EPA Registration Division contact: Barbara Madden  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 :
(703) 305-6463

Interregional Research Project No. 4

PP#7E7196

	EPA has received a pesticide petition (7E7196) from   SEQ CHAPTER \h \r
1 Interregional Research Project No. 4, 500 College Road East, Suite
201W, Princton, NJ, 08540-6635 proposing, pursuant to section 408(d) of
the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d), to
amend 40 CFR part 180.473(1) by establishing a tolerance for residues of
glufosinate-ammonium and its metabolites expressed as butanoic acid,
2-amino-4-(hydroxymethylphosphinyl)-, monoammonium salt,
2-acetamido-4-methylphosphinico-butanoic acid and
3-methylphosphinico-propionic acid. expressed as glufosinate free acid
equivalents in or on the raw agricultural commodity pistachio at 0.1
parts per million (ppm). EPA has determined that the petition contains
data or information regarding the elements set forth in section 408
(d)(2) of the FDDCA; however, EPA has not fully evaluated the
sufficiency of the submitted data at this time or whether the data
supports granting of the petition. Additional data may be needed before
EPA rules on the petition.

A. Residue Chemistry

	1. Plant metabolism.   SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 A confined rotational crop
study has been submitted and reviewed by the Agency. Based on the
previously submitted and reviewed confined and field rotational crop
studies, the EPA has determined that the residues of concern in
rotational crops, for the purpose of risk assessments and tolerance
expression are glufosinate ammonium (HOE 061517) and 2
methylphosphinicoacetic acid (HOE 064619).  The results of these studies
are consistent with other metabolism studies conducted with
glufosinate-ammonium on other crops and support the contention that the
nature of residues found in plants as a result of a treatment of
glufosinate-ammonium is well understood.

	2. Analytical method.   SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 The enforcement analytical
method utilizes gas chromatography for detecting and measuring levels of
glufosinate-ammonium and metabolites with a general limit of
quantification of 0.05 ppm.  This method allows detection of residues at
or above the proposed tolerances.

	3. Magnitude of residues. Tolerances are currently listed in 40 CFR
§180.473(1) for the Tree Nut Crop group (Group 14).

B. Toxicological Profile

	1. Acute toxicity.    SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 Glufosinate-ammonium has been
classified as toxicity category III for acute oral, dermal, and
inhalation toxicity; and for eye irritation.  Glufosinate-ammonium is
not a dermal irritant (toxicity category IV) nor is it a dermal
sensitizer.  The oral LD50 is 4010 mg/kg in male rats and 3030 mg/kg in
female rats.

	2. Genotoxicty.   SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 Based on results of a complete
genotoxicity database, there is no evidence of mutagenic activity in a
battery of studies, including:  Salmonella spp., E. coli, in vitro
mammalian cell gene mutation assays, mammalian cell chromosome
aberration assays, in vivo mouse bone marrow micronucleus assays, and
unscheduled DNA synthesis assays.

	3. Reproductive and developmental toxicity.   SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 In a
developmental toxicity study, groups of 20 pregnant female Wistar rats
were administered glufosinate-ammonium by gavage at doses of 0, 0.5,
2.24 10, 50 and 250 mg/kg/day from days 7 to 16 of pregnancy.  The NOAEL
for maternal toxicity is 10 mg/kg/day; the LOAEL is 50 mg/kg/day based
on vaginal bleeding and hyperactivity in dams.  In the fetus, the NOAEL
is 50 mg/kg/day, based on dilated renal pelvis observations at the LOAEL
of 250 mg/kg/day.  In a developmental toxicity study, groups of 15
pregnant female Himalayan rabbits were administered glufosinate-ammonium
by gavage at doses of 0, 2.0, 6.3, or 20.0 mg/kg/day from days 7 to 19
of pregnancy.  In maternal animals, decreases in food consumption and
body weight gain were observed at the 20 mg/kg/day dose level.  The
NOAEL for maternal toxicity was 6.3 mg/kg/day and that for developmental
toxicity was 20 mg/kg/day.

In a multi-generation reproduction study, glufosinate-ammonium was
administered to groups of 30 male and 30 female Wistar/Han rats in the
diet at concentrations of 0, 40, 120, or 360 ppm.  The LOAEL for
systemic toxicity is 120 ppm based on increased kidney weights in both
sexes and generations. The systemic toxicity NOAEL is 40 ppm. The LOAEL
for reproductive/developmental toxicity is 360 ppm based on decreased
numbers of viable pups in all generations.  The NOAEL is 120 ppm.

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 In a developmental neurotoxicity study, groups of
25 bred female rats were fed glufosinate ammonium at doses of 0, 200,
1000 or 4500 ppm in the diet. Body weights and food consumption were
decreased at 1000 and 4500 ppm. No effects were seen in treated animals
for the functional observation battery, developmental landmarks, grip
strength, startle response or learning and memory. Motor activity was
increased at the mid and high dose. The NOAEL for developmental
neurotoxicity was determined to be 200 ppm.

	4. Subchronic toxicity   SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 In a sub-chronic oral
toxicity study, glufosinate-ammonium was administered to 10 NMRI
mice/sex/ dose in the diet at levels of 0, 80, 320 or 1,280 ppm
(equivalent to 0, 12, 48 or 192 millgrams/kilogram/day (mg/kg/day)) for
13 weeks.  Significant (p< 0.05) increases were observed in serum
aspartate aminotransferase and in alkaline phosphatase in high-dose (192
mg/kg/ day) males.  Also observed were increases in absolute and
relative liver weights in mid-(48 mg/kg/day) and high-dose males.  The
no observed adverse effect level (NOAEL) is 12 mg/kg/day, the lowest
observed adverse effect level (LOAEL) is 48 mg/kg/day based on the
changes in clinical biochemistry and liver weights.

	5. Chronic toxicity.   SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 In a combined chronic
toxicity/oncogenicity study, glufosinate-ammonium was administered to 50
Wistar rats/sex/dose in the diet for 130 weeks at dose levels of 0, 40,
140, or 500 ppm (mean compound intake in males was 0, 1.9, 6.8, and 24.4
mg/kg/day and for females was 0, 2.4, 8.2 and 28.7 mg/kg/day,
respectively).  A dose-related increase in mortality was noted in
females at 140 and 500 ppm, whereas in males increased absolute and
relative kidney weights were noted at 140 ppm and 500 ppm.  The NOAEL
was considered to be 40 ppm.  No treatment-related oncogenic response
was noted.

In an oncogenicity study, glufosinate-ammonium was administered to 50
NMRI mice/sex/dose in the diet at dose levels of 0, 80, 160 (males only)
or 320 (females only) ppm for 104 weeks.  The NOAEL for systemic
toxicity is 80 ppm (10.82/16.19 mg/kg/day in males/females (M/F)), and
the LOAEL is 160/320 ppm (22.60/ 63.96 mg/kg/day in M/F), based on
increased mortality in males, increased glucose levels in males and
females, and changes in glutathione levels in males.  No increase in
tumor incidence was found in any treatment group.

In a chronic feeding study, technical glufosinate-ammonium was fed to
male and female beagle dogs for 12 months in the diet at levels of 2.0,
5.0, or 8.5 mg/kg/day.  The NOAEL is 5.0 mg/kg/day based on clinical
signs of toxicity, reduced weight gain and mortality 8.5 mg/kg/day.

In a rat oncogenicity study, glufosinate-ammonium was administered to
Wistar rats (60/sex/group) for up to 24 months at 0, 1,000, 5,000, or
10,000 ppm (equivalent to 0, 45.4, 228.9, or 466.3 mg/kg/day in males
and 0, 57.1, 281.5, or 579.3 mg/kg/day in females).  The LOAEL for
chronic toxicity is 5,000 ppm (equivalent to 228.9 mg/kg/day for male
rats and 281.5 mg/kg/day for females), based on increased incidences of
retinal atrophy.  The chronic NOAEL is 1,000 ppm.  Under the conditions
of this study, there was no evidence of carcinogenic potential.  Dosing
was considered adequate based on the increased incidence of   SEQ
CHAPTER \h \r 1 retinal atrophy.

	6. Animal metabolism.   SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 Studies conducted in rats
using 14C- glufosinate-ammonium have shown that the compound is poorly
absorbed (5-10%) after oral administration and is rapidly eliminated
primarily as the parent compound.  The highest residue levels were found
in liver and kidney tissues.

The metabolic profile and the quantitative distribution of metabolites
were very similar in both goat and hen.  The vast majority of the dose
was excreted, primarily as parent compound.  The very limited residues
found in edible tissues, milk and eggs were comprised principally of
glufosinate and 3-methylphosphinico-propionic acid (Hoe 061517), with
lesser amounts of N-acetyl-L-glufosinate (Hoe 099730) and
2-methylohosphinico-acetic acid (Hoe 064619).

	7. Metabolite toxicology.   SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 Additional testing has
been conducted with the major metabolites, 3-methylphosphinico-propionic
acid, and N-acetyl-L-glufosinate.  Based on sub-chronic and
developmental toxicity study results, a profile of similar or less
toxicity was observed for the metabolites as compared to the parent
compound, glufosinate-ammonium.

