72585 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 235 / Friday, December 6, 2002 / Rules and Regulations 3. Section 63.1344 is amended by revising paragraph ( a)( 3) to read as follows:

§ 63.1344 Operating limits for kilns and inline kiln/ raw mills.

( a) * * * ( 3) If the in line kiln/ raw mill is equipped with an alkali bypass, the applicable temperature limit for the alkali bypass specified in paragraph ( b) of this section and established during the performance test, with or without the raw mill operating, is not exceeded. * * * * * 4. Section 63.1349 is amended by adding new paragraph ( e)( 3) to read as follows:

§ 63.1349 Performance testing requirements.

* * * * * ( e) * * * ( 3) In preparation for and while conducting a performance test required in paragraph ( e)( 1) of this section, a source may operate under the planned operational change conditions for a period not to exceed 360 hours, provided that the conditions in paragraphs ( e)( 3)( i) through ( iv) of this section are met. The source shall submit temperature and other monitoring data that are recorded during the pretest operations. ( i) The source must provide the Administrator written notice at least 60 days prior to undertaking an operational change that may adversely affect compliance with an applicable standard under this subpart, or as soon as practicable where 60 days advance notice is not feasible. Notice provided under this paragraph shall include a description of the planned change, the emissions standards that may be affected by the change, and a schedule for completion of the performance test required under paragraph ( e)( 1) of this section, including when the planned operational change period would begin. ( ii) The performance test results must be documented in a test report according to paragraph ( a) of this section. ( iii) A test plan must be made available to the Administrator prior to testing, if requested. ( iv) The performance test must be conducted, and it must be completed within 360 hours after the planned operational change period begins. * * * * * 5. Section 63.1350 is amended by: a. Adding paragraphs ( a)( 4)( v) through ( vii); b. Revising paragraph ( c)( 2)( i); c. Revising paragraph ( d)( 2)( i); and d. Revising paragraph ( e) introductory text. The revisions and additions read as follows:

§ 63.1350 Monitoring requirements.

( a) * * * ( 4) * * * ( v) The requirement to conduct Method 22 visible emissions monitoring under this paragraph shall not apply to any totally enclosed conveying system transfer point, regardless of the location of the transfer point. `` Totally enclosed conveying system transfer point'' shall mean a conveying system transfer point that is enclosed on all sides, top, and bottom. The enclosures for these transfer points shall be operated and maintained as total enclosures on a continuing basis in accordance with the facility operations and maintenance plan. ( vi) If any partially enclosed or unenclosed conveying system transfer point is located in a building, the owner or operator of the portland cement plant shall have the option to conduct a Method 22 visible emissions monitoring test according to the requirements of paragraphs ( a)( 4)( i) through ( iv) of this section for each such conveying system transfer point located within the building, or for the building itself, according to paragraph ( a)( 4)( vii) of this section. ( vii) If visible emissions from a building are monitored, the requirements of paragraphs ( a)( 4)( i) through ( iv) of this section apply to the monitoring of the building, and you must also test visible emissions from each side, roof and vent of the building for at least 1 minute. The test must be conducted under normal operating conditions. * * * * * ( c) * * * ( 2) * * * ( i) Perform daily visual opacity observations of each stack in accordance with the procedures of Method 9 of appendix A to part 60 of this chapter. The Method 9 test shall be conducted while the affected source is operating at the representative performance conditions. The duration of the Method 9 test shall be at least 30 minutes each day. * * * * * ( d) * * * ( 2) * * * ( i) Perform daily visual opacity observations of each stack in accordance with the procedures of Method 9 of appendix A to part 60 of this chapter. The Method 9 test shall be conducted while the affected source is operating at the representative performance conditions. The duration of the Method 9 test shall be at least 30 minutes each day. * * * * * ( e) The owner or operator of a raw mill or finish mill shall monitor opacity by conducting daily visual emissions observations of the mill sweep and air separator PMCD of these affected sources in accordance with the procedures of Method 22 of appendix A to part 60 of this chapter. The Method 22 test shall be conducted while the affected source is operating at the representative performance conditions. The duration of the Method 22 test shall be 6 minutes. If visible emissions are observed during any Method 22 visible emissions test, the owner or operator must: * * * * *

[ FR Doc. 02   30844 Filed 12   5   02; 8: 45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560   50   P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 180 [ OPP   2002   0237; FRL   7274   8]

Cyromazine; Pesticide Tolerance AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA). ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes a tolerance for residues of cyromazine in or on bean, dry at 3.0 parts per million ( ppm). The Interregional Research Project Number 4 ( IR 4), requested this tolerance under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act ( FFDCA), as amended by the Food Quality Protection Act ( FQPA) of 1996. DATES: This regulation is effective December 6, 2002. Objections and requests for hearings, identified by docket ID number OPP   2002   0237, must be received on or before February 4, 2003. ADDRESSES: Written objections and hearing requests may be submitted electronically, by mail, or through hand delivery/ courier. Follow the detailed instructions as provided in Unit VI. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sidney Jackson, Registration Division ( 7505C), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460   0001; telephone number: ( 703) 305   7610; e mail address: jackson. sidney@ epa. gov@ epa. gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 12: 56 Dec 05, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 06DER1. SGM 06DER1 72586 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 235 / Friday, December 6, 2002 / Rules and Regulations I. General Information A. Does this Action Apply to Me?

You may be affected by this action if you are an agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer. Potentially affected categories and entities may include, but are not limited to:   Industry ( NAICS 111, 112, 311, 32532), e. g., Crop production, Animal production, Food manufacturing, and Pesticide manufacturing. 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?

1. Docket. EPA has established an official public docket for this action under docket identification ( ID) number OPP   2002   0237. The official public docket consists of the documents specifically referenced in this action, any public comments received, and other information related to this action. Although a part of the official docket, the public docket does not include Confidential Business Information ( CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. The official public docket is the collection of materials that is available for public viewing at the Public Information and Records Integrity Branch ( PIRIB), Rm. 119, Crystal Mall # 2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Hwy., Arlington, VA. This docket facility is open from 8: 30 a. m. to 4 p. m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The docket telephone number is ( 703) 305   5805. 2. Electronic access. You may access this Federal Register document electronically through the EPA Internet under the `` Federal Register'' listings at http:// www. epa. gov/ fedrgstr/. A frequently updated electronic version of 40 CFR part 180 is available at http:// www. access. gpo. gov/ nara/ cfr/ cfrhtml_ 00/ Title_ 40/ 40cfr180_ 00. html, a beta site currently under development. To access the OPPTS Harmonized Guidelines referenced in this document, go directly to the guidelines at http:// www. epa. gov/ opptsfrs/ home/ guidelin. htm. An electronic version of the public docket is available through EPA's electronic public docket and comment system, EPA Dockets. You may use EPA Dockets at http:// www. epa. gov/ edocket/ to submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the official public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically. Once in the system, select `` search,'' then key in the appropriate docket ID number.

II. Background and Statutory Findings In the Federal Register of July 17, 2002 ( 67 FR 4697) ( FRL   7185   6), EPA issued a notice pursuant to section 408 of the FFDCA, 21 U. S. C. 346a, as amended by FQPA ( Public Law 104   170), announcing the filing of a pesticide petition ( PP 0E6219) by IR 4. The notice included a summary of the petition prepared by Novartis Crop Protection Inc., Greensboro, NC 27419, the registrant. There were no comments received in response to the notice of filing. The petition requested that 40 CFR 180.414 be amended by establishing a tolerance for residues of the insecticide cyromazine, ( N cyclopropyl 1,3,5 triazine 2,4,6 triamine), in or on dry bean ( except cowpea) at 3.0 ppm. Section 408( b)( 2)( A)( i) of the 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 the 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 the 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....'' EPA performs a number of analyses to determine the risks from aggregate exposure to pesticide residues. For further discussion of the regulatory requirements of section 408 of the FFDCA and a complete description of the risk assessment process, see the final rule on Bifenthrin Pesticide Tolerances ( 62 FR 62961, November 26, 1997) ( FRL   5754   7).

III. Aggregate Risk Assessment and Determination of Safety Consistent with section 408( b)( 2)( D) of the 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, consistent with section 408( b)( 2) of the FFDCA, for a tolerance for residues of cyromazine on dry bean at 0.3 ppm. EPA's assessment of exposures and risks associated with establishing the tolerance follows.

