 [Federal Register Volume 82, Number 159 (Friday, August 18, 2017)] [Rules and Regulations] [Pages 39351-39355] [FR Doc No: 2017-16359]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2016-9052; Product Identifier 2016-NM-080-AD; Amendment

39-18983; AD 2017-16-06]

RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of

Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all

Airbus Model A300 series airplanes; Model A300 B4-600, B4-600R, and F4-

600R series airplanes, and Model A300 C4-605R Variant F airplanes

(collectively called Model A300-600 series airplanes); and Model A310

series airplanes. This AD was prompted by reports of failure of an aft

hinge bolt assembly in the nose landing gear (NLG) aft doors. This AD

requires replacement of the aft hinge bolt assembly in the left and

right NLG aft doors, with new aft hinge bolt assemblies. We are issuing

this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: This AD is effective September 22, 2017.

    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by

reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of September 22,

2017.

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this final rule,

contact Airbus SAS, Airworthiness Office--EAW, 1 Rond Point Maurice

Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax

+33 5 61 93 44 51; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet

http://

www.airbus.com. You may view this referenced service information at the

FAA, Transport Standards Branch, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For

information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-

227-1221. It is also available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-

9052.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-

9052; 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 street address for the Docket Office (telephone

800-647-5527) is Docket 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: Dan Rodina, Aerospace Engineer,

International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 1601 Lind

Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax 425-227-

1149.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR

part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to all Airbus Model A300

series airplanes; Model A300 B4-600, B4-600R, and F4-600R series

airplanes, and Model A300 C4-605R Variant F airplanes (collectively

called Model A300-600 series airplanes); and Model A310 series

airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on August 30,

2016 (81 FR 59546) (``the NPRM''). The NPRM was prompted by reports of

failure of an aft hinge bolt assembly in the NLG aft doors. The NPRM

proposed to require replacement of the aft hinge bolt assembly in the

left and right NLG aft doors, with new aft hinge bolt assemblies. We

are issuing this AD to prevent failure of an aft hinge bolt assembly in

an NLG aft door while the airplane is in flight, which could lead to an

in-flight loss of an NLG aft door, and damage to the airplane.

    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical

Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD

2016-0100, dated May 24, 2016 (referred to after this as the Mandatory

Continuing Airworthiness Information, or ``the MCAI''), to correct an

unsafe condition for all Airbus Model A300 series airplanes; Model A300

B4-600, B4-600R, and F4-600R series airplanes, and Model A300 C4-605R

Variant F airplanes (collectively called Model A300-600 series

airplanes); and Model A310 series airplanes. The MCAI states:

    An occurrence has been reported of failure of a nose landing

gear (NLG) door aft hinge bolt assembly, Part Number (P/N)

A53612600000. The result of laboratory investigations revealed that

the aft hinge bolt rupture was initiated by fatigue crack

development in the under head radius of the bolt, due to the lack of

radius roll over and in combination with a non-optimised design.

    This condition, if not detected and corrected, could lead to in-

flight loss of an aft NLG door, possibly resulting in damage to the

aeroplane and injury to persons on the ground.

    Prompted by these findings, Airbus developed a new design aft

hinge bolt assembly P/N A53612713000, introduced as Airbus

modification (mod) 13741, to replace the existing bolt P/N

A53612600000. Since the introduction of that mod, additional stress

calculations demonstrated that the new bolt assembly, P/N

A53612713000, cannot sustain fatigue loads up to the design Limit of

Validity (LOV) of the affected aeroplanes.

    To address this potential unsafe condition, Airbus issued

Service Bulletin (SB) A300-53-0397, SB A310-53-2144 and SB A300-53-

6186, to provide instructions for the repetitive replacement of the

affected post-mod 13741 P/N A53612713000 aft hinge bolts.

    For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD requires the

replacement of all P/N A53612600000 aft hinge bolt assemblies,

installed on the left hand (LH) and right hand (RH) NLG aft doors,

with post-mod 13741 P/N A53612713000 aft hinge bolt assemblies, and,

subsequently, the implementation of a life limit for those new bolt

assemblies.

    You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-

9052.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing

this AD. The following presents the comments received on the NPRM and

the FAA's response to each comment.

Request To Withdraw the NPRM

    FedEx stated it does not agree that the proposed hinge bolt

replacement is necessary, asserting that the severity of a failed

condition does not equate to an unsafe condition on the airplane. FedEx

explained that in the last 22 years of flight operations, it has not

had a departure of the NLG door, nor has it seen any cracking of the

aft hinge bolt.

    From this statement, we infer that FedEx requested we withdraw the

NPRM. We disagree with this request. Airbus has records of multiple

instances of hinge bolt failures. Failure of an aft hinge bolt assembly

in an NLG aft door while the airplane is in flight could lead to an in-

flight loss of an NLG aft door, and damage to the airplane. We have not

changed this AD in this regard.

Request To Allow Option for Repetitive Inspections

    FedEx requested that a repetitive non-destructive test (NDT)

technique be allowed as an option to replacing the affected bolts.

FedEx stated that a routine NDT inspection would be best suited for

this condition and that the affected bolts should only be replaced as

an on-condition action. Further, FedEx stated that the proposed

requirement to replace all affected bolts will be a financial burden on

operators. FedEx also pointed out that the two bolts required for each

airplane are $2,300, and these bolts will be required to be replaced

every 10,000 flight cycles (approximately every 10 years). FedEx

further requested that the FAA petition the EASA to revise the Airbus

service information to permit the repetitive inspection as an option to

the required bolt replacement.

    We disagree with the commenter's request. The intent of this AD is

to regularly replace the affected hinge bolt with a new one. The bolt

loading and fatigue spectrum is complex, and the manufacturer is not

able to substantiate a fatigue life to support a repeat inspection

program. Therefore, we have made no changes to this AD in this regard.

However, under the provisions of paragraph (k)(1) of this AD, we will

consider requests for approval of an alternative method of compliance

(AMOC) if sufficient data are submitted to substantiate that the change

would provide an acceptable level of safety.

Request To Remove the Requirement To Replace Aft Hinge Bolts

    United Parcel Service (UPS) requested that we revise the proposed

AD to remove the requirement to replace aft hinge bolts. UPS contended

that the more appropriate method for implementation of the repetitive

10,000-flight-cycle replacement of the hinge bolt assembly would be

through a maintenance program revision, or incorporation into the Safe

Life Airworthiness Limitation Items (SL ALI)--Part 1. Therefore, UPS

recommended that we delete the proposed hinge bolt replacement, and

instead coordinate with EASA to revise the SL ALI to include the hinge

bolt assembly.

