1 Risk Assessment for Use of CHAT in Transportation Projects Review by Douglas Crawford Brown UNC Chapel Hill Introduction I begin by noting that the reasoning behind conclusions in the document is not well laid out. This doesn't mean the conclusions are incorrect rather that the reader will have a difficult time understanding precisely the contention of the authors. I provide here my own understanding of the reasoning. My summary and recommendations are based on this understanding, so if I am incorrect, please let me know and I will re think my conclusions.

I believe the authors are arguing as follows:

1. We want to understand the human and ecological health risks associated with the use of CHAT in construction, specifically in the construction of roadways.

2. This construction could potentially involve CHAT in either encapsulated or unencapsulated forms, as one or more parts of the roadway cross section in Figure 1.

3. Existing data, and resources, are insufficient to conduct a full, quantitative risk assessment of these uses of CHAT. As a result, the authors hope to draw at least qualitative conclusions about acceptable uses of CHAT.

4. One strategy to conduct such a qualitative assessment is to consider a series of bounding or screening calculations that might place an upper bound on the potential risk.

5. These bounding calculations are of three types: ( i) the risks associated with the piles of CHAT that exist at the Tar Creek site, where at least effects on wildlife can be examined; ( ii) the human health risks associated with the use of unencapsulated CHAT on homesites, where a quantitative risk assessment has been performed in the past; and ( iii) the potential risks associated with leachate from both encapsulated and unencapsulated CHAT, with the assumption that people and/ or wildlife might be exposed at such concentrations if the leachate enters the groundwater or finds its way to the surface undiluted.

6. Existing evidence is at least sufficient to suggest that the dominant risks are from exposures to the metals lead, cadmium and zinc, and so these three pollutants will form the basis for any of the three risk characterizations in items 5i through 5iii above. The assumption appears to be that if the risks from these three pollutants are acceptable, the cumulative risk from CHAT constituents also will be acceptable.

7. With respect to item 5i, evidence is presented to suggest that wildlife exposed to CHAT on or near contaminated sites with mill tailings show both elevated levels of these 2 three pollutants in their tissues and an elevation of some adverse effects. From this, one might conclude that the " raw" tailings pose a risk to the health of wildife and perhaps humans ( if the humans were exposed at the levels of the wildlife, and are approximately as sensitive).

8. With respect to item 5ii, evidence is presented ( from a previously published risk assessment) that use of unencapsulated CHAT in at least home settings ( as fill, etc), poses an unacceptable health risk. While the exposures through use of CHAT on homesites presumably is significantly higher than exposures associated with just living near a road constructed in part from unencapsulated CHAT, data are insufficient at present to rule out unacceptably large health risks from the latter uses.

9. With respect to item 5iii, experimental evidence is presented that the leachate from unencapsulated CHAT contains one or more of the three pollutants at a concentration above levels of public health concern. The assumption appears to be that, in the worst case, this leachate reaches the groundwater and is undiluted appreciably, or perhaps that the leachate finds its way to the ground surface and exposures occur through exposure to this liquid. In either case, the health risks would be unacceptable.

10. Further evidence suggests that the leachate from encapsulated CHAT ( especially from CHAT used in hot mix asphalt) does not contain the three pollutants at a concentration above levels of health concern. Therefore, even in the worst case of exposure to the leachate, adverse effects are unlikely.

11. None of the existing data address the health risks associated with construction processes for a road, including manufacturing of the encapsulated CHAT, transport of the product, or activities during construction. As a result, these risks cannot be estimatedinstead only risks associated with the final product of a constructed road can be considered. However, the claim is that State and OSHA regulations should be sufficient to protect workers during the construction cycle ( no evidence is presented of this in the present document), and residents will be exposed only for a short period so the Average Daily Rate of Intake ( ADRI) will be below levels of concern when averaged over a lifetime.

12. Taking these arguments into account, it is concluded that use of unencapsulated CHAT in road construction probably is unwarranted from the perspective of public health risks, but that encapsulated CHAT, particularly in the form of hot mix asphalt, may be warranted even under the worst case scenarios of exposure to leachate described in the report.

General Comments The reasoning in the Introduction is what I take to be the basis for conclusions drawn by the authors. My first recommendation is that this reasoning, or whatever reasoning was used by the authors, be outlined clearly in the report. The reader currently is left to reconstruct the reasoning based on a variety of assertions made at various points in the 3 text. It took me several readings of the document to begin to understand why, for example, the authors were talking about leachate concentrations. It was not evident at first reading that this had anything to do with risk ( was it being proposed that people might drink the leachate, bathe in it, etc?). I believe my argument in the Introduction is what the authors had in mind, but this is not at all clear in the document. I am suggesting here that the document presents information, but then does not lead the reader to understand the implications of those data.

The problem is in part compounded by an assertion early on that the document will use a weight of evidence format. I can find nothing in the current document to support this claim. A weight of evidence determination requires several stages: ( i) a presentation of the available data ( which is adequate in the current document); ( ii) a summary of the steps of reasoning that will be needed ( which is not adequate in the current document); ( iii) an allocation of specific bodies of data to specific steps in the reasoning ( which is present in the current document); ( iv) a summary conclusion from the data with respect to each specific step in the reasoning a form of at least qualitative meta analysis ( which is present in the current document in part because there is only one body of data available each for most stages in the reasoning); ( v) a clear statement of the summary conclusion for the assessment and a characterization ( qualitative or quantitative) of the strength of this conclusion with respect to the available data ( contained in part in the current document). I don't believe the current document organizes the material in a way that makes this weight of evidence assessment evident, although I do believe the authors have the raw material in the document to do this. It is more a matter of organization and explication than of doing any new analyses.

I remain somewhat unclear as to how the authors intended to use the information on TCLP and SPLP tests. I believe they may have intended to use it as described in the Introduction above, but this is never stated directly. I suppose the references to groundwater contamination are meant to provide this clue, but I have looked for, and not found, a direct statement that a screening or bounding assumption might be that this leachate reaches the groundwater ( perhaps a shallow aquifer) undiluted and is then consumed at this concentration ( perhaps a plume of the leachate moves undiluted to a point of withdrawal of the groundwater?). If this is the assumption being made, it could be addressed through the addition of a few well placed sentences to make it evident to the reader.

There is a possibility of even more dramatic conclusions to be drawn from the leachate results. While I am not suggesting that this must be done, consider an assumption that the relative leachate concentrations between encapsulated and unencapsulated forms are a sort of measure of general mobility of the metals from the CHAT. If one compares, for example, Tables 5 and 14, it is evident that leachability of the metals from the encapsulated form is well below that of the unencapsulated form ( as expected). The risk assessment from Ecology ( 1996) showed unacceptably high health risks associated with use of unencapsulated CHAT, but the risks were not dramatically above levels of concern. They are, for the most part, within an order of magnitude of acceptable risk levels. The TCLP and SPLP results for encapsulated CHAT, however, are more than an 4 order of magnitude below those for unencapsulated CHAT. It is possible to argue, therefore, that use of encapsulated CHAT rather than unencapsulated CHAT at or near the homes in the Ecology ( 1996) study would have led to at least a proportional reduction in risk, yielding risks that are below levels of concern. This should in turn suggest that the residents of those homes would experience acceptable levels of risk if encapsulated rather than unencapsulated CHAT had been used. If use of encapsulated CHAT on homesites poses higher health risks than use on a roadway, the risk in the latter case also will be acceptable, even if they lived adjacent to roadways constructed with encapsulated CHAT.

The reasoning in the previous paragraph is something like the following:

1. We can't conduct a full multimedia, aggregate, risk assessment for residents of homes near roads constructed with CHAT.

2. We have, however, a full multimedia, aggregate, risk assessment for residents of homes where unencapsulated CHAT was used in some form during construction ( infill, etc).

3. This full assessment in step 2 yielded a measure of risk X, which has been judged unacceptable.

4. The use of unencapsulated CHAT in a roadway could produce risks in individuals living near this roadway that are in some sense bounded ( on the upper end) by a risk of X.

5. The ratio of leaching ability for encapsulated over unencapsulated CHAT is approximately F. This ratio is an approximate measure of the general mobility of the three metals of concern in the environment.

6. As a result, an approximate upper bound on the risks to individuals using encapsulated CHAT in the same aspects of home construction as in 2 might be approximately X * F.

7. This value of X * F might then be an upper bound on the risk to individuals living near a roadway built with encapsulated CHAT, by analogy with step 4 above.

8. The ratio of X over a level of unacceptable risk is significantly smaller than the inverse of F, and so the product of X * F will be acceptable. This establishes as a first approximation that the risks from encapsulated CHAT in roadways will be acceoptable.

Again, I am not suggesting that such reasoning must be presented in the document, but it does seem to me a possibility for further articulating your position.

Some Specific Comments 1. On page 3 6, it is mentioned that " Other encapsulated uses  are typically covered by a layer of asphalt ". This presumably is to give assurance that these " other uses" will not 5 be subject to exposure to air and/ or erosion, leaving only the groundwater pathway. This assumes, however, that the upper layer remains intact, which becomes problematic if there are significant potholes. I assume such potholes would represent only a small fraction of the overall surface of the road, so this may be a good assumption. But the issue should at least be raised and then put to rest in some way.

2. Figure 3 is not clear to me. There are several boxes ( Dispersion, Deposition and Indoor dust) that are unconnected to any other boxes. It is not clear what they are intended to represent.

