[Federal Register: October 5, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 192)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 61343-61344]
[DOCID:fr05oc10-5]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2010-0301; Directorate Identifier 2009-NE-22-AD;
Amendment 39-16457; AD 2010-20-22]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Rolls-Royce Deutschland Ltd & Co KG
(RRD) Models Tay 620-15, Tay 650-15, and Tay 651-54 Turbofan Engines

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

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

    Following a review of operational data of the Tay 651-54 engine,
it has been found that the actual stress levels in the Tay 651-54
engine High Pressure Compressor (HPC) stages 1, 3, 6, 7 and 12 discs
were higher than those originally assumed and therefore the approved
lives needed to be reduced.

We are issuing this AD to prevent HPC stages 1, 3, 6, 7, and 12 discs
from exceeding the approved reduced life limits, which could result in
an uncontained failure of a disc and damage to the airplane.

DATES: This AD becomes effective November 9, 2010. The Director of the
Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain
publications listed in this AD as of November 9, 2010.

ADDRESSES: The Docket Operations office is located at Docket Management
Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue,
SE., West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-
0001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tara Chaidez, Aerospace Engineer,
Engine Certification Office, FAA, Engine and Propeller Directorate, 12
New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803; e-mail:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 to include an AD that would apply to the specified products.
That NPRM was published in the Federal Register on March 25, 2010 (75
FR 14379). That NPRM proposed to correct an unsafe condition for the
specified products. The MCAI states that:

    Following a review of operational data of the Tay 651-54 engine,
it has been found that the actual stress levels in the Tay 651-54
engine High Pressure Compressor (HPC) stages 1, 3, 6, 7 and 12 discs
were higher than those originally assumed and therefore the approved
lives needed to be reduced.
    As Tay 651-54 service run HPC discs may be installed on Tay 620-
15 and Tay 650-15 engine models, it is necessary to reduce the
maximum approved lives of the affected HPC disc serial numbers
installed on Tay 620-15 and Tay 650-15 engines as well.
    The approved lives of the affected HPC stages 1, 3, 6, 7 and 12
discs specified in this Airworthiness Directive supersede the
approved lives given in the Time Limits Manuals, Chapter 05-10-01.
    Exceeding of the approved life limits could potentially result
in non-contained disc failure.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD. We received no comments on the NPRM or on the determination of
the cost to the public.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the available data and determined that air safety and
the public interest require adopting the AD as proposed.

Costs of Compliance

    Based on the service information, we estimate that this AD would
affect about 10 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it
would take about 1 work-hours per product to comply with this AD. The
average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Required parts would cost
about $100,000 per product. Based on these figures, we estimate the
cost of the AD on U.S. operators to be $1,000,850.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this AD will not have federalism implications
under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct
effect on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify this AD:

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

Examining the AD Docket

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

0
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator,
the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

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

2010-20-22 Rolls-Royce Deutschland Ltd & Co KG (Formerly Rolls-Royce
plc): Amendment 39-16457. Docket No. FAA-2010-0301; Directorate
Identifier 2009-NE-22-AD.

Effective Date

    (a) This airworthiness directive (AD) becomes effective November
9, 2010.

Affected ADs

    (b) None.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to Rolls-Royce Deutschland Ltd & Co KG (RRD)
models Tay 620-15, Tay 650-15, and Tay 651-54 turbofan engines.
These engines are installed on, but not limited to, Fokker F28 Mark
0070 and Mark 0100 airplanes and Boeing 727 series airplanes.

Reason

    (d) Following a review of operational data of the Tay 651-54
engine, it has been found that the actual stress levels in the Tay
651-54 engine High Pressure Compressor (HPC) stages 1, 3, 6, 7 and
12 discs were higher than those originally assumed and therefore the
approved lives needed to be reduced.

We are issuing this AD to prevent HPC stages 1, 3, 6, 7, and 12
discs from exceeding the approved reduced life limits, which could
result in an uncontained failure of a disc and damage to the
airplane.

Actions and Compliance

    (e) Unless already done, within 30 days after the effective date
of this AD, amend the approved Airworthiness Limitation Section to
incorporate the new, reduced life limits as follows:

For Tay 651-54 Engines

    (1) The maximum approved lives (MAL) of the High Pressure
Compressor (HPC) rotor discs are reduced to the MALs specified in
the following Table 1 of this AD:

                           Table 1--Tay 651-54 Engine Reduced Disc MAL by Part Number
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 For                                Part No.                             The MAL is
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(i) HPC Stage 1 Disc................  JR18049.............................  18,800 cycles.
(ii) HPC Stage 3 Disc...............  JR18743.............................  18,100 cycles.
(iii) HPC Stage 6 Disc..............  JR18748.............................  19,300 cycles.
(iv) HPC Stage 7 Disc...............  JR17365.............................  17,300 cycles.
(v) HPC Stage 12 Disc...............  JR31928.............................  18,900 cycles.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For Tay 620-15 and Tay 650-15 Engines

    (2) The MAL of certain HPC rotor discs are reduced. The affected
disc serial numbers and the reduced MAL are defined in Rolls-Royce
Deutschland Ltd & Co KG Alert Non-Modification Service Bulletin TAY-
72-A1740, dated February 11, 2009.
    (3) Thereafter, except as provided in paragraph (f) of this AD,
no alternative replacement times may be approved for these parts.

Other FAA AD Provisions

    (f) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
Engine Certification Office, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs
for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR
39.19.

Related Information

    (g) Refer to mandatory continuing airworthiness information
European Aviation Safety Agency Airworthiness Directive 2009-0092,
dated April 17, 2009, for related information.
    (h) Contact Tara Chaidez, Aerospace Engineer, Engine
Certification Office, FAA, Engine and Propeller Directorate, 12 New
England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803; e-mail:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>,
for more information about this AD.

Material Incorporated by Reference

    (i) You must use Rolls-Royce Deutschland Ltd & Co KG Alert Non-
Modification Service Bulletin TAY-72-A1740, dated February 11, 2009,
to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies
otherwise.
    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference of this service information under 5
U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Rolls-Royce Deutschland Ltd & Co KG; Eschenweg 11, D-15827
Blankenfelde-Mahlow, Germany; telephone +49 (0) 33 7086 1768; fax
+49 (0) 33 7086 3356.
    (3) You may review copies at the FAA, New England Region, 12 New
England Executive Park, Burlington, MA; or at the National Archives
and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the
availability of this material at NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go
to: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on September 24, 2010.
Francis A. Favara,
Manager, Engine and Propeller Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2010-24607 Filed 10-4-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 128 (Thursday, July 8, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 36130-36131]
[FR Doc No: 2021-14587]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings

    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural
Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

    Docket Number: PR21-54-000.
    Applicants: Black Hills Wyoming Gas, LLC.
    Description: Tariff filing per 284.123(b),(e)+: Black Hills Wyoming
Gas, LLC Revised Statement of Rates Filing to be effective 6/1/2021.
    Filed Date: 6/30/2021.
    Accession Number: 20210630-5005.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/21/2021.
    284.123(g) Protests Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/30/2021.

    Docket Numbers: RP10-837-000.
    Applicants: Dominion Transmission, Inc.
    Description: Report Filing: EGTS--Operational Gas Sales Report--
2021.

    Filed Date: 6/30/21.
    Accession Number: 20210630-5142.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/12/21.

    Docket Numbers: RP10-900-000.
    Applicants: Dominion Transmission, Inc.
    Description: Report Filing: EGTS--Informational Fuel Report--2021.
    Filed Date: 6/30/21.
    Accession Number: 20210630-5144.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/12/21.

    Docket Numbers: RP21-919-000.
    Applicants: Gulf South Pipeline Company, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Cap Rel Neg Rate Agmts
(Atlanta Gas 8438 to various eff 7-1-2021) to be effective 7/1/2021.
    Filed Date: 6/30/21.
    Accession Number: 20210630-5016.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/12/21.

    Docket Numbers: RP21-920-000.
    Applicants: Carolina Gas Transmission, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: CGT--June 30, 2021 Negotiated
Rate Agreement to be effective 7/1/2021.
    Filed Date: 6/30/21.
    Accession Number: 20210630-5017.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/12/21.

    Docket Numbers: RP21-921-000.
    Applicants: Gulf South Pipeline Company, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Cap Rel Neg Rate Agmt
(Constellation 54138 to Exelon 54167) to be effective 7/1/2021.
    Filed Date: 6/30/21.
    Accession Number: 20210630-5019.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/12/21.

    Docket Numbers: RP21-922-000.
    Applicants: Northern Natural Gas Company.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: 20210630 Negotiated Rate to be
effective 7/1/2021.
    Filed Date: 6/30/21.
    Accession Number: 20210630-5024.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/12/21.

    Docket Numbers: RP21-923-000.
    Applicants: Portland Natural Gas Transmission System.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: American Performance Polymers
Neg Rate Agreement to be effective 7/1/2021.
    Filed Date: 6/30/21.
    Accession Number: 20210630-5035.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/12/21.