    We disagree with the commenter's request. Only parts that are

identified as a safe life part are incorporated into the SL ALI. The

specified hinge bolt does not meet the Airbus Airworthiness Limitations

Section (ALS) Part 1 criteria for a safe life part. The hinge bolt does

not have fatigue testing or demonstrated fatigue life analysis, which

is required for safe life parts. We have not changed this AD in this

regard.

Request To Combine Certain Service Information

    UPS requested that, if its request to revise the proposed AD to

remove the hinge assembly replacement is unacceptable to the FAA, we

revise paragraph (h)(3) of this proposed AD to require removal and

installation of a new bolt using only Airbus Service Bulletin A300-53-

6182 and not list Airbus Service Bulletin A300-53-6186. UPS explained

that the final result of the proposed AD is the replacement of the bolt

in every case; however, Airbus Service Bulletin A300-53-6186 specifies

doing an inspection of the bolt part number in addition to the

replacement and is an added burden to the operator given the location

of the identifying mark and the difficulty accessing that mark.

    We disagree with the commenter's request because paragraphs (g) and

(h) of this AD and the corresponding service information are necessary

to distinguish between two different actions with different compliance

times:

     Paragraph (g) of this AD and corresponding service

information for the introduction of the bolt's new design.

     Paragraph (h) of this AD and corresponding service

bulletin for regular bolt replacement, which includes an inspection for

verification if the proper bolt part number was installed.

    While it might be difficult for operators to identify the part

number of the bolt when it is installed on the aircraft, the bolt is

scheduled to be removed so it should not be difficult to verify that

the correct part was installed. We have not changed this AD in this

regard.

Request To Update Illustrated Parts Catalog (IPC) To Show the Post-

Modification Part Number

    UPS requested that the FAA coordinate with EASA and Airbus to

ensure that the IPC is updated to show only the post-modification part

number prior to the AD being issued. UPS was concerned that an outdated

IPC creates opportunities for installation of the original, non-

compliant bolt assembly.

    We infer that UPS was also requesting that we delay publication of

the final rule pending revision of the IPC. We disagree with this

request. Airbus has informed the FAA that the IPC is scheduled to be

revised. However, we do not consider that delaying this action until

after the release of the manufacturer's revised IPC is warranted, since

sufficient information currently exists in this AD and the required

service information to address the identified unsafe condition. We have

not changed this AD in this regard.

Clarification of Corrective Action

    We have clarified the corrective actions in the introductory text

of paragraph (h) of this AD by referring to paragraph (k)(2) of this

AD.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received,

and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting

this AD as proposed except for minor editorial changes. We have

determined that these minor changes:

     Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the

NPRM for correcting the unsafe condition; and

     Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was

already proposed in the NPRM.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    We reviewed the following Airbus service information.

     Airbus Service Bulletin A300-53-0396, dated November 25,

2015.

     Airbus Service Bulletin A300-53-6182, dated November 17,

2015.

     Airbus Service Bulletin A310-53-2142, dated November 17,

2015.

    This service information describes procedures for replacement of

the aft hinge bolt assemblies in the left and right NLG aft doors, with

new aft hinge bolt assemblies. These documents are distinct since they

apply to different airplane models and configurations.

    We also reviewed the following Airbus service information.

     Airbus Service Bulletin A300-53-0397, dated January 18,

2016.

     Airbus Service Bulletin A300-53-6186, dated January 18,

2016.

     Airbus Service Bulletin A310-53-2144, dated January 18,

2016.

    This service information describes procedures for replacement of

the aft hinge bolt assemblies in the left and right NLG aft doors, with

new aft hinge bolt assemblies. The replacement includes an inspection

to verify if the proper bolt part number was installed and repair if

the proper bolt part number was not installed. These documents are

distinct since they apply to different airplane models and

configurations.

    This service information is reasonably available because the

interested parties have access to it through their normal course of

business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 157 airplanes of U.S. registry.

    We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs

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

                                                                                Cost per      Cost on U.S.

               Action                         Labor cost            Parts cost        product        operators

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

Replacement........................  9 work-hours x $85 per hour          $2,000          $2,765        $434,105

                                      = $765.

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

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.

    This AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the

Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by

FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order, issuance of ADs is

normally a function of the Compliance and Airworthiness Division, but

during this transition period, the Executive Director has delegated the

authority to issue ADs applicable to transport category airplanes to

the Director of the System Oversight Division.

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 that 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);

    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 adding the following new airworthiness

directive (AD):

2017-16-06 Airbus: Amendment 39-18983; Docket No. FAA-2016-9052;

Product Identifier 2016-NM-080-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective September 22, 2017.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Airbus airplanes identified in paragraphs

(c)(1) through (c)(6) of this AD, certificated in any category, all

manufacturer serial numbers.

    (1) Model A300 B2-1A, B2-1C, B2K-3C, B2-203, B4-2C, B4-103, and

B4-203 airplanes.

    (2) Model A300 B4-601, B4-603, B4-620, and B4-622 airplanes.

    (3) Model A300 B4-605R and B4-622R airplanes.

    (4) Model A300 F4-605R and F4-622R airplanes.

    (5) Model A300 C4-605R Variant F airplanes.

    (6) Model A310-203, -204, -221, -222, -304, -322, -324, and -325

airplanes.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 53, Fuselage.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by reports of failure of an aft hinge bolt

assembly in the nose landing gear (NLG) aft doors. We are issuing

this AD to prevent failure of an aft hinge bolt assembly in an NLG

aft door while the airplane is in flight, which could lead to an in-

flight loss of an NLG aft door, and damage to the airplane.

(f) Compliance

    Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified,

unless already done.

(g) Replacement of Aft Hinge Bolt Assemblies Having Part Number (P/N)

A53612600000

    Before the accumulation of 10,000 total flight cycles since

first flight of the airplane, or within 2,000 flight cycles after

the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later: Replace each

aft hinge bolt assembly having P/N A53612600000 on the left and

right NLG aft doors, with a new hinge bolt assembly having P/N

A53612713000, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of

the applicable service information identified in paragraph (g)(1),

(g)(2), or (g)(3) of this AD.

    (1) Airbus Service Bulletin A300-53-0396, dated November 25,

2015.

    (2) Airbus Service Bulletin A310-53-2142, dated November 17,

2015.

    (3) Airbus Service Bulletin A300-53-6182, dated November 17,

2015.

