[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 246 (Tuesday, December 22, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 83541-83542]
[FR Doc No: 2020-28245]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP21-14-000]

Adelphia Gateway, LLC; Notice of Request Under Blanket
Authorization and Establishing Intervention and Protest Deadline

    Take notice that on December 7, 2020, Adelphia Gateway, LLC
(Adelphia), 1415 Wyckoff Road, Wall, New Jersey, 07719, filed in the
above referenced docket a prior notice pursuant to Section 157.210 and
157.216 of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's regulations under
the Natural Gas Act, seeking authorization to install and operate one
new electric motor-driven 3,000 hp reciprocating compressor unit at its
Marcus Hook Compressor Station in Delaware County, Pennsylvania
including related equipment such as one horizontal process gas cooler,
two variable frequency drives, one motor control center assembly and
instrumentation and communication equipment, all within the existing
certificated foot print of the station. Installation of unit will
increase the overall hp at the facility from 5,625 hp to 8,625 hp and
increase the certificated capacity of its system by 16,500 Dth/d, from
250,000 to 266,500 Dth/d.\1\ The Project is designed to increase the
discharge pressure at the Marcus Hook Compressor Station to provide
firm service to a new shipper that will transport gas on Adelphia's
system to the interconnection with Columbia Gas. Adelphia proposes to
install these facilities under authorities granted by its blanket
certificate issued in Docket No. CP18-46-000, et al.\2\ Adelphia
estimates the cost of the project to be approximately $4.6 million, all
as more fully set forth in the request which is on file with the
Commission and open to public inspection.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Adelphia Gateway, LLC, errata letter, December 9, 2020.
    \2\ Adelphia Gateway, LLC, 169 FERC 61,220 (2019), order denying
reh'g 171 FERC 61,049 (2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
Federal Register, the Commission provides all interested persons an
opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the
internet through the Commission's Home Page (http://ferc.gov) using the
``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three
digits in the docket number field to access the document. At this time,
the Commission has suspended access to the Commission's Public
Reference Room, due to the proclamation declaring a National Emergency
concerning the Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19), issued by the
President on March 13, 2020. For assistance, contact the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call toll-free,
(886) 208-3676 or TYY,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Any questions concerning this application should be directed to
Ginger P. Richman, President, Adelphia Gateway, LLC,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>1415 Wyckoff Road, Wall, NJ 07719.

Public Participation

    There are three ways to become involved in the Commission's review
of this project: You can file a protest to the project, you can file a
motion to intervene in the proceeding, and you can file comments on the
project. There is no fee or cost for filing protests, motions to
intervene, or comments. The deadline for filing protests, motions to
intervene, and comments is 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on February 16, 2021.
How to file protests, motions to intervene, and comments is explained
below.

Protests

    Pursuant to section 157.205 of the Commission's regulations under
the

NGA,\3\ any person \4\ or the Commission's staff may file a protest to
the request. If no protest is filed within the time allowed or if a
protest is filed and then withdrawn within 30 days after the allowed
time for filing a protest, the proposed activity shall be deemed to be
authorized effective the day after the time allowed for protest. If a
protest is filed and not withdrawn within 30 days after the time
allowed for filing a protest, the instant request for authorization
will be considered by the Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 18 CFR 157.205.
    \4\ Persons include individuals, organizations, businesses,
municipalities, and other entities. 18 CFR 385.102(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Protests must comply with the requirements specified in section
157.205(e) of the Commission's regulations,\5\ and must be submitted by
the protest deadline, which is February 16, 2021. A protest may also
serve as a motion to intervene so long as the protestor states it also
seeks to be an intervenor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 18 CFR 157.205(e).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Interventions

    Any person has the option to file a motion to intervene in this
proceeding. Only intervenors have the right to request rehearing of
Commission orders issued in this proceeding and to subsequently
challenge the Commission's orders in the U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeal.
    To intervene, you must submit a motion to intervene to the
Commission in accordance with Rule 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure \6\ and the regulations under the NGA \7\ by the
intervention deadline for the project, which is February 16, 2021. As
described further in Rule 214, your motion to intervene must state, to
the extent known, your position regarding the proceeding, as well as
your interest in the proceeding. For an individual, this could include
your status as a landowner, ratepayer, resident of an impacted
community, or recreationist. You do not need to have property directly
impacted by the project in order to intervene. For more information
about motions to intervene, refer to the FERC website at https://www.ferc.gov/resources/guides/how-to/intervene.asp.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 18 CFR 385.214.
    \7\ 18 CFR 157.10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    All timely, unopposed motions to intervene are automatically
granted by operation of Rule 214(c)(1). Motions to intervene that are
filed after the intervention deadline are untimely and may be denied.
Any late-filed motion to intervene must show good cause for being late
and must explain why the time limitation should be waived and provide
justification by reference to factors set forth in Rule 214(d) of the
Commission's Rules and Regulations. A person obtaining party status
will be placed on the service list maintained by the Secretary of the
Commission and will receive copies (paper or electronic) of all
documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties.

Comments

    Any person wishing to comment on the project may do so. The
Commission considers all comments received about the project in
determining the appropriate action to be taken. To ensure that your
comments are timely and properly recorded, please submit your comments
on or before February 16, 2021. The filing of a comment alone will not
serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. To become a party,
you must intervene in the proceeding.

How To File Protests, Interventions, and Comments

    There are two ways to submit protests, motions to intervene, and
comments. In both instances, please reference the Project docket number
CP21-14-000 in your submission.
    (1) You may file your protest, motion to intervene, and comments by
using the Commission's eFiling feature, which is located on the
Commission's website (www.ferc.gov) under the link to Documents and
Filings. New eFiling users must first create an account by clicking on
eRegister. You will be asked to select the type of filing you are
making; first select General and then select Protest, Intervention, or
Comment on a Filing; or \8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Additionally, you may file your comments electronically by
using the eComment feature, which is located on the Commission's
website at www.ferc.gov under the link to Documents and Filings.
Using eComment is an easy method for interested persons to submit
brief, text-only comments on a project.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (2) You can file a paper copy of your submission by mailing it to
the address below.\9\ Your submission must reference the Project docket
number CP21-14-000. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Hand-delivered submissions in docketed proceedings should be
delivered to Health and Human Services, 12225 Wilkins Avenue,
Rockville, Maryland 20852.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission encourages electronic filing of submissions (option
1 above) and has eFiling staff available to assist you at (202) 502-
8258 or [email protected]
    Protests and motions to intervene must be served on the applicant
either by mail or email (with a link to the document) at:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>1415 Wyckoff Road, Wall, NJ 07719. Any
subsequent submissions by an intervenor must be served on the applicant
and all other parties to the proceeding. Contact information for
parties can be downloaded from the service list at the eService link on
FERC Online.

Tracking the Proceeding

    Throughout the proceeding, additional information about the project
will be available from the Commission's Office of External Affairs, at
(866) 208-FERC, or on the FERC website at www.ferc.gov using the
eLibrary link as described above. The eLibrary link also provides
access to the texts of all formal documents issued by the Commission,
such as orders, notices, and rulemakings.
    In addition, the Commission offers a free service called
eSubscription which allows you to keep track of all formal issuances
and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time
you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with
notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to
the documents. For more information and to register, go to
www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp.