3. On page 4 1, there is the statement that " almost 90% of the raw chat matrix was considered non hazardous when incorporated ". I am not sure what this means. Does it mean 90% of the elements or compounds were each non hazardous when incorporated, or that their toxicity was in some way reduced by 90% for each element or compound?

4. Section 4.0 summarizes the various studies examined. However, the results of those studies are not presented in this section, being presented instead later. As a reader, I found this odd. I kept marking in the margins phrases such as " So, what were the actual numerical results?". The relevant results do appear later in the document, so this early section of Section 4.0 can be viewed as simply a qualitative statement that data do in fact exist ( and will be described later). But as a reader, my attention was not directed to this fact, and so I ended that Section thinking it was woefully inadequate in providing the data themselves. This could be dealt with either by including the actual data in this Section under each review of a citation, or starting the Section with a note to the reader to explain the organization you have chosen ( i. e. a qualitative description of the kinds of data in each paper, followed later by discussion of the actual data in the context of specific calculations or conclusions).

5. The discussion of the " baseline risk assessment" ( and I don't know what " baseline" means in this case, since it usually refers to a risk in the absence of any policy) starting on page 4 19 seems to me inadequate, especially given some of the potential reasoning I provided previously ( particularly the argument that X * F might be acceptably small). I have reviewed the Ecology ( 1996) paper and it seems to me that providing the numerical results from that study would bolster your case here, given that X * F appears to me to lead to acceptable risk levels. But the reader can't draw this conclusion from the qualitative details provided in the current document.

In addition, the Ecology ( 1996) study shows that, at least for lead, the inhalation/ dust pathway dominates. This is good for the extrapolation to encapsulated CHAT, since it is likely that leaching will dominate in that case. Let's assume that about 82% of the risk in the Ecology ( 1996) study was from inhalation ( the value cited for lead in the current document, and lead is probably the metal of most concern). It can be assumed that this route will be largely removed from the use of encapsulated CHAT, leaving the leaching part as the dominant pathway. That in turn would suggest that the value of X * F given previously as an upper bound might even further overstate the risks. If the remaining 18% of risk from the Ecology ( 1996) study were all from leachate, the risk from use of 6 encapsulated CHAT might be between 0.18 * X * F ( if the inhalation pathway was completely removed by encapsulation) and X * F ( if the inhalation pathway remained and the leachability measure were taken as a measure of more general mobility into the environment by all pathways). In any event, more quantitative detail on the full risk assessment is in order here.

Charge Questions To address these, I reviewed the document and each of the citations, and did an enhanced literature search through the internet, through various literature search engines, and through journals likely to contain such publications.

1. I could find no additional studies that are relevant to these calculations. The new NAAQS Criteria Document for lead ( which I am reviewing for the Agency) does provide some insights into transport by air, but these are generic and do not provide insights specific to the use of CHAT in roadways, even during transportation. There are sufficient models available to perform at least some bounding calculations of the risk associated with this pathway ( these would be the same ones used for the National Scale Air Toxics Assessment or NATA), but the current assessment is predicated on the claim that such modeling efforts are not warranted or feasible at present, in part because one needs the source term to use the air dispersion models, and this source term is not available at present.

2. The report does present the data in an unbiased manner, but as I described earlier, the assumptions underlying any reasoning performed by the authors is not at all clear. This part of the assessment can be improved greatly. In general, I would say that ( i) the presentation of the data is good, ( ii) the evaluation of the data is good, ( iii) the explanation of the relevance of the data to steps of reasoning is inadequate, and ( iv) the assembly of the data to show how they support the final conclusion is inadequate. The document does not represent an adequate weight of evidence discussion.

3. I think the data marginally support the conclusions. The problem lies not in the quality of the data themselves ( the methods generally are acceptable), but in the assumptions that must be introduced on the relevance of leaching results in drawing conclusions on risk. The authors may need to better establish that leaching into groundwater is the dominant pathway, or at least state clearly at the beginning that this will be the assumption for encapsulated CHAT. I also suspect that results for leaching may be highly variable, and the sampling to date has not been extensive. The use of milling of encapsulated CHAT to reflect weathering worries me a bit, because I am not convinced this reflects all forms of weathering ( especially if there is differential weathering of the CHAT and of the matrix, which I suspect is the case). However, the value of F mentioned previously is sufficiently small that I doubt additional samples would produce a new value that is significantly larger. I suspect a larger value of F might be associated with road materials that pass through large freeze thaw cycles during a year, but the areas of the country using the CHAT for roadways probably don't have this issue. 7 An area where I am less comfortable with conclusions is in the assumption of effects on wildlife near contaminated lands. Those data seem to me too poor to justify a claim of adverse effects associated with unencapsulated CHAT. The measurements of effect are not convincing. This result, however, does not play a central role in the overall conclusions.

4. I have already suggested changes to the methodology, or at least to the reasoning used to draw conclusions. I don't believe you can do a quantitative uncertainty analysis here. Rather, you must focus on bounding calculations and show the " margin or safety", " margin of error", " margin of exposure" or other related concept associated with these calculations. Again, I believe you can use X * F as a kind of bounding calculation, and then show how close this is to levels of health concern. If this is done, I believe you will find that the plausible upper bound of risk for use of encapsulated CHAT remains below the level of concern.

5. I think the current assessment can be used to state only one thing: that the use of CHAT in encapsulated form, and specifically for hot mixed asphalt, will produce acceptable levels of risk to individuals living near these constructed roadways. I don't think you can state what those levels of risk ARE, only that they are likely to be below levels of concern. I don't think the data support use of CHAT in unencapsulated form. They show the risks will be unacceptable under some uses such as in home construction. Further, the data are insufficient to allow extrapolation from this home use to road use, other than in the form of a bounding calculation of the plausible upper bound on the risk from use of unencapsulated CHAT in roadways an upper bound risk that appears unacceptable.

The data also are insufficient to establish the risks from use of encapsulated CHAT in forms other than HMA. All we can really say is that these uses should be between the risk from HMA ( which is acceptable) and the risk from unencapsulated CHAT in home construction ( which is unacceptable). It is likely that the risk from " other" encapsulated forms will be closer to HMA than to unencapsulated forms, but it is not possible to state how close it will be to the HMA risks.

I worry a bit about the argument presented for lack of concern over risks during road construction. The argument appears to be ( and correct me if I am misstating that argument) that there may be elevated exposures during construction, but these will be short in duration and, when averaged over the Averaging Time of any calculation of Average Daily Rate of Intake, will produce ADRI values that are acceptable. The one point that worries me here is the possibility of short term exposures of the fetus and neonates during critical and sensitive periods of growth, where even relatively short term exposures can be problematic. I see nothing in the present document ( or even anything in the existing literature) to either characterize or alleviate this concern. If it remains a concern, I see no way to address it other than a full modeling study.

I close with a comment on health risk from lead. The human health risks cited in the document reviewed here were developed when the level of concern for lead in the blood 8 was 10 µ g/ dL. The OAQPS is considering revising this target downwards significantly, perhaps even as low as 2 to 3 µ g/ dL. If this occurs, much of the " margin of safety" I mentioned above for encapsulated CHAT may be eroded. The only advice I can offer is to keep in touch with OAQPS on this issue.


[Federal Register: July 9, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 132)]
[Notices]
[Page 39349]
[DOCID:fr09jy08-105]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Sunshine Act Meeting

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the
Government in the Sunshine Act, Public Law 94-409, that the Securities
and Exchange Commission will hold a Closed Meeting on July 10, 2008 at
2 p.m.
    Commissioners, Counsel to the Commissioners, the Secretary to the
Commission, and recording secretaries will attend the Closed Meeting.
Certain staff members who have an interest in the matters also may be
present.
    The General Counsel of the Commission, or his designee, has
certified that, in his opinion, one or more of the exemptions set forth
in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(5), (7), (9)(B), and (10) and 17 CFR 200.402(a)(5),
(7), 9(ii) and (10), permit consideration of the scheduled matters at
the Closed Meeting.
    Commissioner Atkins, as duty officer, voted to consider the items
listed for the Closed Meeting in closed session.
    The subject matter of the Closed Meeting scheduled for July 10,
2008 will be:
    Formal orders of investigation;
    Institution and settlement of injunctive actions;
    Institution and settlement of administrative proceedings of an
enforcement nature;
    Amicus consideration; and
    Other matters related to enforcement proceedings.
    At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in
the scheduling of meeting items.
    For further information and to ascertain what, if any, matters have
been added, deleted or postponed, please contact: The Office of the
Secretary at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: July 2, 2008.
Florence E. Harmon,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-15480 Filed 7-8-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

NATIONAL VEHICLE AND FUEL EMISSIONS LABORATORY

2565 PLYMOUTH ROAD

ANN ARBOR, MI  48105-2498

									     OFFICE OF

									AIR AND RADIATION

February 10, 2014

MEMORANDUM

FROM:  	Kenneth Davidson

Assessment and Standards Division, Office of Transportation and Air
Quality

TO:	 	 Docket EPA-HQ- OAR–2011–0135

SUBJECT:	BenMAP Air Quality Modeling Data Files for Estimation of
Benefits for the Final Tier 3 Rulemaking

The purpose of this memorandum is to transmit BenMAP air quality
modeling data input and configuration files used for the estimation of
PM and ozone-related benefits associated with the Tier 3 FRM.  When used
as input files to the publicly-available Environmental Benefits Mapping
and Analysis Program (BenMAP), a user will be able to replicate the
benefits analysis results presented in the RIA for this rulemaking.  The
summary files are as follows:

File 1: Tier3_CMAQ_Output_Files.zip

12km ambient PM and ozone air quality CMAQ output data (baseline and
control for 2018 and 2030)

File 2: Tier3_AirQualityGridFiles_BenMAP.zip

12km ambient PM and ozone air quality grid input data for BenMAP
(baseline and control .aqg files for 2018 and 2030), including control
files where California-related air quality changes in the control
scenario have been held constant to levels in the baseline scenario

File 3: Tier3_AirQualityConfigurationFiles_BenMAP.zip

PM and ozone health effects configuration file for BenMAP (.cfg files)

PM and ozone health effects aggregation, pooling, and valuation file for
BenMAP (.apv files)

File 4: BenMapUS.exe

BenMAP executable for version 4.0.65 used to estimate health impacts for
the final rulemaking analysis

The benefits analysis is discussed in Section VIII of the preamble and
Chapter 8 of the Regulatory Impact Analysis.