A. Toxicological Profile EPA has evaluated the available toxicity data and considered their 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 nature of the toxic effects caused by cyromazine are discussed in Table 1 of this unit as well as the no observed adverse effect level ( NOAEL) and the lowest observedadverse effect level ( LOAEL) from the toxicity studies reviewed.

TABLE 1.   SUBCHRONIC, CHRONIC, AND OTHER TOXICITY Guideline No. Study Type Results 870.3100 90 Day oral toxicity rodents   rat NOAEL = 3.0 ( milligram/ kilogram/ day ( mg/ kg/ day) LOAEL = 30 mg/ kg/ day based on alteration in the liver weight changes in males VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 12: 56 Dec 05, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 06DER1. SGM 06DER1 72587 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 235 / Friday, December 6, 2002 / Rules and Regulations TABLE 1.   SUBCHRONIC, CHRONIC, AND OTHER TOXICITY   Continued Guideline No. Study Type Results 870.3150 90 Day oral toxicity   dog NOAEL = 7.5 mg/ kg/ day LOAEL = 25 mg/ kg/ day based on alteration in liver weight in males 870.3200 21 Day dermal toxicity NOAEL = > 2,010 mg/ kg/ day LOAEL = > 2,010 mg/ kg/ day. No dermal irritation was noted. No treatment related systemic toxicity was noted.

870.3700 Developmental toxicity in rodents   rat Maternal NOAEL = 100 mg/ kg/ day LOAEL = 300 mg/ kg/ day based on clinical signs ( red or clear nasal discharge) and decrease body weights Developmental NOAEL = 300 mg/ kg/ day LOAEL = 600 mg/ kg/ day highest dose tested ( HDT) based on increased incidence of minor skeletal variations 870.3700 Developmental toxicity in non rodents   rabbit Maternal NOAEL = 10 mg/ kg/ day LOAEL = 30 mg/ kg/ day based on reduced body weight Developmental NOAEL = > 60 mg/ kg/ day ( HDT) LOAEL was not established 870.3800 2   Generation reproduction   rat Parental/ Systemic NOAEL = 50 mg/ kg/ day LOAEL = 150 mg/ kg/ day based on based on decreased body weights that were associated with decreased food efficiency Reproductive NOAEL = > 150 mg/ kg/ day LOAEL = Not determined. No effects were noted on reproductive parameters at HDT Offspring NOAEL = 50 mg/ kg/ day LOAEL = 150 mg/ kg/ day based on based on decreased body weights at birth and through weaning 870.4100 Chronic oral toxicity   dogs NOAEL = 7.5 mg/ kg/ day LOAEL = 75.0 mg/ kg/ day based on alteration in the hematological parameters ( hemoglobin and hermatocrit)

870.4300 Combined chronic/ carcinogenicity   rats NOAEL = 0.75 mg/ kg/ day LOAEL = 7.5 mg/ kg/ day based on based on decreased body weight There is no evidence of carcinogenicity.

870.4200 Carcinogenicity   mice NOAEL = 7.5 mg/ kg/ day LOAEL = 50.0 mg/ kg/ day based on decreased body weight There is no evidence of carcinogenicity Mammalian chromosomal aberration Negative for mutagenicity in Chinese hamster study 870.5100 Mutagenic   point mutation Salmonella typhimurium Negative results for point mutations in TA1537, TA98, TA100, with and without activation 870.5450 Mutagenic   dominant lethal   mouse Negative mutagen B. Toxicological Endpoints The dose at which no adverse effects are observed ( the NOAEL) from the toxicology study identified as appropriate for use in risk assessment is used to estimate the toxicological level of concern ( LOC). However, the lowest dose at which adverse effects of concern are identified ( the LOAEL) is sometimes used for risk assessment if no NOAEL was achieved in the toxicology study selected. An uncertainty factor ( UF) is applied to reflect uncertainties inherent in the extrapolation from laboratory animal data to humans and in the variations in sensitivity among members of the human population as well as other unknowns. An UF of 100 is routinely used, 10X to account for interspecies differences and 10X for intra species differences. For dietary risk assessment ( other than cancer) the Agency uses the UF to calculate an acute or chronic reference dose ( acute RfD or chronic RfD) where the RfD is equal to the NOAEL divided by the appropriate UF ( RfD = NOAEL/ UF). Where an additional safety factor ( SF) is retained due to concerns unique to the FQPA, this additional factor is applied to the RfD by dividing the RfD by such additional factor. The acute or chronic Population Adjusted Dose ( aPAD or cPAD) is a modification of the RfD to accommodate this type of FQPA SF. For non dietary risk assessments ( other than cancer) the UF is used to determine the LOC. For example, when 100 is the appropriate UF ( 10X to account for interspecies differences and 10X for intraspecies differences) the LOC is 100. To estimate risk, a ratio of the NOAEL to exposures ( margin of exposure ( MOE) = NOAEL/ exposure) is calculated and compared to the LOC. The linear default risk methodology ( Q*) is the primary method currently VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 12: 56 Dec 05, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 06DER1. SGM 06DER1 72588 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 235 / Friday, December 6, 2002 / Rules and Regulations used by the Agency to quantify carcinogenic risk. The Q* approach assumes that any amount of exposure will lead to some degree of cancer risk. A Q* is calculated and used to estimate risk which represents a probability of occurrence of additional cancer cases ( e. g., risk is expressed as 1 x 10 6 or one in a million). Under certain specific circumstances, MOE calculations will be used for the carcinogenic risk assessment. In this non linear approach, a `` point of departure'' is identified below which carcinogenic effects are not expected. The point of departure is typically a NOAEL based on an endpoint related to cancer effects though it may be a different value derived from the dose response curve. To estimate risk, a ratio of the point of departure to exposure ( MOEcancer = point of departure/ exposures) is calculated. A summary of the toxicological endpoints for cyromazine used for human risk assessment is shown in Table 2 of this unit:

TABLE 2.   SUMMARY OF TOXICOLOGICAL DOSE AND ENDPOINTS FOR CYROMAZINE FOR USE IN HUMAN RISK ASSESSMENT Exposure Scenario Dose Used in Risk Assessment UF FQPA SF* and Level of Concern for Risk Assessment Study and Toxicological Effects Acute dietary General population including infants and children Not Applicable ( NA) NA An appropriate end point attributable to a single dose ( exposure) was not observed in oral toxicity studies.

Chronic dietary All populations NOAEL = 7.5 mg/ kg/ day UF = 100 Chronic RfD = 0.075 mg/ kg/ day FQPA SF = 1x cPAD = chronic RfD/ FQPA SF = 0.075 mg/ kg/ day 6 Month Feeding   dog LOAEL = 75 mg/ kg/ day based on alterations in hematological parameters [ hematocrit, and hemoglobin ( males)], body weight and body weight gain decreases and increase in several organ weights Incidental oral Short term ( 1 to 30 days) ( Residential) NOAEL = 10 LOC for MOE = 100 ( Residential) Developmental toxicity   rabbit study. LOAEL = 30 mg/ kg/ day based on decreases in body weight gain and food consumption.

Incidental Oral Intermediate term ( 1 to 6 months) ( Residential) NOAEL = 7.5 mg/ kg/ day LOC for MOE = 100 ( Residential) 6 Month feeding   dog LOAEL = 75 mg/ kg/ day based on alterations in hematological parameters [ hematocrit, and body weight gain decreases and increase in several organ weights].

Dermal ( any time period) ( Residential) NA NA Dermal risk assessments were not performed since no hazard was identified via dermal exposure there are no concerns for pre/ post natal toxicity and dermal exposure is not expected since there are no registered residential uses.

Short term inhalation ( 1 to 30 days) ( Residential) Oral NOAEL= 10 mg/ kg/ day ( inhalation absorption rate = 100%) LOC for MOE = 100 ( Residential) Developmental toxicity   rabbit study LOAEL = 30 mg/ kg/ day based on decreases in body weight gain and food consumption Intermediate term inhalation ( 1 to 6 months) ( Residential) Oral study NOAEL = 7.5 mg/ kg/ day ( inhalation absorption rate = 100%) LOC for MOE = 100 ( Residential) 6 Month feeding   dog study LOAEL = 75.0 mg/ kg/ day based on alterations in hematological parameters [ hematocrit, and hemoglobin ( males)], body weight and body weight gain decreases and increase in several organ weights.