(h) Replacement of Aft Hinge Bolt Assemblies Having P/N A53612713000

    Within 10,000 flight cycles after modification of an airplane as

required by paragraph (g) of this AD: Replace each aft hinge bolt

assembly having P/N A53612713000 on the left and right NLG aft

doors, with a new aft hinge bolt assembly having P/N A53612713000 on

the left and right NLG aft doors, in accordance with the

Accomplishment Instructions of the applicable service information

specified in paragraph (h)(1), (h)(2), or (h)(3) of this AD, except

where the service information specified in paragraph (h)(1), (h)(2),

or (h)(3) of this AD specifies to contact Airbus for instructions,

before further flight repair using the procedure in paragraph (k)(2)

of this AD. Repeat the replacement thereafter at intervals not to

exceed 10,000 flight cycles.

    (1) Airbus Service Bulletin A300-53-0397, dated January 18,

2016.

    (2) Airbus Service Bulletin A310-53-2144, dated January 18,

2016.

    (3) Airbus Service Bulletin A300-53-6186, dated January 18,

2016.

(i) Parts Installation Prohibition (P/N A53612600000)

    After modification of an airplane NLG aft door as required by

paragraph (g) of this AD, do not install an aft hinge bolt assembly

having P/N A53612600000 on any NLG aft door of that airplane.

(j) Parts Installation Limitation (P/N A53612713000)

    After removal of an aft hinge bolt assembly having P/N

A53612713000 from an airplane NLG aft door, as required by paragraph

(h) of this AD, do not install an aft hinge bolt assembly having

that part number on that airplane unless it is a new aft hinge bolt

assembly.

(k) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:

    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,

International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, has the

authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the

procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19,

send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight

Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information

directly to the International Section, send it to the attention of

the person identified in paragraph (l)(2) of this AD. Information

may be emailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Before using any

approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or

lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight

standards district office/certificate holding district office.

    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD

to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer, the action must be

accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, International

Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA; or the European Aviation

Safety Agency (EASA); or Airbus's EASA Design Organization Approval

(DOA). If approved by the DOA, the approval must include the DOA-

authorized signature.

    (3) Required for Compliance (RC): If any service information

contains procedures or tests that are identified as RC, those

procedures and tests must be done to comply with this AD; any

procedures or tests that are not identified as RC are recommended.

Those procedures and tests that are not identified as RC may be

deviated from using accepted methods in accordance with the

operator's maintenance or inspection program without obtaining

approval of an AMOC, provided the procedures and tests identified as

RC can be done and the airplane can be put back in

an airworthy condition. Any substitutions or changes to procedures

or tests identified as RC require approval of an AMOC.

(l) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information

(MCAI) EASA Airworthiness Directive 2016-0100, dated May 24, 2016,

for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on

the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and

locating Docket No. FAA-2016-9052.

    (2) For more information about this AD, contact Dan Rodina,

Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport Standards

Branch, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone

425-227-2125; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

(m) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the

incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed

in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.

    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do

the actions required by this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise.

    (i) Airbus Service Bulletin A300-53-0396, dated November 25,

2015.

    (ii) Airbus Service Bulletin A300-53-0397, dated January 18,

2016.

    (iii) Airbus Service Bulletin A300-53-6182, dated November 17,

2015.

    (iv) Airbus Service Bulletin A300-53-6186, dated January 18,

2016.

    (v) Airbus Service Bulletin A310-53-2142, dated November 17,

2015.

    (vi) Airbus Service Bulletin A310-53-2144, dated January 18,

2016.

    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact

Airbus SAS, Airworthiness Office--EAW, 1 Rond Point Maurice

Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96;

fax +33 5 61 93 44 51; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

Internet http://www.airbus.com.

    (4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport

Standards Branch, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information

on the availability of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    (5) You may view this 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/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on July 26, 2017.

Jeffrey E. Duven,

Director, System Oversight Division, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 2017-16359 Filed 8-17-17; 8:45 am]

 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


FROM:	David Randall, RTI International

TO:		Nick Parsons, EPA/OAQPS

FOR:		EPA Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0871

DATE:	January 17, 2012

SUBJECT:	Geodesic Dome Costs

1.	Purpose

This memorandum presents the data used to estimate costs of geodesic domes for storage vessels.

2.	Analysis

In 2001, the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) obtained cost information from three manufacturers of geodesic domes for storage vessels. The SCAQMD then used these costs to estimate costs for most of the storage vessels in the District that would be subject to proposed rule 1178. The resulting costs were plotted in Figure 6-1 of the final staff report for rule 1178.1 That figure was part of an embedded spreadsheet in the report. Table 1 presents an excerpt of costs from that spreadsheet for a range of storage vessel sizes. The SCAQMD final staff report also noted that one refiner estimated the cost of a geodesic dome for a storage vessel that has a 25-ft diameter; this cost is also presented in Table 1.

Table 1. Geodesic dome costs estimated by SCAQMD in 2001

Tank diameter (ft)	Estimated total capital investment of geodesic domes based on data from a petroleum refiner and dome manufacturers (2001 dollars)

	Refiner	Temcor	Conservatek	Ultraflote	Average

25	19,700

19,700

59.4

67,600	61,560	52,138	60,400

80

102,900	90,720	81,344	91,700

98

131,800	109,080	113,957	118,300

120

185,000	162,000	153,360	166,800

150

248,000	246,240	243,000	245,700

201.5

455,000	438,480	429,482	441,000

230

525,000	583,200	570,240	559,500

We escalated the costs in Table 1 to 2010 dollars using the Chemical Engineering Plant Cost Annual Indexes. The indexes are 394.3 for 2001 and 550.8 for 2010.2,3 The escalated costs are presented in Table 2. We then developed an equation for the best-fit line through the average values as shown in Figure 1.

Table 2. Estimated geodesic dome costs in 2010

Tank diameter (ft)	Estimated total capital investment of geodesic domes (2010 dollars)

	Refiner	Temcor	Conservatek	Ultraflote	Average

25	27,519

27,519

59.4

94,431	85,994	72,832	84,400

80

143,742	126,727	113,630	128,000

98

184,112	152,374	159,187	165,200

120

258,428	226,299	214,229	233,000

150

346,433	343,974	339,448	343,300

201.5

635,592	612,515	599,946	616,000

230

733,376	814,676	796,572	781,500

Figure 1. Plot of geodesic dome costs versus storage vessel diameter

3.	References

1.	South Coast Air Quality Management District. 2001. Further Reductions of VOC Emissions From Storage Tanks at Petroleum Facilities. Final Staff Report Proposed Rule 1178. December 11, 2001. Retrieved from: http://www.aqmd.gov/hb/2001/011233a.html. Last accessed in November 2011.