    Docket Numbers: RP21-924-000.
    Applicants: Nautilus Pipeline Company, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Nautilus Updates to Tariff
Contact Person to be effective 7/30/2021.
    Filed Date: 6/30/21.
    Accession Number: 20210630-5051.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/12/21.

    Docket Numbers: RP21-925-000.
    Applicants: Garden Banks Gas Pipeline, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: GB Updates to Tariff Contact
Person to be effective 7/30/2021.
    Filed Date: 6/30/21.
    Accession Number: 20210630-5059.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/12/21.

    Docket Numbers: RP21-926-000.
    Applicants: Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Negotiated Rates--Cherokee
AGL--Replacement Shippers--Jul 2021 to be effective 7/1/2021.
    Filed Date: 6/30/21.
    Accession Number: 20210630-5064.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/12/21.

    Docket Numbers: RP21-927-000.
    Applicants: MoGas Pipeline LLC.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: MoGas Negotiated Rate
Agreement Filing to be effective 6/1/2021.
    Filed Date: 6/30/21.
    Accession Number: 20210630-5083.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/12/21.

    Docket Numbers: RP21-928-000.
    Applicants: Eastern Gas Transmission and Storage, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: EGTS--June 30, 2021
Nonconforming Service Agreements to be effective 8/1/2021.
    Filed Date: 6/30/21.
    Accession Number: 20210630-5093.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/12/21.

    Docket Numbers: RP21-929-000.
    Applicants: Texas Eastern Transmission, LP.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: TETLP EPC AUG 2021 FILING to
be effective 8/1/2021.
    Filed Date: 6/30/21.
    Accession Number: 20210630-5138.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/12/21.

    Docket Numbers: RP21-930-000.
    Applicants: East Tennessee Natural Gas, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: 2021 ETNG Fuel Filing to be
effective 8/1/2021.
    Filed Date: 6/30/21.
    Accession Number: 20210630-5165.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/12/21.

    Docket Numbers: RP21-931-000.
    Applicants: Natural Gas Pipeline Company of America LLC.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Negotiated Rate Agreements
Filing-Prairieland Energy, Inc to be effective 7/1/2021.
    Filed Date: 6/30/21.
    Accession Number: 20210630-5166.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/12/21.

    Docket Numbers: RP21-932-000.
    Applicants: Colorado Interstate Gas Company, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Negotiated Rate Agreement
Filing (Colorado Natural Gas #218569-TF1CIG) to be effective 7/1/2021.
    Filed Date: 6/30/21.
    Accession Number: 20210630-5180.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/12/21.

    Docket Numbers: RP21-933-000.
    Applicants: MIGC LLC.
    Description: Annual Fuel Retention Percentage Tracker of MIGC LLC
under RP21-933.
    Filed Date: 6/30/21.
    Accession Number: 20210630-5227.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/12/21.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system
(https://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/search/fercgensearch.asp) by querying
the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the
proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: July 1, 2021.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-14587 Filed 7-7-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 124 (Thursday, June 29, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 29414-29418]
[FR Doc No: 2017-13543]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R04-OAR-2016-0504; FRL-9964-09-Region 4]

Air Plan Approval; GA and SC: Changes to Ambient Air Standards
and Definitions

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking direct
final action to approve a revision to the Georgia State Implementation
Plan (SIP) submitted by the Georgia Department of Natural Resources,
Environmental Protection Division (GA EPD), on August 30, 2010, and a
portion of the SIP revision submitted on July 25, 2014; and portions of
revisions to the South Carolina SIP, submitted by the Department of
Health and Environmental Control (SC DHEC) on December 15, 2014, August
12, 2015, and on November 4, 2016. The Georgia SIP revisions
incorporate definitions relating to fine particulate matter
(PM2.5), and amend state rules to reflect the 2008 national
ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) for lead. The South Carolina SIP
revisions incorporate the 2010 sulfur dioxide (SO2) NAAQS,
2010 nitrogen dioxide (NO2) NAAQS, 2012 PM2.5
NAAQS, 2015 ozone NAAQS, removes the revoked 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS,
and remove the standard for gaseous fluorides from the SIP. This action
is being taken pursuant to the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act).

DATES: This direct final rule is effective August 28, 2017 without
further notice, unless EPA receives adverse comment by July 31, 2017.
If EPA receives such comments, it will publish a timely withdrawal of
the direct final rule in the Federal Register and inform the public
that the rule will not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-
OAR-2016-0504 at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot
be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. EPA may publish any comment
received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any
information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a
written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment
and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. EPA will
generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of
the primary submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or other file sharing
system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment
policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general
guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: D. Brad Akers, Air Regulatory
Management Section, Air Planning and Implementation Branch, Air,
Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia
30303-8960. Mr. Akers can be reached via telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER> or
via electronic mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    Sections 108 and 109 of the CAA govern the establishment, review,
and revision, as appropriate, of the NAAQS for the criteria air
pollutants (CAPs) to protect public health and welfare. The CAA
requires periodic review of the air quality criteria--the science upon
which the standards are based--and the standards themselves. EPA's
regulatory provisions that govern the NAAQS are found at 40 CFR part
50--National Primary and Secondary Ambient Air Quality Standards.

A. Summary of Actions for Georgia SIP Revisions

    In this rulemaking, EPA is taking direct final action to approve
the portion of Georgia's July 25, 2014, submission amending Georgia's
regulations to incorporate the 2008 lead NAAQS, which is found at GA
EPD Rule 391-3-1-.02(4), ``Ambient Air Standards,'' at regulation (f)1.
EPA is also taking final action on Georgia's August 30, 2010, submittal
incorporating definitions of PM2.5 and PM2.5
emissions.
    Through this rulemaking, the Agency is not acting on the following
changes

to Georgia's SIP included in the July 25, 2014, submittal: Rule 391-3-
1-.02(2)(a)--``General Provisions''; Rule 391-3-1-.02(2)(e)--
``Particulate Emissions from Manufacturing Processes''; Rule 391-3-
1-.02(2)(l)--``Conical Burners''; Rule 391-3-1-.02(2)(o)--``Cupola
Furnaces for Metallurgical Melting''; Rule 391-3-1-.02(2)(p)--
``Particulate Emissions from Kaolin and Fuller's Earth Processes'';
Rule 391-3-1-.02(2)(q)--``Particulate Emissions from Cotton Gins'';
Rule 391-3-1-.02(gg)--``Kraft Pulp Mills''; changes to Rule 391-3-
1-.02(6)(a)--``Specific Monitoring and Reporting Requirements for
Specific Sources''; or 391-3-1-.03(8)--``Permit Requirements.'' EPA
will address these changes in a separate action. Changes made to Rule
391-3-1-.01(llll), ``Volatile Organic Compounds,'' in the July 25,
2014, submittal were approved by EPA on October 5, 2016. See 81 FR
68936. Changes made to Rule 391-3-1-.01(nnnn), ``Procedures for Testing
and Monitoring Sources of Air Pollution,'' in the July 25, 2014,
submittal were approved by EPA in a rulemaking published on January 5,
2017. See 82 FR 1206.

B. Summary of Actions for South Carolina SIP Revisions

    EPA is taking direct final action to approve portions of the
December 15, 2014, submittal, a portion of the August 12, 2015,
submittal, and a portion of the November 4, 2016, submittal amending
South Carolina's regulations to incorporate the updated 2010
SO2 NAAQS, 2010 NO2 NAAQS, 2012 PM2.5
NAAQS, and 2015 ozone NAAQS, while removing the revoked 1997 8-hour
ozone NAAQS and removing a non-CAP standard (gaseous fluorides) from
the South Carolina rule.
    EPA is not acting on certain changes to South Carolina's SIP
included in the December 15, 2014, submittal, which would have removed
the annual SO2 standard of 0.03 parts per million (ppm) and
the 24-hour standard of 0.14 ppm, because the State's request to remove
these standards from the SIP was withdrawn from EPA consideration by
the State in a letter dated December 20, 2016. In accordance with 40
CFR 50.4(e), the annual and 24-hour standards are still applicable in
South Carolina because designations for the 2010 1-hour NAAQS have not
been completed in the State. Once designations are completed in the
State for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS, the annual
SO2 and 24-hour SO2 NAAQS will be revoked for the
State one year after the effective date of the final designation. The
December 20, 2016, withdrawal letter is included in the docket for this
action.
    EPA is also not acting on the following changes to South Carolina's
SIP included in the August 12, 2015, submittal at this time: Regulation
61-62.5, Standard No. 1--``Emissions from Fuel Burning Operations'';
Regulation 61-62.5, Standard No. 7--``Prevention of Significant
Deterioration''; or Regulation 61-62.5, Standard No. 7.1--
``Nonattainment New Source Review (NSR).'' EPA will address these
changes in a separate action.
    The SIP submittals amending Georgia's and South Carolina's rules to
incorporate the NAAQS and related provisions can be found in the docket
for this rulemaking at www.regulations.gov and are summarized below.