 BenMAP v. 4.0 is compatible with these files and can be downloaded at
http://www.epa.gov/air/benmap/download.html


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 213 (Friday, November 4, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 66550-66552]
[FR Doc No: 2022-23945]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket Number USCG-2022-0880]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone; Head of the South Regatta, Savannah River, Augusta,
GA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone for
navigable waters of the Savannah River near Augusta, GA for the Head of
the South Regatta. This temporary safety zone is needed to protect
personnel, vessels, and the marine environment from potential hazards
created by the rowing regatta. Entry of vessels or persons into this
zone is prohibited unless specifically authorized by the Captain of the
Port Savannah or a designated representative.

DATES: This rule is effective from noon until 5 p.m. on November 11,
2022 through November 12, 2022.

ADDRESSES: To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to https://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-
2022-0880 in the search box and click ``Search.'' Next, in the Document
Type column, select ``Supporting & Related Material.''

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions about this
notification of enforcement, call or

email LT Alexander McConnell, Marine Safety Unit Savannah Office of
Waterways Management, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>
extension 240, email [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

CFR Code of Federal Regulations
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
Sec.  Section
U.S.C. United States Code

II. Background Information and Regulatory History

    The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule without prior notice
and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of
the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This
provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and
opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those
procedures are ``impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public
interest.'' Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good
cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
with respect to this rule because doing so would be impracticable The
Coast Guard lacks sufficient time to provide for a comment period and
then consider those comments before issuing the rule. It would be
contrary to the public interest since the rule is needed by November
11, 2022 to ensure the safety of participants, spectators, the public,
and vessels transiting the waters of Augusta, GA during the Head of the
South Regatta.
    Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause
exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after
publication in the Federal Register. Delaying the effective date of
this rule would be impracticable because immediate action is needed to
respond to the potential safety hazards associated with a regatta of
rowing vessels on the Savannah River near Augusta, GA.

III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

    The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 46 U.S.C.
70034. The Captain of the Port (COTP) Savannah has determined that
potential hazards associated with a rowing regatta starting November
11, 2022, will be a safety concern for anyone on the Savannah River
between mile markers 197 and 200. This rule is needed to protect
personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in the navigable waters
within the safety zone while the rowing regatta is underway.

IV. Discussion of the Rule

    This rule establishes a temporary safety zone from noon until 5
p.m. from November 11, 2022 through November 12, 2022. The safety zone
will cover all navigable waters of the Savannah River near Augusta, GA
between mile markers 197 and 200. The duration of the zone is intended
to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in these
navigable waters during the rowing regatta. No vessel or person will be
permitted to enter the safety zone without obtaining permission from
the COTP or a designated representative.

V. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and
Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses
based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders, and we
discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits. This rule has not been designated a ``significant
regulatory action,'' under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, this
rule has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB).
    This regulatory action determination is based on the rule being
limited in duration, size, and scope. The temporary safety zone is
limited in duration and size as it will be enforced for only 10
cumulative hours over the course of two consecutive days and will cover
all navigable waters on the Savannah River between mile markers 197 and
200. The zone is limited in scope as vessels and persons and vessels
may still enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the areas
during the enforcement period if authorized by the COTP or a designated
representative. The Coast Guard will provide notification of the
regulated area to the local maritime community by Marine Safety
Information Bulletin.

B. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities.
    While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the
temporary safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in
section V.A above, this rule will not have a significant economic
impact on any vessel owner or operator.
    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your
small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have
questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please
call or email the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or
action of the Coast Guard.

C. Collection of Information

    This rule will not call for a new collection of information under
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has 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. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have
determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism
principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order
13132.
    Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive
Order

13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments,
because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more
Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and
Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities
between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538)
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary
regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may
result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for
inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in
such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere
in this preamble.

F. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Directive 023-01, Rev. 1, associated implementing instructions, and
Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), which guide the Coast
Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of
a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a
significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves a
temporary safety zone lasting only 10 hours that will prohibit entry on
the Savannah River between mile markers 197 and 200 near Augusta, GA.
It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L60(a)
of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 1.
A Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination
is available in the docket. For instructions on locating the docket,
see the ADDRESSES section of this preamble.

G. Protest Activities

    The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters.
Protesters are asked to call or email the person listed in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to coordinate protest activities so
that your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or
security of people, places or vessels.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

    Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends
33 CFR part 165 as follows:

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

0
1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  46 U.S.C. 70034, 70051; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-
6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1,
Revision No. 01.2.

0
2. Add Sec.  165.T07-0880 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T07-0880   Safety Zone; Head of the South Regatta, Savannah
River, Augusta, GA.

    (a) Location. The following area is a safety zone: All waters of
the Savannah River, from surface to bottom, between mile markers 197 to
200.
    (b) Definitions. As used in this section, designated representative
means a Coast Guard Patrol Commander, including a Coast Guard coxswain,
petty officer, or other officer operating a Coast Guard vessel and a
Federal, State, and local officer designated by or assisting the
Captain of the Port (COTP) Savannah in the enforcement of the safety
zone.
    (c) Regulations. (1) Under the general safety zone regulations in
subpart C of this part, you may not enter the safety zone described in
paragraph (a) of this section unless authorized by the COTP or the
COTP's designated representative.
    (2) Persons or vessels desiring to enter, transit through, anchor
in, or remain within the safety zone may contact COTP Savannah by
telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or a designated representative via VHF
radio on channel 16, to request authorization. If authorization to
enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the regulated area
is granted by the COTP Savannah or a designated representative, all
persons and vessels receiving such authorization must comply with the
instructions of the COTP Savannah or a designated representative.
    (3) The Coast Guard will provide notice of the regulated areas by
Marine Safety Information Bulletins, and on-scene designated
representatives.
    (d) Enforcement period. This section will be enforced from noon
until 5 p.m. from November 11, 2022 through November 12, 2022.

    Dated: October 31, 2022.
K.A. Broyles,
Commander, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Savannah, GA.
[FR Doc. 2022-23945 Filed 11-3-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 191 (Monday, October 3, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 61033-61036]
[FR Doc No: 2011-24681]

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

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

The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by the Superintendent of Documents.
Prices of new books are listed in the first FEDERAL REGISTER issue of each
week.

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

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 191 / Monday, October 3, 2011 / Rules
and Regulations

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2008-1118; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-318-AD;
Amendment 39-16792; AD 2011-18-10]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Model 737-600, -700,
-700C, -800, -900, and -900ER Series Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are superseding an existing airworthiness directive (AD)
for the products listed above. The existing AD currently requires
reviewing the airplane maintenance records to determine whether an
engine has been removed from the airplane since the airplane was
manufactured. For airplanes on which an engine has been removed, the
existing AD also requires an inspection of the aft engine mount to
determine if the center link assembly is correctly installed, and
follow-on actions if necessary. This new AD expands the applicability
to include airplanes on which the engine has not been previously
removed, and Model 737-900ER airplanes. This AD was prompted by reports
indicating that operators found that the center link assembly for the
aft engine mount was reversed on several airplanes that had not had an
engine removed since delivery. We are issuing this AD to prevent
increased structural loads on the aft engine mount, which could result
in failure of the aft engine mount and consequent separation of the
engine from the airplane.

DATES: This AD is effective November 7, 2011.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in the AD as of November 7,
2011.

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this AD, contact
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management,
P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, Washington 98124-2207; telephone 206-
544-5000, extension 1; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You may review copies of the
referenced service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane
Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington. For information
on the availability of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov; or in person at the Docket Management Facility
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation,
any comments received, and other information. The address for the
Docket Office (phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>) is Document Management Facility,
U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West
Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE.,
Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Alan Pohl, Aerospace Engineer,
Airframe Branch, ANM-120S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office,
1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone (425)
917-6450; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (SNPRM) to
amend 14 CFR part 39 to supersede airworthiness directive (AD) 2003-03-
01, Amendment 39-13025 (68 FR 4367, January 29, 2003). That AD applies
to the specified products. The SNPRM published in the Federal Register
on January 11, 2011 (76 FR 1552). The original NPRM (73 FR 64568,
October 30, 2008) proposed to continue to require reviewing the
airplane maintenance records to determine whether an engine has been
removed from the airplane since the airplane was manufactured. For
airplanes on which an engine has been removed, the original NPRM also
requires an inspection of the aft engine mount to determine if the
center link assembly is correctly installed, and follow-on actions if
necessary. The original NPRM also proposed to require those same
actions on airplanes on which the engine has not previously been
removed. The SNPRM proposed to further expand the applicability to
include Model 737-900ER airplanes.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD. The following presents the comments received on the proposal
and the FAA's response to each comment.

