application and any comments received.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Milestone                              Date
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comments on pre-filing materials due......  September 6, 2011.
Issuance of meeting notice (if needed)....  September 21, 2011.
Public meeting/technical conference (if     October 21, 2011.
 needed).
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    r. Register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be notified via e-mail of new filing and issuances
related to this or other pending projects. For assistance, contact FERC
Online Support.

    Dated: July 8, 2011.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-17747 Filed 7-14-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 69 (Wednesday, April 10, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 21432-21433]
[FR Doc No: 2013-08372]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release Nos. 33-9399; 34-69316, File No. 265-27]

SEC Advisory Committee on Small and Emerging Companies

AGENCY: Securities and Exchange Commission.

ACTION: Notice of Meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The Securities and Exchange Commission Advisory Committee on
Small and Emerging Companies is providing notice that it will hold a
public meeting on Wednesday, May 1, 2013, in Multi-Purpose Room LL-006
at the Commission's headquarters, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC. The
meeting will begin at 9:30 a.m. (EDT) and will be open to the public.
The meeting will be webcast on the Commission's Web site at
www.sec.gov. Persons needing special accommodations to take part
because of a disability should notify the contact person listed below.
The public is invited to submit written statements to the Committee.
The agenda for the meeting includes matters relating to rules and
regulations affecting small and emerging companies under the federal
securities laws.

DATES: The public meeting will be held Wednesday, May 1, 2013. Written
statements should be received on or before April 26, 2013.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the Commission's headquarters,
100 F Street NE., Washington, DC. Written statements may be submitted
by any of the following methods:

Electronic Statements

     Use the Commission's Internet submission form (http://www.sec.gov/info/smallbus/acsec.shtml); or
     Send an email message to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please
include File Number 265-27 on the subject line; or

Paper Statements

     Send paper statements in triplicate to Elizabeth M.
Murphy, Federal Advisory Committee Management Officer, Securities and
Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.

All submissions should refer to File No. 265-27. This file number
should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help us
process and review your statement more efficiently, please use only one
method. The Commission will post all statements on the Advisory
Committee's Web site (http://www.sec.gov./info/smallbus/acsec.shtml).
Statements also will be available for Web site viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE., Room 1580,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. All statements received will be posted without
change; we do not edit personal identifying information from
submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make
available publicly.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Johanna V. Losert, Special Counsel, at
(202) 551-3460, Office of Small Business Policy, Division of
Corporation Finance, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street
NE., Washington, DC 20549-3628.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In accordance with Section 10(a) of the
Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C.-App. 1, and the regulations
thereunder, Lona Nallengara, Designated Federal Officer of the
Committee, has ordered publication of this notice.

    Dated: April 5, 2013.
Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 2013-08372 Filed 4-9-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 245 (Monday, December 21, 2020)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 82901-82903]
[FR Doc No: 2020-28012]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2020-0778; Product Identifier 2020-NM-097-AD; Amendment
39-21362; AD 2020-26-07]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Dassault Aviation Airplanes

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is superseding Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2019-23-
05, which applied to all Dassault Aviation Model MYSTERE-FALCON 900
airplanes. AD 2019-23-05 required revising the existing maintenance or
inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate new or more
restrictive airworthiness limitations. This AD continues to require
revising the existing maintenance or inspection program, as applicable,
to incorporate those new or more restrictive airworthiness limitations,
and also requires revising the existing maintenance or inspection
program, as applicable, to incorporate additional new or more
restrictive airworthiness limitations; as specified in a European Union
Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD, which is incorporated by reference.
This AD was prompted by a determination that new or more restrictive
airworthiness limitations are necessary. The FAA is issuing this AD to
address the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: This AD is effective January 25, 2021.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of January 25,
2021.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain other publication listed in this AD as of
January 13, 2020 (84 FR 67169, December 9, 2019).

ADDRESSES: For EASA material incorporated by reference (IBR) in this
AD, contact the EASA, Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3, 50668 Cologne, Germany;
phone: +49 221 8999 000; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>internet:
www.easa.europa.eu. You may find this IBR material on the EASA website
at https://ad.easa.europa.eu. For Dassault service information
identified in this final rule, contact Dassault Falcon Jet Corporation,
Teterboro Airport, P.O. Box 2000, South Hackensack, NJ 07606; phone:
201-440-6700; internet: https://www.dassaultfalcon.com. You may view
this IBR material at the FAA, Airworthiness Products Section,
Operational Safety Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For
information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 206-
231-3195. It is also available in the AD docket on the internet at
https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No.
FAA-2020-0778.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2020-
0778; 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, 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.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tom Rodriguez, Aerospace Engineer,
Large Aircraft Section, International Validation Branch, FAA, 2200
South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; phone and fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    The EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the
European Union, has issued EASA AD 2020-0115, dated May 20, 2020 (EASA
AD 2020-0115) (also referred to as the Mandatory Continuing
Airworthiness Information, or the MCAI), to correct an unsafe condition
for all Dassault Aviation Model MYSTERE-FALCON 900 airplanes.
    The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14
CFR part 39 to supersede AD 2019-23-05, Amendment 39-19799 (84 FR
67169, December 9, 2019) (AD 2019-23-05). AD 2019-23-05 applied to all
Dassault Aviation Model MYSTERE-FALCON 900 airplanes. The NPRM
published in the Federal Register on August 19, 2020 (85 FR 50970). The
NPRM was prompted by a determination that new or more restrictive
airworthiness limitations are necessary. The NPRM proposed to continue
to require revising the existing maintenance or inspection program, as
applicable, to incorporate new or more restrictive airworthiness
limitations. The NPRM also proposed to require revising the existing
maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate
additional new or more restrictive airworthiness limitations, as
specified in a EASA AD.
    The FAA is issuing this AD to address reduced structural integrity
of the airplane. See the MCAI for additional background information.

Comments

    The FAA gave the public the opportunity to participate in
developing this final rule. The FAA has considered the comments
received.

Support for the NPRM

    Ian Reineck indicated support for the NPRM.