II. Analysis of State's Submittals

A. GA EPD Rule 391-3-1-.02(4)--``Ambient Air Standards''

    On November 12, 2008 (73 FR 66964), EPA revised the primary lead
NAAQS from 1.5 micrograms per cubic meter ([micro]g/m\3\) to 0.15
[micro]g/m\3\ based on a rolling 3-month average for both the primary
and secondary standards. Georgia revised Rule 391-3-1-.02(4)(f),
``Lead,'' via an August 30, 2010,\1\ SIP submission, to update the
standard for lead from 1.5 [micro]g/m\3\ to 0.15 [micro]g/m\3\. EPA
approved this revision in a May 16, 2013 (78 FR 28744), direct final
rule, which became effective on July 15, 2013. However, the method of
calculating the corresponding design value for the 2008 lead NAAQS was
not updated in Georgia's SIP. The 2008 lead NAAQS revised the method of
calculating the corresponding design value to a rolling 3-month average
over a 3-year period, whereas the previous NAAQS used calendar quarter
averages over a 3-year period. On July 25, 2014, GA EPD submitted
another revision to 391-3-1-.02(4)(f) to revise the form of the
standard (i.e., the method of calculating the design value) to match
that of the 2008 lead NAAQS. This SIP revision also adds a statement
that attainment will be determined in accordance with federal standards
at 40 CFR 50.16 (``National primary and secondary ambient air quality
standards for lead''). EPA has determined that this is consistent with
federal standards and provisions related to the lead NAAQS and is
therefore approving this portion of the July 25, 2014, SIP submittal
revising the Georgia SIP. These changes became state effective on
August 1, 2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ GA EPD submitted three separate SIP submittals to EPA dated
August 30, 2010. The August 30, 2010, SIP submittal that EPA is
acting on in this direct final action, related to definitions at
Rule 391-3-1-.01 (see section II.B. below), is not the same
submittal referred to here that originally revised the lead NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. GA EPD Rule 391-3-1-.01--``Definitions''

    Georgia is adopting a definition for `` `PM2.5 ' or
`Fine Particulate Matter' '' at Rule 391-3-.01(rrrr) and a definition
for ``PM2.5 emissions'' at Rule 391-3-1-.01(ssss). GA EPD is
adopting definitions related to PM2.5 to reflect federal
definitions at 40 CFR 53.1 and 40 CFR 51.100. Specifically,
PM2.5 is defined in the CFR as ``particulate matter with an
aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to a nominal 2.5 micrometers as
measured by a reference method based on appendix L of part 50 of this
chapter and designated in accordance with part 53 of this chapter, by
an equivalent method designated in accordance with part 53 of this
chapter.'' Georgia's definition is consistent with the federal
definition.
    ``PM2.5 emissions'' is not specifically written out in
the CFR, but ``PM10 emissions'' is defined at 40 CFR
51.100(rr) as ``finely divided solid or liquid material, with an
aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to a nominal 10 micrometers
emitted to the ambient air as measured by an applicable reference
method, or an equivalent or alternative method, specified in this
chapter or by a test method specified in an approved State
implementation plan.'' Georgia's SIP definition for ``PM2.5
emissions'' is consistent with the form of the definition for
``PM10 emissions'' at 40 CFR 51.100(rr), substituting only
that ``PM2.5 emissions'' correspond to an aerodynamic
diameter less than or equal to 2.5 micrometers.
    EPA is approving the aforementioned changes to Rule 391-3-1-.01
into the SIP to provide consistency with the federal definitions
related to CAPs. These rule changes became state effective on April 12,
2009.

C. SC DHEC Regulation 61-62.5, Standard No. 2, ``Ambient Air Quality
Standards''

1. SO2
    On June 22, 2010 (75 FR 35520), EPA published a revision to the
primary NAAQS for SO2, setting the standard at 75 parts per
billion (ppb) and changing the form of the standard from 24-hour and
annual to a 1-hour standard. Accordingly, in the December 15, 2014, SIP
submission, South Carolina updated Regulation 61-62.5, Standard No. 2,
``Ambient Air Quality Standards,'' to adopt the new primary 1-hour
SO2 NAAQS to be consistent with EPA's

June 22, 2010, final rule. EPA is approving South Carolina's update to
61-62.5 regarding only the incorporation of the 2010 1-hour
SO2 NAAQS because this change is consistent with federal
regulations. As explained in Section I, EPA is not acting on the
removal of the annual or 24-hour SO2 NAAQS because these
changes were withdrawn from EPA consideration in a letter dated
December 20, 2016. This change to incorporate the new 2010 1-hour
SO2 NAAQS became state effective on September 26, 2014.
2. NO2
    On February 9, 2010 (75 FR 6474), EPA published a revision to the
primary NAAQS for NO2, adding a 1-hour primary standard set
at 100 ppb and retaining the existing annual standard set at 53 ppb.
Accordingly, in the December 15, 2014, SIP submission, South Carolina
updated Regulation 61-62.5, Standard No. 2, ``Ambient Air Quality
Standards,'' to adopt the new primary 1-hour NO2 NAAQS to be
consistent with EPA's February 9, 2010, final rule. EPA is approving
South Carolina's update to 61-62.5 regarding NO2 because
this change is consistent with federal regulations. This change became
state effective on September 26, 2014.
3. PM2.5
    On December 14, 2012 (78 FR 3086), EPA published a revised primary
annual PM2.5 NAAQS. In that action, EPA revised the primary
annual PM2.5 standard, strengthening it from 15.0 [mu]g/m\3\
to 12.0 [mu]g/m\3\, and retained the existing primary 24-hour
PM2.5 standard at 35 [mu]g/m\3\. The December 14, 2012,
final rule also retained the secondary 24-hour standard of 35 [mu]g/
m\3\ and the secondary annual standard of 15.0 [mu]g/m\3\, revising
only the form of the secondary annual standard to remove the option for
spatial averaging, consistent with the form change to the primary
annual PM2.5 standard. Accordingly, in the December 15,
2014, SIP submittal, South Carolina revised Regulation 61-62.5,
Standard No. 2, ``Ambient Air Quality Standards,'' to update the
primary air quality standard for PM2.5 to be consistent with
the NAAQS that were promulgated by EPA in 2012. South Carolina's
December 15, 2014, SIP revision also retains the ambient air standards
corresponding to the secondary annual and 24-hour NAAQS.\2\ EPA has
reviewed these changes to South Carolina's rule for ambient air
standards and has made the determination that this change is consistent
with federal regulations. These changes became state effective on
September 26, 2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ South Carolina's December 15, 2014, SIP revision appears to
incorporate the 24-hour and annual secondary PM2.5 NAAQS
for the first time. However, these secondary PM2.5 NAAQS
were already approved into the SIP. The annual secondary
PM2.5 NAAQS of 15 [mu]g/m\3\ was adopted in a November
19, 2004, submittal and approved on August 22, 2007 (72 FR 46903).
The 24-hour secondary NAAQS at 35 [mu]g/m\3\ was adopted in a
December 4, 2008, submittal and approved on April 3, 2013 (78 FR
19994).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. Ozone
    Regulation 61-62.5, Standard No. 2, ``Ambient Air Quality
Standards.'' EPA published a revised primary 8-hour ozone NAAQS on
October 26, 2015 (80 FR 65292). In that action, EPA strengthened the
ozone NAAQS from 0.075 parts per million (ppm), as promulgated in 2008,
to 0.070 parts per million (ppm). Accordingly, South Carolina's
November 4, 2016, SIP submittal adopts the 2015 NAAQS at Regulation 61-
62.5, Standard No. 2, ``Ambient Air Quality Standards.'' The submittal
also removes the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS from the SIP. EPA revoked the
1997 8-hour ozone standard of 0.08 ppm with the March 6, 2015, final
rule implementing the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. See 80 FR 12264. The
March 6, 2015, final rule, including the revocation of the 1997 8-hour
ozone NAAQS, became effective on April 6, 2015. EPA is approving the
incorporation of the 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS into the South Carolina
SIP, and the removal of the revoked 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS from the
South Carolina SIP, because the changes are consistent with federal
regulations. These changes became state effective on September 23,
2016.
5. Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAPs)
    South Carolina's August 12, 2015, SIP submittal removes the
standards set for gaseous fluorides (as hydrogen fluoride) from
Regulation 61-62.5, Standard No. 2, ``Ambient Air Quality Standards.''
Hydrogen fluoride is a HAP, which SC DHEC regulates under its state
rule at Regulation 61-62.5, Standard No. 8, ``Toxic Air Pollutants,''
rather than the SIP. EPA is approving the removal of these standards
from the South Carolina SIP, as there are no primary or secondary NAAQS
related to this pollutant and the revision therefore will not interfere
with any applicable requirement concerning attainment or reasonable
further progress pursuant to CAA section 110(l). These changes became
state effective on June 26, 2015.