Supportive Comments

    Boeing and Continental Airlines concur with the SNPRM (76 FR 1552,
January 11, 2011).

Request for Information

    American Airlines stated that it has accomplished the actions
required by AD 2003-03-01 (68 FR 4367, January 29, 2003) and the SNPRM
(76 FR 1552, January 11, 2011), and although it will no longer be
affected by the requirements in the SNPRM, asked the following
questions:
     What action has the original equipment manufacturer,
Boeing, taken to prevent incorrect aft mount assembly installations?
     Can Boeing specifically identify the procedures and/or
best practices incorporated into their production process to prevent a
recurrence of this type of event?
    We acknowledge the commenter's concerns and provide the following
responses:
     Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-71A1462, Revision 2,
dated May 29, 2003; and Revision 3, dated May 20, 2004; specify marking
of the hangar fitting (pylon structure) and center link (engine
structure) assembly, which is the same as the marking incorporated
previously in production. These marks ``L,'' ``AFT,'' and ``R,''
applied to both the hangar fitting and center link assembly will only
be in close proximity if the center link is installed correctly.
     Boeing has advised us that it has revised the instructions
in its component maintenance manuals

(assembly level) and aircraft maintenance manuals (installation level)
to put special emphasis on the center link installation. Boeing also
advised us that it implemented drawing changes affecting both
production assembly and field installation of this part; these changes
incorporated specific markings on both the center link assembly and the
hanger fitting to which it is attached. Boeing noted that after 2003
the parts were marked with an ``L'' and ``R'' (left and right) to
indicate the part orientation when assembled, and the hanger assembly
was marked with `AFT' at the center line. Boeing has also developed a
shop aid for use at the facility where the parts are fabricated and
assembled which helps the assembler confirm the correct orientation of
the parts. We have made no change to the AD in this regard.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received,
and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting
the AD as proposed.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 854 airplanes of U.S. registry.
There are no new requirements in this AD; however, we have expanded the
applicability of this AD. The current costs for this AD are
recalculated for the convenience of affected operators, as follows:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per
                     Action                         Work hours         Parts         airplane       Fleet cost
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maintenance records review (required by AD 2003-               1              $0             $85         $72,590
 03-01, Amendment 39-13025 (68 FR 4367, January
 29, 2003)).....................................
Inspection for correct installation of center                  1               0              85          72,590
 link assembly (new required action)............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by removing airworthiness directive (AD)
2003-03-01, Amendment 39-13025 (68 FR 4367, January 29, 2003), and by
adding the following new AD:

2011-18-10 The Boeing Company: Amendment 39-16792; Docket No. FAA-
2008-1118; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-318-AD.

Effective Date

    (a) This AD is effective November 7, 2011.

Affected ADs

    (b) This AD supersedes AD 2003-03-01, Amendment 39-13025 (68 FR
4367, January 29, 2003).

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to all The Boeing Company Model 737-600, -
700, -700C, -800, -900, and -900ER series airplanes, certificated in
any category.

Subject

    (d) Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 71:
Powerplant.

Unsafe Condition

    (e) This AD was prompted by reports indicating that operators
found that the center link assembly for the aft engine mount was
reversed on several airplanes that had not had an engine removed
since delivery. We are issuing this AD to prevent increased
structural loads on the aft engine mount, which could result in
failure of the aft engine mount and consequent separation of the
engine from the airplane.

Compliance

    (f) You are responsible for having the actions required by this
AD performed within the compliance times specified, unless the
actions have already been done.

Restatement of Requirements of AD 2003-03-01 (68 FR 4367, January 29,
2003): Review of Maintenance Records

    (g) For Model 737-600, -700, -700C, -800, and -900 series
airplanes: Within 90 days after February 13, 2003 (the effective
date of AD 2003-03-01 (68 FR 4367, January 29, 2003)), review the
airplane maintenance records to determine whether either engine has
been removed since the airplane's date of manufacture. If neither
engine has been removed since the airplane's date of manufacture, no
further action is required by this paragraph.

Inspection of Engines That Have Been Removed To Determine If Center
Link Assembly Is Installed Correctly

    (h) For Model 737-600, -700, -700C, -800, and -900 series
airplanes on which any installed engine has been removed from the
airplane since the airplane's date of manufacture: Within 90 days
after February 13, 2003, do a one-time general visual inspection to
determine if the center link

assembly of the aft engine mount is installed correctly, in
accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert
Service Bulletin 737-71A1462, Revision 1, dated November 7, 2002; or
Revision 3, dated May 20, 2004. If the center link assembly is
installed correctly, no further action is required by paragraph (h)
or (i) of this AD for that engine. As of the effective date of this
AD, use only Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-71A1462, Revision 3,
dated May 20, 2004.

    Note 1:  For the purposes of this AD, a general visual
inspection is: ``A visual examination of an interior or exterior
area, installation, or assembly to detect obvious damage, failure,
or irregularity. This level of inspection is made from within
touching distance unless otherwise specified. A mirror may be
necessary to ensure visual access to all surfaces in the inspection
area. This level of inspection is made under normally available
lighting conditions such as daylight, hanger lighting, flashlight,
or droplight and may require removal or opening of access panels or
doors. Stands, ladders, or platforms may be required to gain
proximity to the area being checked.''

Follow-On and Corrective Actions

    (i) For airplanes on which any center link assembly is found
installed incorrectly during any inspection required by paragraph
(h), (k), or (l) of this AD: Before further flight, do the actions
specified in paragraphs (i)(1), (i)(2), and (i)(3) of this AD, in
accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert
Service Bulletin 737-71A1462, Revision 1, dated November 7, 2002; or
Revision 3, dated May 20, 2004; except that it is not necessary to
submit a report of findings to the airplane manufacturer. As of the
effective date of this AD, use only Boeing Alert Service Bulletin
737-71A1462, Revision 3, dated May 20, 2004.
    (1) Remove the center link assembly and install it correctly.
    (2) Perform a detailed inspection of the engine mounting lugs
and engine turbine rear frame for cracking, yielding, buckling, or
wear damage.
    (3) Perform a detailed inspection of the hardware for the aft
engine mount; including the center link assembly, right link
assembly, aft mount hanger assembly, and link pins; for cracking,
yielding, buckling, or wear damage.

    Note 2: For the purposes of this AD, a detailed inspection is:
``An intensive examination of a specific item, installation, or
assembly to detect damage, failure, or irregularity. Available
lighting is normally supplemented with a direct source of good
lighting at an intensity deemed appropriate. Inspection aids such as
mirror, magnifying lenses, etc., may be necessary. Surface cleaning
and elaborate procedures may be required.''

Repair

    (j) If any cracking, yielding, buckling, or wear damage is found
during the inspections required by paragraphs (i)(2) and (i)(3) of
this AD: Before further flight, replace the discrepant part with a
new or serviceable part, or repair in accordance with a method
approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph
(o) of this AD.

New Requirements of This AD

Inspection of Engines That Have Not Been Removed To Determine If Center
Link Assembly Is Installed Correctly

    (k) For airplanes identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin
737-71A1462, Revision 3, dated May 20, 2004, on which any installed
engine has not been removed from the airplane since the airplane's
date of manufacture: Within 90 days after the effective date of this
AD, do a detailed inspection to determine if the center link
assembly of the aft engine mount is installed correctly, in
accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert
Service Bulletin 737-71A1462, Revision 3, dated May 20, 2004. If the
center link is installed correctly, no further action is required by
this paragraph for that engine.

Follow-On and Corrective Actions

    (l) For airplanes on which any center link assembly is found
installed incorrectly during the inspection required by paragraph
(k) of this AD: Before further flight, do the follow-on and
corrective actions required by paragraph (i) of this AD.

Credit for Actions Done Using Previous Service Information

    (m) Inspections and corrective actions done before the effective
date of this AD in accordance with a Boeing service bulletin listed
in Table 1 of this AD are acceptable for compliance with the
corresponding requirements of this AD.

                   Table 1--Previous Service Bulletins
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Boeing Alert Service Bulletin--
                                  Revision--             Dated--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
737-71A1462...................  Original......  August 29, 2002.
737-71A1462...................  1.............  November 7, 2002.
737-71A1462...................  2.............  May 29, 2003.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Parts Installation

    (n) As of the effective date of this AD, no person may install
an engine on any airplane identified in paragraph (c) of this AD
unless the actions required by paragraph (n)(1) or (n)(2) of this AD
are accomplished.
    (1) The inspection is accomplished in accordance with the
Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-
71A1462, Revision 3, dated May 20, 2004, and the center link
assembly of the aft engine mount is found to be installed correctly.
    (2) The hanger fitting and center link assembly are marked and
part marked in accordance with Part 2 of the Accomplishment
Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-71A1462, Revision
3, dated May 20, 2004.

    Note 3: For hanger fittings and center link assemblies marked
and part marked in production, as specified in Part 2 of the
Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-
71A1462, Revision 3, dated May 20, 2004, the actions specified in
paragraph (n)(2) of this AD do not apply.

Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (o) The certification office specified in paragraph (o)(1) or
(o)(2) of this AD, as applicable, has the authority to approve AMOCs
for paragraphs (i) and (j) of this AD, if requested using the
procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.
    (1) For the structure identified in paragraph (i)(2) of this AD:
The Manager, Engine Certification Office (ECO), FAA. Send
information to ATTN: Antonio Cancelliere, Aerospace Engineer, ANE-
141, FAA, ECO, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington,
Massachusetts 01803-5299; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (2) For the structure identified in paragraph (i)(3) of this AD:
The Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA. Send
information to ATTN: Alan Pohl, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch,
ANM-120S, FAA, Seattle ACO, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,
Washington 98057-3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.
Information may be e-mailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (3) To request a different method of compliance or a different
compliance time for this AD, follow the procedures in 14 CFR 39.19.
Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC
applies, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a
principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards
district office/certificate holding district office. The AMOC
approval letter must specifically reference this AD.
    (4) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be
used for any repair required by paragraph (i)(3) of this AD if it is
approved by Boeing Commercial Airplanes Organization Designation
Authorization (ODA) that has been authorized by the Manager, Seattle
ACO, to make those findings. For a repair method to be approved, the
repair must meet the certification basis of the airplane, and the
approval must specifically refer to this AD.

Material Incorporated by Reference

    (p) You must use Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-71A1462,
Revision 3, dated

May 20, 2004, to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD
specifies otherwise.
    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-
71A1462, Revision 3, dated May 20, 2004, under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1
CFR part 51.
    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management,
P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, Washington 98124-2207; telephone
206-544-5000, extension 1; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com.
    (3) You may review copies of the referenced service information
at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW.,
Renton, Washington. For information on the availability of this
material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (4) You may also review copies of the service information that
is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records
Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this
material at an NARA facility, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html.

    Issued in Renton, Washington on September 8, 2011.
Ali Bahrami,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
Peter A. White,
Manager, Engine and Propeller Directorate, Engine and Propeller
Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2011-24681 Filed 9-30-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 190 (Wednesday, September 30, 2020)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 61681-61684]
[FR Doc No: 2020-21184]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2020-0053; FRL-10014-74]

Receipt of a Pesticide Petition Filed for Residues of Pesticide
Chemicals in or on Various Commodities (August 2020)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of filing of petition and request for comment.

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

SUMMARY: This document announces the Agency's receipt of an initial
filing of a pesticide petition requesting the establishment or
modification of regulations for residues of pesticide chemicals in or
on various commodities.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before October 30, 2020.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by docket identification
(ID) number by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Do not submit
electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted
by statute.
     Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental Protection Agency Docket
Center (EPA/DC), (28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC
20460-0001.
     Hand Delivery: To make special arrangements for hand
delivery or delivery of boxed information, please follow the
instructions at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.html.
    Due to the public health concerns related to COVID-19, the EPA
Docket Center (EPA/DC) and Reading Room is closed to visitors with
limited exceptions. The staff continues to provide remote customer
service via email, phone, and webform. For the latest status
information on EPA/DC services and docket access, visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Marietta Echeverria, Registration
Division (7505P), main telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>, email address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>The mailing address is: Office of Pesticide
Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW,
Washington, DC 20460-0001. As part of the mailing address, include the
contact person's name, division, and mail code.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

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

B. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?

    1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through
regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark the part or all of the
information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or
CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as
CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the
specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one
complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as
CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information
claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket.
Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with
procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
    2. Tips for preparing your comments. When preparing and submitting
your comments, see the commenting tips at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/comments.html.
    3. Environmental justice. EPA seeks to achieve environmental
justice, the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of any group,
including minority and/or low-income populations, in the development,
implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and
policies. To help address potential environmental justice issues, the
Agency seeks information on any groups or segments of the population
who, as a result of their location, cultural practices, or other
factors, may have atypical or disproportionately high and adverse human
health impacts or environmental effects from exposure to the pesticides
discussed in this document, compared to the general population.

II. What action is the Agency taking?

    EPA is announcing receipt of a pesticide petition filed under
section 408 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21
U.S.C. 346a, requesting the establishment or modification of
regulations in 40 CFR part 174 and/or part 180 for residues of
pesticide chemicals in or on various food commodities. The Agency is
taking public comment on the request before responding to the
petitioner. EPA is not proposing any particular action at this time.
EPA has determined that the pesticide petition described in this
document contains data or information prescribed in FFDCA section
408(d)(2), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d)(2); however, EPA has not fully evaluated
the sufficiency of the submitted data at this time or whether the data
supports granting of the pesticide petition. After considering the
public comments, EPA intends to evaluate whether and what action may be
warranted. Additional data may be needed before EPA can make a final
determination on this pesticide petition.
    Pursuant to 40 CFR 180.7(f), a summary of the petition that is the
subject of this document, prepared by the petitioner, is included in a
docket EPA has created for this rulemaking. The docket for this
petition is available at http://www.regulations.gov.
    As specified in FFDCA section 408(d)(3), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), EPA
is publishing notice of the petition so that the public has an
opportunity to comment on this request for the establishment or
modification of regulations for residues of pesticides in or on food
commodities. Further information on the petition may be obtained
through the petition summary referenced in this unit.

A. Amended Tolerance

    1. PP 0E8825. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2020-0228). Interregional Research
Project Number 4 (IR-4), Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey,
500 College Road East, Suite 201 W, Princeton, NJ 08540 requests to
amend 40 CFR 180 by removing established tolerances for residues of
Fluxapyroxad, (BAS 700 F); 3-(difluoromethyl)-1-methyl-N-(3',4',5'-
trifluoro[1,1'-biphenyl]-2-yl)-1H-pyrazole-4-carboxamide, its
metabolites, and degradates in or on the raw agricultural commodities:
Fruit, pome,

group 11 at 0.8 parts per million (ppm); vegetables, fruiting, group 8
at 0.7 ppm; and cotton, undelinted seed at 0.30 ppm. Contact: RD.
    2. PP 0E8827. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2020-0245). Interregional Research
Project Number 4 (IR-4), Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey,
500 College Road East, Suite 201 W, Princeton, NJ 08540 requests to
amend 40 CFR 180 by removing established tolerances for residues of
fluazinam, (3-chloro-N-3-chloro-2,6-dinitro-4-(trifluoromethyl)phenyl-
5-(trifluoromethyl)-2-pyridinamine) including its metabolites and
degradates, in or on the raw agricultural commodities: Vegetable,
legume, edible-podded, subgroup 6A, except pea at 0.10 ppm; pea and
bean, succulent shelled, subgroup 6B, except pea at 0.04 ppm; pea and
bean, dried shelled, except soybean, subgroup 6C, except pea at 0.02
ppm; vegetable, brassica leafy, group 5, except cabbage at 0.01 ppm;
turnip, greens at 0.01 ppm. Contact: RD.
    3. PP 0E8833. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2020-0336). Interregional Research
Project Number 4 (IR-4), Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey,
500 College Road East, Suite 201 W, Princeton, NJ 08540 requests to
remove established tolerances with general registrations for residues
of the insecticide, methoxyfenozide, including its metabolites and
degradates in or on the following commodities: Brassica, head and stem,
subgroup 5A at 7.0 ppm; brassica, leafy greens, subgroup 5B at 30 ppm;
cotton, undelinted seed at 2.0 ppm; date at 8.0 ppm; leaf petioles
subgroup 4B at 25 ppm; leafy greens subgroup 4A at 30 ppm; lychee at
2.0 ppm; longan at 2.0 ppm; spanish lime at 2.0 ppm; turnip, greens at
30 ppm; vegetable, legume, edible podded, subgroup 6A at 1.5 ppm; pea
and bean, succulent shelled, subgroup 6B at 0.2 ppm; pea and bean,
dried shelled, except soybean, subgroup 6C, except pea, blackeyed, seed
and pea, southern, seed a 0.50 ppm; and also to remove Section 18
emergency exemptions (time-limited tolerances) for residues of the
insecticide, methoxyfenozide, including its metabolites and degradates
in or on the commodities: Rice, bran at 4.0 ppm; rice, grain at 0.50
ppm. Contact: RD.

B. New Tolerance Exemptions for Inerts (Except PIPS)

    PP IN-11391. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2020-0451) Clorox Services Company
(Representing Clorox Professional Products Company), P.O. Box 493,
Pleasanton, CA 94566-0803, requests to establish an exemption from the
requirement of a tolerance for residues of sodium lauroyl sarcosinate
(CAS Reg. No. 137-16-6), when used as inert ingredients in pesticide
formulations under 40 CFR 180.940(a) at an upper limit of 10,000 ppm.
The petitioner believes no analytical method is needed because it is
not required for an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance.
Contact: RD.

C. New Tolerance Exemptions for Non-Inerts (Except Pips)

    PP 0E8824. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2020-0176). Interregional Research Project
Number 4 (IR-4), 500 College Road East, Suite 201 W, Princeton, NJ
08540 requests, 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
to establish an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance in or on
honey and honeycomb for oxalic acid dihydrate. Oxalic acid dihydrate
may be analyzed using an HPLC method with UV detection. Contact: RD.