    Dated: December 16, 2020.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-28245 Filed 12-21-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: February 25, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 37)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 8467-8471]
[DOCID:fr25fe10-3]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2010-0130; Directorate Identifier 2009-NM-087-AD;
Amendment 39-16214; AD 2010-05-05]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; BAE SYSTEMS (Operations) Limited Model
ATP Airplanes

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

ACTION: Final rule; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for the
products listed above that would supersede an existing AD. This AD
results from mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI)
originated by an aviation authority of another country to identify and
correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes
the unsafe condition as:

    A review of the results of the final fuselage fatigue test
identified the need for additional and revised safety-related
fatigue- and environmental inspections for the fuselage. These
additional tasks were introduced by Service Bulletin (SB) ATP-51-002
* * *.
    As it was determined that these inspections were necessary to
maintain the structural integrity of the aeroplane, EASA AD 2006-
0090 [which corresponds to FAA AD 2007-15-08] was issued * * *.
    Since the original Issue of the SB, three revisions have been
published. Revision 1 of the SB included only editorial changes.
Revision 2 of the SB corrected the fuselage frame designations in
Parts 50 and 50A and extended the allowable time before initial
inspection. In addition, the repeat inspection interval in Part 43
of the SB was reduced. In the latest Revision 3 of the SB, the grace
period for the initial inspection in Part 50 has been clarified.
* * * * *
The unsafe condition is fatigue cracking of certain structural
elements, which could result in reduced structural integrity of the
airplane and consequent rapid decompression of the airplane. This AD
requires actions that are intended to address the unsafe condition
described in the MCAI.

DATES: This AD becomes effective March 12, 2010.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in the AD as of March 12,
2010.
    On September 21, 2006 (71 FR 52418, September 6, 2006), the
Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain other publication listed in this AD.
    We must receive comments on this AD by April 12, 2010.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-40, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://
www.regulations.gov; or in person at the Docket Operations office
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation,
any comments received, and other information. The street address for
the Docket Operations office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the
ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly
after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Todd Thompson, International Branch,
ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW.,
Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax (425) 227-
1149.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    On July 15, 2007, we issued AD 2007-15-08, Amendment 39-15137 (72
FR 40230, July 24, 2007). That AD required actions intended to address
an unsafe condition on the products listed above.
    Since we issued AD 2007-15-08, the European Aviation Safety Agency
(EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the
European Community, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2009-0074,
dated March 31, 2009 (referred to after this as ``the MCAI''), to
correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI
states:

    A review of the results of the final fuselage fatigue test
identified the need for additional and revised safety-related
fatigue- and environmental inspections for the fuselage. These
additional tasks were introduced by Service Bulletin (SB) ATP-51-
002, which supplemented and in some cases revised those previously
published in the Aircraft Maintenance Manual (AMM) Chapter 05-10-17
and the Maintenance Review Board Report (MRBR).
    As it was determined that these inspections were necessary to
maintain the structural integrity of the aeroplane, EASA AD 2006-
0090 [which corresponds to FAA AD 2007-15-08] was issued to require
the inspections and, depending on findings, corrective actions as
defined in BAE Systems (Operations) Limited SB ATP-51-002 (the SB)
at original issue.
    Since the original Issue of the SB, three revisions have been
published. Revision 1 of the SB included only editorial changes.
Revision 2 of the SB corrected the fuselage frame designations in
Parts 50 and 50A and extended the allowable time before initial

inspection. In addition, the repeat inspection interval in Part 43
of the SB was reduced. In the latest Revision 3 of the SB, the grace
period for the initial inspection in Part 50 has been clarified.
    Fatigue tasks in Parts 1 through 50 of the SB, i.e. those
without an ``A'' suffix, have now been replicated in AMM Chapter 05-
10-17 and MRBR Section 6. In addition, environmental tasks, those
identified with an ``A'' suffix, have now been replicated in MRBR
Section 6.
    For the reasons described above, this AD retains the
requirements of EASA AD 2006-0090, which is superseded, and requires
the accomplishment of the inspections and, depending on findings,
corrective actions as defined in BAE Systems (Operations) Limited SB
ATP-51-002 at Revision 3.

The unsafe condition is fatigue cracking of certain structural
elements, which could result in reduced structural integrity of the
airplane and consequent rapid decompression of the airplane. The
corrective actions include repairing cracking and corrosion, and
depending on findings, repairing or replacing damaged components. You
may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD docket.

Relevant Service Information

    BAE SYSTEMS (Operations) Limited has issued Service Bulletin ATP-
51-002, Revision 3, dated April 3, 2008. The actions described in this
service information are intended to correct the unsafe condition
identified in the MCAI.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of This AD

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another
country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant
to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have
been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service
information referenced above. We are issuing this AD because we
evaluated all pertinent information and determined the unsafe condition
exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same
type design.
    There are no products of this type currently registered in the
United States. However, this rule is necessary to ensure that the
described unsafe condition is addressed if any of these products are
placed on the U.S. Register in the future.

Differences Between the AD and the MCAI or Service Information

    We have reviewed the MCAI and related service information and, in
general, agree with their substance. But we might have found it
necessary to use different words from those in the MCAI to ensure the
AD is clear for U.S. operators and is enforceable. In making these
changes, we do not intend to differ substantively from the information
provided in the MCAI and related service information.
    We might also have required different actions in this AD from those
in the MCAI in order to follow FAA policies. Any such differences are
highlighted in a NOTE within the AD.

Change to Existing AD

    This AD retains all requirements of AD 2007-15-08. Since AD 2007-
15-08 was issued, the AD format has been revised, and certain
paragraphs have been rearranged. As a result, the corresponding
paragraph identifiers have changed in this AD, as listed in the
following table:

                      Revised Paragraph Identifiers
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Corresponding requirement in this
    Requirement in AD 2007-15-08                      AD
------------------------------------------------------------------------
             paragraph (f)                       paragraph (g).
             paragraph (g)                       paragraph (h).
             paragraph (h)                       paragraph (i).
             paragraph (i)                       paragraph (j).
             paragraph (j)                       paragraph (k).
             paragraph (k)                       paragraph (l).
------------------------------------------------------------------------

FAA's Determination of the Effective Date

    Since there are currently no domestic operators of this product,
notice and opportunity for public comment before issuing this AD are
unnecessary.

Comments Invited

    This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight
safety, and we did not precede it by notice and opportunity for public
comment. We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this AD. Send your comments to an address listed under
the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2010-0130; Directorate
Identifier 2009-NM-087-AD'' at the beginning of your comments. We
specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic,
environmental, and energy aspects of this AD. We will consider all
comments received by the closing date and may amend this AD because of
those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this AD.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

    We determined that 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 this AD:
    1. Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order
12866;
    2. Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and
    3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to
comply with this AD and placed it in the AD docket.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

0
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 Amendment 39-15137 (72 FR
40230, July 24, 2007) and adding the following new AD:

2010-05-05 BAE Systems (Operations) Limited: Amendment 39-16214.
Docket No. FAA-2010-0130; Directorate Identifier 2009-NM-087-AD.

Effective Date

    (a) This airworthiness directive (AD) becomes effective March
12, 2010.

Affected ADs

    (b) This AD supersedes AD 2007-15-08, Amendment 39-15137.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to all BAE Systems (Operations) Limited
Model ATP airplanes, certificated in any category.

    Note 1: This AD requires revisions to certain operator
maintenance documents to include new and revised inspections.
Compliance with these inspections is required by 14 CFR 91.403(c).
For airplanes that have been previously modified, altered, or
repaired in the areas addressed by these inspections, the operator
may not be able to accomplish the inspections described in the
revisions. In this situation, to comply with 14 CFR 91.403(c), the
operator must request approval for an alternative method of
compliance according to paragraph (q) of this AD. The request should
include a description of changes to the required inspections that
will ensure the continued damage tolerance of the affected
structure. The FAA has provided guidance for this determination in
Advisory Circular (AC) 25-1529.

Subject

    (d) Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code: 51:
Standard Practices/Procedures.