III. Incorporation by Reference

    In this rule, EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes
incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR
51.5, EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of GA EPD Rule
391-3-1-.01, ``Definitions,'' adding definitions of
``PM2.5'' and ``PM2.5 Emissions,'' effective
August 14, 2016 and Rule 391-3-1-.02(4), ``Ambient Air Standards,''
updating the incorporation of the lead NAAQS, effective October 14,
2014; \3\ EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of SC DHEC
Regulation 61-62.5, Standard No. 2, ``Ambient Air Quality Standards,''
effective September 23, 2016, adopting NAAQS for SO2,
NO2, and PM2.5, while removing a HAP standard
from the SIP. Therefore, these materials have been approved by EPA for
inclusion in the State implementation plan, have been incorporated by
reference by EPA into that plan, are fully federally enforceable under
sections 110 and 113 of the CAA as of the effective date of the final
rulemaking of EPA's approval, and will be incorporated by reference by
the Director of the Federal Register in the next update to the SIP
compilation.\4\ EPA has made, and will continue to make, these
materials generally available through www.regulations.gov and/or at the
EPA Region 4 Office (please contact the person identified in the For
Further Information Contact section of this preamble for more
information).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The effective date of the change to Rule 391-3-1-.01 made in
Georgia's August 30, 2010, SIP revision is April 12, 2009. However,
for purposes of the state effective date included at 40 CFR
52.570(c), that change to Georgia's rule is captured and superseded
by Georgia's update in a November 29, 2016, SIP revision, state
effective on August 14, 2016, which EPA previously approved on
January 5, 2017. See 82 FR 1207. The effective date of the change to
Rule 391-3-1-.01 made in Georgia's July 25, 2014, SIP revision is
August 1, 2013. However, for purposes of the state effective date
included at 40 CFR 52.570(c), that change to Georgia's rule is
captured and superseded by Georgia's update in a November 12, 2014,
SIP revision, state effective on October 14, 2014, which EPA
previously approved on July 31, 2015. See 80 FR 45609.
    \4\ 62 FR 27968 (May 22, 1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Final Action

    EPA is approving changes to the Georgia SIP at Rule 391-3-1-.01,
submitted on August 30, 2010, and changes to Rule 391-3-1-02(4),
submitted on July 25, 2014, because they are consistent with the CAA
and federal regulations. EPA is also approving changes to the South
Carolina SIP at Regulation 61-62.5, Standard No. 2, submitted on
December 15, 2014, and subsequently August 12, 2015, because they are
consistent with the CAA and

federal regulations. EPA is publishing this rule without prior proposal
because the Agency views these submittals as noncontroversial and
anticipates no adverse comments. However, in the proposed rules section
of this Federal Register publication, EPA is publishing a separate
document that will serve as the proposal to approve the SIP revision
should adverse comments be filed. This rule will be effective August
28, 2017 without further notice unless the Agency receives adverse
comments by July 31, 2017.
    If EPA receives such comments, then EPA will publish a document
withdrawing the final rule and informing the public that the rule will
not take effect. All public comments received will then be addressed in
a subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule. EPA will not
institute a second comment period. Parties interested in commenting
should do so at this time. If no such comments are received, the public
is advised that this rule will be effective on August 28, 2017 and no
further action will be taken on the proposed rule. Please note that if
we receive adverse comment on an amendment, paragraph, or section of
this rule and if that provision may be severed from the remainder of
the rule, we may adopt as final those provisions of the rule that are
not the subject of an adverse comment.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable
federal regulations. See 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, these
actions merely approve state law as meeting federal requirements and
does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state
law. For that reason, these actions:
     Are not a significant regulatory action subject to review
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
     do not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     are certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     do not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-4);
     do not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     are not an economically significant regulatory action
based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     are not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     are not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     do not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    EPA has determined that this direct final rule does not have tribal
implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249,
November 9, 2000), because the determination does not have
``substantial direct effects'' on an Indian Tribe as a result of these
actions. With respect to this direct final action as it relates to
South Carolina, EPA notes that the Catawba Indian Nation Reservation is
located within the South Carolina and pursuant to the Catawba Indian
Claims Settlement Act, S.C. Code Ann. 27-16-120, ``all state and local
environmental laws and regulations apply to the [Catawba Indian Nation]
and Reservation and are fully enforceable by all relevant state and
local agencies and authorities.'' EPA notes these actions will not
impose substantial direct costs on Tribal governments or preempt Tribal
law.
    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 action 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 the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by August 28, 2017. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor
does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may
be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or
action. Parties with objections to this direct final rule are
encouraged to file a comment in response to the parallel notice of
proposed rulemaking for this action published in the proposed rules
section of this Federal Register, rather than file an immediate
petition for judicial review of this direct final rule, so that EPA can
withdraw this direct final rule and address the comment in the proposed
rulemaking. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements. See section 307(b)(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate matter, Sulfur oxides.

    Dated: June 13, 2017.
V. Anne Heard,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.

    40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

Subpart L--Georgia

0
2. Section 52.570(c) is amended by revising the entries for ``391-3-
1-.01'' and ``391-3-1-.02(4)'' to read as follows:

Sec.  52.570  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *

                                                            EPA Approved Georgia Regulations
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        State
            State citation                     Title/subject          effective            EPA approval date                      Explanation
                                                                         date
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
391-3-1-.01..........................  Definitions.................    8/14/2016  6/29/2017, [Insert citation of      ..................................
                                                                                publication]

                                                                      * * * * * * *
391-3-1-.02(4).......................  Ambient Air Standards.......   10/14/2014  7/31/2015, 80 FR 45609              EPA approved changes to Rule 391-3-
                                                                                1-.02(4) with state effective
                                                                                date August 1, 2013 on June 29,
                                                                                2017 [Insert citation of
                                                                                publication]

                                                                      * * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *

Subpart PP--South Carolina

0
3. Section 52.2120(c), is amended by revising the entry under
``Regulation No. 62.5'' for ``Standard No. 2'' to read as follows:

Sec.  52.2120   Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *

                                                  Air Pollution Control Regulations for South Carolina
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        State
            State citation                     Title/subject          effective            EPA approval date               Federal Register  notice
                                                                         date
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                                      * * * * * * *
Standard No. 2.......................  Ambient Air Quality             9/23/2016  6/29/2017                           [Insert citation of publication]
                                        Standards.

                                                                      * * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2017-13543 Filed 6-28-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

WASHINGTON, DC

Issued by the Department of Transportation on May 11, 2004

   NOTICE OF ACTION TAKEN -- DOCKET OST-2004-17279

________________________________________________________________________
______________

This serves as notice to the public of the action described below, taken
by the Department official indicated (no additional confirming order
will be issued in this matter).

Background

By Order 2004-3-3 we instituted the 2004 Hong Kong Fifth-Freedom
All-Cargo Frequency Proceeding to select carriers to operate 18
fifth-freedom frequencies available for U.S. carrier services in the
Hong Kong fifth-freedom market.  Four carriers  (Federal Express
(FedEx), Northwest Airlines (Northwest), Polar Air Cargo (Polar), and
United Parcel Service (UPS)) filed initial applications on March 23,
2004.   FedEx, Northwest, and Polar requested frequencies for services
in the Hong Kong-Seoul market, and those requests exceeded the number
available for service to that city.   UPS requested frequencies for Hong
Kong service via Singapore to Macapagal.   On April 2, 2004, FedEx,
Northwest, and Polar filed a joint motion regarding the allocation of
frequencies in the Seoul-Hong Kong market and requested the suspension
of the procedural timetable in the proceeding.

Application of United Parcel Service filed 4/15/04 for:

XX  Allocation of three frequencies for weekly all-cargo Hong Kong
fifth-freedom frequencies:  UPS states that it will use two of the
requested frequencies in the Hong Kong-Bangkok market and one in the
Hong Kong-Singapore market beginning in October 2004.  UPS states that
there are sufficient frequencies to meet this request, noting that of
the 18 available in

(See Reverse Side)

2

the above-referenced proceeding six have been allocated to UPS for
Singapore-Macapagal service and five have been requested by the other
applicants in the proceeding for Seoul-Hong Kong service.  Thus, seven
frequencies will be unallocated if those requests are granted.

Northwest and Polar filed a joint answer, and FedEx filed a separate
answer.

All three carriers urge the Department not to allow the application of
UPS to slow down action on the unopposed joint motion of FedEx,
Northwest, and Polar for Hong Kong-Seoul frequencies, and all three
maintain that the UPS application is untimely, given that in March UPS
had requested and was granted dismissal from the balance of the
proceeding.  Northwest and Polar argue that if the Department decides to
reach the merits of the UPS application, it should do so in a separate
proceeding.  FedEx argues that the UPS application is not eligible for
contemporaneous consideration because it was filed after the
Department’s filing deadline, and FedEx also argues that the
application is not mutually exclusive.

Applicant rep:  David Vaughan<PHONE_NUMBER>   DOT Analyst:   Linda
Senese<PHONE_NUMBER>

D I S P O S I T I O N

XX  Granted (Allocation of 3 frequencies:  2 for Bangkok-Hong Kong
all-cargo service and 1 for Singapore-Hong Kong all-cargo service,
subject to conditions, see below)

XX Termination, sua sponte, of the 2004 Hong Kong Fifth-Freedom
All-Cargo Service Proceeding  (see Remarks below).