D. New Tolerances for Non-Inerts

    1. PP 0E8825. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2020-0228). Interregional Research
Project Number 4 (IR-4), Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey,
500 College Road East, Suite 201 W, Princeton, NJ 08540 requesting,
pursuant to section 408(d) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act
(FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d), to amend 40 CFR part 180 by establishing a
tolerance for residues of Fluxapyroxad, (BAS 700 F); 3-
(difluoromethyl)-1-methyl-N-(3',4',5'-trifluoro[1,1'-biphenyl]-2-yl)-
1H-pyrazole-4-carboxamide, its metabolites, and degradates in or on the
raw agricultural commodities: Pomegranate at 0.2 ppm; vegetable,
fruiting, group 8-10 at 0.7 ppm; fruit, pome, group 11-10 at 0.8 ppm;
and cottonseed subgroup 20C at 0.3 ppm. Independently validated
analytical methods have been submitted for analyzing residues of parent
fluxapyroxad (BAS 700 F) plus metabolites M700F008, M700F048, and
M700F002 with appropriate sensitivity in/on pomegranate. Contact: RD.
    2. PP 0E8826. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2020-0227). Interregional Research
Project Number 4 (IR-4), Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey,
500 College Road East, Suite 201 W, Princeton, NJ 08540 requests,
pursuant to section 408(d) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act
(FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d), to amend 40 CFR part 180 by establishing a
tolerance for residues of the sum of pyraclostrobin, (carbamic acid,
[2-[[[ 1-(4-chlorophenyl)-1H-pyrazol-3-yl]oxy] methyl]phenyl]methoxy-,
methyl ester) and its desmethoxy metabolite (methyl-N-[[[1-(4-
chlorophenyl)-1H-pyrazol-3-yl]oxy]methyl] phenylcarbamate), calculated
as the stoichiometric equivalent of pyraclostrobin, in or on the raw
agricultural commodity Pomegranate at 0.3 ppm. In plants the method of
analysis is aqueous organic solvent extraction, column clean up and
quantitation by LC/MS/MS. Contact: RD.
    3. PP 0E8827. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2020-0245). Interregional Research
Project Number 4 (IR-4), Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey,
500 College Road East, Suite 201 W, Princeton, NJ 08540 requesting,
pursuant to section 408(d) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act
(FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d), to amend 40 CFR part 180 by establishing
tolerances for residues of fluazinam, (3-chloro-N-3-chloro-2,6-dinitro-
4-(trifluoromethyl)phenyl-5-(trifluoromethyl)-2-pyridinamine) including
its metabolites and degradates, in or on the raw agricultural
commodities.
    Individual commodities of Proposed Crop Subgroup 6-18A: Edible
podded bean legume vegetable subgroup including: French bean, edible
podded at 0.1 ppm; garden bean, edible podded at 0.1 ppm; green bean,
edible podded at 0.1 ppm; scarlet runner bean, edible podded at 0.1
ppm; snap bean, edible podded at 0.1 ppm; kidney bean, edible podded at
0.1 ppm; navy bean, edible podded at 0.1 ppm; wax bean, edible podded
at 0.1 ppm; asparagus bean, edible podded at 0.1 ppm; catjang bean,
edible podded at 0.1 ppm; Chinese longbean, edible podded at 0.1 ppm;
cowpea, edible podded at 0.1 ppm; moth bean, edible podded at 0.1 ppm;
mung bean, edible podded at 0.1 ppm; rice bean, edible podded at 0.1
ppm; urd bean, edible podded at 0.1 ppm; yardlong bean, edible podded
at 0.1 ppm; goa bean, edible podded at 0.1 ppm; guar bean, edible
podded at 0.1 ppm; jackbean, edible podded at 0.1 ppm; lablab bean,
edible podded at 0.1 ppm; vegetable soybean, edible podded at 0.1 ppm;
sword bean, edible podded at 0.1 ppm; winged pea, edible podded at 0.1
ppm; velvet bean, edible podded at 0.1 ppm.
    Individual commodities of Proposed Crop Subgroup 6-19B: Edible
podded pea legume vegetable subgroup including: Dwarf pea, edible
podded at 0.15 ppm; edible podded pea at 0.15 ppm; green pea, edible
podded at 0.15 ppm; snap pea, edible podded at 0.15 ppm; snow pea,
edible podded at 0.15 ppm; sugar snap pea, edible podded at 0.15 ppm;
grass-pea, edible podded at 0.15 ppm; lentil, edible podded at 0.15
ppm; pigeon pea, edible podded at 0.15

ppm; chickpea, edible podded at 0.15 ppm.
    Individual commodities of Proposed Crop Subgroup 6-19C: Succulent
shelled bean subgroup including: Lima bean, succulent shelled at 0.04
ppm; scarlet runner bean, succulent shelled at 0.04 ppm; wax bean,
succulent shelled at 0.04 ppm; blackeyed pea, succulent shelled at 0.04
ppm; moth bean, succulent shelled at 0.04 ppm; catjang bean, succulent
shelled at 0.04 ppm; cowpea, succulent shelled at 0.04 ppm; crowder
pea, succulent shelled 0.04 ppm; southern pea, succulent shelled at
0.04 ppm; Andean lupin, succulent shelled at 0.04 ppm; blue lupin,
succulent shelled at 0.04 ppm; grain lupin, succulent shelled at 0.04
ppm; sweet lupin, succulent shelled at 0.04 ppm; white lupin, succulent
shelled at 0.04 ppm; white sweet lupin, succulent shelled at 0.04 ppm;
yellow lupin, succulent shelled at 0.04 ppm; broad bean, succulent
shelled at 0.04 ppm; jackbean, succulent shelled at 0.04 ppm; goa bean,
succulent shelled at 0.04 ppm; lablab bean, succulent shelled at 0.04
ppm; vegetable soybean, succulent shelled at 0.04 ppm; velvet bean,
succulent shelled at 0.04 ppm.
    Individual commodities of Proposed Crop Subgroup 6-19D: Succulent
shelled pea subgroup including: Chickpea, succulent shelled at 0.03
ppm; English pea, succulent shelled at 0.03 ppm; garden pea, succulent
shelled at 0.03 ppm; green pea, succulent shelled at 0.03 ppm; pigeon
pea, succulent shelled at 0.03 ppm; lentil, succulent shelled at 0.03
ppm.
    Individual commodities of Proposed Crop Subgroup 6-19E: Dried
shelled bean, except soybean, subgroup including: African yam-bean, dry
seed at 0.02 ppm; American potato bean, dry seed at 0.02 ppm; Andean
lupin bean, dry seed at 0.02 ppm; blue lupin bean, dry seed at 0.02
ppm; grain lupin bean, dry seed at 0.02 ppm; sweet lupin bean, dry seed
at 0.02 ppm; white lupin bean, dry seed at 0.02 ppm; white sweet lupin
bean, dry seed at 0.02 ppm; yellow lupin bean, dry seed at 0.02 ppm;
black bean, dry seed at 0.02 ppm; cranberry bean, dry seed at 0.02 ppm;
dry bean, dry seed at 0.02 ppm; field bean, dry seed at 0.02 ppm;
French bean, dry seed at 0.02 ppm; garden bean, dry seed at 0.02 ppm;
great northern bean, dry seed at 0.02 ppm; green bean, dry seed at 0.02
ppm; kidney bean, dry seed at 0.02 ppm; Lima bean, dry seed at 0.02
ppm; navy bean, dry seed at 0.02 ppm; pink bean, dry seed at 0.02 ppm;
pinto bean, dry seed at 0.02 ppm; red bean, dry seed at 0.02 ppm;
scarlet runner bean, dry seed at 0.02 ppm; tepary bean, dry seed at
0.02 ppm; yellow bean, dry seed at 0.02 ppm; adzuki bean, dry seed at
0.02 ppm; blackeyed pea, dry seed at 0.02 ppm; asparagus bean, dry seed
at 0.02 ppm; catjang bean, dry seed at 0.02 ppm; Chinese longbean, dry
seed at 0.02 ppm; cowpea, dry seed at 0.02 ppm; crowder pea, dry seed
at 0.02 ppm; mung bean, dry seed at 0.02 ppm; moth bean, dry seed at
0.02 ppm; rice bean, dry seed at 0.02 ppm; southern pea, dry seed at
0.02 ppm; urd bean, dry seed at 0.02 ppm; yardlong bean, dry seed at
0.02 ppm; broad bean, dry seed at 0.02 ppm; guar bean, dry seed at 0.02
ppm; goa bean, dry seed at 0.02 ppm; horse gram, dry seed at 0.02 ppm;
jackbean, dry seed at 0.02 ppm; lablab bean, dry seed at 0.02 ppm;
morama bean, dry seed at 0.02 ppm; sword bean, dry seed at 0.02 ppm;
winged pea, dry seed at 0.02 ppm; velvet bean, dry seed at 0.02 ppm;
vegetable soybean, dry seed at 0.02 ppm.
    Individual commodities of Proposed Crop Subgroup 6-19F: Dried
shelled pea subgroup including: Field pea, dry seed at 0.04 ppm; dry
pea, dry seed at 0.04 ppm; green pea, dry seed at 0.04 ppm; garden pea,
dry seed at 0.04 ppm; chickpea, dry seed at 0.04 ppm; lentil, dry seed
at 0.04 ppm; grass-pea, dry seed at 0.04 ppm; pigeon pea, dry seed at
0.04 ppm; pea, field, hay at 40 ppm; pea, field, vines at 6 ppm; tomato
subgroup 8-10A at 1.5 ppm; papaya at 3 ppm; vegetable, brassica, head
and stem, group 5-16, except cabbage at 0.01 ppm; brassica, leafy
greens, subgroup 4-16B at 0.01 ppm; kohlrabi at 0.01 ppm. An analytical
method using LC-MS/MS for the determination of fluazinam and AMGT
residues on peas, tomatoes and papaya was developed. Contact: RD.
    4. PP 0E8833. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2020-0336). Interregional Research
Project Number 4 (IR-4), Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey,
500 College Road East, Suite 201 W, Princeton, NJ 08540 requesting,
pursuant to section 408(d) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act
(FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d), to amend 40 CFR part 180 by establishing
the following: Tolerances with general registrations for residues of
the insecticide, methoxyfenozide, including its metabolites and
degradates. Compliance with the tolerance levels is to be determined by
measuring only methoxyfenozide (3-methoxy-2-methylbenzoic acid 2-(3,5-
dimethylbenzoyl)-2-(1,1-dimethylethyl) hydrazide) in or on the
commodities: Vegetable, leafy, group 4-16 at 30 ppm; vegetable,
brassica, head and stem, group 5-16 at 7 ppm; celtuce at 25 ppm;
fennel, Florence, fresh leaves and stalk at 25 ppm; kohlrabi at 7 ppm;
leaf petiole vegetable subgroup 22B at 25 ppm; tropical and
subtropical, palm fruit, edible peel, subgroup 23C at 8 ppm; tropical
and subtropical, small fruit, inedible peel, subgroup 24A at 2 ppm;
cottonseed subgroup 20C at 7 ppm; French bean, edible podded at 2 ppm;
garden bean, edible podded at 2 ppm; green bean, edible podded at 2
ppm; scarlet runner bean, edible podded at 2 ppm; snap bean, edible
podded at 2 ppm; kidney bean, edible podded at 2 ppm; navy bean, edible
podded at 2 ppm; wax bean, edible podded at 2 ppm; asparagus bean,
edible podded at 2 ppm; catjang bean, edible podded at 2 ppm; chinese
longbean, edible podded at 2 ppm; cowpea, edible podded at 2 ppm; moth
bean, edible podded at 2 ppm; mung bean, edible podded at 2 ppm; rice
bean, edible podded at 2 ppm; urd bean, edible podded at 2 ppm;
yardlong bean, edible podded at 2 ppm; goa bean, edible podded at 2
ppm; guar bean, edible podded at 2 ppm; jackbean, edible podded at 2
ppm; lablab bean, edible podded at 2 ppm; vegetable soybean, edible
podded at 2 ppm; sword bean, edible podded at 2 ppm; winged pea, edible
podded at 2 ppm; velvet bean, edible podded at 2 ppm; dwarf pea, edible
podded at 2 ppm; edible podded pea, edible podded at 2 ppm; green pea,
edible podded at 2 ppm; snap pea, edible podded at 2 ppm; snow pea,
edible podded at 2 ppm; sugar snap pea, edible podded at 2 ppm; grass-
pea, edible podded at 2 ppm; lentil, edible podded at 2 ppm; pigeon
pea, edible podded at 2 ppm; chickpea, edible podded at 2 ppm; Lima
bean, succulent shelled at 0.3 ppm; scarlet runner bean, succulent
shelled at 0.3 ppm; wax bean, succulent shelled at 0.3 ppm; blackeyed
pea, succulent shelled at 0.3 ppm; moth bean, succulent shelled at 0.3
ppm; catjang bean, succulent shelled at 0.3 ppm; cowpea, succulent
shelled at 0.3 ppm; crowder pea, succulent shelled at 0.3 ppm; southern
pea, succulent shelled at 0.3 ppm; Andean lupin, succulent shelled at
0.3 ppm; blue lupin, succulent shelled at 0.3 ppm; grain lupin,
succulent shelled at 0.3 ppm; sweet lupin, succulent shelled at 0.3
ppm; white lupin, succulent shelled at 0.3 ppm; white sweet lupin,
succulent shelled at 0.3 ppm; yellow lupin, succulent shelled at 0.3
ppm; broad bean, succulent shelled at 0.3 ppm; jackbean, succulent
shelled at 0.3 ppm; goa bean, succulent shelled at 0.3 ppm; lablab
bean, succulent shelled at 0.3 ppm; vegetable soybean, succulent
shelled at 0.3 ppm; velvet bean, succulent shelled at 0.3 ppm;
chickpea, succulent shelled at 0.3 ppm; English pea, succulent shelled
at 0.3 ppm; garden pea, succulent shelled at 0.3 ppm; Green pea,
succulent shelled at 0.3