2.	Economic Indicators. Chemical Engineering Plant Cost Index (CEPCI). Chemical Engineering. Published by Access Intelligence. April 2011.

3.	Economic Indicators. Chemical Engineering Plant Cost Index (CEPCI). Chemical Engineering. Published by Access Intelligence. April 2004.

  PAGE   \* MERGEFORMAT  2


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 134 (Wednesday, July 13, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 41246-41247]
[FR Doc No: 2011-17619]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

 [EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0191; FRL-8880-9]

Pesticide Program Dialogue Committee, Pesticide Registration
Improvement Act Process Improvement Workgroup; Notice of Public Meeting

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Pesticide Program Dialogue Committee (PPDC) provides a
forum for a diverse group of stake holders to provide advice to the
pesticide program on various pesticide regulatory, policy, and program
implementation issues. In meeting its Federal Insecticide, Fungicide,
and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and Endangered Species Act (ESA)
obligations, EPA continues to seek advice from the PPDC and its
workgroup, the Pesticide Registration Improvement Act (PRIA) Process
Improvement Work Group. EPA plans to meet its ESA consultation
obligations through the pesticide registration review program. EPA
seeks input on improving the current process for stake holder input on
endangered species' consultations, such as when and where stake holders
should provide information regarding a pesticide during the
registration review process. This meeting of the PRIA Process
Improvement Work Group continues the dialogue between EPA and
interested stake holders on improving opportunities for stake holder
involvement on endangered species' consultations. The agenda will be
available on the Web at http://www.epa.gov/oppfead1/cb/ppdc/pria/index.html.

DATES: The meeting will be held on July 27, 2011 from 9 a.m. to 12 p.m.
    Requests to participate in the meeting must be received on or
before July 22, 2011.
    To request accommodation of a disability, please contact the person
listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATON CONTACT, preferably at least 10
days prior to the meeting, to give EPA as much time as possible to
process your request.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at Room 12100, One Potomac Yard
(South Building), 2777 S. Crystal Drive, Arlington, VA.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elizabeth Leovey, Immediate Office,
Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:
(703) 305-7328; fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    You may be potentially affected by this action if you are concerned
about the re-evaluation of registered pesticides and the information
used to assess risks to endangered species under FIFRA, and the Federal
Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA). Other potentially affected
entities may include but are not limited to:
     Crop production (NAICS code 111).
     Animal production (NAICS code 112).
     Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
     Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532), agricultural
workers and farmers; pesticide industry trade associations;
environmental, consumer and farmworker groups; pesticide users and
growers; pest consultants; State, local and Tribal governments;
academia;

public health organizations; and the public. Since other entities may
also be interested, the Agency has not attempted to describe all
specific entities that may be affected by this action.
    This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides
a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this
action. Other types of entities not listed in this unit could also be
affected. The North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS)
codes have been provided to assist you and others in determining
whether this action might apply to certain entities. If you have any
questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular
entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT.

B. How can I get copies of this document and other related information?

    EPA has established a docket for this action under docket ID number
EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0191. Publicly available docket materials are available
either in the electronic docket at http://www.regulations.gov, or, if
only available in hard copy, at the Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP)
Regulatory Public Docket in Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South Bldg.),
2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. The hours of operation of this
Docket Facility are from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday,
excluding legal holidays. The Docket Facility telephone number is (703)
305-5805.

II. Background

    The Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) is entrusted with the
responsibility of ensuring the safety of the American food supply,
protection and education of those who apply or are exposed to
pesticides occupationally or through use of products, and the general
protection of the environment and special ecosystems from potential
risks posed by pesticides. The PPDC was established under the Federal
Advisory Committee Act (FACA), Public Law 92-463, in September 1995 for
a 2 year-term and has been renewed every 2 years since that time. The
PPDC provides advice and recommendations to OPP on a broad range of
pesticide regulatory, policy, and program implementation issues that
are associated with evaluating and reducing risks from the use of
pesticides. The following sectors are represented on the PPDC:
Pesticide industry and trade associations; environmental/public
interest and consumer groups; farm worker organizations; pesticide
user, grower and commodity groups; Federal and State/local/Tribal
governments; the general public; academia; and public health
organizations. Copies of the PPDC charter are filed with appropriate
committees of Congress and the Library of Congress and are available
upon request. Copies of the minutes of past meetings of this workgroup
are available on the internet at http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/ppdc/pria/index.html.

III. How can I request to participate in this meeting?

    You may submit a request to participate in this meeting to the
person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. Do not submit any
information in your request that is considered CBI. Requests to
participate in the meeting, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-
2007-0191, must be received on or before July 22, 2011.

List of Subjects

    Environmental protection, Agriculture, Chemicals, Endangered
species, Foods, Pesticide Registration, Pesticide labels, Pesticides
and pests.

    Dated: July 6, 2011.
Steven Bradbury,
Director, Office of Pesticide Programs.
[FR Doc. 2011-17619 Filed 7-12-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 182 (Wednesday, September 19, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 58126-58127]
[FR Doc No: 2012-23031]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP12-1021-000]

Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC; Notice of Offer of Settlement

    Take notice that on September 4, 2012, Columbia Gas Transmission,
LLC (Columbia) filed a Stipulation and Agreement (Settlement),
including pro forma tariff records, pursuant to 18 CFR 385.602 (2012)
to reduce its base rates for transportation service and address
numerous complex issues arising out of recent and anticipated changes
in pipeline safety requirements, Columbia's dedication to pipeline
safety and reliability of service, and the aging nature of Columbia's
system.
    Columbia states that the settlement provides for the implementation
of a new Capital Cost Recovery Mechanism (CCRM), which will allow
Columbia to recover, through an additive capital demand rate, its
revenue requirement for capital investments made under Columbia's long-
term plan to modernize its interstate transmission system. The
Settlement also establishes: (1) Revised transmission depreciation and
negative salvage rates effective January 1, 2012 through December 31,
2024; (2) a revenue sharing mechanism pursuant to which Columbia will
share 75% of specified revenues earned in excess of an annual
threshold; (3) a moratorium through January 31, 2018 on changes to
Columbia's reduced transportation base rates pursuant to the
Stipulation; (4) a commitment from Columbia that it will file a general
Natural Gas Act (NGA) Section 4(e) rate application to be effective no
later than February 1, 2019; and (5) additional shipper-requested
terms, all as described more fully in the Settlement filing.
    Columbia states that it has served copies of this filing on all
affected customers and interested state commissions. Columbia
respectfully requests that the Commission issue an order approving the
settlement no later than December 1, 2012.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214 (2012)) by the date
set forth below. Protests will be considered by the Commission in
determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to
make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to
become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to
intervene, as appropriate. Such notices or motions must be filed on or
before the dates as indicated below. Anyone filing an intervention or
protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant. Anyone
filing an intervention or protest on or before the intervention or
protest date set below need not serve motions to intervene or protests
on persons other than the Applicant. Pursuant to Rule 602(f)(2) of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.602(f)(2)
(2012), initial comments

on the Settlement are due not later than 20 days after the filing of
the Settlement, and reply comments are due not later than 30 days after
the filing of the Settlement.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission interventions and
comments in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov,
using the ``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the
Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an
``eSubscription'' link on the web site that enables subscribers to
receive email notification when a document is added to a subscribed
docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Interventions and Comments are due by: September 24, 2012.
    Reply Comments are due by: October 4, 2012.