	8. Endocrine disruption.   SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 No special studies have
been conducted to investigate the potential of glufosinate-ammonium to
induce estrogenic or other endocrine effects.  However, no evidence of
estrogenic or other endocrine effects have been noted in any of the
toxicology studies that have been conducted with this product and there
is no reason to suspect that any such effects would be likely.

C. Aggregate Exposure

	1. Dietary exposure.   SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 Tolerances have been
established (40CFR part 180.473) for the combined residues of
glufosinate-ammonium and metabolites in or on a variety of raw
agricultural commodities. No appropriate toxicological endpoint
attributable to a single exposure was identified in the available
toxicity studies. EPA did not, therefore, establish an acute reference
dose (RfD) for the general population. An acute RfD of 0.0063 mg/kg/day
was established, however, for the females 13+ subgroup, based on a
developmental NOAEL of 6.3 mg/kg/day in the rabbit and a 100x
uncertainty factor (10x inter- 10x intra-species extrapolation) and a
10x FQPA data uncertainty factor. EPA determined that the Special FQPA
uncertainty factor would be 1X for the acute dietary risk assessment
based on conclusions of the HIARC and the complete residue and
environmental fate data bases. The developmental LOAEL (20 mg/kg/day)
was based on increased fetal death in the presence of maternal toxicity.
There was no qualitative or quantitative indication of increased
susceptibility in the prenatal developmental toxicities in rats and
rabbits or in the 2-generation reproductive study in rats with parent
compound or metabolites of concern. Toxicological studies showed
clinical signs in short term studies described as aggressive behavior,
piloerection and a high startle response at dosages of 300 mg/kg/day.
Based on these effects, EPA determined that a 10x FQPA data uncertainty
factor was appropriate for the risk assessment for the food and feed use
of glufosinate-ammonium. Using the 10x FQPA data uncertainty factor, the
acute population adjusted dose (aPAD) for glufosinate-ammonium is 0.0063
mg/kg/day.

i. Food & water. The assessment of the dietary exposures and risks
associated with use of this product included the commodities with
tolerances as listed above. Tier 2 acute and tier 3 chronic dietary
assessments were recently conducted by Bayer CropScience to evaluate the
dietary exposure of the U.S. population and selected subpopulations to
glufosinate-ammonium residues. These analyses cover the current
glufosinate-ammonium registrations which include broadcast application
to apple, grape, banana, tree nut orchards, potato (harvest aid
desiccant); and the bushberry crop subgroup. The analyses were conducted
using Exponent, Inc.’s DEEM™ software. Consumption data used in this
program were taken from USDA’s CSFII, 1994-1996.1998. An updated water
estimate was added to EPA Assessment (D289227. 2 August 2003. Author: D.
Young). A retreat interval of 28 days was used for apples as opposed to
a 14 day retreat interval. Under this scenario, the acute EEC estimates
from use in apples for sucker control drops to 67 ppb, and the next
highest exposure level becomes that associated with weed control in tree
nut crops at 74 ppb.

Acute dietary risk was expressed as a percentage of the acute Population
Adjusted Dose (aPAD) of 0.0063 mg/kg bw/day based on a NOEL of 6.3 mg/kg
bw/day with an uncertainty factor of 1000. The EPA identified an acute
endpoint of concern for females of childbearing age. No endpoint
attributed to a single exposure was identified for the general
population, including infants and children. The estimated risk from
acute dietary exposure (95th percentile) for women 13-50 years of age
was 85.6% of the aPAD. Beef liver (31%), water (40%) and potato (22%)
were the major contributors to the acute exposure for this subgroup.

Chronic dietary risk was expressed as a percentage of the chronic
Population Adjusted Dose (cPAD) of 0.006 mg/kg bw/day based on a NOEL of
6.0 mg/kg bw/day with an uncertainty factor of 1000. The most highly
exposed subpopulation was infants (<1 year) at 57.0% of the cPAD. The
chronic value for the the U.S Population was 20.9% of the cPAD. A major
contributor to the overall dietary exposure for the <1 year old subgroup
was water at 86% and water at 72% for the U.S. Population.

	2. Non-dietary exposure. Glufosinate-ammonium is currently registered
for use on the following non-food sites: areas around ornamentals, shade
trees, Christmas trees, shrubs, walks, driveways, flower beds, farmstead
buildings, in shelter belts, and along fences.  It is also registered
for use as a post-emergent herbicide on farmsteads, areas associated
with airports, commercial plants, storage and lumber yards, highways,
educational facilities, fence lines, ditch banks, dry ditches, schools,
parking lots, tank farms, pumping stations, parks, utility rights-of
-way, roadsides, railroads, and other public areas and similar
industrial and non-food crop areas.

The EPA has determined that there are no acute or chronic non-dietary
exposure scenarios.  Further, the Agency has determined that it is not
appropriate to aggregate short- and intermediate-term non-dietary
exposure with dietary exposures in risk assessments because the
end-points are different.

D. Cumulative Effects

	EPA has indicated that, at this time, the Agency does not have
available data to determine whether glufosinate-ammonium has a common
mechanism of toxicity with other substances or how to include this
pesticide in a cumulative risk assessment.  Unlike other pesticides for
which EPA has followed a cumulative risk approach based on a common
mechanism of toxicity, glufosinate-ammonium does not appear to produce a
toxic metabolite produced by other substances. For the purposes of this
tolerance petition, therefore, it has not been assumed that
glufosinate-ammonium has a common mechanism of toxicity with other
substances.

E. Safety Determination

	1. U.S. population. Using the conservative assumptions described above,
based on the completeness and reliability of the toxicity data, it is
concluded that chronic dietary exposure to the registered and proposed
uses of glufosinate-ammonium will utilize at most 20.9% of the chronic
reference dose for the US Population. The actual exposure is likely to
be much less as more realistic data and models are developed. Exposures
below 100% of the reference dose are generally assumed to be of no
concern because the reference dose represents the level at or below
which daily aggregate exposure over a lifetime will not pose appreciable
risk to human health.

The acute population of concern, female 13-50 yrs. utilizes ~85.6% of
the aPAD and the actual exposure is likely to be far less.

It is not appropriate to aggregate non-dietary exposures with dietary
exposures uses because the toxicity end-points are different. Therefore,
there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will occur to the US
Population from aggregate exposure (food, drinking water and
nonresidential) to residues of glufosinate-ammonium and metabolites.

	2. Infants and children. The toxicological data base is sufficient for
evaluating prenatal and postnatal toxicity for glufosinate-ammonium.
There are no prenatal or postnatal susceptibility concerns for infants
and children, based on the results of the rat and rabbit developmental
toxicity studies and the 2-generation reproduction study. Based on
clinical signs of neurological toxicity in short and intermediate dermal
toxicity studies with rats, and due to the lack of a DNT (study
submitted January 2005 – MRID 48455701) EPA determined that an added
FQPA data uncertainty factor of 10x is appropriate for assessing the
risk of glufosinate-ammonium derived residues in crop commodities.

Using the conservative assumptions described in the exposure section
above, the percent of the cPAD that will be used for exposure to
residues of glufosinate-ammonium in food and water is 57.0 percent for
infants less than on year of age. Of this, water composes 86% of the
total. As in the adult situation, drinking water levels of comparison
are higher than the worst case drinking water estimated concentrations,
if they occur at all.

Therefore, there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will occur to
infants and children from aggregate exposure to residues of
glufosinate-ammonium.

F. International Tolerances

7

_

 _

h

i

l

o

†

‰

¼

¾

!

"

옍)

Ѐ:摧磮

؀:ꐓP摧磮

摧磮

hîx

hîx

hîx

hîx

hîx

hîx

摧所/Ѐ;摧磮

Ѐ:摧磮

؀:ꐓP摧磮

The Codex Alimentarius Commission has established Maximum Residue Limits
(Codex MRLs) for residues of glufosinate-ammonium and metabolites in or
on tree nuts at 0.1 ppm.


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 85 (Wednesday, May 2, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 26068-26069]
[FR Doc No: 2012-10566]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Reports, Forms and Record Keeping Requirements; Agency
Information Collection Activity Under OMB Review

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), U.S.
Department of Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), this notice announces that the Information
Collection Request (ICR) abstracted below has been forwarded to the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and comment. The ICR
describes the nature of the information collections and their expected
burden. The Federal Register Notice with a 60-day comment period was
published on February 9, 2012 [77 FR 6688]. This is a request for an
extension of an existing collection.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before June 1, 2012.