Reason

    (e) The mandatory continued airworthiness information (MCAI)
states:

    A review of the results of the final fuselage fatigue test
identified the need for additional and revised safety-related
fatigue- and environmental inspections for the fuselage. These
additional tasks were introduced by Service Bulletin (SB) ATP-51-
002, which supplemented and in some cases revised those previously
published in the Aircraft Maintenance Manual (AMM) Chapter 05-10-17
and the Maintenance Review Board Report (MRBR).
    As it was determined that these inspections were necessary to
maintain the structural integrity of the aeroplane, EASA AD 2006-
0090 [which corresponds to FAA AD 2007-15-08] was issued to require
the inspections and, depending on findings, corrective actions as
defined in BAE Systems (Operations) Limited SB ATP-51-002 (the SB)
at original issue.
    Since the original Issue of the SB, three revisions have been
published. Revision 1 of the SB included only editorial changes.
Revision 2 of the SB corrected the fuselage frame designations in
Parts 50 and 50A and extended the allowable time before initial
inspection. In addition, the repeat inspection interval in Part 43
of the SB was reduced. In the latest Revision 3 of the SB, the grace
period for the initial inspection in Part 50 has been clarified.
    Fatigue tasks in Parts 1 through 50 of the SB, i.e. those
without an ``A'' suffix, have now been replicated in AMM Chapter 05-
10-17 and MRBR Section 6. In addition, environmental tasks, those
identified with an ``A'' suffix, have now been replicated in MRBR
Section 6.
    For the reasons described above, this AD retains the
requirements of EASA AD 2006-0090, which is superseded, and requires
the accomplishment of the inspections and, depending on findings,
corrective actions as defined in BAE Systems (Operations) Limited SB
ATP-51-002 at Revision 3.

The unsafe condition is fatigue cracking of certain structural
elements, which could result in reduced structural integrity of the
airplane and consequent rapid decompression of the airplane. The
corrective actions include repairing cracking and corrosion, and
depending on findings, repairing or replacing damaged components.

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 2006-18-09, With Revised Compliance
Method

Airworthiness Limitations Revision Specified in AD 2000-26-10

    (g) Within 30 days after February 7, 2001 (the effective date of
AD 2000-26-10, Amendment 39-12060, which was superseded by AD 2005-
19-03, which was superseded by AD 2007-15-08), revise the
Airworthiness Limitations Section (ALS) of the Instructions for
Continued Airworthiness according to a method approved by the
Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane
Directorate, FAA. Doing the revision specified in paragraph (h) of
this AD replaces Chapters 27, 32, 53, and 54 listed in Section 05-
10-11 and Chapters 52, 53, 54, 55, and 57 listed in Section 05-10-17
that are in effect on February 7, 2001, with Chapters 27, 32, 53,
and 54 listed in Section 05-10-11, ``Mandatory Life Limitations
(Airframe)''; and Chapters 52, 53, 54, 55, and 57 listed in Section
05-10-17, ``Structurally Significant Items (SSIs)''; both dated July
15, 2004; of the British Aerospace ATP Aircraft Maintenance Manual
(AMM). Doing the revision specified in paragraph (l) of this AD
replaces Sections 05-10-12, 05-10-15, and 05-10-17 with the
corresponding sections specified in paragraph (l) of this AD.

    Note 2: Guidance on revising the ALS can be found in Section 05-
00-00, dated August 15, 1997, of the British Aerospace ATP AMM,
dated October 15, 1999. This section references other chapters of
the AMM. The applicable revision level of the referenced chapters is
that in effect on February 7, 2001.

Airworthiness Limitations Specified in AD 2005-19-03

    (h) Within 30 days after September 28, 2005 (the effective date
of AD 2005-19-03, Amendment 39-14268, which was superseded by AD
2006-18-09), revise the ALS of the Instructions for Continued
Airworthiness according to a method approved by the Manager,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA.
Doing the revision specified in paragraph (i) of this AD replaces
certain Chapter 52 and 53 tasks listed in Section 05-10-17,
``Structurally Significant Items (SSIs),'' dated July 15, 2004, of
the British Aerospace ATP AMM, with the corresponding Chapter 52 and
53 tasks listed in BAE SYSTEMS (Operations) Limited Service Bulletin
ATP-51-002, dated December 20, 2005. Doing the revision specified in
paragraph (l) of this AD replaces Chapters 52, 53, 54, 55, and 57
listed in Section 05-10-17 with the corresponding Section 05-10-17
specified in paragraph (l) of this AD.

    Note 3: Guidance on revising the ALS can be found in Chapters
27, 32, 53, and 54 listed in Section 05-10-11, ``Mandatory Life
Limitations (Airframe)''; and the tasks for Chapters 52, 53, 54, 55,
and 57 listed in Section 05-10-17, ``Structurally Significant Items
(SSIs)''; both dated July 15, 2004; of the British Aerospace ATP
AMM. These chapters replace the corresponding chapters in Section
05-00-00, dated August 15, 1997, of the British Aerospace ATP AMM as
specified in paragraph (g) of this AD.

New and Revised Airworthiness Limitations in AD 2006-18-09

    (i) Within 30 days after September 21, 2006 (the effective date
of AD 2006-18-09), revise the ALS of the Instructions for Continued
Airworthiness by incorporating the new and revised tasks for
Chapters 52 and 53 as specified in BAE SYSTEMS (Operations) Limited
Service Bulletin ATP-51-002, dated December 20, 2005, into the ALS.
The revised Chapter 52 and 53 tasks replace the corresponding
Chapter 52 and 53 tasks in Section 05-10-17, ``Structurally
Significant Items (SSIs),'' dated July 15, 2004, of the British
Aerospace ATP AMM, as specified in paragraph (h) of this AD.
    (j) Except as provided by paragraph (q) of this AD: After the
actions specified in paragraphs (g), (h), and (i) of this AD have
been accomplished, no alternative inspections or inspection
intervals may be approved for the structural elements specified in
the documents listed in paragraphs (g), (h), and (i) of this AD.

No Reporting Required

    (k) Although BAE SYSTEMS (Operations) Limited Service Bulletin
ATP-51-002, dated December 20, 2005, specifies to submit certain
information to the manufacturer, this AD does not include that
requirement.

Restatement of Requirements of AD 2007-15-08, With Revised Compliance
Method

Revised Limitations

    (l) Within 30 days after August 8, 2007 (the effective date of
AD 2007-15-08), revise the

ALS of the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness according to a
method approved by the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116,
Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA.

    Note 4: Guidance on revising the ALS can be found in Section 05-
10-12, ``Mandatory Life Limitations (Airframe--Structures),'' dated
January 15, 2007; Section 05-10-15, ``Mandatory Life Limitations
(Powerplant/Engine/APU--Structures),'' dated January 15, 2007; and
Section 05-10-17, ``Structurally Significant Items (SSIs),'' dated
January 15, 2007; of the BAE Systems (Operations) Limited ATP AMM.
The revised sections replace the corresponding sections specified in
paragraphs (g) and (h) of this AD.

    (m) Except as provided by paragraph (q) of this AD: After the
action specified in paragraph (l) of this AD has been accomplished,
no alternative inspections or inspection intervals may be approved
for the structural elements specified in the documents listed in
paragraph (l) of this AD.