Request To Include Actions in the Cost Estimate

    Ian Reineck requested that the cost estimate be revised to include
structural upkeep per flight hours, rather than solely maintenance work
hours. The commenter stated this is what determines the core functions
inside aviation maintenance schedules. The commenter also stated this
would be inclusive, regardless of operator, but still reflect the cost
of an average operator's inspection through the quantity of accumulated
flight time on the airplane. The commenter concluded that, if flight
time is not presented in the inspection cost, it presents another
problem: These aircraft may change ownership or operator-ship as they
age.
    The FAA infers that the commenter is requesting that the FAA
include the costs in this AD for complying with the actions (e.g.,
inspections) that are specified in the airworthiness limitations
document referenced in EASA AD 2020-0115. The FAA disagrees because
those actions are not directly required by this AD. Additionally, the
FAA does not distribute the costs over time because the cost estimates
have been

standardized to include the larger whole cost of the requirement, not
the more uniform cost per flight hour, which the FAA has determined is
best to inform the broadest user base. The cost information provided in
this AD describes only the direct costs of the specific actions
required by this AD. This AD requires only revising the existing
maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate the
``limitations, tasks and associated thresholds and intervals''
specified in paragraph (3) of EASA AD 2020-0115, and provides a
compliance time to phase in the initial actions. Section 91.403(c) of
the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 91.403(c)) requires the
actions once the maintenance or inspection program is changed.
Therefore, we have not changed this final rule in this regard.

Conclusion

    The FAA reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments
received, and determined that air safety and the public interest
require adopting this final rule as proposed, except for minor
editorial changes. The FAA has determined that these minor changes:
     Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the
NPRM for addressing the unsafe condition; and
     Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was
already proposed in the NPRM.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    EASA AD 2020-0115 describes new or more restrictive airworthiness
limitations for airplane structures and safe life limits.
    This AD also requires Chapter 5-40, Airworthiness Limitations,
Revision 24, dated September 2018, of the Dassault Aviation Falcon 900
Maintenance Manual, which the Director of the Federal Register approved
for incorporation by reference as of January 13, 2020 (84 FR 67169,
December 9, 2019).
    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 105 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 2019-23-05 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. In the past, the agency has estimated that this action
takes 1 work-hour per airplane. 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.

Adoption of the Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13   [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by:
0
a. Removing Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2019-23-05, Amendment 39-19799
(84 FR 67169, December 9, 2019), and
0
b. Adding the following new AD:

2020-26-07 Dassault Aviation: Amendment 39-21362; Docket No. FAA-
2020-0778; Product Identifier 2020-NM-097-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This airworthiness directive (AD) is effective January 25, 2021.

(b) Affected ADs

    (1) This AD replaces AD 2019-23-05, Amendment 39-19799 (84 FR
67169, December 9, 2019) (AD 2019-23-05).
    (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 all Dassault Aviation Model MYSTERE-FALCON
900 airplanes, certificated in any category.

(d) Subject

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

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by a determination that new or more
restrictive airworthiness limitations are necessary. The FAA is
issuing this AD to address reduced structural integrity of the
airplane.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Retained Revision of Existing Maintenance or Inspection Program,
With No Changes

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (i) of AD
2019-23-05, with no changes. Within 90 days after January 13, 2020
(the effective date of AD 2019-23-05), revise the existing
maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate the
information specified in Chapter 5-40,

Airworthiness Limitations, Revision 24, dated September 2018, of the
Dassault Aviation Falcon 900 Maintenance Manual. The initial
compliance times for doing the tasks are at the times specified in
Chapter 5-40, Airworthiness Limitations, Revision 24, dated
September 2018, of the Dassault Aviation Falcon 900 Maintenance
Manual, or within 90 days after January 13, 2020, whichever occurs
later. The term ``LDG'' in the ``First Inspection'' column of any
table in the service information specified in this paragraph means
total airplane landings. The term ``FH'' in the ``First Inspection''
column of any table in the service information specified in this
paragraph means total flight hours. The term ``FC'' in the ``First
Inspection'' column of any table in the service information
specified in this paragraph means total flight cycles. The term
``M'' in the ``First Inspection'' column of any table in the service
information specified in this paragraph means months since the date
of issuance of the original airworthiness certificate or the date of
issuance of the original export certificate of airworthiness.
Accomplishing the maintenance or inspection program revision
required by paragraph (i) of this AD terminates the requirements of
this paragraph.

(h) Retained Restrictions on Alternative Actions or Intervals, With a
New Exception

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (h) of AD
2019-23-05, with a new exception. Except as required by paragraph
(i) of this AD, after the existing maintenance or inspection program
has been revised as required by paragraph (g) of this AD, no
alternative actions (e.g., inspections) or intervals may be used
unless the actions or intervals are approved as an alternative
method of compliance (AMOC) in accordance with the procedures
specified in paragraph (m)(1) of this AD.

(i) New Maintenance or Inspection Program Revision

    Except as specified in paragraph (j) of this AD: Comply with all
required actions and compliance times specified in, and in
accordance with, European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD
2020-0115, dated May 20, 2020 (EASA AD 2020-0115). Accomplishing the
maintenance or inspection program revision required by this
paragraph terminates the requirements of paragraph (g) of this AD.

(j) Exceptions to EASA AD 2020-0115

    (1) The requirements specified in paragraphs (1) and (2) of EASA
AD 2020-0115 do not apply to this AD.
    (2) Paragraph (3) of EASA AD 2020-0115 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, to incorporate the ``limitations, tasks and
associated thresholds and intervals'' specified in paragraph (3) of
EASA AD 2020-0115 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 2020-0115 is at the applicable ``associated
thresholds'' specified in paragraph (3) of EASA AD 2020-0115, or
within 90 days after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs
later.
    (4) The provisions specified in paragraphs (4) and (5) of EASA
AD 2020-0115 do not apply to this AD.
    (5) The ``Remarks'' section of EASA AD 2020-0115 does not apply
to this AD.

(k) New Provisions for Alternative Actions or Intervals

    After the maintenance or inspection program has been revised as
required by paragraph (i) of this AD, no alternative actions (e.g.,
inspections) or intervals are allowed unless they are approved as
specified in the provisions of the ``Ref. Publications'' section of
EASA AD 2020-0115.

(l) Terminating Actions for Certain Requirements in AD 2010-26-05

    Accomplishing the actions required by paragraph (g) or (i) of
this AD terminates the requirements of paragraph (g)(1) of AD 2010-
26-05, for Dassault Aviation Model MYSTERE-FALCON 900 airplanes.

(m) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
Large Aircraft Section, International Validation Branch, FAA, has
the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the
procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19,
send your request to your principal inspector or responsible Flight
Standards Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to
the Large Aircraft Section, International Validation Branch, send it
to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (n) of this
AD. Information may be emailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (i) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate
principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager
of the responsible Flight Standards Office.
    (ii) AMOCs approved previously for AD 2019-23-05 are approved as
AMOCs for the corresponding provisions of EASA AD 2020-0115 that are
required by paragraph (i) of this AD.
    (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, Large Aircraft
Section, 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.

