[Federal Register: August 13, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 155)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 40778-40781]
[DOCID:fr13au09-17]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2009-0712; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-152-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier Model DHC-8-100 and DHC-8-
200 Series Airplanes, and Model DHC-8-301, -311, and -315 Airplanes

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

ACTION: Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD)
for certain Bombardier Model DHC-8-100 and DHC-8-200 series airplanes,
and DHC-8-301, -311, and -315 airplanes. This proposed AD would require
implementing a corrosion prevention and control program (CPCP) either
by accomplishing specific tasks or by revising the maintenance
inspection program to include a CPCP. This proposed AD results from the
determination that, as airplanes age, they are more likely to exhibit
indications of corrosion. We are proposing this AD to prevent
structural failure of the airplane due to corrosion.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by September 14,
2009.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact
Bombardier, Inc., 400 C[ocirc]te-Vertu Road West, Dorval, Qu[eacute]bec
H4S 1Y9, Canada; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet http://www.bombardier.com.
You may review copies of the referenced service information at the FAA,
Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,
Washington. For information on the availability of this material at the
FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER> or<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Examining the AD Docket

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Pong K. Lee, Aerospace Engineer,
Airframe and Mechanical Systems Branch, ANE-171, FAA, New York Aircraft
Certification Office, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, New
York 11590; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address
listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2009-0712;
Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-152-AD'' at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposed AD because of those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this proposed AD.

Discussion

    Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the airworthiness
authority for Canada, notified us that an unsafe condition may exist on
certain Bombardier Model DHC-8-100 and DHC-8-200 series airplanes, and
Model DHC-8-301, -311, and -315 airplanes. TCCA advises that, as
airplanes age, they are more likely to exhibit indications of
corrosion. Operators must implement a Corrosion Prevention and Control
Program (CPCP) that identifies specific areas to be inspected to
minimize and control deterioration of the airplane from corrosion. This
condition, if not corrected, could result in structural failure of the
airplane.

Relevant Service Information

    Bombardier has issued Part 1, Section 3, Structural Inspection
Program, of the following de Havilland Dash 8 Maintenance Program MRB
(Maintenance Review Board) Reports. In this proposed AD, we refer to
these publications as the ``manual.''
     Program Support Manual (PSM) 1-8-7, Revision 22, dated
November 1, 2008, for Bombardier Model DHC-8-100 series airplanes.
     PSM 1-82-7, Revision 13, dated November 1, 2008, for
Bombardier Model DHC-8-200 series airplanes.
     PSM 1-83-7, Revision 22, dated November 1, 2008, for
Bombardier Model DHC-8-300 series airplanes.
    The manual provides a basic structural inspection schedule, which
is intended to ensure continuous airworthiness. Only primary structures
defined as Structurally Significant Items (SSIs) and secondary
structures whose failure may adversely affect the systems' functions
are included in the manual. Canadian airworthiness requirements state
that the aircraft maintenance program must identify specific
inspections under the CPCP. For the affected airplanes, the CPCP
includes a complete re-analysis of the structural inspection program,
supported by in-service engineering findings. New and revised tasks
identified as CPCP are annotated in the manual as ED/CPCP. ED stands
for ``environmental damage.''
    TCCA mandated the service information and issued Canadian
Airworthiness Directive CF-2007-06, dated April 10, 2007, to ensure the
continued airworthiness of these airplanes in Canada.

Levels of Corrosion

    The Canadian Airworthiness Directive refers to levels of corrosion.
For the purposes of this proposed AD, the levels are defined in Part 1
of the Bombardier (de Havilland) DHC-6 Twin Otter, Dash 7 & Dash 8
Corrosion Prevention and Control Manual PSM 1-GEN-5, Revision 3, dated
November 30, 1998, as follows:
     Level 1 corrosion:
    1. Occurs between repetitive inspections, is local, and can be
reworked within certain limits; or
    2. Is local but exceeds allowable limits and is attributed to an
event not typical of the usage of the other airplanes in the operator's
fleet; or
    3. Exceeds allowable limits but for which only light corrosion has
been found in previous inspections.
     Level 2 corrosion:
    1. Occurs between repetitive inspections and exceeds allowable
limits, necessitating a repair or complete replacement of a structural
significant element; or
    2. Occurs between repetitive inspections, is widespread, and
requires a rework approaching allowable limits.
     Level 3 corrosion is found during initial or repetitive
inspections and is determined to be a potentially urgent unsafe
condition necessitating expeditious action.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of the Proposed AD