New Requirements of This AD

Actions

    (n) Within 30 days after the effective date of this AD: Revise
the ALS of the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness by
incorporating the inspections specified in BAE SYSTEMS (Operations)
Limited Inspection Service Bulletin ATP-51-002, Revision 3, dated
April 3, 2008. Doing this revision terminates the requirements of
paragraph (i) of this AD. The revised Chapter 52 and 53 tasks
replace the corresponding Chapter 52 and 53 tasks in Section 05-10-
17, ``Structurally Significant Items (SSIs),'' dated July 15, 2004,
of the British Aerospace ATP AMM, as specified in paragraph (h) of
this AD. Do the initial inspection for fatigue cracking at the
applicable time in Part N., ``Approval,'' of BAE SYSTEMS
(Operations) Limited Inspection Service Bulletin ATP-51-002,
Revision 3, dated April 3, 2008.
    (o) Except as provided by paragraph (q) of this AD: After the
action specified in paragraph (n) of this AD has been accomplished,
no alternative inspections or inspection intervals may be approved
for the structural elements specified in the documents listed in
paragraph (n) of this AD.
    (p) Submit a report of the findings (both positive and negative)
of all of the inspections required by paragraph (n) of this AD to
Customer Engineering Liaison, BAE SYSTEMS Regional Aircraft,
Prestwick International Airport, Ayrshire, KA9 2RW, Scotland;
telephone: +44 (0) 1292 675289; fax: +44 (0) 1292 675432; at the
applicable time specified in paragraph (p)(1) or (p)(2) of this AD.
The report must include the inspection results, a description of any
discrepancies found, the airplane serial number, and the number of
landings and flight hours on the airplane.
    (1) If the inspection was done on or after the effective date of
this AD: Submit the report within 30 days after the inspection.
    (2) If the inspection was done before the effective date of this
AD: Submit the report within 30 days after the effective date of
this AD.

FAA AD Differences

    Note 5: This AD differs from the MCAI and/or service information
as follows: No differences.

Other FAA AD Provisions

    (q) The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
International Branch, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for
this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.
Send information to ATTN: Todd Thompson, International Branch, ANM-
116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW.,
Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax (425)
227-1149. Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which
the AMOC applies, notify your principal maintenance inspector (PMI)
or principal avionics inspector (PAI), as appropriate, or lacking a
principal inspector, your local Flight Standards District Office.
The AMOC approval letter must specifically reference this AD.
    (2) Airworthy Product: For any requirement in this AD to obtain
corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these
actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered
FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority
(or their delegated agent). You are required to assure the product
is airworthy before it is returned to service.
    (3) Reporting Requirements: For any reporting requirement in
this AD, under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has
approved the information collection requirements and has assigned
OMB Control Number 2120-0056.

Related Information

    (r) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information
(MCAI) EASA Airworthiness Directive 2009-0074, dated March 31, 2009;
and BAE SYSTEMS (Operations) Limited Inspection Service Bulletin
ATP-51-002, Revision 3, dated April 3, 2008; for related
information.

Material Incorporated by Reference

    (s) You must use the service information contained in Table 1 of
this AD, as applicable, to do the actions required by this AD,
unless the AD specifies otherwise.

                                 Table 1--All Material Incorporated by Reference
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Document                            Revision                                Date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BAE SYSTEMS (Operations) Limited     3................................  April 3, 2008.
 Service Bulletin ATP-51-002.
BAE SYSTEMS (Operations) Limited     Original.........................  December 20, 2005.
 Service Bulletin ATP-51-002.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

     (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference of the service information contained in
Table 2 of this AD under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.

                                 Table 2--New Material Incorporated by Reference
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   Document                       Revision                            Date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BAE SYSTEMS (Operations) Limited Service                    3  April 3, 2008.
 Bulletin ATP-51-002.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

     (2) The Director of the Federal Register previously approved
the incorporation by reference of the service information contained
in Table 3 of this AD on September 21, 2006 (71 FR 52418, September
6, 2006).

                             Table 3--Material Previously Incorporated by Reference
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Document                            Revision                                Date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BAE SYSTEMS (Operations) Limited     Original.........................  December 20, 2005.
 Service Bulletin ATP-51-002.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

     (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact BAE
SYSTEMS Regional Aircraft, 13850 McLearen Road, Herndon, Virginia
20171; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Internet http://www.baesystems.com/Businesses/RegionalAircraft/
index.htm.
    (4) You may review copies of the 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> or<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (5) 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 NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to: http://
www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/
ibr_locations.html.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on February 16, 2010.
Stephen P. Boyd,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2010-3470 Filed 2-24-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 94 (Thursday, May 15, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 27730-27731]
[FR Doc No: 2014-11104]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 73

[Docket No. FAA-2014-0260; Airspace Docket No. 13-AEA-19]
RIN 2120-AA66

Amendment of Restricted Areas R-5001A and R-5001B, Fort Dix, NJ

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule; Technical amendment.

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

SUMMARY: This action updates the descriptions of restricted areas R-
5001A and R-5001B, Fort Dix, NJ, to reflect the renaming of the
military installation as ``Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst, NJ,''
update the controlling and using agency information, eliminate
redundant wording, and adjust by one second the longitude coordinate
for the first point in the description of R-5001A. This action does not
alter the boundaries or the use of the restricted areas.

DATES: Effective date: 0901 UTC, July 24, 2014.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul Gallant, Airspace Policy and
Regulations Group, Office of Airspace Services, Federal Aviation
Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591;
telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    Restricted areas R-5001A and R-5001B were originally designated at
Fort Dix, NJ. As a result of Department of Defense Joint Basing
actions, McGuire Air Force Base, Fort Dix and Naval Air Engineering
Station Lakehurst were combined under single Joint Base leadership and
renamed as ``Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst, NJ.''
    Restricted areas R-5001A and R-5001B share identical boundaries. R-
5001A extends from the surface to 4,000 feet MSL. R-5001B overlies R-
5001A and extends from 4,000 feet MSL to 8,000 feet MSL. A review of
the legal description of R-5001A revealed a minor (one second) error in
the longitude coordinate for the first point in the description. That
longitude reads ``74[deg]27'00'' W. The same point in the R-5002B
description reads ``74[deg]26'59'' W.'' After review, it was determined
that the point in the R-5001B description is correct; therefore, this
action changes the point in the R-5001A description to match R-5001B.
Since this is a minor change, the depiction of the areas on
aeronautical charts is not affected.
    In addition, several editorial changes to the descriptions of both
restricted areas are required to remove redundant wording from the
designated altitudes, increase the advance time requirement for issuing
Notices to Airmen (NOTAM), change the ATC facility designated as the
controlling agency, and update the using agency name to reflect the
user's current organizational title and ``joint base'' status.
    The above changes do not alter the location or use of the
restricted areas from the current parameters.