    Dated: September 11, 2012.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-23031 Filed 9-18-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 214 (Thursday, November 5, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 68440-68442]
[FR Doc No: 2015-28124]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2015-1138; Airspace Docket No. 15-AWP-3]

Amendment of Class D and Class E Airspace; Van Nuys, CA

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action amends Class D airspace and Class E surface area
airspace at Van Nuys Airport, Van Nuys, CA, to accommodate standard
instrument approach procedures for the airport. The geographic
coordinates of the satellite airports also would be adjusted for Class
D airspace and Class E surface area airspace as well as noting a name
change for Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport. This action enhances the
safety and management of Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) operations at
the airport.

DATES: Effective 0901 UTC, February 4, 2016. The Director of the
Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under
Title 1, Code of Federal Regulations, part 51, subject to the annual
revision of FAA Order 7400.9 and publication of conforming amendments.

ADDRESSES: FAA Order 7400.9Z, Airspace Designations and Reporting
Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. For further information, you can
contact the Airspace Policy and ATC Regulations Group, Federal Aviation
Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC, 29591;
telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>. The Order is also available for inspection at
the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For
information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-
6030, or go to http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal-regulations/ibr_locations.html.
    FAA Order 7400.9, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is
published yearly and effective on September 15.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

History

    On August 19, 2015, the FAA published in the Federal Register a
notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to modify Class D airspace and
Class E surface area airspace at Van Nuys Airport, Van Nuys, CA (80 FR
50235). Interested parties were invited to participate in this
rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal to the
FAA. No comments were received.
    Class D and Class E airspace designations are published in
paragraph 5000 and 6002, respectively, of FAA Order 7400.9Z, dated
August 6, 2015, and effective September 15, 2015, which is incorporated
by reference in 14 CFR part 71.1. The Class D and Class E airspace
designation listed in this document will be published subsequently in
the Order.

Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

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

The Rule

    This amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR)
part 71 amends Class D airspace and Class E surface area airspace at
Van Nuys Airport, Van Nuys, CA. A review of the airspace revealed
additional Class D airspace and Class E surface area airspace necessary
to support instrument arrival procedures at the airport. Class D
airspace extends upward from the surface to but not including 3,000
feet within a 4.3-mile radius of Van Nuys Airport excluding that
airspace within the Bob Hope Airport, Burbank, CA, formerly Burbank-
Glendale-Pasadena Airport, CA, Class C airspace area, and excluding
that airspace within a 1.8-mile radius of Whiteman Airport, Los
Angeles, CA. Class E surface area airspace extends upward from the
surface within a 4.3-mile radius of Van Nuys Airport excluding that
airspace within the Bob Hope Airport, Burbank, CA, formerly Burbank-
Glendale-Pasadena Airport, CA, Class C airspace area, and excluding
that airspace within a 1.8-mile radius of Whiteman Airport, Los
Angeles, CA. The geographic coordinates for Bob Hope Airport and
Whiteman Airport are adjusted to be in concert with the FAA's
aeronautical data base.

Regulatory Notices and Analyses

    The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
It, therefore: (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979);
and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the
anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that
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.

Environmental Review

    The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical
exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance
with FAA Order 1050.1F, ``Environmental Impacts: Policies and
Procedures,'' paragraph 311a. This airspace action is not expected to
cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no
extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an
environmental assessment.

Lists of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (Air).

Adoption of the Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

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

0
1. The authority citation for Part 71 continues to read as follows:

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

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.9Z,
Airspace Designations and Reporting

Points, dated August 6, 2015, and effective September 15, 2015, is
amended as follows:

Paragraph 5000 Class D Airspace

* * * * *

AWP CA D Van Nuys, CA [Modified]

Van Nuys, Van Nuys Airport, CA
    (Lat. 34[deg]12'35'' N., long. 118[deg]29'24'' W.)
Burbank, Bob Hope Airport, CA
    (Lat. 34[deg]12'03'' N., long. 118[deg]21'31'' W.)
Los Angeles, Whiteman Airport, CA
    (Lat. 34[deg]15'34'' N., long. 118[deg]24'48'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from the surface to but not
including 3,000 feet MSL within a 4.3-mile radius of Van Nuys
Airport, excluding that airspace within the Bob Hope Airport, CA,
Class C airspace area, and excluding that airspace within a 1.8-mile
radius of Whiteman Airport, CA. This Class D airspace area is
effective during the specific dates and times established in advance
by a Notice to Airmen. The effective date and time will thereafter
be continuously published in the Airport/Facility Directory.

Paragraph 6002 Class E Airspace Designated as Surface Areas.

* * * * *

AWP CA E2 Van Nuys, CA [Modified]

Van Nuys, Van Nuys Airport, CA
    (Lat. 34[deg]12'35'' N., long. 118[deg]29'24'' W.)
Burbank, Bob Hope Airport, CA
    (Lat. 34[deg]12'03'' N., long. 118[deg]21'31'' W.)
Los Angeles, Whiteman Airport, CA
    (Lat. 34[deg]15'34'' N., long. 118[deg]24'48'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from the surface within a 4.3-
mile radius of Van Nuys Airport, excluding that airspace within the
Bob Hope Airport, CA, Class C airspace area, and excluding that
airspace within a 1.8-mile radius of Whiteman Airport, CA.

    Issued in Seattle, Washington, on October 27, 2015.
Tracey Johnson,
Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2015-28124 Filed 11-4-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 245 (Wednesday, December 22, 2010)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 80346-80350]
[FR Doc No: 2010-32147]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0775; FRL-8855-7]

Flutolanil; Pesticide Tolerances

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes tolerances for residues of
flutolanil in or on Brassica leafy vegetable group 5 and turnip greens.
The Interregional Research Project Number 4 requested these tolerances
under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).