    These airplanes are manufactured in Canada and are type
certificated for operation in the United States under the provisions of
section 21.29 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.29) and
the applicable bilateral airworthiness agreement. Pursuant to this
bilateral airworthiness agreement, TCCA has kept the FAA informed of
the situation described above. We have examined TCCA's findings,
evaluated all pertinent information, and determined that we need to
issue an AD for airplanes of this type design that are certificated for
operation in the United States.
    Therefore, we are proposing this AD, which would require
implementing a CPCP either by accomplishing specific tasks or by
revising the maintenance inspection program to include a CPCP. The
proposed AD would require you to use the manual described previously to
perform these actions. The proposed AD also would require you to report
findings of Level 3 corrosion to the airplane manufacturer and to the
FAA.

Costs of Compliance

    This proposed AD would affect about 154 airplanes of U.S. registry.
There are between 16 and 17 specific inspections, depending on the
applicable manual identified in Table 1 of this AD. The proposed
inspections would take about 53 work hours per airplane, per inspection
cycle, at an average labor rate of $80 per work hour. Based on these
figures, the estimated cost of the proposed AD for U.S. operators is
$652,960, or $4,240 per airplane, per inspection cycle.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

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

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

    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]

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

Bombardier, Inc. (Formerly de Havilland, Inc.): Docket No. FAA-2009-
0712; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-152-AD.

Comments Due Date

    (a) The FAA must receive comments on this AD action by September
14, 2009.

Affected ADs

    (b) None.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to Bombardier Model DHC-8-101, DHC-8-102,
DHC-8-103, DHC-8-106, DHC-8-201, DHC-8-202, DHC-8-301, DHC-8-311,
and DHC-8-315 airplanes, certificated in any category; serial
numbers 003 and subsequent.

Subject

    (d) Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Codes 32: Landing
Gear, 51: Standard Practices/Structures; 52: Doors; 53: Fuselage;
54: Nacelles/Pylons; 55: Stabilizers; and 57: Wings.

Unsafe Condition

    (e) This AD results from the determination that, as airplanes
age, they are more likely to exhibit indications of corrosion. We
are issuing this AD to prevent structural failure of the airplane
due to corrosion.

Compliance

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

Manual References

    (g) This AD refers to the manuals listed in Table 1 of this AD.

                       Table 1--Applicable Manuals
------------------------------------------------------------------------
       Bombardier model                          Manual
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) DHC-8-101, -102, -103,     Part 1, Section 3, Structural Inspection
 and -106 airplanes.            Program, of the Dash 8 Maintenance
                                Program MRB (Maintenance Review Board)
                                Report Program Support Manual (PSM) 1-8-
                                7, Revision 22, dated November 1, 2008.
(2) DHC-8-201 and DHC-8-202    Part 1, Section 3, Structural Inspection
 airplanes.                     Program, of the Dash 8 Maintenance
                                Program MRB Report PSM 1-82-7, Revision
                                13, dated November 1, 2008.
(3) Model DHC-8-301, DHC-8-    Part 1, Section 3, Structural Inspection
 311, and DHC-8-315 airplanes.  Program, of the Dash 8 Maintenance
                                Program MRB Report PSM 1-83-7, Revision
                                22, dated November 1, 2008.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Inspections