(n) Related Information

    For more information about this AD, contact Tom Rodriguez,
Aerospace Engineer, Large Aircraft Section, International Validation
Branch, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; phone and
fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
(o) 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
January 25, 2021.
    (i) European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD 2020-0115,
dated May 20, 2020.
    (ii) [Reserved]
    (4) The following service information was approved for IBR on
January 13, 2020 (84 FR 67169, December 9, 2019).
    (i) Chapter 5-40, Airworthiness Limitations, Revision 24, dated
September 2018, of the Dassault Aviation Falcon 900 Maintenance
Manual.
    (ii) [Reserved]
    (5) For EASA AD 2020-0115, contact the EASA, Konrad-Adenauer-
Ufer 3, 50668 Cologne, Germany; telephone +49 221 8999 000; email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet www.easa.europa.eu. You may find this
EASA AD on the EASA website at https://ad.easa.europa.eu.
    (6) For Dassault service information, contact Dassault Falcon
Jet Corporation, Teterboro Airport, P.O. Box 2000, South Hackensack,
NJ 07606; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; internet: https://www.dassaultfalcon.com.
    (7) You may view this material at the FAA, Airworthiness
Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200 South 216th St.,
Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this material
at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. This material may be found in the AD
docket on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by searching
for and locating Docket No. FAA-2020-0778.
    (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_ADDRESS>or go to: https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued on December 8, 2020.
Gaetano A. Sciortino,
Deputy Director for Strategic Initiatives, Compliance & Airworthiness
Division, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2020-28012 Filed 12-18-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 18 (Thursday, January 28, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 4903-4905]
[FR Doc No: 2016-01503]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2015-3994; Airspace Docket No. 15-ANM-23]

Proposed Establishment of Class E Airspace, Shelton, WA

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: This action proposes to establish Class E airspace at
Sanderson Field Airport, Shelton, WA, to accommodate new Standard
Instrument Approach Procedures developed at the airport. Controlled
airspace is necessary for the safety and management of Instrument
Flight Rules (IFR) operations at the airport.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before March 14, 2016.

ADDRESSES: Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>. You must identify FAA Docket No. FAA-2015-
3994; Airspace Docket No. 15-ANM-23, at the beginning of your comments.
You may also submit comments through the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. You may review the public docket containing the
proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in
the Dockets Office between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays. The Docket Office (telephone 1-800-

647-5527), is on the ground floor of the building at the above address.
    FAA Order 7400.9Z, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and
subsequent amendments can be viewed online at http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. For further information, you can contact the
Airspace Policy Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 29591; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
The Order is also available for inspection at the National Archives and
Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of
FAA Order 7400.9Z at NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal-regulations/ibr_locations.html.
    FAA Order 7400.9, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is
published yearly and effective on September 15.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106
describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII,
Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's
authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described
in Subtitle VII, Part, A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section,
the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of
airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient
use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority
as it would establish Class E airspace at Sanderson Field Airport,
Shelton, WA.

Comments Invited

    Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed
rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as
they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the
views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing
reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are
specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic,
environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.
Communications should identify both docket numbers and be submitted in
triplicate to the address listed above. Commenters wishing the FAA to
acknowledge receipt of their comments on this notice must submit with
those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the
following statement is made: ``Comments to Docket No. FAA-2015-3994;
Airspace Docket No. 15-ANM-23.'' The postcard will be date/time stamped
and returned to the commenter.

Availability of NPRMs

    An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking
documents can also be accessed through the FAA's Web page at http://www.faa.gov/airports_airtraffic/air_traffic/publications/airspace_amendments/.
    You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any
comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets
Office (see the ADDRESSES section for the address and phone number)
between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except federal
holidays. An informal docket may also be examined during normal
business hours at the Northwest Mountain Regional Office of the Federal
Aviation Administration, Air Traffic Organization, Western Service
Center, Operations Support Group, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA
98057.
    Persons interested in being placed on a mailing list for future
NPRMs should contact the FAA's Office of Rulemaking,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
for a copy of Advisory Circular No. 11-2A, Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking Distribution System, which describes the application
procedure.

Availability and Summary of Documents Proposed for Incorporation by
Reference

    This document would amend FAA Order 7400.9Z, Airspace Designations
and Reporting Points, dated August 6, 2015, and effective September 15,
2015. FAA Order 7400.9Z is publicly available as listed in the
ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order 7400.9Z lists Class A, B,
C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting
points.

The Proposal

    The FAA is proposing an amendment to Title 14 Code of Federal
Regulations (14 CFR) Part 71 by establishing Class E airspace extending
upward from 700 feet above the surface at Sanderson Field Airport,
Shelton, WA. Establishment of a GPS approach has made this action
necessary for the safety and management of IFR operations at the
airport. The Class E airspace area would be modified to a 4-mile radius
of the Ed Carlson Memorial-South Lewis County Airport, with segments
extending from the 4-mile radius to 5 miles northeast of the airport,
and 9.5 miles southwest of the airport.
    Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005 of
FAA Order 7400.9Z, dated August 6, 2015, and effective September 15,
2015, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E
airspace designations listed in this document will be published
subsequently in the Order.

Regulatory Notices and Analyses

    The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current, is
non-controversial and unlikely to result in adverse or negative
comments. It, therefore: (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action''
under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under
DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26,
1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation
as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter
that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified that this rule, when promulgated, would not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Environmental Review

    This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in
accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, ``Environmental Impacts: Policies
and Procedures'' prior to any FAA final regulatory action.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

The Proposed Amendment

    Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, the Federal
Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

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

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

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

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.9Z,
Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 6, 2015, and
effective September 15, 2015, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas Extending Upward From 700
Feet or More Above the Surface of the Earth.

* * * * *

ANM WA E5 Shelton, WA [New]

Sanderson Field Airport, WA
    (Lat. 47[deg]14'01'' N., long. 1243[deg]08'51'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 4-mile radius of the Sanderson Field Airport, and that
airspace 1.5 miles either side of the 068[deg] bearing from airport
extending from the 4-mile radius to 5 miles northeast of the
airport, and that airspace 2.3 miles either side of the 248[deg]
bearing from airport extending from the 4-mile radius to 9.5 miles
southwest of the airport.

    Issued in Seattle, Washington, on January 15, 2016.
Tracey Johnson,
Manager, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2016-01503 Filed 1-27-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 105 (Wednesday, June 1, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 34896-34902]
[FR Doc No: 2016-12722]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0569; FRL-9946-07]

Fluensulfone; Pesticide Tolerances

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes tolerances for residues of
fluensulfone in or on multiple commodities which are identified and
discussed later in this document. Interregional Research Project Number
4 (IR-4) and Makhteshim Agan of North America, Inc (d/b/a ADAMA)
requested these tolerances under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic
Act (FFDCA).