Long term inhalation (> 6 months) ( Residential) Oral study NOAEL= 7.5 mg/ kg/ day ( inhalation absorption rate = 100%) LOC for MOE = 100 ( Residential) 6 Month feeding   dog study LOAEL = 75.0 mg/ kg/ day based on alterations in hematological parameters [ hematocrit, and hemoglobin ( males)], body weight and body weight gain decreases and increase in several organ weights.

Cancer NA NA Based on weight of the evidence, classified in Category E `` no evidence of carcinogenicity in humans''

* The reference to the Food Quality Protection Act Safety Factor ( FQPA SF) refers to any additional SF retained due to concerns unique to the FQPA.

C. Exposure Assessment 1. Dietary exposure from food and feed uses. Tolerances have been established ( 40 CFR 180.414) for the residues of cyromazine, in or on a variety of raw agricultural commodities. There are currently tolerances for cyromazine use on a number of food crops including cucurbits, leafy vegatables, onions, lima beans, pepper, potato, and tomato. Tolerances exist as well for livestock commodities. Cyromazine is generally used on terrestrial crops as a foliar spray throughout the growing season, although for onions it is used as a seed treatment and for poultry it is used as a feed through to control flies breeding VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 12: 56 Dec 05, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 06DER1. SGM 06DER1 72589 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 235 / Friday, December 6, 2002 / Rules and Regulations in poultry waste. There are no existing or pending residential uses of cyromazine. Risk assessments were conducted by EPA to assess dietary exposures from cyromazine in food as follows: i. Acute exposure. Acute dietary risk assessments are performed for a fooduse pesticide if a toxicological study has indicated the possibility of an effect of concern occurring as a result of a one day or single exposure. An endpoint was not identified for acute dietary exposure and risk assessment because no effects were observed in oral toxicity studies including developmental toxicity studies in rats or rabbits that could be attributable to a single dose ( exposure). Therefore, an acute dietary exposure assessment was not performed. ii. Chronic exposure. In conducting this chronic dietary risk assessment the Dietary Exposure Evaluation Model ( DEEMTM) analysis evaluated the individual food consumption as reported by respondents in the United States Department of Agriculture ( USDA) 1989   1992 nationwide Continuing Surveys of Food Intake by Individuals ( CSFII) and accumulated exposure to the chemical for each commodity. The following assumptions were made for the chronic exposure assessments: Chronic dietary exposure estimates are based on tolerance level residues for plant and poultry commodities and on anticipated residue estimates for ruminant commodities. Dietary exposure estimates are also factored by the estimated ( weighted average) usage of cyromazine, or `` percent crop treated'' ( PCT) data. iii. Cancer. Cyromazine is classified into Group E ( non carcinogen) based on carcinogenicity studies in rats and mice following long term dietary administration. A quantified carinogenic risk estimate is not appropriate for cyromazine. iv. Anticipated residue and PCT information. Section 408( b)( 2)( E) of the FFDCA authorizes EPA to use available data and information on the anticipated residue levels of pesticide residues in food and the actual levels of pesticide chemicals that have been measured in food. If EPA relies on such information, EPA must require that data be provided 5 years after the tolerance is established, modified, or left in effect, demonstrating that the levels in food are not above the levels anticipated. Following the initial data submission, EPA is authorized to require similar data on a time frame it deems appropriate. As required by section 408( b)( 2)( E) of the FFDCA, EPA will issue a data call in for information relating to anticipated residues to be submitted no later than 5 years from the date of issuance of this tolerance. Section 408( b)( 2)( F) of the FFDCA states that the Agency may use data on the actual percent of food treated for assessing chronic dietary risk only if the Agency can make the following findings: Condition 1, that the data used are reliable and provide a valid basis to show what percentage of the food derived from such crop is likely to contain such pesticide residue; Condition 2, that the exposure estimate does not underestimate exposure for any significant subpopulation group; and Condition 3, if data are available on pesticide use and food consumption in a particular area, the exposure estimate does not understate exposure for the population in such area. In addition, the Agency must provide for periodic evaluation of any estimates used. To provide for the periodic evaluation of the estimate of PCT as required by section 408( b)( 2)( F) of the FFDCA, EPA may require registrants to submit data on PCT. The Agency used PCT information as follows. Cantaloupe 0.3%; cucurbits 0.1%; lettuce 2.6%; leafy vegetables, other 9.4%; celery 14.2%; spinach 6.0%; onions 2.4%; pepper 5.3%; peppers, bell 9.0%; tomatoes 5.8%; tomatoes, fresh 22.2%; and watermelon 1.5%. The Agency believes that the three conditions listed in this unit have been met. With respect to Condition 1, PCT estimates are derived from Federal and private market survey data, which are reliable and have a valid basis. EPA uses a weighted average PCT for chronic dietary exposure estimates. This weighted average PCT figure is derived by averaging State level data for a period of up to 10 years, and weighting for the more robust and recent data. A weighted average of the PCT reasonably represents a person's dietary exposure over a lifetime, and is unlikely to underestimate exposure to an individual because of the fact that pesticide use patterns ( both regionally and nationally) tend to change continuously over time, such that an individual is unlikely to be exposed to more than the average PCT over a lifetime. For acute dietary exposure estimates, EPA uses an estimated maximum PCT. The exposure estimates resulting from this approach reasonably represent the highest levels to which an individual could be exposed, and are unlikely to underestimate an individual's acute dietary exposure. The Agency is reasonably certain that the percentage of the food treated is not likely to be an underestimation. As to Conditions 2 and 3, regional consumption information and consumption information for significant subpopulations is taken into account through EPA's computer based model for evaluating the exposure of significant subpopulations including several regional groups. Use of this consumption information in EPA's risk assessment process ensures that EPA's exposure estimate does not understate exposure for any significant subpopulation group and allows the Agency to be reasonably certain that no regional population is exposed to residue levels higher than those estimated by the Agency. Other than the data available through national food consumption surveys, EPA does not have available information on the regional consumption of food to which cyromazine may be applied in a particular area. 2. Dietary exposure from drinking water. The Agency lacks sufficient monitoring exposure data to complete a comprehensive dietary exposure analysis and risk assessment for cyromazine in drinking water. Because the Agency does not have comprehensive monitoring data, drinking water concentration estimates are made by reliance on simulation or modeling taking into account data on the physical characteristics of cyromazine. The Agency uses the FQPA Index Reservoir Screening Tool ( FIRST) or the Pesticide Root Zone Model/ Exposure Analysis Modeling System ( PRZM/ EXAMS), to produce estimates of pesticide concentrations in an index reservoir. The SCI GROW model is used to predict pesticide concentrations in shallow groundwater. For a screeninglevel assessment for surface water EPA will use FIRST ( a tier 1 model) before using PRZM/ EXAMS ( a tier 2 model). The FIRST model is a subset of the PRZM/ EXAMS model that uses a specific high end runoff scenario for pesticides. While both FIRST and PRZM/ EXAMS incorporate an index reservoir environment, the PRZM/ EXAMS model includes a percent crop area factor as an adjustment to account for the maximum percent crop coverage within a watershed or drainage basin. None of these models include consideration of the impact processing ( mixing, dilution, or treatment) of 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 by the Agency at this stage is to provide a screen for sorting out pesticides for which it is highly unlikely that drinking water concentrations would exceed human health levels of concern.

VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 12: 56 Dec 05, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 06DER1. SGM 06DER1 72590 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 235 / Friday, December 6, 2002 / Rules and Regulations Since the models used are considered to be screening tools in the risk assessment process, the Agency does not use estimated environmental concentrations ( EECs) from these models to quantify drinking water exposure and risk as a % RfD or % PAD. Instead drinking water levels of comparison ( DWLOCs) are calculated and used as a point of comparison against the model estimates of a pesticide's concentration in water. DWLOCs are theoretical upper limits on a pesticide's concentration in drinking water in light of total aggregate exposure to a pesticide in food, and from residential uses. Since DWLOCs address total aggregate exposure to cyromazine they are further discussed in the aggregate risk sections in Unit E. Based on the FIRST and SCI GROW models the EECs of cyromazine for chronic exposures are estimated to be 16 parts per billion ( ppb) for surface water and 5.0 ppb for ground water. 3. From non dietary exposure. The term `` residential exposure'' is used in this document to refer to nonoccupational non dietary exposure ( e. g., for lawn and garden pest control, indoor pest control, termiticides, and flea and tick control on pets). Cyromazine is not registered for use on any sites that would result in residential exposure. 4. Cumulative exposure to substances with a common mechanism of toxicity. Section 408( b)( 2)( D)( v) of the 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.'' Cyromazine is a member of the triazine class of chemicals. EPA evaluated available scientific evidence to determine whether a common mechanism of toxicity exists among certain triazine containing pesticides. Based on the available weight ofevidence cyromazine can not be grouped with other triazines based on a common mechanism of toxicity. EPA determined that only atrazine, simazine, propazine, and their specified degradants could be grouped based a common mechanism of toxicity for disruption of the hypothalamicpituitary gonadal ( HPG) axis. For purposes of this tolerance action, EPA has concluded that cyromazine does not have a common mechanism of toxicity with other triazine containing compounds. If additional data become available to support its inclusion in a common mechanism group, these data will be considered. 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 the final rule for Bifenthrin Pesticide Tolerances ( 62 FR 62961, November 26, 1997).