The Rule

    This action amends Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR)
part 73 by changing the location name in the title of restricted areas
R-5001A and R-5001B from ``Fort Dix, NJ,'' to ``Joint Base McGuire-Dix-
Lakehurst, NJ.'' In addition, the first longitude coordinate in the
description of R-5001A is changed from ``long. 74[deg]27'00'' W.'' to
``long. 74[deg]26'59'' W.'' This change corrects a one second
difference between the affected point in R-5001A and a shared common
point in the description of R-5001B (which overlies R-5001A).
    For R-5001A, the designated altitudes are changed from ``Surface to
and including 4,000 feet MSL'', to ``Surface to 4,000 feet MSL.'' In 14
CFR 73.3, the word ``to'' is defined as meaning ``to and including;''
therefore, the words ``and including'' are not required. The time of
designation is changed from ``0600 to 2330, local time daily; other
times by NOTAM issued one hour in advance'', to ``0600 to 2330 local
time, daily; other times by NOTAM at least four hours in advance.''
This change increases the NOTAM requirement from one hour in advance to
four hours in advance to comply with current guidance and to provide
the public with additional advance notice of planned activation of the
airspace.
    For R-5001B, the designated altitudes are changed from ``From 4,000
feet MSL to and including 8,000 feet MSL'', to ``4,000 feet MSL to
8,000 feet MSL.'' The time of designation is amended by adding the
words ``at least'' between the words ``NOTAM'' and ``48 hours in
advance.''
    The controlling agency for both R-5001A and R-5001B is changed from
``FAA, New York ARTCC,'' to ``U.S. Air Force, McGuire Radar Approach
Control.'' This change is made because R-5001A and R-5001B lie
completely within the airspace delegated to McGuire Radar Approach
Control by New York ARTCC. The using agency name for both restricted
areas is changed from ``Commanding General, Fort Dix, NJ,'' to
``Commanding Officer, U.S. Army Support Activity, Joint Base McGuire-
Dix-Lakehurst, NJ.'' This change reflects an administrative name change
of the using agency's organization and its leadership due to the
renaming of the Fort Dix military installation as a ``joint base.''
    These changes update the descriptions of existing restricted areas
R-5001A and R-5001B without altering the boundaries, or activities
conducted within, the areas; therefore, I find that notice and public
procedure under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) are unnecessary.
    The FAA has determined that this action only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
Therefore, this regulation: (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory
action'' under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule''
under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26,
1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation
as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter
that only affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified that this rule, when promulgated, does not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the
criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106
describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII,
Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's
authority.
    This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the
FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of the
airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient
use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority
as it modifies the technical descriptions of restricted areas to ensure
that accurate information is available to the flying public.

Environmental Review

    The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical
exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance
with FAA Order 1050.1E, Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures,
paragraph 311d. This airspace action is an administrative change to
correct and update the descriptions of restricted areas R-5001A and R-
5001B to reflect current information. It does not alter the actual
location, charted dimensions or use of the airspace; therefore, it is
not expected to cause any potentially significant environmental
impacts, and no extraordinary circumstances exists that warrant
preparation of an environmental assessment.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 73

    Airspace, Navigation (air), Security measures.

Adoption of the Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration amends 14 CFR part 73, as follows:

PART 73--SPECIAL USE AIRSPACE

0
1. The authority citation for part 73 continues to read as follows:

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

Sec.  73.50  [Amended]

0
2. Section 73.50 is amended as follows:

R-5001A Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst, NJ [Amended]

    Boundaries. Beginning at Lat. 40[deg]02'45'' N., long.
74[deg]26'59'' W.; to lat. 40[deg]00'00'' N., long. 74[deg]26'19''
W.; to lat. 39[deg]59'00'' N., long. 74[deg]25'07'' W.; to lat.
39[deg]58'00'' N., long. 74[deg]24'59'' W.; to lat. 39[deg]57'30''
N., long. 74[deg]25'16'' W.; to lat. 39[deg]57'23'' N., long.
74[deg]25'49'' W.; to lat. 39[deg]58'45'' N., long. 74[deg]27'59''
W.; to lat. 39[deg]58'45'' N., long. 74[deg]31'24'' W.; to lat.
39[deg]59'15'' N., long. 74[deg]33'29'' W.; to lat. 40[deg]01'53''
N., long. 74[deg]33'29'' W.; to lat. 40[deg]02'45'' N., long.
74[deg]32'29'' W.; to the point of beginning.
    Designated altitudes. Surface to 4,000 feet MSL.
    Time of designation. 0600 to 2330 local time, daily; other times
by NOTAM issued at least four hours in advance.
    Controlling agency. U.S. Air Force, McGuire Radar Approach
Control.
    Using agency. Commanding Officer, U.S. Army Support Activity,
Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst, NJ.

R-5001B Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst, NJ [Amended]

    Boundaries. Beginning at Lat. 40[deg]02'45'' N., long.
74[deg]26'59'' W.; to lat. 40[deg]00'00'' N., long. 74[deg]26'19''
W.; to lat. 39[deg]59'00'' N., long. 74[deg]25'07'' W.; to lat.
39[deg]58'00'' N., long. 74[deg]24'59'' W.; to lat. 39[deg]57'30''
N., long. 74[deg]25'16'' W.; to lat. 39[deg]57'23'' N., long.
74[deg]25'49'' W.; to lat. 39[deg]58'45'' N., long. 74[deg]27'59''
W.; to lat. 39[deg]58'45'' N., long. 74[deg]31'24'' W.; to lat.
40[deg]01'53'' N., long. 74[deg]33'29'' W.; to lat. 40[deg]02'45''
N., long. 74[deg]32'29'' W.; to the point of beginning.
    Designated altitudes. 4,000 feet MSL to 8,000 feet MSL.
    Time of designation. Continuous, sunrise Friday to sunset
Sunday, other times by NOTAM at least 48 hours in advance.
    Controlling agency. U.S. Air Force, McGuire Radar Approach
Control.
    Using agency. Commanding Officer, U.S. Army Support Activity,
Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst, NJ.

    Issued in Washington, DC on May 8, 2014.
Gary A. Norek,
Manager, Airspace Policy and Regulations Group.
[FR Doc. 2014-11104 Filed 5-14-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: June 29, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 123)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 30912-30914]
[DOCID:fr29jn09-2]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2009-0510; Directorate Identifier 2009-NE-16-AD;
Amendment 39-15948; AD 2009-13-09]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Microturbo SA Saphir 2 Model 016
Auxiliary Power Units

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for the
products listed above, on which the

exhaust thermal insulation has been replaced since January 1, 1995.
This AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness information
(MCAI) issued by an aviation authority of another country to identify
and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI
describes the unsafe condition as:

    Due to a lapse in manufacturing quality control, the exhaust
thermal insulation of certain Microturbo SA Saphir 2 model 016
auxiliary power units (APUs) may not meet the approved design
standard, and may fail in service. The affected part numbers are
016-33-01 (Inner Thermal Insulation), 016-33-02 (Outer Thermal
Insulation), and 016-33-03 (EGT Sensor Thermal Insulation). This
condition, if not corrected, could result in rapid deterioration and
physical breakdown of the exhaust thermal insulation, leading to
loss of insulation efficiency and ultimately exposure of the hot APU
exhaust section and risk of fire.

    We are issuing this AD to prevent rapid deterioration and physical
breakdown of the exhaust thermal insulation, leading to loss of
insulation efficiency and ultimately exposure of the hot APU exhaust
section and risk of fire.

DATES: This AD becomes effective July 14, 2009
    We must receive comments on this AD by July 29, 2009
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of Microturbo SA Alert Service Bulletin No. 49-11A76,
Revision 1, dated, September 6, 2007, listed in the AD as of July 14,
2009

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://
www.regulations.gov and follow the instructions for sending your
comments electronically.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue, SE., West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC
20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail address above between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Fax:<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 Operations office
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 street address for
the Docket Operations office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is the same as
the Mail address provided in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be
available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael Schwetz, Aerospace Engineer,
Boston Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, Engine and Propeller
Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803; e-
mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax (781) 238-
7170.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical
Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued EASA
Airworthiness Directive 2009-0100, dated May 4, 2009 (referred to after
this as ``the MCAI''), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified
products.] The MCAI states:

    Due to a lapse in manufacturing quality control, the exhaust
thermal insulation of certain Microturbo SA Saphir 2 model 016 APUs
may not meet the approved design standard, and may fail in service.
The affected part numbers are 016-33-01 (Inner Thermal Insulation),
016-33-02 (Outer Thermal Insulation), and 016-33-03 (EGT Sensor
Thermal Insulation). This condition, if not corrected, could result
in rapid deterioration and physical breakdown of the exhaust thermal
insulation, leading to loss of insulation efficiency and ultimately
exposure of the hot APU exhaust section and risk of fire.

    You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD
docket.