DATES: This regulation is June 1, 2016. Objections and requests for
hearings must be received on or before August 1, 2016, and must be
filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178
(see also Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION).

ADDRESSES: The docket for this action, identified by docket
identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0569, is available at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of Pesticide Programs Regulatory
Public Docket (OPP Docket) in the Environmental Protection Agency
Docket Center (EPA/DC), West William Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334,
1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001. The Public
Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public
Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number for the OPP
Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Please review the visitor instructions and
additional information about the docket available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

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

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

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

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

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

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

    Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an
objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a
hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a
hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided
in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify
docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0569 in the subject line on the first
page of your submission. All objections and requests for a hearing must
be in writing, and must be received by the Hearing Clerk on or August
1, 2016. Addresses for mail and hand delivery of objections and hearing
requests are provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b).
    In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the
Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of
the filing (excluding any Confidential Business Information (CBI)) for
inclusion in the public docket. Information not marked confidential
pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without
prior notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your objection or hearing
request, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0569, by one of
the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Do not submit
electronically any information you consider to be CBI or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
     Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental Protection Agency Docket
Center (EPA/DC), (28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC
20460-0001.
     Hand Delivery: To make special arrangements for hand
delivery or delivery of boxed information, please follow the
instructions at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.html. Additional
instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along with more
information about dockets generally, is available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

II. Summary of Petitioned-For Tolerance

    In the Federal Register of October 21, 2015 (80 FR 63731) (FRL-
9935-29), EPA issued a document pursuant to FFDCA section 408(d)(3), 21
U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a pesticide petition (PP
5E8384) by IR-4, 500 College Road East, Suite 201 W., Princeton, NJ
08540. The petition requested that 40 CFR part 180 be amended by
establishing a tolerance for residues of fluensulfone equivalents
(i.e., the sum of thiazole sulfonic acid (TSA) and butene sulfonic acid
(BSA) expressed as total fluensulfone equivalents) in or on the raw
agricultural commodity vegetable, tuberous and corm, subgroup 1C at 0.6
ppm. That document referenced a summary of the petition prepared by
Makhteshim Agan of North America, Inc., the registrant, which is
available in the docket, http://www.regulations.gov. A comment was
received on the notice of filing, however it related to the chemical
propenicol, not fluensulfone.
    In the Federal Register of March 16, 2016 (81 FR 14030) (FRL-9942-
86), EPA issued a document pursuant to FFDCA section 408(d)(3), 21
U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a pesticide petition (PP
5F8351) by Makhteshim Agan of North America, Inc. (d/b/a ADAMA), 3120
Highwoods Blvd., Suite 100, Raleigh, NC 27604. The petition requested
that 40 CFR part 180 be amended by establishing a tolerance for
residues of nematicide fluensulfone, including its metabolites and
degradates, in or on berry, low growing, subgroup 13-07G at 0.30 ppm;
head and stem Brassica subgroup 5A at 1.3 ppm; leafy Brassica greens
subgroup 5B at 13 ppm; leafy vegetables, group 4, except Brassica
vegetables at 2.6 ppm; leaves of root and tuber vegetables, group 2 at
20 ppm; radish, oriental at 0.50 ppm; and root vegetables, subgroup

1B, except sugar beet and oriental radish at 3.3 ppm. In addition, the
petition requested to amend 40 CFR 180.680 to revise the existing
tolerance expression in the introductory paragraph (a) to read
``Tolerances are established for residues of the nematicide
fluensulfone, including its metabolites and degradates, in or on the
commodities in the table below. Compliance with the tolerance levels
specified below is to be determined by measuring only 3,4,4-trifluoro-
but-3-ene-1-sulfonic acid.'' That document referenced a summary of the
petition prepared by Makhteshim Agan of North America, Inc., the
registrant, which is available in the docket, EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0478 at
http://www.regulations.gov. Comments were received on the notice of
filing. EPA's response to these comments is discussed in Unit IV.C.
    Based upon review of the data supporting the petition, EPA has
modified the levels at which tolerances are being established for most
commodities. The reasons for these changes are explained in Unit IV.D.

III. Aggregate Risk Assessment and Determination of Safety

    Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish a
tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a
food) only if EPA determines that the tolerance is ``safe.'' Section
408(b)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines ``safe'' to mean that ``there is a
reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure
to the pesticide chemical residue, including all anticipated dietary
exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable
information.'' This includes exposure through drinking water and in
residential settings, but does not include occupational exposure.
Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA requires EPA to give special
consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide
chemical residue in establishing a tolerance and to ``ensure that there
is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and
children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue . .
. .''
    Consistent with FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), and the factors
specified in FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), EPA has reviewed the available
scientific data and other relevant information in support of this
action. EPA has sufficient data to assess the hazards of and to make a
determination on aggregate exposure for fluensulfone including exposure
resulting from the tolerances established by this action. EPA's
assessment of exposures and risks associated with fluensulfone follows.