D. Safety Factor for Infants and Children 1. In general. Section 408 of the FFDCA provides that EPA shall apply an additional ten fold margin of safety for infants and children in the case of threshold effects to account for pre natal and postnatal toxicity and the completeness of the data base on toxicity and exposure 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 MOE analysis or through using uncertainty ( safety) factors in calculating a dose level that poses no appreciable risk to humans. 2. Pre natal and post natal sensitivity. The developmental and reproductive toxicity data from a pre natal developmental study in rats, a pre natal developmental study in rabbits, and a 2 generation reproductive toxicity study in rats, did not indicate increased susceptibility of young rats on rabbits to un urero and/ or post natal exposure. 3. Conclusion. There is a complete toxicity data base for cyromazine and exposure data are complete or are estimated based on data that reasonably accounts for potential exposures. EPA determined that the 10x safety factor to protect infants and children should be reduced to 1x. The FQPA factor was reduced based on reliable data supporting the following weight ofevidence considerations: i. There are no data deficiencies and hence there are no residual uncertainties for pre and/ or post natal exposure, and no additional traditional SFs are needed with regard to the completeness of the cyromazine toxicity data base; ii. There is no evidence of increased susceptibility of rat or rabbit fetuses following in utero exposure in the developmental studies with cyromazine; iii. There is no evidence of increased susceptibility of young rats in the reproduction study with cyromazine; and iv. There are also no residual uncertainties identified in the exposure data bases. E. Aggregate Risks and Determination of Safety To estimate total aggregate exposure to a pesticide from food, drinking water, and residential uses, the Agency calculates DWLOCs which are used as a point of comparison against the model estimates of a pesticide's concentration in water. DWLOC values are not regulatory standards for drinking water. DWLOCs are theoretical upper limits on a pesticide's concentration in drinking water in light of total aggregate exposure to a pesticide in food and residential uses. In calculating a DWLOC, the Agency determines how much of the acceptable exposure ( i. e., the PAD) is available for exposure through drinking water [ e. g., allowable chronic water exposure ( mg/ kg/ day) = cPAD  ( average food + residential exposure)]. This allowable exposure through drinking water is used to calculate a DWLOC. A DWLOC will vary depending on the toxic endpoint, drinking water consumption, and body weights. Default body weights and consumption values as used by the USEPA Office of Water are used to calculate DWLOCs: 2 liter ( L)/ 70 kg ( adult male), 2L/ 60 kg ( adult female), and 1L/ 10 kg ( child). Default body weights and drinking water consumption values vary on an individual basis. This variation will be taken into account in more refined screening level and quantitative drinking water exposure assessments. Different populations will have different DWLOCs. Generally, a DWLOC is calculated for each type of risk assessment used: Acute, short term, intermediate term, chronic, and cancer. When EECs for surface water and groundwater are less than the calculated DWLOCs, OPP concludes with reasonable certainty that exposures to the pesticide in drinking water ( when considered along with other sources of exposure for which OPP has reliable data) would not result in unacceptable levels of aggregate human health risk at this time. Because OPP considers the aggregate risk resulting from multiple exposure pathways associated with a pesticide's uses, levels of comparison in drinking water may vary as those uses change. If new uses are added in the future, OPP will reassess the potential impacts of residues of the pesticide in drinking water as a part of the aggregate risk assessment process. 1. Acute risk. There were no toxicological effects attributable to a single exposure ( dose) observed in the oral toxicity studies. A dose and an endpoint for an acute RfD was not selected. Therefore, acute risk from exposure to cyromazine is not expected.

VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 12: 56 Dec 05, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 06DER1. SGM 06DER1 72591 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 235 / Friday, December 6, 2002 / Rules and Regulations 2. Chronic risk. Using the exposure assumptions described in this unit for chronic exposure, EPA has concluded that exposure to cyromazine from food will utilize 2.0% of the cPAD for both males and females of the U. S. population, and 4.0% of the cPAD for children 1   6 years old, subpopulation at greatest exposure. There are no residential uses for cyromazine that result in chronic residential exposure to cyromazine. Based the use pattern, chronic residential exposure to residues of cyromazine is not expected. In addition, there is potential for chronic dietary exposure to cyromazine in drinking water. After calculating DWLOCs and comparing them to the EECs for surface and ground water, EPA does not expect the aggregate exposure to exceed 100% of the cPAD, as shown in Table 3 of this unit:

TABLE 3.   AGGREGATE RISK ASSESSMENT FOR CHRONIC ( NON CANCER) EXPOSURE TO CYROMAZINE Population Subgroup cPAD mg/ kg/ day % cPAD ( Food) Surface Water EEC ( ppb) Ground Water EEC ( ppb) Chronic DWLOC ( ppb)

Males 0.075 2.0 16 5 2,550 Female 0.075 2.0 16 5 2,200 Children 0.075 4.0 16 5 700 3. Short term risk. Short term aggregate exposure takes into account residential exposure plus chronic exposure to food and water ( considered to be a background exposure level). Cyromazine is not registered for use on any sites that would result in residential exposure. Therefore, the aggregate risk is the sum of the risk from food and water, which do not exceed the Agency's level of concern. 4. Aggregate cancer risk for U. S. population. Cyromazine has been classified as a chemical showing `` no evidence of carcinogenicity in humans.'' The Agency concludes that pesticidal uses of cyromazine are not likely to pose a carcinogenic 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, and to infants and children from aggregate exposure to cyromazine residues.

IV. Other Considerations A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology Analytical methods, AG 408 and AG 417, as listed in the Food and Drug Administration's Pesticide Analytical Manual ( PAM) II, are adequate for tolerance enforce purposes.

B. International Residue Limits There are currently no codex, Canadian or Mexican limits for residues of cyromazine on dry bean.

V. Conclusion Therefore, the tolerance is established for residues of cyromazine, ( Ncyclopropyl 1,3,5 triazine 2,4,6 triamine), in or on dry bean ( except cowpea) at 3.0 ppm.

VI. Objections and Hearing Requests Under section 408( g) of the FFDCA, as amended by the FQPA, any person may file an objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a hearing on those objections. The EPA procedural regulations which govern the submission of objections and requests for hearings appear in 40 CFR part 178. Although the procedures in those regulations require some modification to reflect the amendments made to the FFDCA by the FQPA, EPA will continue to use those procedures, with appropriate adjustments, until the necessary modifications can be made. The new section 408( g) of the FFDCA provides essentially the same process for persons to `` object'' to a regulation for an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance issued by EPA under new section 408( d) of the FFDCA, as was provided in the old sections 408 and 409 of the FFDCA. However, the period for filing objections is now 60 days, rather than 30 days.