Relevant Service Information

    Microturbo SA has issued Alert Service Bulletin No. 49-11A76,
Revision 1, dated September 6, 2007. The actions described in this
service information are intended to correct the unsafe condition
identified in the MCAI.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of This AD

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of France
and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our
bilateral agreement with France, they have notified us of the unsafe
condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced
above. We are issuing this AD because we evaluated all information
provided by EASA and determined the unsafe condition exists and is
likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.
This AD requires initial and repetitive visual inspections of certain
exhaust thermal insulation for signs of deterioration on Microturbo SA
Saphir 2 model 016 APUs. This AD also requires replacement of the
affected exhaust thermal insulation as mandatory terminating action to
the repetitive visual inspections.

FAA's Determination of the Effective Date

    An unsafe condition exists that requires the immediate adoption of
this AD. The FAA has found that the risk to the flying public justifies
waiving notice and comment prior to adoption of this rule because of
the potential for rapid deterioration and physical breakdown of the
exhaust thermal insulation, leading to loss of insulation efficiency
and ultimately exposure of the hot APU exhaust section and risk of
fire. Therefore, we determined that notice and opportunity for public
comment before issuing this AD are impracticable and that good cause
exists for making this amendment effective in fewer than 30 days.

Comments Invited

    This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight
safety, and we did not precede it by notice and opportunity for public
comment. We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this AD. Send your comments to an address listed under
the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2009-0510; Directorate
Identifier 2009-NE-16-AD'' at the beginning of your comments. We
specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic,
environmental, and energy aspects of this AD. We will consider all
comments received by the closing date and may amend this AD because of
those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact
with FAA personnel concerning this AD. Using the search function of the
Web site, anyone can find and read the comments in any of our dockets,
including, if provided, the name of the individual who sent the comment
(or signed the comment on behalf of an association, business, labor
union, etc.). You may review the DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement
in the Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78).

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I,

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

Regulatory Findings

    We determined that 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 this AD:
    1. Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order
12866;
    2. Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and
    3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to
comply with this AD and placed it in the AD docket.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

0
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 adding the following new AD:

2009-13-09 Microturbo SA: Amendment 39-15948.; Docket No. FAA-2009-
0510; Directorate Identifier 2009-NE-16-AD.

Effective Date

    (a) This airworthiness directive (AD) becomes effective July 14,
2009.

Affected ADs

    (b) None.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to Microturbo SA Saphir 2 model 016
auxiliary power units (APUs) on which the exhaust thermal insulation
has been replaced since January 1, 1995. These APUs are installed
on, but not limited to, Dassault Falcon 20 airplanes.

Reason

    (d) European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD No. 2009-0100,
dated May 4, 2009, states:

    Due to a lapse in manufacturing quality control, the exhaust
thermal insulation of certain Microturbo SA Saphir 2 model 016 APUs
may not meet the approved design standard, and may fail in service.
The affected part numbers are 016-33-01 (Inner Thermal Insulation),
016-33-02 (Outer Thermal Insulation), and 016-33-03 (EGT Sensor
Thermal Insulation). This condition, if not corrected, could result
in rapid deterioration and physical breakdown of the exhaust thermal
insulation, leading to loss of insulation efficiency and ultimately
exposure of the hot APU exhaust section and risk of fire.

    We are issuing this AD to prevent rapid deterioration and
physical breakdown of the exhaust thermal insulation, leading to
loss of insulation efficiency and ultimately exposure of the hot APU
exhaust section and risk of fire.

Actions and Compliance

    (e) Unless already done, do the following actions.

Initial and Repetitive Inspections

    (1) Within 10 APU operating hours from the effective date of
this AD, visually inspect the exhaust thermal insulation for signs
of deterioration. Repeat the inspection at intervals not exceeding
10 operating APU hours.
    (2) If deterioration is detected, replace the exhaust thermal
insulation before operating the APU again. Use paragraphs 2.A.
through 2.C.(4)(b) of Microturbo SA Alert Service Bulletin No. 49-
11A76, Revision 1, dated September 6, 2007, to do the replacement.

Mandatory Terminating Action

    (3) As mandatory terminating action to the repetitive visual
inspections required by this AD, replace the exhaust thermal
insulation within 50 APU operating hours from the effective date of
this AD. Use paragraphs 2.A. through 2.C.(4)(b) of Microturbo SA
Alert Service Bulletin No. 49-11A76, Revision 1, dated September 6,
2007, to do the replacement.

FAA AD Differences

    (f) None.

Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

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

Related Information

    (h) Refer to MCAI EASA Airworthiness Directive 2009-0100, dated
May 4, 2009, for related information.
    (i) Contact Michael Schwetz, Aerospace Engineer, Boston Aircraft
Certification Office, FAA, Engine and Propeller Directorate, 12 New
England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803; e-mail:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax (781) 238-
7170, for more information about this AD.

Material Incorporated by Reference

    (j) You must use Microturbo SA Alert Service Bulletin No. 49-
11A76, Revision 1, dated September 6, 2007, 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 this service information under 5
U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Microturbo SA, Technical Publications Department, 8, Chemin du pont
de Rupe, BP 62089, 31019 Toulouse Cedex 2, France; telephone (33)
(0)5 61 37 55 00; fax (33) (0)5 61 70 74 45.
    (3) You may review copies at the FAA, New England Region, 12 New
England Executive Park, Burlington, MA; or at the National Archives
and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the
availability of this material at NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go
to: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on June 17, 2009.
Carlos Pestana,
Acting Manager, Engine and Propeller Directorate, Aircraft
Certification Service.
[FR Doc. E9-14809 Filed 6-26-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


COMPANY FEDERAL REGISTER DOCUMENT SUBMISSION TEMPLATE  (9/27/2007)

EPA Registration Division contact: [Barbara Madden,<PHONE_NUMBER>]

INSTRUCTIONS:  Please utilize this outline in preparing tolerance
petition documents.  In cases where the outline element does not apply
please insert “NA-Remove” and maintain the outline.  The comment
notes that appear on the left margin represent hidden typesetting codes
designed to expedite the processing of the Federal Register document.
Please do not remove or alter these comment notes or change the margins,
font, or format in your document. Simply replace the instructions that
appear in italics and brackets, i.e., “[insert company name],” with
the information specific to your action.]

TEMPLATE:

[Dow AgroSciences LLC]

[Petition]

	EPA has received a pesticide petition ([Petition]) from [Dow
AgroSciences LLC], [9330 Zionsville Road –Indianapolis, Indiana 46268]
proposing, pursuant to section 408(d) of the Federal Food, Drug, and
Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d), to amend 40 CFR part 180.

(Options (pick one)

	1. by establishing a tolerance for residues of

	2. to establish an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for

[methoxyfenozide and its metabolites RH-117,236 free phenol of
methoxyfenozide; 3,5-dimethylbenzoic acid N-tert-butyl-N'-(3-hydroxy-
2-methylbenzoyl) hydrazide, RH-151,055 glucose conjugate of RH-117,236;
3,5-dimethylbenzoic acid N-tert-butyl-N-[3(
-[beta]-D-glucopyranosyloxy)-2-methylbenzoyl]-hydrazide) and RH-152,072
the malonylglycosyl conjugate of RH-117,236] in or on the raw
agricultural commodities Fruit, citrus, group 10 at 2.0 parts per
million (ppm) and Citrus oil at [70] ppm for tolerances with regional
registrations; and [Pea and bean, dried shelled, except soybean,
subgroup 6C] at [0.35] ppm; [Pomegranate] at [0.6] ppm; [Corn, pop,
grain] at [0.05] ppm; [Corn, pop, stover] at [125] ppm, [Corn, pop,
forage] at [30] ppm. Additionally, the petition requests that the
existing tolerance for dry bean seed at 0.24 ppm be deleted since it is
a member of the proposed subgroup 6C. EPA has determined that the
petition contains data or information regarding the elements set forth
in section 408 (d)(2) of the FFDCA; however, EPA has not fully evaluated
the sufficiency of the submitted data at this time or whether the data
supports granting of the petition. Additional data may be needed before
EPA rules on the petition.