A. Toxicological Profile

    EPA has evaluated the available toxicity data and considered its
validity, completeness, and reliability as well as the relationship of
the results of the studies to human risk. EPA has also considered
available information concerning the variability of the sensitivities
of major identifiable subgroups of consumers, including infants and
children.
    The residue of concern for dietary assessment is the parent
compound, fluensulfone. Residues of the metabolites butene sulfonic
acid (BSA) and thiazole sulfonic acid (TSA) occur at levels
significantly greater than fluensulfone; however, these metabolites are
considered non-toxic at levels that may occur from the use of
fluensulfone. Based on the available data addressing toxicity of the
BSA and TSA metabolites, the Agency has determined that they are not of
toxicological concern.
    Exposure to fluensulfone results in effects on the hematopoietic
system (decreased platelets, increased white blood cells, hematocrit,
and reticulocytes), kidneys, and lungs. Body weight and clinical
chemistry changes were observed across multiple studies and species.
Evidence of qualitative increased susceptibility of infants and
children to the effects of fluensulfone was observed in the 2-
generation reproduction study in rats, wherein pup death was observed
at a dose that resulted in body weight effects in the dams. There was
no evidence of either qualitative or quantitative susceptibility in
developmental toxicity studies in rats or rabbits.
    The most sensitive endpoints for assessing safety of aggregate
exposures to fluensulfone under the FFDCA are the increased pup-loss
effects for acute dietary exposure; and body weight, hematological and
clinical chemistry changes for chronic dietary as well as short/
intermediate term dermal exposures.
    Decreased locomotor activity in females, and decreased spontaneous
activity, decreased rearing, and impaired righting response in both
sexes were observed in the acute neurotoxicity study at the lowest dose
tested. No other evidence for neurotoxicity was observed in the other
studies in the toxicity database, including a subchronic neurotoxicity
study. The doses and endpoints chosen for risk assessment are all
protective of the effects seen in the acute neurotoxicity study. A
developmental neurotoxicity study is not required.
    Although the mouse carcinogenicity study showed an association with
alveolar/bronchiolar adenomas and carcinomas in the female, EPA has
determined that quantification of risk using the chronic reference dose
(RfD) will account for all chronic toxicity, including carcinogenicity,
that could result from exposure to fluensulfone and its metabolites.
That conclusion is based on the following considerations:
    1. The tumors occurred in only one sex in one species.
    2. No carcinogenic response was seen in either sex in the rat.
    3. The tumors in the mouse study were observed at a dose that is
almost 13 times higher than the dose chosen for risk assessment.
    4. Fluensulfone and its metabolites are not mutagenic.
    Specific information on the studies received and the nature of the
adverse effects caused by fluensulfone as well as the no-observed-
adverse-effect-level (NOAEL) and the lowest-observed-adverse-effect-
level (LOAEL) from the toxicity studies can be found at http://www.regulations.gov in the document titled ``Fluensulfone--Aggregate
Human Health Risk Assessment Addressing Label Amendments, Changes to
the Residue Definition, and New Uses on Multiple Crops'' on page 43 in
docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0569.

B. Toxicological Points of Departure/Levels of Concern

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

complete description of the risk assessment process, see http://www2.epa.gov/pesticide-science-and-assessing-pesticide-risks/assessing-human-health-risk-pesticides.
    A summary of the toxicological endpoints for fluensulfone used for
human risk assessment is shown in Table 1 of this unit.

 Table 1--Summary of Toxicological Doses and Endpoints for Fluensulfone for Use in Human Health Risk Assessment
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    Point of departure
        Exposure/scenario            and uncertainty/     RfD, PAD,  LOC for    Study and toxicological effects
                                      safety factors       risk assessment
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acute dietary (All populations,    NOAEL = 16.2 mg/kg/   Acute RfD = 0.16 mg/ 2-generation reproduction--rat
 including infants and children     day                   kg/day.              offspring.
 and females 13-49 years of age).  UFA = 10x...........  aPAD = 0.16 mg/kg/   LOAEL = 122.0 mg/kg/day based on
                                   UFH = 10x...........   day.                 an increase in pup loss between
                                   FQPA SF = 1x........                        PND 1 and 4 in the F1 and F2
                                                                               offspring with the majority of
                                                                               deaths occurring on day 2.
Chronic dietary (All populations)  NOAEL= 9.6 mg/kg/day  Chronic RfD = 0.10   2-year toxicity/carcinogenicity-
                                   UFA = 10x...........   mg/kg/day.           rat.
                                   UFH = 10x...........  cPAD = 0.10 mg/kg/   LOAEL = 57.7 mg/kg/day based on
                                   FQPA SF = 1x........   day.                 decreased body weight in males,
                                                                               and hematology changes, clinical
                                                                               chemistry changes and
                                                                               histopathological effects in the
                                                                               lung and esophagus of both sexes.
Incidental oral short-term (1 to   NOAEL= 9.6 mg/kg/day  LOC for MOE = 100..  2-year toxicity/carcinogenicity-
 30 days).                         UFA = 10x...........                        rat.
                                   UFH = 10x...........                       LOAEL = 57.7 mg/kg/day based on
                                   FQPA SF = 1x........                        decreased body weight in males,
                                                                               and hematology changes, clinical
                                                                               chemistry changes and
                                                                               histopathological effects in the
                                                                               lung and esophagus of both sexes.
Dermal short-term (1 to 30 days).  Oral study NOAEL =    LOC for MOE = 100..  2-year toxicity/carcinogenicity-
                                    9.6 mg/kg/day                              rat.
                                    (dermal absorption                        LOAEL = 57.7 mg/kg/day based on
                                    factor = 9.5%)                             decreased body weight in males,
                                   UFA = 10x...........                        and hematology changes, clinical
                                   UFH = 10x...........                        chemistry changes and
                                   FQPA SF = 1x........                        histopathological effects in the
                                                                               lung and esophagus of both sexes.
                                  ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cancer (Oral, dermal, inhalation)  EPA has determined that quantification of risk using the chronic RfD will
                                    adequately account for all chronic toxicity, including carcinogenicity.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FQPA SF = Food Quality Protection Act Safety Factor. LOAEL = lowest-observed-adverse-effect-level. LOC = level
  of concern. mg/kg/day = milligram/kilogram/day. MOE = margin of exposure. NOAEL = no-observed-adverse-effect-
  level. PAD = population adjusted dose (a = acute, c = chronic). RfD = reference dose. UF = uncertainty factor.
  UFA = extrapolation from animal to human (interspecies). UFH = potential variation in sensitivity among
  members of the human population (intraspecies).

C. Exposure Assessment

    1. Dietary exposure from food and feed uses. In evaluating dietary
exposure to fluensulfone, EPA considered exposure under the petitioned-
for tolerances as well as all existing fluensulfone tolerances in 40
CFR 180.680. Parent fluensulfone occurs at residue levels well below
those of the BSA metabolite, the residue defined for the enforcement of
tolerances. As previously noted, the BSA metabolite is not of
toxicological concern. Since tolerances do not include fluensulfone
itself, EPA has used the Organization for Economic Cooperation and
Development (OECD) maximum residue limit (MRL) calculation procedures
to derive tolerance-equivalent residue levels for fluensulfone. For
foods where the level of fluensulfone is expected to be below the limit
of quantification (LOQ), 0.01 ppm, the Agency has assumed that residues
occur at the LOQ. For foods with quantifiable levels of fluensulfone,
EPA has assumed that residues occur at the tolerance-equivalent level.
EPA assessed dietary exposures from fluensulfone in food as follows:
    i. Acute exposure. Quantitative acute dietary exposure and risk
assessments are performed for a food-use pesticide, if a toxicological
study has indicated the possibility of an effect of concern occurring
as a result of a 1-day or single exposure.
    Such effects were identified for fluensulfone. In estimating acute
dietary exposure, EPA used 2003-2008 food consumption information from
the United States Department of Agriculture's (USDA's) National Health
and Nutrition Examination Survey, What We Eat in America, (NHANES/
WWEIA). As to residue levels in food, the acute dietary risk assumed
tolerance-equivalent residues and 100 percent crop treated (PCT).
    ii. Chronic exposure. In conducting the chronic dietary exposure
assessment EPA used 2003-2008 food consumption information from the
USDA's NHANES/WWEIA. As to residue levels in food, the chronic dietary
risk assumed tolerance-equivalent residues and 100 PCT.
    iii. Cancer. Based on the data summarized in Unit III.A., EPA has
concluded that a nonlinear RfD approach is appropriate for assessing
cancer risk to fluensulfone. Cancer risk was assessed using the same
exposure estimates as discussed in Unit III.C.1.ii.
    iv. Anticipated residue and PCT information. EPA did not use
anticipated residue or PCT information in the dietary assessment for
fluensulfone. Tolerance-equivalent level residues and 100 PCT were
assumed for all food commodities.
    2. Dietary exposure from drinking water. The Agency used screening
level water exposure models in the dietary exposure analysis and risk
assessment for fluensulfone in drinking water. These simulation models
take into account data on the physical, chemical, and fate/transport
characteristics of fluensulfone. Further information regarding EPA
drinking water models used in pesticide exposure assessment can be
found at http://www2.epa.gov/pesticide-science-and-assessing-pesticide-risks/about-water-exposure-models-used-pesticide.