DATES: This regulation is effective December 22, 2010. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received on or before February 22, 2011,
and must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40
CFR part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION).

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under docket
identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0775. All documents in the
docket are listed in the docket index available at http://www.regulations.gov. Although listed in the index, some information is
not publicly available, e.g., Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain
other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the
Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form.
Publicly available docket materials are available in the electronic
docket at http://www.regulations.gov, or, if only available in hard
copy, at the OPP Regulatory Public Docket in Rm. S-

4400, One Potomac Yard (South Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington,
VA. The Docket Facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday
through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The Docket Facility telephone
number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

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

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an
agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer.
Potentially affected entities may include, but are not limited to those
engaged in the following activities:
     Crop production (NAICS code 111).
     Animal production (NAICS code 112).
     Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
     Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).
    This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather to
provide a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by
this action. Other types of entities not listed in this unit could also
be affected. The North American Industrial Classification System
(NAICS) codes have been provided to assist you and others in
determining whether this action might apply to certain entities. If you
have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a
particular entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT.

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

    You may access a frequently updated electronic version of EPA's
tolerance regulations at 40 CFR part 180 through the Government
Printing Office's e-CFR site at http://www.gpoaccess.gov/ecfr. You may
access Harmonized Guidelines referenced in this document at http://www.epa.gov/ocspp/pubs/frs/home/guideline.htm.

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

    Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an
objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a
hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a
hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided
in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify
docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0775 in the subject line on the first
page of your submission. All objections and requests for a hearing must
be in writing, and must be received by the Hearing Clerk on or before
February 22, 2011. Addresses for mail and hand delivery of objections
and hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b).
    In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the
Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of
the filing that does not contain any CBI for inclusion in the public
docket. Information not marked confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2
may be disclosed publicly by EPA without prior notice. Submit a copy of
your non-CBI objection or hearing request, identified by docket ID
number EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0775, by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
     Mail: Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) Regulatory Public
Docket (7502P), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001.
     Delivery: OPP Regulatory Public Docket (7502P),
Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South
Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. Deliveries are only
accepted during the Docket Facility's normal hours of operation (8:30
a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays).
Special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed
information. The Docket Facility telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

II. Summary of Petitioned-For Tolerance

    In the Federal Register of January 6, 2010 (75 FR 864) (FRL-8801-
5), EPA issued a notice pursuant to section 408(d)(3) of FFDCA, 21
U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a pesticide petition (PP
9E7612) by the Interregional Research Project No. 4 (IR-4), 500 College
Road East, Suite 201W, Princeton, NJ 08540. The petition requested that
40 CFR 180.484 be amended by establishing tolerances for residues of
the fungicide flutolanil, N-(3-(1-methylethoxy)phenyl)-2-
(trifluoromethyl)benzamide and its metabolites converted to 2-
(trifluoromethyl) benzoic acid and calculated as flutolanil, in or on
ginseng at 3.5 parts per million (ppm); vegetable, Brassica, leafy,
group 5 at 0.11 ppm; and turnip, greens at 0.11 ppm. That notice
referenced a summary of the petition prepared by Gowan Company, the
registrant, which is available in the docket, http://www.regulations.gov. There were no comments received in response to the
notice of filing.
    IR-4 later withdrew their request to establish a tolerance on
ginseng. Also, EPA has revised the tolerance levels proposed by IR-4.
The reasons for these changes are explained in Unit IV.C.

III. Aggregate Risk Assessment and Determination of Safety

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

A. Toxicological Profile

    EPA has evaluated the available toxicity data and considered its
validity, completeness, and reliability as well as the relationship of
the results of the studies to human risk. EPA has also considered
available information concerning the variability of the sensitivities
of major identifiable subgroups of consumers, including infants and
children. The toxicology studies conducted on flutolanil demonstrate
few or no biologically significant toxic effects. Liver effects in

rats included increases in absolute and relative liver weight in the
absence of clinical chemistry and/or histopathology findings. In dogs,
there was an elevation in alkaline phosphatase and cholesterol levels
together with dose-related increases in absolute and relative liver
weights, slightly enlarged livers, and an increase in severity of
glycogen deposition. The increased liver weights are considered to be
an adaptive response to flutolanil treatment and not an adverse effect.
Based on the lack of evidence of carcinogenicity and the lack of
evidence of mutagenicity, flutolanil is classified as ``not likely to
be carcinogenic to humans.''
    Flutolanil is not neurotoxic, and it is not a developmental or
reproductive toxicant. No maternal, reproductive, or developmental
toxicity was observed at the limit dose. There was no evidence for
increased susceptibility of rat or rabbit fetuses to in utero exposure
or rat pups to pre- and post-natal exposure to flutolanil. No toxic
effects were observed in studies in which flutolanil was administered
by the dermal route of exposure at the limit dose.
    Specific information on the studies received and the nature of the
adverse effects caused by flutolanil as well as the no-observed-
adverse-effect-level (NOAEL) and the lowest-observed-adverse-effect-
level (LOAEL) from the toxicity studies can be found at http://www.regulations.gov in docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0775 in the
document titled ``Flutolanil: Human Health Risk Assessment for
Flutolanil on Brassica Leafy Vegetables (Crop Group 5) and Turnip
Greens'' on pages 27-30.

B. Toxicological Points of Departure/Levels of Concern

    Once a pesticide's toxicological profile is determined, EPA
identifies toxicological points of departure (POD) and levels of
concern to use in evaluating the risk posed by human exposure to the
pesticide. For hazards that have a threshold below which there is no
appreciable risk, the toxicological POD is used as the basis for
derivation of reference values for risk assessment. PODs are developed
based on a careful analysis of the doses in each toxicological study to
determine the dose at which no adverse effects are observed (the NOAEL)
and the lowest dose at which adverse effects of concern are identified
(the LOAEL). Uncertainty/safety factors are used in conjunction with
the POD to calculate a safe exposure level--generally referred to as a
population-adjusted dose (PAD) or a reference dose (RfD)--and a safe
margin of exposure (MOE). For non-threshold risks, the Agency assumes
that any amount of exposure will lead to some degree of risk. Thus, the
Agency estimates risk in terms of the probability of an occurrence of
the adverse effect expected in a lifetime. For more information on the
general principles EPA uses in risk characterization and a complete
description of the risk assessment process, see http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/factsheets/riskassess.htm.
    A summary of the toxicological endpoints for flutolanil used for
human risk assessment is discussed in Unit III.B., of the final rule
published in the Federal Register of June 11, 2008 (73 FR 33013) (FRL-
8365-6).