ADDRESSES: Send comments, within 30 days, to the Office of Information
and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17 Street
NW., Washington, DC 20503, Attention NHTSA Desk Officer.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Hisham Mohamed, NHTSA, 1200 New
Jersey Ave. SE., West Building, Room W43-437, NVS-131, Washington, DC
20590. Mr. Mohamed's telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

    Title: 49 CFR 575--Consumer Information Regulations (sections 103
and 105).
    OMB Control Number: 2127-0049.
    Form Number: None.
    Affected Public: Vehicle manufacturers.
    Requested Expiration Date of Approval: Three years from approval
date.
    Abstract: NHTSA must ensure that motor vehicle manufacturers comply
with 49 CFR part 575, Consumer Information Regulation part 575.103
Truck-camper loading and Part 575.105 Utility Vehicles. Part 575.103
requires that manufacturers of light trucks that are capable of
accommodating slide-in campers, provide information on the cargo weight
rating and the longitudinal limits within which the center of gravity
for the cargo weight rating should be located. Part 575.105 requires
that manufacturers of utility vehicles, affix a sticker in a prominent
location alerting drivers that the particular handling and maneuvering
characteristics of utility vehicles require special driving practices
when these vehicles are operated.
    Estimated Annual Burden: 300 hours.
    Number of Respondents: 15.
    Based on prior years' manufacturer submissions, the agency
estimates that 15 responses will be submitted annually. Currently 12
light truck manufacturers comply with 49 CFR part 575. These
manufacturers file one response annually and submit an additional
response when they introduce a new model. Changes are rarely filed with
the agency, but we estimate that three manufacturers will alter their
information because of model changes. The light truck manufacturers
gather only pre-existing data for the purposes of this regulation.
Based on previous years' manufacturer information, the agency estimates
that light truck manufacturers use a total of 20 hours. Specifically,
manufacturers use 9 hours to gather and arrange the data in its proper
format, 4 hours to distribute the information to its dealerships and
attach labels to light trucks that are capable of accommodating slide-
in campers and 7 hours to print the labels and utility vehicle
information in the owner's manual or a separate document included with
the owner's manual. The estimated annual burden hour is 300 hours. This
number reflects the total responses (15) times the total hours (20).
Prior years' manufacturer information indicates that it takes an
average of $35.00 per hour for professional and clerical staff to
gather data, distribute and print material. Therefore, the agency
estimates that the cost associated with the burden hours is $10,500
($35.00 per hour x 300 burden hours).
    Estimated Annual Cost: $2,432,924.
    The annual cost is based on light truck production. In model year
2011, light truck manufacturers produced about 6,951,210 units. By
assuming that all light truck manufacturers (both large and small
volume manufacturers) incur the same cost, the total annual cost to
comply with statutory requirements, Sec.  575.103 and Sec.  575.105 =
$2,432,924 (or $0.35 each unit).
    Comments Are Invited On:
     Whether the proposed collection of information is
necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the
Department, including whether the information will have practical
utility.
     Whether the Department's estimate for the burden of the
proposed information collection is accurate.
     Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of
information on respondents, including the use of automated collection
techniques or other forms of information technology.
    A comment to OMB is most effective if OMB receives it within 30
days of publication.

    Issued on: April 26, 2012.
Christopher J. Bonanti,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. 2012-10566 Filed 5-1-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


Fred Butterfield/DC/USEPA/US

03/02/2007 09:01 PM

To

<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS> cc

Subject

IMPORTANT -- Fw: Agenda, Call-in Info, and Panel Member (Cowling) and Public (ASL, IP, AAM, ARTBA) Comments for Monday, March 5, 2007 CASAC Ozone Review Panel TeleConf re: Chapter 6 (Primary Ozone NAAQS) and Chapter 8 (Secondary Ozone NAAQS) in EPA's Final Ozone Staff Paper

*** IMPORTANT ***

To:  CASAC Ozone Review Panel Members

The final agenda for the Monday, March 5, 2007 teleconference meeting of the CASAC Ozone Review Panel to review the Agency's Final Ozone Staff Paper is attached below as an Adobe PDF file.

(This is also posted on the CASAC Ozone Review Panel page of the SAB Web site: http://www.epa.gov/sab/panels/casacorpanel.html.)

As a reminder, to access this teleconference, please call the following toll-free dial-in number:<PHONE_NUMBER>.  Then, when prompted, enter the following Conference Code (access) number:<PHONE_NUMBER>, followed by the "pound" sign (#).  Please contact me on my cell phone (number below) if you experience any difficulties accessing the teleconference.

In addition, the individual review comments of CASAC and Panel member Ellis Cowling on the Final Ozone Staff Paper are forwarded as an MS Word file in his message to me below; and the public comments of A.S.L. & Associates, International Paint, the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers (AAM), and the American Road & Transportation Builders Association (ARTBA) are attached below in either Word or PDF.

Finally, I did not have time today to compile the list of ten (10) public speakers for next Monday's teleconference.  However, I will do that first-thing on Monday morning and forward it to you all soonest.

I look forward to our teleconference meeting next Monday.  As always, please feel free to contact me if you have any questions or comments.

Best,

Fred

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

Fred Butterfield

Designated Federal Officer

Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC)

EPA Science Advisory Board (SAB) Staff Office

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>

Cell:<PHONE_NUMBER>

Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>/0645

E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS> SAB Home page: http://www.epa.gov/sab


[Federal Register: May 19, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 97)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 28786-28788]
[DOCID:fr19my08-17]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 761

[EPA-HQ-RCRA-2008-0123; FRL-8567-2]
RIN 2050-AG42

Polychlorinated Biphenyls: Manufacturing (Import) Exemption for
Veolia ES Technical Solutions, L.L.C.

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of informal hearing.

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

SUMMARY: This Federal Register publication is providing notice that EPA
will hold an informal public hearing on June 19, 2008, in Port Arthur,
Texas, on the proposed rule entitled, Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs):
Manufacturing (Import) Exemption for Veolia ES Technical Solutions,
L.L.C. published on March 6, 2008 (73 FR 12053). On November 14, 2006,
Veolia ES Technical Solutions, L.L.C., (Veolia) submitted a petition to
EPA to import up to 20,000 tons of PCB waste from Mexico for disposal
at Veolia's TSCA-approved facility in Port Arthur, Texas. As a result
of that petition, on March 6, 2008, EPA proposed to grant the request
and provided a 45-day public comment period. The Agency extended the
comment period, based on a request from a commenter, by 45 days to June
5, 2008. In addition, the Agency also agreed to hold a public hearing
on the proposed rule.

DATES: The hearing will take place on Thursday, June 19, 2008, from
3:30 p.m. to 8:30 p.m. All those wishing to provide oral comments at
the hearing must send a written request to EPA. Requests must be
received on or before June 12, 2008.

ADDRESSES: The hearing will be held at City Hall, 444 4th Street, Port
Arthur, Texas 77640, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>. The hearing will be on
the 5th floor of City Hall in the Council Chambers.
    Requests to Participate: A request to provide oral comments at the
informal hearing must be submitted to the Hearing Clerk by one of the
following methods.
     E-mail: Requests may be sent by electronic mail to:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-RCRA-2008-0123.
     Fax: Requests may be faxed to<PHONE_NUMBER>, Attention:
William Noggle; Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-RCRA-2008-0123.
     Mail: Requests may be sent to William Noggle, U.S. EPA,
Office of Solid Waste, 5304P, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20460, Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-RCRA-2008-0123.
Request must be received by June 12, 2008. Note that mail is subject to
significant delays due to security screening, so please plan for
additional delivery time.
     Hand Delivery: Requests may be hand delivered to William
Noggle, U.S. EPA, Office of Solid Waste, Two Potomac Yard, 2733 South
Crystal Drive, 5th Floor, N5612, Arlington, VA 22202. Such deliveries
are only accepted during business hours from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. on Monday
through Friday.