    Based on the Pesticide Root Zone Model/Exposure Analysis Modeling
System (PRZM/EXAMS) and Pesticide Root Zone Model Ground Water (PRZM
GW) models, the estimated drinking water concentrations (EDWCs) for
acute exposures are estimated to be 11.8 parts per billion (ppb) for
surface water and 77.6 ppb for ground water and for chronic exposures
are estimated to be 0.173 ppb for surface water and 52.5 ppb for ground
water.
    Modeled estimates of drinking water concentrations were directly
entered into the dietary exposure model. For the acute dietary risk
assessment, the water concentration value of 77.6 ppb was used to
assess the contribution to drinking water. For the chronic dietary risk
assessment, the water concentration of value 52.5 ppb was used to
assess the contribution to drinking water.
    3. From non-dietary exposure. The term ``residential exposure'' is
used in this document to refer to non-occupational, non-dietary
exposure (e.g., for lawn and garden pest control, indoor pest control,
termiticides, and flea and tick control on pets). Fluensulfone is
currently registered for the following uses that could result in
residential exposures: Turf/lawns. EPA assessed residential exposure
using the following assumptions: For residential handlers, a
quantitative exposure/risk assessment was not developed because the
product is not intended to be applied by homeowners. For adult
residential post-application exposure, the Agency evaluated dermal
post-application exposure only to outdoor turf/lawn applications (high
contact activities). The Agency also evaluated residential post-
application exposure for children via dermal and hand-to-mouth routes
of exposure, resulting from treated outdoor turf/lawn applications
(high contact activities).
    Further information regarding EPA standard assumptions and generic
inputs for residential exposures may be found at http://www2.epa.gov/pesticide-science-and-assessing-pesticide-risks/standard-operating-procedures-residential-pesticide.
    4. Cumulative effects from substances with a common mechanism of
toxicity. Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of FFDCA requires that, when
considering whether to establish, modify, or revoke a tolerance, the
Agency consider ``available information'' concerning the cumulative
effects of a particular pesticide's residues and ``other substances
that have a common mechanism of toxicity.''
    EPA has not found fluensulfone to share a common mechanism of
toxicity with any other substances, and fluensulfone does not appear to
produce a toxic metabolite produced by other substances. For the
purposes of this tolerance action, therefore, EPA has assumed that
fluensulfone does not have a common mechanism of toxicity with other
substances. For information regarding EPA's efforts to determine which
chemicals have a common mechanism of toxicity and to evaluate the
cumulative effects of such chemicals, see EPA's Web site at http://www2.epa.gov/pesticide-science-and-assessing-pesticide-risks/cumulative-assessment-risk-pesticides.

D. Safety Factor for Infants and Children

    1. In general. Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA provides that EPA
shall apply an additional tenfold (10X) margin of safety for infants
and children in the case of threshold effects to account for prenatal
and postnatal toxicity and the completeness of the database on toxicity
and exposure unless EPA determines based on reliable data that a
different margin of safety will be safe for infants and children. This
additional margin of safety is commonly referred to as the FQPA Safety
Factor (SF). In applying this provision, EPA either retains the default
value of 10X, or uses a different additional safety factor when
reliable data available to EPA support the choice of a different
factor.
    2. Prenatal and postnatal sensitivity. No evidence of quantitative
or qualitative susceptibility was seen in developmental toxicity
studies in rats and rabbits. Fetal effects in those studies occurred in
the presence of maternal toxicity and were not considered more severe
than the maternal effects. However, there was evidence of increased
qualitative, but not quantitative, susceptibility of pups in the 2-
generation reproduction study in rats. Maternal effects observed in
that study were decreased body weight and body weight gain; at the same
dose, effects in offspring were decreased pup weights, decreased spleen
weight, and increased pup loss (PND 1-4).
    Although there is evidence of increased qualitative susceptibility
in the 2-generation reproduction study in rats, there are no residual
uncertainties with regard to pre- and post-natal toxicity following in
utero exposure to rats or rabbits and pre- and post-natal exposures to
rats. Considering the overall toxicity profile, the clear NOAEL for the
pup effects observed in the 2-generation reproduction study, and that
the doses selected for risk assessment are protective of all effects in
the toxicity database including the offspring effects, the degree of
concern for the susceptibility is low.
    3. Conclusion. EPA has determined that reliable data show the
safety of infants and children would be adequately protected if the
FQPA SF were reduced to 1x. That decision is based on the following
findings:
    i. The toxicity database for fluensulfone is complete.
    ii. Evidence of potential neurotoxicity was only seen following
acute exposure to fluensulfone and the current PODs chosen for risk
assessment are protective of the effects observed. There is no need for
a developmental neurotoxicity study or additional UFs to account for
neurotoxicity.
    iii. There is no indication of quantitative susceptibility in the
developmental and reproductive toxicity studies, and there are no
residual uncertainties concerning pre- or post-natal toxicity. In
addition, the endpoints and doses chosen for risk assessment are
protective of the qualitative susceptibility observed in the 2-
generation reproduction study.
    iv. There are no residual uncertainties identified in the exposure
databases. The dietary food exposure assessments were performed based
on 100 PCT and tolerance equivalent-level residues. EPA made
conservative (protective) assumptions in the ground and surface water
modeling used to assess exposure to fluensulfone in drinking water. EPA
used similarly conservative assumptions to assess post-application
exposure of children as well as incidental oral exposure of toddlers.
These assessments will not underestimate the exposure and risks posed
by fluensulfone.