    (h) At the later of the times specified in paragraphs (h)(1) and
(h)(2) of this AD, do each of the Environmental Damage/Corrosion
Protection and Control Program (ED/CPCP) inspections, including re-
protection tasks, as applicable, in accordance with the applicable
manual identified in Table 1 of this AD. Except as provided by
paragraph (i) of this AD, repeat each task thereafter at intervals
not to exceed the compliance time specified in the ``Repeat'' column
of the applicable manual identified in Table 1 of this AD.
    (1) Within 24 months after the effective date of this AD.
    (2) At the compliance time specified in the ``Threshold'' column
of the applicable manual identified in Table 1 of this AD since the
date of issuance of the original Canadian airworthiness certificate
or the date of issuance of the original Canadian export certificate
of airworthiness. If there is no value in the ``Threshold'' column,
use the time specified in the ``Repeat'' column.
    (i) After accomplishment of each initial ED/CPCP task required
by paragraph (h) of this AD, the FAA may approve the incorporation
into the operator's approved maintenance/inspection program of the
CPCP specified in the applicable manual identified in Table 1 of
this AD; or the equivalent program that is approved in accordance
with this AD. In all cases, the initial corrosion task for each
airplane area must be completed by the initial compliance time
specified in paragraph (h) of this AD.
    (1) Any operator complying with paragraph (i) of this AD may use
an alternative recordkeeping method to that otherwise

required by section 91.417 (``Maintenance records'') or section
121.380 (``Maintenance recording requirements'') of the Federal
Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 91.417 or 14 CFR 121.380, respectively)
for the actions required by this AD, provided that the recordkeeping
method is approved by the FAA and is included in a revision to the
maintenance/inspection program. For the purposes of this paragraph,
``the FAA'' is defined as the cognizant Principal Maintenance
Inspector (PMI) for operators that are assigned a PMI (i.e., part
121, 125, and 135 operators), and the cognizant Flight Standards
District Office for other operators (i.e., part 91 operators).
    (2) After the initial accomplishment of the ED/CPCP tasks
required by paragraph (h) of this AD, any extension of the
repetitive intervals specified in the manual must be approved by the
Manager, New York Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA.

Corrective Actions

    (j) If any corrosion is found during accomplishment of any
action required by paragraph (h) of this AD: Before further flight,
rework, repair, or replace, as applicable, in accordance with a
method approved by either the Manager, New York ACO, FAA; or
Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA) (or its delegated agent).

Reporting Requirements for Level 3 Corrosion Findings

    (k) If any Level 3 corrosion, as defined in Part 1 of the
Bombardier (de Havilland) DHC-6 Twin Otter, Dash 7 & Dash 8
Corrosion Prevention and Control Manual PSM 1-GEN-5, Revision 3,
dated November 30, 1998, is found during the accomplishment of any
action required by this AD, do paragraphs (k)(1), (k)(2), and (k)(3)
of this AD. Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has approved the information
collection requirements and has assigned OMB Control Number 2120-
0056.
    (1) Within 3 days after the finding of Level 3 corrosion, report
findings to the Manager, New York ACO, FAA, in accordance with the
Bombardier (de Havilland) DHC-6 Twin Otter, Dash 7 & Dash 8
Corrosion Prevention and Control Manual PSM 1-GEN-5, Revision 3,
dated November 30, 1998.
    (2) Within 10 days after the finding of Level 3 corrosion,
either submit a plan to the FAA to identify a schedule for
accomplishing the applicable CPCP task on the remainder of the
airplanes in the operator's fleet that are subject to this AD, or
provide data substantiating that the Level 3 corrosion that was
found is an isolated case. The FAA may impose a schedule other than
that proposed in the plan upon finding that a change to the schedule
is needed to ensure that any other Level 3 corrosion is detected in
a timely manner. For the purposes of this paragraph, ``the FAA'' is
defined as the cognizant Principal Maintenance Inspector (PMI) for
operators that are assigned a PMI (i.e., part 121, 125, and 135
operators), and the cognizant Flight Standards District Office for
other operators (i.e., part 91 operators).
    (3) Within the time schedule approved in accordance with
paragraph (k)(2) of this AD, accomplish the applicable task on the
remainder of the airplanes in the operator's fleet that are subject
to this AD.

Limiting Future Corrosion Findings

    (l) If corrosion findings that exceed Level 1 are found in any
area during any repeat of any CPCP task after the initial
accomplishment required by paragraph (h) of this AD: Within 60 days
after such finding, implement a means approved by the FAA to reduce
future findings of corrosion in that area to Level 1 or better. For
the purposes of this paragraph, ``the FAA'' is defined as the
cognizant PMI for operators that are assigned a PMI (i.e., part 121,
125, and 135 operators), and the cognizant Flight Standards District
Office for other operators (i.e., part 91 operators).