A. What Do I Need to Do to File an Objection or Request a Hearing?

You must file your objection or request a hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided in this unit and in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify docket ID number OPP   2002   0237 in the subject line on the first page of your submission. All requests must be in writing, and must be mailed or delivered to the Hearing Clerk on or before February 4, 2003. 1. Filing the request. Your objection must specify the specific provisions in the regulation that you object to, and the grounds for the objections ( 40 CFR 178.25). If a hearing is requested, the objections must include a statement of the factual issues( s) on which a hearing is requested, the requestor's contentions on such issues, and a summary of any evidence relied upon by the objector ( 40 CFR 178.27). Information submitted in connection with an objection or hearing request may be claimed confidential by marking any part or all of that information as CBI. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. A copy of the information that does not contain CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public record. Information not marked confidential may be disclosed publicly by EPA without prior notice. Mail your written request to: Office of the Hearing Clerk ( 1900C), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460   0001. You may also deliver your request to the Office of the Hearing Clerk in Rm. 104, Crystal Mall # 2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Hwy., Arlington, VA. The Office of the Hearing Clerk is open from 8 a. m. to 4 p. m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Office of the Hearing Clerk is ( 703) 603   0061. 2. Tolerance fee payment. If you file an objection or request a hearing, you must also pay the fee prescribed by 40 CFR 180.33( i) or request a waiver of that fee pursuant to 40 CFR 180.33( m). You must mail the fee to: EPA Headquarters Accounting Operations Branch, Office of Pesticide Programs, P. O. Box 360277M, Pittsburgh, PA 15251. Please identify the fee submission by labeling it `` Tolerance Petition Fees.'' EPA is authorized to waive any fee requirement `` when in the judgement of the Administrator such a waiver or refund is equitable and not contrary to the purpose of this subsection.'' For additional information regarding the waiver of these fees, you may contact James Tompkins by phone at ( 703) 305   5697, by e mail at tompkins. jim@ epa. gov, or by mailing a request for information to Mr. Tompkins at Registration Division ( 7505C), Office VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 12: 56 Dec 05, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 06DER1. SGM 06DER1 72592 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 235 / Friday, December 6, 2002 / Rules and Regulations of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460   0001. If you would like to request a waiver of the tolerance objection fees, you must mail your request for such a waiver to: James Hollins, Information Resources and Services Division ( 7502C), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460   0001. 3. Copies for the Docket. In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the Hearing Clerk as described in Unit VI. A., you should also send a copy of your request to the PIRIB for its inclusion in the official record that is described in Unit I. B. 1. Mail your copies, identified by docket ID number OPP   2002   0237, to: Public Information and Records Integrity Branch, Information Resources and Services Division ( 7502C), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460   0001. In person or by courier, bring a copy to the location of the PIRIB described in Unit I. B. 1. You may also send an electronic copy of your request via e mail to: oppdocket epa. gov. Please use an ASCII file format and avoid the use of special characters and any form of encryption. Copies of electronic objections and hearing requests will also be accepted on disks in WordPerfect 6.1/ 8.0 or ASCII file format. Do not include any CBI in your electronic copy. You may also submit an electronic copy of your request at many Federal Depository Libraries.

B. When Will the Agency Grant a Request for a Hearing? A request for a hearing will be granted if the Administrator determines that the material submitted shows the following: There is a genuine and substantial issue of fact; there is a reasonable possibility that available evidence identified by the requestor would, if established resolve one or more of such issues in favor of the requestor, taking into account uncontested claims or facts to the contrary; and resolution of the factual issues( s) in the manner sought by the requestor would be adequate to justify the action requested ( 40 CFR 178.32).

VII. Regulatory Assessment Requirements This final rule establishes a tolerance under section 408( d) of the 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 rule has been exempted from review under Executive Order 12866 due to its lack of significance, this rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use ( 66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). 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., or impose any enforceable duty or contain any unfunded mandate as described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 ( UMRA) ( Public Law 104   4). 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); or OMB review or any Agency action under Executive Order 13045, entitled Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks ( 62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). 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). Since tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis of a petition under section 408( d) of the 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. In addition, the Agency has determined that this action will not have a substantial direct effect on 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, as specified in Executive Order 13132, entitled Federalism ( 64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). Executive Order 13132 requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure `` meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.'' `` Policies that have federalism implications'' is defined in the Executive order to include regulations that have `` substantial direct effects 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.'' This final rule directly regulates growers, food processors, food handlers, and food retailers, not States. This action does not alter the relationships or distribution of power and responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions of section 408( n)( 4) of the FFDCA. For these same reasons, the Agency has determined that this rule does not have any `` tribal implications'' as described in Executive Order 13175, entitled Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments ( 65 FR 67249, November 6, 2000). Executive Order 13175, requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure `` meaningful and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies that have tribal implications.'' `` Policies that have tribal implications'' is defined in the Executive order to include regulations that have `` substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and the Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.'' This rule will not have substantial direct effects on tribal governments, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, as specified in Executive Order 13175. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this rule.

VIII. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General The Congressional Review Act, 5 U. S. C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, 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 VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 12: 56 Dec 05, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 06DER1. SGM 06DER1 72593 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 235 / Friday, December 6, 2002 / Rules and Regulations and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

Dated: November 15, 2002. Peter Caulkins, Acting Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.

Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:

PART 180   [ AMENDED]

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

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

2. Section 180.414 is amended by alphabetically adding a commodity to the table in paragraph ( a)( 1) to read as follows:

§ 180.414 Cyromazine, tolerances for residues. ( a) * * * ( 1) * * *

Commodity Parts per million Bean, dry, except cowpea ........ 3.0 * * * * *

* * * * *

[ FR Doc. 02   30839 Filed 12   5   02; 8: 45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560   50   S FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY 44 CFR Part 64 [ Docket No. FEMA   7797]

Suspension of Community Eligibility AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, FEMA. ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This rule identifies communities, where the sale of flood insurance has been authorized under the National Flood Insurance Program ( NFIP), that are suspended on the effective dates listed within this rule because of noncompliance with the floodplain management requirements of the program. If the Federal Emergency Management Agency ( FEMA) receives documentation that the community has adopted the required floodplain management measures prior to the effective suspension date given in this rule, the suspension will be withdrawn by publication in the Federal Register. EFFECTIVE DATES: The effective date of each community's suspension is the third date (`` Susp.'') listed in the third column of the following tables. ADDRESSES: If you wish to determine whether a particular community was suspended on the suspension date, contact the appropriate FEMA Regional Office or the NFIP servicing contractor. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Edward Pasterick, Division Director, Risk Communication Division, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administrator, 500 C Street, SW.; Room 411, Washington, DC 20472, ( 202) 646   3098. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The NFIP enables property owners to purchase flood insurance which is generally not otherwise available. In return, communities agree to adopt and administer local floodplain management aimed at protecting lives and new construction from future flooding. Section 1315 of the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, as amended, 42 U. S. C. 4022, prohibits flood insurance coverage as authorized under the National Flood Insurance Program, 42 U. S. C. 4001 et seq.; unless an appropriate public body adopts adequate floodplain management measures with effective enforcement measures. The communities listed in this document no longer meet that statutory requirement for compliance with program regulations, 44 CFR part 59 et seq. Accordingly, the communities will be suspended on the effective date in the third column. As of that date, flood insurance will no longer be available in the community. However, some of these communities may adopt and submit the required documentation of legally enforceable floodplain management measures after this rule is published but prior to the actual suspension date. These communities will not be suspended and will continue their eligibility for the sale of insurance. A notice withdrawing the suspension of the communities will be published in the Federal Register. In addition, the Federal Emergency Management Agency has identified the special flood hazard areas in these communities by publishing a Flood Insurance Rate Map ( FIRM). The date of the FIRM if one has been published, is indicated in the fourth column of the table. No direct Federal financial assistance ( except assistance pursuant to the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act not in connection with a flood) may legally be provided for construction or acquisition of buildings in the identified special flood hazard area of communities not participating in the NFIP and identified for more than a year, on the Federal Emergency Management Agency's initial flood insurance map of the community as having flood prone areas ( section 202( a) of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U. S. C. 4106( a), as amended). This prohibition against certain types of Federal assistance becomes effective for the communities listed on the date shown in the last column. The Administrator finds that notice and public comment under 5 U. S. C. 553( b) are impracticable and unnecessary because communities listed in this final rule have been adequately notified. Each community receives a 6 month, 90 day, and 30 day notification addressed to the Chief Executive Officer that the community will be suspended unless the required floodplain management measures are met prior to the effective suspension date. Since these notifications have been made, this final rule may take effect within less than 30 days. National Environmental Policy Act. This rule is categorically excluded from the requirements of 44 CFR Part 10, Environmental Considerations. No environmental impact assessment has been prepared. Regulatory Flexibility Act. The Administrator has determined that this rule is exempt from the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act because the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, as amended, 42 U. S. C. 4022, prohibits flood insurance coverage unless an appropriate public body adopts adequate floodplain management measures with effective enforcement measures. The communities listed no longer comply with the statutory requirements, and after the effective date, flood insurance will no longer be available in the communities unless they take remedial action. Regulatory Classification. This final rule is not a significant regulatory action under the criteria of section 3( f) of Executive Order 12866 of September 30, 1993, Regulatory Planning and Review, 58 FR 51735. Paperwork Reduction Act. This rule does not involve any collection of information for purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U. S. C. 3501 et seq. Executive Order 12612, Federalism. This rule involves no policies that have federalism implications under Executive Order 12612, Federalism, October 26, 1987, 3 CFR, 1987 Comp.; p. 252. Executive Order 12778, Civil Justice Reform. This rule meets the applicable standards of section 2( b)( 2) of Executive Order 12778, October 25, 1991, 56 FR 55195, 3 CFR, 1991 Comp.; p. 309.