The above action was effective when taken: May 11, 2004. The allocation
of frequencies will remain in effect indefinitely, subject to
conditions.  Under the terms of the October 19, 2002, U.S.-Hong Kong
MOU, these frequencies become available for use on October 26, 2004.

By:      Susan McDermott

            Deputy Assistant Secretary for

	   Aviation and International Affairs

XX  The authority granted is consistent with the October 19, 2002,
Memorandum of Understanding between the Government of the United States
and the Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the
People’s Republic of China, with the aviation agreement between the
United States and the Kingdom of Thailand, and with the Multilateral
Agreement on the Liberalization of International Air Transportation
(Singapore).

Except to the extent exempted or waived, this authority is subject to
the terms, conditions, and limitations indicated:  XX Holder’s
certificates of public convenience and necessity

________________________________________________________________________
______

Conditions:  Consistent with our standard practice, the frequency
allocation granted is subject to the condition that if any of the
frequencies are not used for a period of 90 days, the allocation as to
each of those frequencies will expire automatically and the frequencies
will revert to the Department for reallocation.  The 90-day dormancy
period will begin on October 26, 2004.

3

Remarks:  The Department’s instituting order in the 2004 Hong Kong
Fifth-Freedom All-Cargo Proceeding called for applications on March 23,
2004, and made no provision for supplemental applications.  While UPS
requested and was granted on March 31, 2004, dismissal from the

balance of the proceeding, we will accept its application as a
supplement to its previous application (as amended by its motion for
immediate action subsequently granted on March 31, 2004), and will
entertain it in the public interest in the circumstances presented.
This supplement seeks allocation for frequencies for services to points
sought by no other party (i.e., two frequencies for Hong Kong-Bangkok
service and one frequency for Singapore service). We have reviewed the
carrier’s request and find that grant of this request will provide
public interest benefits.  It is our policy to seek to maximize use of
valuable route rights.  In these circumstances, we will award UPS the
frequencies it seeks for Bangkok-Hong Kong and Singapore-Hong Kong
service. We note that with this action there are no other frequencies
available at Singapore. We may amend, modify, or revoke the authority
granted in this Notice at any time without hearing at our discretion.

Since by this action, and our contemporaneous action on the joint motion
of FedEx, Northwest, and Polar, we will have granted all matters before
us in this proceeding, we will also, sua sponte, terminate the 2004 Hong
Kong Fifth-Freedom All-Cargo Service Proceeding.

An electronic version of this document is available on the World Wide
Web at:

  HYPERLINK "http://dms.dot.gov//reports/reports_aviation.asp"
http://dms.dot.gov//reports/reports_aviation.asp

 Sixteen of these frequencies become available under the MOU on October
26, 2004.  Two frequencies were frequencies that remained available from
an earlier proceeding.  These frequencies were awarded one each to
Northwest and Polar on a pendente lite basis for Seoul-Hong Kong
services.  See Order 2004-3-3, at 6.

 Certain cities have city-pair caps, and services via those cities are
limited.  The MOU only permits 12 weekly fifth-freedom frequencies in
the Seoul-Hong Kong market.  The Department has allocated 7 of those 12
frequencies on a permanent basis, and thus, only 5 frequencies are
available for Seoul-Hong Kong services.

 On March 24 (and supplemented March 29) UPS filed a motion for
immediate allocation of frequencies for the Singapore-Macapagal service
and also for UPS’ dismissal from the balance of the proceeding.  In
its motion, it also withdrew the backup authority requested for Seoul
that had been in its original application.  There was no objection to
the UPS request.  Thus, on March 31, 2004, the Department allocated UPS
6 Hong Kong frequencies for its proposed Hong Kong-Singapore-Macapagal
service and also dismissed UPS from the balance of the 2004 Hong Kong
Fifth-Freedom All-Cargo Frequency Proceeding.

 On April 6, 2004, the Department suspended the remaining procedural
schedule established in the instituting order until further notice.  We
are contemporaneously acting on the joint motion of FedEx, Northwest,
and Polar, regarding the allocation of Hong Kong-Seoul frequencies.

 On April 19, 2004, the Department shortened the answer period for
comments on the subject application to April 23, 2004.  On April 23,
2004, FedEx filed a motion for an extension of time in which to file
comments.  By Notice dated April 27, 2004, the Department extended the
answer period and reinstated April 30, 2004 as the answer period to the
subject application.

 On May 3, UPS advised the Department’s staff that it was not going to
file a reply to the answers.

 UPS should properly have sought reinstatement into the proceeding and
should have filed a motion for leave to file an otherwise unauthorized
document.  Taking into account all the elements of record, including the
absence of substantive opposition to the UPS request and our ability to
process this matter without delaying our action on the pending joint
motion of FedEx, Northwest, and Polar, we will not withhold action over
a non-prejudicial procedural infirmity.

 While after this action four frequencies will remain available for
fifth-freedom all-cargo services in the Hong Kong market, any requests
for authority to use such frequencies will be considered separately and
should be filed in new dockets.


[Federal Register: April 20, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 74)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 17905-17907]
[DOCID:fr20ap09-7]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket No. USCG-2009-0217]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone; Jordan Bridge Demolition, Elizabeth River,
Chesapeake and Portsmouth, VA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone on the
Elizabeth River in the vicinity of Chesapeake and Portsmouth, VA during
demolition of the Jordan Bridge. This action is intended to protect
mariners and public property on the Elizabeth River from the hazards
associated with bridge demolition.

DATES: This rule is effective from May 3, 2009 through May 6, 2009,
with contingency dates of May 18, 2009 through May 21, 2009 in the
event of adverse weather conditions.

ADDRESSES: Documents indicated in this preamble as being available in
the docket are part of docket USCG-2009-0217 and are available online
by going to http://www.regulations.gov, selecting the Advanced Docket
Search option on the right side of the screen, inserting USCG-2009-0217
in the Docket ID box, pressing Enter, and then clicking on the item in
the Docket ID column. They are also available for inspection or copying
at two locations: the Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S.
Department of Transportation, 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 FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this
temporary rule, call or e-mail LT Tiffany Duffy, Coast Guard; telephone
757-668-5580, e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have questions on
viewing the docket, call Renee V. Wright, Program Manager, Docket
Operations, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Regulatory Information

    The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary final rule without prior
notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section
4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This
provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and
opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those
procedures are ``impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public
interest.'' Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good
cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
with respect to this rule because any delay encountered in this
regulation's effective date by publishing a NPRM would be contrary to
public interest since immediate action is needed to provide for the
safety of life and property on navigable waters. Specifically, since
debris from a bridge being demolished could lead to severe injury,
fatalities and/or destruction of public property, immediate action is
needed to protect, to the extent practicable, the public's safety.
    For the same reason, under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard
finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than
30 days after publication in the Federal Register. Delaying the
effective date would be contrary to the public interest.

Background and Purpose

    Coast Guard Sector Hampton Roads has been notified by Delta
Demolition Group that construction operations to demolish the Jordan
Bridge lift span over the Elizabeth River will commence on May 3, 2009.
Due to the need to protect mariners and spectators from the hazards
associated with this project, access to the Elizabeth River between the
Belt Line Railroad Bridge and the Norfolk and Western Portsmouth
Chesapeake Railroad Bridge will be temporarily restricted.

Discussion of Rule

    The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone on
specified waters of the Elizabeth River in the vicinity of Chesapeake
and Portsmouth, VA. This safety zone will encompass all navigable
waters of the Elizabeth River between the Belt Line Railroad Bridge at
approximate position 36[deg]48'42'' N/76[deg]17'25'' W (NAD 1983) and
the Norfolk and Western Portsmouth Chesapeake Railroad Bridge at
approximate position 36[deg]47'49'' N/76[deg]17'34'' W (NAD 1983). This
regulated area will be established in the interest of public safety
during the removal of the Jordan Bridge lift span and will be enforced
from May 3, 2009 through May 6, 2009, with contingency dates of May 18,
2009 through May 21, 2009 in the event of adverse weather conditions.
Access to the area within the safety zone will be restricted during the
specified date and times or until swing span removal is complete,
whichever is sooner. Except for participants and vessels authorized by
the Captain of the Port or his Representative, no person or vessel may
enter or remain in the regulated area.

Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and
executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses
based on 13 of these statutes or executive orders.

Regulatory Planning and Review

    This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f)
of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does not
require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section
6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not
reviewed it under that Order. Although this proposed regulation
restricts access to the safety zone, the effect of this rule will not
be significant because: (i) The safety zone will be in effect for a
limited duration; (ii) the zone is of limited size; and (iii) the Coast
Guard will make notifications via maritime advisories so mariners can
adjust their plans accordingly. For the above reasons, the Coast Guard
does not anticipate any significant economic impact.

Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have
considered whether this rule would have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities. The term ``small entities''
comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are
independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields,
and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000.
    The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities.
    This rule will affect the following entities, some of which may be
small entities: The owners or operators of vessels intending to transit
a portion of the Elizabeth River during the time this regulation is in
effect. Since the impact

of this rule is expected to be minimal, the Coast Guard certifies under
5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities.
    This safety zone will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities for the following reason: The
safety zone will only be in place for a limited duration. Before the
effective period, maritime advisories will be issued allowing mariners
to adjust their plans accordingly. Although the safety zone will apply
to the entire width of the bridge, traffic will be allowed to pass
through the zone with the permission of the Captain of the Port or his
Representative.

Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we offer to assist small
entities in understanding the rule so that they can better evaluate its
effects on them and participate in the rulemaking process.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or
action of the Coast Guard.

Collection of Information

    This rule calls for no new collection of information under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

Federalism

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local
governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial
direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this rule under
that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for
federalism.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

Taking of Private Property

    This rule will not effect a taking of private property or otherwise
have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental
Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property
Rights.

Civil Justice Reform

    This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2)
of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation,
eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.

Protection of Children

    We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection
of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule
is not an economically significant rule and does not create an
environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may
disproportionately affect children.

Indian Tribal Governments

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

Energy Effects

    We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a ``significant
energy action'' under that order because it is not a ``significant
regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to
have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use
of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy
action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects
under Executive Order 13211.

Technical Standards

    The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15
U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards
in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress,
through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why
using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., specifications of materials, performance, design, or
operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management
systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus
standards bodies.
    This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not
consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Management Directive 0023.1 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which
guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded
this action is one of a category of actions which do not individually
or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment.
This rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph
(34)(g), of the Instruction. This rule involves establishing a safety
zone around the removal of a bridge lift span. This zone introduces no
additional hazards to the environment, but closes the zone to the
maritime public to protect life and property during hazardous
conditions. An environmental analysis checklist and a categorical
exclusion determination are available in the docket where indicated
under ADDRESSES.

List of Subjects 33 CFR Part 165

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

0
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33
CFR part 165 as follows:

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

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

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C. 3306, 3703 and
Chapter 701; 50 U.S.C. 191,

195; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6; 160.5; Pub. L. 107-295, 116
Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

0
2. Add Sec.  165.T05-0217 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T05-0217  Safety Zone; Jordan Bridge Lift Span Demolition,
Elizabeth River, Chesapeake and Portsmouth, VA.

    (a) Regulated Area. The following area is a safety zone: All waters
of the Elizabeth River, located between the Belt Line Railroad Bridge
at approximate position 36[deg]48'42'' N/76[deg]17'25'' W (NAD 1983)
and the Norfolk and Western Portsmouth Chesapeake Railroad Bridge at
approximate position 36[deg]47'49'' N/76[deg]17'34'' W (NAD 1983), in
the vicinity of Chesapeake and Portsmouth, VA.
    (b) Definition: For the purposes of this part, Captain of the Port
Representative means any U.S. Coast Guard commissioned, warrant or
petty officer who has been authorized by the Captain of the Port
Hampton Roads, Virginia to act on his behalf.
    (c) Regulations: (1) In accordance with the general regulations in
Sec.  165.23 of this part, entry into this zone is prohibited unless
authorized by the Captain of the Port Hampton Roads or his designated
representatives.
    (2) The operator of any vessel in the immediate vicinity of this
safety zone shall:
    (i) Stop the vessel immediately upon being directed to do so by any
commissioned, warrant or petty officer on shore or on board a vessel
that is displaying a U.S. Coast Guard Ensign.
    (ii) Proceed as directed by any commissioned, warrant or petty
officer on shore or on board a vessel that is displaying a U.S. Coast
Guard Ensign.
    (3) The Captain of the Port Hampton Roads can be reached through
the Sector Duty Officer at Sector Hampton Roads in Portsmouth, Virginia
at telephone Number<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (4) The Coast Guard Representatives enforcing the safety zone can
be contacted on VHF-FM marine band radio channel 13 (165.65Mhz) and
channel 16 (156.8 Mhz).
    (d) Enforcement Period: This regulation will be enforced from May
3, 2009 through May 6, 2009, with contingency dates of May 18, 2009
through May 21, 2009 in the event of adverse weather conditions.

    Dated: April 3, 2009.
Patrick B. Trapp,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Hampton Roads.
[FR Doc. E9-8946 Filed 4-17-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-15-P


<EPA REGISTRATION DIVISION COMPANY NOTICE OF FILING FOR PESTICIDE
PETITIONS PUBLISHED IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER  (7/1/2007)>

<EPA Registration Division contact: Laura Nollen,<PHONE_NUMBER>>

<Interregional Research Project #4 (IR-4)>

<Petition Number PP# 8E7450>

<	EPA has received a pesticide petition PP# 8E7450 from Interregional
Research Project #4 (IR-4), 500 College Road East, Suite 201 W,
Princeton, NJ 08540 proposing, pursuant to section 408(d) of the Federal
Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d), to amend 40 CFR
part 180.635 by establishing a tolerance for residues of the insecticide
spinetoram, expressed as a combination of XDE-175-J:
1-H-as-indaceno[3,2-d]oxacyclododecin-7,15-dione,
2-[(6-deoxy-3-O-ethyl-2,4-di-O-methyl-a-L-mannopyranosyl)oxy]-13-[[(2R,5
S,6R)-5-(dimethylamino)tetrahydro-6-methyl-2H-pyran-2-yl]oxy]-9-ethyl-2,
3,3a,4,5,5a,5b,6,9,10,11,12,13,14,16a,16b-hexadecahydro
14-methyl-,(2R,3aR,5aR,5bS,9S,13S,14R,16aS,16bR); XDE-175-L:
1H-as-indaceno[3,2-d]oxacyclododecin-7,15-dione,
2-[(6-deoxy-3-O-ethyl-2,4-di-O-methyl-a-L-mannopyranosyl)oxy]-13-[[(2R,5
S,6R)-5-(dimethylamino)tetrahydro-6-methyl-2H-pyran-2-yl]oxy]-9-ethyl-2,
3,3a,5a,5b,6,9,10,11,12,13,14,16a,16b-tetradecahydro-4,14-dimethyl-,
(2S,3aR,5aS,5bS,9S,13S,14R,16aS,16bS);
ND-J:(2R,3aR,5aR,5bS,9S,13S,14R,16aS,16bR)-9-ethyl-14-methyl-13-[[(2S,5S
,6R)-6-methyl-5-(methylamino)tetrahydro-2H-pyran-2-yl]oxy]-7,15-dioxo-2,
3,3a,4,5,5a,5b,6,7,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16a,16b-octadecahydro-1H-as-indac
eno[3,2-d]oxacyclododecin-2-yl
6-deoxy-3-O-ethyl-2,4-di-O-methyl-alpha-L-mannopyranoside; and NF-J:
(2R,3S,6S)-6-([(2R,3aR,5aR,5bS,9S,13S,14R,16aS,16bR)-2-[(6-deoxy-3-O-eth
yl-2,4-di-O-methyl-alpha-L-mannopyranosyl)
oxy]-9-ethyl-14-methyl-7,15-dioxo-2,3,3a,4,5,5a,5b,6,7,9,10,11,12,13,14,
15,16a,16b-octadecahydro-1H-as-indaceno[3,2-d]oxacyclododecin-13-yl]oxy)
-2-methyltetrahydro-2H-pyran-3-yl(methyl)formamide] in or on the raw
agricultural commodities pineapple at 0.02 parts per million (ppm),
pomegranate at 0.3 ppm, date at 0.1 ppm, Spice, subgroup 19B, except
black pepper at 1.7 ppm, hop, dried cones at 22 ppm, and pineapple,
process residue at 0.08 ppm.  Additionally, the petition proposes to
increase the levels of existing tolerances for Nut, tree, group 14 and
Pistachio from 0.04 to 0.08 ppm and Almond, hulls from 2.0 ppm  to
9.0ppm. A reduction to a 1-day PHI is proposed based on new MOR data for
the increased tolerances in tree nuts. EPA has determined that the
petition contains data or information regarding the elements set forth
in section 408 (d)(2) of  FDDCA; however, EPA has not fully evaluated
the sufficiency of the submitted data at this time or whether the data
supports granting of the petition. Additional data may be needed before
EPA rules on the petition.