C. Exposure Assessment

    1. Dietary exposure from food and feed uses. In evaluating dietary
exposure to flutolanil, EPA considered exposure under the petitioned-
for tolerances as well as all existing flutolanil tolerances in 40 CFR
180.484. EPA assessed dietary exposures from flutolanil in food as
follows:
    i. Acute exposure. Quantitative acute dietary exposure and risk
assessments are performed for a food-use pesticide, if a toxicological
study has indicated the possibility of an effect of concern occurring
as a result of a 1-day or single exposure.
    No such effects were identified in the toxicological studies for
flutolanil; therefore, a quantitative acute dietary exposure assessment
is unnecessary.
    ii. Chronic exposure. In conducting the chronic dietary exposure
assessment EPA used the food consumption data from the U.S. Department
of Agriculture (USDA) 1994-1996 and 1998 Continuing Survey of Food
Intake by Individuals (CSFII). As to residue levels in food, the
chronic dietary analysis included tolerance level residues, 100% crop
treated estimates and default processing factors.
    iii. Cancer. Based on the data summarized in Unit III.A., EPA has
concluded that flutolanil does not pose a cancer risk to humans.
Therefore, a dietary exposure assessment for the purpose of assessing
cancer risk is unnecessary.
    iv. Anticipated residue and percent crop treated (PCT) information.
EPA did not use anticipated residue and/or PCT information in the
dietary assessment for flutolanil. Tolerance level residues and/or 100%
CT were assumed for all food commodities.
    2. Dietary exposure from drinking water. The Agency used screening
level water exposure models in the dietary exposure analysis and risk
assessment for flutolanil in drinking water. These simulation models
take into account data on the physical, chemical, and fate/transport
characteristics of flutolanil. Further information regarding EPA
drinking water models used in pesticide exposure assessment can be
found at http://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/models/water/index.htm.
    Based on the Pesticide Root Zone Model and Exposure Analysis
Modeling System (PRZM-EXAMs) and Screening Concentration in Ground
Water (SCI-GROW) models, the estimated drinking water concentrations
(EDWCs) of flutolanil for chronic exposures are estimated to be 8.5
parts per billion (ppb) for surface water and 0.7 ppb for ground water.
    Modeled estimates of drinking water concentrations were directly
entered into the dietary exposure model. For chronic dietary risk
assessment, the water concentration of value 8.5 ppb was used to assess
the contribution to drinking water.
    3. From non-dietary exposure. The term ``residential exposure'' is
used in this document to refer to non-occupational, non-dietary
exposure (e.g., for lawn and garden pest control, indoor pest control,
termiticides, and flea and tick control on pets). Flutolanil is
currently registered for the following uses that could result in
residential exposures: Turf grass and ornamental plants. Although there
is a potential for residential (non-occupational) exposure, a
quantitative exposure assessment was not conducted since no
toxicological endpoint attributable to acute, short-term or
intermediate-term exposure have been identified and the current use
pattern does not indicate chronic or long-term exposure (6 or more
months of continuous exposure) potential. Further information regarding
EPA standard assumptions and generic inputs for residential exposures
may be found at http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/trac/science/trac6a05.pdf.
    4. Cumulative effects from substances with a common mechanism of
toxicity. Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of FFDCA requires that, when
considering whether to establish, modify, or revoke a tolerance, the
Agency consider ``available information'' concerning the cumulative
effects of a particular pesticide's residues and ``other substances
that have a common mechanism of toxicity.''
    EPA has not found flutolanil to share a common mechanism of
toxicity with any other substances, and flutolanil does not appear to
produce a toxic metabolite produced by other substances. For the
purposes of this tolerance action, therefore, EPA has

assumed that flutolanil does not have a common mechanism of toxicity
with other substances. For information regarding EPA's efforts to
determine which chemicals have a common mechanism of toxicity and to
evaluate the cumulative effects of such chemicals, see EPA's website at
http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/cumulative.

D. Safety Factor for Infants and Children

    1. In general. Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA provides that EPA
shall apply an additional tenfold (10X) margin of safety for infants
and children in the case of threshold effects to account for prenatal
and postnatal toxicity and the completeness of the database on toxicity
and exposure unless EPA determines based on reliable data that a
different margin of safety will be safe for infants and children. This
additional margin of safety is commonly referred to as the FQPA Safety
Factor (SF). In applying this provision, EPA either retains the default
value of 10X, or uses a different additional safety factor when
reliable data available to EPA support the choice of a different
factor.
    2. Prenatal and postnatal sensitivity. There was no evidence of
increased susceptibility of rat or rabbit fetuses to in utero exposure
or rat pups to prenatal and postnatal exposure to flutolanil.
Flutolanil is not a developmental or reproductive toxicant. No
maternal, reproductive, or developmental toxicity was observed at the
limit dose.
    3. Conclusion. EPA has determined that reliable data show the
safety of infants and children would be adequately protected if the
FQPA SF were reduced to 1X. That decision is based on the following
findings:
    i. The toxicity database for flutolanil is complete except for
acute and subchronic neurotoxicity and immunotoxicity studies. Recent
changes to 40 CFR part 158 make acute and subchronic neurotoxicity
testing (OPPTS Test Guideline 870.6200), and immunotoxicity testing
(OPPTS Test Guideline 870.7800) required for pesticide registration.
However, the available data for flutolanil do not suggest that the
compound produces hematological or thymus/spleen organ effects
indicative of immunotoxicity. Further, there is no evidence of
neurotoxicity in any study in the toxicity database for flutolanil.
Therefore, EPA does not believe that conducting neurotoxicity and
immunotoxicity studies will result in a lower POD than currently used
for overall risk assessment. Consequently, an additional database
uncertainty factor (UF) does not need to be applied.
    ii. There is no indication that flutolanil is a neurotoxic chemical
and there is no need for a developmental neurotoxicity study or
additional UFs to account for neurotoxicity.
    iii. There is no evidence that flutolanil exposure results in
increased susceptibility in in utero rats or rabbits in the prenatal
developmental studies or in young rats in the 2-generation reproduction
study.
    iv. There are no residual uncertainties identified in the exposure
databases. The dietary food exposure assessments were performed based
on 100% CT and tolerance-level residues. EPA made conservative
(protective) assumptions in the ground and surface water modeling used
to assess exposure to flutolanil in drinking water. Residential
exposure does not pose a concern for flutolanil because (1) chronic
residential exposure is not expected; and (2) although short-term or
intermediate-term residential exposure may occur, no relevant adverse
effects were identified for dermal or incidental oral or inhalation
exposure related to residential use. These assessments will not
underestimate the exposure and risks posed by flutolanil.