List of Subjects in 44 CFR Part 64 Flood insurance, Floodplains.

VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 12: 56 Dec 05, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 06DER1. SGM 06DER1


[Federal Register: April 14, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 72)]
[Notices]
[Page 19568]
[DOCID:fr14ap06-105]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Sunshine Act Meeting Notice

Federal Register Citation of Previous Announcement: [71 FR 18788, April
12, 2006]

Status: Closed Meeting.

Place: 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC.

Announcement of Additional Meeting: Additional Meeting (Week of April
10, 2006).
    A Closed Meeting has been scheduled for Thursday, April 13, 2006 at
9 a.m.
    Commissioners and certain staff members who have an interest in the
matter will attend the Closed Meeting.
    The General Counsel of the Commission, or his designee, has
certified that, in his opinion, one or more of the exemptions set forth
in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(5), (7), (9)(B) and (10) and 17 CFR 200.402(a)(5),
(7), 9(ii) and (10) permit consideration of the scheduled matter at the
Closed Meeting.
    Commissioner Glassman, as duty officer, voted to consider the items
listed for the closed meeting in closed session, and determined that no
earlier notice thereof was possible.
    The subject matter of the Closed Meeting scheduled for Thursday,
April 13, 2006 will be: Institution and settlement of injunctive
actions.
    At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in
the scheduling of meeting items. For further information and to
ascertain what, if any, matters have been added, deleted or postponed,
please contact: The Office of the Secretary at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: April 12, 2006.
Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 06-3652 Filed 4-12-06; 3:48 pm]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 126 (Friday, July 1, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 39509-39510]
[FR Doc No: 2022-14110]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 14514-003]

Community of Elfin Cove Non Profit Corporation, DBA Elfin Cove
Utility Commission; Notice of Application Accepted for Filing, Intent
To Waive Scoping, Soliciting Motions To Intervene and Protests, Ready
for Environmental Analysis, and Soliciting Comments, Terms and
Conditions, Recommendations, Prescriptions

    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been
filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection.
    a. Type of Application: Original Minor License.
    b. Project No.: 14514-003.
    c. Date filed: August 24, 2020.
    d. Applicant: Community of Elfin Cove Non Profit Corporation, DBA
Elfin Cove Utility Commission.
    e. Name of Project: Crooked Creek and Jim's Lake Hydroelectric
Project.
    f. Location: On Crooked Creek and Jim's Lake, near the community of
Elfin Cove, in the Sitka Recording District, Unorganized Borough,
Alaska. The project would occupy 10.5 acres of federal land in the
Tongass National Forest, managed by the U.S. Department of
Agriculture's Forest Service.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act 16 U.S.C. 791 (a)-825(r).
    h. Applicant Contact: Mr. Joel Groves, Polarconsult Alaska, Inc.,
1503 W 33rd Avenue, #310, Anchorage, Alaska 99503; phone: (907) 258-
2420 ext. 204.
    i. FERC Contact: John Matkowski,<PHONE_NUMBER> or
[email protected].
    j. Deadline for filing motions to intervene and protests, comments,
terms and conditions, recommendations, and prescriptions: 60 days from
the issuance date of this notice; reply comments are due 105 days from
the issuance date of this notice.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file
motions to intervene, protests, comments, terms and conditions,
recommendations, and prescriptions using the Commission's eFiling
system at https://ferconline.ferc.gov/FERCOnline.aspx. Commenters can
submit brief comments up to 6,000 characters, without prior
registration, using the eComment system at https://ferconline.ferc.gov/QuickComment.aspx. You must include your name and contact information
at the end of your comments. For assistance, please contact FERC Online
Support at [email protected],<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free), or
(202) 502-8659 (TTY). In lieu of electronic filing, please send a paper
copy to: Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First
Street NE, Washington, DC 20426. The first page of any filing should
include docket number P-14514-003.
    The Commission's Rules of Practice require all intervenors filing
documents with the Commission to serve a copy of that document on each
person on the official service list for the project. Further, if an
intervenor files comments or documents with the Commission relating to
the merits of an issue that may affect the responsibilities of a
particular resource agency, they must also serve a copy of the document
on that resource agency.
    k. This application has been accepted for filing and is now ready
for environmental analysis.
    l. The proposed project would consist of: (1) a new surface water
intake structure fitted with an 8-foot-wide, 18-inch high inclined
plate screen with 0.1 millimeter openings to divert up to five cubic
feet per second (cfs) from Crooked Creek to a 16-foot-long, 4-foot-
diameter buried intake pipe; (2) a new 825-foot-

long, 14-inch-diameter partially buried high[hyphen]density
polyethylene (HDPE) penstock extending between the intake structure in
Crooked Creek to an 8-foot-long, 6-foot-diameter buried energy
dissipation structure near the shoreline of Jim's Lake; (3) a new 30-
foot-long, 4-foot-wide, 18-inch deep rip-rap discharge apron below the
energy dissipation structure that discharges into the existing 160-
foot-long natural channel flowing into Jim's Lake; (4) the existing
Jim's Lake with a new surface area of 5.7 acres and gross storage
capacity of 76-acre-feet at normal maximum water elevation of 342 feet
mean low water; (5) a new 200-foot-long, 14-foot-high reinforced
concrete dam with a 35-foot-long, 20-foot-wide, 14-foot-high spillway
section at the outlet of Jim's Lake; (6) a new intake consisting of a
4-foot-wide, 6[hyphen]foot-high vertically[hyphen]oriented intake
screen and a 20-inch-diamter intake opening; (7) a new 2,350-foot-long,
16 to 20-inch-diameter buried HDPE penstock extending between the
intake pipe opening and the powerhouse; (8) a 20-foot-long, 28-foot-
wide, 14-foot-high wood-frame powerhouse containing a 105-kilowatt
impulse turbine-generator unit; (9) a tailrace discharging flows into
Port Althorp; (10) a 5,800-foot-long, 7.2/12.47-kilovolt (kV) buried
transmission line extending from the project powerhouse to Elfin Cove's
existing 7.2/12.47-kV transmission line; and (11) appurtenant
facilities.
    The project would generate an average of 594.8 megawatt-hours
annually.
    m. Due to the small size and location of this project, the
applicant's close coordination with federal and state agencies during
preparation of the application, and studies completed during pre-filing
consultation, we intend to waive scoping and expedite the licensing
process. Based on a review of the application and resource agency
consultation letters including comments filed to date, Commission staff
does not anticipate that any new issues would be identified through
additional scoping. Based on the issues identified during the pre-
filing period, staff's National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
document will consider the potential effects of project construction
and operation on geology and soils, aquatic, terrestrial, threatened
and endangered species, recreation, and cultural and historic
resources.
    n. A copy of the application can be viewed on the Commission's
website at http://www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the
docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number
field to access the document. For assistance, contact FERC Online
Support.
    Register online at https://ferconline.ferc.gov/FERCOnline.aspx to
be notified via email of new filings and issuances related to this or
other pending projects. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support.
    o. Any qualified applicant desiring to file a competing application
must submit to the Commission, on or before the specified intervention
deadline date, a competing development application, or a notice of
intent to file such an application. Submission of a timely notice of
intent allows an interested person to file the competing development
application no later than 120 days after the specified intervention
deadline date. Applications for preliminary permits will not be
accepted in response to this notice.
    A notice of intent must specify the exact name, business address,
and telephone number of the prospective applicant, and must include an
unequivocal statement of intent to submit a development application. A
notice of intent must be served on the applicant(s) named in this
public notice.
    Anyone may submit comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in
accordance with the requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18
CFR 385.210, .211, and .214. In determining the appropriate action to
take, the Commission will consider all protests or other comments
filed, but only those who file a motion to intervene in accordance with
the Commission's Rules may become a party to the proceeding. Any
comments, protests, or motions to intervene must be received on or
before the specified comment date for the particular application.
    All filings must (1) bear in all capital letters the title
``PROTEST'', ``MOTION TO INTERVENE'', ``NOTICE OF INTENT TO FILE
COMPETING APPLICATION,'' ``COMPETING APPLICATION,'' ``COMMENTS,''
``REPLY COMMENTS,'' ``RECOMMENDATIONS,'' ``TERMS AND CONDITIONS,'' or
``PRESCRIPTIONS;'' (2) set forth in the heading the name of the
applicant and the project number of the application to which the filing
responds; (3) furnish the name, address, and telephone number of the
person protesting or intervening; and (4) otherwise comply with the
requirements of 18 CFR 385.2001 through 385.2005. All comments,
recommendations, terms and conditions or prescriptions must set forth
their evidentiary basis and otherwise comply with the requirements of
18 CFR 4.34(b). Agencies may obtain copies of the application directly
from the applicant. A copy of any protest or motion to intervene must
be served upon each representative of the applicant specified in the
particular application. A copy of all other filings in reference to
this application must be accompanied by proof of service on all persons
listed in the service list prepared by the Commission in this
proceeding, in accordance with 18 CFR 4.34(b) and 385.2010.
    p. The applicant must file no later than 60 days following the date
of issuance of this notice: (1) a copy of the water quality
certification; (2) a copy of the request for certification, including
proof of the date on which the certifying agency received the request;
or (3) evidence of waiver of water quality certification. Please note
that the certification request must comply with 40 CFR 121.5(b),
including documentation that a pre-filing meeting request was submitted
to the certifying authority at least 30 days prior to submitting the
certification request. Please also note that the certification request
must be sent to the certifying authority and to the Commission
concurrently.
    q. Procedural schedule: The application will be processed according
to the following preliminary schedule. Revisions to the schedule will
be made as appropriate.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Milestone                           Target date
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Deadline for filing interventions,          August 2022.
 protests, comments, recommendations,
 preliminary terms and conditions, and
 preliminary fishway prescriptions.
Deadline for filing reply comments........  October 2022.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Dated: June 28, 2022.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-14110 Filed 6-30-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