    See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for the type of information that must
be included in the request, who may participate, as well as the
procedures that EPA will follow in conducting the hearing. Please note
that oral comments will only be heard from people who have requested to
participate in the hearing. Members of the public can attend without
prior notification to the Hearing Clerk, but they will not be part of
the hearing schedule to give presentations and/or oral comments. Also
note that the advance participation requests will assist in planning
for the hearing. Additionally, the time for individual presentations
may be limited, depending on the number of requests received.
    Requests for Accommodations: Individuals requiring special
accommodation at this hearing, including wheelchair access or hearing
impaired accommodations, should contact the Hearing Clerk by e-mail,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or telephone,<PHONE_NUMBER>, at least five (5)
business days prior to the hearing so that appropriate arrangements can
be made.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the http://
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, such as CBI or other
information, which disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other
material, such as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only
in hard copy. Publicly available docket materials are available either
electronically in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the
RCRA Docket, EPA/DC, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC 20004. 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 RCRA Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: William Noggle, Office of Solid Waste,
Hazardous Waste Identification Division, MC 5304P, Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460;
telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA is granting a request from the public to
hold an informal public hearing to receive oral comments on the
proposed regulation described in the SUMMARY above. As required by 40
CFR 750.18(a), the hearing will begin no sooner than seven (7) days
after the close of the comment period.
    The procedures for rulemaking under section 6 of the Toxic
Substances Control Act (TSCA) are found at 40 CFR part 750. Specific
procedures for manufacturing (import) exemptions are identified in 40
CFR part 750, subpart B, and the procedures for participation in and
the conduct of informal hearings are found at 40 CFR 750.18-750.21. The
remainder of this Federal Register publication summarizes the
procedures and logistics for this informal hearing, which is being held
pursuant to the regulations cited above. Participants and/or commenters
are advised to see 40 CFR part 750 for additional details.
    Each person or organization desiring to participate in the informal
hearing must file a written request to participate with the Hearing
Clerk identified above. (Participation in this context means providing
oral comments or a presentation at the hearing.) This request must be
received on or before June 12, 2008. The request must include: (1) A
brief statement of the interest of the person or organization in the
proceeding; (2) a brief outline of the points to be addressed; (3) an
estimate of the time required; and (4) if the request comes from an
organization, a nonbinding list of the persons to take part in the
presentation. An organization that has not filed comments on the
rulemaking will not be allowed to participate in the hearing, unless a
waiver of this requirement is granted by the Hearing Clerk. Persons or
organizations requesting a waiver must submit this request to the
Hearing Clerk at the address listed above. The Hearing Clerk must
receive the waiver request no later than June 12, 2008.
    No later than three days prior to the hearing (June 16), the
Hearing Clerk will make a hearing schedule publicly available on our
Web site at http://www.epa.gov/pcb/pubs/veolia.htm and mail or deliver
it to each of the persons who requested to appear at the hearing. We
believe the most efficient and reliable means of delivery is by
electronic mail, so we encourage all participants to provide their e-
mail address. If correspondence through regular mail is requested, the
Hearing Clerk will mail the hearing schedule at least three days prior
to the hearing, although due to delivery time, we can not be sure that
the schedule will reach the participant prior to the hearing date. The
schedule is subject to change during the hearing.
    A panel of EPA employees will be present at the hearing, and one
panel member will act as the Hearing Officer, who will conduct the
hearing. Hearing participants may be asked to answer questions
submitted by the audience (in writing, at the hearing), at EPA's
discretion (40 CFR 750.19). Participants in the hearing may also submit
additional material for the record. EPA will provide a verbatim
transcript of the hearing.
    After the close of the hearing, any participant in the hearing may
submit written comments and questions concerning the factual nature of
another hearing participant's presentation and/or ask questions of the
participants. The submission should include information detailed under
40 CFR 750.8(1). The request must be provided to the Hearing Clerk
using one of the methods identified in the ADDRESSES section for
submitting requests to participate in the hearing. The request must be
received by EPA no later than one week after a full transcript of the
hearing is posted to the docket. EPA estimates that within two weeks of
the hearing date, the transcript will be posted to the docket (around
July 3, 2008). After the Hearing Clerk compiles all of the written
questions, the Hearing Panel will review and decide which questions
will be forwarded for the requested participants to answer. Any
participant receiving question(s) will have one week to provide the
Hearing Clerk with an answer.
    Interested persons may file reply comments. Reply comments must be
received no later than one week after the close of all informal
hearings, which includes the question and answer procedure described in
the previous paragraph. Reply comments should be restricted to comments
on: (1) Other comments; (2) material in the hearing record; and (3)
material which was not and could not reasonably have been available to
the commenting party a sufficient time before comments were due on June
5, 2008 (40 CFR 750.4, as modified by 750.15).

                     Timeline of Rulemaking Actions
------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed Rule published................  March 6, 2008.
Original main comment period ending....  April 21, 2008.
Extended main comment period ending....  June 5, 2008.

Requests to participate in hearing due.  June 12, 2008.
Hearing Clerk distributes hearing        June 16, 2008.
 schedule.
Informal hearing date..................  June 19, 2008.
Hearing transcript posted to the docket  July 3, 2008 (estimated).
Comments and questions on hearing        *July 10, 2008 (one week after
 presentations due to Hearing Clerk.      hearing transcript is posted
                                          to the docket).
Hearing Clerk sends out questions to     *July 24, 2008 (two weeks after
 appropriate participants.                questions are due).
Answers received by Hearing Clerk from   *July 31, 2008 (one week after
 participants.                            questions are sent).
Reply comments to Hearing Clerk due....  *, **August 14, 2008 (two weeks
                                          after answers are due by
                                          participants).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\*\ Estimated date for posting the hearing transcript will determine the
  timeline for the remaining actions. All dates are subject to change.
\**\ Reply comments are due two weeks after participants' answers are
  received. If no questions on the hearing are received, then reply
  comments on the hearing testimony will be due on July 24, 2008 (giving
  EPA time to post a revised schedule and notice that no questions on
  the hearing testimony had been received by the Hearing Clerk).
This schedule will be posted on http://www.epa.gov/pcb/pubs/veolia.htm
  and revised, if necessary, to reflect the actual date that the hearing
  transcript has been posted to the docket.

    Extensions of time for filing reply comments may be granted
pursuant to 40 CFR 750.15, which references 40 CFR 750.4(c). Reply
comments and requests for an extension of time for filing reply
comments must be sent to the Hearing Clerk using one of the methods
identified in the ADDRESSES section for submitting requests to
participate in the hearing. Reply comments and a transcript of the
hearing will be placed in the docket for the proposed rule (Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-RCRA-2008-0123). A full list of these materials is available
for inspection and copying during the posted hours in the RCRA Docket
as identified under ADDRESSES.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 761

    Environmental protection, Hazardous substances, Labeling,
Polychlorinated biphenyls, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: May 13, 2008.
Susan Parker Bodine,
Assistant Administrator for Solid Waste and Emergency Response.
 [FR Doc. E8-11177 Filed 5-16-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: May 14, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 93)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 27239]
[DOCID:fr14my10-21]

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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

29 CFR Parts 1910, 1915, and 1926

[Docket No. OSHA-H054a-2006-0064]
RIN 1218-AC43

Revising the Notification Requirements in the Exposure
Determination Provisions of the Hexavalent Chromium Standards

AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA):
Department of Labor.

ACTION: Proposed rule; withdrawal.

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

SUMMARY: With this notice, OSHA is withdrawing the proposed rule that
accompanied its direct final rule (DFR) amending the employee
notification requirements in the exposure determination provisions of
the Hexavalent Chromium (Cr(VI)) standards.

DATES: Effective May 14, 2010, the proposed rule published March 16,
2010 (75 FR 12485), is withdrawn.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For general information and press
inquiries contact Ms. Jennifer Ashley, Director, OSHA Office of
Communications, Room N-3647, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>. For
technical inquiries, contact Maureen Ruskin, Office of Chemical
Hazards--Metals, Directorate of Standards and Guidance, Room N-3718,
OSHA, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20210; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Copies of this Federal Register notice are available from the OSHA
Office of Publications, Room N-3101, U.S. Department of Labor, 200
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210; telephone (202) 693-
1888. Electronic copies of this Federal Register notice and other
relevant documents are available at OSHA's Web page at http://
www.osha.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On March 17, 2010, OSHA published a DFR
amending the employee notification requirements in the exposure
determination provisions of the Cr(VI) standards at 29 CFR 1910.1026,
29 CFR 1915.1026, and 29 CFR 1926.1126 (75 FR 12681). OSHA also
published a companion proposed rule proposing the same changes to the
Cr(VI) standards. (75 FR 12485, March 16, 2010). In the DFR, OSHA
stated that it would withdraw the companion proposed rule and confirm
the effective date of the DFR if no significant adverse comments were
submitted on the DFR by April 16, 2010.
    OSHA received eight comments on the DFR, which the Agency has
determined were not significant adverse comments. OSHA is publishing a
notice announcing and explaining this determination and confirming the
effective date of the DFR as June 15, 2010. Accordingly, OSHA is not
proceeding with the proposed rule and is withdrawing it from the
rulemaking process.

List of Subjects

29 CFR Part 1910

    Exposure determination, General industry employment, Health,
Hexavalent chromium (Cr(VI)), Notification of determination results to
employees, Occupational safety and health.

29 CFR Part 1915

    Exposure determination, Health, Hexavalent chromium (Cr(VI)),
Notification of determination results to employees, Occupational safety
and health, Shipyard employment.

29 CFR Part 1926

    Construction employment, Exposure determination, Health, Hexavalent
chromium (Cr(VI)), Notification of determination results to employees,
Occupational safety and health.

Authority and Signature

    David Michaels, PhD, MPH, Assistant Secretary of Labor for
Occupational Safety and Health, U.S. Department of Labor, 200
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210, directed the
preparation of this notice under the following authorities: Sections 4,
6, and 8 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C.
653, 655, 657), Secretary of Labor's Order 5-2007 (72 FR 31159), and 29
CFR part 1911.