A. Residue Chemistry

	1. Plant metabolism. [The qualitative nature of methoxyfenozide
residues in plants and animals is adequately understood.  Residues in
plants, meat and fat are defined in terms of parent compound only.
Residues in eggs, liver and meat by-products (mbyp) are defined in terms
of combined residues of parent and its glucuronide metabolite, expressed
as parent.  More details were previously published in the Federal
Register of July 5, 2000 (65 FR 41355) (FRL-6497-5).]

	2. Analytical method. [Adequate enforcement methods are available for
determination of methoxyfenozide residues in plant commodities, as
derived from Dow AgroSciences GRM 02.25, “Determination of Residues of
Methoxyfenozide in High Moisture Crops by Liquid Chromatography with
Tandem Mass Spectrometry Detection” which has been validated.

This method is based on enforcement method TR 34-00-28 developed by Rohm
and Haas which has been extensively validated (recovery data;
confirmatory data; ILV data; radiovalidation data; paper review by
ACB/BEAD).  It was judged to be adequate to enforce tolerances for
indirect or inadvertent residues of methoxyfenozide and relevant
metabolites in/on high and low moisture rotational crops.]

	3. Magnitude of residues. [Adequate crops residue trials were conducted
and residues of methoxyfenozide and its metabolites measured.  The
requested tolerances are adequately supported.]

B. Toxicological Profile  [The toxicological profile and endpoints for
methoxyfenozide which supports this petition can be found at   HYPERLINK
"http://www.regulations.gov"  http://www.regulations.gov  in docket ID
number EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0495]

	1. Acute toxicity.  [EPA has established that no appropriate endpoint
was identified in the oral toxicity studies, including the acute
neurotoxicity study in rats and the developmental toxicity studies in
rats and rabbits.  Therefore, there is no concern for acute dietary
risk.]

	2. Genotoxicty. [In a battery of four mutagenicity studies (with and
without metabolic activation, as appropriate for the specific study),
technical grade methoxyfenozide was negative for genotoxicity in all
studies.]

	3. Reproductive and developmental toxicity. [the NOAEL for reproductive
toxicity is greater than 20,000 ppm (1,551.9–2,036.5 mg/kg day).  The
LOAEL for reproductive toxicity was not identified.]

	4. Subchronic toxicity. [In a subchronic oral neurotoxicity study in
rats, there were no observable signs of a neurotoxic effect at the
highest concentration in males or females.]

	5. Chronic toxicity. [The cRfD used in the chronic risk assessment was
0.10 mg/kg/day as established by EPA, as determined by the 2-Year
combined chronic feeding/carcinogenicity study in rats.]

	6. Animal metabolism. [In a metabolism study in rats,
14C-methoxyfenozide was rapidly absorbed, distributed, metabolized and
almost completely excreted within 48 hours in rats.  Metabolism of
methoxyfenozide in other animals (poultry and ruminants) appears to be
similar to its metabolism in rats.]

	7. Metabolite toxicology. [The methoxyfenozide glucuronide conjugates
are considered to be less toxic than the parent compound.  Further,
based on similarities of chemical structure, the nonconjugated
metabolites would be expected to be no more toxic than the parent
compound.]

	8. Endocrine disruption. [Since the definition and regulatory
significance of the term “endocrine disruptor chemical” has not yet
been established by the Agency, it is not clear whether methoxyfenozide,
should be considered to be an “endocrine disruptor” chemical.]

C. Aggregate Exposure

	1. Dietary exposure. [Assessments were conducted to evaluate potential
risks             due to chronic and acute dietary exposure of the U.S.
population subgroups to residues of methoxyfenozide.  These analyses
cover all registered crops, as well as, uses pending with the Agency,
active and proposed section 18 uses, proposed IR-4 minor uses and the
proposed time-limited tolerances for rotational crops.  There are no
registered residential nonfood uses of methoxyfenozide.]

	i. Food. [a. Acute risk.  No appropriate toxicological endpoint
attributable to a single exposure was identified in the available
toxicology studies on methoxyfenozide including the acute neurotoxicity
study in rats, the developmental toxicity studying rats and the
developmental toxicity study in rabbits.  Since no acute toxicological
endpoints were established, the acute aggregate risk is expected to be
negligible.

b. Chronic assessments were conducted to evaluate potential risks due to
chronic dietary exposure of the U.S. population and sensitive population
subgroups to residues of methoxyfenozide.  The tier-1 assessment used
the Dietary Exposure Evaluation Model™ (DEEM-FCID, ver. 2.14,
Exponent, Inc., Washington, DC-20036) software for conducting the
chronic dietary (food) risk analysis. DEEM is a dietary exposure
analysis system that is used to estimate exposure to a pesticide
chemical in foods comprising the diets of the U.S. population, including
population subgroups.  DEEM contains food consumption data as reported
by respondents in the USDA Continuing Surveys of Food Intake by
Individuals (CSFII) conducted in 1994-1996 and 1998 and food translation
to RACs, as indicated by EPA/USDA FCID recipe set as of August, 2002.

Based on the high levels used in the initial establishment of the
tolerances for crops commonly used as feed for livestock, the addition
of any increased exposure from citrus, as an animal feedstock component
would not require an increase in meat and milk tolerances.

This tier-I assessment considers residues at tolerance levels for all
current and proposed uses; it also includes the worse-case adjustment
factors historically used in DEEM, when no refinements for processing
factors are available.

The chronic tox-endpoint is the cRfD = 0.1 mg/kg-bw/day, published in
the docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0495.  The published FQPA Safety
Factor (SF) = 1x for methoxyfenozide and therefore the cPAD = 0.1
mg/kg/day.  The tier-I exposure for food was found to occupy up to 26.8%
of the chronic population adjusted dose (PAD) for US-general population
and 68.4% of PAD for the most highly exposed population subgroup,
children 1 to 2 years old.  These results are conservative (health
protective) risk estimates.  Refinements such as use of percent
crop-treated information and/or anticipated residue values would yield
lower estimates of chronic dietary exposure.

All population subgroups have shown potential tier-I (worst-case)
exposure below the Agencies level of concern (100% cPAD).]

	ii. Drinking Water. [There are no water-related exposure data from
monitoring to complete a quantitative drinking water exposure analysis
and risk assessment for methoxyfenozide.  Screening level exposure
levels to surface drinking water were estimated from EPA’s water
models Pesticide Root Zone Model (PRZM) coupled to EXAMS, using EFED’s
standard index reservoir which incorporates flow into and out of a
reservoir to calculate estimated the expected environmental
concentrations (EECs) for surface water.  The screening concentration in
ground water was estimated by using the model Screening Concentrations
in Ground Water (SCI-GROW), an empirical model based upon actual
monitoring data collected for a number of pesticides that serve as
benchmarks.  These models take into account the use patterns and the
environmental profile of a pesticide, but do not include consideration
of the impact that processing raw water for distribution as drinking
water would likely have on the removal of pesticides from the source
water.  The primary use of these models is to provide a coarse screen
for assessing whether a pesticide is likely to be present in drinking
water at concentrations which would exceed human health levels of
concern.