March 2, 2005 Matt Gluckman USEPA Region V RE: Corrosion/ Photo processing chemistry Fox River Water Reclamation District would like USEPA to review the possibility of implementing Pretreatment Standards for indirect dischargers in the photographic point source category. A corrosion study initiated by FRWRD to identify the source of corrosion experienced at one of our pump stations ( pumps, comminutor, force main) identified photochemistry as a major contributing factor. The corrosion was of permanently wetted surfaces, so it was not the typical hydrogen sulfide corrosion at the crown of gravity sewers. Also, infrequent pH monitoring at the pump station did not show pH far from neutral. Continuous pH monitoring at the large photo processor discharging to the pump station had their flow at pH > 7. The photo processor's flow represented 90% of the influent to the pump station.

Engineering Systems Inc ( ESI) was retained by FRWRD to investigate the corrosion problems, identify the source( s), and recommend solutions. ESI's report concluded that the force main and equipment at the pump station corroded because of exposure to high levels of ionic sulfur chemicals, particularly thiosulfate and sulfide ions, being discharged from the large photo processing facility. " When present in water ( even in near neutral water), reduced sulfur ions ( i. e. thiosulfates, sulfides, & sulfites) form iron sulfides.... and readily exfoliate from the surface thus greatly increasing the corrosion rate. Also high sulfur levels in wastewater can encourage the growth of Sulfur Reducing Bacteria, making conditions favorable for deterioration of concrete."

We could provide ESI's full report to EPA upon request.

Thank you, Fox River Water Reclamation District Randy Chapman, Pretreatment Coordinator Rick Manner, District Engineer


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 43 (Wednesday, March 4, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 12784-12785]
[FR Doc No: 2020-04446]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP20-53-000]

National Fuel Gas Supply Corporation; Notice of Application for
Amendment

    Take notice that on February 18, 2020, National Fuel Gas Supply
Corporation, 6363 Main Street, Williamsville, New York 14221, filed an
application pursuant to section 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act, to amend
the certificate of public convenience and necessity issued by the
Commission in Docket No. CP14-70-000 authorizing the West Side
Expansion and Modernization Project. The proposed amendment seeks to
remove the ``spare'' designation from 1,775 horsepower of compression
at its Mercer Compressor Station in Mercer County, Pennsylvania so that
it may be used on a regular basis to accommodate a shipper's request to
re-direct a portion of its firm transportation capacity to a different
primary delivery point, all as more fully described in the application
which is on file with the Commission and open to public inspection. The
filing may also be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.gov using the
``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three
digits in the docket number field to access the document. For
assistance, contact FERC at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call toll-
free,<PHONE_NUMBER> or TTY,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Any questions regarding this application should be directed to
Margaret D. Sroka, attorney for National Fuel Gas Supply Corporation,
6363 Main Street, Williamsville, New York 14221,<PHONE_NUMBER>; or
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Pursuant to section 157.9 of the Commission's rules, 18 CFR 157.9,
within 90 days of this Notice the Commission staff will either:
Complete its environmental assessment (EA) and place it into the
Commission's public record (eLibrary) for this proceeding, or issue a
Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review. If a Notice of Schedule
for Environmental Review is issued, it will indicate, among other
milestones, the anticipated date for the Commission staff's issuance of
the EA for this proposal. The filing of the EA in the Commission's
public record for this proceeding or the issuance of a Notice of
Schedule for Environmental Review will serve to notify federal and
state agencies of the timing for the completion of all necessary
reviews, and the subsequent need to complete all federal authorizations
within 90 days of

the date of issuance of the Commission staff's EA.
    There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of
this project. First, any person wishing to obtain legal status by
becoming a party to the proceedings for this project should, on or
before the comment date stated below file with the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426, a
motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or
385.211) and the Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.10). A person
obtaining party status will be placed on the service list maintained by
the Secretary of the Commission and will receive copies of all
documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties. A party must
submit 3 copies of filings made in the proceeding with the Commission
and must provide a copy to the applicant and to every other party. Only
parties to the proceeding can ask for court review of Commission orders
in the proceeding.
    However, a person does not have to intervene in order to have
comments considered. The second way to participate is by filing with
the Secretary of the Commission, as soon as possible, an original and
two copies of comments in support of or in opposition to this project.
The Commission will consider these comments in determining the
appropriate action to be taken, but the filing of a comment alone will
not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. The Commission's
rules require that persons filing comments in opposition to the project
provide copies of their protests only to the party or parties directly
involved in the protest.
    Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of
this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments
to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commentors will be
placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, and will be
notified of any meetings associated with the Commission's environmental
review process. Environmental commentors will not be required to serve
copies of filed documents on all other parties. However, the non-party
commentors will not receive copies of all documents filed by other
parties or issued by the Commission and will not have the right to seek
court review of the Commission's final order.
    As of the February 27, 2018 date of the Commission's order in
Docket No. CP16-4-001, the Commission will apply its revised practice
concerning out-of-time motions to intervene in any new Natural Gas Act
section 3 or section 7 proceeding.\1\ Persons desiring to become a
party to a certificate proceeding are to intervene in a timely manner.
If seeking to intervene out-of-time, the movant is required to show
good cause why the time limitation should be waived, and should provide
justification by reference to factors set forth in Rule 214(d)(1) of
the Commission's Rules and Regulations.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company, L.L.C., 162 FERC 61,167 at
50 (2018).
    \2\ 18 CFR 385.214(d)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments,
protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the eFiling link at
http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should
submit an original and 3 copies of the protest or intervention to the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington,
DC 20426.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on March 19, 2020.

    Dated: February 27, 2020.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-04446 Filed 3-3-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 46 (Thursday, March 11, 2021)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 13833-13836]
[FR Doc No: 2021-05038]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2021-0142; Project Identifier MCAI-2020-01400-T]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus SAS Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD)
for certain Airbus SAS Model A350-941 and -1041 airplanes. This
proposed AD was prompted by a report of in-production findings of
missing or incorrect application of the lightning strike edge glow
sealant protection at specific locations in the wing tanks. This
proposed AD would require an inspection for missing or incorrect
application of the lightning strike edge glow sealant protection at
certain locations in the wing tanks, and corrective action, as
specified in a European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD, which
is proposed for incorporation by reference. The FAA is proposing this
AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: The FAA must receive comments on this proposed AD by April 26,
2021.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR
11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to https://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: Deliver to Mail address above between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For EASA material that will be incorporated by reference (IBR) in
this AD, contact the EASA, Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3, 50668 Cologne,
Germany; telephone +49 221 8999 000; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>internet
www.easa.europa.eu. You may find this IBR material on the EASA website
at https://ad.easa.europa.eu. You may view this IBR material at the
FAA, Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200
South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of
this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. It is also available in
the AD docket on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by
searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2021-0142.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2021-
0142; or in person at Docket Operations between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains
this NPRM, any comments received, and other information. The street
address for Docket Operations is listed above.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kathleen Arrigotti, Aerospace
Engineer, Large Aircraft Section, International Validation Branch, FAA,
2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone and fax 206-231-
3218; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    The FAA invites you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed
under ADDRESSES. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2021-0142; Project Identifier
MCAI-2020-01400-T'' at the beginning of your comments. The most helpful
comments reference a specific portion of the proposal, explain the
reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. The FAA
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
the proposal because of those comments.
    Except for Confidential Business Information (CBI) as described in
the following paragraph, and other information as described in 14 CFR
11.35, the FAA will post all comments received, without change, to
https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you
provide. The agency will also post a report summarizing each
substantive verbal contact received about this proposed AD.