E. Aggregate Risks and Determination of Safety

    EPA determines whether acute and chronic dietary pesticide
exposures are safe by comparing aggregate exposure estimates to the
acute PAD (aPAD) and chronic PAD (cPAD). For linear cancer risks, EPA
calculates the lifetime probability of acquiring cancer given the
estimated aggregate exposure. Short-, intermediate-, and chronic-term
risks are evaluated by comparing the estimated aggregate food, water,
and residential exposure to the appropriate PODs to ensure that an
adequate MOE exists.
    1. Acute risk. Using the exposure assumptions discussed in this
unit for acute exposure, the acute dietary exposure from food and water
to fluensulfone will occupy 9.3% of the aPAD for all infants less than
1 year old, the population group receiving the greatest exposure.

    2. Chronic risk. Using the exposure assumptions described in this
unit for chronic exposure, EPA has concluded that chronic exposure to
fluensulfone from food and water will utilize 3.9% of the cPAD for all
infants less than 1 year old, the population group receiving the
greatest exposure. Based on the explanation in Unit III.C.3., regarding
residential use patterns, chronic residential exposure to residues of
fluensulfone is not expected.
    3. Short-term risk. Short-term aggregate exposure takes into
account short-term residential exposure plus chronic exposure to food
and water (considered to be a background exposure level).
    Fluensulfone is currently registered for uses that could result in
short-term residential exposure, and the Agency has determined that it
is appropriate to aggregate chronic exposure through food and water
with short-term residential exposures to fluensulfone.
    Using the exposure assumptions described in this unit for short-
term exposures, EPA has concluded the combined short-term food, water,
and residential exposures result in aggregate MOEs of 5,700 for adults
and 3,000 for children 1-2 years old. Because EPA's level of concern
for fluensulfone is a MOE of 100 or below, these MOEs are not of
concern.
    4. Intermediate-term risk. Intermediate-term aggregate exposure
takes into account intermediate-term residential exposure plus chronic
exposure to food and water (considered to be a background exposure
level).
    An intermediate-term adverse effect was identified; however,
fluensulfone is not registered for any use patterns that would result
in intermediate-term residential exposure. Intermediate-term risk is
assessed based on intermediate-term residential exposure plus chronic
dietary exposure. Because there is no intermediate-term residential
exposure and chronic dietary exposure has already been assessed under
the appropriately protective cPAD (which is at least as protective as
the POD used to assess intermediate-term risk), no further assessment
of intermediate-term risk is necessary, and EPA relies on the chronic
dietary risk assessment for evaluating intermediate-term risk for
fluensulfone.
    5. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. population. EPA assessed cancer
risk using a non-linear approach (i.e., RfD) since it adequately
accounts for all chronic toxicity, including carcinogenicity, that
could result from exposure to fluensulfone. As the chronic dietary
endpoint and dose are protective of potential cancer effects,
fluensulfone is not expected to pose an aggregate cancer risk.
    6. Determination of safety. Based on these risk assessments, EPA
concludes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result
to the general population, or to infants and children from aggregate
exposure to fluensulfone residues.

IV. Other Considerations

A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    Adequate enforcement methodology (acetonitrile/water (1:1, v/v)
extraction and analysis by reverse-phase high-performance liquid
chromatography-mass spectrometry (HPLC-MS/MS)) is available to enforce
the tolerance expression.
    The method may be requested from: Chief, Analytical Chemistry
Branch, Environmental Science Center, 701 Mapes Rd., Ft. Meade, MD
20755-5350; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
B. International Residue Limits

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

C. Response to Comments

    Three comments were submitted in response to the March 16, 2016
Notice of Filing. Two of them opposed the petition generally due to
there being too many toxic chemicals being used in America without
citing any specific human health concerns about fluensulfone itself.
The Agency understands the commenters' concerns and recognizes that
some individuals believe that pesticides should be banned on
agricultural crops. However, the existing legal framework provided by
section 408 of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) states
that tolerances may be set when persons seeking such tolerances or
exemptions have demonstrated that the pesticide meets the safety
standard imposed by that statute. The comment appears to be directed at
the underlying statute and not EPA's implementation of it; the citizen
has made no contention that EPA has acted in violation of the statutory
framework.
    The second comment was from the Center for Food Safety and
primarily concerned about Agency compliance with any relevant
obligations under the Endangered Species Act. This comment is not
relevant to the Agency's evaluation of safety of the fluensulfone
tolerances; section 408 of the FFDCA focuses on potential harms to
human health and does not permit consideration of effects on the
environment.

D. Revisions to Petitioned-For Tolerances

    Most of the petitioned-for tolerance levels differ from those being
established by the Agency. In the cases of the tolerances proposed by
ADAMA, it is not clear to the Agency how the tolerance levels proposed
in the March 16, 2016 Notice of Filing (Federal Register 2016-05952)
were derived. EPA's tolerance levels are based on residues of BSA only,
without any conversion to fluensulfone equivalents. The Agency used the
OECD MRL procedures to derive the levels being established in today's
action. For crop groups, and per EPA's current policy, tolerance levels
for each representative commodity were calculated separately, and then
the maximum value within each crop group was selected as the tolerance
level. For root vegetables except sugar beet (Subgroup 1B), the
tolerance level is based on data from radish root (including Oriental
radish root). Although a separate listing for Oriental radish was
requested, EPA is not establishing a separate tolerance level since
that crop is a member of crop subgroup 1B. For leaves of root and tuber
vegetables (Crop Group 2), EPA is establishing a tolerance for residues
in/on the leaves of root and tuber vegetable, except sugar beet because
the petitioned-for uses do not include a use on sugar beet; the
tolerance is based on data from radish tops (including Oriental radish
tops). The tolerance for residues in/on leafy vegetables except
Brassica vegetables (Group 4) is based on data from leaf lettuce and
spinach, assessed separately. For head and stem Brassica (Subgroup 5A),
the tolerance is

based on data from cabbage. For Brassica leafy greens (Subgroup 5B),
data from mustard greens, komatsuna (Japanese mustard spinach), and
mizuna (Japanese mustard) were combined to derive the tolerance level.
All of EPA's tolerance levels are expressed to provide sufficient
precision for enforcement purposes, and this may include the addition
of trailing zeros (e.g., 0.30 ppm rather than 0.3 ppm).
    In the case of the tolerance proposed by IR-4, the petitioned-for
tolerance is based on the sum of residues of BSA and TSA, expressed as
fluensulfone, rather than on residues of BSA only, which is how the
tolerance expression currently describes measurement of residues for
compliance purposes. Basing enforcement on BSA alone provides a
suitable marker of use, simplifies residue analysis, and avoids
enforcement complications that may result from the potential for TSA to
carry over in treated soil from one year to the next. Furthermore, IR-4
did not propose tolerances for residues of fluensulfone in processed
potato commodities. The submitted potato processing study indicates
that during processing, residues of BSA in chips and in granules/flakes
are likely to concentrate to levels greater than in tubers. Therefore,
EPA is establishing separate tolerances to cover residues in those
commodities.