It is also noted that the Agency has concluded that spinetoram should be
considered toxicologically identical to another pesticide, spinosad.
This conclusion is based on the following: (1) Spinetoram and spinosad
are large molecules with nearly identical structures; and (2) the
toxicological profiles for each are similar (generalized systemic
toxicity) with similar doses and endpoints chosen for human-health risk
assessment. Spinosad and spinetoram should be considered toxicologically
identical in the same manner that metabolites are generally considered
toxicologically identical to the parent.>

<A. Residue Chemistry>

<	1. Plant metabolism. The nature of the residue in plants (turnip,
apple and lettuce) has been determined using radiolabeled spinetoram and
is adequately understood, per the EPA document entitled, ``Spinetoram:
Residue Chemistry Summary Concerning the Application of Spinetoram to
Numerous Crop'' dated August 9, 2007 (DP#325387).  Three metabolic
pathways are believed responsible for the breakdown of spinetoram in
plants.  The first involves changes to the N-demethyl moiety on the
forosamine sugar to give the N-demethyl and N-formyl metabolites; it is
believed photolysis plays a key role in this pathway.  The second
pathway involves cleavage of the macrolide ring system at one or more
positions and results in a complex residue mixture of numerous
components.  The third involves changes to the XDE-175-J only and
produces 3-O-deethyl and C9-pseudoaglycone (in apples) or the
C17-pseudoaglycone (in turnip tops). It is presumed the XDE-175-L
underwent degradation by the third pathway also, but too quickly to
allow detection of any metabolites.  Based on the plant metabolism
studies and the product ratio of 3:1 for XDE-175-J and XDE-175-L, HED
has established the residue of concern in plants for the purposes of
tolerances enforcement and risk as spinetoram (XDE-175-J and XDE-175-L)
plus the two metabolites: N-demethyl-XDE-175-J (also known as ND-J) and
N-formyl-XDE-175-J (also called NF-J).>

<	2. Analytical method. Per the Federal Register of October 10, 2007 (
HYPERLINK "http://www.epa.gov/EPA-PEST/2007/October/Day-10/p19947.htm"
72 FR 57492 ) (FRL-8149-9) supported by DP # 325387, August 9, 2008, EPA
has determined adequate analytical methods are available for enforcement
purposes for spinetoram in plant and animal matrices.  The methods were
noted as efficient and well-documented.  The independent laboratory
validation data were acceptable.  Spinetoram  DOCVARIABLE  AI1TC  \*
MERGEFORMAT   and its metabolites are determined using liquid
chromatography with positive-ion atmospheric pressure chemical
ionization tandem mass spectrometry (LC/MS/MS).  The limit of detection
(LOD) and limit of quantitation (LOQ) in crop and animal matrices are
typically 0.003 ug/g  DOCVARIABLE  LOD  \* MERGEFORMAT   and 0.01 ug/g
DOCVARIABLE  LOQ  \* MERGEFORMAT  , respectively.>

<	3. Magnitude of residues. The current tolerance for spinetoram in tree
nutmeats of 0.04 ppm was accomplished based on bridging to spinosad at a
14-day PHI.  The revised tree nut proposal is supported by bridging to a
new IR-4 spinosad MOR study in almonds with a 1-day PHI and the recently
submitted Dow AgroSciences spinetoram MOR decline trial in almonds and
pecans with a 1-day PHI time point (MRID 47468301).

The IR-4 spinosad MOR trial in almonds   DOCVARIABLE  Cr1lc  \*
MERGEFORMAT  supports a 1-day PHI.  Residues of spinosad were determined
following three foliar applications at five field locations in
California during the 2003 and 2004 growing seasons.  Spinosad was
applied at a target rate of 0.156 lb ai/A, for a total of approximately
0.468 lb ai/A.  Applications were made 6 to 7 days apart and timed so
that mature hulls and nutmeat were collected at both 1 and 3 days after
the final application (except at one trial at 4 days after application
due to rainfall.)  Spinosad residues were determined by the IR-4 Western
Region Satellite Laboratory using a procedure derived from Dow
AgroSciences method GRM 96.14.  The lowest level of method validation
(LLMV) was 0.02 ppm.  All spinosyn D residues were below the LLMV for
the nutmeats.  Spinosyn D residues in the hulls ranged from 0.0367 to
0.689 ppm for the 1-day PHI.  Spinosyn A residues in nutmeat ranged from
<0.02 to 0.0467 ppm.  Spinosyn A residues in the hulls ranged from 0.255
to 4.42 ppm for the 1-day PHI.

From the Dow AgroSciences decline trial, spinetoram residues at 1-day
PHI were determined as 0.008 and 0.011 ppm in the almond nutmeats; in
pecan nutmeat, residues were noted as 0.01 and 0.011 ppm.  Almond hulls
residues at the 1-day PHI for total spinetoram were determined as 1.6
and 1.7 ppm.  The almond hull residue contained contributions from both
parent and metabolites.

The IR-4 MOR data supports a reduction of the PHI for spinosad to 1-day
in almonds and pistachios with a tolerance of 0.08 ppm in the nutmeats
and 9.0 ppm for the almond hulls.  The 1-day data point within the
decline study for spinetoram provides evidence that bridging the
spinosad action to spinetoram is reasonable.  Final rationale for the
full tree nut group at 1-Day PHI for spinetoram is provided by a
combination of data from four studies conducted on almonds and/or pecans
treated with spinosad or spinetoram.  The data shows that the magnitude
of residues on pecans is not dissimilar from residues on almonds and
that residues of spinetoram are typically lower than spinosad on tree
nuts.  Thus, residue data presented for spinosad allows bridging to
spinetoram and almond data from these studies allows for bridging to
pecans.

IR-4 supports bridging from spinosad uses to spinetoram for: hops,
spices and pineapple.  In EPA’s previous 2007 joint dietary assessment
of spinosad/spinetoram, hop and pineapple and spices are already
included based on values for spinosad.

IR-4 supports bridging from the established spinetoram tolerance for
avocado to pomegranate.  This translation is consistent with the
on-going discussions for crop grouping schemes between IR-4, USDA and
EPA.   Pomegranate is scheduled to be placed into the inedible peel
smooth skin except papaya and banana tropical fruit crop subgroup E and
the representative crop for this subgroup will be avocado.

IR-4 requests that California (EPA Region 10) plum data for spinosad be
bridged to dates for spinetoram.  This request for dates is congruent
and lower than the established spinetoram tolerance for “Fruit, Stone,
group 12”.  The use pattern for dates will be the same as for plums.
Five trials were conducted in California by Dow AgroSciences and
submitted to EPA (PP No. 8F5002, MRID No. 44597716). Three trials were
on plum and two trials were on prune type plums.  The plum residues
ranged from ND to 0.014 ppm with an average residue of 0.003 ppm. The
fresh prune-type plum residues ranged from 0.04 to 0.08 ppm with an
average of 0.063 ppm. The dried prune-type plum residues ranged from
0.03 to 0.08 ppm with an average of 0.058 ppm.  Concentration of
spinosad into dried prune type plums was not detected.>

<B. Toxicological Profile Per ``Spinetoram: Human Health Risk Assessment
for Numerous Proposed Application Scenarios'' dated September 20, 2007
(DP#331741), EPA determined the toxicological profile and endpoints for
spinetoram are adequate for risk assessment evaluations and
determination of FQPA.  The toxicity database for spinetoram relies on
studies for spinetoram as well as studies for a similar spinosyn
insecticide, spinosad.  EPA concluded that spinetoram is toxicologically
identical to the pesticide spinosad “in the same manner that
metabolites are generally considered toxicologically identical to the
parent”.  EPA picked the lowest of the spinosad and spinetoram
endpoints for each exposure scenario.  A summary of the toxicological
endpoints for spinosad and spinetoram used for human risk assessment can
be found at   HYPERLINK "http://www.regulations.gov"
http://www.regulations.gov  in docket EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0310.  Relevant
information is summarized below.>

<	1. Acute toxicity.  No appropriate endpoint attributable to a single
dose was identified; the EPA has not established an acute RfD for
spinetoram.>

<	2. Genotoxicty. All mutagenicity studies conducted on spinetoram were
negative.>

<	3. Reproductive and developmental toxicity. EPA has concluded there is
no evidence of> increased susceptibility of rat and rabbit fetuses to in
utero exposure to spinetoram.  In the developmental toxicity study in
rats, no developmental effects were observed at dose levels that induced
maternal toxicity.  In the developmental study in rabbits, no
developmental toxicity was seen at dose levels that induced maternal
toxicity.  In the 2-generation reproduction study, no offspring toxicity
occurred.  Parental/systemic toxicity was observed at a lower dose than
the dose at which offspring showed no effects.  EPA has determined that
“reliable data show that it would be safe for infants and children to
reduce the 10x FQPA safety factor to 1x.”