    Signed at Washington, DC, on May 11, 2010.
David Michaels,
Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health.
[FR Doc. 2010-11583 Filed 5-13-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-9-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 96 (Friday, May 17, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 29096-29097]
[FR Doc No: 2013-11678]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R04-OAR-2013-0044; FRL-9814-4]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Tennessee;
Transportation Conformity Revisions

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve a State Implementation Plan (SIP)
revision submitted by the State of Tennessee, through the Tennessee
Department of Environment and

Conservation, Bureau of Environment, Air Pollution Control Division, on
July 12, 2012. This revision consists of updates to transportation
conformity criteria and procedures related to interagency consultation
and enforceability of certain transportation-related control and
mitigation measures. The intended effect is to update the
transportation conformity criteria and procedures in the Tennessee SIP.
This action is being taken pursuant to section 110 of the Clean Air
Act. In the final rules section of this issue of the Federal Register,
EPA is approving the State's SIP revision as a direct final rule
without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a
noncontroversial submittal and anticipates no adverse comments. A
detailed rationale for the approval is set forth in the direct final
rule. If no adverse comments are received in response to this rule, no
further activity is contemplated. If EPA receives adverse comments, the
direct final rule will be withdrawn and all public comments received
will be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on this proposed
rule. EPA will not institute a second comment period on this document.
Any parties interested in commenting on this document should do so at
this time.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before June 17, 2013.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-
OAR-2013-0044, by one of the following methods:
    1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
    2. Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    4. Mail: ``EPA-R04-OAR-2013-0044,'' Air Quality Modeling and
Transportation Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics
Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61
Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960.
    5. Hand Delivery or Courier: Kelly Sheckler, Air Quality Modeling
and Transportation Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and
Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Such
deliveries are only accepted during the Regional Office's normal hours
of operation. The Regional Office's official hours of business are
Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding federal holidays.
    Please see the direct final rule which is located in the Rules
section of this Federal Register for detailed instructions on how to
submit comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Amanetta Somerville or Kelly Sheckler,
Air Quality Modeling and Transportation Section, Air Planning Branch,
Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia
30303-8960. Ms. Somerville's telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>. She can
also be reached via electronic mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Ms.
Sheckler's telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>. She can also be reached
via electronic mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For additional information see the direct
final rule which is published in the final rules section of this issue
of the Federal Register.

    Dated: May 8, 2013.
A. Stanley Meiburg,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. 2013-11678 Filed 5-16-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: March 27, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 60)]
[Notices]
[Page 16403-16405]
[DOCID:fr27mr08-91]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-57542; File No. SR-DTC-2007-11]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Depository Trust Company;
Order Approving Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment No. 1,
To Amend Its Operational Arrangements as It Applies to Structured
Securities

March 20, 2008.

I. Introduction

    On September 7, 2007, The Depository Trust Company (``DTC'') filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') proposed
rule change SR-DTC-2007-11 pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'').\1\ The proposed rule change
was published for comment in the Federal Register on November 26,
2007.\2\ The Commission received four comments to the proposed rule
change.\3\ On December 14, 2007, DTC filed Amendment No. 1 to the
proposed rule change.\4\ The proposed rule change, as Modified by
Amendment No. 1, was published for comment in the Federal Register.\5\
The Commission received one comment to Amendment No. 1.\6\ For the
reasons discussed below, the Commission is approving the proposed rule
change, as amended.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 56795 (November 15,
2007), 72 FR 66009.
    \3\ Simon Griffiths, Vice President, JP Morgan (December 10,
2007); Tom Migneron, Principal, Edward Jones (December 11, 2007);
Dan W. Schneider, Baker & McKenzie LLP, Counsel to the Association
of Global Custodians, Chicago, Illinois (December 12, 2007); Norman
Eaker, Chairman, Securities Industry and Financial Markets
Association, Operations Committee, Gussie Tate, President,
Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association, Dividend
Division, and Thomas Hamilton, Vice Chairman, Securities Industry
and Financial Markets Association, MBS and Securitized Products
Division Executive Committee (December 19, 2007).
    \4\ As explained below, Amendment No. 1 replaced and superseded
the original filing in its entirety. Amendment No. 1 removed
reference to the imposition of a processing fee on January 1, 2008,
and corrected the identity of the party that will identify an issue
as conforming or non-conforming and will submit a written
attestation giving the reason for non-conformance.
    \5\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 57283 (February 6,
2008), 73 FR 8384.
    \6\ Carol A. Jameson, Vice President and Senior Counsel, The
Depository Trust Company (March 5, 2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description

    DTC's Operational Arrangements is a contractual agreement between
DTC, issuers, and paying agents that outlines the procedural and
operational requirements for an issue to become and remain DTC
eligible. The proposed rule change amends DTC's ``Operational
Arrangements Necessary for an Issue to Become and Remain Eligible for
DTC Services'' (``Operational Arrangements'') as it applies to
Structured Securities in order to: extend the deadline by which paying
agents of such securities must submit periodic payment rate information
to DTC; establish Structured Securities classifications; establish an
exception processing fee applied to certain Structured Securities whose
features prevent paying agents from complying with the extended
deadline; and provide that DTC track and make publicly available
reports on paying agent performance as it relates to timeliness and
accuracy of Structured Securities payment rate information submitted to
DTC.
    A Structured Security, such as a collateralized mortgage obligation
or asset-backed security, is a bond backed by a pool of underlying
financial assets. The underlying assets generally consist of
receivables such as mortgages, credit card receivables, or student or
other bank loans for which the timing of principal payments by the
underlying obligors may be variable and unpredictable. A Structured
Security may also incorporate credit enhancements or other rights that
affect the amount and timing of payments to investors.
    Communication of periodic payment rates of principal and interest
(``P&I'') to the end investors in Structured Securities depends on
application of

stringent time frames for information reporting and significant
interdependencies among servicers of the underlying assets,
specifically trustees, custodians, paying agents on the securities,
DTC, and the financial intermediaries that act on behalf of the
investors. Given the complexity of structure and calculations of cash
flow from the underlying assets through the issuer to the end investor
and given the interdependencies on timeliness and accuracy of
performance throughout the chain of servicers and intermediaries,
timely and accurate submission of payment rate information on
Structured Securities may be difficult to achieve. As a result, payment
rates typically are announced late on a significant number of issues,
and the number of post-payable adjustments made to correct inaccurate
payments resulting from inaccurate payment rate information is higher
than for any other security type. Furthermore, the volume of P&I
payments for Structured Securities processed through DTC has grown
rapidly in recent years and currently represents approximately 25% of
all P&I payments processed through DTC. Incorrect and late payment rate
reporting causes increased operations processing costs, inefficient
cash management, and loss of income.
1. Extending the Deadline for Reporting on Payment Detail
    Currently, the majority of Structured Securities have features that
prevent paying agents from being able to meet the current Operational
Arrangements payment rate reporting deadline. DTC is amending the
Operational Arrangements to require that the payment notification
regarding Structured Securities be provided to DTC by the paying agent
preferably five business days but no later than one business day prior
to the payable date.\7\ In addition, DTC is extending its current
processing deadline for receipt of payment rate files from 7:00 p.m. to
11:30 p.m. The extended reporting period deadlines should allow paying
agents to provide payment rates in a timely and accurate fashion for a
majority of Structured Securities issues and should permit the
securities to remain eligible for DTC's services while still providing
DTC with adequate time to process the information and make timely
payments to its participants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Prior to this filing, payment notifications regarding
Structured Securities had to be provided to DTC by the paying agent
preferably five business days but no later than two business day
prior to the payable date.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Securities Classifications
    Due to the complexity of certain Structured Securities, it is
anticipated that the paying agents for certain issues will still not be
able to meet the amended Operational Arrangements requirements for
timely payment rate reporting even with the extended reporting
period.\8\ Therefore, DTC is categorizing Structured Securities as
``conforming'' or ``non-conforming.'' Non-conforming Structured
Securities will be issues for which the underwriter and paying agent
have concluded that the security has features that will likely preclude
the paying agent from submitting payment rate information to DTC in
conformity with the requirements of the Operational Arrangements. The
conforming/non-conforming identification will be made at the time the
security is made eligible at DTC. For each Structured Securities
underwriting that the underwriter and paying agent identify as non-
conforming, the underwriter and paying agent shall submit a written
attestation giving the reason(s) why the paying agent will be unable to
submit payment rate information to DTC in conformity with the
requirements of the Operational Arrangements. DTC will in turn identify
non-conforming Structured Securities to participants and other relevant
parties and will add an indicator to the appropriate DTC systems
functions to denote non-conforming securities. Paying agents also shall
be required to evaluate their entire portfolio of Structured Securities
that have previously been made eligible and are currently on deposit at
DTC to identify non-conforming securities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Although approximately 15% of Structured Security issues
currently fail to have rates submitted to DTC in a timely manner, it
is estimated that approximately only half of these have structural
impediments to meeting the new requirements. Late reporting in other
instances is believed to be curable by improved servicing and
reporting on the securities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Exception Processing Fee Applicable to Non-Conforming Securities
    Late payment rate reporting leads to increased costs to DTC and to
servicers and intermediaries. In order to recoup the increased
processing costs, DTC is imposing an exception processing fee to the
managing underwriter of each non-conforming issue at the time of
underwriting. No exception processing fee will be charged retroactively
for issues already on deposit at DTC prior to the implementation of the
fee. The exception processing fee of $4,200 per CUSIP was calculated
based upon anticipated additional costs of P&I processing for non-
conforming Structured Securities.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ The fee was filed with the Commission as part of DTC's
annual establishment of fees. Securities Exchange Act Release No.
34-57193 (January 24, 2008), 73 FR 5614.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The aggregate net amount of the exception processing fees will be
allocated and rebated on a pro rata basis annually to the DTC
participants for whom DTC processed Structured Securities P&I
allocations. For each participant, DTC will compare the participant's
total number of allocations to the total number of all participants'
allocations, and the resulting percentage would be applied against the
total exception processing fund with the resulting amount being rebated
to the participant. The total exception processing fund will be the sum
of all exception processing fees less DTC's cost to administer the
program.
4. Evaluation and Publication of Paying Agent Performance
    DTC will track and evaluate paying agent performance with regard to
timeliness and accuracy of payment rate reporting on Structured
Securities and make these evaluations available to DTC participants and
to the public. The purpose of these evaluations is to identify poor
reporting and payment performance by paying agents.
    DTC plans to expand its paying agent evaluation reports (``Report
Cards'') that are currently used to compare rate submission performance
and accuracy of Structured Securities paying agents. Currently the
Report Cards are only distributed among the paying agents being
compared. DTC will now make the Report Cards available on its Web site.
The Report Cards will track and will report on a monthly basis
performance by paying agent with respect to the number of
collateralized mortgage obligations and asset-backed securities
announcements processed, the number of late and amended announcements,
the payment dollars, late payment dollars, the number of payments, and
the number of late payments. Timeliness of payment rate notification on
non-conforming Structured Securities will not be included in the Report
Cards. With respect to all the other items set forth above, paying
agent performance information for both conforming and non-conforming
Structured Securities will be included in the Report Cards.