Scheduling Corrosion Tasks for Transferred Airplanes

    (m) Before any airplane subject to this AD is transferred and
placed into service by an operator: Establish a schedule for
accomplishing the CPCP tasks required by this AD in accordance with
paragraph (m)(1) or (m)(2) of this AD, as applicable.
    (1) For airplanes on which the CPCP tasks required by this AD
have been accomplished previously at the schedule established by
this AD: Perform the first CPCP task in each area in accordance with
the previous operator's schedule, or in accordance with the new
operator's schedule, whichever results in an earlier accomplishment
of that CPCP task. After the initial accomplishment of each CPCP
task in each area as required by this paragraph, repeat each CPCP
task in accordance with the new operator's schedule.
    (2) For airplanes on which the CPCP tasks required by this AD
have not been accomplished previously, or have not been accomplished
at the schedule established by this AD: The new operator must
perform each initial CPCP task in each area before further flight or
in accordance with a schedule approved by the FAA. For the purposes
of this paragraph, ``the FAA'' is defined as the cognizant Principal
Maintenance Inspector (PMI) for operators that are assigned a PMI
(i.e., part 121, 125, and 135 operators), and the cognizant Flight
Standards District Office for other operators (i.e., part 91
operators).

Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (n)(1) The Manager, New York ACO, FAA, has the authority to
approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found
in 14 CFR 39.19. Send information to ATTN: Pong K. Lee, Aerospace
Engineer, Airframe and Mechanical Systems Branch, ANE-171, FAA, New
York Aircraft Certification Office, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410,
Westbury, New York 11590; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax (516) 794-
5531.
    (2) To request a different method of compliance or a different
compliance time for this AD, follow the procedures in 14 CFR 39.19.
Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC
applies, notify your principal maintenance inspector (PMI) or
principal avionics inspector (PAI), as appropriate, or lacking a
principal inspector, your local Flight Standards District Office.
The AMOC approval letter must specifically reference this AD.

Related Information

    (o) Canadian airworthiness directive CF-2007-06, dated April 10,
2007, also addresses the subject of this AD.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on August 3, 2009.
Ali Bahrami,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. E9-19420 Filed 8-12-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


                                  MEMORANDUM

Tetra Tech, Inc. 10306 Eaton Place, Suite 340 Fairfax, VA 22030 phone<PHONE_NUMBER> fax<PHONE_NUMBER>

TO:			Paul Shriner and Jan Matuszko, EPA FROM:		John Sunda (SAIC) and Kelly Meadows DATE: 		March 10, 2010

SUBJECT:		Preliminary Estimate of Costs for Combustion Turbines Installed at Power Plants to Generate Electricity to Replace Closed Cycle Cooling Energy Penalty

This memo presents preliminary cost estimates for combustion turbines installed at power plants.  The turbines used in the analysis are sized to replace the power plant energy penalty associated with converting a once-through cooling system to a closed-cycle one.

Table 1 below presents the estimated total energy penalty for different types of power plants. The parasitic energy penalty is based on a condenser ∆T of 15 [o]F and uses the parasitic energy factor of 0.0000237 MW/gpm used in EPA cost estimates.

Table 1. Energy Penalty Estimates

Table 2 presents performance and costs assumptions for a 160 MW conventional combustion turbine that are used by EIA in their modeling for the 2009 Annual Energy Outlook.

Table 2. EIA Model Technology Performance and Cost Assumptions for Conventional Combustion Turbines                                    Data Item                                      Units                                      Value Size MW 160 Total Overnight Cost in 2008 2007 $/Kw $670 Variable O&M Million $/Kwh $3.57 Fixed O&M $ $12.11 Heat Rate BTU/Kwh 10,810 Source: EIA 2009

Two other sources cited capital cost values as high as roughly $1,000/Kw for smaller combustion turbines in the 15 to 40 MW range. Dollar per Kw costs decrease with increasing generating unit size and since the units for this analysis will not be as large as the one cited in Table 2, a midpoint value between $670 and $1,000/Kw of $850/Kw was selected for the combustion turbine capital cost estimate.