<	4. Subchronic toxicity. Both Short-term endpoints (inhalation and
incidental oral) were established for spinetoram based on the Oral NOAEL
of 4.9 mg/kg/day from the subchronic feeding study in dogs with spinosad
and a LOC for MOEs of 100.>

<	5. Chronic toxicity. EPA used the lowest NOAEL of 0.249 mg/kg/day from
the chronic toxicity study in dogs for spinetoram and a 100X UF to
establish a cRfD of 0.0249 mg/kg/day.  Spinetoram is considered ``Not
likely to be Carcinogenic to Humans'' based on its similarity to
spinosad.>

<	6. Animal metabolism. From single and multiple dose ADME studies in
rats, it was estimated that the fraction of an orally administered dose
absorbed is 70% or greater for both isomers of spinetoram.  Fecal
excretion was the major route of elimination, while urine was a minor
route (10% or less of the absorbed dose).  At 168 hours post-dosing, the
radioactivity did not exceed 1% of the administered dose in any of the
analyzed tissues.  The majority of the radioactivity recovered for urine
and fecal extracts was present as parent plus several metabolites
including the glutathione and hydroxylated conjugates.  Livestock
metabolism studies conducted in the goat and hen were confirmatory that
excreta account for the majority of the recovered administered dose;
this especially true in the hen (91 to 93%).  In the hen, the highest
residues were observed in the fat followed by skin fat, liver, eggs and
muscle.>

<	7. Metabolite toxicology. Per the Federal Register of March 19, 2008
(Vol 73, No 54; FRL-8344-1), the results of the plant and animal
metabolism studies and toxicity testing have been assessed.  Metabolite
toxicity has been addressed by establishment of the total residue for
tolerance purposes as the parent materials XDE-175-J and XDE-175-L plus
the two metabolites: ND-J and NF-J.  Per the EPA Hunan Health Risk
Assessment for Spinetoram of Sept 20, 2007 (DP#331741), is was concluded
that the demethylated, deethylated and hydroxylated forms of the parent
are “highly unlikely” to be more toxic than the parent.>

<	8. Endocrine disruption. The EPA’s EDSP (Endocrine Disruptor
Screening Program) is still under development.  For now, the EPA has
concluded that “the NOAELs derived from the reproduction/fertility
study, are well defined and together with the 100X UF, will provide
adequate protection for potential endocrine effects.”>

<C. Aggregate Exposure The agency conducted an assessment of the
aggregate exposure for spinetoram in conjunction with the establishment
of the initial tolerances reported in the Federal Register of October
10, 2007 (  HYPERLINK
"http://www.epa.gov/EPA-PEST/2007/October/Day-10/p19947.htm"  72 FR
57492 ) (FRL-8149-9).  The EPA assumed toxicological equivalency of
spinosad and spinetoram in their aggregate exposure assessment.
Anticipated exposure to spinetoram was deemed acceptable.  The exposure
in pineapple, spices and hop was already included based on previous
spinosad uses.  The proposed changes for nutmeat tolerances and the
addition of dates and pomegranate have an extremely small impact on the
dietary exposure.  An evaluation of the animal dietary burden indicates,
no impact on the animal meat or milk tolerances.  No new aggregate
assessments are warranted.>

<	1. Dietary exposure. i. Acute exposure. No quantitative acute dietary
exposure assessment has been required for spinetoram.

ii. Chronic exposure.  Spinosad and spinetoram are deemed
toxicologically equivalent by EPA.  Based on the similarity of the
insecticides and the anticipated markets for each, it is unlikely that
spinosad and spinetoram will be applied to the same crop.  Hence, EPA
aggregated exposure by either assuming that all commodities contain
spinosad (because side-by-side spinosad and spinetoram residue data
indicated that spinetoram residues were less than or equal to spinosad
residues) or summing the percentage of a crop that would be treated with
spinosad and the percentage that would be treated with spinetoram.

Pineapple process residue and almond hulls are potential cattle feed
items. However, a comparison of their potential tolerance contribution
to the higher values of other roughage commodities already assumed in
the theoretical animal dietary burden calculations indicates there is no
need to substitute almond hulls or pineapple, process residue into the
spinetoram cattle diets.  The potential exposure is already adequately
represented by other feed commodities in the calculation.  Thus, there
is no need for a revision of the meat and milk animal commodity
tolerances for spinetoram.>

<	i. Food. The chronic dietary exposure assessment (EPA, DP#33531,
September 12, 2007) was recreated in Dietary Exposure Evaluation Model -
Food Consumption Intake Database (DEEM-FCID) (version 2.16) which
incorporates the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA)
1994-1996 and 1998 Continuing Surveys of Food Intakes by Individuals
(CSFII).  The residues of livestock were refined through the
incorporation of a refined dietary burden (average field crop residues
and projected PCT) with average milk residues for spinosad from the
ruminant dermal MOR study.  The analysis assumed DEEM (ver 7.81) default
processing factors for many food commodities, EPA specified processing
factors for corn, grape, and wheat, 100% crop treated for food
commodities and used average field trial residues for several
commodities: apple, leafy vegetables, Brassica vegetables, citrus,
fruiting vegetables, herbs, banana and strawberry and tolerances values
for all others, except fish/shellfish which were conservatively
represented as 12.5 ppm (3X fold of the 4 ppm tolerance for spinosad.)>

<	ii. Drinking water. Drinking water estimates were determined based on
EPA screening models and concentrations were directly entered into the
dietary exposure model.  For spinetoram, estimated environmental
concentrations (EECs) for chronic exposures are calculated to be 6.17
ppb for surface water using the First Index Reservoir Screening Tool
(FIRST) and 0.072 ppb for ground water using the Screening Concentration
in Ground Water (SCI-GROW) model.  However, for spinosad, average values
of 10.5 ppb for surface water and 1.1 ppb for ground water were
conservatively estimated based on additional uses.  Thus, for the joint
chronic dietary risk assessment, EPA has used the water concentration
value of 10.5 ppb to assess the contribution to drinking water.>

<

	2. Non-dietary exposure. EPA has determined there is potential for
residential handler and post-application exposures to
spinosad/spinetoram.  Because spinosad and spinetoram control the
similar pests, EPA concluded these products will not be used in
combination with each other and combining the residential exposures is
unnecessary.  Per Federal Register of October 10, 2007 (  HYPERLINK
"http://www.epa.gov/EPA-PEST/2007/October/Day-10/p19947.htm"  72 FR
57492 ) (FRL-8149-9), short-term residential inhalation risks were
estimated for adult residential handlers, as well as short-term
post-application incidental oral risks for toddlers, based on
applications to home lawns, home gardens and ornamentals.>

<D. Cumulative Effects>

<	Federal Register of October 10, 2007 (  HYPERLINK
"http://www.epa.gov/EPA-PEST/2007/October/Day-10/p19947.htm"  72 FR
57492 ) (FRL-8149-9), EPA has not made a common mechanism of toxicity
finding as to spinetoram and any other substances and spinetoram does
not appear to produce a toxic metabolite produced by other substances.
HED’s Hazard Assessment and Policy Committee noted that
toxicologically equivalent does not imply a cumulative assessment which
involves the concepts of mechanism of toxicity and potency.  For the
purposes of tolerance action, it is not assumed that spinetoram has a
common mechanism of toxicity with other substances.>

<E. Safety Determination The proposed actions of this petition have been
added via DEEM to EPA’s initial assessment for spinetoram/spinosad
(EPA, DP#33531, September 12, 2007).  The addition exposure is estimated
to be <0.1% of the cRfD.  Dow AgroSciences concludes with reasonable
certainty that no harm will result to the general population or infants
and children from the aggregate exposure to spinetoram residues from
these uses.>

<	1. U.S. population. The resulting dietary exposure estimates are not
of concern to HED; exposure for the general population is estimated as
<35% of the cPAD.  When the food and water exposure is summed with the
estimated residential inhalation exposure for youth (over 12 years old)
and adults, the resulting short term aggregate MOE values range from 650
to 710. >

<	2. Infants and children. EPA has determined that reliable data allow a
reduction of the FQPA safety factor to 1X for infants and children.  The
resulting dietary exposure for the most exposed subpopulation (children
1 to 2 years) is estimated as <81% of the cPAD.  Short term
post-application risks were estimated for toddlers, based on application
to home lawn, home gardens and ornamentals and risks were not of concern
given resulting MOEs were >1200.  The resulting short term aggregate MOE
values were >180 and are, therefore, not of concern to HED.>

<F. International Tolerances>

<	There are currently no established CODEX, Canadian or Mexican maximum
residue limits (MRLs) for residues of spinetoram in/on various plant and
livestock commodities.  The Agency notes that spinetoram was evaluated
as part of a joint review with Health Canada's Pest Management
Regulatory Agency (PMRA) and that in general the US plant tolerances are
based on translation of spinosad residue data (i.e., translation of the
spinosad tolerances).  The majority of the spinosad plant tolerances
were established prior to the use of the tolerance spreadsheet
calculator and the procedure used by EPA and PMRA to establish these
tolerances were different; therefore, many of the plant tolerances are
not harmonized with the Canadian MRLs although they are based on the
same residue data.  Since the EPA and PMRA spinetoram tolerances are
based on the same residue data, trade issues are not expected to be an
issue.  EPA harmonized the livestock tolerances with the Canadian MRLs
when possible.

In addition, the third party database Homologa was queried for MRLs
germane to this petition.  IR-4 makes no claim regarding the
verification of these values relative to the national authorities.

EU Harmonized	Spices	0.1	PPM

EU Harmonized	NUTS	0.05	PPM

EU Harmonized	POMEGRANATE	0.05	PPM

EU Harmonized	DATE	0.05	PPM

EU Harmonized	HOPS	0.1	PPM

EU Harmonized	PINEAPPLE	0.05	PPM

>

 PAGE

 PAGE   8