III. Comment Letters

    The Commission received five comments to the proposed rule
change.\10\ Four of the comment letters

were from industry participants, and one was from DTC in response to
the other four comment letters. While all of the four industry
commenters generally supported the proposal, two raised issues or
sought clarification about the proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\  Supra notes 3 and 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The comment letters submitted by JP Morgan and Edward Jones both
expressed their support for the: (1) Extension of the deadline for
reporting on payment detail, (2) creation of the conforming and non-
conforming securities classifications, (3) creation of the exception
processing fee for non-conforming securities, and (4) evaluation and
publication of paying agent performance.
    The comment letter written on behalf of the Association of Global
Custodians expressed its support for the: (1) Creation of the
conforming and non-conforming securities classifications and (2)
evaluation and publication of paying agent performance. Although the
commenter expressed support for the extension of the deadline for
reporting payment detail, the commenter stated that DTC should monitor
paying agent performance to determine if the reporting of payment
detail trends toward last-minute reporting or if the extended deadline
does not correlate with a reduced incidence of errors and adjustments.
Although the commenter expressed support for the creation of the
exception processing fee for non-conforming securities, it suggested
that the aggregate net amount of the exception processing fee should be
rebated to participants based on their transactions in non-conforming
securities only rather than to participants based on their transactions
in all Structured Securities.
    The comment letter written on behalf of the Securities Industry and
Financial Markets Association expressed support for the: (1) Extension
of the deadline for reporting on payment detail and (2) evaluation and
publication of paying agent performance. Although the commenter
expressed support for the creation of the conforming and non-conforming
securities classifications, it requested guidance on the criteria to be
used to determine whether a Structured Security is non-conforming,
whether an issue's classification can be changed, and when the
classification determination will be required to be submitted to DTC.
The commenter questioned whether it was appropriate to require the
underwriter to sign the classification attestation rather than allowing
the underwriter to rely on the paying agent's attestation.
    While the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association
expressed support for the creation of the exception processing fee, it
questioned whether the underwriter is the appropriate party to pay the
fee. It stated its belief that the costs created by late and erroneous
submissions from conforming issues should not be borne by non-
conforming issue underwriters. The commenter also suggested that the
aggregate net amount of the exception processing fee should be rebated
to participants based on their transactions in non-conforming
securities only rather than to participants based on their transactions
in all Structured Securities.
    In its comment letter, DTC stated that the criteria for
categorizing an issue as ``non-conforming'' would consist of a general
good-faith expectation, based on information available at the time, as
to whether it is anticipated that DTC's deadlines for submission of
rate information will be met. It also stated that both the paying agent
and the underwriter will be responsible to sign the classification
attestation and that imposing the exception processing fee on the
underwriter is equitable and consistent with DTC's general practice.
Finally, the commenter confirmed that while it will allocate exception
processing fee revenue pro rata to DTC participants for whom DTC
processed any Structured Securities, it will review the policy toward
the end of 2008 to determine whether future allocations should be
directed to participants based only on their transactions in non-
conforming securities.

IV. Discussion

    The Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations
thereunder applicable to a registered clearing agency. In particular,
the Commission believes the proposal is consistent with the
requirements of Section 17A(b)(3)(F),\11\ which, among other things,
requires that the rules of a clearing agency are designed to remove
impediments to and perfect the mechanisms of a national system for the
prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of securities
transactions. The Commission finds that by enabling more Structured
Securities to be DTC-eligible and by helping to make the reporting of
information about Structured Securities more accurate and timely, the
proposed rule change, which should make the communication of payment
rate information on Structured Securities quicker and more efficient,
is consistent with this statutory obligation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Conclusion

    On the basis of the foregoing, the Commission finds that the
proposal is consistent with the requirements of the Act and in
particular with the requirements of section 17A of the Act \12\ and the
rules and regulations thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\13\ that the proposed rule change (File No. SR-DTC-2007-11), as
modified by Amendment No. 1, be, and hereby is, approved.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
    \14\ In approving the proposed rule change, the Commission
considered the proposal's impact on efficiency, competition, and
capital formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).

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

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

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E8-6256 Filed 3-26-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 64 (Monday, April 4, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 18545]
[FR Doc No: 2011-7860]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Notice Announcing Filing Priority for Preliminary Permit
Applications

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Project
                                                                  No.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lock+ Hydro Friends Fund XLII...............................   13739-000
FFP Missouri 10, LLC........................................   13751-000
Solia 7 Hydroelectric, LLC..................................   13778-000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On March 24, 2011, the Commission held a drawing to determine
priority among competing preliminary permit applications with identical
filing times. In the event that the Commission concludes that none of
the applicants' plans are better adapted than the others to develop,
conserve, and utilize in the public interest the water resources of the
region at issue, the priority established by this drawing will serve as
the tiebreaker. Based on the drawing, the order of priority is as
follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Project
                                                                  No.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Lock+ Hydro Friends Fund XLII............................   13739-000
2. FFP Missouri 10, LLC.....................................   13751-000
3. Solia 7 Hydroelectric, LLC...............................   13778-000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Dated: March 25, 2011.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-7860 Filed 4-1-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


Board on Agriculture and Natural Resources, HA394 2101 Constitution Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20418 Telephone ( 202) 334 3062 Fax ( 202) 334 1978 national academies. org The Scientific Basis for Estimating Air Emissions from Animal Feeding Operations A New Interim Report from the Committee on Animal Nutrition, Board on Agriculture and Natural Resources, and Board on Environmental Studies and Toxicology Concern with possible environmental and health effects of air emissions generated from animal feeding operations ( AFOs) has grown with the increasing size, geographic concentration, and suburbanization of these operations in what was formerly rural, sparsely populated agricultural land. In response to this concern, the Office Air Quality Planning and Standards Division ( OAQPS) of the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA) asked the National Research Council ( NRC) to review the scientific basis for estimating emissions from individual AFOs. Because the issues regarding emissions from AFOs are much broader than the interests of any one federal agency are, the U. S. Department of Agriculture ( USDA) joined EPA in the request for this study.

The NRC convened a study panel of experts chosen for their expertise and knowledge in a range of disciplinary backgrounds, including epidemiology and biostatistics, environmental engineering, atmospheric and tropospheric chemistry, biogeochemistry, environmental sciences, agricultural law, animal nutrition, agricultural engineering, soils and physical chemistry, microbiology, agricultural and resource economics, emission measurement and characterization, and biological engineering. For the interim report, the committee:

  Identified the scientific criteria needed to ensure that estimates of air emission rates are accurate, the basis for these criteria in the scientific literature, and uncertainties associated with them,   Assessed emission estimating approaches in a recent EPA report Air Emissions from Animal Feeding Operations, and   Identified economic criteria needed to assess emission mitigation techniques and best management practices.

Following its analysis, the study panel concludes that estimates of air emissions are needed from individual AFOs in order to understand health and environmental impacts on a variety of spatial scales. However, direct measurement of emissions from all AFOs is likely infeasible. Characterizing AFOs in terms of their components ( e. g., model farms) may be a plausible approach for developing estimates of air emissions from individual farms or regions as long as the components or factors chosen to characterize the feeding operation are appropriate. Depending on the character of the AFO, these factors may include animal types, nutrient inputs, manure handling practices, output of animal products, management of feeding operations, confinement conditions, physical characteristics of the site, and climate and weather conditions.

The study committee additionally finds the model farm construct as described by EPA is inadequate to estimate air emissions from individual AFOs because of the way in which it characterizes feeding operations combined with weaknesses in the data needed to implement it. The committee proposes a process based model farm approach that incorporates " mass balance" constraints for some of the emitted substances of concern, in conjunction with estimated emission factors for other substances, may be a an alternative to the model farm construct defined by EPA.