The EECs for chronic exposure are expected to be 33.1 ppb for surface
water and <7.43 ppb for ground water.  For chronic dietary risk
assessment, the water concentration value of 33.1 ppb was used to asses
the contribution to drinking water.  The modeled estimate of drinking
water concentration was directly entered into the dietary exposure
model.

a.  Acute exposure and risk.  Because no acute dietary endpoint was
established, Dow AgroSciences concludes that there is a reasonable
certainty of no harm from acute exposure from drinking water.

b.  Chronic exposure and risk.  Tier I screening-level exposure
assessments can be conducted using the simulation models PRZM/EXAMS and
SCI-GROW to generate EECs for surface and ground water, respectively.
The modeling was conducted based on the environmental profile and the
maximum seasonal application rate proposed across current and proposed
labels.  The concentration used for chronic exposure from drinking-water
was estimated from the higher value of the two models, thus the output
from the screening model PRZM/EXAMS as an annual average concentration
EEC = 33.1 parts per billion (ppb) was used.

Using the assumptions described above and an cRfD of 0.10 mg/kg/day, the
chronic/long-term food + drinking water exposure was estimated to be
27.5% cPAD for the US population and 69.4% cPAD for children aged 1 to 2
years old, the sub-population with the highest estimated exposure.

Dow AgroSciences thus concludes with reasonable certainty that residues
of methoxyfenozide in drinking water will not contribute significantly
to the aggregate chronic human health risk and that the chronic
aggregate exposure from methoxyfenozide residues in food and drinking
water will not exceed the Agency’s level of concern (100% of the
chronic PAD) for chronic dietary aggregate exposure by any population
subgroup.  EPA generally has no concern for exposures below 100% of the
chronic PAD, because it is a level at or below which daily aggregate
dietary exposure over a lifetime will not pose appreciable risks to the
health and safety of any population subgroup.  This risk assessment is
conservative in nature based on the assumptions used, and resultant in a
profile of methoxyfenozide that is very protective of human health.]

	2. Non-dietary exposure. [Methoxyfenozide is not currently registered
for use on any residential non-food sites.  Therefore, there is no
non-dietary acute, chronic, short-or intermediate-term exposure.]

D. Cumulative Effects

[Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) requires that, when considering whether to
establish, modify, or revoke a tolerance, the Agency consider
“available information” concerning the cumulative effects of a
particular pesticide’s residues and “other substances that have a
common mechanism of toxicity.”  EPA does not have, at this time,
available data to determine whether methoxyfenozide has a common
mechanism of toxicity with other substances or how to include this
pesticide in a cumulative risk assessment.  Unlike other pesticides for
which EPA has followed a cumulative risk approach based on a common
mechanism of toxicity, methoxyfenozide does not appear to produce a
toxic metabolite produced by other substances.  For the purposes of this
tolerance action, therefore, it is assumed that methoxyfenozide does not
have a common mechanism of toxicity with other substances.]

E. Safety Determination

	1. U.S. population. [Using the DEEM exposure assumptions described in
this unit, Dow AgroSciences has concluded that the aggregate exposure to
methoxyfenozide from the current and proposed new tolerances will
utilize 26.8% of the chronic PAD for the U.S. population.  If potable
water is aggregated into the tier-I dietary exposure, at the maximum
residue level estimated by EPA’s PRZM/EXAMS model, (0.0331 ppm), the
aggregate exposure to the US-population is slightly increased to 27.5%
of the PAD.  EPA generally has no concern for exposures below 100% of
the chronic PAD because the chronic PAD represents the level at or below
which daily aggregate dietary exposure over a lifetime will not pose
appreciable risks to human health.  Despite the potential for exposure
to methoxyfenozide in drinking water, the aggregate exposure is not
expected to exceed 100% of the chronic PAD.  Dow AgroSciences concludes
that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to
U.S.-general population from aggregate exposure to methoxyfenozide
residues.]

	2. Infants and children. [In assessing the potential for additional
sensitivity of infants and children to residues of methoxyfenozide, EPA
considered data from developmental toxicity studies in the rat and
rabbit and a 2-generation reproduction study in the rat.  The
developmental toxicity studies are designed to evaluate adverse effects
on the developing organism resulting from maternal pesticide exposure
during gestation.  Reproduction studies provide information relating to
effects from exposure to the pesticide on the reproductive capability of
mating animals and data on systemic toxicity.

FFDCA section 408 provides that EPA shall apply an additional ten-fold
safety factor for infants and children in the case of threshold effects
to account for prenatal and postnatal toxicity and the completeness of
the database unless EPA determines that a different margin of safety
will be safe for infants and children.  Margins of safety are
incorporated into EPA risk assessments either directly through use of a
margin of exposure (MOE) analysis, or through using uncertainty (safety)
factors in calculating a dose level that poses no appreciable risk to
humans.  EPA believes that reliable data support using the standard
uncertainty factor (UF = 100 for combined interspecies and intraspecies
variability) and no additional safety factor is required for the
calculation of MOE for any of the population sub-groups.

The toxicology data base available for methoxyfenozide included
acceptable developmental toxicity studies in both rats and rabbits as
well as a 2-generation reproductive toxicity study in rats.  The data
provided no indication of increased sensitivity of rats or rabbits to in
utero and/or postnatal exposure to methoxyfenozide.  A complete toxicity
data base is available for methoxyfenozide and the exposure data are
complete or are estimated based on data/assumptions that reasonably
accounts for potential exposures.  Based on the completeness of the data
base and the lack of prenatal and postnatal toxicity, EPA determined
that an additional safety factor was not needed for the protection of
infants and children (FQPA SF = 1x).

Since no acute toxicological endpoints were established, the acute
aggregate risk is considered to be negligible.  Using the exposure
assumptions described above, Dow AgroSciences has concluded that chronic
dietary exposure to methoxyfenozide from the existing and proposed new
tolerances will utilize 68.4% of the cPAD for children 1-2 years.  If
exposure from drinking water is aggregated to the tier-I dietary
exposure, at the maximum residue level estimated by EPA’s PRZM/EXAMS
model, (0.0331 ppm), the aggregate exposure to children 1-6 is slightly
increased from 56.8 to 57.7 % PAD, and the highest exposed subpopulation
is children 1-2 years where the aggregate exposure is slightly increased
from 68.4 to 69.4 % of the cPAD.  EPA generally has no concern for
exposures below 100% of the cPAD because the cPAD represents the level
at or below which daily aggregate dietary exposure over a lifetime will
not pose appreciable risks to human health.  Despite the potential for
exposure to methoxyfenozide in drinking water, Dow AgroSciences does not
expect the aggregate exposure to exceed 100% of the cPAD.  Short and
intermediate term risks are judged to be negligible due to the lack of
significant toxicological effects observed.  Based on these risk
assessments, Dow AgroSciences concludes that there is a reasonable
certainty that no harm will result to infants and children from
aggregate exposure to methoxyfenozide exposure to methoxyfenozide
residues.]

F. International Tolerances

[There are several countries that have established tolerances/MRLs for
methoxyfenozide.  The most extensive list has been published by Codex
(25 food commodities).  Among others countries, Canada, Australia,
Brazil, United Kingdom, and several other European countries have MRLs
established for residues of methoxyfenozide.  By comparing them, it is
concluded that the MRLs established by different agencies are not
harmonized and are rather incompatible.  The differences may be
attributable to the use of diverse good agricultural practices (GAPs)
for efficacious pest control, different guidelines for conducting field
crop residue studies, and different calculation methods used to propose
tolerances.  Based on the current non-harmonized MRL situation, it is
not reasonable to conclude that the U.S. tolerance levels can be
harmonized with MRLs from other countries, and therefore the condition
of MRL incompatibility amongst differing countries, relative to
methoxyfenozide, will persist.]