Confidential Business Information

    CBI is commercial or financial information that is both customarily
and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of
Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public
disclosure. If your comments responsive to this NPRM contain commercial
or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that
you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to
this NPRM, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted
comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission containing
CBI as ``PROPIN.'' The FAA will treat such marked submissions as
confidential under the FOIA, and they will not be placed in the public
docket of this NPRM. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to
Kathleen Arrigotti, Aerospace Engineer, Large Aircraft Section,
International Validation Branch, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines,
WA 98198; telephone and fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Any commentary that the FAA receives which
is not specifically designated as CBI will be placed in the public
docket for this rulemaking.

Discussion

    The EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the
European Union, has issued EASA AD 2020-0220, dated October 13, 2020
(EASA AD 2020-0220) (also referred to as the Mandatory Continuing
Airworthiness Information, or the MCAI), to correct an unsafe condition
for certain Airbus SAS Model A350-941 and -1041 airplanes.
    This proposed AD was prompted by in-production findings of missing
or incorrect application of the lightning strike edge glow sealant
protection at specific locations in the wing tanks. The FAA is
proposing this AD to address missing or incorrectly applied sealant,
which in combination with an undetected, incorrect installation of an
adjacent fastener and a lightning strike in the immediate area, could
result in ignition of the fuel air mixture inside the affected fuel
tanks and loss of the airplane. See the MCAI for additional background
information.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    EASA AD 2020-0220 describes procedures for an inspection for
missing or incorrect application of the lightning strike edge glow
sealant protection at certain locations in the wing tanks
(discrepancies), and corrective action. Corrective actions include
applying sealant in areas where sealant was found to be missing or
incorrectly applied. This material is reasonably available because the
interested parties have access to it through their normal course of
business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another
country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant
to the FAA's bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority,
the FAA has been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI
referenced above. The FAA is proposing this AD because the FAA
evaluated all the relevant information and determined the unsafe
condition described previously is likely to exist or develop in other
products of the same type design.

Proposed AD Requirements

    This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions specified
in EASA AD 2020-0220 described previously, as incorporated by
reference, except for any differences identified as exceptions in the
regulatory text of this AD.

Explanation of Required Compliance Information

    In the FAA's ongoing efforts to improve the efficiency of the AD
process, the FAA initially worked with Airbus and EASA to develop a
process to use certain EASA ADs as the primary source of information
for compliance with requirements for corresponding FAA ADs. The FAA has
since coordinated with other manufacturers and civil aviation
authorities (CAAs) to use this process. As a result, EASA AD 2020-0220
will be incorporated by reference in the FAA final rule. This proposed
AD would, therefore, require compliance with EASA AD 2020-0220 in its
entirety, through that incorporation, except for any differences
identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of this proposed AD.
Using common terms that are the same as the heading of a particular
section in the EASA AD does not mean that operators need comply only
with that section. For example, where the AD requirement refers to
``all required actions and compliance times,'' compliance with this AD
requirement is not limited to the section titled ``Required Action(s)
and Compliance Time(s)'' in the EASA AD. Service information specified
in EASA AD 2020-0220 that is required for compliance with EASA AD 2020-
0220 will be available on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov
by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2021-0142 after the FAA
final rule is published.

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this proposed AD affects 16 airplanes of
U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with
this proposed AD:

                                      Estimated Costs for Required Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per       Cost on U.S.
                          Labor cost                              Parts cost        product         operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Up to 67 work-hours x $85 per hour = Up to $5,695............              $0     Up to $5,695    Up to $91,120
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FAA estimates the following costs to do any necessary on-
condition action that would be required based on the results of any
required actions. The FAA has no way of determining the number of
aircraft that might need this on-condition action:

                 Estimated Costs of On-Condition Actions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Cost per
              Labor cost                   Parts cost        product
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 work-hours x $85 per hour = $85.....              $0              $85
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    According to the manufacturer, some or all of the costs of this
proposed AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost
impact on affected operators. The FAA does not control warranty
coverage for affected operators. As a result, the FAA has included all
known costs in the cost estimate.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

    The FAA determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not
have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship
between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed
regulation:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866,
    (2) Would not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
    (3) Would 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.

The Proposed Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13   [Amended]

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

Airbus SAS: Docket No. FAA-2021-0142; Project Identifier MCAI-2020-
01400-T.

(a) Comments Due Date

    The FAA must receive comments on this airworthiness directive
(AD) action by April 26, 2021.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Airbus SAS Model A350-941 and -1041
airplanes, certificated in any category, as identified in European
Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD 2020-0220, dated October 13,
2020 (EASA AD 2020-0220).

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 57, Wings.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by in-production findings of missing or
incorrect application of the lightning strike edge glow sealant
protection at specific locations in the wing tanks. The FAA is
issuing this AD to address missing or incorrectly applied sealant,
which in combination with an undetected, incorrect installation of
an adjacent fastener and a lightning strike in the immediate area,
could result in ignition of the fuel-air mixture inside the affected
fuel tanks and loss of the airplane.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Requirements

    Except as specified in paragraph (h) of this AD: Comply with all
required actions and compliance times specified in, and in
accordance with, EASA AD 2020-0220.

(h) Exceptions to EASA AD 2020-0220

    (1) Where EASA AD 2020-0220 refers to its effective date, this
AD requires using the effective date of this AD.
    (2) The ``Remarks'' section of EASA AD 2020-0220 does not apply
to this AD.
    (3) Where paragraph (1) of EASA AD 2020-0220 gives a compliance
time of ``the next scheduled maintenance tank entry, or before
exceeding 6 years since Airbus date of manufacture, whichever occurs
first after the effective date of this AD,'' for this AD, the
compliance time is the later of the times specified in paragraphs
(h)(3)(i) and (ii) of this AD.
    (i) The next scheduled maintenance tank entry, or before
exceeding 6 years since Airbus date of manufacture, whichever occurs
first after the effective date of this AD.
    (ii) Within 6 months after the effective date of this AD.
    (4) Where paragraph (2) of EASA AD 2020-0220 refers to
``discrepancies,'' for this AD, discrepancies include missing or
incorrectly applied sealant.

(i) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
Large Aircraft Section, International Validation Branch, FAA, has
the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the
procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19,
send your request to your principal inspector or responsible Flight
Standards Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to
the Large Aircraft Section, International Validation Branch, send it
to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (j)(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
responsible Flight Standards Office.
    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD
to obtain instructions from a manufacturer, the instructions must be
accomplished using a method approved

by the Manager, Large Aircraft Section, International Validation
Branch, FAA; or EASA; or Airbus SAS's EASA Design Organization
Approval (DOA). If approved by the DOA, the approval must include
the DOA-authorized signature.
    (3) Required for Compliance (RC): Except as required by
paragraph (i)(2) of this AD, 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.

(j) Related Information

    (1) For information about EASA AD 2020-0220, contact the EASA,
Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3, 50668 Cologne, Germany; telephone +49 221
8999 000; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>internet www.easa.europa.eu. You
may find this EASA AD on the EASA website at https://ad.easa.europa.eu. You may view this material at the FAA,
Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200
South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability
of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. This material may be
found in the AD docket on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-
2021-0142.
    (2) For more information about this AD, contact Kathleen
Arrigotti, Aerospace Engineer, Large Aircraft Section, International
Validation Branch, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198;
telephone and fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Issued on March 5, 2021.
Lance T. Gant,
Director, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2021-05038 Filed 3-10-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P