This interim report provides the committee's findings to date on assessment of the scientific issues involved in estimating air emissions from individual AFOs as related to current animal production systems and practices in the United States. The committee's final report will include an additional assessment within eight broad categories: industry size and structure, emission measurement methodology, mitigation technology and best management plans, short and long term research priorities, alternative approaches for estimating emissions, human health and environmental impacts, economic analyses, and other potential air emissions of concern. The final report is anticipated to be issued at the end of this year.

A prepublication copy of the interim report, The Scientific Basis for Estimating Air Emissions from Animal Feeding Operations will be available to the public on June 4, 2002 at 1: 00 PM Pacific Time. The National Academy Press ( http:// www. nap. edu/ catalog/ 10391. html) will publish the interim report


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 201 (Thursday, October 21, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 58266-58267]
[FR Doc No: 2021-23002]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-9133-01-OA]

Farm, Ranch, and Rural Communities Advisory Committee (FRRCC);
Notice of Virtual Public Meeting

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is announcing a virtual, open,
public meeting of the Farm, Ranch, and Rural Communities Advisory
Committee (FRRCC) on November 15-16, 2021, with remote participation
only. There will be no in-person gathering for this meeting.

DATES: This virtual public meeting will be held on Monday, November 15,
2021, from 11:00 a.m. to approximately 5:00 p.m., and Tuesday, November
16, 2021, from 11:00 a.m. to approximately 5:00 p.m., Eastern Daylight
Time. Members of the public seeking to view the meeting (but not
provide oral comments) may register any time prior to the meeting.
Members of the public seeking to make oral comments during the virtual
meeting must register and contact the Designated Federal Officer
directly by 12:00 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time on November 8, 2021 to be
placed on a list of registered commenters and receive special
instructions for participation.

ADDRESSES: To register and receive information on how to attend this
virtual meeting, please visit: www.epa.gov/faca/frrcc. Attendees must
register online prior to the meeting to receive instructions for
participation.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Emily Selia, Designated Federal
Officer (DFO), at [email protected] or<PHONE_NUMBER>. Please note that, due
to Coronavirus (COVID-19), there are currently practical limitations on
the ability of EPA personnel to collect and respond to mailed ``hard
copy'' correspondence. General information regarding the FRRCC can be
found on the EPA website at: www.epa.gov/faca/frrcc.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

    The purpose of the FRRCC is to provide policy advice, information,
and recommendations to the EPA Administrator on a range of
environmental issues and policies that are of importance to agriculture
and rural communities. The purpose of this meeting is to discuss topics
of relevance to agriculture and rural communities, specifically the
FRRCC's recommendations on the two charge topics (1) creating a
holistic pesticide program for the future and (2) supporting inter-
agency environmental benchmarks with interagency partners on the issues
of water quality and quantity and food loss and waste. A copy of the
FRRCC charges and meeting agenda will be posted at www.epa.gov/faca/frrcc. This will be the third public meeting of the membership of the
FRRCC which was appointed in June of 2020. Potentially interested
entities may include: farmers, ranchers, and rural communities and
their allied industries; as well as the academic/research community who
research environmental issues impacting agriculture; state, local, and
tribal government agencies; and nongovernmental organizations.

II. How do I participate in the virtual public meeting?

A. Virtual Meeting

    This meeting will be conducted as a virtual conference. You may
attend by registering online before the meeting to receive information
on how to participate. You may also submit written or oral comments for
the committee by contacting the DFO directly per the processes outlined
below.

B. Registration

    Attendees should register via the link on this website prior to the
meeting to receive information on how to participate in the virtual
meeting: www.epa.gov/faca/frrcc.

C. Procedures for Providing Public Comments

    Oral Statements: Oral comments at this virtual conference will be
limited to the Public Comments portions of the Meeting Agenda. Members
of the public may provide oral comments limited to three minutes per
individual or group

and submit further information in written comments. Persons interested
in providing oral statements should register as attendees at the link
provided above, and also contact the DFO directly at [email protected] by
12:00 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time on November 8, 2021 to be placed on
the list of registered speakers and receive special instructions for
participation. Oral commenters will be provided an opportunity to speak
in the order in which their request was received by the DFO.
    Written Statements: Persons interested in providing written
statements pertaining to this committee meeting may email them to the
DFO at [email protected] prior to 11:59 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time on
November 30, 2021.

D. Availability of Meeting Materials

    The Meeting Agenda and other materials for the virtual conference
will be posted on the FRRCC website at www.epa.gov/faca/frrcc.

E. Accessibility

    Persons with disabilities who wish to request reasonable
accommodations to participate in this event may contact the DFO at
[email protected] or<PHONE_NUMBER> by 12:00 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time on
November 10, 2021. All final meeting materials will be posted to the
FRRCC website in an accessible format following the meeting, as well as
a written summary of this meeting.

Rosemary Enobakhare,
Associate Administrator for Public Engagement and Environmental
Education.
[FR Doc. 2021-23002 Filed 10-20-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 173 (Thursday, September 6, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 45268]
[FR Doc No: 2018-19250]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Docket ID: FEMA-2018-0028; OMB No. 1660-0083]

Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB
Review; Comment Request; Application for Community Disaster Loan (CDL)
Program

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) will submit the
information collection abstracted below to the Office of Management and
Budget for review and clearance in accordance with the requirements of
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The submission will describe the
nature of the information collection, the categories of respondents,
the estimated burden (i.e., the time, effort and resources used by
respondents to respond) and cost, and the actual data collection
instruments FEMA will use.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before October 9, 2018.

ADDRESSES: Submit written comments on the proposed information
collection to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office
of Management and Budget. Comments should be addressed to the Desk
Officer for the Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency
Management Agency, and sent via electronic mail to
[email protected].

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Requests for additional information or
copies of the information collection should be made to Director,
Information Management Division, 500 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472,
email address [email protected] or
Martha Polanco, Assistant Program Manager, Disaster Assistance
Directorate, Public Assistance Division,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This proposed information collection
previously published in the Federal Register on June 29, 2018 at 83 FR
30159 with a 60 day public comment period. FEMA received 12 unrelated
comments. The number of respondents, responses, and total annual burden
hours for this collection changed from the previously published Federal
Register notice because the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico were added as a
respondent. The purpose of this notice is to notify the public that
FEMA will submit the information collection abstracted below to the
Office of Management and Budget for review and clearance.

Collection of Information

    Title: Application for Community Disaster Loan (CDL) Program.
    Type of Information Collection: Extension, without change, of a
currently approved information collection.
    OMB Number: 1660-0083.
    Form Titles and Numbers: FEMA Form 090-0-1, Certification Of
Eligibility For Community Disaster Loans; FEMA Form 116-0-1, Promissory
Note; FEMA Form 116-0-1A, Promissory Note; FEMA Form 116-0-1B,
Promissory Note; FEMA Form 116-0-1C, Promissory Note; FEMA Form 085-0-
1, Local Government Resolution--Collateral Security; FEMA Form 112-0-
3C, Certifications Regarding Lobbying; Debarment, Suspension and Other
Responsibility Matters; and Drug-Free Workplace Requirements; FEMA Form
090-0-4, Letter of Application through the GAR. The respondent will
only complete each form once and each response will require 4.0 hours.
    Abstract: The loan package for the CDL Program provides Local and
Tribal governments that have suffered substantial loss of tax or other
revenues as a result of a major disaster or emergency, the opportunity
to obtain financial assistance in order to perform their governmental
functions. The loan must be justified on the basis of need and actual
expenses.
    Affected Public: State, local or Tribal Government.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 144.
    Estimated Number of Responses: 144.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 518.13.13.
    Estimated Total Annual Respondent Cost: $27,761.41.
    Estimated Respondents' Operation and Maintenance Costs: $0.
    Estimated Respondents' Capital and Start-Up Costs: $0.
    Estimated Total Annual Cost to the Federal Government:
$1,012,699.66.