E. Aggregate Risks and Determination of Safety

    EPA determines whether acute and chronic dietary pesticide
exposures are safe by comparing aggregate exposure estimates to the
acute PAD (aPAD) and chronic PAD (cPAD). For linear cancer risks, EPA
calculates the lifetime probability of acquiring cancer given the
estimated aggregate exposure. Short-, intermediate-, and chronic-term
risks are evaluated by comparing the estimated aggregate food, water,
and residential exposure to the appropriate PODs to ensure that an
adequate MOE exists.
    1. Acute risk. An acute aggregate risk assessment takes into
account acute exposure estimates from dietary consumption of food and
drinking water. No adverse effect resulting from a single oral exposure
was identified and no acute dietary endpoint was selected. Therefore,
flutolanil is not expected to pose an acute risk.
    2. Chronic risk. Using the exposure assumptions described in this
unit for chronic exposure, EPA has concluded that chronic exposure to
flutolanil from food and water will utilize 1.5% of the cPAD for
children 1 to 2 years old, the population group receiving the greatest
exposure. Based on the explanation in Unit III.C.3., regarding
residential use patterns, chronic residential exposure to residues of
flutolanil is not expected.
    3. Short- and intermediate-term risk. Short- and intermediate-term
aggregate exposure takes into account short- and intermediate-term
residential exposure plus chronic exposure to food and water
(considered to be a background exposure level). Because no short- and/
or intermediate-term adverse effects were identified, flutolanil is not
expected to pose a short- or intermediate-term risk.
    4. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. population. Based on the lack of
evidence of carcinogenicity in two adequate rodent carcinogenicity
studies, flutolanil is not expected to pose a cancer risk to humans.
    5. Determination of safety. Based on these risk assessments, EPA
concludes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result
to the general population or to infants and children from aggregate
exposure to flutolanil residues.

IV. Other Considerations

A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    An adequate enforcement methodology, (Method AU/95R/04), a common
moiety Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry (GC/MS) method which
determines residues of flutolanil and metabolites as 2-trifluoromethyl
benzoic acid (2-TFBA) is available for enforcement.
    The method may be requested from: Chief, Analytical Chemistry
Branch, Environmental Science Center, 701 Mapes Rd., Ft. Meade, MD
20755-5350; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
B. International Residue Limits

    In making its tolerance decisions, EPA seeks to harmonize U.S.
tolerances with international standards whenever possible, consistent
with U.S. food safety standards and agricultural practices. EPA
considers the international maximum residue limits (MRLs) established
by the Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex), as required by FFDCA
section 408(b)(4). The Codex Alimentarius is a joint U.N. Food and
Agriculture Organization/World Health Organization food standards
program, and it is recognized as an international food safety
standards-setting organization in trade agreements to which the United
States is a party. EPA may establish a tolerance that is different from
a Codex MRL; however, FFDCA section 408(b)(4) requires that EPA explain
the reasons for departing from the Codex level. No Canadian, Mexican or
Codex MRLs have been established for Brassica leafy vegetables and/or
turnip greens.

C. Revisions to Petitioned-For Tolerances

    The proposed tolerance level of 0.11 ppm for both Brassica leafy
vegetable group 5 and turnip greens has been revised to 0.1 ppm. The
level of 0.1 ppm is based on the sum of the demonstrated levels of
quantitation of flutolanil and metabolite M4, each 0.05 ppm. The
proposed tolerance of 0.11 ppm is based on one mustard green trial (of
10 trials) where flutolanil was quantitated at 0.05 to 0.06 ppm, and M4
was approximately 0.03 ppm. Because total residues were < 0.1 ppm, EPA
is setting the tolerance level at 0.1 ppm.

V. Conclusion

    Therefore, tolerances are established for residues of flutolanil,
N-(3-(1-methylethoxy)phenyl)-2-(trifluoromethyl)benzamide, including
its metabolites and degradates, in or on vegetable, brassica, leafy
group 5 at 0.1 ppm, and turnip greens at 0.1 ppm.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This final rule establishes tolerances under section 408(d) of
FFDCA in response to a petition submitted to the Agency. The Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these types of actions from
review under Executive Order 12866, entitled Regulatory Planning and
Review (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Because this final rule has been
exempted from review under Executive Order 12866, this final rule is
not subject to Executive Order 13211, entitled Actions Concerning
Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or
Use (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) or Executive Order 13045, entitled
Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
(62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). This final rule does not contain any
information collections subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork
Reduction Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., nor does it require any
special considerations under Executive Order 12898, entitled Federal
Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and
Low-Income Populations (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    Since tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis
of a petition under section 408(d) of FFDCA, such as the tolerance in
this final rule, do not require the issuance of a proposed rule, the
requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et
seq.) do not apply.
    This final rule directly regulates growers, food processors, food
handlers, and food retailers, not States or tribes, nor does this
action alter the relationships or distribution of power and
responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions
of section 408(n)(4) of FFDCA. As such, the Agency has determined that
this action will not have a substantial direct effect on States or
tribal governments, on the relationship between the national government
and the States or tribal governments, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government or between
the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Thus, the Agency has
determined that Executive Order 13132, entitled Federalism (64 FR
43255, August 10, 1999) and Executive Order 13175, entitled
Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments (65 FR
67249, November 9, 2000) do not apply to this final rule. In addition,
this final rule does not impose any enforceable duty or contain any
unfunded mandate as described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (Pub. L. 104-4).
    This action does not involve any technical standards that would
require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant
to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272
note).

VII. Congressional Review Act

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report to each House of the Congress and to
the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report
containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate,
the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the
United States prior to publication of this final rule in the Federal
Register. This final rule is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5
U.S.C. 804(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180

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

    Dated: December 10, 2010.
Daniel J. Rosenblatt,
Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.

0
Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:

PART 180--[AMENDED]

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

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

0
2. Section 180.484 is amended by alphabetically adding the following
commodities to the table in paragraph (a) to read as follows:

Sec.  180.484  Flutolanil; tolerances for residues.

    (a) General. * * *

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Parts per
                        Commodity                             million
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                * * * * *
Turnip, greens..........................................             0.1
Vegetable, brassica, leafy, group 5.....................             0.1
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2010-32147 Filed 12-21-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P