ppm; Pigeon pea, succulent shelled at 0.3 ppm; lentil, succulent
shelled at 0.3 ppm; African yam-bean, dry seed at 0.5 ppm; American
potato bean, dry seed at 0.5 ppm; Andean lupin bean, dry seed at 0.5
ppm; blue lupin bean, dry seed at 0.5 ppm; grain lupin bean, dry seed
at 0.5 ppm; sweet lupin bean, dry seed at 0.5 ppm; white lupin bean,
dry seed at 0.5 ppm; white sweet lupin bean, dry seed at 0.5 ppm;
yellow lupin bean, dry seed at 0.5 ppm; black bean, dry seed at 0.5
ppm; cranberry bean, dry seed at 0.5 ppm; dry bean, dry seed at 0.5
ppm; field bean, dry seed at 0.5 ppm; French bean, dry seed at 0.5 ppm;
garden bean, dry seed at 0.5 ppm; great northern bean, dry seed at 0.5
ppm; green bean, dry seed at 0.5 ppm; kidney bean, dry seed at 0.5 ppm;
Lima bean, dry seed at 0.5 ppm; navy bean, dry seed at 0.5 ppm; pink
bean, dry seed at 0.5 ppm; pinto bean, dry seed at 0.5 ppm; red bean,
dry seed at 0.5 ppm; scarlet runner bean, dry seed at 0.5 ppm; tepary
bean, dry seed at 0.5 ppm; yellow bean, dry seed at 0.5 ppm; adzuki
bean, dry seed at 0.5 ppm; asparagus bean, dry seed at 0.5 ppm; catjang
bean, dry seed at 0.5 ppm; Chinese longbean, dry seed at 0.5 ppm;
cowpea, dry seed at 0.5 ppm; crowder pea, dry seed at 0.5 ppm; mung
bean, dry seed at 0.5 ppm; moth bean, dry seed at 0.5 ppm; rice bean,
dry seed at 0.5 ppm; urd bean, dry seed at 0.5 ppm; yardlong bean, dry
seed at 0.5 ppm; broad bean, dry seed at 0.5 ppm; guar bean, dry seed
at 0.5 ppm; goa bean, dry seed at 0.5 ppm; horse gram, dry seed at 0.5
ppm; jackbean, dry seed at 0.5 ppm; lablab bean, dry seed at 0.5 ppm;
morama bean, dry seed at 0.5 ppm; sword bean, dry seed at 0.5 ppm;
winged pea, dry seed at 0.5 ppm; velvet bean, seed, dry seed at 0.5
ppm; vegetable soybean, dry seed at 0.5 ppm; field pea, dry seed at 0.5
ppm; dry pea, dry seed at 0.5 ppm; green pea, dry seed at 0.5 ppm;
garden pea, dry seed at 0.5 ppm; chickpea, dry seed at 0.5 ppm; lentil,
dry seed at 0.5 ppm; grass-pea, dry seed at 0.5 ppm; pigeon pea, dry
seed at 0.5 ppm. Also, tolerances with regional registrations are
requested for residues of the insecticide, methoxyfenozide, including
its metabolites and degradates. Compliance with the tolerance levels is
to be determined by measuring only methoxyfenozide (3-methoxy-2-
methylbenzoic acid 2-(3,5-dimethylbenzoyl)-2-(1,1-dimethylethyl)
hydrazide) in or on the commodities: Rice, grain at 30 ppm; rice, hulls
at 55 ppm; rice, straw at 30 ppm. Adequate methods are available for
tolerance enforcement in primary crops and animal commodities. Contact:
RD.
    5. PP 0E8848. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2019-0233). Interregional Research
Project No. 4 (IR-4), IR-4 Project Headquarters, Rutgers, The State
University of NJ, 500 College Road East, Suite 201 W, Princeton, NJ
08540, requests to amend 40 CFR part 180 by establishing tolerances for
residues of 2,4-D in or on the raw agricultural commodity Sesame, seed
at 0.05 ppm. An adequate GC/ECD enforcement method for plants
(designated as EN-CAS Method No. ENC-2/93) which has been independently
validated. Adequate radiovalidation data have been submitted and
evaluated for the enforcement method using samples from the wheat
metabolism study. Contact: RD.
    6. PP 9E8745. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2019-0233). Interregional Research
Project No. 4 (IR-4), IR-4 Project Headquarters, Rutgers, The State
University of NJ, 500 College Road East, Suite 201 W, Princeton, NJ
08540, requests to amend 40 CFR part 180 by establishing tolerances for
residues of 2,4-D in or on the raw agricultural commodities:
Wheatgrass, intermediate, bran at 4 ppm; wheatgrass, intermediate,
grain at 2 ppm; wheatgrass, intermediate, straw at 50 ppm; and
wheatgrass, intermediate, forage at 25 ppm. An adequate GC/ECD
enforcement method for plants (designated as EN-CAS Method No. ENC-2/
93) which has been independently validated. Adequate radiovalidation
data have been submitted and evaluated for the enforcement method using
samples from the wheat metabolism study. Contact: RD.
    7. PP 9E8819. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2020-0050). BASF Corporation, 26 Davis
Drive, P.O. Box 13528, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709 requests to
establish a tolerance in 40 CFR part 180.589 for residues of the
fungicide boscalid in or on tea at 80 ppm. The gas chromatography using
mass spectrometry (GC/MS) or liquid chromatography in tandem mass
spectrometry detection (LC/MS/MS) method are used to measure and
evaluate the chemical boscalid. Contact: RD.

    Authority: 21 U.S.C. 346a.