Capital Costs

Table 3 provides combustion turbine generating capacity and capital costs for an example 1,000 MW plant for each plant type. The capital costs for an "average" difficulty closed cycle cooling retrofit are also shown for comparison.

Table 3. Capital Costs for Energy Penalty Combustion Turbines and Closed Cycle Cooling

O&M Costs and Revenue

O&M costs and revenue of the combustion turbine turbines are provided as a rough measure of the economic viability of this as an option to offset the energy penalty. These costs will be highly dependent on the capacity utilization rate (CUR), the fuel costs, and the wholesale price of electricity sold which are difficult to predict. The costs presented in Table 4 are rough estimates that are based on data shown in Table 2 and the following assumptions:

   * CUR is 15%;    * Fuel cost of natural gas is $5.00/1,000 cf based on November 2009 EIA Electric Power Price;    * Heat content of Natural gas is 1,028,000 BTU/cf    * Average peak wholesale power price of $81/MWh

Of particular importance to these costs are the costs of fuel and the wholesale cost of electricity during peak periods.  The fuel cost is calculated to be $55.56 /MWh based on the above assumptions. The assumed average peak wholesale price of $81 is a BPJ value based on the 95[th] percentile value from a table of the EIA 2009 daily "Peak Wholesale Day Ahead Prices for the NEPOOL (New England) Hub.  It is not clear how accurate this peaking power price is, so this value may require adjustment to get a more accurate measure.  The revenue shown is simply the sales minus the fuel and O&M costs.  The relatively high fuel cost is the reason combustion turbines are generally reserved for peak power demand when the wholesale cost of power rises well above the combined fuel and variable O&M cost. In each of these example calculations the combustion turbine capital cost is 51 times as large as estimated annual revenue.

Table 4. O&M and Revenue Estimates for Natural Gas Combustion Turbines

References

EIA. Energy Information Administration/Assumptions to the Annual Energy Outlook 2009. Table 8.2. Cost and Performance Characteristics of New Central Station Electricity Generating Technologies. from EIA website: http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/overview/electricity.html


Notes

Meeting with Metam Alliance

June 2, 2010

Participants:

Registrants

Lisa Campbell – BERGESON & CAMPBELL, P.C.

Ian Chart - AMVAC

Dawn Kominski - TKI

Vince Piccirillo – Taminco

EPA

Margaret Rice, John Leahy, Steven Weiss, Andrea Carone, Susan Bartow,
Peter Caulkins, Erik Kraft, Jose Gayoso, Cathryn O’Connell

Notes:

EPA explained that in in the course of label reviews, if the last
stamped approved label had more restrictive language than is required by
a RED, the more restrictive language is generally retained on new
labels.  The Alliance explained that they intended the prototype label
they had submitted to establish universal language for all products
containing metam sodium or metam potassium.

Issue #1:  Spray Drift Statements

Previous labels had different versions of drift statements.  The
Alliance would like all labels to be changed to include this text:

“Do not apply when wind speed favors drift beyond the area intended
for treatment.”

Issue #2:  Greenhouse and Confined Areas

Previous labels had different versions of the statement prohibiting use
in greenhouses and confined areas.  The Alliance does not see issues
with the restrictions against applications in either areas, but would
like labels to have the same statement.

Possible change to all affected labels would be to add this language:

“Do not use in greenhouses or any other enclosed structure or confined
area.”

Some of the old labels also contain other statements such as “Do not
use in confined areas without adequate ventilation or when fumes may
enter nearby dwellings.”  This statement was not discussed
specifically.

Issue #3:  California Language

The Alliance will talk with DPR to determine if this language will be
required for approval of amended labels in California.

Issues #4:  Language Defining the Treated Area

EPA explained the language in question is not necessary on 2010 labels
since there will not be buffers, and no need to include specific terms
that define the application area.  The Alliance agreed with this edit.

Also, not all labels include  all of the application methods that are
allowed for metam, so some labels approved by EPA had certain methods
removed from the new label if the old label did not contain those
methods.