Comments

    Comments may be submitted as indicated in the ADDRESSES caption
above. Comments are solicited to (a) evaluate whether the proposed data
collection is necessary for the proper performance of the agency,
including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b)
evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the
proposed collection of information, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used; (c) enhance the quality, utility, and
clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) minimize the burden
of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including
through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or
other technological collection techniques or other forms of information
technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

William Holzerland,
Information Management Division, Office of the Chief Administrative
Officer, Mission Support, Federal Emergency Management Agency,
Department of Homeland Security.
[FR Doc. 2018-19250 Filed 9-5-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9111-19-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 161 (Tuesday, August 20, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 51115-51117]
[FR Doc No: 2013-20312]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2013-0737; Directorate Identifier 2012-SW-111-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Eurocopter France Helicopters

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for
certain Eurocopter France (Eurocopter) Model AS332C, AS332L, AS332L1,
AS332L2, and SA330J helicopters. This proposed AD would require
inspecting the crimping of the ball joint of the upper- and lower- end-
fittings of the main servo-control and, depending on findings,
replacing the main servo-control or repairing the ball joint. This
proposed AD is prompted by incidents of missing crimping on the ball
joints of servo-control end-fittings. The proposed actions are intended
to prevent failure of a main servo-control upper end fitting, and
subsequent failure of the flight controls and loss of control of the
helicopter.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by October 21,
2013.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Docket: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for sending your
comments electronically.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

     Mail: Send comments 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 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver to the ``Mail'' address between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov or in person at the Docket Operations Office
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the foreign
authority's AD, the economic evaluation, any comments received, and
other information. The street address for the Docket Operations Office
(telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be
available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.
    For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact
American Eurocopter Corporation, 2701 N. Forum Drive, Grand Prairie, TX
75052; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER> or<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>;
or at http://www.eurocopter.com/techpub. You may review the referenced
service information at the FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel,
Southwest Region, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Room 663, Fort Worth, Texas
76137.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Matt Wilbanks, Aviation Safety
Engineer, Rotorcraft Certification Office, Rotorcraft Directorate, FAA,
2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, Texas 76137; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting
written comments, data, or views. We also invite comments relating to
the economic, environmental, energy, or federalism impacts that might
result from adopting the proposals in this document. The most helpful
comments reference a specific portion of the proposal, explain the
reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. To
ensure the docket does not contain duplicate comments, commenters
should send only one copy of written comments, or if comments are filed
electronically, commenters should submit only one time.
    We will file in the docket all comments that we receive, as well as
a report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel
concerning this proposed rulemaking. Before acting on this proposal, we
will consider all comments we receive on or before the closing date for
comments. We will consider comments filed after the comment period has
closed if it is possible to do so without incurring expense or delay.
We may change this proposal in light of the comments we receive.

Discussion

    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical
Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD
No. 2012-0248, dated November 20, 2012, to correct an unsafe condition
for Eurocopter AS 332 C, AS 332 C1, AS 332 L, AS 332 L1, AS 332 L2, and
SA 330 J helicopters with certain part-numbered main servo-controls
installed. EASA advises that several occurrences were reported to
Eurocopter of missing crimping on ball joints of servo-control end-
fittings. EASA states that while slipping of the ball joint of the
lower end-fitting does not affect its service life, slipping of the
ball joint of the upper end-fitting can lead to a significant reduction
of the service life of this end-fitting. As a result, the EASA AD
requires inspecting each ball joint for crimping and, depending on the
findings, replacing the main servo-control.

FAA's Determination

    These helicopters have been approved by the aviation authority of
France and are approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to
our bilateral agreement with France, EASA, its technical
representative, has notified us of the unsafe condition described in
its AD. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all known
relevant information and determined that an unsafe condition is likely
to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.

Related Service Information

    Eurocopter issued one Emergency Alert Service Bulletin (EASB) with
three different numbers, all Revision 1, and all dated December 5,
2012. EASB No. 67.00.45 applies to civilian Model AS332C, AS332C1,
AS332L, AS332L1, AS332L2, and military Model AS332B, AS332B1, AS332M,
AS332M1, and AS332F1 helicopters. EASB No. 67.00.31 applies to military
Model AS532AC, AS532AL, AS532SC, AS532UC, AS532UE, AS532UL, AS532A2,
and AS532U2 helicopters. EASB No. 67.19 applies to civilian Model
SA330J and military Model SA330Ba, SA330Ca, SA330Ea, SA330L, SA330Jm,
SA330S1, and SA330Sm helicopters. The EASB specifies visually checking
for crimping of the ball joints of the upper- and lower- servo control
end-fittings and informing the Eurocopter Technical Support Department
of any ball joint that is not crimped. For an upper end-fitting ball
joint that is not crimped and slips one millimeter (mm) or greater, the
EASB specifies returning the servo-control for replacement of the ball
joint and the end-fitting. For an upper end-fitting ball joint that is
not crimped and slips less than one mm, the EASB specifies either
crimping the ball joint or returning the servo-control for ball joint
crimping. For a lower end-fitting ball joint that is not crimped, the
EASB states to crimp the ball joint. The EASB also states that if a
ball joint is crimped, no action on that ball joint is required in
regard to this unsafe condition.

Proposed AD Requirements

    This proposed AD would require visually inspecting the applicable
ball joint of the upper and lower end-fittings of the main servo
control for crimping. If the ball joint of the upper end-fitting is not
crimped and the slipping of the ball joint is one mm or greater, then
this proposed AD would require replacing the servo-control with an
airworthy servo-control. If the ball joint of the upper end-fitting is
not crimped and the slipping of the ball joint is less than one mm,
then this proposed AD would require replacing the servo-control with an
airworthy servo-control or crimping the ball joint. If the ball joint
of the lower end-fitting is not crimped, this proposed AD would require
crimping the ball joint.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD would affect 18 helicopters of
U.S. Registry. We estimate that operators may incur the following costs
in order to comply with this AD. We estimate it would take 1 work-hour
to inspect the ball joint for crimping at an average labor cost of $85
per work-hour. Based on these figures, it would cost about $85 per
helicopter for the inspection, or $1,530 for U.S. operators. We
estimate it would take 4 work-hours to replace a servo-control and
parts would cost approximately $60,358 for a total estimated cost of
$60,698 for replacement.
    According to Eurocopter's service information some of the costs of
this proposed AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the
cost impact on affected individuals. We do not control warranty
coverage by

Eurocopter or UTC Actuation Systems/Goodrich Actuation Systems.
Accordingly, we have included all costs in our cost estimate.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not
have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship
between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed, I certify this proposed regulation:
    1. Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order
12866;
    2. Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
    3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska to the extent that
it justifies making a regulatory distinction; and
    4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    We prepared an economic evaluation of the estimated costs to comply
with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Proposed Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

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

Eurocopter France (Eurocopter) Helicopters: Docket No. FAA-2013-
0737; Directorate Identifier 2012-SW-111-AD.

(a) Applicability

    This AD applies to the following model helicopters, certificated
in any category, with a part-numbered main servo-control listed
below: overhauled or repaired by UTC Actuation Systems/Goodrich
Actuation Systems between June 1, 2008, and September 15, 2012,
inclusive; or with a serial number listed in Appendix 1 of
Eurocopter Emergency Alert Service Bulletin Nos. 67.00.45 or 67.19,
both Revision 1, and both dated December 5, 2012 (EASB):
    (1) Model AS332C, AS332L, AS332L1, and AS332L2 helicopters with
main servo-control, part number (P/N) SC7202, SC7202-(all dash
numbers), SC7203, SC7203-(all dash numbers), SC7221, or SC7221-(all
dash numbers), installed; and
    (2) Model SA330J helicopters with main servo-control P/N SC7111,
SC7111-(all dash numbers) SC7112, or SC7112-(all dash numbers),
installed.

(b) Unsafe Condition

    This AD defines the unsafe condition as missing crimping on a
ball joint of a main servo-control end-fitting. This condition could
result in failure of a main servo-control upper end fitting, failure
of the flight controls, and loss of control of the helicopter.

(c) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by October 21, 2013.

(d) Compliance

    You are responsible for performing each action required by this
AD within the specified compliance time unless it has already been
accomplished prior to that time.

(e) Required Actions

    (1) Within 85 hours time-in-service (TIS):
    (i) Using a light source, inspect the ball joint of the upper
end-fitting of the main servo control for crimping in accordance
with Detail A and Detail B, Figure 1, of the EASB applicable to your
model helicopter.
    (A) If the upper ball joint is not crimped and the ball joint
slips a distance of 1 millimeter (mm) or greater, replace the servo-
control with an airworthy servo-control.
    (B) If the upper ball joint is not crimped and the ball joint
slips a distance of less than 1mm, either crimp the ball joint or
replace the servo-control with an airworthy servo-control.
    (ii) Using a light source, inspect the ball joint of the lower
end-fitting of the main servo-control for crimping in accordance
with Detail A and Detail B, Figure 1, of the EASB applicable to your
model helicopter. If the lower ball joint is not crimped, crimp the
ball joint.
    (2) Prior to installing any servo-control that is affected by
this AD, perform the required actions in accordance with paragraphs
(e)(1) of this AD.

(f) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Safety Management Group, FAA, may approve AMOCs
for this AD. Send your proposal to: Matt Wilbanks, Aviation Safety
Engineer, Rotorcraft Certification Office, Rotorcraft Directorate,
FAA, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, Texas 76137; telephone (817)
222-5110; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) For operations conducted under a 14 CFR part 119 operating
certificate or under 14 CFR part 91, subpart K, we suggest that you
notify your principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector,
the manager of the local flight standards district office or
certificate holding district office before operating any aircraft
complying with this AD through an AMOC.

(g) Additional Information

    The subject of this AD is addressed in European Aviation Safety
Agency (EASA) AD No. 2012-0248, dated November 20, 2012. You may
view the EASA AD on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov in
Docket No. FAA-2013-0737.

(h) Subject

    Joint Aircraft Service Component (JASC) Code: 6730, Rotor Flight
Control--Rotorcraft Servo System.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on August 12, 2013.
Kim Smith,
Directorate Manager, Rotorcraft Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2013-20312 Filed 8-19-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P