V. Conclusion

    Therefore, tolerances are established for residues of fluensulfone
in or on berry, low growing, subgroup 13-07G at 0.30 ppm; Brassica,
head and stem, subgroup 5A at 1.50 ppm; Brassica, leafy greens,
subgroup 5B at 9.0 ppm; potato, chips at 0.60 ppm; potato, granules/
flakes at 0.80 ppm; vegetables, leafy, except Brassica, group 4 at 2.0
ppm; vegetable, leaves of root and tuber, group 2, except sugar beet at
30 ppm; vegetables, root, except sugar beet, subgroup 1B at 3.0 ppm;
and vegetables, tuberous and corm, subgroup 1C at 0.50 ppm. Also, the
time-limited Section 18 tolerance for ``carrot'' is removed since it is
now covered by the permanent tolerance for ``vegetables, root, except
sugar beet, subgroup 1B.'' And lastly, the tolerance expression is
changed as requested by the petitioner.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

VII. Congressional Review Act

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

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180

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

    Dated: May 19, 2016.
Daniel J. Rosenblatt,
Acting Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.

    Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:

PART 180--[AMENDED]

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

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

0
2. Section 180.680 is revised to read as follows:

Sec.  180.680  Fluensulfone; tolerances for residues.

    (a) General. Tolerances are established for residues of the
nematicide fluensulfone, including its metabolites and degradates, in
or on the commodities in the table below. Compliance with the tolerance
levels specified below is to be determined by measuring only 3,4,4-
trifluoro-but-3-ene-1-sulfonic acid.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Parts per
                          Commodity                             million
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Berry, low growing, subgroup 13-07G.........................        0.30
Brassica, head and stem, subgroup 5A........................        1.50
Brassica, leafy greens, subgroup 5B.........................         9.0
Potato, chips...............................................        0.60
Potato, granules/flakes.....................................        0.80
Tomato, paste...............................................         1.0
Vegetables, cucurbits, group 9..............................        0.50
Vegetables, fruiting, group 8-10............................        0.50
Vegetables, leafy, except Brassica, group 4.................         2.0
Vegetables, leaves of root and tuber, group 2, except sugar           30
 beet.......................................................
Vegetables, root, except sugar beet, subgroup 1B............         3.0
Vegetables, tuberous and corm, subgroup 1C..................        0.50
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (b) Section 18 emergency exemptions. [Reserved]
    (c) Tolerances with regional registrations. [Reserved]
    (d) Indirect or inadvertant residues. [Reserved]
[FR Doc. 2016-12722 Filed 5-31-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 18 (Monday, January 28, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 5794]
[FR Doc No: 2013-01611]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. EL13-41-000]

Occidental Chemical Corporation v. Midwest Independent
Transmission System Operator, Inc.; Notice of Complaint and Petition
for Declaratory Order

    Take notice that on January 17, 2013, pursuant to section 206 and
306 of the Federal Power Act (FPA), 16 U.S.C. 824e, and 825e (2012) and
Rules 206 and 207(a)(2) of the Rules of Practice and Procedure of the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission); 18 CFR
385.206 and 18 CFR 385.207(a)(2) (2012), Occidental Chemical
Corporation (Complainant) filed (1) a formal complaint against Midwest
Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc. (Respondent or MISO),
alleging that the MISO QF Integration Plan is unlawful, in violation of
FPA sections 205 and 206, as well as, violates the Public Utility
Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 (PURPA) and the Commission's
implementing regulations and (2) a petition for declaratory order
requesting that the Commission direct MISO to permit qualifying
facilities (QFs) to register for and participate in its markets without
forgoing their statutory rights under PURPA and FERC's implementing
regulations and find that the MISO QF Integration Plan is invalid and
cannot be implemented by MISO because it has not been filed with FERC
pursuant to section 205 of the FPA.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. The Respondent's
answer and all interventions, or protests must be filed on or before
the comment date. The Respondent's answer, motions to intervene, and
protests must be served on the Complainants.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an
original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on February 14, 2013.

    Dated: January 18, 2013.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-01611 Filed 1-25-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 57 (Wednesday, March 25, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 15857-15858]
[FR Doc No: 2015-06900]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Sunshine Act Meeting.

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the
Government in the Sunshine Act, Public Law 94-409, that the Securities
and Exchange Commission will hold an Open Meeting on Wednesday, March
25, 2015 at 10:00 a.m., in the Auditorium, Room L-002.
    The subject matter of the Open Meeting will be:
     The Commission will consider whether to propose amendments
to Rule 15b9-1 (Exemption for Certain Exchange Members) under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
     The Commission will consider whether to adopt rules and
forms related to the offer and sale of securities pursuant to Section
3(b) of the Securities Act of 1933 to implement Section 401 of the
Jumpstart Our Business Startups Act.
    The duty officer determined that no earlier notice thereof was
possible.
    At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in
the scheduling of meeting items.
    For further information and to ascertain what, if any, matters have
been added, deleted, or postponed, please contact:
    The Office of the Secretary at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: March 20, 2015.
Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-06900 Filed 3-23-15; 11:15 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


Deirdre Murphy/RTP/USEPA/US

06/19/2008 08:13 AM

To

Tricia Crabtree/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

cc

Subject

NACAA Lead Testimony - clarification

Hi Tricia,

This morning (6/19/08), I spoke to Mary Stewart Douglas of NACAA to ask a clarifying question regarding the testimony that NACAA recently submitted on the Pb NAAQS, which they had apparently intended to read at the Baltimore and St. Louis hearings.

I asked her to clarify the meaning for the first two full sentences at the top of page 2 which refer to blood Pb concentrations below 7.5 (1) and use of 9 ug/DL as a "baseline" (2).  With regard to the second, she said that that was a result of some confusion with the assistance they had in drafting the letter;  she did not think that they would include that sentence in their full written comments on the proposal (to be submitted by 7/21).  With regard to the first sentence, she indicated that it was referring to the quantitative C-R relationship (from the analysis of children with peak BLL<7.5) recommended by CASAC.

Deirdre