    Dated: September 10, 2020.
Delores Barber,
Director, Information Technology and Resources Management Division,
Office of Pesticide Programs.
[FR Doc. 2020-21184 Filed 9-29-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water

January 19, 2010

MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT: 	Basis for Expedited Approval of EPA Method 557 for the
Analysis of Dalapon

FROM: 	Glynda Smith, Chemist

Technical Support Center

TO: 		The Record

In the previous expedited methods action (Nov. 10, 2009), EPA Method
557, a direct-injection method for the analysis of haloacetic acids
(HAAs) by use of ion chromatography tandem mass spectrometry (IC-MS/MS),
was approved for the analysis of HAAs and bromate.  Dalapon can also be
measured concurrently with the haloacetic acids using Method 557.  This
memo documents the comparison of Method 557 to EPA methods approved
through rulemaking for dalapon.  It provides the background information
on why EPA is approving this method for dalapon using the expedited
method approval process.

EPA has established a Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) of 200 µg/L for
dalapon1.  EPA has approved six methods for the analysis of dalapon
through the notice-and-comment rulemaking process2:  EPA Method 552.1,
EPA Method 515.1, EPA Method 552.2, EPA Method 515.3, EPA Method 515.4
and EPA Method 552.3.  The benchmark for alternative methods was
established when the regulations were promulgated.  Thus, the
performance characteristics of EPA Method 557 were compared to the
characteristics of previously approved methods for dalapon.  The
performance characteristics presented in this memo include detection
limit as defined in 40 CFR Part 136 Appendix B, and precision and
accuracy in drinking water matrices.

Method 557 achieves several significant goals, which were the primary
impetus for developing an alternate method.  The currently approved
methods for compliance monitoring of dalapon require extraction into an
organic solvent, and then methylation using either diazomethane or
acidic methanol.  Extracts are analyzed by gas chromatography (GC) with
electron capture detection (ECD).  To account for methylation
inefficiency, each of the approved methods requires the processing of at
least five calibration standards to prepare an internal-standard-based,
procedural calibration curve.  The direct-injection method (557)
simplifies the analysis of dalapon by eliminating the extraction and
derivatization steps and the associated procedural calibration.   An
additional benefit of the new approach is improved confidence in the
qualitative identification of detected analyte.  The MS/MS detection
technique is more selective (much less subject to interfering chemical
species in the sample) than the ECD detector.

Table 1 provides a comparison of detection limits for dalapon excerpted
from the method performance sections of approved EPA Methods 552.2,
552.3, and 515.4 to EPA Method 557.  A comparison of precision and
accuracy data for dalapon are presented in Tables 2 and 3.  These data
were obtained by fortifying drinking water samples from surface water
and ground water sources (Table 2) and a high-ionic strength matrix
(Table 3) with dalapon and performing replicate analyses.  Table 3
compares the two methods for which such data are available.  The
information in Table 3 is intended to demonstrate acceptable performance
in high ionic strength matrices (reagent water fortified with high
concentrations of common anions) for the analysis of dalapon, because
ion chromatography is subject to adverse matrix effects under such
conditions.

The detection level for dalapon in Method 557 is similar to those
achieved by the approved methods.  The LCMRL for dalapon easily meets
the regulatory MCL requirement.  The accuracy (as shown by % Recovery)
and precision (relative standard deviation—RSD) data for Method 557
are similar to the other approved methods.

The performance characteristics of EPA Method 557 are within the range
of those observed using the promulgated methods for dalapon.  Therefore,
EPA Method 557 is equally as effective as the promulgated methods for
determining the concentration of dalapon in drinking water.

1Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL).  Source:  40 CFR 141.61(c).

2Approved methods promulgated in the drinking water regulations at 40
CFR 141.24(e)(1).

a Table 1.	Method Detection Limit Comparison for Dalapon in Drinking
Water.

	(All concentrations are in µg/L)

MDLs published in Approved Methods a	DLs / LCMRLse published

 in EPA 557 f

EPA 552.2 Rev 1.0 b	EPA 552.3 Rev. 1.0 c	EPA 515.4 Rev 1.0d

	0.119	0.024	0.054/0.074	0.038/0.41

a Method Detection Limit (MDL) calculated according to procedure
published at 40 CFR 136 Appendix B.

b Data for EPA Method 552.2 are from Table 2 in the method.

c Data for EPA Method 552.3 are from Table 5 (methyl-t-butyl ether
extraction) in the method.

d Data for EPA Method 515.4 are from Table 4 in the method.  Values
listed are those obtained for the primary column/secondary confirmation
column.

e Detection Limits (DLs) calculated according to procedure published at
40 CFR 136 Appendix B.  Data were acquired over 3 days.  Lowest
Concentration Minimum Reporting Levels (LCMRLs) calculated according to
the procedure described in Winslow, S. D. et.al.  Statistical Procedures
for Determination and Verification of Minimum Reporting Levels for
Drinking Water Methods.  Environ. Sci. Technol.  2006; 40, 281-288.

f Data for EPA Method 557 are from Tables 5 and 6 in the method.

Table 2.	Precision and Accuracy Comparison between EPA Methods 552.2,
552.3, 515.4, and 557 for Dalapon in Drinking Water.

Matrixe	EPA 552.2 Rev 1.0a	EPA 552.3 Rev 1.0b	EPA 515.4 Rev 1.0c	EPA
557d

	Concf (µg/L)	%Recovery (RSD)g	Concf (µg/L)	%Recovery (RSD)g	Concf
(µg/L)	%Recovery (RSD)g	Concf (µg/L)	%Recovery (RSD)g

SW	2.0	98.0 (8.0)	1.0	107 (2.2)	1.0	104 (2.1)	0.72 + 2.5	97.8 (3.8)

	10	99.6 (0.90)	10	100 (2.5)	0.72 + 8.0	96.3 (4.8)

GW	2.0	100 (11)	0.19 + 1.0	112 (1.1)	1.0	105 (1.5)	0.37 + 2.5	95.5 (3.1)

	0.19 + 10	97.8 (1.1)	10	97.0 (5.5)	0.37 + 10	98.5 (3.0)

a Data for EPA Method 552.2 are from Tables 5 and 7 in the method.

b Data for EPA Method 552.3 are from Tables 8, 9, 10, and 11 in the
method (methyl-t-butyl ether extraction).

c Data for EPA Method 515.4 are from Tables 7, 8, 9, and 10 in the
method.

d Data for EPA Method 557 are from Tables 9 and 10 in the method.

e Matrix:  SW = drinking water from a surface water source; GW =
drinking water from a ground water source

f When two concentrations are listed on one line, the first number is
the background concentration and the second indicates the fortification
concentration.  A single concentration represents the fortification
concentration and indicates there was no detectable background
concentration of the analyte.

g RSD = relative standard deviation of seven or more replicates.

Table 3.	Precision and Accuracy Comparison between EPA Method 552.2 and
EPA Method 557 for Dalapon in Drinking 		Water—Measured in High Ionic
Strength Matrix.

EPA Method 552.2, Rev 1.0 a	EPA Method 557 b

Concentration c (µg/L)	% Recovery (RSD) d	Fortification µg/L	%
Recovery (RSD)

0.675 + 2.0	85.8 (11)	1.0	113 (4.5)

15	93.2 (6.6)

a Data for EPA Method 552.2 are from Table 6 in the method.  Matrix: tap
water (groundwater source), hardness of 460 mg/L as calcium carbonate
(CaCO3).  The matrix contained low concentrations of HAAs prior to
fortification.

b Data EPA Method 557 are from Table 8 in the method.  Matrix: synthetic
sample matrix prepared in reagent water with the addition of 100 mg/L
ammonium chloride, 20 mg/L nitrate anion, 150 mg/L bicarbonate anion,
250 mg/L chloride anion, 250 mg/L sulfate anion.  The matrix did not
contain HAAs before the fortification.

c The first number is the background concentration and the second number
indicates the fortification concentration.

d RSD = relative standard deviation of seven or more replicates.

Page   PAGE  4  of   NUMPAGES  5


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 85 (Friday, May 2, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 25130]
[FR Doc No: 2014-10137]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[ER-FRL-9014-7]

Environmental Impact Statements; Notice of Availability

    Responsible Agency: Office of Federal Activities, General
Information<PHONE_NUMBER> or http://www.epa.gov/compliance/nepa/.

Weekly receipt of Environmental Impact Statements
Filed 04/21/2014 Through 04/25/2014
Pursuant to 40 CFR 1506.9.

Notice

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

EIS No. 20140130, Final EIS, USFS, MT, Buckhorn Project, Review Period
Ends: 06/02/2014, Contact: Patricia Shira<PHONE_NUMBER>.
EIS No. 20140131, Draft EIS, USACE, CA, Berths 212-224 (YTI) Container
Terminal Improvements Project, Comment Period Ends: 06/16/2014,
Contact: Theresa Stevens<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Amended Notices

EIS No. 20140105, Draft EIS, NOAA, CA, Cordell Bank and Gulf of the
Farallones Boundary Expansion, Comment Period Ends: 06/30/2014,
Contact: Maria Brown<PHONE_NUMBER>. Revision to FR Notice Published 04/
04/2014; Correction to Agency Contact Phone Number should read 415-561-
6622.
EIS No. 20140125, Final EIS, FRA, CA, California High-Speed Train
(HST): Fresno to Bakersfield Section High-Speed Train, Review Period
Ends: 05/27/2014, Contact: Stephanie Perez<PHONE_NUMBER>. Revision to
the FR Notice Published 04/25/2014; Correcting Lead Agency from FHWA to
FRA.

    Dated: April 29, 2014.
Cliff Rader,
Director, NEPA Compliance Division, Office of Federal Activities.
[FR Doc. 2014-10137 Filed 5-1-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P