Issue #5:  Definition of Handlers

Everyone seemed to agree that the additional information describing
handlers was acceptable although it was not on the prototype label the
Alliance submitted.

Issue #6:  Fumigant Safe Handling Information

EPA accidentally omitted the phrase “in a manner they can
understand…” from the original label table for metam, but this
phrase was and is included in the label tables for methyl bromide,
chloropicrin, and dazomet.  These changes are consistent with the
changes for the other chemicals and the Alliance agreed this was
acceptable.  The content and scope of this requirement will be raised in
a separate meeting with the other registrant representatives.

Issue #7:  Air Monitoring Language

The chemical that should trigger the air monitoring requirements should
be MITC not metam.  Everyone agrees with this change.

Issue #8:  Chemigation Parameters

The Alliance is checking on the specific concerns with this item.

Issue #9:  Air Temperature

An air temperature restriction on applications above 90 degrees F was
required on all labels for applications via Center Pivot; Solid Set
Sprinkler; Drench; and Drip, Flood Basin, Furrow and Border
applications.  It appears from the conversation at the meeting that this
restriction was included on the old labels, but the Alliance does not
want this restriction applied to all application methods, and may not
want it applied to the ones required in the label approval letters.

EPA will discuss this before the next meeting.

Issue #10:  Soil Moisture

The Alliance noted that new labels do not have consistent soil moisture
statements.

EPA explained that the soil moisture language is different depending on
the application method. For methods for which tillage is possible either
prior or during application, such as shank applications, the new labels
allow tillage either prior to or during application.  For methods for
which tillage is not practical during application, such as center pivot,
new labels require tillage prior to application., since the instructions
are not practical for every situation.

The Alliance is checking to make sure the labels are consistent
depending on application method, but EPA’s approach was generally
acceptable to the participants.

Issues #11:  Plant Residue

The Alliance is comfortable with EPA’s change as long as it is
consistent across labels.

Issue # 12:  Tillage

Same discussion and outcome as Issue #10.

Issue #13:  Optional GAPs

EPA explained that the phrase “(registrants may also include optional
GAPs)” was intended by EPA to allow companies to submit their own GAPs
if they wanted to do so.  Since no additional GAPs were submitted with
the labels, this statement was deleted from the approved labels.  The
Alliance is comfortable with the change given the explanation from EPA.

Issue #14:  Application Rates

The Alliance had questions about the maximum rates allowed on some of
the product labels.  The Alliance will provide some specific examples
and calculations of the rates for the products of concern.  EPA
explained that not all products are formulated with the same percent
active ingredient, so the maximum application rates for each product
would be different across products.

Issue #15:  Soil Covering Method

The Alliance will follow up with this and provide some additional
information.

Issue #16:  Weed Sprayer

The Alliance is checking with users to help define this term.

Issue #17:  User Safety Recommendations

The Alliance wants all labels to contain the same restrictions and they
will propose a common change for all products.

 PAGE

 PAGE   3


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 54 (Wednesday, March 20, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 17282]
[FR Doc No: 2013-06361]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2012-0379]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Approval of a Currently
Approved Information Collection Request: Financial Responsibility for
Motor Carriers of Passengers and Motor Carriers of Property; Correction

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice; correction.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration published a
document in the Federal Register of March 1, 2013, concerning request
for comments on the approval of a currently approved information
collection request entitled, ``Financial Responsibility for Motor
Carriers of Passengers and Motor Carriers of Property.'' The document
contained an incorrect Docket Number.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gerald Folsom,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Correction

    In the Federal Register of March 1, 2013, in FR Doc. FMCSA-2013-
0379, on page 13932, in the first column, correct the ``Docket
Numbers'' to read:

    Docket No. FMCSA-2012-0379; and

ADDRESSES: All comments should reference Federal Docket Management
System (FDMS) Docket Number FMCSA-2012-0379.

    Issued on: March 11, 2013.
G. Kelly Leone,
Associate Administrator, Office of Research and Information Technology
and Chief Information Officer.
[FR Doc. 2013-06361 Filed 3-19-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P